Democrats & Liberals Archives

Mitt Romney's True Character

Some idiot right-wing preacher distributes a movie bashing Mohammed online, and it enrages a bunch of Islamist radicals in the Arab world. American embassies are violated, and a statement is released before the first attack happens. Mitt Romney, perhaps hoping to turn the whole thing into his equivalent of the Iranian hostage crisis, jumps to criticize the president.

This is the kind of low-rent candidate we have here. Leaving aside questions of what Reagan did with those negotiations, three decades ago, it seems like Romney is once again acting like he can bluff his way towards greatness.

I pity our nation if he manages to pull this off, because his actions show a substantial lack of either restraint or tact. Even yesterday, on a solemn anniversary of our Nation's worst terrorist attack, Romney broke his pledge to suspend his campaign yesterday, a pledge Obama kept when he turned his speech to a veteran's group into a political stump speech.

Having failed to get the bounce from his convention, against a President who has surged in the polls after his, Romney is attempting to make up for his lack of vision, lack of experience, and lack of basic diplomatic skill in the worst possible way, by exploiting a tragedy like this.

No, Mr. Romney, you cannot become Ronald Reagan by exploiting another crisis. Already, people have seen you for what you are: a crass opportunist.

First, the statement he criticized didn't come from the Obama administration, but instead from the Embassy, and that occurred before the attacks. Additionally, Obama's team decided to embargo the statement until after 9/11, in order not to step all over the anniversary of that tragedy.

It seems like Romney had no problem stepping all over it.

Whatever you think should matter to a man asked to lead millions, asked to make decisions that can affect the lives of billions, it is a matter of character. Romney's character is to dive for political cover and leap for political opportunity as circumstances permit. Obama is willing to take risks, willing to do extraordinary things that the job requires. He tackles issues that could cause him political damage, yet right now, he's not only better off than the candidate who criticizes him, he's managed to pull successes that would mark any Administration as extraordinary. Do you think Mitt Romney would have saved the auto industry, or would he have allowed a crash similar to what hit Wall Street with Lehman Brothers to occur in America's manufacturing sector? Do you think Mitt Romney would have ordered the hit on Bin Laden, with all the uncertainty, this spineless twit who can't even stay consistent on his positions? Do you think he could have pulled of what Obama did earlier in Libya?

I know Right Wingers will be quick to jump on that, so let me jump right back: would you have allowed Benghazi to be overrun by Qaddafi's forces, thousands dying under the guns of that Tyrant? Obama didn't. But he also didn't need to get a single American soldier killed to achieve that. These four diplomats are, to this point, the sole casualties. If you want a good idea of what got me to pick Obama, and what has me stand by him, read this article.

If I could sum it up, it's that Obama doesn't allow the politics to overwhelm his practical decision-making. He can step outside the binary traps of political thinking that often develop, and find a different solution. It doesn't always work, but it works better than simply reacting to please some constituency.

If this approach didn't work, you would not see Obama in such a dominant position, vis a' vis Romney. Obama's made his share of mistakes, and I don't deny that, but if I wanted somebody who didn't make any mistakes for President, I would get down on my knees and ask Jesus to come down from heaven, because only Jesus could be that perfect. Bluff and bluster in the face of mistakes is not a lack of mistakes. Romney might pound on Obama, but just look at the train-wreck that's been his campaign. You can't get him to admit it, of course, but if you asked many people, they'd have their share of blunders to relate, from where the Press Secretary dealt with that Obama SuperPAC commercial by bringing back the spectre of Romneycare, to one old man's recent conversation with an empty chair.

I would say that the Bush Administration suffered from a similar problem, with a similar result. It wouldn't admit any problems, in any case, about any policy. Only difference is, the policies Romney fails to admit screwed up now are just his campaigns. Hand him the government, and like Bush, he can do some real damage.

I will not say that things always go smoothly. The events in Egypt and Libya in the last few days tell you that's not true. But I bet you one thing: Obama's not panicking about this. He's not reacting out of fear, he's not thinking first and foremost about the politics. I bet you that he's focused on solving the problem, even coming up with the lateral solution that the sides in the debates didn't think about.

That sense that I've gotten of him, of a man who puts the problem-solving side of the job first, is what made me a supporter. He isn't simply some dilettante who thought it would be fun to run a country, or whose ego is such that he thinks he's entitled to the job. He is a professional at this job, who takes his responsibilities seriously.

If Romney is not up to that, if he thinks, like Bush did, that he can turn the terror and uncertainty in the rest of the world to his political advantage, to shut people's critical faculties down so they don't see him for the lightweight he is, then he's unworthy of the office.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at September 12, 2012 7:34 AM
Comments
Comment #352743

The NYT article this morning about the attack was kind to Romney prefacing it’s report of his remarks with the statement “Apparently unaware of the timing of the first embassy statement, the Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, put out a statement just before midnight Tuesday saying,…”

Posted by: Rich at September 12, 2012 8:52 AM
Comment #352744
The purpose of the attacks in Egypt and Libya was for the Sunni leadership to show it can unleash mob attacks against American diplomatic assets. (There may be some historical exceptions, but it’s more or less axiomatic than mob attacks cannot happen without government approval.) That point has been received by everybody except U.S. State Department employees.

The U.S. Embassy in Cairo, a true bastion of American values, was quick to lay blame on those responsible for this awful act of violence Terry Jones:


The U.S. Embassy said in a statement Tuesday that it “condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims — as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions.”

“Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy,” the statement said. “We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.”

Where do they get this crap? “Respect for religious beliefs is the cornerstone of American Democracy?” No, Freedom of speech and religion are, which include HARSH criticism of religious beliefs…

The real reason for the ‘attacks’ is to send a message that they can and will do it again.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 12, 2012 9:18 AM
Comment #352746

“The real reason for the ‘attacks’ is to send a message that they can and will do it again.”

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 12, 2012 9:18 AM

Yes Rhinehold, and like Carter, Obama has been shown to have no idea what to do. The Embassy’s condemnation of American free speech is a mirror image of Obama’s presidency. They were simply doing what Obama has done all over the world. But we must remember that Stephen, like Obama and all liberals believe the Constitution and Bill of Rights to be an evolving document. What used to be free speech has become respect for religious beliefs.

Perhaps Stephen would like to defend the numerous Islamic attacks on Christian beliefs as being fair and justified. This is simply another of the double standards and hypocrisy of the left.

What I can say for a certainty, is that Obama is seen as a weak and gutless leader like Carter was. As soon as Reagan won the election, the hostages were released…reason…alternative was for Iran to get their asses whipped. Carter was weak and Obama is weak. Perhaps it is Obama’s Islamic roots that prevents him from action? Isn’t an assault on a US Embassy an act of war?

Posted by: Frank at September 12, 2012 9:55 AM
Comment #352747

“Having failed to get the bounce from his convention, against a President who has surged in the polls after his, Romney is attempting to make up for his lack of vision, lack of experience, and lack of basic diplomatic skill in the worst possible way, by exploiting a tragedy like this.” Stephen Daugherty

I believe Stephen Daugherty should get his facts correct instead of relying on the biased MSM. It turns out Obama got NO bounce from the DNC convention. It was all a sham. It also turned out the liberal polls fudged the percentages of those polled and pushed their agenda to get Obama re-elected.

“Drive-By Media Uses Phony Polls to Concoct False Notion of Obama’s Inevitability”

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/09/11/drive_by_media_uses_phony_polls_to_concoct_false_notion_of_obama_s_inevitability

Or here:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/09/10/an_all_out_media_onslaught_to_dispirit_you

Why should we believe anything SD says, when he gives false facts; it casts doubt on his whole post.

Posted by: Billinflorida at September 12, 2012 10:15 AM
Comment #352748

No surprise that you would rather write about your partisan blind opinion of Romney instead of the attack on the US, Stephen.

A US Embassy condemns a film the US government had nothing to do with, so that the feelings of peaceful loving muslims wouldn’t be hurt.
Then these peaceful loving muslims attack and murder our fellow Americans, and this administration, with your support, still feel the need to include blame of a film for enraging “radicals,” in your condemnation of the attacks.

Spare us double standard opinions of the character of a man you don’t know. Candidate Obama blasted President Bush and candidate Romney is going to blast President Obama. Especially when this administration always feels the need to spread the blame around to all, so that muslims don’t get too offended.

Have no fear, your all great and powerful leader is probably getting ready to speak and tell us how awful this all is.

Posted by: kctim at September 12, 2012 10:20 AM
Comment #352754

Mitt Romney is a sad, pathetic character in desperation mode in his failing campaign. His lack of understanding of world affairs is understandable considering his lack of experience and apparent lack of thought about anything other than how to make money. But he should have known to keep his mouth shut rather than spewing stupidity and fake bravado.

Lame.

Posted by: tcsned at September 12, 2012 10:24 AM
Comment #352759

To Franks question; yes, US Embassy property is considered sovereign land; and yes, an attack on a US Embassy is an act of war. Re/Obama’s back peddling the US Embassy statement; “the buck stops here”, any statements made by US Embassy’s are the same as coming from the office of the WH. The ambassadors are an extension of the President because they speak for the president; because they are his people and represent him.

“What a disgusting and disastrous, but wholly predictable, way to end this day. As you may have heard, the U.S. Embassy in Cairo chose the 11th anniversary of 9/11 to apologize for “hurt Muslim feelings” as radical Egyptian clerics stoked faux-rage over an obscure documentary attacking Islamic extremism. The Obama administration’s mortifying apology, of course, did not mollify the Muslim agitators. Appeasement has never mollified the practitioners of the Religion of Perpetual Outrage.

