[subego]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/09/12/romney-calls-obama-response-to-libya-attacks-disgraceful/

Short form:

Embassy in Cairo is stormed during a protest over a movie. No one injured.
Cairo Embassy releases response decrying movie.
Embassy in Libya is stormed, several people killed, including our diplomat.
Romney decries Obama for sympathizing with those who waged the attacks.

Yes. The "sympathy" we're talking about was from the Cairo Embassy, which Romney attributes directly to Obama as being about the Libya incident.



Edit: my timetable's off. it's worse than this. Read the thread.

[The Final Dakar]

Apologies for the drive-by as I'm buried here at work, but why is this asshole smirking at a press conference about the deaths in Libya? I'm loathe to go personal but this strikes me as ****ing vile. Am I missing context here?

[subego]

I'm not even going to try.

[Demonhood]

No, you've pretty much got it. He feels cocky because he thinks he's hit on an opportunity to get Obama where he has some strength (the president polls quite well in foreign policy). It just so happens this is a terrible opportunity to challenge him. Kind of desperate. Politically idiotic. He should fire whichever advisor told him this was a good idea.

[The Final Dakar]

That's what it looks like to me. That he has calculated that this is the opportunity he's been waiting for to attack Obama and is giddy. I just want other opinions because it's a little too close to the caricature of the cold calculating evil businessman for me to accept.

(The recently published piece on his meeting with the gay marriage people while governor is also coloring this perception)

[lpkmckenna]

Romney is a craven, conniving prick. He'd crow over the corpse of his own grandmother if he thought it could help his election chances.

Speaking of chances, the odds are now nearly 80% Obama, 20% Romney. He's the worst Republican candidate since Goldwater.

[P]

The thing is that Romney is going to lose the electoral college if he doesn't do something soon. Even a last-minute boost that nets him the popular vote (and that would have to be some boost at this point) is not at all certain to get him to 280. All that posturing to the right has lost him the swing voters he needs. It doesn't matter if he wins the Deep South by 20 points if he loses Ohio, Florida and Virginia. Right now he's behind in all three of those states, and he pretty much needs all of them to win. He's hoping that this thing escalates, so he can get some points out of it. It may be a long shot, but he doesn't have all that many options left.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by subego 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/09/12/romney-calls-obama-response-to-libya-attacks-disgraceful/
Short form:
Cairo Embassy releases statement decrying movie in order to defuse tensions over the release of this idiotic and insulting movie.
Embassy in Cairo is stormed during a protest over a movie. No one injured.
Embassy in Libya was attacked with a rocket launcher, several people killed, including our diplomat. The latest reports are indicating it was a pre-planned attack by an al-Qaeda affiliate in retaliation to the US drone strike that killed the al-Qaeda #2 guy there.
Romney decries Obama for sympathizing with those who waged the attacks.
Yes. The "sympathy" we're talking about was from the Cairo Embassy, which Romney attributes directly to Obama as being about the Libya incident.

FTFY.

In an attempt to make a political attack against the Obama Administration Romney jumped into the fray before all the facts were known and made himself look like a complete ass. I imagine But he is behaving very DESPERATE at this stage in the game.

OAW

[subego]

The statement from the Cairo Embassy happened before the Cairo protest?

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

That's what it looks like to me. That he has calculated that this is the opportunity he's been waiting for to attack Obama and is giddy. I just want other opinions because it's a little too close to the caricature of the cold calculating evil businessman for me to accept.
(The recently published piece on his meeting with the gay marriage people while governor is also coloring this perception)

I'm not sure I buy the gay marriage story yet. I need more witnesses.

I'm still not gonna try with the smirk. Maybe later. I need to do research for that.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by subego 

The statement from the Cairo Embassy happened before the Cairo protest?

Has Mitt Romney twisted the narrative of Tuesday's attacks at U.S. missions in Libya and Egypt?

A timeline of the events suggests Romney was wrong in his accusation that the Obama administration's "first response" on Tuesday was one of sympathy for those who started the violence itself–as the violence came after the first statement was published.

And Romney's comments Wednesday characterized that response as standing "in apology" when the embassy's statement was not actually an apology but a condemnation.

The timeline:

Tuesday morning in Egypt, the U.S. Embassy in Cairo released a statement stating it "condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims." The statement came after protests erupted in parts of the Arab world in response to an online video found offensive by Muslims.

While the statement doesn't specifically mention the video, it says the embassy "firmly reject(s) the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others." READ THE FULL STATEMENT HERE.

After the statement, protesters began to breach the embassy in Cairo, where ultimately several men scaled the walls of the mission and tore down its American flag.

