36 thoughts on “A Candidate Who Made Political Attacks Hours After Islamist Violence”

  3. Romney’s Egypt comment was factually baseless, and when he had time to get more information and modify his remarks he instead repeated them. That’s par for the course for Romney; his campaign has consistently maintained that it won’t be constrained by facts. For the most part the mainstream media has given him a pass, but the Egypt statement was too outrageous in its timing and substance, so he finally got called on something.

    1. Romney said the Obama administration should stand up for free speech not apologize for it. How is that factually baseless? How many hours, days, weeks, or months should he have waited to call Obama out for not supporting free speech, until after the election?

      “his campaign has consistently maintained that it won’t be constrained by facts”

      By fact checkers who are operating as the propaganda wing of Obama’s campaign. Do you actually read those things? I am sure you might agree with their rationalizations but they are mostly editorializing and not fact checking.

      “but the Egypt statement was too outrageous in its timing and substance, so he finally got called on something.”

      This had nothing to do with what Romney said and everything to do with Obama’s media covering for him by talking about anything but what was actually happening.

      Kinda ridiculous to bring up honesty when Obama, Clinton, and Rice have been lying to the American public about what happened all week.

      1. Romney said the Obama administration should stand up for free speech not apologize for it. How is that factually baseless?

        1. That isn’t what Romney said (see his statement below)
        2. The Cairo embassy did stand up for free speech, calling it a “universal human right”
        3. The Obama administration never apologized for free speech

        You and Romney both need fact checking.

        Obama’s media covering for him

        How do you know when a Republican candidate is losing? His supporters resume complaining about the liberal media.

        1. “but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”

          I read that in the context of the Obama administration’s statements that attacked the exercise of freedom of speech.

          “2. The Cairo embassy did stand up for free speech, calling it a “universal human right””

          Only if you believe backhanded compliments are still compliments. And it is directly contradicted by Obama and Clinton’s statements and actions. Supporting free speech doesn’t mean rounding up people in the middle of the night for thought crimes.

          “How do you know when a Republican candidate is losing? His supporters resume complaining about the liberal media.”

          Resume? I don’t recall ever stopping…

          Did you know that almost 10% of our harriers were destroyed in Afghanistan at the same time our embassies are besieged throughout the ME? The media knocked Romney for not talking about Afghanistan but Obama and the media never talk about it either because it looks bad for their candidate.

          1. I read that in the context of the Obama administration’s statements that attacked the exercise of freedom of speech.

            Huh? Romney accused Obama of sympathizing with the attackers. That never happened, context or no context. Romney should retract the accusation.

            Supporting free speech doesn’t mean rounding up people in the middle of the night for thought crimes.

            Parole violations aren’t thought crimes. Is that hard to grasp?

          2. The man wasn’t taken into custody because of a parole violation, he was taken into custody and perp walked because Obama wanted to appease the Muslim world by agreeing with their demands for punishment.

            As for the context and meanings of Obama, Clinton, and Obama’s embassy staff statements, we could argue the meaning of “is” forever. Clearly if so many people think those statements have so many different interpretations, it isn’t as clear cut as you are trying to make it out.

          3. Clearly if so many people think those statements have so many different interpretations, it isn’t as clear cut as you are trying to make it out.

            So the fact that lots of people are willing to give Romney a pass on a lie means it isn’t a lie?

            Here’s what the embassy posted:

            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.

            Where, exactly, does that statement express sympathy with the embassy attackers (who, when the statement was posted, had not yet attacked the embassy)?

          4. Interesting Jim. You are saying that statement went out before the assaults on the embassies? So I guess the Obama administration did know something was going to happen and didn’t prepare adequately.

    2. Thanks, Jim, for admitting that you find the American tradition of free speech to be “factually baseless”. Now we know where we stand.

  4. If a presidential candidate thinks that embassy statements “condemn[ing] the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims” suggest weakness

    Romney has condemned the video as well, so he must not think it suggests weakness.

    that we believe that outraged protesters have legitimate reasons for their rage

    For their rage, yes. For violence, no. Is that so hard?

    imply that the U.S. government has some sort of legal or censoring authority in these matters

    Any such implication is in the imagination of the reader.

    If he thinks that roughly $1 billion per year in foreign aid, and a proposed additional $1 billion in debt forgiveness for Egypt are bad ideas, he should say so.

    Romney says he favors continuation of aid to Egypt.

  5. Amazing how Jim can spin so much and not be dizzy.

    Obama and Romney both agree that free speech should be protected. Obama shows this by having a film maker taken from his home at night (by literal brownshirts!)

    Nice splitting of hairs regarding rage and violence. You are the SpinMeister, the Spinorator, SpinMaster, SpinLord, the definer of is, the Iman of Implause, the sultan of shit (bull, horse, and pig.)

    But seriously, what facts was Romney wrong about?

    I don’t favor aid but there is a case to be made for it.

    …and this howler…

    the mainstream media has given [Romney] a pass

    I may never be able to pick myself up off the floor after that one. Did you type that with a straight face?