Naturally, the Muslim mob stormed the Embassy compound, anyway — and the pretextual violence spread to Libya, where an American State Department worker was killed today* (UPDATE: FOUR killed, including the US Ambassador to Libya and Foreign Service information officer Sean Smith, along with TWO U.S. MARINES). The feckless State Department has deleted its groveling tweet and the White House is in pathetic damage control mode.

UPDATE: And now, of course, the Muslim Brotherhood is calling for worldwide protests.

Let’s cut through the diplomatic blather and Obama State Department’s p.c. charade. This isn’t about ordinary Egyptian Muslims being offended by Koran-burning or some genuine outcry for religious tolerance or widespread anger over how Mohammed is being portrayed. It’s about Egyptian imams and Muslim Brotherhood propagandists concocting any excuse for a violent anti-Western conflagration.”

http://michellemalkin.com/

Posted by: Billinflorida at September 12, 2012 10:32 AM
Comment #352768

Billinflorida - niether Michelle Malkin nor Rush Limbaugh are sources of facts. They are at best biased commentators and ones whose interest in actual facts is limited. Find some real sources before you make bogus claims.

Posted by: tcsned at September 12, 2012 10:46 AM
Comment #352769

Just watched Obama’s reaction, let’s see, he did not use it as a campaign event as Romeny did. He didn’t look desperate and pathetic as Romney did. He was, well, presidential.

Posted by: tcsned at September 12, 2012 10:57 AM
Comment #352770

I normally NEVER listen to Obama’s speeches; I personally cannot stand his voice; but I just listened to his press conference. Unlike Romney’s press conference earlier, who took questions from the MSM caught up on the moment of a gotcha comment, Obama refused to take questions. However Obama did manage to get in his visits to Walter Reed Hospital, Arlington Cemetery, and a few other camera stops that he made yesterday. Obama simply mimicked the statements of Hillary Clinton, made a little earlier. One thing I found interesting was Obama’s praise of the Democracy being established in Libya. Excuse Me…What democracy? What I saw on the news this morning looked nothing like a democracy; it looked more like an OWS protest with guns. Many more of the Obama organized democracy in the Middle-East and we will be in real trouble.

Flashback on Hillary’s words, “we came, we saw, he died”. And now we have a democracy in Libya.

Posted by: Frank at September 12, 2012 11:03 AM
Comment #352771

According to Rush Limbaugh, the GOP convention was great, the Democratic convention a disaster, and Clint Eastwood nailed it, with every word carefully chosen.

The average convention bounce is 4 points. There have been a few occasions when candidates enjoyed bounces of as much as 11 points. Polls show Obama receiving a five or six point bounce, which is plausibl; after all, they all show the same thing. Polls show Romney receiving little to no bounce, which is also plausible; again, all the polls show similar results.

Ah, but reality has a liberal bias.

Now, as for the topic of this thread:

The situation in Libya is especially bad. A rocket attacked kill the US Ambassador and three other Americans. This is about as bad as it gets. In addition, both the Egyptian & Libyan embassies had to deal with angry mobs. Supposedly the mobs were motivated by an obscure video posted on the internet that made an especially vile attack upon Islam. This same kind of video sparked protesting mobs against Hillary Clinton when she visited.

It’s a huge problem, and the right thing to do is stand behind US actions. Problems don’t get much more complicated than this- or more serious. A US Ambassador is dead.

An Ambassador assassinated along with three other Americans serving the country.

Obama made a carefully worded statement that struck the right note. He condemned the attack, said religious intolerance is wrong, but that does not justify these attacks, and vowed to work with the Libyan government to track down the killers.

Here is precisely the wrong thing to do:

“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.”
Mitt Romney

This was before the Obama administration issued a statement. This statement was made before Romney had the facts, such as the fact that four Americans died, including a US Ambassador. No one “sympathized” with the attackers.

This guy is not ready for the Oval Office, and it has never been more clear.

Posted by: phx8 at September 12, 2012 11:05 AM
Comment #352772

“Billinflorida - niether Michelle Malkin nor Rush Limbaugh are sources of facts. They are at best biased commentators and ones whose interest in actual facts is limited. Find some real sources before you make bogus claims.”

Posted by: tcsned at September 12, 2012 10:46 AM

So let me get this straight tcsned; you are condemning Michelle and Rush, or are you condemning their facts? Facts are facts, no matter where they come from. Are you denying the facts?

Secondly, are you condemning Stephen Daugherty or Adrienne for linking to the DailyKos, Huffpost, or other liberal hack sites?

In fact, if your “biased commentators and ones whose interest in actual facts is limited” comment was serious, we wouldn’t be able to use 90% of the news media, since they are liberal biased.

“Just watched Obama’s reaction, let’s see, he did not use it as a campaign event as Romeny did. He didn’t look desperate and pathetic as Romney did. He was, well, presidential.”

Posted by: tcsned at September 12, 2012 10:57 AM

I guess you missed the part about Obama’s visits yesterday?

I never saw anything desperate or pathetic about Romney’s comments. When he was questioned by the press, I did hear him say the events in the Middle-East are directly related to Obama’s lack of understanding of foreign policy. And I agree. The lack of Obama’s leadership in the Israeli/Iranian situation is a perfect example of his incompetence and cowing down to the Muslims.

Posted by: BIF at September 12, 2012 11:16 AM
Comment #352773

Rhinehold-
Good job pitching in with the press release that came before the attacks, when they were responding to protestors angered by Terry Jones film.

Oh, and let’s not mention that our State Department said nothing about censoring that film, only that it rejected it.

As for the real reason for the attacks? I suspect there might be something more than just a bunch of student protestors, if folks are launching rocket attacks on an Ambassador.

Frank-
The State Department can clearly reject the content of an American’s speech without rejecting the right of that dumbass to provoke more hatred of America. Free speech, you could say, runs both ways, and that is the beauty of our system, and the stupidity of what happened in Egypt and Libya.

As for the strength you say Reagan showed in the face of Iran? Oh, yes. The immediate withdrawal of US Marines from the base in Beirut after the terrorist attack, and trading arms to our enemy for hostages and money to fund illegal operations elsewhere.

Oh, by the way, where Reagan withdrew troops after an attack, Obama’s sent Marines to the embassy to increase security.

You have these little stories you want to peddle, and you just drive by and shoot them without even a care in the world about what the facts are. Your ambition exceeds your decency and respect for the dead, whose bodies you are climbing to elect an unworthy man President.

Billinflorida-
Yeah, what was Rush saying in the last Presidential election? Good God, like you always want to say, Rush is an entertainer, not a statistician. Yet you buy his horsewash hook, line, and sinker. The irony is, his words only help you to develop a false sense of security. You need people who are honest enough to tell you that Romney’s path is narrow, and his room for error small.

Anybody who tells you something else is selling you something. Who should believe anything you say, when your only backup is a drug-addicted loudmouth provocateur, backing a weasel he was dripping his venom all over only half a year ago?

kctim-
Quoting from the consulate under attack:

Sorry, but neither breaches of our compound or angry messages will dissuade us from defending freedom of speech AND criticizing bigotry.

If I’m not mistaken, the rejection of bigotry and the defense of freedom of speech while under attack because of both, does not constitute an apology for American values, but standing up for them. We will not promise to censor or arrest the dumbasses who made the film, but we will certainly not call the attack on our Embassies a proportional or appropriate response to the insult leveled by said dumbasses.

Obama’s already promised to seek out those responsible for the attacks and bring them to justice. I believe I can count on the man who authorized the mission against Bin Laden to make good on that promise.

To all-
Republicans, since 9/11, have shamefully tried to latch on to the sentiment that they are the only ones who care about defense of our country and its values.

But people like me, on 9/11, felt no less threatened, and no less angry at our enemies. The difference is, we then didn’t try to justify an incursion into a country that had nothing to do with it. We instead insisted on a focus on the enemy we knew was trying to kill us, and against whom we had a clear right of self-defense.

How much of the trillions of dollars you bozos constantly harp about comes from that war that your side so ill-advisedly pushed, while blasting our side as insufficiently patriotic? How many Americans are dead, maimed, or otherwise scarred for life, because their leader couldn’t keep his eye on the ball? And how much BS did they expend defending his terrible policy?

And how fast are they now running away from the legacy of the man they defended to the hilt while he was in office?

When Bush said “Wanted, dead or alive”, and promised to get Bin Laden, I believed him, unfortunately. When Obama said the same, though, he carried out the sentiment. When he says justice will be done, I trust it will be done, because Obama is more than just some empty suit who knows how to say the right things, he’s somebody who knows how to get things done. You can apologize for America’s mistakes while standing up for its values, and that is unfortunately a truth too few of you acknowledge.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 12, 2012 11:17 AM
Comment #352774
No one “sympathized” with the attackers.

Actually, the embassy did, as I pointed out earlier. The White House released a statement disavowing the comments, but they were made (otherwise why disavow something that didn’t happen?)

I am personally not attacking Obama on this, nor Romney. But what I am dealing with is facts, something that the left and right seem to have a problem with lately…

Posted by: rhinehold at September 12, 2012 11:21 AM
Comment #352775

Rhinehold-
Their own words:

Of course we condemn breaches of our compound, we’re the ones actually living through this.

In case you haven’t noticed, Romney and you are condemning the very people who are under attack!

