Romney gave terrorists what they want

[Anomalocaris]

Romney forgot the old adage " politics stops at the water's edge." Or, perhaps like every other issue, he accepted it once and now repudiates it?


With that clown you can never tell.

It's his pre existing condition, which he hopes Obamacare, which he plan to repeal, will cover.

Btw, Paul Ryan is putting out advertisement spots for his own house reflection campaign. Appearently the GOP vice presidential candidate's economic plan will cover his own unemployment after November.

[NoraBrimstone]

I totally expected this to be about NORAID. I know he's all butthurt about the reaction he got here, and I got scared he'd made a big donation to NORAID to fuck us up. Lol

[Tino]

I'm new to the forum and clearly in the minority in my point of view, but I'll express it anyway. If this gets me run out of the forum then it was inevitable anyway.

Have you seen the statement that Romney's comments were a reaction to? It has now been removed from the State Department's website, so I don't have the whole thing, but some of it is here from a CNN article: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/201...nt-page-3/

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."

Take a good look at that last sentence - "the embassy firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others."

Now I know many atheists are liberal, democrats, anti-american etc. and that may apply to some, all or none of those who posted above me in this thread, but come on, as an atheist, you have to see the danger in having the US government call it an "abuse of free speech" to "hurt the religious beliefs of others."

You also have to know that the vast majority of the US mainstream media is pro-democrat/liberal and anti-republican/conservative. So while it may seem that the entire world is united in condemnation of Romney's statement, you need to understand that you're hearing that from a media that colludes to create a negative Romney story. (I can provide some evidence of that separately if you doubt it.) But if you look at the conservative media, including what Bill Kristol (cited in the OP article as apparently critical of Romeny) had to say, you'll see support for Romney's statement. And I support it as well, because I think it is very dangerous for the government of United States to apologize for the use of free speech by our citizens.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/romn...52223.html

[downbeatplumb]

"The truth has a well known liberal bias" Stephen Colbert.

[DeistPaladin]

Take a good look at that last sentence - "the embassy firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others."

I agree that's bullshit and needless accommodation of religious sensibilities. Most posters here will agree as well.

Frankly, "liberal" has nothing to do with this PC crap. Conservatives and liberals alike in America attain a rare consensus when they sprint to absolve religion of any violence committed in its name.

I fully reserve the right to mock religion. As I'm not an adherent to their beliefs, I am not bound by their taboos.

You also have to know that the vast majority of the US mainstream media is pro-democrat/liberal and anti-republican/conservative.

I wish that were true.

In the real world, the mainstream media in America is controlled by six major corporations that make sure we're given a good corporate spin on our news.

If there were any illusions that the conservative whine about "lib-rul media" had any truth to it, it should have been thoroughly dispelled by their treatment of the Bush administration. The man lied us into a war and not a peep from the press about it. The closest they came to any investigation was from a White House press reporter, Hellen Thomas, who FINALLY in 2006 asked W. Bush why we invaded Iraq. He lied and said it was because we were attacked on 9/11 and quickly moved to the next reporter. Nobody dared ask any follow-up questions like, "Why did you just now lie? We all know Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11."

To this day, I'd like to see some media investigation into how we got suckered into Iraq and what the real reasons were behind going to war with Saddam. I'm not holding my breath.

Then there's the media's treatment of the GOP today. Ryan got up at their convention and lied and lied and lied. CNN's response, "well, I'm sure the fact checkers will have some things to say about that." His lies were called "overreach".

And any time the media, if reality forces them to, actually does hold Republicans accountable for their lies and abuse, we are treated to a chorus of "both sides... both sides... both sides..."

This is why I go to non-America media to balance my understanding of what's going on in the world.

---

Oh, and did you notice how the Republican 51/49 win in 2004 was called a "mandate" by our lib-rul media while the Democrat devastating victory in 2006 was called "a call for bipartisanship"?

Lib-rul media my ass.

[festive1]

To this day, I'd like to see some media investigation into how we got suckered into Iraq and what the real reasons were behind going to war with Saddam. I'm not holding my breath.

I worked at the National Archives when Bush put this into effect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13292
I didn't have clearance for the stack where all these newly classified holdings were kept, but there were TONS of boxes going into that area. Someday they'll be de-classified... Then we'll know.

[Minimalist]

From your own link.

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.

The statement was issued BEFORE the incident in Egypt. Not after. Romney seems to have a little trouble understanding time as a concept.

What he did was try to politicize a tragic event. He's a miserable cocksucker.

[Anomalocaris]

Take a good look at that last sentence - "the embassy firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others."

I agree that's bullshit and needless accommodation of religious sensibilities. Most posters here will agree as well.

.....
I fully reserve the right to mock religion. As I'm not an adherent to their beliefs, I am not bound by their taboos.

It is good policy to humor the silliness of its people in order to get the country to do what you want.

One does not go far in diplomacy by offending people without knowing precisely what you expect to get out of it.

If it is our objective to get our ambassy assaulted, then it is justifiable for our amabassy to not humor their sensitivity to mockery of their religion. If ours is not, then it is not.

[Faith No More]

Now I know many atheists are liberal, democrats, anti-american etc. and that may apply to some, all or none of those who posted above me in this thread, but come on, as an atheist, you have to see the danger in having the US government call it an "abuse of free speech" to "hurt the religious beliefs of others."

If only it happened that way...

Getting Things Backward

This time Romney has gone beyond putting his own unwarranted spin on the president's statements. He has just gotten his basic facts in the wrong order.

Romney appeared on national television the morning of Sept. 12 and said:

"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.

In response to reporters' questions, he added:

"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 - a - a terrible course to - for America to - 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. An apology for America's values is never the right course. . . ."

The statement that came from the administration was - was a statement which is akin to apology and I think was a - a severe miscalculation.

The fact is, however, that Romney got his sequence of events backward.

A Timeline

Contrary to multiple reports from Fox News, the U.S. embassy in Cairo - not the State Department in Washington - put out the statement on Sept. 11 several hours before a mob of protesters breached the wall of the embassy, took down an American flag and replaced it with a black flag.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaki...tacks.html

[Minimalist]

One does not go far in diplomacy by offending people without knowing precisely what you expect to get out of it.

The John McSame School of Diplomacy. "They don't like us...BOMB THEM.


(But only if they can't shoot back.)