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.

Memnoch

He also completely ignored Duck Soup's lengthy and comprehensive debunking, not even a single word of acknowledgement.

I don't see how it's possible to have a rational debate with someone who is willing to be so shamelessly dishonest and disingenuous in their approach.

Amerika

Memnoch wrote: »

I don't see how it's possible to have a rational debate with someone who is willing to be so shamelessly dishonest and disingenuous in their approach.

It's not nice to talk about our media that way.

Mjollnir

Memnoch wrote: »

He also completely ignored Duck Soup's lengthy and comprehensive debunking, not even a single word of acknowledgement.

I don't see how it's possible to have a rational debate with someone who is willing to be so shamelessly dishonest and disingenuous in their approach.

Yup.

'twas ever thus.

ahnowbrowncow

Amerika wrote: »

It's not nice to talk about our media that way.

Are you trolling or just ignorant?

Amerika

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

Are you trolling or just ignorant?

I believe I made it quite clear in my earlier posts that I agree with Mitt Romney and he has nothing to be sorry about, and that this was a manufactured affront against him on the part of a hypocritical media who seemingly carries the water for Barack Obama… regardless how many times posters try to spin the faux outrage.

Mjollnir

Amerika wrote: »

I believe I made it quite clear in my earlier posts that I agree with Mitt Romney and he has nothing to be sorry about, and that this was a manufactured affront against him on the part of a hypocritical media who seemingly carries the water for Barack Obama… regardless how many times posters try to spin the faux outrage.

Whistling past that timeline graveyard doesn't speak well for your interest in honest discourse.

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-rachel-maddow-show/49012722#49012722

But, by all means, don't let facts get in your way. They ARE pesky little critters, after all.

Oh, and that apology that the administration made for free speech?

Any time soon?

Mjollnir

Ruh-roh, Raggy!

Looks like Mittens is starting to walk back all that tough-guy, manufactured outrage talk.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81178.html

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

Are you trolling or just ignorant?

I believe I made it quite clear in my earlier posts that I agree with Mitt Romney and he has nothing to be sorry about, and that this was a manufactured affront against him on the part of a hypocritical media who seemingly carries the water for Barack Obama… regardless how many times posters try to spin the faux outrage.

The problem is you still believe this no matter how many facts are presented to you.

You have not responded to a single point made that contradicts your position. You cede those points.

Black Swan

MOD WARNING:
Please focus on making meaningful contributions to the thread topic, and not each other; i.e., play the ball, not the man.

Amerika

briankeating wrote: »

The problem is you still believe this no matter how many facts are presented to you.

You have not responded to a single point made that contradicts your position. You cede those points.

First I can only respond to messages from posters who are not hidden to me. Now, answer me this... Why is it okay for Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State, to reject the Cairo Embassy’s statement, but not okay for Mitt Romney to do the same? It has been reported that Clinton rejected the initial Cairo Embassy statement on the developing violence in Egypt and Libya as weak and inappropriate… but they issued it anyway. Yet Romney is the only one to become the focus of media anger and hate for it?

And why did the White House disavow the statement from their own appointees at the Cairo embassy?

Sorry, but it all proves to me that it was little more than an apology and deserved of criticism.

Brussels Sprout

I actually think it's great that we have people like Amerika, who represent the American right, who are regular contributors to this forum. Otherwise we'd just have a bunch of threads full of people agreeing how awful the Republicans are.

That being said though, there are times where I feel like I'm reading the soccer forum with the ridiculously partisan support for positions that are just plain wrong. Conservatists talk a lot about values. It's therefore, ironic that one of the most basic values-the truth, is manipulated and abused so much, in order that fit whatever is currently convenient.

Be objective once in a while, otherwise you're just a caricature who people will dismiss offhand.

Mr.Micro

Amerika wrote: »

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.

