Stop Politicizing Libya Mitt Romney

Stop lying Governor Romney! You got the facts completely wrong. Four Americans are dead and this is how you respond? You said that President Obama was disgraceful, no Mitt you are the disgraceful one. It just shows that you will say anything to win the presidency. As one of your pollsters Neil Newhouse said, “We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers.” Apparently he is living up to his word.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The gunfire at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, had barely ceased when Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney seriously mischaracterized what had happened in a statement accusing President Barack Obama of ‘‘disgraceful’’ handling of violence there and at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo.

‘‘The Obama administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks,’’ Romney said in a statement first emailed to reporters at 10:09 p.m. Eastern time, under the condition it not be published until midnight.

In fact, neither a statement by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo earlier in the day nor a later statement from Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton offered sympathy for attackers. The statement from the Cairo Embassy had condemned anti-Muslim religious incitement before the embassy walls were breached. In her statement, issued minutes before Romney's, Clinton had offered the administration’s first response to the violence in Libya, explicitly condemning the attack there and confirming the death of a State Department official.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics...cts-attacks/YvlBS2cDH8EoiC02ic8GXK/story.html

FactCheck.org
http://factcheck.org/2012/09/romney-gets-it-backward/

Politifact
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-says-us-embassy-statement-was-apology-was-i/
 
Yeah, who does he think he is politicizing a foreign crisis? A Democrat?


:tongue:

1. Bad economy
2. High unemployment
3. High gas prices
4. Withdrawing support from a pro-American dictator just to have that country taken over by muslim extremists.
5. Having said muslim extremists attack an American embassy and kill some of the people who work there.

Yup, Obummer is looking more and more like Jimmy Carter. I just really hope there's no hostate crisis.
 
Yeah, who does he think he is politicizing a foreign crisis? A Democrat?


:tongue:

1. Bad economy
2. High unemployment
3. High gas prices
4. Withdrawing support from a pro-American dictator just to have that country taken over by muslim extremists.
5. Having said muslim extremists attack an American embassy and kill some of the people who work there.

Yup, Obummer is looking more and more like Jimmy Carter. I just really hope there's no hostate crisis.

Did Romney get his facts wrong? yes or no?
 

xfire

New Twitter/X @cxffreeman
And meanwhile, at The Daily Dolt-

http://www.thedailydolt.com/2012/09...he-number-of-embassy-attacks-under-his-watch/

Donald Rumsfeld Asserts Embassy Attacks Due To “Perceived American Weakness”; Simple Google Search Once Again Helpful In Pointing Out Hypocrisy

Yesterday, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld tweeted that Mitt Romney was right to say the tragic attacks on U.S. embassies on Tuesday were the result of perceived American weakness:

rummy.jpg


Which is an excellent point. If Bush and Rumsfeld were in charge, the world would know who was boss, and these attacks never would have happened. Just look at their record!! No one dared to attack a U.S. diplomatic facility when they were running the show. Right? That’s right, isn’t it? We assume that’s correct, or else Donald Rumsfeld surely would not have published such a Tweet. But let’s Google it just to be sure…

Actually, there were twelve terrorist attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities abroad during George W. Bush’s tenure — the most of any president in history — and eight of those occurred while Donald Rumsfeld was in office.

The embassy breaches on Tuesday marked the second attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities during President Obama’s tenure, including one in April 2010 in Pakistan which was in retaliation for drone attacks there (if one counts the attacks in Libya, Egypt, and Yemen separately even though they occurred at roughly the same time and arose from the same incident, the total during his presidency is four). Even after Osama bin Laden’s death, America’s diplomatic facilities did not come under fire.
 
So, let me get this straight... you think Romney should stop politicizing Libya, so you start a thread politicizing Mitt Romney's politicization of Libya?
 
Romney's politicizing the attacks 'cause he has no other choice :
-Before the conventions, he was loosing.
-He was hoping to use the RNC to catch up Obama but it didn't worked and he' still loosing.
-He tried attacking Obama about his record, it didn't worked.
-He can't afford to attack Obama on his project 'cause his and Ryan's project are not specific enough and when he's asked to be more precise he has nothing to answer
-He tried attacking Obama on personal topics, it didn't worked
It seemed he was doomed, Republicans are already talking about what are they gonna do if they lose... Seems like he won't get many "Nice try !". It will be more like "How could you loose, you useless moron !"
So, politicizing these attacks, use them to attack Obama may be his last chance to win the election.


We'll never know but still, I wonder if he would have done this if he was winning. I'm not sure but I think he wouldn't have.
 