At 6:30 p.m. ET - The embassy then tweeted about its earlier statement: "This morning's condemnation (issued before protests began) still stands. As does our condemnation of unjustified breach of the Embassy." The tweet was posted by a foreign service officer, CNN confirmed. Several State Department sources said that the U.S. ambassador to Egypt did not sign off on the original statement, as she was in Washington at the time.

Reports then emerged Tuesday evening, Eastern Standard Time, of attacks on the consulate in Benghazi, Libya. The State Department also told CNN that a consulate employee had been killed in the attacks. At the time, however, the employee's nationality was not clear.

At 10:10 p.m. ET, Romney's campaign released an embargoed (until midnight) statement blasting the Obama administration. The statement had a veiled reference to the Egypt embassy's statement that condemned offensive speech against Muslims and referred to it as the administration's "first response":

"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." READ THE FULL STATEMENT HERE.

At 10:25 p.m. ET, the campaign lifted the embargo, and news outlets began reporting the statement.

At 12:11 a.m. ET, Obama's re-election campaign put out a statement, accusing Romney of taking a political swipe during the crisis.

"We are shocked that, at a time when the United States of America is confronting the tragic death of one of our diplomatic officers in Libya, Governor Romney would choose to launch a political attack."

TRENDING: Romney's political pretzel over Libya - CNN.com

OAW

[subego]

Well, holy crap in an old lady's pants.

I didn't think this could be worse.

[OAW]

Well Romney seems to be still running his mouth. Give him enough time ....

OAW

[OAW]

President Obama responded today to Mitt Romney's attack on him for his administration's handling of the violence in Egypt and Libya, saying the Republican presidential nominee has "a tendency to shoot first and aim later."

"There's a broader lesson to be learned here, and, you know, Gov. Romney seems to have a tendency to shoot first and aim later," Obama said in an interview with CBS's 60 Minutes. A portion of the interview aired in a CBS Special Report. "As president, one of the things I've learned is you can't do that. It's important for you to make sure that the statements you make are backed up by the facts, and that you thought through the ramifications before you make them."

Asked if he thought the statements made by Romney were irresponsible, Obama said, "I'll let the American people judge that."
Romney yesterday criticized the Obama administration for a statement released by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo that he charged was "disgraceful" and sympathized "with those who waged the attacks.”

The statement from the embassy did not appear to "sympathize" with attackers, but condemned a fringe video made in the United States that criticized the Prophet Mohammed and was blamed with inflaming radicals in the Middle East who scaled the embassy walls in Cairo and killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other State Department officials.

The Cairo embassy statement also came out hours before the attack on the Cairo embassy even took place. Romney today did not back away from his statement, prompting criticism from some in the diplomatic community.

Obama responds: Romney tends to 'shoot first and aim later' - NBCNews.com

OAW

[Dork.]

Romney is not going to let his campaign be dictated by "fact-checkers"....

[Mrjinglesusa]

I cannot possibly fathom how any reasonable person could vote for this ass clown.

There comes a time when you have to look at the PERSON, not his politics, and vote accordingly.

This guy is a simpleton driven by greed and power, not commonsense and decency.

[ebuddy]

Politics are disgusting.

Romney made the statement regarding the Embassy apology for the abuse of free speech. The White House was concerned about this argument and divorced itself from the Cairo statement only to reiterate it again once they felt Romney stepped in it enough that this would be the storyline. It should also be noted that a Presidential candidate is generally briefed on classified information, but Romney has not been given timely information.

All this feigned outrage over the tragedy here and no mention of the actual tragedy? Politics indeed. If you don't like the contentious nature of politics today, blame yourselves and the voyeurs like you who would hold someone to account for not saying something. That's where we're at folks. I'm sorry. I'm sorry for the death of the good ambassador, embassy staff, and the state of politics today.

[ebuddy]

That said, Romney will likely lose the election.

[Demonhood]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

All this feigned outrage over the tragedy here and no mention of the actual tragedy? Politics indeed. If you don't like the contentious nature of politics today, blame yourselves and the voyeurs like you who would hold someone to account for not saying something.

Oh please. Enough of this tactic.

1) Politician does something stupid.
2) People point out stupidity.
3) Supporters of politician briefly accept that it was "ill-advised".
4) Supporters call out the people who pointed it out as being insensitive, inhuman or not focusing on the "real issue".
5) Rinse. Repeat.

That everyone here condemns this attack, thinks they were horrific and feels sadly for the family/friends of the deceased is a given. You don't get to be a better human being than the rest of us because you chose to speak of the dead instead of the politics one candidate introduced. This thread is about how, inexplicably, one politician did not react in a reasonable and measured manner to a tragedy. Don't try to change the subject.

