This is how an amateur who knows nothing about diplomacy or foreign policy handles it:
"Romney campaign drew fire on Wednesday morning for issuing a blistering statement condemning the American embassy in Egypt for speaking against an incendiary anti-Muslim film, even though the embassy made the statement before any attacks had taken place. NBC's Chuck Todd, for instance, called the statement 'irresponsible' and a 'bad mistake.'
@davidgregory David Gregory Romney appears to have launched a political attack even before facts of embassy violence were known. Then uses day to issue vague FP vision
PeterHamby
CNN Peter Hamby Clinton issued statement condemning violence at 10pm EST Tues night. Yet Romney camp still went ahead w/ claim O "sympathizes" w/ attackers
"Other reporters were similarly baffled. "The Romney campaign's politicization of the embassy attacks is even worse than I expected," Foreign Policy writer Blake Hounshell tweeted.
Speaking on Fox News, Peggy Noonan was also blunt. "I don't feel that Mr. Romney has been doing himself any favors in the past few hours," she said. “Sometimes when really bad things happen, when hot things happen, cool words or no words is the way to go.”
When even Mark Halperin can’t find a good angle for Romney’s stunt, it’s gotta be bad.
Unless the Romney campaign has gamed this crisis out in some manner completely invisible to the Gang of 500, his doubling down on criticism of the President for the statement coming out of Cairo is likely to be seen as one of the most craven and ill-advised tactical moves in this entire campaign.h/t Andrew Sullivan's blog; HuffPost
Before he knew the details of what happened or the timeline of the tragedy, candidate Romney shot off his mouth in what is being seen as a hugely embarrassing and irresponsible mistake by the man who wants to be president.
Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo:
"Some moments show you when a candidate is ready or not to become President of the United States. I suspect last night will become one of those moments for Mitt Romney. The verdict will not be positive.
As I noted last night, when the full scale of the events in Cairo and Benghazi remained unknown, the Romney campaign let fly a crude political attack both blaming the Obama administration for the attacks and suggesting that the President actually sympathized with them."
From The Hill:
"This would be a great day for Mitt Romney to stop playing partisan politics on matters he has no experience in, and knows nothing about. There is a tragedy this morning for American diplomats in the Middle East. In a situation that is inflamed and unstable, the ill-chosen words of the inexperienced and amateurish Romney, who is already opining on the television news about real-time tragedy in the Middle East, could cause real harm to American diplomats, American troops and American security.
The situation in the Middle East is volatile. These are matters that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan know nothing about. Romney is one of the least qualified commander-in-chief candidates in the modern history of presidential nominees. Ryan is one of the least qualified commander-in-chief candidates in the modern history of vice presidential nominees. The Romney-Ryan ticket is the least qualified ticket, on matters of military security and foreign policy, in the modern history of American presidential campaigns."
BuzzFeed:
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.
Romney's Incendiary Response to US Embassy Deaths in Libya Proves Him Incapable of Being Commander in Chief
MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
What's important to remember here, beyond Romney's flame throwing opportunism, is that the statement Romney claims Obama apologized in (it was actually a statement from the US embassy in Egypt) -- which he didn't -- occurred before news of the killings were received by the White House. Yet, when questioned Wednesday morning by journalists about the timing of the original Obama statement (which was trying to cool things down, we remind you), Romney basically said that it didn't matter.
This is consistent with the recent statement of a Romney campaign aide who said that facts wouldn't get in the way of the campaign (paraphrased).
More:
Steve Kornacki of Salon
******
Mitt Romney showed the American people, once again, that he would rather score political points than be accurate or wait to see what the facts are behind a tragedy. He got out in front of this story, that's for sure, and it's going to bite him in his inexperienced foreign policy ass. What a fumbling, stumbling amateur.
54 comments:
Shaw: It seems many people do things for political gain, which is just too darn bad. Because in this situation we truly need the President to act, which he has; he and Hilary have both issued statements. If President Obama hadn't done anything, then I could understand Romney saying something. So, yeah, Romney should just be quiet for now.
I agree with Pam with respect to Mittens ill timed and spoken statement.
Having said that, is a attack on a US Embassy in which our Ambassador and three others were killed not an act of war by these extremist Islamist terrorists?
As for Terry Jones and his low budget film that pissed the terrorists off? We can only hope he passes away soon in his sleep of natural causes.
As for the terrorist, I say hunt em down and incinerate their sorry asses.