    1. Obama shows this by having a film maker taken from his home at night

      So we should let parole violations slide when they’re committed by hate mongers? You know that any president, Republican or Democrat, would have done the very same thing.

      But seriously, what facts was Romney wrong about?

      Here’s Romney’s statement:

      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.

      It’s wrong because:

      * The tweet in question was sent by embassy foreign service personnel, not the Obama administration
      * The tweet in question was sent before the attacks, so it was not a “response”
      * The tweet in question had nothing to do with the Libya attack
      * The embassy’s first statement after it was attacked did condemn the attack

      But most of all, it’s wrong because no embassy or administration statement sympathized with the attackers, either in Egypt or Libya. That is a totally false charge, which Romney has not retracted.

      1. So you wanted the illegal alien lady who spoke at the DNC deported?

        “* The tweet in question was sent by embassy foreign service personnel, not the Obama administration”

        That is part of the Obama administration.

        “* The tweet in question was sent before the attacks, so it was not a “response””

        There was an additional tweet sent before Romney’s comments and after the riots that affirmed the earlier tweet. This tweet was later deleted by the Obama administration, the most transparent administration in history.

        “* The tweet in question had nothing to do with the Libya attack”

        Correct, and Romney’s comments referenced both and the Obama administration still thinks these are isolated separate incidents. Obama went to bed without knowing the status of our staff that was forced to flee the embassy and was being attacked with small arms, mortars, and rpgs in their safe house. Obama didn’t even make a statement until the morning and he skipped his intel briefing that very day just as he did so many other days.

        “But most of all, it’s wrong because no embassy or administration statement sympathized with the attackers,”

        We must have been reading different statements because to me it looked like the Obama administration through the first amendment under the bus. What we need to know is if Obama and/or someone in his administration ordered the local LEOs to apprehend the guy who made the video.

        1. Indeed, Wodun. Here is Mrs. Clinton sympathizing with the attackers,, condemning the video (the excuse of which seems to be a total ruse, but no matter…), feeling their pain, etc.

          Of course, she’s trying to have it both ways and saying this is no excuse (and we can argue the merits of that, q.v. realpolitik), but the content of her statement cannot be disputed because…there it is.

          1. the content of her statement cannot be disputed because…there it is

            Yes, there it is, and nothing in her statement sympathizes with the attackers. Nothing. To the contrary, it condemns the use of violence in the name of religion, particularly against diplomats.

            You are making the same mistake as Romney, imagining things that aren’t there.

        2. There was an additional tweet sent before Romney’s comments and after the riots that affirmed the earlier tweet.

          Yes, and the “we stand by our earlier statement” tweet specifically condemned the attack. Romney attacked a “first response” to the attacks that sympathized with the attackers. No such statement exists outside Romney’s imagination.

          We must have been reading different statements

          Please post the statement where the Obama administration sympathizes with the embassy attackers. Hint: it doesn’t exist.

          2. “This video administration is disgusting and reprehensible…”

            It’s always projection with the left, isn’t it?

            Did you know, the illiterate misogynous pedophile serial hate-crime murderer Mohammed’s (PissBUH) followers want to convert, enslave or kill every other person on the planet?

            Ok, so I don’t really believe hate-crime is a different category from crime-crime… you just can’t get away from the left’s influence, can you? They’re like a contagion.

            Just think. In some countries I could be put to death for just this one comment. I hope this isn’t one of those countries. Incarceration would be bad enough.

          3. Disgust at the video is not sympathy for the attackers. It’s possible to condemn both hate videos and embassy attacks — which is exactly what the embassy staff, and the rest of the Obama administration, has done.

          4. It is possible to condemn the attacks while expressing sympathy for the attackers, which is exactly what the Obama administration has done.

      2. 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.

        It’s NOT wrong because:

        * The tweet in question was sent by embassy foreign service personnel, not the Obama administration

        Then you’re saying Obama is incompetent because ALL statements by the state department have to be cleared. So what you’re saying is Obama should fire Hillary immediately (because he’s never responsible.)

        * The tweet in question was sent before the attacks, so it was not a “response”

        Romney said this after the death of our ambassador. I have yet to hear a clear condemnation of the attackers. (Dragging our dead ambassador through the streets being described by Hillary as, “taking him to the hospital.”) They are still trying to claim this has nothing to do with America, 9-11, or terrorists but instead it’s all about a poor quality video that’s been on UTube for months.

        * The tweet in question had nothing to do with the Libya attack

        Of course not. /sarc

        * The embassy’s first statement after it was attacked did condemn the attack

        Yet the story they are going with is it’s all about some handy scapegoat.

        When it comes to affairs of state, ALL statements need to be unambiguous and coordinated from top to bottom, you know, like journolists.

        Regardless of any nits, Romney was right to be outraged and the Obama admin has acted disgracefully… obviously trying to catch up with our disgraceful media that only believes in free speech half the time.

