Two quick case studies in public relations for the morally stunted and intellectually challenged.
1. If you feel your religious tradition has been slandered, falsely accused of promoting violence and the "command to spread by the sword the faith," then it's probably best not to respond to such remarks violently. Bombing churches tends not to be an effective way of convincing others that your religion has not become corrupted by the adoption of violent coercion as a means of spreading/defending the faith. It may, in fact, be counterproductive — reinforcing and providing evidence for the negative criticisms of your faith.
Also: If you're upset with something said by the Roman Catholic pontiff, then it makes no sense to take out this anger with violence against a 1,425-year-old Greek Orthodox church. That makes about as much sense as invading Iraq in retaliation for Sept. 11.
2. If you're a head of state advocating the use of torture, you're facing a difficult PR battle. Yours is a position that, frankly, I thought might be indefensible. After all, only an idiot with the slimmest comprehension of reality would think that torture was a useful, practical tool. And only a monster would consider it an acceptable option. It's a reprehensible and useless tactic, proven over the millennia to be merely an impotent game played by bored sadists who have run out of ideas. So initially I was at a loss as to how to promote your position.
it is unclear whether Congress can quickly pass legislation authorizing aggressive methods against terrorist detainees, as President Bush wants. …
Bush says CIA personnel should be able to resume tough interrogation techniques to extract information from detainees.
These are the key words — "aggressive," "tough." Continue to employ them as Pickler does and the public may be distracted from the fact that you're a frightened, clueless pervert.