Y’all need to start judging what you say by more than political attitudes.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 12, 2012 11:28 AM
Comment #352776

So rhinehold, you cannot at the same time say that this video that they are bent about was stupid and say that reacting with violence is wrong? Man, I wish the world was black and white, good guy/bad guy but it ain’t. It’s pretty simplistic to think so and pretty poor foreign policy to act so. The truth is, most terrorists start with a legitimate gripe and then go about dealing with it in an atrocious way. We can’t stand for it and we need to punish those that commit acts of terrorism but that doesn’t mean that the cause that drove them to violence is unfounded.

Posted by: tcsned at September 12, 2012 11:30 AM
Comment #352777

phx8, there is no bounce from the DNC convention. It is relevant to the post, because SD made the false statement that Obama got a bounce and he didn’t.

“Supposedly the mobs were motivated by an obscure video posted on the internet that made an especially vile attack upon Islam.”

Secondly, what do you propose we do; pass laws making it illegal to condemn Islam? Have you watched the video, or are you making “obscure” attacks. Tell you what, why don’t we just take the free speech clause out of the first amendment because someone might get offended?

“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.”

Mitt Romney

A press release from Obama’s ambassadors is a direct reflection on Obama and his policies. And the ambassador condemned the free speech of Americans and sympathized with the Islamic terrorists. Simple as that.

Posted by: BIF at September 12, 2012 11:31 AM
Comment #352778

A few things that haven’t been said above, but that need to be:

The attack and the killings on the US embassy was carried out by ignorant, intolerant, bigoted and fundamentalist religious fanatics. In response to a film made and distributed by ignorant, intolerant, bigoted and fundamentalist religious fanatics — who purposely made the film to provoke the expected reaction. Both things must be condemned for what they are: HATE
Hate is the fuel of Fundamentalist Religious Extremism of ALL kinds — and it is nothing but a horrible disease upon our planet. It should therefore be treated as such since these idiots endanger the lives and well-being of people all over the globe.

As for Mittens, if Americans have any sense at all (and this is highly questionable), Mitt Romney will now quickly sink like a stone. It is glaringly apparent that this man simply doesn’t have the vitally necessary foreign policy experience (nor the kind of intelligence that can make up for inexperience) for the job of president.

So far, Mitt has has gone out of his way to insult the British, has gone out of his way to make enemies with Russia (with Putin now saying that Romney’s comment has made Russia feel justified in opposing America’s missile defense plans in Europe), and now this idiot has gone out of his way trying to intercede in an on-going crisis while spewing a bunch of partisan politicized BS?! And after he has tried to claim that foreign policy is a distraction! Should this idiot decide that foreign policy actually does matter, it’s become more than clear that this nation is in for some serious trouble, and wars galore.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 12, 2012 1:03 PM
Comment #352779

Billinflorrida,
Really? I’m sure glad people who think like that are not in charge of our foreign policy anymore. Thanks to the really poor candidate the GOP nominated it ain’t gonna happen for at least 4 more years. Bloviating and fake tough talk by a bunch of chicken-hawks isn’t foreign policy, it’s ignorance. You can side with ignorance if you want, I’ll choose logic and reason.

Even in “Republican” polls Romeny is in deep trouble, his campaign is saying as much. Btw - Limbaugh didn’t not state any facts. A fact has a source, he had no sources. He’s making crap up. And he’s usually on more solid factual ground than Michelle Malkin, who also made a lot of statements but no facts.

Romney opened his big, uninformed mouth before gathering more than a smidgen of information and thought he was going to score some political points by jumping on a pretty wise statement by the embassy in Egypt to attempt to quell any emotional reaction over this ignorant film (6 full hours before the protest in Egypt even started). Then the protests happened. Then the Libian consulate was attacked. Then Romney showed his ignorance. Then an ambassador was murdered along with 3 other diplomats. Romney now looks bad, spin it any way you want but he screwed up. All this because he got slammed for not mentioning Afghanistan or the troops deployed there in his RNC acceptance speech. I personally didn’t have a problem with it but he got hit and in his pathetic desperation made a knee-jerk response to something before it had all unfolded. He blew it … again. Lol. Try again in 2016 so Hillary can whip another Republican. :D

Posted by: tcsned at September 12, 2012 1:22 PM
Comment #352780

BIF-
First of all, Obama has gotten a considerable increase among many polls, so you’re just talking out of your hat on that point.

Second, nobody’s even begun to suggest that we outlaw criticism of Islam. Like one guy said, if they think that movie’s offensive (and word is that the film’s Atlas Shrugged level bad) then they should avoid Reddit. They did agree that the insult was unsupportable, but they’re diplomats, would you have them say, “Kiss our ass, we’ll be making popcorn when we get our copy?”

The message was sent before the attack, from the Cairo Consulate, if I’m not mistaken, before the attack that claimed the ambassador’s life. So, you, who makes an erroneous claim about the convention bounce, have now compounded one error of fact with another. We decried the bigotry of the video, but did not promise any kind of legal action as the Salafists wanted.

The simple fact is, your guy is lying now, as he was lying before, and even many of the folks on the Right think his criticism was stupid and callous. Folks who rely on divisive attacks should remember that division is nothing more than repeated subtraction.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 12, 2012 1:34 PM
Comment #352782

You know the more I think about this, the magnitude of Romney’s amazing misstep and the utter childish petulance in attacking the president during this international crisis before he had any facts kind of reminds of McCain’s big misstep and weird childishness back in 2008… Remember when McCain very suddenly decided to suspend his presidential campaign in order to deal with the financial crisis? That was rightfully perceived as being so bizarre and so incredibly un-presidential that it called his mental abilities into sharp question — and most definitely contributed to his loss.
I’m now wondering if him pulling this petty, rash and truly bizarre idiocy during a moment of crisis and terrible tragedy will now cause same reaction.

It sure seems to have here:
Foreign Policy Hands Voice Disbelief At Romney Cairo Statement
“Bungle… utter disaster…not ready for prime time… not presidential… Lehman moment.” And that’s just the Republicans.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 12, 2012 2:01 PM
Comment #352783

Suggesting the President of the United States sympathizes with the attackers on a US Embassy goes beyond the pale.

Reince Preibus, Chairman of the RNC, repeated the allegation. “Obama sympathizes with the attackers in Egypt. Sad and pathetic.”

Most of the GOP leadership has had the good sense not to launch craven, uninformed attacks on the Obama administration. Traditionally, politics stops at the water’s edge, and for good reason. This is a developing story and a lot is happening, fast. There is new information coming to light by the hour, changes in details, confusion and uncertainty about what actually happened to the US Ambassador.

Romney’s behavior is unpresidential and unworthy of a candidate for the highest office.

Posted by: phx8 at September 12, 2012 2:10 PM
Comment #352784
Most of the GOP leadership has had the good sense not to launch craven, uninformed attacks on the Obama administration.

Yeah, very few seem to be backing Romney up here. Those who love throwing red meat and little sense at everything are the ones defending it. So far only Priebus, Palin, Gingrich and Jim DeMint have chosen to put GOP politics before national unity in the face of murderous aggression.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 12, 2012 3:12 PM
Comment #352785
Good job pitching in with the press release that came before the attacks, when they were responding to protestors angered by Terry Jones film.

That doesn’t make the ‘press release’ any better, in fact it could very well have embolded the attacks. The statement was wrong, it was out of context with the ideals of America and anyone trying to defend it are simply ignorant.

Oh, and let’s not mention that our State Department said nothing about censoring that film, only that it rejected it.

There is nothing wrong with ‘rejecting’ a film. There is everything wrong with misrepresenting the US and its ideals in a country where those types of statements will be taken as backing for their views, not a repudiation of them.

As for the real reason for the attacks? I suspect there might be something more than just a bunch of student protestors, if folks are launching rocket attacks on an Ambassador.

You are right, just as the ‘bunch of student protesters’ is hardly an accurate description of the type of people who were protesting at the time. Religious fanaticism is what it was about, with a violent bent. You assume because it was a ‘rocket launcher’ than it couldn’t have been the ‘peaceful student protesters’, or at least want US to believe it. Quite frankly, that is the most naive notion I’ve heard today…

Once again, I’ll reiterate. I have no complaints with Obama at this time, other than he was the one who appointed the people made the stupid remarks. Nor do I think that the remarks were the CAUSE of the violence, just as I don’t think that the film was either. The attacks are to scare the US into being afraid, which has worked in this country since 9/11. And it will continue to work until we quit acting like a bunch of ninnies and trying to point fingers and deflect away from what is really going on.

Simply put, this administration has been waging *5* wars in our name over the past 4 years, and sorry to say when you do that you are going to get some people angry with you. Couple that with religious fanaticism that doesn’t know the bounds of violence being acceptable behavior, they are going to respond in kind in every way that can think of. Until we stop this idiotic aggression campaign that the left, right up until the president was a Democrat, used to fight against, we are going to have more and more of this type of behavior from these types of people.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 12, 2012 3:26 PM
Comment #352786

The most insane part about this, is that one of the Mitt Romney talking points, is virtually identical to what the Cairo Embassy he berates said:

Don’t you think it was appropriate for the embassy to condemn the controversial movie in question? Are you standing up for movies like this? – Governor Romney rejects the reported message of the movie. There is no room for religious hatred or intolerance.

Romney’s messaging is like Texas weather. If you want something different, wait five minutes and you’ll get it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 12, 2012 3:27 PM
Comment #352787
but they’re diplomats, would you have them say, “Kiss our ass, we’ll be making popcorn when we get our copy?”