We can still have a real discussion here without resorting to such tactics. Or name calling, Mrjinglesusa. It was a boneheaded move on Romney's part, but calling him silly names doesn't make any of us look very mature.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Politics are disgusting.
Romney made the statement regarding the Embassy apology for the abuse of free speech. The White House was concerned about this argument and divorced itself from the Cairo statement only to reiterate it again once they felt Romney stepped in it enough that this would be the storyline. It should also be noted that a Presidential candidate is generally briefed on classified information, but Romney has not been given timely information.
All this feigned outrage over the tragedy here and no mention of the actual tragedy? Politics indeed. If you don't like the contentious nature of politics today, blame yourselves and the voyeurs like you who would hold someone to account for not saying something. That's where we're at folks. I'm sorry. I'm sorry for the death of the good ambassador, embassy staff, and the state of politics today.

“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... t’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.”

Where are you getting this statement is about an abuse of free speech?

Who exactly are you accusing of feigned outrage? Me?

[subego]

Okay... this just entered the Twilight Zone.

http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=284877

One of the film's actresses, Cindy Lee Garcia, told Gawker that, as far as she knew, the film was going to be "based on how things were 2,000 years ago," a time period that predates Islam by some 600 years.

"It wasn't based on anything to do with religion, it was just on how things were run in Egypt. There wasn't anything about Muhammed or Muslims or anything," Garcia told Gawker. According to Garcia, the character portrayed as Muhammed was called "Master George" in the script.

Here's an alleged still:

[lpkmckenna]

ebuddy, you've become progressively more detached from reality as this election campaign continues. I used to think of you as MacNN's intelligent conservative. Now you spout nothing but Republican talking points and excuses. It won't be long before you become a Republican who aggressively distances himself from Romney in same way Republicans aggressively distanced themselves from Bush.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Politics are disgusting.

A pathetic cop-out, but some variation of this always come out of conservatives when their candidates behave like jackasses. It's not politics that's disgusting here, it's Romney's behaviour.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It should also be noted that a Presidential candidate is generally briefed on classified information, but Romney has not been given timely information.

Pfft. This doesn't even merit a giggle. This is literally the worst excuse of Romney's behaviour imaginable. Even if it were true, all it tells us is that Romney shoots his mouth off when he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

All this feigned outrage over the tragedy here and no mention of the actual tragedy?

There is no feigned outrage. Romney said something aggressively stupid, and he's being called out for it. There is no lack of sympathy for the victims.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

If you don't like the contentious nature of politics today, blame yourselves and the voyeurs like you who would hold someone to account for not saying something.

Politics has always been contentious. Politician says or does a stupid thing and it torpedoes the entire campaign. There is nothing new here, there is nothing to be upset about that is different from any other year. Except, perhaps, that Romney has made multiple mistakes of this magnitude, over and over again.

I mean, really, pull your head out of the sand and ask yourself: is politics today really more contentious than the era of Vietnam, the Civil Rights era, or hell the time before and after the Civil War? And that's just the American experience, with it's slender political spectrum; can you imagine what politics is like in some European nations, with anarchists, fascists, and communists holding seats in parliament?

If politics looks contentious to you, it's just because your candidate is a bumbling twit who is getting righteously pummelled for being a lying, self-aggrandizing douche.

[Spheric Harlot]

That was totally awesome.

[ebuddy]

I'm taking issue with what is being made of Romney's "behavior" folks. We've got a bunch of disconnected posts of bogus outrage in an attempt to blow this thing up as big as possible for -- POLITICAL REASONS. It hardly makes sense to rail on Romney's haste to differentiate himself from the President when you all are apparently as hasty in your partisan BS, but I think we all need to take a deep breath here.

NYT - Timeline of Events

Tuesday, about 6 a.m., before the attack in Benghazi (all times Eastern)
Statement From the U.S. Embassy in Cairo

The embassy released this statement, apparently referring to a provocative anti-Islam video, in an effort to cool tensions in the area. The statement came before protests on the American embassy in Cairo and the attack on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi.
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.
Original Statement »

The attack in Benghazi occurred in the evening on Tuesday, Libya time — about midafternoon on the East Coast in the United States.

Tuesday, about 6:30 p.m.
In Twitter Message, U.S. Embassy Stands by Statement

The American embassy in Cairo sends a message on Twitter that it "still stands" by their initial statement. The message was later deleted.
This morning's condemnation (issued before protest began) still stands. As does our condemnation of unjustified breach of the Embassy
Archive of Tweets »

Tuesday, 10:08 p.m.
Clinton Confirms Death of One American in Libya

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton initially announced that one American had been killed in the attack in Libya.
I condemn in the strongest terms the attack on our mission in Benghazi today. As we work to secure our personnel and facilities, we have confirmed that one of our State Department officers was killed. We are heartbroken by this terrible loss. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family and those who have suffered in this attack.