Are so saying that Americans should not do guilt? Romney at this time in history is probably the worst and most dangerous presidential candidate, IMO. It's like de ja vu, Bush again in the form of Romney, if elected to go on another US rampage? He is as plastic as ken and barbie, but the dolls probably have more savy.

joseph brand

Memnoch wrote: »

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.

Reminds me of what Sam Harris had to say on the idea of having a debate with Dinesh D'Souza. (I cannot stand D'Souza)

I don't have the direct quote but D'Souza's techniques are listed here:

Debating tactics

1. D'Souza has an aggressive and rhetorical speaking and debating style, which makes him sound forceful and convincing. He uses the Gish Gallop frequently and effectively, rebuffing his opponent for not addressing every point he makes.
2. He frequently employs caricatures and strawmen of atheist positions. He presents these positions so as to make them sound whimsical or silly, while presenting his own statements with an air of utmost gravity, no matter how lunatic or far-fetched they may be.
3. He is a big fan of quote mining. Not content with simply taking his opponent's statements out of context, he will take a quote about a topic completely unrelated to the one under discussion and re-frame it to make it sound as if his opponent is uninformed or delusional.
4. A main weapon in his debating arsenal is the emotional appeal, where he paint his opponent's position as false because some of its implications may be distasteful to certain members of the audience.
5. He enjoys painting his opponents as vicious critics of innocuous policies and events, and himself as a paragon of intellectual virtue. While not going as far as character assassination (at least not in a face-to-face debate), he does subtly attack the character of his opponent.
6. He often says that an assertion by his opponent, or even the opponent's entire position, is invalid because it is not intuitively or obviously true. He paints this as a "common sense" argument, where he calls upon the audience to evaluate an assertion using their own intuition. In reality, this is a denial of the obvious fact that many things are counterintuitive and require expertise beyond the experience of the average person (but don't take our word for it; ask your neighbor about quantum mechanics or the economics of sub-Saharan Africa). This is a particularly effective tactic, as it shifts audience opinion to his side.
7. Thanks to his wide repertoire of tactics, he rarely is forced to allow a point by his opponent to pass unchallenged. This projects the illusion of competence, whereas most of his rebuttals are intellectually dishonest and completely invalid.
8. When all else fails, he will spout outright lies and half truths, pulling facts and statistics out of thin air to give his argument some credibility. This amounts to an argument from authority, which he seems to derive from his public "reputation" as a political commentator, academic and writer.
9. Lately, he appears to carry around a sizable library of books to debates, frequently flashing them at his opponent and at the audience, while stating that they completely prove his own, or disprove his opponent's points. These are usually self published works by fringe lunatics (which are not worth the toilet paper they are printed on). This is argument from authority on steroids, since no one except him has read the book. Therefore, his opponent cannot call him out on it, and is forced to let the point go without comment

.

I've watched a few of his religious debates but now he's stuck his weasel nose into politics, with this new 'documentary' on Obama which is as unbiased as the 'news' on FOX. He has zero integrity and will never concede a single point.

Amerika

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

I actually think it's great that we have people like Amerika, who represent the American right, who are regular contributors to this forum. Otherwise we'd just have a bunch of threads full of people agreeing how awful the Republicans are.

That being said though, there are times where I feel like I'm reading the soccer forum with the ridiculously partisan support for positions that are just plain wrong. Conservatists talk a lot about values. It's therefore, ironic that one of the most basic values-the truth, is manipulated and abused so much, in order that fit whatever is currently convenient.

Be objective once in a while, otherwise you're just a caricature who people will dismiss offhand.

Thank you for the first part. I have at times stated I disagreed with some republicans in office and their methodology. Granted, they are far and few between, but they do happen. (Believe it or not I’m called a RINO, and ultra moderate, in my family LOL). I also don’t post in some threads because I might agree with the opposition point of view. When you have everyone taking one side, why do you need one more? And I would be dragged over the coals regardless if I agree or disagree, as I seem to be viewed as the partisan Satan here. I know my style angers some here, but as Popeye says... "I yam what I yam." I post my viewpoints, which are no surprise to me quite unpopular in this forum. But they do represent what many in this country believe.

joseph brand

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

I actually think it's great that we have people like Amerika, who represent the American right, who are regular contributors to this forum. Otherwise we'd just have a bunch of threads full of people agreeing how awful the Republicans are.

