MSNBC host shuts down Romney surrogate: ‘I fact checked the apology tour… it didn’t happen’
Mitchell pointed out that during an earlier segment, The New York Times‘ Elisabeth Bumiller had documented at least five issues where Romney had changed his position on foreign policy during Monday night’s final presidential debate.
“I think the opposite is true,” Talent argued. “Let’s just be fair for a second. I think the president is modifying his positions to come closer to Gov. Romney’s, and by the way, to come closer to the mainstream of American foreign policy.”
“He goes and does an apology tour,” the former senator continued. “And then last night he denies it was an apology tour.”
“Excuse me, Senator,” Mitchell interrupted. “I have fact checked the so-called ‘apology tour’ and it just didn’t happen.”
“Yeah, he went to four different cities, said America had dictated,” Talent insisted, before pivoting to say that the president had “resisted sanctions against Iran.”
“I’ve been covering the Iran sanctions at the U.N. in the P5-plus-1,” Mitchell noted. “After that initial attempt… to reach out and give Iran a chance to try to have an engagement — after that initial attempt, there was nothing but a move at the United Nations by Secretary [Hillary] Clinton to try to bring all of the allies aboard. The allies were demanding, ‘Make an overture, then we’ll be with you.’ And they ended up with the toughest sanctions ever.”
Raw Story (http://s.tt/1qOOU)
= new reply since forum marked as read
The President clearly modified his positions four years ago to fit what Romney's positions would be today. It's sooo obvious!
They LIE when they get in front of a mic.
Glad, at least that Mitchell called Talent on some of his lies.
Romney's is a MF NEO CON, Talent, so NO, Romney was endorsing Pres Obama last night.. eat your last brain cell out, Idiot.
…. Once Romney intimated that he might keep U.S. troops in Afghanistan past NATO’s 2014 deadline. No more. Now he agrees with Obama that it is feasible to transfer combat responsibilities to the Afghans by that point. On Iran, Romney emphasized economic sanctions rather than the threat of a military attack, effectively endorsing Obama’s approach…..
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-debate-20121023,0,2131672.story
h/t http://theobamadiary.com/
progressivebydesign
BLARRRGGGHHHH HE HATES MERKA HES APOOOOLOGIING CUZ HES A KENYAN MOOOSLAM WIF APOLOGY WAREZ TEH BARF KRIPPITICART WHARRRGLLL
Is that Hindi? 
Wharrrgleblarghbargleglaghhhhh!
Shoulda read yours first. I make up shit as I go, sometimes. Sounded Rovian.
I'll go with Hannity. 
Yeah, referring to "tender sensibilities" trivializes the form of demeaning speech and those who object to it.
I'm glad--it seems that you really do see the point, that your ethics wouldn't allow you to use that term if the issue were discriminatory language used to minimize any other marginalized group. Not everyone *gets* that. THANK You! 
instead of the snark that so many seem to reserve for sexism issues.
Kind of funny....recently I got to jury two separate posts here. One was an alert on a post with some sexist language and the other was an alert on homophobic language. Interestingly, the homophobia one was agreed by all except one to hide. The sexism alert, however was mocked by a couple of the jurists while the others, except two, voted to leave it--didn't even see the problem.
Oh well. Glad to see you're not like that!