Hot headed, snap judgements, and false accusations for political exploitation of tragedy is as low as one can go.
Watch Romney top this one soon.
The smirk on Romney's smug face after his comments says it all.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=385777464822096&set=a.374536155946227.83663.374534062613103&type=1&theater
From the BuzzFeed link:
.....his campaign faces a near consensus in Republican foreign policy circles that, whatever the sentiment, Romney faltered badly.
Once again the man reveals his near-sociopathic inability to handle basic human interactions. As with the dog on the car roof, he just doesn't get how people handle things like this. He's almost like an alien doing an inept imitation of a human.
The fact that, in such a bitter and polarized election campaign, even many Republicans are aghast at his blundering, just shows how badly he's blown it.
I don't know if the world could survive four years of this badly-wired robot actually occupying the Presidency and getting these brain short-outs every time a crisis arose.
If there's any justice, this will be his "legitimate rape" moment -- the final, indisputable disqualification for the office he seeks.
"Not Going Down with the Ship
Virtually no GOP elected officials follow Romney in his attacks on Obama over Libya attacks."
Romney has shown America and the world that he's not presidential. This is very, very bad for him and his campaign.
Pam,
It appears Mr. Romney stepped in it.
RN, Romney mades an amateur mistake. I'm astonished at how awful his response to this tragedy was.
Dave,
This has put Romney in a very bad position from which he will not recover.
Leslie,
The smirk on Romeny's face leads one to believe he thinks he's scored a hit, when it's a colossal miss.
Infidel753,
I don't know who's advising Romney, but they haven't done him any favors. And it's amazing that he himself didn't know better than to make a fool of himself over this tragedy.
Anon,
Agreed.
"Let's face it. The GOP may talk smack about the State Department, but it's a big, respected part of our government, and it's integral to the culture of Washington DC. When four members of the Department are killed in the line of duty by a rocket propelled grenade, the city goes into mourning. Mitt Romney was acting like the loonies from the Westboro Baptist Church who protest our soldiers' funerals. It was offensive to everyone who lives and works in the District. I mean, it was offensive period, but it was personal with people on Capitol Hill.
Romney's insensitive remarks were squeezed in between the remarks of Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama. Clinton and Obama then proceeded to the State Department to console the staff there. This only made Romney's move look even more crass and unpresidential.
People do not want to defend him."
I seem to remember past candidates and leaders who said pretty clearly that differences ended at the waters edge when we were faced with the immediacy of the deaths of Americans overseas...
Apparently, that is not the case anymore, or Mitt missed the memo in politics 101.
Now for those who are advocating bombings, and we need to look no further than the comment sections on our favorite conservative blogs, I'd like to know who should we bomb? Everyone who lives there?
I am sure the response will be "the damn libyans or egyptians" or something to that sort. Yet there will be no ideas on how to sort out the innocent from the guilty.
Just for the record... here's what an apology looks like for all the people who think President Obama has ver apologized for anything.
IMHO, an apology must include the words "We are Sorry" or "We Apologize."
“The Congress recognizes that, as described in the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians, a grave injustice was done to both citizens and permanent residents of Japanese ancestry by the evacuation, relocation, and internment of civilians during World War II.
As the Commission documents, these actions were carried out without adequate security reasons and without any acts of espionage or sabotage documented by the Commission, and were motivated largely by racial prejudice, wartime hysteria, and a failure of political leadership.
The excluded individuals of Japanese ancestry suffered enormous damages, both material and intangible, and there were incalculable losses in education and job training, all of which resulted in significant human suffering for which appropriate compensation has not been made.
For these fundamental violations of the basic civil liberties and constitutional rights of these individuals of Japanese ancestry, the Congress apologizes on behalf of the Nation.”
Based on the findings of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians (CWRIC), the purposes of the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 with respect to persons of Japanese ancestry included the following:
1) To acknowledge the fundamental injustice of the evacuation, relocation and internment of citizens and permanent resident aliens of Japanese ancestry during World War II;
2) To apologize on behalf of the people of the United States for the evacuation, internment, and relocations of such citizens and permanent residing aliens;
3) To provide for a public education fund to finance efforts to inform the public about the internment so as to prevent the recurrence of any similar event;
4) To make restitution to those individuals of Japanese ancestry who were interned;
5) To make more credible and sincere any declaration of concern by the United States over violations of human rights committed by other nations.