Oh, I don’t know, how about something like:

“While we don’t agree with the subject of the film, the greatest freedoms that the US guarantees means stepping up and defending the rights of others who we may disagree with to have their free rights of political and religious expression as well. It is what makes America a great country, but that greatness does not come easily, we have to accept the views and beliefs that we disagree with as well. Just as no one would be wrongfully attacked in the US for being a muslim, neither should one be wrongfully attacked for being a christian.”

But who am I, certainly no ‘diplomat’. Perhaps it is right that capitulation is the better course of action.

At least, until a president from your own party is in place, then, well, death from above!

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 12, 2012 3:33 PM
Comment #352788

Wow, Stephen, the fact that you can’t see the difference between not defending a movie and misstating the ideals of free speech that this country is based on while doing so is a telling line you are willing to cross for political partisanship…

And then you can’t accept any of the comparisons of Obama to Bush, even after dozens and dozens of them are presented to you, but you can see this as a ‘flip flop’ just to try to win an election?

Then you crow about the RIGHT wanting to make political hay out of this attack?

Amazing…

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 12, 2012 3:36 PM
Comment #352789
In addition to being wrongheaded, these little announcements are self-defeating. When you issue such statements, you encourage the view that the government is somehow responsible for the speech you’re condemning. Even if you succeed in calming the crowds — and to judge from what happened yesterday, you shouldn’t expect to achieve even that much — any fringe film that you haven’t anathematized can become the next cause célèbre. And if you think you can keep pumping out statements attacking every one of them, ponder what will happen if a mob decides to riot over the comments of a congressman, or someone else that a diplomat wouldn’t want to officially denounce. Better to embrace free speech from the beginning than to lend support to the idea that your job requires you to sort acceptable expression from bad.
Posted by: Rhinehold at September 12, 2012 3:47 PM
Comment #352790

Oh, and by the way, according to this chronology, this 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.

Was released at 6:11 a.m., EST 9/11/12.

The protests began at 11 a.m. EST 9/11/12.

Apparently, Mitt Romney believe that President Obama got in a time machine, and apologized to the protestors for an attack that took place several hours later.

I think we should be less concerned with Obama being weak in the face of terrorists, and more concerned with Romney being weak in regard to the temptation to say anything or doing anything to make up for his polling gap with Barack Obama.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 12, 2012 3:50 PM
Comment #352792

Well. Look at this:
Identity of anti-Muslim filmmaker called into question

From the link:

Update: Film’s consultant confirms “Sam Bacile” is not real

Speaking to The Atlantic, in a story published later Wednesday afternoon, Klein admitted that “Sam Bacile” is not real, claiming he doesn’t know the man’s real name.

“I don’t know that much about him,” he reportedly said. “I met him, I spoke to him for an hour. He’s not Israeli, no. I can tell you this for sure, the State of Israel is not involved, Terry Jones is not involved. His name is a pseudonym. All these Middle Eastern folks I work with have pseudonyms. I doubt he’s Jewish. I would suspect this is a disinformation campaign.”

Yeah, and the name “Sam Bacile” sounds much like Imbecile, does it not? The filmmaker seems to be playing on the rabid religious zealotry of American Evangelical Fundamentalists and Islamic Extremist Fundamentalists, and playing everyone for fools.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 12, 2012 3:52 PM
Comment #352793

Rhinehold-
First, do you mind not failing to link to those whose word you’re borrowing?

Second, would the other statement you made have stopped these, especially those who attacked the Ambassador?

Face it, you’re looking for a reason to be critical, rather than back down from a ridiculous assertion that has no basis in fact: that Obama made these statements in the first place, and that his language allowed a degree of tolerance for intolerable violence against America’s embassies. Both assertions are factually disproveable, and if true reason is your guide, rather than partisan sentiment, you would acknowledge those facts, and dump the argument for the rotting turd it is.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 12, 2012 3:57 PM
Comment #352794

Adrienne-
I wouldn’t trust Klein. Sam Bacile might be a fake of some kind, but reading what Klein said, I suspect he’s a bit of a kook himself.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 12, 2012 3:59 PM
Comment #352795
First, do you mind not failing to link to those whose word you’re borrowing?

Piffle, disagree with the sentiment if you want, just give a valid reason why, the source of the statement plays no part in it. Your attempt to ‘discredit the source’ is old and tired. Try debating what is said for once, not who said it.

Second, would the other statement you made have stopped these, especially those who attacked the Ambassador?

No, and neither did the statement that they DID release. So why give one that makes us look bad, cowering and less than what we are as opposed to one that holds our ideals up for the world to see and put the attackers in an even worse light if they do attack?

ace it, you’re looking for a reason to be critical, rather than back down from a ridiculous assertion that has no basis in fact

NOTHING I have said is either ‘ridiculous’ or has no basis in fact. Please detail exactly what I have gotten ‘wrong’ any any of my statements.

that Obama made these statements in the first place

Which he didn’t, the embassy staff did, and I am criticizing it. I have twice stated that I am not criticizing Obama, yet you haven’t even given that nod of acceptance, have you?

and that his language allowed a degree of tolerance for intolerable violence against America’s embassies.

Again, it wasn’t Obama’s statement *AND* it did not allow for a degree of tolerance from intolerable violence. However, it did present the US in a light that is diametrically opposed to our ideals. Either the embassy staff who made the statement believes what they wrote, or they are trying to satiate the crowd, both cases are unacceptable. If they can’t handle the job, they shouldn’t be there.

Both assertions are factually disproveable

And neither of them did I make.

and if true reason is your guide

Which it is

rather than partisan sentiment, you would acknowledge those facts, and dump the argument for the rotting turd it is.

Are you even reading what I am writing Stephen? Are you so incensed about this for your own political partisan views that you can’t see that I have neither claimed the comments to be from Obama, nor do I criticize him in this case for the comments? Get a grip and debate what someone is saying, not what you imagine them to have said, before making false accusations…

To help, I’ll respost:

Actually, the embassy did, as I pointed out earlier. The White House released a statement disavowing the comments, but they were made (otherwise why disavow something that didn’t happen?)

I am personally not attacking Obama on this, nor Romney. But what I am dealing with is facts, something that the left and right seem to have a problem with lately…

Once again, I’ll reiterate. I have no complaints with Obama at this time, other than he was the one who appointed the people made the stupid remarks. Nor do I think that the remarks were the CAUSE of the violence, just as I don’t think that the film was either. The attacks are to scare the US into being afraid, which has worked in this country since 9/11. And it will continue to work until we quit acting like a bunch of ninnies and trying to point fingers and deflect away from what is really going on.
Posted by: Rhinehold at September 12, 2012 4:08 PM
Comment #352796

Obama’s statement on the matter.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 12, 2012 4:16 PM
Comment #352797
I wouldn’t trust Klein. Sam Bacile might be a fake of some kind, but reading what Klein said, I suspect he’s a bit of a kook himself.

I think the evidence is pretty clear that the ‘movie’ was never actually made, but it does appear to me at this time that Sam Bacile does exist as he did give a quote to the Wall Street Journal about his financial backing of the movie.

The ‘trailer’ is some of the most atrocious acting/writing/producing that I have ever seen, and I’ve been a part of the 48 hour film project. I daresay even the movie I produced for that was of a higher grade than this POS, and it was truly bad I have to admit. If it were made, the backers of the film were bilked out of their supposed 5 million dollars…

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 12, 2012 4:18 PM
Comment #352798

Rhinehold-
You’re echoing the criticism of the Romney campaign, which is based on supposing that what the Diplomatic staff at a consulate wrote was in fact Obama’s response to the attacks.

Do you understand that?

I’m sick of this “weak on terror” sort of argument. It was wrong ten years ago, and it’s wrong today.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 12, 2012 4:20 PM
Comment #352800

Rhinehold-
And if you want my opinion about the film, my attitude is that our different societies’ morons and fools almost seem to be conspiring together to make the lives of the rest of us more difficult.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 12, 2012 4:24 PM
Comment #352801
You’re echoing the criticism of the Romney campaign, which is based on supposing that what the Diplomatic staff at a consulate wrote was in fact Obama’s response to the attacks.

Actually, no I am not, nor have I represented doing so. I have REPEATEDLY told you that I am not criticizing Obama, just the statement that was made, that was made before the attacks (and the timing is irrelevant, the message is wrong either way).

I am also not saying anything about ‘being weak on terror’, in fact I made it clear that I am concerned about us being too strong, as I have repeatedly said.

When you want to actually discuss what *I* am saying, feel free to let me know. Until then…. well, I’ll the take the high road on that one.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 12, 2012 4:27 PM
Comment #352802

President Obama’s Response to Mitt Romney:

“There’s a broader lesson to be learned here: Governor Romney seems to have a tendency to shoot first and aim later and as president one of the things I’ve learned is you can’t do that,” Obama told CBS News on Wednesday.”It’s important for you to make sure that the statements that you make are backed up by the facts and that you’ve thought through the ramifications before you make them.”

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 12, 2012 4:33 PM
Comment #352803

Stephen, I’m sure they are kooks. Who ever heard of funding a film for millions of dollars while not knowing their real name, or checking into their background?

Posted by: Adrienne at September 12, 2012 4:34 PM
Comment #352804
”It’s important for you to make sure that the statements that you make are backed up by the facts and that you’ve thought through the ramifications before you make them.”

