Romney's reaction to the American embassy deaths

Duck Soup

Romney obviously sees this as proof of his long-pushed meme that President Obama is an apologist for America.

From the New York Times:

The deadly attack on Americans in Libya fueled a harsh escalation of the presidential campaign in the United States on Wednesday as Mitt Romney assailed President Obama’s handling of the situation, while Democrats accused Mr. Romney, the Republican nominee, of politicizing an international crisis.

A back-and-forth between the Romney and Obama campaigns over attacks in Libya and Egypt represented a rare partisan exchange over a foreign policy crisis and underscored the intensity and stakes of the campaign with less than two months until Election Day. The crisis has also rapidly emerged as a test of Mr. Romney’s handling of a fast-breaking international situation.

The news of the deaths of J. Christopher Stevens, the ambassador to Libya, and three other Americans emerged on Wednesday after violence spilled over the American Consulate in Benghazi and demonstrators stormed the American Embassy in Cairo.

After expressing sorrow about the deaths, Mr. Romney told reporters on the campaign trail that the Obama administration had tried to appease Islamic extremists who should have been condemned instead. He said a statement issued by the American Embassy in Cairo before the deaths criticizing an anti-Islamic video was “akin to an apology” and a “severe miscalculation.”

“The first response of the United States must be outrage at the breach of the sovereignty of our nation, and apology for American values is never the right course,” Mr. Romney said, speaking at a campaign stop in Jacksonville, Fla. He added, “They clearly sent mixed messages to the world.”

From what I can see, it's a make-or-break political calculation from Romney. Either he convinces people he was right all along or people see him as a ghoulish opportunist, making cheap political capital out of tragedy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/us/politics/attacks-fuel-escalation-in-presidential-race.html

http://www.salon.com/2012/09/12/mitt%E2%80%99s_shameful_libya_statement/

Brussels Sprout

Saw this earlier. Pretty classless move.

Mjollnir

Even Republican foreign policy folks are jumping on him for this.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/foreign-policy-hands-voice-disbelief-at-romney-cai

It makes exactly how unfit for the office he is blazingly transparent.

Manach

For me, this is echos of 1979 again with a weak foreign policy President brought down by an Islamic incident.

Mjollnir

Manach wrote: »

For me, this is echos of 1979 again with a weak foreign policy President brought down by an Islamic incident.

Other than the bit that this POTUS doesn't have a 'weak foreign policy'.

joseph brand

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

Saw this earlier. Pretty classless move.

Amateurish too. Typical Romney.

Duck Soup

Manach wrote: »

For me, this is echos of 1979 again with a weak foreign policy President brought down by an Islamic incident.

For me, there are much stronger echoes of McCain suspending his campaign in 2008 at the start of the financial crisis and heading to Washington in order to help sort it out. He looked panicked, grandstanding and borderline deluded.

Romney seems in this instance to feel a need to bolster his often-derided foreign policy credentials by getting ahead of the story. Unfortunately, he appears to gotten ahead of the facts and worse, scoring cheap political points out of the diplomats' deaths.

He also looks like a foreign policy rube, given a crisis to handle and blowing it. Incidentally, the clearest and calmest voice I've heard so far in all this has been Hillary Clinton, whose reputation continues to grow.

I tend to agree with the political journalist David Corn, who said on Hardball that this was akin to a McCarthy-Welch like "Have you no sense of decency, sir?" moment.

Fr Tod Umptious

Romeny is dead right here

Why on earth should the US administration be apologizing to Muslims about a film that Muslims believe is blasphemy.

It reminds me of the time our own esteemed former president McAleese said while on a visit to Saudi Arabia that Irish people were appalled by the Danish Mohammed cartoons.

I'd expect the American public to agree with Mitt on this one.

Duck Soup

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Why on earth should the US administration be apologizing to Muslims about a film that Muslims believe is blasphemy.

I'm not familiar with the apology you're referring to. Do you have a link to it?

Brussels Sprout

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Romeny is dead right here

Why on earth should the US administration be apologizing to Muslims about a film that Muslims believe is blasphemy.

Why indeed? You do realise that the Obama administration never apologised for anything right? Don't worry you weren't the only one who didn't do his due diligence-Romney didn't bother either.

Memnoch

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Romeny is dead right here

Why on earth should the US administration be apologizing to Muslims about a film that Muslims believe is blasphemy.