This act was signed into law by President Reagan, who of course today could never win GOP nomination.
Any of our resident conservatives care to comment on this?
He acted "Stupidly"
Dave, people who have been paying attention know that Mr Obama has never apologized, but once the GOP gets hold of false fact, they spin with it.
Even today, after Mitt Romney disgraced himself and probably sank his presidential hopes, there are people on the right who are blaming Mr. Obama for Mr. Romney's incredible FAIL over the Libyan tragedy.
As far as I know, only the spittle-flecking gasbags of all gasbags is defending Willard, and possibly his wife and sons.
Romney show the country and the world that he would be a trigger-happy leader--one who would "shoot first, and aim later."
Dave, first, you make good points. Thanks.
Second, in time Romney's comments will fade and the real questions will have to be answered: why were the embassy and consulate not adequately proteced on the anniversary of 9/11? This will be a main topic at the debates. As it should be. Feel free to share your concerns. I don't have a good answer.
Dave Miller said: “IMHO, an apology must include the words "We are Sorry" or "We Apologize."
Dave Miller, I believe that an apology doesn't always have to include the words "apology" or "sorry". It depends on the circumstances. I think as long as a person expresses sorrow, regret or remorse for causing harm, pain or sorrow then it can be considered an apology.
As far as Reagan signing that apology for what happened in WWII, that was totally appropriate, imo. Although FDR truly owed it, considering he was the one who issued the Executive Order (9066) placing the Japanese people in “war relocation camps”. Our government (Congress and Reagan) stepped up and did the right thing by issuing that apology and making some form of restitution, although money doesn’t heal emotion wounds.
There are appropriate apologies and some not-so appropriate, and I’m sure we can all agree that the one for the Japanese people was not only appropriate but justified.
Shaw, it doesn’t surprise me that people are blaming Obama for Romney and others are blaming Romney for Obama. Seems some people don’t want to face truth no matter how hard it hits them in the face. Those of us with a lick of common sense know how to find the truth and we aren’t afraid to admit it. After all, these are politicians, not our OWN family members! It’s not like we have to defend them with our lives! Isn’t it sad that some people feel they have to though?
KP: "...why were the embassy and consulate not adequately proteced on the anniversary of 9/11? This will be a main topic at the debates. As it should be."
That is a good question. How it will affect the election is another matter.
When the public got the information that GWB had warnings about Al Qaeda planning an attack with airplanes and did nothing about it, the public's judgement was to give Mr. Bush another 4 years.
And when the Marine barracks were bombed in Lebanon in Oct. of 1983, the American people gave Mr. Reagan another 4 years, even though he vowed to stay in Lebanon, then left a few months later.
Pam,
You're onto something there. Too many of us do defend politicians as though they were in our family.
It would be an interesting study on why that is.
For a real comparison, go read Romney's press release, and then go watch the YouTube of him making his statement.
He was more presidential than the president, who mentioned not one word about freedom of speech.
Mike Barnicle is typical of where the left is on this, wanting the Justice Department to prosecute Terry Jones.
Obama is looking more Carteresque by the day.
@ Dave Miller "I seem to remember past candidates and leaders who said pretty clearly that differences ended at the waters edge when we were faced with the immediacy of the deaths of Americans overseas...
Apparently, that is not the case anymore"
True statement, if you had said it during the 2004 campaign, when Kerry was trashing Bush's foreign policy at every turn and democrats were giddily saying we were losing in Iraq. You remember, our soldier were "terrorizing people"
"General Betrayus..." etc.
Thanks Shaw. I am not suggesting Obama didn't act on intel (although that will be raised). My point is that (especially on 9/11) all of our embassys and consulates should be protected adequately everyday, let alone on 9/11. And let alone the middle east.
LOL! Some wingnut came to my blog, read it and posted what I wrote in his whine about the colossal fubar by Romney:
"The Progressives will tell you.
'Before he knew the details of what happened or the timeline of the tragedy, candidate Romney shot off his mouth in what is being seen as a hugely embarrassing and irresponsible mistake by the man who wants to be president.'
Gimme a break. This Administration is a do nothing Administration, and that’s why these animals are walking all over us.
“Romney shot off his mouth”? Romney only responded to the LIES that Obama and his Sec. Of State Hillary were putting out.
