This picture will matter about as much as this picture did in 2003, or this picture did when McCain was beating the war drums in 2011.
I realize the Daily Mail isn't exactly catering to a thinking audience, but these "gotcha" photos don't work, and frankly, shouldn't work. I was against American military involvement in Iraq, Libya, and now Syria and I still don't think those picture should matter. I believe U.S. officials should meet with pretty much any foreign leader who is willing to talk to them. And the fact that they have dinner with someone or shake their hand shouldn't make them unable to have a different relationship later on. Things change. Politicians should be allowed to alter their judgments when new shit comes to light. That's not hypocrisy, that's being a thinking individual.
You can argue that the politician's change of heart isn't justified by the new shit, or that the new shit is actually pretty similar to old shit we already knew about. On that basis, you might be able to prove the charge of hypocrisy. But that's an argument. It's not a photo. The photo itself doesn't mean much at all. You need to make the argument. I don't think the fine folks at the Daily Mail are capable of doing that.
(via Memeorandum)
I realize the Daily Mail isn't exactly catering to a thinking audience, but these "gotcha" photos don't work, and frankly, shouldn't work. I was against American military involvement in Iraq, Libya, and now Syria and I still don't think those picture should matter. I believe U.S. officials should meet with pretty much any foreign leader who is willing to talk to them. And the fact that they have dinner with someone or shake their hand shouldn't make them unable to have a different relationship later on. Things change. Politicians should be allowed to alter their judgments when new shit comes to light. That's not hypocrisy, that's being a thinking individual.
You can argue that the politician's change of heart isn't justified by the new shit, or that the new shit is actually pretty similar to old shit we already knew about. On that basis, you might be able to prove the charge of hypocrisy. But that's an argument. It's not a photo. The photo itself doesn't mean much at all. You need to make the argument. I don't think the fine folks at the Daily Mail are capable of doing that.
(via Memeorandum)
