It seems to me that minimizing the use of inflammatory language would be wise. This sort of behavior seems like the classic "walk softly but carry a big stick" school of American power. Do you think he should be more aggressive in his language? If so, what benefit do you think it will have?
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 10:54 PM, Robert Munn <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm not so sure he's soft on terror, more like soft on terror > rhetoric. Seems like he is intentionally minimizing the use of > inflammatory language to give himself diplomatic cover to be more > aggressive in the use of these kinds of tactics. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:315260 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