We have 4 Americans who are dead who were butchered and slaughtered because this Administration did not have the foresight to fortify these embassies on the anniversary of 9/11. And all these Progressives can do is blame Romney! "
For the low-information readers of this blog: Most of the people criticizing Romney are from HIS OWN PARTY. Pointing out a candidate's stupid reaction to a tragedy is not blaming him, it's showing the world how inept and useless he would be as a president.
When even David Gregory knows you're lame, game over Mittens.
So we have Clinton and Obama containing the situation and Governor Olympics walking around with a can of gas.
Choice is ours.
While the press monkeys in Obama's Ministry of Truth spin propaganda, President Obama Commits a Real Gaff:
In an interview with Telemundo Wednesday night, Obama said that the U.S. relationship with the new Egyptian government was a "work in progress," and emphasized that the United States is counting on the government of Egypt to better protect the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, which was attacked by protesters on Sept. 11.
"I don't think that we would consider them an ally, but we don't consider them an enemy," Obama said. "They're a new government that is trying to find its way. They were democratically elected. I think that we are going to have to see how they respond to this incident."
That comment had Egypt watchers scratching their heads, especially since technically, Egypt was designated as a Major Non-NATO Ally in 1989 when Congress first passed the law creating that status, which gives them special privileges in cooperating with the United States, especially in the security and technology arenas.
The White House is now scrambling to correct yet another Obumble stumble.
I saw that on SF's blog, and we know how strict they are about truth and facts.
"game over Mittens"
I may disagree almost always with Ducky, but I admire his honesty.
That statement, "Game over Mittens," is what this lefty propaganda attack, led by the Obama fan club aka our news media, is all about.
How dare anyone challenge Dear Leader.
That's right, lefties, try to put him beyond the pale, because you can't stand a square debate on the issues.
Mitt could win, so try to convince enough soft-headed voters that its all over with your ridiculous sophomoric bandwagon propaganda campaign.
SF:
"Obama is looking more Carteresque by the day."
SF, your apology tour for Romney is duly noted.
You and other apologists for his colossal disaster of a gigantic blunder will not change the fact that he acted and spoke without benefit of all the facts--a stupid thing to do during an international crisis.
Your coming here to turn the truth on its head won't work. It's nothing more than twisting the facts to suit your magical thinking, IMHO.
The only monkeys in this story are the ones flying out of Limbaugh's prodigious arse as he tries to conjure up another one of his conspiracy theories to explain how this tragedy is Mr. Obama's fault. And Kristol, another Romney apologist, is a neocon who's been wrong on just about everything about the GWOT, and most horribly, Iraq.
No one is persuaded by your spinning and furiously trying to make Romney look like a winner in his own debacle. You're on the losing end of that delusion.
Romney FAILED big time.
Ducky,
The folks who want us to believe up is down and war is peace come here in droves every time Romeny makes a jackass of himself to spin, redirect, and change the subject.
They're stuck with their well oiled weather vane.
Since the Muslim Brotherhood now rules Egypt, Obama is correct to question their friendliness to America.
Well Ducky, politics for the most part these days is a can of gas.
It stinks and it emanates from time to time from both rEpublicans and dEmocrats.
As has been said... "it is what it is."
h/t to Leslie P.:
"Last night, Mitt Romney accused the Obama administration of sympathizing with the attackers who killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya. He was apparently referring to a statement issued by the U.S. embassy in Cairo that condemned the anti-Muslim movie that incited the violence. That statement, however, was issued hours before the Libyan attacks. Is Romney going to regret his sloppy response, or will this, regardless of the facts, mobilize his "no apology" base?
It’s hard to imagine how Romney’s statement could be more incendiary or tasteless in the tinder-box context of the moment. Even the right-wing blogger Erick Erickson tweeted that Romney should avoid this kind of bluster: “I think the Romney camp has to be very delicate in how it approaches this issue.
Hard for partisans to see, but POTUS is POTUS.” If even a hothead like Erickson suggests that Romney is being reckless, you can see he now has blundered into yet another self-inflicted political mess."
I really want to know, why 33 years after the Iranian embassy debacle and the climate in the M.E. we are not protecting these people. Glen was one of the four killed in Libya, an ex SEAL, a local San Diego fitness guru, originally from Mass.
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Glen-Doherty-Navy-SEALVictim-Libya-Consulate-169636446.html
"To explore whether the statement represented an apology, we sent it to the four experts we interviewed for our previous fact-check on Romney's claim about Obama's apology tour. Here are the comments of the three who responded:
•John Murphy, a communications professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign who studies presidential rhetoric and political language, said Romney was wrong to label it an apology.
