Romney's reaction to the American embassy deaths

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.

Duck Soup

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.

Well, on the matter of faux outrage we agree. The whole point of Romney's bombastic intervention was to manufacture some artificial outrage about apologies for America and sympathy for attackers that never existed.

He created a narrative based on things that were never said, one that dovetails with the line he's been pushing about Obama being Apologist-In-Chief.

But there are a couple of things that do genuinely stick in my craw.

The first is his playing fast and loose with verifiable facts. Romney said that "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."

Putting to one side that the statement he refers to came not from the administration but from the Cairo diplomats, it is patently impossible for the statement to be sympathizing with attackers when at the time it was published, no attacks had taken place. The statement was released at 6.11am on the morning of September 11th and the attacks on the two embassies happened between 2pm and 3pm on September 11th.

It is a chronological and logical impossibility for a statement to either condemn an attack or sympathize with attackers when no attack has yet happened.

The other thing is his willingness to exploit the situation. He's been stuck behind in the polls since forever and I'm guessing that after a near-zero convention bump, he feels he needs a high-risk strategy to shake things up.

If Romney's gamble works, people think Obama is an apologist for America. If it doesn't work, Romney goes down as the politician who was willing to exploit the deaths of American diplomats for party political purpose.

Franticfrank

There were no grounds for criticism of the Obama administration. This situation was beyond everybody's control - you can't prevent some nutjob releasing a controversial video unless you ban the Internet/free speech. Taking advantage of tragic events that were out of everyone's control was most definitely wrong. Statistics about the presidential election show polls are extremely close. It will be quite interesting to see the impact of Romney's comments over the next few days.

nagilum2

Franticfrank wrote: »

There were no grounds for criticism of the Obama administration. This situation was beyond everybody's control - you can't prevent some nutjob releasing a controversial video unless you ban the Internet/free speech. Taking advantage of tragic events that were out of everyone's control was most definitely wrong. Statistics about the presidential election show polls are extremely close. It will be quite interesting to see the impact of Crony's comments over the next few days.

I'm no fan of Romney, but I think he was dead right in this case. Further, the more time we have in the rear view mirror, the more valid his criticism looks - although that's just because he's gotten lucky. But really, that statement by the embassy was not walked back by the Obama administration. This was the statement:

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

That is tantamount to an apology for the individuals "hurting the religious feelings" of Muslims. The big word there that needed to be redacted, and quickly, was the word abuse. Blasphemy is not abuse of free speech. Does including that part makes the statement essentially apologizing for free speech? I think Romney invoked a little hyperbole there, but at the very least that inclusion by the embassy was highly inappropriate. You are the representative for the US in a foreign country. You either stand up for principals of the constitution - freedom of expression first and foremost among them - or you don't.

Now in hindsight it looks like this statement was issued precisely because they had credible intelligence that tensions attacks were being planned and were trying to calm things, but doing it in the absolute wrong way. : http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/revealed-inside-story-of-us-envoys-assassination-8135797.html

Now 3 days later, we still don't have answers to the most basic questions. If there was credible evidence of a coordinated attack brewing, why were there not more preparation taken? Why weren't there more defensive measures taken in guarding the consulate given this information? Why if this information was available, were Marines apparently denied the use of live ammo in defending the consulate? http://nation.time.com/2012/09/13/whats-worse-no-marines-or-possibly-unarmed-marines/ Why were meetings not convened immediately to gain more understanding of the span of the threat and its potential risk to American citizens on travel in Islamic countries?

Perhaps some of these questions have been asked, and answered, but I haven't seen it. Somehow the media (at least in this country) is focusing on Romney's criticism of the original statement, which is absurd in the grand scheme of things.

This is beginning to look like an epic disaster by the State department. And unfortunately for Obama, the timing coincides with reports that he has recently skipped a great deal of his intelligence briefings.

Amerika

Franticfrank wrote: »

There were no grounds for criticism of the Obama administration. This situation was beyond everybody's control -

I don’t know about that. First, from the beginning of the reports on the attack on the Libyan embassy, I highly doubted it was the work of protestors. Protestors don’t have missiles and rockets, and I figured it was the work of terrorists on the anniversary of 9/11 and luckily for them had the protests to serve as cover. Seems I might have been right, and if the following which is being reported is in fact true, then there are serious questions needed to be asked.

According to senior diplomatic sources, the US State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, and the embassy in Cairo, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and "lockdown", under which movement is severely restricted.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/revealed-inside-story-of-us-envoys-assassination-8135797.html

I’ve also read that the marines guarding the embassy in Cairo were not allowed to have weapons, and the embassy in Libya did not even have a contingent of marine guards to protect it’s sovereignty and diplomats. These appear on surface to be some troubling facts.

Also, it is reported that the Libyan media falsely reported that this obscure and crude film was being widely distributed and watched in the US. Where is the outrage over this, if true, as it was little more than a means to stir up false hatred against the US?

I believe the US media response to Romney’s statement was utterly insane, and was merely using him to run cover for the inadequacies of the Obama administration, and for those countries who cannot quell the violence, which will ultimately make the president look bad in the lead up to the election.