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

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

In light of the events of today, the United States government is working with partner countries around the world to protect our personnel, our missions, and American citizens worldwide.

Original Statement »

Tuesday, 10:10 p.m.
Politico Reports Obama Administration Disavows Embassy Statement

Politico cites an "administration official", who said:
The statement by Embassy Cairo was not cleared by Washington and does not reflect the views of the United States government.
Politico Story »

Tuesday, 10:24 p.m.
Romney Criticizes Administration's Response

Romney's comment, apparently referring to the embassy statement, was sent to The New York Times about 10:10 p.m., originally embargoed until midnight. The embargo was lifted at 10:24 p.m.
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.

Related Story »

Wednesday, 12:09 a.m.
Obama Spokesman Responds to Romney's Statement

Statement from Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for the Obama campaign, in an email to reporters.
We are shocked that, at a time when the United States of America isconfronting the tragic death of one of our diplomatic officers in Libya,Governor Romney would choose to launch a political attack.
Related Story »

Wednesday, 7:22 a.m.
President Confirms Death of the Ambassador and Three Others

President Obama released this statement, and also held a press conference Wednesday morning. Mrs. Clinton made a separate televised statement.
I strongly condemn the outrageous attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi, which took the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Right now, the American people have the families of those we lost in our thoughts and prayers. They exemplified America's commitment to freedom, justice, and partnership with nations and people around the globe, and stand in stark contrast to those who callously took their lives.

I have directed my Administration to provide all necessary resources to support the security of our personnel in Libya, and to increase security at our diplomatic posts around the globe. While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.

...
Full Statement »

Wednesday, 10:17 a.m.
Romney's Televised Remarks About the Attack

Mitt Romney made televised remarks Wednesday. He called the embassy statement, which preceded the attack, "akin to an apology” and a “severe miscalculation.” The partial transcript is from Federal News Service.
…. with tragic news and felt heavy hearts as they considered that individuals who have served in our diplomatic corps were brutally murdered across the world.

This attack on American individuals and embassies is outrageous. It's disgusting. It -- it breaks the hearts of all of us who think of these people who have served during their lives the cause of freedom and justice and honor. We mourn their loss and join together in prayer that the spirit of the Almighty might comfort the families of those who have been so brutally slain.

Four diplomats lost their life, including the U.S. ambassador, J. Christopher Stevens, in the attack on our embassy at Benghazi, Libya. And of course, with these words, I extend my condolences to the grieving loved ones who have left behind as a result of these who have lost their lives in the service of our nation. And I know that the people across America are grateful for their service, and we mourn their sacrifice.

America will not tolerate attacks against our citizens and against our embassies. We'll defend, also, our constitutional rights of speech and assembly and religion. We have confidence in our cause in America. We respect our Constitution. We stand for the principles our Constitution protects. We encourage other nations to understand and respect the principles of our Constitution, because we recognize that these principles are the ultimate source of freedom for individuals around the world.

I also believe the administration was wrong to stand by a statement sympathizing with those who had breached our embassy in Egypt instead of condemning their actions. It's never too early for the United States government to condemn attacks on Americans and to defend our values. The White House distanced itself last night from the statement, saying it wasn't cleared by Washington, and that reflects the mixed signals they're sending to the world.

The attacks in Libya and Egypt underscore that the world remains a dangerous place and that American leadership is still sorely needed. In the face of this violence, America cannot shrink from the responsibility to lead. American leadership is necessary to ensure that events in the region don't spin out of control. We cannot hesitate to use our influence in the region to support those who share our values and our interests.

Over the last several years we stood witness to an Arab Spring that presents an opportunity for a more peaceful and prosperous region but also poses the potential for peril if the voices -- forces of extremism and violence are allowed to control the course of events. We must strive to ensure that the Arab Spring does not become an Arab winter.

Q: The statement you refer to was very -- (inaudible) -- last night -- (inaudible) -- given what we know now?

MR. ROMNEY: I -- the embassy in Cairo put out a statement after their grounds had been breached. Protesters were inside the grounds. They reiterated that statement after the breach. I think it's a terrible course to -- for America to stand in apology for our values, that instead when our grounds are being attacked and being breached, that the first response of the United States must be outrage at the breach of the sovereignty of our nation. And apology for America's values is never the right course.

Q: Governor Romney, do you think, though, coming so soon after the events really had unfolded overnight, it was appropriate to be weighing in on this as this crisis is unfolding in real time?

