US Embassies in Egypt, Libya Breached, BO Silent

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by Nitehawk013

What am I missing here?

BEFORE the attacks that left 4 dead in Libya, a statement was released apologizing for any offenses caused by some filmmaker. AFTER the attacks when Obama delivered his statement with Hilary by his side the only thing he said was that teh attacks were outrageous and that we stand for the first amendment. He also indeed did mention that we shouldn't denigrate other religions. So he absolutly DID make it about "oh we shouldn't have offended them".

Obama has made this more about how terrible Romney is and how we shouldn't offend those poor peaceful muslems. He rebuked Romney far harder then he condemned the MURDER of our citizens at our embassy!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

A Huffington Post article on Mitt Romney has about as much objectivity as Rosie O'Donnell reporting on PatnRobertson sermon on sodomy...

I know Huffington is generally liberal, but the article stated the situation well. They have been pretty fair in the past election cycle. They also have a mixture of articles by different authors, having opened their doors to conservative bloggers and posters as well. There may not be a lot of conservative content, especially when it comes to social conservatives, but it's there.

Rachel Maddow did more to point out and report the dishonesty in the Republican primaries than Fox ever thought about. Sometimes the left gets it right and the right gets it left.

[tstew]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

The movie was on the Internet 6 months ago. Suddenly there's a problem on 9/11? The administration should've been aware that our enemies would want to do something on 9/11 and they should've been prepared for it. To offer an apology on Tuesday even before the attack seems to indicate they were aware something was in the making. Why didn't they apologize 6 months ago?

And even in Hillary's and Obama's Conde,nation of the attacks they inserted some language condemning the movie. Who cares about the movie? Do they apologize when Hollywood makes fun of Christianity?

Deac, the movie was "released" months ago, but it did not immediately gather the steam it had recently. It's not unreasonable for the embassy in a part of the world like that to release a statement after said movie received the notoriety. My point is that it is very dishonest to present that statement as the President's reaction to the events that occurred after the fact.

I like to suggest a fun little exercise whenever I have conversations like this. Just pretend that whatever we're discussing was done by the leadership and people "on the other side" and just respond the way you would...in the interest of some level of objectivity and balance. I can only imagine the uproar with some of the same people if this were done by the left. It is that lack of any sense of objectivity that makes me stay away from most political conversations...

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by tstew

Deac, the movie was "released" months ago, but it did not immediately gather the steam it had recently. It's not unreasonable for the embassy in a part of the world like that to release a statement after said movie received the notoriety. My point is that it is very dishonest to present that statement as the President's reaction to the events that occurred after the fact.

It has been my understanding that the Imam or whatever his title or name was that brought out the YouTube clip gave others the impression that it was a blockbuster release from Hollywood.

I am not sure if they used that as an excuse to wreak havoc on 9-11 or not, but that is what I have understood about the video.

And, again, I reiterate that I am all FOR free speech, but we do ourselves, our communities, our country and our world harm by not taking responsibility for how we present our thoughts and actions that, mainly, generates hate. We claim to be a Christian nation, but don't always come across as representing that fact.

It's like the bully in grade school. We can't stop that, as human nature appears to love to test the boundaries, but we still should teach, along with free speech, responsibility of our actions.

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by tstew

Deac, the movie was "released" months ago, but it did not immediately gather the steam it had recently. It's not unreasonable for the embassy in a part of the world like that to release a statement after said movie received the notoriety. My point is that it is very dishonest to present that statement as the President's reaction to the events that occurred after the fact.

I like to suggest a fun little exercise whenever I have conversations like this. Just pretend that whatever we're discussing was done by the leadership and people "on the other side" and just respond the way you would...in the interest of some level of objectivity and balance. I can only imagine the uproar with some of the same people if this were done by the left. It is that lack of any sense of objectivity that makes me stay away from most political conversations...

Well if Bush were in office when this happened and he would've said what was said, well that's different...

[tstew]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

Well if Bush were in office when this happened and he would've said what was said, well that's different...

I'm saying if it were President Bush and candidate Obama and others had ascribed to him the press release of one embassy prior to an incident at another embassy as his response to said incident, I would imagine the reaction around here may have been a little different. If candidate Obama had gone as far as to go partisan by publicly criticize President Bush, people would have accused him of being rash, uninformed, and politicizing a delicate tragedy (on 9/11 no less).

That's all I'm saying...

[Nitehawk013]

Um...GWB had a tragedy on 9/11 to deal with. And his reaction to it wasn't to subtly blame a movie, condemn the other party candidate and then run off to Vegas to make some money.

If Obama wasn't a pathetic excuse for a POTUS he would have 1) not taken 16 hours to come out with a statement directly from the white house, 2) not brought up some movie or not offending religions. This is about psychopaths who shoul dbe put down like rabid dogs, not religious tolerance. 3) issued a much stronger condemnation of tha terrorist acts and 4) made it very clear that justice would be swift and strong and that any one involved or harboring thos einvolved will be treated equally.

Instead he plays softball and tries to make it about Romney instea dof his own limp wristed actions. He is a fool and a coward who should have never been in the office of President to have the chance to make such incompetant decisions.