So, from Romney, I can understand that he's politicizing the thing.
But what disgust me is th other Republicans do it as well, in ways that are much more disgusting.
Have a look on Sarah Palin's wall, on wednesday. Here are the very last sentences :
We already know that President Obama likes to “speak softly” to our enemies. If he doesn’t have a “big stick” to carry, maybe it’s time for him to grow one.
The US are in the middle of a serious security crisis, ambassies have been attacked, 4 US citizens died. And Sarah Palin makes dick jokes about the President. Classy.
Keep in mind that she could have been the VP, that she would be the VP right now if McCain had won...
 

meesterperfect

Hiliary 2020
as americans we do not tolerate hurting the feelings people of religion(unless they are christian, especially catholic).
fuck the first amendment, we just won't tolerate it.
having said that stop attacking our embassies please..........it's just not right.

we'll just have to see how this plays out, hopefully , but doubtfully it will stop soon.

i tried to read all i could about these attacks from various sources, the hardest part was seeding through all the "ronmey is an evil bastard" news stories on this.
but leave it to the american press to concentrate in vilifying romney instead of the fact that the muslims have and are atticking our embassies.
who's politicizing what now?

this is interesting however, lets see how much they ignore this one.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...story-of-us-envoys-assassination-8135797.html
 
as americans we do not tolerate hurting the feelings people of religion(unless they are christian, especially catholic).
fuck the first amendment, we just won't tolerate it.
Problem is the US are actualy facing a culture who's very touchy when it comes to its religion.
So what should Obam have said :
-Shut up you bastards or we'll bomb your ass. This guy who made a movie insulting your Prophet and your shit religion was right and our nation will support him.
OR
-Ok, calm down guys, I know you're feeling insulted by this crap movie but you got know that it doesn't reflect the opinion of ou entire nation about your religion. We respect it, as we respect all religions.
You may think the 2nd sentence would make the US look weak. Buy you gotta know that the President must be all what he can do to protct the US citizen living outside the US. And his speech must also tell the american muslim citizens that they are still considered as good ameican citizens as christians, jews, buddhists, or whatever US citizens.

who's politicizing what now?
Romney's been politicizing this since he's very first reaction :facepalm:
 
as americans we do not tolerate hurting the feelings people of religion(unless they are christian, especially catholic).
fuck the first amendment, we just won't tolerate it.
having said that stop attacking our embassies please..........it's just not right.

we'll just have to see how this plays out, hopefully , but doubtfully it will stop soon.

i tried to read all i could about these attacks from various sources, the hardest part was seeding through all the "ronmey is an evil bastard" news stories on this.
but leave it to the american press to concentrate in vilifying romney instead of the fact that the muslims have and are atticking our embassies.
who's politicizing what now?

this is interesting however, lets see how much they ignore this one.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...story-of-us-envoys-assassination-8135797.html

For the third time, did Romney get the facts wrong? yes or no?
 

Will E Worm

Conspiracy...
Yeah, who does he think he is politicizing a foreign crisis? A Democrat?


:tongue:

1. Bad economy
2. High unemployment
3. High gas prices
4. Withdrawing support from a pro-American dictator just to have that country taken over by muslim extremists.
5. Having said muslim extremists attack an American embassy and kill some of the people who work there.

Yup, Obummer is looking more and more like Jimmy Carter. I just really hope there's no hostate crisis.

;)

So, let me get this straight... you think Romney should stop politicizing Libya, so you start a thread politicizing Mitt Romney's politicization of Libya?

:clap:

Did Romney get the facts right? yes or no?

Yes, now stop. :tongue:
 

bobjustbob

Proud member of FreeOnes Hall Of Fame. Retired to
Mc Cain as president would have scared the shit out of those looking to storm our embassy. Don't react with your views on how he would have handled the economy. That's for another thread. It's not just the troops but the intelligence community that puts a hold on this shit too.

I agree that Mitt spoke too soon. But now after 4 embassies are having rocks hurled at them, we all have to ask why were we not prepared for this kind of action? The Egypt and Libya change to democracy. Yemen, all of a sudden they allow an attack. Was anyone having relations with Sudan for the past several years? Who is on the watch?
 
Did Romney get the facts right? yes or no?

This was the original quote from the Cairo Embassy:
"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..."

So, I would say, as of the time Romney made his statement, that, yes, he did correctly address the facts, as they were available to him. The White House has since tried to distance themselves from the statement, saying that "the statement by Embassy Cairo was not cleared by Washington and does not reflect the views of the United States government," which is interesting, because I was under the impression that the US Embassy in Cairo was part of the US government. Funny, too, that the "tweet" that the Cairo Embassy expressed these sentiments in is now deleted.

Either way, my point here is that, for you to act like Romney wasn't going to politicize this is extremely short sighted. Like it or not, criticism of one's opponents is the bread and butter of American electoral politics. Discussions of morality or ethics of the response are, in a large way, irrelevant, as this is business as usual. To think that Romney would miss an opportunity to criticize Obama less than 2 months out from the Presidential election is just naive.

For Christ's sake, both campaigns have criticized and politicized the other's treatment of dogs, and your mind is blown that Romney is trying to capitalize on a chance that he has to criticize his opponent regarding foreign policy? That's just childish.
 