MR. ROMNEY: The White House also issued a statement saying it tried to distance itself from those comments and said they were not reflecting of their views. I had the exact same reaction. These views were inappropriate, they were the wrong course to take. When our embassy is -- has been breached by protesters, the first response should not be to say, yes, we stand by our comments that suggest that there's something wrong with the right of free speech.

Q: So what did the White House do wrong then, Governor Romney, if they -- if they put out a statement saying --

MR. ROMNEY: It's their administration -- their administration spoke. The president takes responsibility not just for the words that come from his mouth but also from the words that come from his ambassadors, from his administration, from his embassies, from his State Department. They clearly -- they clearly sent mixed messages to the world. And -- and the statement that came from the administration -- and the embassy is the administration -- the statement that came from the administration was a -- was a statement which is akin to apology and I think was a -- a -- a severe miscalculation.

Q: Governor, some --

Q: Talk about mixed signals -- (inaudible) -- itself a mixed signal when you criticize the administration at a time -- (inaudible)?

MR. ROMNEY: We're -- we have a campaign for presidency of the United States and are speaking about the different courses we would each take with regards to the challenges that the world faces. The president and I, for instance, have differences of opinion with regards to Israel and our policies there, with regards to Iran, with regards to Afghanistan, with regards to Syria. We have many places of distinction and differences.

We joined together in the condemnation of the attacks on American embassies and the loss of American life and joined in the sympathy for these people. But it's also important for me -- just as it was for the White House last night, by the way -- to say that the statements were inappropriate and, in my view, a disgraceful statement on the part of our administration to apologize for American values.

Q: Governor, some people are saying you jumped the gun a little in putting that statement out last night and that you should have waited until more details were available. Do you regret having that statement come out so early, before we learned about all the things that were happening?

MR. ROMNEY: I don't think we ever hesitate when we see something which is a violation of our principles. We express immediately when we feel that the president and his administration have done something which is inconsistent with the principles of America. Simply put, having an embassy which is -- has been breached and has protesters on its grounds, having violated the sovereignty of the United States -- having that embassy reiterate a statement effectively apologizing for the right of free speech is not the right course for an administration.

STAFF: Last question.

Q: If you had known last night that the ambassador had died -- and obviously, I'm gathering you did not know --

MR. ROMNEY: Well, that came -- that came later.

Q: That's right. If you had known that the ambassador had died, would you have issued --

MR. ROMNEY: I'm not going -- I'm not going to take hypotheticals about what would have been known when and so forth.
We responded last night to the events that happened in Egypt.

Q: Governor, what sort of --

Q: Governor Romney, your -- one of your professed reasons for running is your economic know-how and your private sector experience. But now that foreign policy and the situation in the Middle East -- (off mic) -- the presidential campaign, can you talk about why, specifically, you think you're better qualified than President Obama -- (off mic)?

MR. ROMNEY: I think President Obama has demonstrated a lack of clarity as to a foreign policy. My foreign policy has three fundamental branches: first, confidence in our cause, a recognition that the principles America was based upon are not something we shrink from or apologize for, that we stand for those principles; the second is clarity in our purpose, which is that when we have a foreign policy objective, we describe it honestly and clearly to the American people, to Congress and to the people of the world; and number three is resolve in our might, that in those rare circumstances, those rare circumstances where we decide it's essential for us to apply military might, that we do so with overwhelming force, that we do so in the clarity of a mission, understanding the nature of the U.S. interest involved, understanding when the mission would be complete, what will be left when it is -- what will be left behind us when that mission has been -- has been terminated.

These elements, I believe, are essential to our foreign policy, and I haven't seen them from the president. As I watched -- as I've watched over the past three and a half years, the president has had some successes. He's had some failures. It's a hit-or-miss approach, but it has not been based upon sound foreign policy.

Q: Governor Romney, how, specifically -- how, specifically, Governor Romney, would President Romney have handled this situation differently than President Obama did? Before midnight, when all the facts were known? How would you have handled it differently than the president did?

MR. ROMNEY: I spoke out when the key fact that I referred to was known, which was that the Embassy of the United States issued what appeared to be an apology for American principles. That was a mistake. And I believe that when a mistake is made of that significance, you speak out.

How exactly does this make Romney appear to be a blood-thirsty opportunist again and how is your reaction in regards to this timeline of events any different?

[lpkmckenna]

Congratulations on your epic thread-crap, ebuddy. It demonstrates how much you are sucking up the twisted messaging of the Romney campaign and spitting it back out again, exactly as I accused you of doing in my post above.

Romney (and you) are claiming that, as he said "The White House also issued a statement saying it tried to distance itself from those comments and said they were not reflecting of their views. I had the exact same reaction."

That's utterly fncking riciculous. The reactions were not remotely the same at all.