        1. Then you’re saying Obama is incompetent because ALL statements by the state department have to be cleared.

          The Cairo embassy tweets were not cleared. I don’t have an opinion on whether it’d be a good idea to require all embassy communications to be run through Foggy Bottom. I can see arguments either way. But regardless, Romney was wrong to attribute embassy statements made by career foreign service officers in the field to “the Obama administration.”

          Romney said this after the death of our ambassador

          The statement he was attacking was made before the death of the ambassador.

          Of course not. /sarc

          You believe in time travel? The embassy tweet was sent before the Libya attack.

          Regardless of any nits

          Nits? Everything he said about the Obama administration in that statement was untrue.

          1. Romney was wrong to attribute embassy statements made by career foreign service officers in the field to “the Obama administration.”

            No he wasn’t. Statements coming from state department personnel either are consistent with the head of state (Obama) or people get fired. Remember a little thing called WW1? It was started with a single bullet. Obama can’t throw anyone in the state department under the bus without firing them. To do so is to throw himself under the bus. He tried, but he can’t.

            People can say anything they want, except when they are part of the state department. They’re freedom of speech is limited unless they resign. Then they can say anything they want.

      3. So we should let parole violations slide when they’re committed by hate mongers? You know that any president, Republican or Democrat, would have done the very same thing.

        Jim, so the president should be calling up local police departments to ask them if they’ve got anything they can use against people who say things the administration doesn’t like?

        And the current Administration has decided not to enforce numerous federal laws, and to essentially act new “laws” via executive order. So it seems to me as if they’ve no respect for the law. Unless, I suppose, those laws can be used against “inconvenient” persons.

        Good grief.
        Jeff

        1. people who say things the administration doesn’t like

          This guy isn’t a political enemy, he’s a criminal and a hate monger whose illegal actions have hurt the interests of the US, and increased the level of danger for Americans around the world. If Romney was president, he would use every legal avenue to minimize the damage, just as Obama has.

          2. Making videos that negativly portray Islam is not illegal.

            Did 0bama give the order to drag the man from his house in the dead of night and a perp walk before the waiting media? Is this normal due.process for an alleged parole violation?

  6. Jim,

    How honest are Obama and Clinton being when they say the ambassador was rescued by friendly Libyans when the video shows them chanting “Allau Ackbar” when they pull him through the shattered safe house window?

    1. I will point out that the translation of the video I referenced doesn’t show any ill will toward the ambassador, although the way they handled a supposedly alive seriously wounded person was curious.

      So, I will redirect to a different lie from the administration. The ex-seal was not doing security work as they claimed but was there to track down shoulder fired missiles.

  7. So, Jim’s argument is that Romney was wrong to jump the gun and make a statement that Obama himself eventually aligned himself with as well. Jump the gun? Sounds more like he was ahead of the curve. Then he attempts to bog down the argument over the semantics of whether an embassy official is acting in the capacity of a administration official when they make a tweet. And of course President Empty Chair had no problem immediately dumping the Cairo embassy under the bus by condeming their condemnation — before he knew all the facts I dare say.

    Now it appears that the video was just an excuse. The Libyans say this was a planned attack and they had provided intel 3 days prior of the activity. Yet we’re led to believe that some video sitting up on youtube for months just all of a sudden, right on the anniversary of 9/11, sparks multiple reprisals against diplomatic missions all throughout the middle east. These protesters against a video just so happen to lug a cache of mortars, rpgs, and machine guns to an impromtu, “you hurt our prophets feelings”, protest. Why when I went to a Tea Party rally in Dallas a few years back I saw old ladies with grenades hanging from their tac-vests, and business owners carrying m60’s with belts of 7.62 NATO slung over their shoulder, and I slapped my forehead because I totally forgot to bring my SMAW. Because when you’re having a good ole’ protest who doesn’t need some artillery support? And seriously since when have probation violators been picked up at the direction of the federal government? There are other parties much better equipped to deal with those circumstances of a probation violation. Dragging that dude out of his house at midnight was nothing but a circus act. Oh what’s the point? I should just drop my rheteric down to Jim’s level and just scream that Obama is a lying liar, that lies lies lies, about stuff, and LIES! So there!

    1. Yeah, it’s looking worse and worse for the Obama admin — they were warned three days in advance in Lybia. Ouch.

  8. But regardless, Romney was wrong to attribute embassy statements made by career foreign service officers in the field to “the Obama administration.”

    Just an observation here. But those career foreign service officers are not only part of the Obama administration but are the part whose jobs is was to make the comments that were made. It is not an error to say that this was the voice of the Obama administration. It is merely a fact. Further, Obama is responsible for the words and actions of any federal employee acting in an official capacity.

    Sure, Obama can dismiss it by claiming that the field staff in Egypt were under a lot of pressure and just said stuff. The thing is, they said it with his authority. And we still have the matter of a very public spectacle of an arrest for a parole violation.

    Finally, there’s the matter of “hate mongering”. I find Jim’s sort of bigotry to be deeply hypocritical. There is no reason to treat “hate mongers” any differently in law than anyone else.

Comments are closed.