An agreeable statement, one that would sound better if Obama were not guilty of doing the same thing in the past. Instead of accepting candidates as humans, we want them to be deities, they aren’t. It’s a shame that modern politics has no place for that kind of thinking…

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 12, 2012 4:36 PM
Comment #352806

Stephen, our fellow Americans were attacked and murdered. The proper response is not to blame some movie for encouraging muslims to react violently, it is to hold them accountable for their actions.
ALL of the fault here lies with the muslims who did this and those muslims who do nothing about them.

This dancing around on the head of pin trying not to offend them, is not good policy.

Posted by: kctim at September 12, 2012 4:52 PM
Comment #352807

kctim,
it is solely the fault of those who chose to attack a US consulate and murder people using the movie of a lone kook as an excuse to do violence. I’m sure they will be help to account for their actions if they can be found. You don’t just show up to a protest with RPGs on the spur of the moment. It sounded planned.

No one is apologizing to these people. The US embassy in Egypt issued a statement 6 hours before their embassy was attacked. They were wisely disassociating from a jackass with a camera.

Romney just made himself look not up to the job of president. So far, he’s had a horrible track record abroad. He insulted the Brits over the Olympics, he thinks Russia is our biggest foe, and made some crazy statements in Israel. Now this. He’s had more than one moment “when he lost the election,” this was another. The buzzards are going to start circling his campaign. If he doesn’t totally mop the floor with Obama in the first debate (probably in the first half hour of the first debate) he’s toast.

Posted by: tcsned at September 12, 2012 5:13 PM
Comment #352808

It’s about Egyptian imams and Muslim Brotherhood propagandists concocting any excuse for a violent anti-Western conflagration.”

I say let the religious fanatics fight it out. The American government should get out of the middle of the fighting and let those like Terry Jones, Michelle Malkin and Rush Limbaugh start Christian brotherhood groups to take the fight to the Egyptian and Libyan embassies here. Why use taxpayer dollars to fight these groups of private citizens overseas? Then these groups could take turns blowing up each others churches and such. Perhaps Mitt will be available shortly to lead the charge.

It seems to me Americans should retaliate on 05.01 for the 09.11 attacks on American embassies and personnel.

After all the governments of Egypt nor Libya attacked us just some fanatical groups in those countries.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 12, 2012 5:58 PM
Comment #352809

When we are attacked by barbarians, we should stick with our president and our country.

It is true that nothing justified the murderous mobs. The fact that it was set off by an internet movie just show the extent of the depravity of our enemies. We have nothing to apologize to them for. I also did not like it that some of the initial comments seemed to suggest that somehow we were culpable. But we need to stick with the president and Romney should have kept his comments to himself, just as Democrats should have and did in 2004.

When it comes to these angry Muslims, the fault lies entirely with them. They have no right to behave with violence as a result of an internet movie and we know that those who have are not worthy of our civilization.

Romney should have left it at this.

It does demonstrate very clearly that it was not American policy under Bush or Obama that sets off these murderous mobs. We cannot pander to them and should give up trying.

We Americans are indeed better than our enemies. These radicals are beyond the pale of civilization. I hate them for what they do. We should “understand” them only enough to render them impotent and then understand them no more.

Posted by: C&J at September 12, 2012 6:06 PM
Comment #352811

C&J - I agree with you on almost everything you said. The blame for this lies solely on those who committed these acts. The American “filmmaker” may be an idiot but if I trolled through YouTube and went after every video I found offensive I would be very busily engaged in vengeance for a long time. There are a lot of angry people out there looking for only the slightest excuse to engage in violence. There is a lot of that in the Middle East. these folks in Libya seemed more organized than the group of vandals that attacked the US embassy in Cairo. They must’ve known that the ambassador was there, I am assuming that he doesn’t spend most of his time in an outer city consulate. There’s something fishy about it.

As to an apology, I didn’t hear one from the US embassy in Egypt. I heard them distancing themselves from that vile video. Thats different than an apology.

Initially, I thought that Mitt Romney made a huge error of timing. I don’t think he knew people were killed in Libya. Understandable, he’s losing an election and just got hit hard on foreign policy and wanted to hit back. Just really unlucky timing, it made him look like he was politicizing the deaths of 4 Americans. Had he come clean, I think that would have been it. But he doubled down on his comments and that kept the whole thing alive. Just another poor political move by the Romney campaign.

Posted by: tcsned at September 12, 2012 6:39 PM
Comment #352812

C&J,
While I’d agree with most of what you said, I would urge caution in making conclusions about the attackers in Libya. There are a lot of weapons floating around loose in that country, and a lot of people with a grudge against the US; not only Muslim fundamentalists, but also Khaddafy supporters and various tribes that feel they were the victim of US policies. It would be simple enough to gin up a mob, slip into it, and launch an attack. Then again, it might be fundamentalists after all. The point is, be careful with accusations.

A point of confusion surrounds the original movie. Someone made a movie that was very intentionally very insulting to Islam, and someone else made a point of translating it into Arabic, and someone made sure Muslims knew about it in both Egypt and Libya.

Things are not as they seem. All I’m saying is, be careful about assigning blame.

We enjoy free speech. However, that does not mean it’s a good idea to go about filming profoundly insulting movies about other countries, religions, or ethnic groups. Just because it’s legal doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. Those people are not directly responsible, but they do bear an indirect responsibility.

Some good human beings in Libya are dead as a result of this whole mess, including a fine US Ambassador. As Obama said, we’ll work with the Libyan government to find out who did this, and when we do, we’ll take care of the matter in an appropriate fashion.

I don’t like sounding bloodthirsy, but I do look forward to administering ‘justice.’

Posted by: phx8 at September 12, 2012 6:41 PM
Comment #352813

oops
It’s about Egyptian imams and Muslim Brotherhood propagandists concocting any excuse for a violent anti-Western conflagration.”

should be in blockquotes it is taken from BIF’s comment#352759


Rhinehold you seem to be running a negative campaign against the dems and repubs. Why not just tell us what would Gary do were he president?

Posted by: j2t2 at September 12, 2012 6:42 PM
Comment #352815

Rhinehold-
Obama’s responding to a campaign that’s repeatedly peddled not simply what the Obama campaign calls lies, but which the media in general called lies. This is just the latest.

kctim-
First, you’re operating from a canard here. As I have already shown, the violence hadn’t even started for hours to come when that release was made. There was no attack to blame on a movie, much less this particular one.

Our diplomats should not be trying to inflame a situation, and its to their credit that they didn’t.

As far as who I blame? One reason I love this country is that we’re plenty tough about this thing. I enjoy the fact that people don’t die in our country when protesting Last Temptation of Christ, or something like that.

I think the makers of the film were highly irresponsible, and that those who acted violently, or who provided them with material aid, are very much responsible, and should be hunted down in short order.

You labor under the misapprehension that I’m not for going after terrorists. Fact is, I have no problem in them getting wiped off the face of the Earth. It was what I wanted Bush to do in the first place, rather than resolve daddy’s unfinished business in Iraq.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 12, 2012 9:22 PM
Comment #352818

BIF,
More of those lying polls for you. Clearly it’s a conspiracy, and even FOX is in on it!

Gallup tracking has Obama up +7
FOX Obama +5
Up +11 in NM (a swing state)
Up +10 in MI
Up + 4 in FL

Hey, that’s your state! How do I know you’re not actually part of the conspiracy too, BIF? Hmmm?

Oh, and today, Rush Limbaugh told you Romney was the only one behaving “presidential” re Libya. Yeah. That’s the ticket. Quite a performance.

Electoral-vote.com has Obama ahead in the electoral college 332 - 206. That includes Rasmussen polls. Nate Silver- another conspirator, of course- has it 319 - 219.

Maybe the American people are in on the conspiracy as well.

Posted by: phx8 at September 12, 2012 10:44 PM
Comment #352819
Obama’s responding to a campaign that’s repeatedly peddled not simply what the Obama campaign calls lies, but which the media in general called lies.

As is Romney. Well, without some of the media (the sources that the left will only read inside of their echo chamber) catching on since they are in the tank, but independent sources like factcheck.org are making sure to detail the lies of the Obama campaign well enough.

It’s like complaining when you hit someone and they hit you back, ‘no fair, no fair’…

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 13, 2012 12:48 AM
Comment #352820
Why not just tell us what would Gary do were he president?

I’ll let him do that…

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/gov-gary-johnson-releases-statement-regarding-libya-attack

It is tragic when Americans serving their country are murdered, and we both mourn their loss and honor their service.

Part of honoring that service is to ask the obvious question: What U.S. interest is being served by putting our people – and our money – in places where U.S. personnel can be killed by extremists over a video? We launched millions of dollars worth of missiles to bring down Gaddafi, and this is what we get. We hail and encourage the outbreak of an Arab Spring in Egypt, send them billions of dollars we can’t afford, — and our embassy is breached and our flag desecrated.

In Afghanistan, we continue to put our troops in harm’s way 10 years after our post-9/11 mission was complete. Why?

The airwaves are filled today with political chest-pounding and calls for decisive action. The most decisive and prudent action we can take today is to stop trying to manage governments and peoples on the other side of the globe who don’t want to be managed, get our people out of impossible situations that have no direct U.S. interest, and immediately stop sending money to regimes who clearly cannot or will not control their own countries.

Protecting America with a strong national defense and a rational foreign policy is our leaders’ most basic responsibility. But let us not confuse national security with senseless intervention where our interests are clearly not being served.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 13, 2012 12:52 AM
Comment #352823

I tried to figure out how people could think this would make Mitt Romney look more presidential, but then I figured it out.

