It becomes more apparent that, the State Dept. presumes its
employees are capable of common sense in matters of social intercourse - the military presumes they are not.
Men in shorts could be considered offensive in this milieu! and probably: people with fair hair and blue eyes. (Those should be covered too, lest they tempt a bagged, sacked female into Western excess. And ____)
If the Saudis (officially!) can live with State's policies, as obviously they do: McSally's complaint remains justified and also her means of expressing it - through channels, so as to have the effect of requiring the military (which remains under civilian control, last I heard) to modify its obtuse position; that of requiring a US Colonel to dress in a sack.
You like the Soapbox argument because it comes from the same brand of er 'Conservative' view of all things, as yours. If it's present policy? Why on earth should we ever Change it? Especially towards anything less.. Authoritative too!
I demur, and look forward to seeing how the courts handle this question. It has little to do with the sort of Murican jingoism as you and Soapbox are so instantly ready to equate it to. This until - you start attacking the State Department as, too 'Liberal' for your taste (?)
No actually: even after you start attacking the State Department as too Liberal for your taste. My taste is different.
Ashton
beware of Conservatives whose breath smells of sucking on sour lemons.