"First, the statement does not use the word ‘apology’ or ‘apologize’ and does not use any synonym for that word. There is no statement here that says, ‘We are sorry.’
"Second, the grammar of the statement condemns the actions of a third party. An apology, to be pedantic, is when the first party says to the second party, ‘I have offended you and I am sorry.’ This statement condemns a third party -- misguided individuals -- that does not officially represent the United States. The term ‘individuals’ dissociates them from the U.S. Therefore, it's impossible to say that this is an apology from the U.S. to anyone.
"Third, the statement does not apologize for the right of free speech; it affirms it. It condemns those who abuse the right of free speech, but it claims that this is a universal right, as is religious toleration. So, the statement does not like what the misguided individuals said and did, but recognizes they have a right to do it."
"It's a condemnation," Murphy said, "not an apology."
• Lauren Bloom, an attorney and business consultant who wrote The Art of the Apology, said that Romney is "once again allowing his emotional allergy to apology to interfere with his judgment."
Bloom said that "if there's anything more central to American values than respecting each individual's right to worship as he or she pleases, I'd be hard-pressed to say what it might be. The statement that ‘respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy’ not only is true, but is as clear an expression of one of our most cherished values as I can imagine."
She said the embassy statement is "not an apology -- quite the contrary, it's a confirmation that the American people recognize the right to worship freely and will not accept religious bullying in the name of free speech. To say that someone who deliberately insults others in the name of religion has acted wrongly isn't an apology -- it's simply a recognition that those insults go too far."
• Rhoda E. Howard-Hassmann, a professor who studies international human rights and maintains the website Political Apologies and Reparations, a database of documents on apologies, said the statement is "not an apology."
Rather, she said, "it is a condemnation of ‘abuse’ of the universal value of free speech. A condemnation is not an apology. … The Embassy statement also reaffirms two American values: the American value of respect for religious beliefs and the American value of democracy."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/sep/12/romney-says-us-embassy-statement-was-apology-was-i/
SF: "That statement, "Game over Mittens," is what this lefty propaganda attack, led by the Obama fan club aka our news media, is all about."
Of course, you would see any truthful criticism of Romney's horrid performance this week as "propaganda" and Obama's media fan club. That ignores the FACT that GOP pundits, including well-respected WSJ columnist, Peggy Noonan, and rightwing fanboy, Joe Scarborough, as well as numerous other RIGHTWING pundits all criticized Romney's crap performance. You're spinning faster than a muon, SF. It's not working.
SF: "How dare anyone challenge Dear Leader."
Romney challenged the president and fell flat on his duplicitous face.
SF: "That's right, lefties, try to put him beyond the pale, because you can't stand a square debate on the issues."
Wow! This whole nasty news for Willard really set you guys off.
SF: "Mitt could win, so try to convince enough soft-headed voters that its all over with your ridiculous sophomoric bandwagon propaganda campaign."
That's so sad. And an example of desperation to change the narrative, which is: Romney FAILed.
I'm sorry to read how this unfortunate unforced error has awakened the GOP to the failings of their candidate and therefore compelled them to come to liberal blogs to change the subject and blame other people for Willard's mess.
Leslie, there was no apology. Ever.
It's the rightwingers' way of muddying the facts and taking the focus of off the woefully unprepared and clumsy man they want to be president.
Blame the other guy for your own mistakes. They think that will work.
Look at the current polls to see how that's working.
One other thing, SF. You ignore the fact that leaders of the GOP (Boehner and McConnell) also ignored Romeny's ill-advised attack on the president on this tragedy. No one, except as I said the gasbag and neocon [and you], is defending Willard. He should have simply said that he was sorry for what happened and that his thoughts were with the families of the victims.
You don't attack America as it is going through a crisis like this. Willard is a disgrace to his party and country.
Pam, I think I have to disagree with you on a couple of fronts...
1. I think the words I am sorry or I apologize need to be there... would you accept your kids not using those words if they had to apologize to someone?
2. While I agree with you that sometimes it is appropriate for a government to apologize, Mitt Romney has been very public in saying America should never ever apologize for her actions around the globe.
I understand that to mean he disagrees with you and what Reagan did...
KP... We may yet find out that in fact we did increase security and awareness at our embassies... There will be plenty of time to discover this moving forward.