This is precisely the kind of rhetoric you would think was more presidential on foreign policy if your yardstick for what’s presidential on foreign policy is George W. Bush.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 13, 2012 8:20 AM
Comment #352824

Rhinehold-
We can pretend that the world will just leave us alone, that everything will just settle in a way that’s tolerable to us, but it won’t. The motivation seems to be that of not wanting to have to change ourselves in order to deal with anybody else, any other country, any other political group within our own borders. But that doesn’t work. The world doesn’t start as a blank slate for us at birth

As far as the first part of that message goes, Obama managed to ensure the overthrow of a tyrant, and prevent what could have been one of the worst human right debacles of all times, all by acting judiciously.

If we want stability and peace, we need to realize that people have to choose it. Some may complain about the change from the former regime, but they should remember that the government that came before helped create al-Qaida through its torment of Muslim dissidents.

Besides, I don’t necessarily think that he’s got the right idea here. I think, and many others do as well, that an organized, perhaps al-Qaida affiliated organization might have used the protests as a cover for their actions.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 13, 2012 8:30 AM
Comment #352828

tcsned and SD
I do not care if some think Romney jumped the gun or looked Presidential. I do not care if some think Obama only repeated talking points in order to get back on the campaign trail, or looked Presidential.

What I do care about is this policy of false justification so as not to offend or hurt feelings. To avoid placing total responsibility where it needs to be placed.

We don’t have to “condemn” every damn little thing that pisses people off. We don’t have to bow to them and apologize for things we are not responsible for.
Our embassy wrongly felt required to do this “6 hours before,” and again when the walls were being breached. Our leaders felt the need to do this in their statements.

“condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims — as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions.”

“While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others…”

“Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation…”

And now today we are hearing that we are still being attacked. So much for kissing their ass.

Posted by: kctim at September 13, 2012 10:41 AM
Comment #352833

kctim-
There was no responsbility to be placed then, and what responsibility came next shouldn’t be put on the diplomats for offering an olive branch of common disgust. They didn’t promise that they were going to ban or censor anybody. In fact, they referenced the universal right of free speech.

Diplomats aren’t supposed to be the bombthrowers you want them to be. You’re still riding off the steroid high of the Bush Administration, and I think you should realize diplomats aren’t supposed to provoke conflicts.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 13, 2012 12:44 PM
Comment #352835

Is anyone else having trouble seeing all the posts?

Posted by: Adrienne at September 13, 2012 1:03 PM
Comment #352836
We can pretend that the world will just leave us alone, that everything will just settle in a way that’s tolerable to us, but it won’t.

When you find someone wanting to pretend that, I say take it up with them.

The motivation seems to be that of not wanting to have to change ourselves in order to deal with anybody else, any other country, any other political group within our own borders.

Here, let me make up a bunch of inane stuff, attribute it to you and then determine what your motivations are, that seems to be your debate technique.

No, the reality is that we cannot save everyone from themselves, as much as the progressives want to be able to. Countries that need to develop and are showing signs of doing so, we should help when we can in a way that is not sticking a finger in the rest of the area’s eye. But it is also high time to stop helping countries that can help themselves or refuse to do anything at all. It’s called ‘smart foreign policy’, not imperialism, which is what the conservatives and progressives have been playing in for the past few decades.

Just a point, we completed the mission in Afghanistan a decade ago. We are still there, trying to rebuild the country for them, against their will. As a result, over 1500 servicemen have died there since Obama took office, there were 500 deaths before. We are now over 2000, I seem to remember the media and the left getting up in arms about that in Iraq, but not a peep now that we have hit that number in Afghanistan. Between the US killing innocent civilians with drone strikes and the one out of every four serviceman deaths coming at the hands of the Afghan police we are supposed to be friends with, please tell me what the fuck we are still doing there!

As far as the first part of that message goes, Obama managed to ensure the overthrow of a tyrant, and prevent what could have been one of the worst human right debacles of all times, all by acting judiciously.

Hmm, didn’t we overthrow a tyrant and prevent one of the worst human right debacles of all times in Iraq? I seem to remember you being against that somehow… I wonder why… Oh yeah, the president at the time was a Republican.

If only Obama had actually followed the constitution and gotten approval before going into Libya (which he most likely would have gotten, btw) he wouldn’t have engaged in an illegal war. But that’s ok, isn’t it, since he’s a Democrat…

BTW, I know you are going to say ‘yeah, but servicemen’s lives weren’t put into harms way’ you are right. Instead, we indiscriminately killed civilians that had nothing to do with the fighting, just as we are in Yemen, Somalia and Afghanistan. Yay, that makes everything all better, doesn’t it?

I think, and many others do as well, that an organized, perhaps al-Qaida affiliated organization might have used the protests as a cover for their actions.

Wow, you think? Thanks for coming on board on that one…

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 13, 2012 1:43 PM
Comment #352837

Adrienne, the site is being wonky, you have to a refresh on the comments page to get new comments to appear. I’m assuming that some ‘optimization’ was done on the site that is causing the issue, not sure if the new owners are aware of it yet or not.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 13, 2012 1:45 PM
Comment #352838

phx8:

We enjoy free speech. However, that does not mean it’s a good idea to go about filming profoundly insulting movies about other countries, religions, or ethnic groups. Just because it’s legal doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. Those people are not directly responsible, but they do bear an indirect responsibility.

I consider it more than indirect. Without US rightwing religious extremists making their deliberately provocative film and putting a trailer for it on the internet — with a translation — NONE of this would have happened.

The fact is, there is no excuse for that, just as there is no excuse for the violence and killing that took place after the fact.

Our government needs to look into the making of this film. It was supposedly financed by rightwing religious extremists in the U.S. but the filmmaker appears to be from somewhere else and knew exactly what would happen. This can’t be written off as free speech, because this guy lied about his name and he could be anyone. He could be a part of the batsh*t crazy brigade who is trying to speed up America attacking Iran for the benefit of Israel, or he could be calling himself a Christian, but in actuality have played a role as one because he knew that stirring up a riot would give time and opportunity for the ambassador to be assasinated.
But what seems really clear is that the people who were funding this film (or trailer), and making this film, and promoting this film knews when the muslim fundamentalist nuts go crazy the christian fundamentalist nuts will follow in hopes of starting WW3, Armageddon, the rapture, and all the other ridiculous crap they believe in.

We need cool headed, rational leadership and secular diplomacy not religious lunatics looking to incite violence and death.

And let’s also be clear: This filmmaker is a COWARD who is now in hiding — rather than stepping up to fully face and fully own the sh*t storm he intentionally created. “Sam Bacile” the Mystery Man clearly wants to spill our soldiers blood to further his cause — and that is true whether he’s a American Rightwing Religious Extremist, OR a Middle Eastern Rightwing Muslim Religious Extremist.

This man had millions to make a movie that was intended to intentionally insult Muslim extremists. We know this because the trailer was translated so that the Muslim world would be able to see it. He knew that the film was highly likely to cost innocent people their lives — not only because we know that this has happened before, but because they are completely admitting that this is the case:

Klein:
“We went into this knowing this was probably going to happen,”

Bacile:
“I feel the security system (at the embassies) is no good,” said Bacile. “America should do something to change it.”

This film was intended to start war, and the makers of should most definitely be held accountable for that.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 13, 2012 1:52 PM
Comment #352841

Rhinehold, refreshing the page isn’t working for me. The only time I can see new posts is after I post something new.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 13, 2012 1:55 PM
Comment #352843

These “protestors” that shed innocent blood over a film that the victims had nothing to do with need to be taken out. I hope Obama takes care of biz. Politics aside that’s what needs to happen. The world is better off without these kind of people.

Posted by: BZA at September 13, 2012 2:17 PM
Comment #352844

Stephen, how is not apologizing for something we had nothing to do with, “bombthrowing” or “provoking conflict?”

Our government has absolutely no responsibility to defend or separate itself from words or actions that offend muslims.
We had no responsibility to be movie critics and we had no responsibility to “offer an olive branch” over it. Our only responsibility was to maybe warn those nutjobs that all agression would be met with deadly force.
You can call that some kind of “steroid high” all you want, but the follow-up attacks prove apologizing and cowering to be even less effective.

You know, if Bush was half the freakin cowboy and deregulator your people claim, this country would be alot better off right now.

Posted by: kctim at September 13, 2012 2:50 PM
Comment #352845

In Egypt and Libya the protesters were shouting…”We’re all Osama’s, Obama.”

Hmmm…shouldn’t they have been shouting something else if a movie outraged them? Obama has been claiming personal responsibility for the killing of Osama and mentioned it numerous times at the dem convention. Wasn’t Obama’s many claims for credit in the death of Osama a clear call for retribution against the US?

Neither Obama or his pathetic SecState Clinton understand the nature of Islam and its terrorist arm. Clinton expressed perplexity at the actions of a people we helped free from a dictator. She and Obama believe the Libyans should be praising and loving us rather than killing our ambassador and others in expressions of hate towards the US.

Some dems and libs forget the numerous atrocities committed against those who profess Christianity in these same countries. They now condemn freedom of religion and freedom of speech in this country if it upsets Muslims.

Muslim terrorists don’t need an excuse to attack America. They hate us and will continue to commit acts of terror against us and our interests as long as we continue to make excuses for their actions.