It reminds me of the time our own esteemed former president McAleese said while on a visit to Saudi Arabia that Irish people were appalled by the Danish Mohammed cartoons.

I'd expect the American public to agree with Mitt on this one.

The portion of the American public who aren't too enamoured with 'dem damn fact chequers' are probably going to agree with Mitt on this one too.

Fr Tod Umptious

I apologise, I mis-read the original post and mistook 'criticizing an anti-Islamic video' for 'apologising for an anti-Islamic video'

So I will restate my point.

I think the US Embassy was wrong to condemn the video and to appease the Muslim demonstrators.
"The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions,

All over the western world people 'hurt the religious feelings of Christians' yet no US government agency or body sees fit to come out and criticise them.

Take Richard Dwkins for example and his book 'The God Delusion', no US Govt. body came out a denounced it for it's contention that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist.

In sort the US Govt. should not be criticising free speech just to appease Muslim radicals, so Romeny is dead right in what he said.

Dave!

That was a statement made by the embassy in Cairo (probably to try and, y'know... avoid their own ambassador being killed). The Obama administration had nothing to do with it, and presumably was responsible for the embassy taking it down:

The Obama administration later backed away from the embassy's statement entirely. "That statement was not coordinated with Washington. It was taken down," a senior administration official said.

So it looks like the embassy in Cairo sh*t itself and released a Muslim-friendly statement, and then the government had them take it down.

Of course it's also possible that the administration told the Cairo embassy to release that statement to mollify Egyptian protesters, and subsequently told them to take it down to save face and retain the strong front. These are the delicate balancing acts that you have to undertake when you're the President rather than a governor.

Memnoch

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I apologise, I mis-read the original post and mistook 'criticizing an anti-Islamic video' for 'apologising for an anti-Islamic video'

So I will restate my point.

I think the US Embassy was wrong to condemn the video and to appease the Muslim demonstrators.
"The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions,

All over the western world people 'hurt the religious feelings of Christians' yet no US government agency or body sees fit to come out and criticise them.

Take Richard Dwkins for example and his book 'The God Delusion', no US Govt. body came out a denounced it for it's contention that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist.

In sort the US Govt. should not be criticising free speech just to appease Muslim radicals, so Romeny is dead right in what he said.

You don't understand the concept of free speech so let me sumarise it for you.

You are free to produce whatever pile of offensive/classless trash you want to produce.

The rest of us are also FREE to point out that what you've produced IS offensive AND classless.

Considering the fact that American citizens are being attacked and killed because of this film, I don't see a problem with making it clear that this film DOES not represent the view of the US of A and that the majority of SANE americans would see it as an act of bigotry and hate. Of course, it looks like the Obama administration never endorsed the statement from the embassy so it looks like Romney fired his blanks too early again.

It's tragic and appaling that there are idiots who think that this film is somehow representative of the US or that that justifies attacking ANYBODY, but that's what happens when people are ignorant and uneducated as those rioting in this case clearly are.

It could also be that a terrorist group took advantage of the protests to attack the US embassy and kill the ambassador.

When people start murdering and attacking British citizens because of the God Delusion, then maybe the British government will consider denouncing it (since Dawkins is a british citizen, I believe).

Of course that is not going to happen because the God Delusion isn't written to offend but rather to make a reasoned argument as opposed to a film that portrays the central figure of one of the world's biggest religions as a lecherous fool and a mass-murdering, gang-raping, psychotic, child rapist.

Fr Tod Umptious

Memnoch wrote: »

You don't understand the concept of free speech so let me sumarise it for you.

You are free to produce whatever pile of offensive/classless trash you want to produce.

The rest of us are also FREE to point out that what you've produced IS offensive AND classless.

Considering the fact that American citizens are being attacked and killed because of this film, I don't see a problem with making it clear that this film DOES not represent the view of the US of A and that the majority of SANE americans would see it as an act of bigotry and hate. Of course, it looks like the Obama administration never endorsed the statement from the embassy so it looks like Romney fired his blanks too early again.

It's tragic and appaling that there are idiots who think that this film is somehow representative of the US or that that justifies attacking ANYBODY, but that's what happens when people are ignorant and uneducated as those rioting in this case clearly are.

It could also be that a terrorist group took advantage of the protests to attack the US embassy and kill the ambassador.

When people start murdering and attacking British citizens because of the God Delusion, then maybe the British government will consider denouncing it (since Dawkins is a british citizen, I believe).