I might even agree with Mitt in the end. My problem is that he has not waited for the facts to come out or be discovered.
shaw...let your conservative friend silverfizzle read this and face reality...
"While Romney argues that Obama has failed on the economy, the Fox polls suggests that most voters don’t quite see it that way.
Just 36 percent of voters give Obama a D or an F on the economy, compared to 38 percent of voters who give him an A or a B. There are a lot of voters with a decidedly mixed view, including 14 percent who give him a “C” and 11 percent who give him an “incomplete,” as the president did himself....
50 percent of likely voters say that if Obama is elected, they would feel that “the country’s improving and I look forward to another 4 years" compared to 43 percent who would say “the country’s going down the drain and I’m dreading what is going to happen next.”
Thanks Dave. Lets see what the facts are, as you say. In the end, if it turns out we had inadequate defense of the consulate, and that the ambassador was raped and tortured before he was murdered (as the European press suggests) and my colleague here in San Diego (ex SEAL) was murdered, along with two others, then those who drone on (like Leslie's 482 word post about apologies), should ask themselves why they are not upset at Obama. Won't the complaints about Romney seem small? Perhaps we are owed an apology from the administration.
As well, where the heck is our press? Why no hard questions directed at Obama while in Colorado or Las Vegas? Why is he campaigning? These are legit questions.
I am furious, and anybody that thinks Romneys campaign ended is has it upside down. Our President just fumbled at the goal line. And I guarantee you, if it was Romney I would say the same thing.
@ Shaw... We seldom agree but this whole distraction by the rEpublicans is just one more reason I'm glad I left the rEpublican fold and will be voting Johnson.
KP, good question, I was wondering the same. On a different note, thank you for your resonse to my question of a few days back. I begin my study and training on Oct. 8th.
Dave Miller, I absolutely prefer the words “apology” or “sorry” and have raised my sons to use them. I was only pointing out that an apology can be made without using those exact words but the implication of an apology is there. I admit, it’s lame as hell. I say that because I had it used on me.
Maybe I came across as “implying” that the President apologized, which wasn’t my intention. I was only trying to make a point.
I apologize!
;-)
@Dave Like you say, plenty of time for us to get answers. This is a painful time and look very very dangerous.
Washington Post Fact checker, Greg Kessler [someone Silverfiddle, conservative, used as a resource for truth in the past):
What Romney got wrong:
1. The embassy statement was not the first response to the attacks, unless you count the tweet. But that tweet actually does condemn the attack, since it referred to “our condemnation of unjustified breach of the Embassy.”
2. In any case, an embassy statement does not reflect “administration” policy. Administration policy would come from the State Department spokesman, the Secretary of State or the White House. So it was incorrect to refer to the “Obama administration” — as Romney’s foreign policy advisers should have known. Indeed, the first words of the statement are “The Embassy of the United States in Cairo...” That’s pretty low on the statement totem pole — and certainly not the same as the “Obama administration.”
3. The first response by the Obama administration had already been issued by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, shortly after 10 p.m., regarding the attack in Benghazi. Her statement, in other words, was issued before the Romney statement.
“I condemn in the strongest terms the attack on our mission in Benghazi today,” Clinton said, confirming the death of a consulate diplomat. “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.”
Romney's statement:
“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. That reflects the mixed signals they're sending to the world.”
— Romney, speaking on the morning of Sept. 12, after the d eath of U.S. ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three others was announced
(cont.)
What Romney got wrong:
1. The administration did not stand by the statement; the embassy did.
2. The embassy did condemn the demonstrators, as did Clinton.
3. Romney suggested the administration took too long to reject the embassy statement. The White House distanced itself from the statement a few hours after it became prominent in evening news shows. Nuland’s briefing on Tuesday might have been an opportunity to more forcefully make the points raised in the embassy statement, but she was not asked about it and did not appear familiar with the situation in Egypt at the time.
“We did have reports just before I came down here that we had a protest outside our Embassy in Cairo,” she said, in response to a question.
The Pinocchio Test
Clearly, with the benefit of hindsight, the embassy statement could have been written in a stronger and more robust fashion. But there is a big difference between an embassy news release — let alone a tweet — and a fully-vetted statement of policy issued by the U.S. government.
In its rush to jump on the fast-moving story, the Romney campaign badly conflated the two things — and then made itself the focus of attention, instead of the administration’s policies or its handling of the crisis. If the Romney campaign had stayed largely silent for the first couple of days, the focus would have remained on the unrest unfolding in the Middle East and the administration’s policy in the region.