Romney accused the "administration" of "sympathiz[ing] with those who waged the attacks," which is utterly false. Read the statement from the embassy, that simply never happened. It's also impossible to sympathize with attackers when no attack has actually taken place yet.

Romney also asserted that the administration's "first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions," which is also completely false, given that the statement from the embassy came before the attacks. And when the attacks did happen, Clinton condemned them strongly.

Romney's assertion that his behaviour is exactly the same as the White House is demonstrably false, and it's utterly mind-boggling that you are yet again swallowing these Romney talking points like Gospel.

And of course, you accused everyone yet again of "bogus outrage." Sorry, a respectable human being doesn't accuse his fellow countrymen of sympathizing with terrorists without a shed of reason or excuse. That's reprehensible, unforgivable behaviour.

Far from his reaction being the same as Obama's, Romney's words are more akin to Sarah Palin's, with her moronic "pals around with terrorists" remark.

EDIT: The craziest thing is: this is yet another flip-flop from Romney. Romney once himself condemned the Koran-burning by Terry Jones as reprehensible behaviour, now he condemns any condemnations of yet another Muslim-hating gesture by Terry Jones with this stupid video.

So which is it, Romney: defend Islamophobia as free speech, or condemn it as pointless inflammatory garbage?

LA Times: Half-cocked Romney finds Obama apology where there is none.

[BadKosh]

And the embassy ISN'T the White House. They didn't clear the messages coming from the embassy. Several people were texting out from the embassy, and not all of it was cleared.

Where was Owe-bama? NOT at any security briefings. 60 Minutes interview? Yup. With 9/11 coming up and the Owe-bama admin failed to pay attention. Ask the REAL questions, not more Romney bashing. That just changes the subject from Owe-bamas horrid job as president. He sure doesn't want the job very much or he would be working, not fund raising and golfing.

[subego]

@ebuddy

Do you think "the Obama administration sympathized with the attackers" is a true statement?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

And the embassy ISN'T the White House. They didn't clear the messages coming from the embassy. Several people were texting out from the embassy, and not all of it was cleared.
Where was Owe-bama? NOT at any security briefings. 60 Minutes interview? Yup. With 9/11 coming up and the Owe-bama admin failed to pay attention. Ask the REAL questions, not more Romney bashing. That just changes the subject from Owe-bamas horrid job as president. He sure doesn't want the job very much or he would be working, not fund raising and golfing.

He'a too busy to meet with the Israeli PM next week?

The story now is that the attack plans were known about as early as 09/04.


The press has Obama's back.

Open mic catches reporters coordinating questions

[subego]

You mean those journalists had the gall to conspire to ask Romney questions? At a press conference no less?

Partisan bastards.

[The Final Dakar]

Uh, catching up from last night I have to say I'm confused by this thread. Not sure who got taken to task for not saying something.


I'm also confused as to the entire cause of the situation. I've heard perhaps this is an organized attack or its because of that retarded video. (If its the latter, I hope that person is happy with what they stirred up).

So with that in mind, I'd like to post something positive in here instead.

When was the last time this happened?







Sounds like some Libyans actually respected the Ambassador. Despite the terrible circumstances, I find some of my faith in humanity has been restored.

[OAW]

With this incident we see yet another example of Romney's unabashed prevarication. Similar to his repeatedly debunked accusations about welfare reform. Anytime a guy is running for POTUS and says something like this ....

Originally Posted by Gov. Romney

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.

.... well he could legitimately be accused of not following the old adage of "US politics stops at the water's edge." One could legitimately say that he "jumped the gun" and stuck his foot in his mouth by trying to turn a tragic event into a political attack while it was still unfolding. But when it is repeatedly pointed out to him that this statement was made HOURS BEFORE any attack took place in Cairo or Benghazi and then he chooses to DOUBLE DOWN on it anyway ... well then that's when it becomes virtually impossible to not simply call him a LIAR. If you didn't think this man would SAY ANYTHING to become President before given his history of being on all sides of an issue depending on which way the political winds were blowing ... well it ought to be patently obvious by now. The Middle East is a freaking powder-keg right now ... and the last thing we need is some guy in the Oval Office who's willing to fly off the handle half-cocked on some bullish*t.

OAW

[subego]

I've been wanting to cut Romney slack. Having him go off the rails does no one any good (despite what some may think).

But, the Obama administration sympathized with the attackers.

That's... that's like something Abe would say.

[Chongo]

Short memory?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXNF4_09BOI

[VIDEO]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXNF4_09BOI[/VIDEO]

[subego]

Not shown in that clip: Obama accusing Bush and McCain of sympathizing with the attackers.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

ebuddy, you've become progressively more detached from reality as this election campaign continues. I used to think of you as MacNN's intelligent conservative. Now you spout nothing but Republican talking points and excuses. It won't be long before you become a Republican who aggressively distances himself from Romney in same way Republicans aggressively distanced themselves from Bush.