Of course that is not going to happen because the God Delusion isn't written to offend but rather to make a reasoned argument as opposed to a film that portrays the central figure of one of the world's biggest religions as a lecherous fool and a mass-murdering, gang-raping, psychotic, child rapist.

No, Americans are getting attacked and killed because some Muslims are only able to recat to 'insults' to their faith by violence and hatred

Amerika

So Romney screwed up by criticizing the Obama administration for apologizing for free speech? If I understand it correctly, the offended liberal press are upset that Mitt Romney had the gall to criticize the State Department for a statement that the White House itself disavowed, and rather than focusing national outrage against the barbaric acts committed against our diplomatic staff by terrorists, instead conspired to disrupt the Romney press conference on this subject of his so-called "error" (not knowing their words were recorded by an open mic), in their continual shilling for Obama. Sound about right?

I think the press is going to be rather shocked that Americans in general agree and side with Mitt Romney on this one, as they don’t like indecisiveness and an apologist administration who turns some ill perceived guilt back upon America.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

So Romney screwed up by criticizing the Obama administration for apologizing for free speech? If I understand it correctly, the offended liberal press are upset that Mitt Romney had the gall to criticize the State Department for a statement that the White House itself disavowed, and rather than focusing national outrage against the barbaric acts committed against our diplomatic staff by terrorists, instead conspired to disrupt the Romney press conference on this subject of his so-called "error" (not knowing their words were recorded by an open mic), in their continual shilling for Obama. Sound about right?

I think the press is going to be rather shocked that Americans in general agree and side with Mitt Romney on this one, as they don’t like indecisiveness and an apologist administration who turns some ill perceived guilt back upon America.

If Obama apologised for free speech he deserves whatever criticism comes his way.

Luckily this "apology for free speech" never happened. It's a strawman.

Romney should be ashamed of himself and apologise to all concerned.

Memnoch

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

No, Americans are getting attacked and killed because some Muslims are only able to recat to 'insults' to their faith by violence and hatred

That doesn't change the point that I made. Also, no need to put insults in quotes there, the film was about as insulting as you could get to someone's religion.

Amerika

briankeating wrote: »

If Obama apologised for free speech he deserves whatever criticism comes his way.

Luckily this "apology for free speech" never happened. It's a strawman.

I didn't realize a President now has no responsiblity for what his administration says and does... When did this happen? And why does the song "Twist and Shout" suddenly come to mind?

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

briankeating wrote: »

If Obama apologised for free speech he deserves whatever criticism comes his way.

Luckily this "apology for free speech" never happened. It's a strawman.

I didn't realize a President now has no responsiblity for what his administration says and does... When did this happen? And why does the song "Twist and Shout" suddenly come to mind?

No, he has complete responsibility.

Answer the point I made for a change: There was no apology for free speech. At no point did anyone apologise.

Amerika

briankeating wrote: »

Answer the point I made for a change: There was no apology for free speech. At no point did anyone apologise.

Here’s a quiz... who stated the following:

"The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others"

Choices:
A) Mickey Mouse
Donald Duck
C) Goofy
D) Members of the Obama Administration
E) C & D

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

briankeating wrote: »

Answer the point I made for a change: There was no apology for free speech. At no point did anyone apologise.

Here’s a quiz... who stated the following:

"The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others"

Choices:
A) Mickey Mouse
Donald Duck
C) Goofy
D) Members of the Obama Administration
E) C & D

No need to be facetious. The above is not an apology.

You choose to see an apology because it's become part of you ideology that Obama is always apologising for US actions and beliefs.

Rejecting the obviously offensive actions of some of your citizens is not apologising for free speech. It is merely clarifying that you don't agree with them and wish they'd stop. Free speech goes both ways, the adminstration is free to call out the people who made the offensive material for what they are.

Do yourself a favour and stop swallowing the Romney cool aid, be a little critical every now and then.

Mjollnir

Amerika wrote: »

Here’s a quiz... who stated the following:

"The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others"

Choices:
A) Mickey Mouse
Donald Duck
C) Goofy
D) Members of the Obama Administration
E) C & D

Since you seem to be having a hard time with this, allow me to state it simply:

Where, exactly, is the apology for free speech made by the administration?

What you cited isn't an apology, so please try again.