Mjollnir

Amerika wrote: »

I’ve also read that the marines guarding the embassy in Cairo were not allowed to have weapons, and the embassy in Libya did not even have a contingent of marine guards to protect it’s sovereignty and diplomats. These appear on surface to be some troubling facts.

Facts? LOL, really? And they're only 'troubling' to those who can't be bothered to search for, oh, 20 seconds.

Here, let me help you:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/egypt-embassy-marines-live-ammo

Straight from the USMC itself.

And the embassy in Libya wasn't attacked. It was a consulate.

Duck Soup

Never ones to stop digging when they're in a hole, the Romney campaign is now saying that all this trouble in the Middle East would never have happened on a Romney watch.

"There’s a pretty compelling story that if you had a President Romney, you’d be in a different situation," Romney adviser Richard Williamson told the Washington Post.

So let's walk it through. Somewhere in America, some idiots make a Muslim-baiting movie trailer and put it up on the internet. This starts to inflame opinion in the Middle East. People start to gather on the streets. At this point - what? What would Romney have done that would have stopped them? Spoken in a very cross tone?

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/09/romney-adviser-under-president-romney-libya-attack-never-would-have-happened.php

Memnoch

Duck Soup wrote: »

Never ones to stop digging when they're in a hole, the Romney campaign is now saying that all this trouble in the Middle East would never have happened on a Romney watch.



So let's walk it through. Somewhere in America, some idiots make a Muslim-baiting movie trailer and put it up on the internet. This starts to inflame opinion in the Middle East. People start to gather on the streets. At this point - what? What would Romney have done that would have stopped them? Spoken in a very cross tone?

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/09/romney-adviser-under-president-romney-libya-attack-never-would-have-happened.php

He would have bombed all the Muslims in the world back to the stone age of course, starting with Iran. There wouldn't be any of them LEFT to riot.

Romney's great rap anthem: No Muslims, No problems.

Amerika

Memnoch wrote: »

He would have bombed all the Muslims in the world back to the stone age of course, starting with Iran. There wouldn't be any of them LEFT to riot.

Romney's great rap anthem: No Muslims, No problems.

I see hypobrole is alive and well and reproducing like jackrabbits among supporters of Democrats and President Obama here at boards.ie.

nagilum2

Mjollnir wrote: »

Facts? LOL, really? And they're only 'troubling' to those who can't be bothered to search for, oh, 20 seconds.

Here, let me help you:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/egypt-embassy-marines-live-ammo

Straight from the USMC itself.

And the embassy in Libya wasn't attacked. It was a consulate.

If it's straight from the USMC itself, why are you quoting an unreliable source (motherjones). Time magazine, a comparatively trusted source, originally reported the Marines not being allowed live ammunition. UPDATE - Time magazine has now stated that reports Marines were not allowed live ammo were incorrect, so there's no need to quote a source like motherjones.

What is clear, however, is despite seemingly advance warnings, there was inadequate security at foreign consulates when advance warning did exist on the potential for attacks, at a time when Obama has been skipping intelligence briefings: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-leadership/post/is-it-okay-for-president-obama-to-skip-some-daily-intelligence-briefings-share-your-thoughts/2012/09/11/4474e59c-fc26-11e1-b153-218509a954e1_blog.html

Thiessen quotes the report as saying that through mid-June 2012, the president “attended his PDB [presidential daily brief] just 536 times — or 43.8 percent of the time. During 2011 and the first half of 2012, his attendance became even less frequent — falling to just over 38 percent. By contrast,” Thiessen writes, Obama’s predecessor (and Thiessen’s former boss, it should be noted) “almost never missed his daily intelligence meeting.”

Of course the broader question that really needs to be asked, is why American forces were allocated to assist in Libya, and why the administration got behind the forces desiring to remove Mubarak. Both those decisions now look terrible in hindsight. This administration clearly did not learn the lessons from the Bush administration - that you cannot force democracy on anyone, and that the power that rushes to fill a vacuum is often worse than that which was deposed in the first place.

Manic Moran

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.

I think you're on the wrong tack.

You are, of course, completely correct that the right to speech does not mean that one is immune to the rights of others to tell you you're a complete idiot, dick, or whatever else. However, I don't think it's up to the government in its official capacity to express its approval or disapproval of how its citizens chooses to exercise the rights that the government provides. The government's role is to guarantee the exercise of that right.

When the various ambassadors from muslim countries attempted to seek an audience with the Danish Prime Minister once the cartoon thing came up, the Danish government said 'no', with a short letter of explanation: "The freedom of expression has a wide scope and the Danish government has no means of influencing the press. However, Danish legislation prohibits acts or expressions of blasphemous or discriminatory nature. The offended party may bring such acts or expressions to court, and it is for the courts to decide in individual cases" (The legal system subsequently concluded that no laws were broken)

That would probably be the correct official position for the US Government to take. "One of the things which comes with the freedom that you Libyans fought for last year is the freedom to say what you like." No more, no less.

Be it the actions of a minority or not, Islam has a serious PR problem. Penn's interview last year is a case in point.
http://www.lasvegasweekly.com/news/2010/jun/24/celebrity-issue/