Of all people, I'm most glad you responded to me mckenna. I can think of few others who would've reacted to my post this way and in many respects you're the very mentality that post was intended to address. You're way too dug in. Trust me.

A pathetic cop-out, but some variation of this always come out of conservatives when their candidates behave like jackasses.

The statement, politics are disgusting, is nothing more than an opinion mckenna; lamenting the state of affairs nowadays. You like 'em?

It's not politics that's disgusting here, it's Romney's behaviour.

Really? See I thought the attack on the US Consulate was disgusting behavior, but you may have overlooked that as the purveyor of leftist intellect, burdened with the responsibility of figuring the end of global unrest and hunger or measuring the integrity of everyone with a dissenting view. Your behavior is far worse than I suspect Romney could be on his worst day... in private. And why politics are disgusting.

Pfft. This doesn't even merit a giggle. This is literally the worst excuse of Romney's behaviour imaginable. Even if it were true, all it tells us is that Romney shoots his mouth off when he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Shoots off at the mouth without knowing all the facts? Good point. Okay, I've decided I'm voting for Romney.

Anyway, with this lack of understanding you should go broke running for public office. Right now, media is parked outside Romney's location. They're waiting for him to show his face so they can ask him what he would do to address the scenario du jour and what he thinks of the incumbent President's action. There is no way he would be silent. None. No matter how badly you want it. Romney has been criticizing our current administration's response to tensions in the Middle East from long before this incident. He's not going to ignore it when his complaints manifest themselves on the world stage and during the most important election of his lifetime. Otherwise, I have no idea what you're blathering on about Romney not knowing what he's talking about. Again, please save your doodles of bloody stick-figure Romneys writhing in razor blades for another worksheet.

There is no feigned outrage. Romney said something aggressively stupid, and he's being called out for it. There is no lack of sympathy for the victims.

You were so engaged with this piece that your first response was slander and a link to election numbers.

I still haven't a clue what it is Romney is supposedly being called out for. I mean I see you here protesting, but I'm not reading the timeline of events as profitably horrific as you.

Politics has always been contentious. Politician says or does a stupid thing and it torpedoes the entire campaign. There is nothing new here, there is nothing to be upset about that is different from any other year. Except, perhaps, that Romney has made multiple mistakes of this magnitude, over and over again.

You know, you're not really doing a great job of differentiating Romney from Obama here. I've decided that I'll be voting for Romney.

I mean, really, pull your head out of the sand and ask yourself: is politics today really more contentious than the era of Vietnam, the Civil Rights era, or hell the time before and after the Civil War?

Just to make sure I understand you; my head is buried in the sand for lamenting human nature at its worst while the superior intellect defends it against me based on a strawman of historical precedent, a woeful lacking of his own facts, and feigned outrage? First of all, I'm not the one acting so surprised by contentious politics. Second of all, there's nothing particularly super-genius about using the absolute lowest common denominator as your standard.

Lastly, if you truly can't appreciate the incredible advancement in communications that have occurred from the time of your most recent example and its impact on politics, your head is so firmly buried up your a$$ that your toilet can read your mind.

And that's just the American experience, with it's slender political spectrum

Yeah... because you've done such a smashing good job of demonstrating a superior handle on idealogical diversity mckenna. By all means, don't let me keep you from the anarchists, fascists, and communists... or Romney.

[Chongo]

Sorry looks like it was 48 hours notice.


Revealed: inside story of US envoy's assassination

Exclusive: America 'was warned of embassy attack but did nothing'

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

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I still haven't a clue what it is Romney is supposedly being called out for.

I'm calling him out for making the accusation the Obama administration sympathized with the attackers. It's an utterly batshit statement.

[Chongo]

Carter lost Iran, Obama loses Egypt and Libya now he's sounding like Carter.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQRxW-_MZCs

[VIDEO]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQRxW-_MZCs[/VIDEO]

[subego]

That's the best you got?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

That's the best you got?

he's even started to look like him

[subego]

Oddly reminiscent of Harold Ford Jr.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Carter lost Iran, Obama loses Egypt and Libya now he's sounding like

We do know that Reagan negotiated the PROLONGING of the Iran hostage crisis to make the release fall under his tenure, making it look like his first real success...

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I still haven't a clue what it is Romney is supposedly being called out for.

Errrr.....really? Perhaps you haven't stopped to read anyone else's posts, perhaps?

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I've decided that I'll be voting for Romney.