Higher

I would consider myself neutral in regards to US politics but I can't help but notice that the people who like to spout absolute lies and empty rhetoric seem to predominately come from the Republican base.

Amerika in no way does that statement apologize for free speech. And Romney's attack on the Obama administration in light of the events and subsequent death of 4 Americans was cold, tactless and stupid.

Your hatred for Obama and the dems has severely clouded your judgement. You can support Romney without having to engage in outright lies and empty rhetoric. People like you are everything that is wrong with the current republican party and why they will not get back into power for a very long time.

The entire Republican party needs to be shaken to its core and the American Taliban outsed from its ranks. The Republican party once stood for something, now it seems to only stand for getting into power....even if that is to the detriment of America.

Amerika

Higher wrote: »

I would consider myself neutral in regards to US politics but I can't help but notice that the people who like to spout absolute lies and empty rhetoric seem to predominately come from the Republican base.

Amerika in no way does that statement apologize for free speech. And Romney's attack on the Obama administration in light of the events and subsequent death of 4 Americans was cold, tactless and stupid.

Your hatred for Obama and the dems has severely clouded your judgement. You can support Romney without having to engage in outright lies and empty rhetoric. People like you are everything that is wrong with the current republican party and why they will not get back into power for a very long time.

The entire Republican party needs to be shaken to its core and the American Taliban outsed from its ranks. The Republican party once stood for something, now it seems to only stand for getting into power....even if that is to the detriment of America.

Hmmm... You start off with "I would consider myself neutral in regards to US politics...," and end with "The entire Republican party needs to be shaken to its core and the American Taliban outsed from its ranks. The Republican party once stood for something, now it seems to only stand for getting into power....even if that is to the detriment of America.."

What more can I say to statements like that but :pac: to the power of :pac:.

Higher

Well what I mean is I don't follow anyone in US politics. I don't really care who wins, its my neutral assessment.

If I criticise something it doesn't necessarily mean I support the other side.

Thats the problem with peoplE like you, you ignore ANY criticism as merely being bias.

The fact is, Obama didn't apologize for freedom of speech. The evidence is in the transcript of the embassy statement [which by the way, wasn't even vetted by the president but lets not let annoying 'ol facts get in the way] You claim that he did. You are lying.

Duck Soup

Amerika wrote: »

Here’s a quiz... who stated the following:

"The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others"

Choices:
A) Mickey Mouse
Donald Duck
C) Goofy
D) Members of the Obama Administration
E) C & D

Try (F) None of the above. The statement was made by the Embassy of the United States in Cairo, which is part of the US diplomatic corp, not part of the 'Obama administration'. Administrations come and go; embassies and diplomats remain, and remain apart from them. The clue is where it says "The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns..."

But that's just one misrepresentation and just factually wrong statement amongst many. Let's begin at the beginning.

At 6.11am Eastern Time on September 11th, the American Embassy in Cairo puts out the statement condemning religious incitement. As Dave points out, the Embassy made the statement (a) to disassociate themselves from a low-grade piece of religion-baiting and (b) to attempt to defuse the situation in order to protect the lives and safety of Embassy staff. If you're criticizing this statement, you're basically criticizing diplomats for being diplomatic and using diplomatic language. Personally, I would have said that's kind of their job.

By 11am ET September 11th, there are angry crowds outside both the Cairo embassy in Egypt and the Benghazi embassy in Libya.

By 2pm ET September 11th, the press services are reporting that the exterior embassy wall in Cairo has been breached and the American flag torn down. There are thousands more outside the Cairo embassy walls. [Authorial interlude: does anyone seriously think that at this point it would have been a good idea for either the administration or the diplomats to put out a statement effectively saying "Screw you and your hurt feelings. Free speech, baby!"]

At approximately 3pm ET September 11th, the Benghazi embassy in Libya is breached and attacked.

At 6.3pm ET September 11th, the Cairo embassy puts out a tweet restating their position and standing by their earlier statement. This is understandable in light of the earlier breach of the embassy walls in Cairo.

At 9.39pm ET September 11th, the State department confirms on its website that at least one person has been killed in the Benghazi embassy.

At 10.08pm ET, a statement on events is made by Hillary Clinton. She says "I condemn in the strongest terms the attack on our mission in Benghazi today. As we work to secure our personnel and facilities, we have confirmed that one of our State Department officers was killed. We are heartbroken by this terrible loss. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family and those who have suffered in this attack.

