I was going to blog about Mitt Romney’s appalling and inappropriate effort to make political points in the midst of a foreign policy crisis, but along with most commentators and responsible officials in both political parties, The American Conservative has already covered it.
Money quote:
That’s more than hasty and stupid; that’s unconscionable.
I am a 75 year old, high school dropout with a GED and a political novice trying to catch up after years of too often paying little attention to politicians. Yet somehow, I fully understood President Obama was speaking to the nation regarding the murder of four American citizens who were government workers in Libya. He also told the nation the President of Libya was standing with us in his deep regret that this had happened and would do all in his power to bring the criminals to justice. This brief and eloquent speech by President Obama was one of condolence to the families of victims and informing the nation of what was known about the situation. These horrible murders in Libya have nothing to do with Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or any other Arab nations where conflict is also raging. Romney is a foolish man who not only “shoots before he aims” but speaks before thinking. How anyone can continue to support this man to be elected to any position of authority, is beyond my limited range of understanding. The 1st Amendment should have included that freedom of speech should mean TRUTH, not random ignorant blathering.
I realize that you hate Mitt Romney and are not going to give him the benefit of the doubt on anything, but Romney’s criticism of the Obama administration for blaming those who exercise their First Amendment rights before blaming the terrorists came before it was known that Ambassador Stevens had been killed. Even after the White House sought to distance itself from the State Department’s official statement and after Romney made his comments, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reasserted those comments. For someone who claims to be a civil rights advocate, you seem to have no outrage for the Obama administration’s efforts to subject us to blasphemy laws in clear violation of our First Amendment rights because Muslims are incapable of tolerating the religious views of others. You could learn somthing from Professor Jonathan Turley, who I’m sure you despise because he goes out of his way as law professor to be fair to both sides of the argument, and who had this to say:
The Obama Administration has been working to develop an international standard for blasphemy prosecutions. The West has steadily yielded to the demands of religious groups that free speech must be curtailed in the name of faith. At the same time, Western governmental and religious leaders have denounced agnostics and atheists as one of the greatest threats facing the West (here and here and here and here). President Obama and Hillary Clinton have been facilitating this trend by working with Muslim nations to develop an international standard allowing for the prosecution of those who insult religion. The Administration has drawn a dangerous line with Muslim countries in first supporting the concept of an international blasphemy standard. As I have mentioned before, the efforts of the Obama Administration to work with these countries on an international blasphemy standard is a threat to free speech around the world. After first supporting an international blasphemy standard, the Administration sought to get Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and other countries to adopt the Brandenburg standard as the basis for such prosecutions. This case also shows why the use of the Brandenburg standard is so dangerous in the hands of such officials who view free speech as the cause of imminent violence. Past cases show that even the suggestion of blasphemy is enough to trigger violent riots in some Muslim nations. Because any joke or image of the Prophet can trigger violence, the standard is immediately satisfied in countries like Egypt and Pakistan, which can then claim some legal legitimacy under the standard created with the United States.
Secretary of State Clinton continues to push for the implementation of the new international effort to criminalize certain forms of anti-religious speech as our Muslim allies expand their definition of blasphemy.
Lions and tigers and bears, oh my! I seemed to have stepped into the land of Oz by your version of my comments. I do not hate Romney; I am scared to death of him, Ryan, Reid, Boehner and the rest of the Tea Party advocates who would take over this country and give it to the wealthy…using lies to pave the yellow brick road on their way to the presidency – they hope. You use the term “blasphemy” as if you are a religious man yet you condemn any and everyone whose views oppose your own. I looked at the man behind the curtain and saw the true wizard and his name is Romney.
Dumb Guys with holy books:
I heard that it was the dumb preacher in FLA (The one that likes to burn other peoples books) that was promoting this dumb video. Then the dumb holy people overseas go nuts. Why nut email the photo and address off the dumb preacher to the dumb folks over there and let them settle these between themselves and leave the rest of us out of it?
THIS is the appropriate response that Gov Romney should have provided:
“I was deeply disturbed and saddened to learn of the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other American consular personnel. I join President Obama in condemning the senseless acts of violence at our diplomatic post in Benghazi. The families of the four Americans who were serving our country are in our thoughts and in our prayers.” – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)
It’s not like the old days, when “Monty Python” somewhat ridiculed Christianity (in the “life of Brian”) and we all laughed our asses off.
The Money Quote says it all! Expect the unconscionable from the unconscious! Mitten needs to learn the art of keeping his mouth shut, except on the issue of his hidden assets and his tax returns. Who asked him anyway?
Once again, you can’t have it both ways. While the more rational part of my mind would like to think you all condemned John Kerry for politicizing the Iraq War, let’s be serious. The vicarious applicability of political philosophy is confusing, to say the least.
What shocks me is that we have numerous well-coordinated attacks, planned well in advance with inside help, and the press corps is more concerned about going after Romney than asking why the President read a prepared statement, didn’t take any questions, skipped another security briefing, and went to a fundraiser in Vegas.
Is there any defense of that from anyone here, aside from more “well I’m scared of Romney, and at least he’s not Romney.” Unfortunately the media here long ago lost it’s nerve, but it’s interesting to note that foreign media outlets of renown are calling this everything from an act of war to a total collapse of Obama’s foreign policy in the Middle East.
Evidently it’s finally reached a crescendo, I’m patiently waiting for a statement from the White House. Obama’s bet-hedging statement yesterday doesn’t look to have quelled any of the malcontents…
So Marco; what questions would you have asked after words of condolence were extended to the families of four murder victims? What would you ask your friends voicing their condolences to you for the death of your mother, father, wife, son, daughter or friend. This was not a Q & A situation; it was a solemn event and had President Obama run on and on about all other upheavels in the middle east and taken questions, you and Romney and your cohorts would have found fault with that…and it would have been appropriate. What are your comments about the sincere, touching ceremoney welcoming home the bodies of the four victims of the attack on our Embassy in Libya – come on now, you must have some detrimental comments and many questions you want answered. You may not be aware of the fact that this is a time to grieve, not spew insults or give lengthy diatribes about your political views and ancient political history. I, as one of millions of thinking and feeling Americans, am grieving with the victims, their families and friends, our President and those in his administration who are humane and caring enough to behave properly and show respect.
A) cancel the fundraiser the next day, or at least skip it and send somebody else.
B) if he truly went to bed knowing that this was happening, brew a pot of coffee and man the ship until some stability is achieved. If he didn’t, don’t skip the morning security briefing. As for receiving the briefs via printout, it’s hard to engage a sheet of paper.
C) get everybody in your chain of command on the same page i.e. if you’re taking a hard stance on Egypt, try to make sure you let HilRod know your game plan.
D) I wouldn’t even mention the video. By qualifying your statement (in the same sentence no less) condemning the attacks, you’re tacitly blaming the videomaker for the reaction. For example, “you never should have cut in line, but that’s no excuse for him punching you in the face.” So are we to blame the abortion doctor when a bomb threat gets called into the clinic? Really?
E) I’m sure there’s a provision in the Patriot Act warranting the allocation of government resources to investigate the guy that made the video, but if that doesn’t hearken back to the COINTELPRO days check your pulse.
F) It’s very obvious, and it’s been reported as such overseas ad infinitum, that this wasn’t a response to a “video,” it was a preplanned terrorist attack. They’ve just learned that if they throw some lame excuse out there our Western Guilt will blindly buy it.
By the by, I’m not a “Romney cohort.” I think I’m just playing catchup. 8 years ago it was Patriotic with a capital P to criticize ongoing war efforts, but now the media is saying it’s not anymore. I’m just trying to keep up with the times.