We have woefully weak leadership in the White House, at the State Department, and in the highest echelons of congress.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 13, 2012 2:51 PM
Comment #352847
Without US rightwing religious extremists making their deliberately provocative film and putting a trailer for it on the internet — with a translation — NONE of this would have happened.

BS. That’s like saying that if a woman hadn’t dressed prospectively, she wouldn’t have been raped. You can play that game all you want, but the fact of the matter is our actions in the MidEast are much more damaging that the ‘existence’ of a movie that makes Islam look bad.

Are we supposed to hide our heads in fear? Are we supposed to watch what we say because someone might attack us? What kind of living is that I ask?

Was Salman Rushdie a ‘right wing extremist’ when he wrote Satanic Verses? Should he have shut up and not released his book, just because the response was violent protests? What about the cartoons of a few years ago? Wasn’t the left up in arms because Bush said they shouldn’t have done that?

God this freaking partisanship hypocrisy, where everything is good on one side and bad on the other, even though they are doing the exact same thing, is …. *sigh*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cer25uaAcrg

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 13, 2012 3:26 PM
Comment #352848

Identity of mystery anti-Muslim filmmaker confirmed

Some dems and libs forget the numerous atrocities committed against those who profess Christianity in these same countries. They now condemn freedom of religion and freedom of speech in this country if it upsets Muslims.
Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech? Horsesh*t. Nakoula Basseley Nakoula is according to Wikipedia:
Nakoula Basseley Nakoula (born c. 1957), also known as Mark Basseley Youssef, Yousseff M. Basseley, Nicola Bacily, Erwin Salameh, Ahmad Hamdy, and Malid Ahlawi, is an American Coptic Christian filmmaker who serves as manager for the company that produced the anti-Muslim film Innocence of Muslims.

Life and career

Nakoula pleaded no contest in 2010 to federal bank fraud charges in California and was ordered to pay $794,701 in restitution. He was also sentenced to 21 months in federal prison. Following his release in June 2011, he was ordered not to use computers or the Internet for five years without approval from his probation officer.

Although Nakoula has denied being the film’s pseudonymous director Sam Bacile of the controversial Innocence of Muslims film, the Associated Press reported that the cellphone number Bacile used for an interview matched Nakoula’s address.

And now we know that we can add “Sam Bacile” to this criminals long list of pseudonyms.

You idiot rightwing religious extremists are so quick to defend a convicted criminal who could be America’s enemy in the name of “Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech” before you know the first damn thing about him.
And all so that you can heap attacks upon Obama in order to score some BS political points.

You people and your idiotic political party are too dangerously stupid to be running this country.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 13, 2012 3:30 PM
Comment #352849
BS. That’s like saying that if a woman hadn’t dressed prospectively, she wouldn’t have been raped. You can play that game all you want, but the fact of the matter is our actions in the MidEast are much more damaging that the ‘existence’ of a movie that makes Islam look bad.

Are we supposed to hide our heads in fear? Are we supposed to watch what we say because someone might attack us? What kind of living is that I ask?

There are religious extremists in the Middle East, as well as here at home. All Religious Extremists are dangerous people that do stupid sh*t and incite violence constantly. Since they endanger all of us around the globe, every nation should be keeping careful track of what they are doing (just like we do with terrorists), lest they intentionally create more and more violence, killings and wars that we don’t want and cannot afford.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 13, 2012 3:40 PM
Comment #352851

Yeah BZA, only why should the US government go after these protestors? Why shouldn’t the Libyan and Egyptian governments go after these guys? Our embassies are there at the consent of these governments. The movies these guys are upset about was evidently made in America should we allow the governments of these countries to come over here and “get” the guys responsible for the movie that offends them? This totalitarian approach shows a lack of respect for the liberties of the individual IMHO.

You conservatives are as bad as Romney. Just because some people in Libya perform a terrorist activity doesn’t mean that all Libyans did. Or even that all Libyans applaud what was done. This knee jerk reaction causes wars and violence that is unwarranted. Sending drones over to kill randomly will not solve the problem. That is what these terrorist want. You guys seem to want to destroy the many to get at the few. To let the few determine the future of the many in Libya. You are the problem not the solution.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 13, 2012 3:46 PM
Comment #352852

?

Posted by: bill at September 13, 2012 3:50 PM
Comment #352853

Let me ask you this, Adrienne. If I made a movie, critical of Christianity, and published this movie (say it was about the fact that the bloodline of Jesus continued on after his death due to his marriage to Mary Magdalene) and as a result, some christian religious fanatics bombed my house and tried to have me killed, would they be in the wrong or would I?

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 13, 2012 3:56 PM
Comment #352854
Sending drones over to kill randomly will not solve the problem.

This has been the main response of the Obama administration since January 2009… Is he part of the problem, not the solution? Or is it ok when He does it?

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 13, 2012 3:58 PM
Comment #352855

Some flaming liberal above would curtail our freedom of speech because of a terrorist act. What a shameful action that would be. Catering to the demands of terrorists is unimaginable.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 13, 2012 4:00 PM
Comment #352856

Romney has acted more presidential than Obama throughout this whole affair.

Secondly, the attacks on a preacher or film maker, or whoever released the film, may have been premature; it now appears this attack in Libya may have been pre-meditated and coordinated to coincide with 9/11.

Posted by: TomT at September 13, 2012 4:08 PM
Comment #352857

I wonder why obama only attends about 50% of the intelligence briefings. Some on the left would probably say that he is just so smart that he doesn’t need briefings.

I believe he is just too busy with politics to bother.

Clint Eastwood had it right…obama’s chair is just empty.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 13, 2012 4:21 PM
Comment #352859

Is there a reason that comments are not accessible? There are apparently 75 comments. However, I cannot access any of them.

Posted by: Rich at September 13, 2012 5:07 PM
Comment #352860

It’s a mystery Rich. I can see them all.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 13, 2012 5:16 PM
Comment #352861

Origins of Provocative Video Are Shrouded

This is what you idiots are attempting to defend as “Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech”:

The amateurish video opens with scenes of Egyptian security forces standing idle as Muslims pillage and burn the homes of Coptic Christians. Then it cuts to cartoonish scenes depicting the Prophet Muhammad as a child of uncertain parentage, a buffoon, a womanizer, a homosexual, a child molester and a greedy, bloodthirsty thug.
An actress who played the role of a mother in the film said in an interview that the director had originally told cast members that the film was “Desert Warriors” and would depict ancient life. Now, she said, she feels duped, angry and sad. “When I looked at the trailer, it was nothing like what we had done. There was not even a character named Muhammad in what we originally put together,” said the actress, who asked that her name not be used for fear of her safety.

Oh what “good Christians” these people must be — to lie to the people they hire and are about to endanger. I guess that’s just “lying for Jesus” which is acceptable to you rightwing extremist freaks, right?

The original idea for the film, Mr. Klein said, was to lure hard-core Muslims into a screening of the film thinking they were seeing a movie celebrating Islam. “And when they came in they would see this movie and see the truth, the facts, the evidence and the proof,” he said. “So I said, yeah, that’s a good idea.”

Trying to incite violence on the streets of America, as well. And all for the “love of Jesus.”

The Southern Poverty Law Center said Mr. Klein taught combat training to members of California’s Church at Kaweah, which the center described as a “a combustible mix of guns, extreme antigovernment politics and religious extremism” and an institution that had an “obsession with Muslims.”

Warren Campbell, the pastor of the church, said that Mr. Klein had come to the congregation twice to talk about Islam. He said the law center’s report on his church was filled “with distortions and lies.” The center also said that Mr. Klein was the founder of Courageous Christians United, which conducts demonstrations outside abortion clinics, Mormon temples and mosques. Mr. Klein also has ties to the Minuteman movement.

These people are clearly just as INSANE as the Rightwing Muslim Extremists. And so are all those who would try to claim that this religious incitement to violence and war is somehow patriotically American and must fall under “Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech.”

Posted by: Adrienne at September 13, 2012 5:20 PM
Comment #352863

The unsophisticated person immediately above continues to believe the attacks on our embassies were motivated by a movie. How juvenile. This same person even believes we should suspend our freedom of religion and freedom of speech for “certain” people.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 13, 2012 5:29 PM
Comment #352865

I suggest that the dems reopen their convention and make some platform changes. A plank could be inserted that condemns all religion bashing except for Christianity and Judaism. obama could then issue an executive order to imprison those responsible for this movie. He could add a section to his official website which would encourage Americans to report suspicious religious speech and movie making…justifying this action as being necessary for the protection of the nation.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 13, 2012 5:47 PM
Comment #352867
Romney has acted more presidential than Obama throughout this whole affair.

TomT If the standard you are using is GWB then perhaps you have a leg to stand on. For the rest of us in the real world Romney has shown his complete lack of foreign policy skills. He has used a tragedy to try to gain political advantage during an election. He is wrong and a buffoon, is that what you consider presidential?

Posted by: j2t2 at September 13, 2012 5:55 PM
Comment #352868

It is entirely appropriate for the person who is likely to be our next president to comment on foreign affairs. In fact, I will be surprised if this subject is not brought up in the upcoming debates.

obama is so flummoxed by his shallow understanding of what happened that he dare not call a press conference and be asked questions. He comments at political events where no question are asked. What a coward.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 13, 2012 6:02 PM
Comment #352870

Royal, have you heard about this?

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-romney-libya-security-briefing-20120912,0,6713466.story

Mitt Romney has yet to begin receiving the security briefing typically afforded presidential nominees, his campaign said Wednesday.

