Mischaracterizing the Vice-Presidents opposition to a 'Muslim ban'
Washington Post:
The Post also makes a rather absurd point in another story that Trump does not have any business ties to these countries as if that were somehow relevant. Who in their right mind would put a luxury hotel in any of these countries? By even making that argument they undercut the argument that the restrictions are a ban on Muslims since there are many Muslim countries that are not impacted by the ban.
Pence, who had called a Muslim ban ‘unconstitutional,’ now lauds restrictions on refugeesFor starters, if he said it was unconstitutional, he was wrong. But the larger point is that the ban only effects a few countries with dysfunctional governments and a lack of ability to provide vetting material. Most Muslim countries are not impacted at all. What the countries have in common is a high number of terrorist and in the case of Iran a country that has held the title of the chief state sponsor of terrorism for decades.
The vice president and Defense Secretary James Mattis — two people who once criticized such a ban — stood behind the president as he established “new vetting measures to keep radical Islamic terrorists out of the United States.”
The Post also makes a rather absurd point in another story that Trump does not have any business ties to these countries as if that were somehow relevant. Who in their right mind would put a luxury hotel in any of these countries? By even making that argument they undercut the argument that the restrictions are a ban on Muslims since there are many Muslim countries that are not impacted by the ban.
Comments
Post a Comment