This evening, I called Libyan President Magariaf to coordinate additional support to protect Americans in Libya. President Magariaf expressed his condemnation and condolences and pledged his government’s full cooperation.

Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind."

At 10.09pm September 11th, the Romney campaign releases a statement from the candidate, embargoed until midnight, on the "developments" in Libya and Egypt. The statement says:

“I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”

There are a number of things to note here, but just to explain that the embargo on the release until midnight is there because of a pan-party agreement not to make political statements on September 11th out of respect for the anniversary and the victims.

The first problem with what Romney said is that the statement Romney refers to came from a diplomat, not the Obama administration. It wasn't even okayed by the Cairo ambassador who was in America at the time.

The second is even more fundamental. At the time the statement was made - 6.11am ET - there had been no attacks. The whole point of the Cairo statement was to disassociate the embassy from the piece-of-shít movie trailer and head off any attacks. Romney didn't understand who made the statement. He didn't understand the intent of the statement. He got when the statement was made just plain wrong.

At 10.24pm ET September 11th, the Romney campaign lifts the embargo on the statement, emailing reporters to tell them they can use it immediately. This was another classless move. He couldn't wait 90 minutes to respect the universally observed embargo on political statements on September 11th.

At 6.18am ET September 12th, the Associated Press confirms the death of the Libyan ambassador, Christopher Stevens.

At 9.58am ET September 12th, Hillary Clinton speaks about the deaths of the American embassy personnel: "This was an attack by a small and savage group, not the people or government of Libya.… Let me be clear, there is no justification for this. None. Violence like this is no way to honour religion or faith."

At 10.16am ET September 12th, in Jacksonville, Florida, Romney doubles down on his previous statement, criticizing the Obama administration for making "an apology for American principles."

"The embassy in Cairo put out a statement after their grounds had been breached. When our grounds are being attacked and being breached, the first response of the United States must be outrage."

Romney made a clusterfcuk of it from beginning to end.

There was no apology for American values or America.

There was no statement of sympathy for the attackers.

He couldn't get who said what straight.

He couldn't figure out when statements were made and why.

He couldn't respect a 24 moratorium on political point scoring.

Classy, classy guy.

Memnoch

The problem with the rabid, raving fanaticism of GOP supporters is that you have to go to the above lengths in detail to demonstrate just how ridiculous their fictional altered reality of the Obama presidency really is. And that's just on ONE incident in ONE day.

They just drown you in this deluge of metaphorical faeces, day after day after day, that to discredit each one properly is just too much effort (which is why I don't bother half the time.)

Because really, it's obvious to anyone with any sanity, integrity and ability to follow a situation logically and in context just how little merit there is to the majority of the crap they spout. Yet you have to argue with them about it.

This is the standard fox news tactic that has been taken up by the foot soldiers and it's utterly dishonest. But it is the symptom. The manifestation of a bankrupt ideology.

Head... meet wall.

Duck Soup

Reports coming in of attacks on the US Embassy in Yemen.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/13/world/meast/yemen-us-embassy-protests/

This is ongoing and volatile. President Obama - and Hillary Clinton - have no choice but to tread a fine line between condemnation of the violence and disassociating the US government from the trashy and provocative movie trailer.

On the other hand, if Mitt Romney wants to make political capital out of events and thereby exacerbate and inflame the situation further, that's up to him.

Amerika

Does anybody remember when candidate Barack Obama, during a CNN interview, in July 2008 -- immediately after the deaths of NINE US troops in Afghanistan, blasted Bush and McCain?

Well I’m sure you want PROOF, SOURCES, LINKS! Here you go

And remember how the media demanded for days to know whether Barack Obama regretted the timing of that criticism, and whether he was ashamed at not providing a united political front in the face of such a sad tragedy?

NO? Hmmm... Me either!

Mjollnir

Amerika wrote: »

Does anybody remember when candidate Barack Obama, during a CNN interview, in July 2008 -- immediately after the deaths of NINE US troops in Afghanistan, blasted Bush and McCain?

Well I’m sure you want PROOF, SOURCES, LINKS! Here you go

And remember how the media demanded for days to know whether Barack Obama regretted the timing of that criticism, and whether he was ashamed at not providing a united political front in the face of such a sad tragedy?

NO? Hmmm... Me either!

Hey, whenever you get around to actually posting any apology this administration made for free speech is going to be fine with me.

Any time now.

Whenever you're ready.