If this is their idea of an attractive woman, then either the photograph is lousy or my opinion of attractiveness is substantially different. I’ll grant her the hair and the eyes; the low cut dress is just what most dignitaries want to see in a professional diplomat (not). The hands - no, they are not attractive.
She reminds me of the women’s studies phds - all fluff and no substance. I guess she’s a good writer b/c she won a Pulitzer but her knowledge of history is abysmally weak (thank you American school systems and Zinn). She fails to mention that Bush tried to get help against AQ and most turned a deaf ear. She refuses to note that it was the NYT that blabbed about the other methods we had to track terrorists. She ignores the fact that it’s the Dems who refuse to support methods of protecting Americans, Samantha included. She’s a classic lefty - talk helps but only if the audience agrees with you. As she notes, even closing Gitmo isn’t enough.
Wait until some Islamic fanatic blows up something at Harvard - maybe the gym b/c the current crop of female Muslims can’t use the gym when men are around. What about all those other female Muslims who went there in the past? Why does the Harvard crowd make exceptions for them but not ROTC, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, etc.? The H’vard environment must be unbelievably phony today - wouldn’t send my kids there even if they did get a full scholarship from the $29,000,000,000 endowment program. Last I heard, the Europeans think we may be right. France and Germany are sort of coming around. Their basic problem is they’ve taught their kids for 65 years that their history is no good and as a result pretty soon they won’t have any European kids to teach. Maybe that’s why Sam isn’t married - she’s so guilt ridden she can’t possibly believe in having a kid.
I have to believe that even the leftist journalists know an airhead when they see one. Sam Power is a classic. What an oxymoron of a name: Sam Power.
I rambled on this post but man, she is a classic example of an empty suit.