The continued reference to the embassy statement as “an apology” was clearly an effort by the Romney campaign to fit the statement — written by a career staffer deep in the bowels of the State Department — into the campaign’s narrative that President Obama apologizes for America. But it is too much a leap. In any administration, the statements that count are the ones issued by the political appointees.
Earlier in the week, we hesitated about handing out Pinocchios because not all of the facts had been established. But now it is pretty evident that the Romney campaign misstated the facts on Tuesday, on Wednesday — and then again on Thursday, even after the peculiar circumstances of this embassy statement had been made abundantly clear.
Romney's claim gets THREE Pinocchios.
Various conservatives on their blogs are still screaming at the top of their partisan lungs that Romeny was "presidential" in his crass and craven reaction to the tragedy.
No one except a blind partisan could believe such rot.
Just as a reminder and to be absoluitely clear: I have posted and will reinterate that I agree with Shaw and Dave and many Republicans that Romney mishandled the situation. I want to be very clear on that.
Sorry to hijack your thread, but what Romney did or didn't do becomes of lesser importance compared to understanding what our President and Secretary Clinton have done or not done in the last three years that led us to where we are now. Perhaps that is best left for another thread. This will be my lasty post on this unless our host or others tack up the discussion.
Below is part of an e-mail I got last night from a SEAL team member who I shared office space and saw patients with in San Diego. He worked with Glen (who was murdered in Libya) both at SEALFIT here in San Diego and on several missions on the same SEAL team in the middle east:
"Good to hear from you. Thanks for the shout out. I worked with Glen a few times in the Teams and at SEALFIT. He was a stand up guy who would run toward a gunfight, not away. fuckin stupid State Dept and fuckin stupid Hillary Clinton! An ignorant fool would know we needed better security over there. That was going to be Glen's last trip."
Time will tell of the SEALs are correct when they criticize the administration for inadequately protecting our embassy(s) and consulate. It is worth considering.
Last night, Rachel Maddow gave the most insightful run down of what happened in Libya and what led to the planned attack I have heard anywhere. Kudos to her for her straight up evaluation.
Shaw: An embassy is an extension of our government, the executive branch.
Regardless, our Obama government is more concerned with placating religious kooks than it is standing up for liberty and free speech.
The inJustice Department outing the author of that stupid film should chill us all. Had Bush done that to some lefty, you would be howling.
The new American Left: inconsistent and unbalanced.
Keep screaming about Romney, it distracts from the disaster Obama has created here and abroad. He is the new Carter.
SF: "Regardless, our Obama government is more concerned with placating religious kooks than it is standing up for liberty and free speech."
There is no evidence for that whatsoever.
You're again trying to twist and turn the miserable response by Romney into a story against the president. It isn't working.
Here are Mr. Obama's words:
In a statement released Wednesday morning, President Obama called the attack on the consulate in Benghazi, Libya, which led to the death of J. Christopher Stevens, the ambassador, and three other Americans “outrageous.” The attack apparently began as a reaction by an angry mob to a YouTube video denouncing Islam’s founding prophet.
“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,” Mr. Obama said in a statement released by the White House.
It is no secret that you detest Mr. Obama and his administration, therefore, your analysis of the situation is tainted with that hatred and does not hold any value.
SF: "Keep screaming about Romney, it distracts from the disaster Obama has created here and abroad. He is the new Carter."
This statement by you is ample evidence that you've gone 'round the bend and it's pretty evident why. No matter how many diversions, lies, and partisan interpretations you spread around here and other venues, the overwhelming fact remains that Mr. Romney showed an incredible lack of statesmanship in attacking the US President while Americans in a foreign coutry were being killed.
You can't walk that stupid reaction by Romney back and trying to blame Mr. Obama for it is a sign of desperation.
KP,
Everyone's anger level is high right now and people want to point fingers and blame--see Silverfiddle's unrelenting comments here.
What this post is about is Romney's reaction to the tragedy. It's not just I who determined it was horrid, the leading lights in the GOP had nothing good to say about how he responded.
As to being angry about the security at the embassies, I have no comment on that because I know nothing about the situation.
I do know this: During Reagan's presidency, 240 marines were killed in an attack at their Lebanon barracks, Reagan PROMISED to stay in Lebanon, and he left a few months after the attack; during Bush's presidency we suffered the worst attack on American soil in our history, causing the deaths of 3,000+ Americans.