The absence of a briefing is conspicuous at a time when foreign policy has emerged as a the focal point of the campaign, following the death of four Americans, including Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens, amid violent protests in the Middle East. Last week, in his speech accepting the Democratic nomination for a second term, President Obama charged that Romney and his running mate, Paul D. Ryan, were “new to foreign policy.”

In 2008, both Obama and John McCain began receiving intelligence briefings shortly after accepting their respective party nominations for president.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 13, 2012 6:08 PM
Comment #352872

I also wonder about this, not sure what to make of it yet:

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/12/slain-ambassador-warned-in-08-about-extremists-near-benghazi/?hpt=hp_t2

Before he became U.S. ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens warned in a 2008 diplomatic cable of jihadist sentiment growing not far from Benghazi.

Stevens, who became ambassador to Libya this year, was killed this week in an attack that U.S. sources tell CNN was planned by a pro-al Qaeda group of extremists. While it is not definitively clear whether this group, or what group specifically, is behind the attack, it’s clear that Stevens expressed concern about a radical movement fomenting in the port city of Derna.

The cable was leaked in the trove that WikiLeaks released in 2010 and 2011, and CNN reported on it last year.

In his 2008 missive Stevens, who at the time was U.S. deputy chief of mission in the North African nation, wrote about that “one Libyan interlocutor likened young men in Derna to Bruce Willis’ character in the action picture “Die Hard”, who stubbornly refused to die quietly.”

There is “frustration at the inability of eastern Libyans to effectively challenge” Moammar Gadhafi’s regime, Stevens wrote.

That and “a concerted ideological campaign by returned Libyan fighters from earlier conflicts, have played important roles in Derna’s development as a wellspring of Libyan foreign fighters in Iraq.”

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 13, 2012 6:15 PM
Comment #352873

Yes Rhinehold, I was aware of Romney not being afforded access to security briefings. One can only speculate why that is. Since obama is missing from them half the time, I don’t believe it is a “seating” problem.

One could suppose that since obama considers them to be of little value he has transposed his beliefs onto Romney. I am looking at your second link…thanks.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 13, 2012 6:21 PM
Comment #352875

TomT is correct; Romney looked presidential as he spoke and then took questions from a media that had conspired to have a “gotcha” moment. On the other hand, Obama made a press statement, refused to answer questions and then headed to Vegas for a fund raiser.

Why did Hillary make the statement, “there are different views around the world about the definition of free speech”? What does American law say?

Obama and his administration are in meltdown. Obama has insulted the leader of Israel, they supported an Arab Spring that has turned into a free for all OWS with weapons, apologies to Muslims for American free speech, and the complete meltdown of the Middle-East countries and where’s Obama… a campaign fundraiser..

This is the last nail in the coffin. He’s in over his head. Some have said Obama doesn’t really want to be re-elected…perhaps they are right. Hillary’s comments about free speech will come back to haunt her in 2016.

Posted by: Frank at September 13, 2012 6:49 PM
Comment #352876

Frank, I would suppose that both obama and hillary would like the UN to define “free” speech. There have already been attempts to allow the UN to define politically correct religious behavior.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 13, 2012 6:57 PM
Comment #352877

Royal, perhaps Obama is planning to stay in office another 4 years by executive privilige, therefore, there is no need to brief Romney.

Posted by: Frank at September 13, 2012 6:58 PM
Comment #352878

Royal, I believe Hillary and Obama have also tried to let the UN define “2nd Amendment” rights as well.

Posted by: Frank at September 13, 2012 7:00 PM
Comment #352880

Well Frank…there is the “divine right of kings” theory that I suspect obama subscribes to. As for the 2nd Amendment…would-be tyrants always want to disarm their subjects.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 13, 2012 7:07 PM
Comment #352882

It seems that the “Arab Spring” garden is sprouting weeds. We need a “weedkiller” like Romney and not more bs fertilizer as obama believes.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 13, 2012 7:12 PM
Comment #352883

Thomas Farr, director of the Religious Freedom Project and the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace & World Affairs at Georgetown University. “At its root is the view, widely accepted among Muslims abroad, that anyone who offends Islam must be punished, either by the state or private actors.”

Farr, who addressed the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ June meeting, continued:

Across the world we are seeing increasing levels of violence against anyone, Muslim or non-Muslim, accused of blasphemy, defamation of Islam, or apostasy … Yesterday US Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stephens and three other Americans were murdered by people offended by a film insulting the Prophet Mohammed. The walls of the US Embassy in Cairo were stormed by mobs because of that film.

Let me be clear. No one should insult the sacred beliefs of another. It is an assault on human dignity and respect for others. But the malevolent idea that the proper response to defamation of religion is criminal prosecution, let alone violence or murder, is a dangerous problem in the Muslim-majority world. My religion is insulted regularly by the New York Times and the Washington Post. I frequently am outraged. But I try to respond with my voice or my pen. That is the only way people with deep differences can live together in a civilized society.

It is frankly a source of great concern to me that the US Embassy in Cairo issued a press release yesterday, on the anniversary of 9/11, that did not condemn this violence against innocent people, but condemned those who “hurt the religious feelings of Muslims” and other religious believers. The issue here is not hurt feelings. It is violent religious extremism that is destroying lives and endangering American security`. I would have thought that American diplomats learned decades ago that appeasement of tyrants does not work. It simply makes things worse.

This toxic attitude — that anyone offending Islam must be punished — is responsible for many of the growing numbers of attacks on religious minorities worldwide, attacks that are causing an estimated 150,000 Christian deaths per year. This tragedy, I would submit, warrants far more attention that it has received from Western policy makers and the media.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 13, 2012 7:28 PM
Comment #352887

phx8

Yes. In the bag for Democrats. Tell your guys to stand down. No worries.

Posted by: C&J at September 13, 2012 9:24 PM
Comment #352889

What is wrong with this site?

Posted by: Bill at September 13, 2012 9:43 PM
Comment #352891

I listened to a retired General on one of the news shows today; he said the only thing Muslims understand is force. If they kill 4, then we kill 400. Israel has lived by this rule. The gutless liberals spend their whole life trying to appease terrorists. We see this in the world tour apologies by Obama and the apologies by Hillary Clinton. They will never learn, the only thing terrorists understand is force. This is why Obama wants to cut the military.

The liberals on the news channel had a cow at the General’s recommendations.

Posted by: Frank at September 13, 2012 9:54 PM
Comment #352893

Royal Flush,

The statement of the US Embassy in Cairo was issued before any violence had occurred. It was as you quoted a generic condemnation of all attacks against religion, not just against the Muslim religion. It certainly could not be considered an “appeasement of violence” since none had yet occurred.

That said, it is also clear that it was not the official position of the US State Department nor of the Obama administration generally. Indeed, the State Department had instructed the Embassy in Cairo not to issue the statement without major revisions. http://www.salon.com/2012/09/13/cairo_embassys_statement_what_went_wrong/

Posted by: Rich at September 13, 2012 10:29 PM
Comment #352894

“The gutless liberals spend their whole life trying to appease terrorists.”

Frank, you do realize that one of the possible causes of the Libyan attack was to revenge the death in June of Abu Yahya al-Libi, a senior Libyan member of al-Qaeda in Pakistan by US forces. So, the “gutless” liberals caused this attack by appeasing terrorists by killing them.

Posted by: Rich at September 13, 2012 10:38 PM
Comment #352901

Frank-
Word salad may be nutritious to you, but not to me. First, the suggestion the general came up with is terminally stupid, and anybody who avoided serving under his command was lucky. You do not lose the moral high ground by taking revenge on the civilian population. That’s part of the sort of crap that lost the European powers so many of their colonies.

We should not be the people stupid enough to lose our heads in all this. We should be the folks who keep our focus sharp. We should be the folks who hunt down the guilty, and the guilty alone.

By the way, you do know that Wiping out a bunch of people for opposing you is what Moammar Qadafi did, or tried to do. I would sure hope we are not as evil or foolish as the people we confront.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 14, 2012 1:56 AM
Comment #353057

?

Posted by: Wilbur at September 14, 2012 9:21 AM
Comment #353104

The Bible only tells of David killing Goliath. But David picked up 5 stones. Goliath had 4 brothers. Hmmm.
Do you think he had any problem killing them?

There is a time and place to kill the enemy. I can’t think of a time not to.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at September 14, 2012 8:50 PM
Comment #353131

tom humes-
The Bible also tells of loving our enemies. Can you think of a reason why, tough guy, that Jesus told us to do that?

I think killing anybody is something to be avoided, enemy or not, until necessity requires it. Then it is to be done, done quickly and cleanly, and in a way that doesn’t backfire to our disadvantage.

Besides, we’re America, and we got Marines. Does shooting protestors make us David? We can hold back, most of the time.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 15, 2012 3:04 PM
Comment #353135

Stephen, You are right Jesus did say love your enimies, but he also dosen’t want us to be stupid about it when they are attacking and killing us for no good reason. The book of Ecclesiastes 3rd Chapter tells us there is a season for everything including killing and war.

Posted by: KAP at September 15, 2012 5:27 PM
Comment #353322

Why do liberals feel perfectly fine attacking Mormons for not believing in gay marriage, having had multiple wives a century ago and not celebrating alternative lifestyles, while they excuse Muslims for having multiple wives today, stoning gays and generally opposing tolerance?


I think it is the same reason animal rights liberals toss paint on old ladies in fur coats but leave alone motorcycle gangs dressed in leather.

Posted by: C&J at September 18, 2012 5:59 PM
Post a comment