What's most revealing is that the (British?) Vogue caught flak for an obsequious attitude toward Mrs. Assad but later removed the article because it was such a lie.
It is a far cry from March, 2011, when Vogue magazine published a fawning piece in which the Assads were portrayed as a ‘wildly democratic’ couple who had made Syria ‘the safest country in the Middle East’.
The article, arranged and managed by an American PR company, paid for by the Syrian government, revealed Asma’s love of crystal-encrusted Christian Louboutin shoes and Chanel dresses and painted her as a fragrant, caring first lady, in the style of the late Diana, Princess of Wales.
It claimed she cared about art, children, and ‘women’s issues’, and implied she was breathing new life into the region.
Yet at the time of the interview, Syrian police had just fired live rounds and tear gas at up to 4,000 demonstrators in the southern city of Deraa.
Local reports claimed hundreds of protesters were killed. The piece was pilloried and withdrawn from Vogue’s website.Now what's most interesting about this is the people who've been on the cover of Vogue recently. Let's consider.
Beyonce. Uh huh. Her issue outsold Michelle Obama's. And before that? All Leftists.
Then there's the lovingly air brushed Vogue September cover featuring Democrat Senator Wendy Davis, the pro abortion at all ages crusader.
So I wonder, given the above information.
How much does the Democrat Party pay magazines and maybe even newspapers for positive coverage?
UPDATE: Powerline wonders about that "stunningly stupid" Assad Vogue cover and why so many Democrats were over cozying up to the Assads.