Both those horrendous events came under the administrations of Reagan and Bush. Both men were re-elected.
@Shaw Check.
@ Shaw... The President might have said something about America's value of freedom of speech as well.
It should be responsible of course, but the government has no way of policy free speech nor should it.
Obama missed the opportunity to reinforce one of America's finest values and most important rights.
When invited into another country to set up our embassy, we are not invited to bring thousands of troops to secure that facility.
We can bring a security detail, but security from an attack, is the responsibility of the host country. That is a common arrangement in the diplomatic world.
This protesting has spread to many cities and countries. The one common thread, is all those places are strongholds of Al Quida, not to mention the ill feelings towards America within those populations.
The Syrians security forces stationed at our embassy started the gunfight with the mob, and some of their forces were killed trying to protect our embassy and personnel.
History reveals why a large portion of their society do not like what they call imperialistic America. Deny the truth of our mistreatment of their people in the past, and of course it seems like senseless violence.
A good lesson for America; allow religion in the processes of government (Theocracy) and intolerance and violence will be part of that society.
Romney uses coming home services for the four dead Americans, to blast Obama on his foreign policies.
This scum doesn't get it.
On one channel were the caskets being moved from an airplane to a service where Obama and Clinton spoke. At the same time Romney was bashing Obama. FOX covered Romney. MSNBC covered the service.
Why should we put anything on hold?
During WW II FDR and his opponent campaigned, gave speeches and held the election, while thousands of Americans were dying in the field.
No war, murders, or other violence has ever stopped our electoral process.
That's as it should be.
Soldiers die to protect our freedoms, and it would be an insult to them, to stop our electoral processes, because they died protecting those processes.
How do we know we did not protect that embassy? How many forces did we have there? Was it enough? Was it more than usual because of 9/11? Questions we do not have the answer for, yet, some talk like that was Obama's failure.
Play your games with our dead. Spew hate about Obama.
Obama is prosecuting a war. America has been successful in killing their leaders, and they are fighting (killing) back.
It's war folks.
KP, you are such a breath of fresh air. Last night I had a long talk with a pastor with whom I am visiting here in Montana.
As you can imagine, he is an older, white, evangelical guy. And very conservative, which btw, describes about 99% of the protestant pastorate up here in the big sky state.
We talked for about 2 hours in such a mutually respectful way where we were both sure of being heard and understood.
Never once did he call me a libturd and I never needed to pull out the republiscum moniker to use on him.
He told me he was encouraged after our talk.
What I can say is this... I wish more people in America could have conversations like we had last night, and that i believe are possible from people like you... honest, open, frank discussions that are designed not to score points, win a debate or denigrate the other person, or their ideas.
For what it is worth, I suspect that we will see that while we did increase security in preparation of 9/11, we missed some clues and did not go far enough.
Silver... re Bush in 2004... I do not put ongoing criticism of war in the same category as this event. Mitt was responding to an event as it was unfolding before many of the fact were known.
Perhaps if the Dems had been critical of Pres. Bush on 9/11 as he was trying to respond to the crisis, that would be more akin to this.
IMHO, Mitt should have come out and said something like "Our prayers go out to the families of the Ambassador and the other victims. We are also praying for President Obama and his team as they try to sort everything out and respond in an appropriate manner. Now is not the time for people and politicians to be critical, or point fingers, but to come together as Americans and the United States of America."
If he did that, he would today, enjoy being hailed as an emerging statesman. Instead, even the foreign policy folks in his own party admit he misplayed his hand.
Dave, in addition to KP as a conservative who we can actually talk with is Pamela D. Hart. She and I are friends, and I value that friendship. We do not always agree on politics, but we do agree on being decent to those we disagree with.
She, like KP, are gems. We have different views on politics, to be sure, but they've never degraded themselves nor those they disagree with in trying to make points. And that's why I listen to what they have to say and learn from it.
They're rare birds.
Dave and Shaw, thanks for your kind comments. I never feel the urge to try and convince either one of you of anything. It doesn't enter my mind. I think that is because I respect you as people and respect the opportunity to have discussion with you more than the need to be right. Peace.
On a side note, if somebody told me that to save my family I had to truthfully answer whether I was a conservative or a liberal there would be a long long pause and I would be unable to answer truthfully. We would have to go issue by issue.
Post a Comment