The beautiful thing about this is after all your sanctimonious-bullshit diversion statements saying "let's not focus on Romney....let's focus on the tragedy and the ugliness of politics....you then conclude with a glorious statement such as this, which in 7 or 8 words perfectly captures what everyone outside of America considers to be the astonishing ugliness of American politics: that it's black vs. white, that about 80% of the eligible voting public would simply vote for the same colour they always have, and that the outcome of the election will be determined by which party can convince more voters to get to the polls this year and the one 57-year-old undecided woman in Florida somewhere that actually hasn't made up her mind yet.

Yes....it's amazing to me, as a 3rd-party observer, that you will now accept no criticism of the very man you were roundly critiquing and lambasting only a couple months ago. You do realize that, right? You realize you now jump to his defence at every perceived attack by LIBS/DEMS? In this thread you actually said "I don't think he'll win", but you didn't actually critiicize him outright - it's as if you're not holding out much hope, but you'll do your damnedest to hold the torch high until the finish line.

[ebuddy]

DOGPILE!!!

Folks, this is an election between two people; Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. Politicians say ugly things such as "it is unpatriotic to run up less debt than me" or "he's an attacker-sympathizer". This is what politicians do. They say things like; "never let a good crisis go to waste" or "their platform is mean-spirited and intolerant" or challenge incumbent administrations for the death counts overseas due to their unprovoked military actions or foreign policy folly.

Yes, I was critical of Romney. Many conservatives were and are critical of Romney just in case you've all somehow forgotten how elections work or the things both Clintons have said of Obama. You don't somehow have more integrity by refusing to challenge Barack Obama because he happens to have a (D) after his name. You don't get to ignore all the silly, stupid, mean-spirited, hypocritical actions of Obama just because Romney gave you a distraction. You don't get to ignore the lacking transparency, the croneyism, and the manifest failures of an ineffective CIC because Romney challenges Obama on an ambiguous and pathetically absent foreign policy. You don't get to ignore open-mic gaffes to Russian leadership, snubbing foreign dignitaries, obstructing justice over DOJ slop, missing budgets, and constant blame-shifting from the highest post in the country. I'm sorry. I won't let you forget these things.

What you can do is thread-bomb the forum with every possible distraction you can find. You can get pissy with Romney for taking issue with the very statement the White House tried to divorce itself from or lash out at me for throwing your hypocrisy and double-standards back in your face. That's acceptable. If I'm a suitable outlet for all this pent-up rage, so be it.

You can also write in Ron Paul or Dan Aykroyd if you want, but you won't be allowed to ignore that this is essentially an election between two people; Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

We do know that Reagan negotiated the PROLONGING of the Iran hostage crisis to make the release fall under his tenure, making it look like his first real success...

Riiight. He sent GHW Bush on an SR74 Blackbird to negotiate so they would be released minutes after his Inaguration speech.

The Algiers Accords were negotiated by Carter's Deputy Secretary of State Warren Chirstopher and signed 1/19/1981, the day before Reagan was sworn into office.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

The entire point of my post was:

1. You just made an entire post that yet again criticized Obama roundly, yet didn't mentioned a thing about Romney other than that you've been "critical" in the past. Out of mild curiosity, are you even capable of openly criticising Romney now that he is the Republican party leader? I'm honestly curious.

2. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but haven't the Usual Reasonable Liberals - OAW, OldManMac, subego, Dakar, lpmckenna to name a couple off the top of my head, and again forgive me if I'm wrong about any of those names - been entirely vocal with their criticism of Obama? Or am I just imagining things? Haven't they been critical of both candidates?

3. This is a thread specifically about Romney's latest gaffe. Why do you seem to feel that because this thread is about Romney's gaffe, you should list various other gaffes by Obama as a "reminder list"? Your position in this last post seems to be that because someone has pointed out Romney's mistake, it means they are not aware of any of Obama's mistakes. I trust you realize how false that logic is?

[The Final Dakar]

[andi*pandi]

Ok, that was worth unblocking imgur for.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

We do know that Reagan negotiated the PROLONGING of the Iran hostage crisis to make the release fall under his tenure, making it look like his first real success...

Riiight. He sent GHW Bush on an SR74 Blackbird to negotiate so they would be released minutes after his Inaguration speech.

The Algiers Accords were negotiated by Carter's Deputy Secretary of State Warren Chirstopher and signed 1/19/1981, the day before Reagan was sworn into office.

Yep.

They weren't signed until after the election, which allowed the Reagan campaign to paint Iran as a failure of Carter's administration.

And the Reagan Era began with the homecoming of those hostages.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Politicians say ugly things such as... "he's an attacker-sympathizer"

Can you give me examples of this kind of criticism between candidates for president?