[tstew]

Originally Posted by Nitehawk013

Um...GWB had a tragedy on 9/11 to deal with. And his reaction to it wasn't to subtly blame a movie, condemn the other party candidate and then run off to Vegas to make some money.

If Obama wasn't a pathetic excuse for a POTUS he would have 1) not taken 16 hours to come out with a statement directly from the white house, 2) not brought up some movie or not offending religions. This is about psychopaths who shoul dbe put down like rabid dogs, not religious tolerance. 3) issued a much stronger condemnation of tha terrorist acts and 4) made it very clear that justice would be swift and strong and that any one involved or harboring thos einvolved will be treated equally.

Instead he plays softball and tries to make it about Romney instea dof his own limp wristed actions. He is a fool and a coward who should have never been in the office of President to have the chance to make such incompetant decisions.

Well, then the smart response would be to wait until his actual response and then criticize that (if you consider now to be the proper place and time for that sort of thing). As to your last point, I don't believe he has said anything about Romney to the best of my knowledge. What is happening is that other people were put off by Romney's actual response. I still don't see how anyone, regardless of party, could not see that as hugely inappropriate and misleading. But that all goes back to our partisan landscape and "our guy" vs "their guy".
Carry on. We'll just continue down this same direction seeing that the two parties are just two lanes on the same highway....

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by tstew

I'm saying if it were President Bush and candidate Obama and others had ascribed to him the press release of one embassy prior to an incident at another embassy as his response to said incident, I would imagine the reaction around here may have been a little different. If candidate Obama had gone as far as to go partisan by publicly criticize President Bush, people would have accused him of being rash, uninformed, and politicizing a delicate tragedy (on 9/11 no less).

That's all I'm saying...

Stew,

Byron York lays out the order of events---including a now-deleted tweet from the Cairo Embassy AFTER the walls had been breached. He says Romney was right, that the administration's instinct is to apologize for America.

An instant consensus appears to have developed among reporters and commentators that Mitt Romney made a mistake when he released a statement last night condemning the Obama administration's response to attacks on U.S. diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt... At Romney's hastily-arranged news conference in Florida Wednesday morning, nearly every question was predicated on the assumption that Romney's statement was a miscalculation... Also on Wednesday morning, journalist Mark Halperin, a reliable indicator of media insider sentiment, tweeted that Romney's decision at the news conference to repeat his criticism of the Obama administration's action could be the "most craven and ill-advised move of '12."

But Romney was, and is, right... As events in Benghazi and Cairo unfolded, the Obama administration's first instinct was to apologize for any offense Muslims might have taken from an Internet video, made in America, that mocked and ridiculed the prophet Mohammed, and which the radicals cited as the cause for their actions... In his original statement last night, Romney said, "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.".. Then, on Wednesday morning, Romney said the administration "was wrong to stand by a statement sympathizing with those who had breached our embassy in Egypt instead of condemning their actions."

And that is exactly what the administration did... First, when embassy staff in Cairo knew there was trouble but before Islamist radicals overran the walls, the embassy released this statement:

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims -- as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.

That was before the most serious problems... Afterward the radicals had breached the walls, torn down the American flag and replaced it with an Islamist banner, the embassy sent out a tweet (now deleted), which said: "This morning's condemnation (issued before protest began) still stands. As does our condemnation of unjustified breach of the Embassy.".. It is not clear if the embassy actually sent out a statement condemning the breach, but it most certainly sent out a statement condemning any possible offense against Muslim sensibilities.

Then, early Thursday morning, after the extent of the violence in Libya and Egypt was known, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton released a three-sentence statement, the first two sentences of which addressed possible offense to Muslims... "The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others," Clinton said... "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." Clinton's statement was: Regret, affirmation, condemnation, in that order.

So after the initial statement of apology for the video, there were two statements in which the Obama administration reacted apologetically to the attacks in Libya and Egypt... When Romney took to the microphone in Florida, he was careful to say that the administration "was wrong to stand by" its original pre-attack apology.

To the Romney campaign, the events reveal an administration that is too eager to apologize for the United States... "When you have a situation that is unfolding rapidly, a lot of times people fall back to first instinct, and in that first instinct, which is more reflex than strategic thought sometimes, you get to see what they think is most important," says former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a prominent spokesman for the Romney campaign... Pawlenty says that one might assume the administration would instantly condemn such attacks, "but it takes them three statements and the better part of a day to get to that point."

About 7:20 Wednesday morning, President Obama released a statement that first and foremost condemned the attacks... Only after that condemnation did Obama add, "While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally opposed the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants."..

Later Wednesday morning, both the president and Secretary of State Clinton made second statements, both tough condemnations of the violence... But Romney remains right: the administration's first instinct was to express regret for hurting any Muslim feelings, and not to strongly condemn attacks against the United States.

[tstew]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

Stew,

Byron York lays out the order of events---including a now-deleted tweet from the Cairo Embassy AFTER the walls had been breached. He says Romney was right, that the administration's instinct is to apologize for America.

Deac, I have not read the tweets from the Embassy in Cairo. However, do you still not see the inherent problem even with taking a tweet from somebody in an embassy in Egypt and attributing to the President as his response to an incident that occurred in an entirely different country?

I don't have a lot of time today, but I just think that they need to abandon this line of argument.