By Ann Ivins
And to think I was worried.
In spite of his apocalyptic proclivities, President Bush scored major points with this little lady last week by going mano a mano with King Abdullah on the Saudi rape case. Didn’t he?
“I talked to King Abdullah about the Middle Eastern peace. I don’t remember if that subject came up.”
But he is deeply and personally angry, not only on behalf of the individual victim, but about the continuing tyranny of Shari’a law in an ally of the greatest democracy in the world. Isn’t he?
“I’d have been angry at those who committed the crime. And I would be angry at the state that didn’t support the victim. And our opinions were expressed by Dana Perino from the pulpit… from the podium.”
Conditional verbs and the royal “we” – classic distancing tactics, but never fear. Our President would surely make his stand on human rights in firm, unambiguous terms, even to the owner of a quarter of the world’s oil reserves. Wouldn’t he?
“He knows our position loud and clear.”
Oh.
Categories: American Culture
Progressive Culture | Scholars & Rogues 
The only thing that trumps principle is principal.
Same old same old. Principle is useful only when it furthers other ends. Otherwise, it’s a damn liability.
There are things the head of state can’t say without profound diplomatic repercussions. You can complain that the President didn’t rank the rape case high enough to warrant jeopardizing our relations with Saudi Arabia, but don’t oversimplify the situation like this.