That being said though, there are times where I feel like I'm reading the soccer forum with the ridiculously partisan support for positions that are just plain wrong. Conservatists talk a lot about values. It's therefore, ironic that one of the most basic values-the truth, is manipulated and abused so much, in order that fit whatever is currently convenient.

Be objective once in a while, otherwise you're just a caricature who people will dismiss offhand.

It's my understanding, that people who deal in the supernatural (religion) can't be expected to respect the truth. I wouldn't bring up the topic of religion, only, they started it.

The four most spoken words by the Republican 'hopefuls' were:

1. God
2. Jesus
3. Church
4. Prayer

Not necessarily in that order, but who cares which order. They weren't looking to become Pope!

How anyone could defend a man who is in a religious cult (mormonism) is beyond me. Cults, by definition, almost never deal in the truth.

joseph brand

Amerika wrote: »

Thank you for the first part. I have at times stated I disagreed with some republicans in office and their methodology. Granted, they are far and few between, but they do happen. (Believe it or not I’m called a RINO, and ultra moderate, in my family LOL). I also don’t post in some threads because I might agree with the opposition point of view. When you have everyone taking one side, why do you need one more? And I would be dragged over the coals regardless if I agree or disagree, as I seem to be viewed as the partisan Satan here. I know my style angers some here, but as Popeye says... "I yam what I yam." I post my viewpoints, which are no surprise to me quite unpopular in this forum. But they do represent what many in this country believe.

Granted, there are many Americans who have beliefs similar to yours. There's possibly some folks more to the right than yourself.

But, here's the problem as I see it. Even when you have been shown factual sources, in well written arguments posted here, it would seem to anyone following the thread that you have ignored the points made.

Plus, I can't understand why you stand by Romney and his 'Libya Gaffe'. At least call it what it is.

Amerika

joseph brand wrote: »

But, here's the problem as I see it. Even when you have been shown factual sources, in well written arguments posted here, it would seem to anyone following the thread that you have ignored the points made.

Truth be told, just about everyone here can be accused of that. I have been accused of not answering questions. Look back at the majority of questions I have poised, and see if I have gotten answers.

nagirrac

This is an act of desperation by the Romney campaign. In a US presidential race during a poor economy the sitting president is generally very vulnerable, Bush 1 for example. However this time is different because the Republican party has been taken over by the Tea party which is primarily a group of old angry white men who were offended from day 1 that a man of color was elected as President. If they were truly interested in the economic state of the country they would have been out in force against Bush in 2008 but were nowhere to be seen. Romney got no bump from the Republican convention and after the Democratic convention is now well behind in the polls. This will only get worse during the debates as Romney is a poor debater and Obama excellent. Every time Romney squaks about weak foreign policy Obama will respond with Bin Laden. In fact the best thing Romney could do is steer clear of foreign policy because all Obama has to do is mention Bush/Chaney, the lads that have been effectively banished by Republicans and were nowhere to be seen at the convention.
The Republican party is completely screwed until they get rid of the Tea Party and become a more inclusive party. America is becoming more diverse every year and non-caucasians and women are less and less likely to vote Republican. The only challenge for Obama in the upcoming election is to get the vote out.

christmas2012

I think it was an oppurtunistic blow from romney,but if obama is seen as an apologist,thats not good news with regards to his chances for re election..

joseph brand

The Young Turks' Cenk Uygur covers Romney and his 'Lehman Moment'.

Video.

Romney must be keeping his supporters awake at night. He may even be quite adept at converting Republicans into Democrats.