This was the original quote from the Cairo Embassy:


So, I would say, as of the time Romney made his statement, that, yes, he did correctly address the facts, as they were available to him. The White House has since tried to distance themselves from the statement, saying that "the statement by Embassy Cairo was not cleared by Washington and does not reflect the views of the United States government," which is interesting, because I was under the impression that the US Embassy in Cairo was part of the US government. Funny, too, that the "tweet" that the Cairo Embassy expressed these sentiments in is now deleted.

Either way, my point here is that, for you to act like Romney wasn't going to politicize this is extremely short sighted. Like it or not, criticism of one's opponents is the bread and butter of American electoral politics. Discussions of morality or ethics of the response are, in a large way, irrelevant, as this is business as usual. To think that Romney would miss an opportunity to criticize Obama less than 2 months out from the Presidential election is just naive.

For Christ's sake, both campaigns have criticized and politicized the other's treatment of dogs, and your mind is blown that Romney is trying to capitalize on a chance that he has to criticize his opponent regarding foreign policy? That's just childish.

Sorry you have it entirely wrong.
http://factcheck.org/2012/09/romney-gets-it-backward/

Romney Gets It Backward
Posted on September 12, 2012
Bookmark and Share

Mitt Romney claims the Obama administration issued an “apology for American values” after U.S. embassies were attacked. Not true. Romney refers to a statement issued before mobs attacked either in Egypt or Libya, and faults U.S. diplomats for failing to condemn actions that hadn’t yet happened.

Furthermore, the word “sorry” or “apologize” doesn’t appear in the statement. Under the headline, “U.S. Embassy Condemns Religious Incitement,” the embassy in Cairo said, “Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy.”

Romney has falsely accused Obama of “apologizing for America” many times before. The line has been a dependable applause-getter with conservative audiences. But we found no basis for this claim in Obama’s previous speeches and remarks. And other fact-checkers came to similar conclusions.

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:

Romney, Sept. 12: 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:

Romney: 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.

At 6:11 a.m. Eastern time (around noon Cairo time), the U.S. embassy in Cairo tweeted: “U.S. Embassy condemns religious incitement,” with a link to its full statement. (The tweet was later deleted and the link to the statement was taken down.) A senior administration official who spoke to reporters on a conference call confirmed that the statement was released at about noon Cairo time, which would have been at about 6 a.m. EST. That places the release of the statement several hours before the protest.

So Romney was wrong about the statement from the embassy coming in response to the protest. Nor do we see any basis for Romney’s claim that the embassy statement was “apologizing for free speech” and “appeared to be an apology for American principles.”

Here is the statement in its entirety:

U.S. Embassy Condemns Religious Incitement

September 11, 2012

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.

The “incitement” to which the statement refers is an obscure U.S. movie that was getting widespread attention in Egypt and the Arab world because of a 14-minute trailer posted on YouTube in early July. According to Max Fisher, an editor at The Atlantic, the movie accuses the prophet Mohammed and other Islamic figures of “homosexuality and child molestation” among other things.

It so happened that State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland was giving a daily press briefing in Washington, D.C., at 1:05 p.m. Eastern time shortly after the protest and was asked about it.

Nuland, Sept. 11, 1:05 p.m. EST: So obviously, one of the things about the new Egypt is that protest is possible. Obviously we all want to see peaceful protest, which is not what happened outside the U.S. mission, so we’re trying to restore calm now. But I think the bigger picture is one of the United States supporting Egypt’s democratic transition and the Egyptian government very much welcoming and working with us on the support that we have to offer.

No apology there.

More important, the statement from the embassy in Cairo was released some 10 hours before another mob attacked the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans. According to senior U.S. officials, the attack in Libya began around 4 p.m EST and continued for several hours.

In the late afternoon on Sept. 11, Nuland confirmed that the U.S. consulate in Libya was under attack, but she did not say if anyone had been killed. In her statement — the first official statement we could find from the State Department in Washington — Nuland said: “We condemn in strongest terms this attack on our diplomatic mission.” There was no sympathizing with the attackers. The statement was issued before the deaths were confirmed.

At 10:08 p.m. EST, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton released a statement on the attack, confirming the deaths of three Americans.

Clinton, Sept. 11, 10:08 p.m. EST: I condemn in the strongest terms the attack on our mission in Benghazi today. … Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. 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.

At 10:25 p.m., the Romney campaign released a statement saying, “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.”

At 11:04 p.m. ABC’s Jake Tapper reported, “An administration official tells ABC News that ‘no one in Washington approved that statement before it was released and it doesn’t reflect the views of the U.S. government.’ ”

On the morning of Sept. 12, Romney doubled-down on his attacks, claiming that after the grounds in Cairo had been breached, the embassy released a statement that amounted to “an apology for America’s values.”

In a statement from the Rose Garden that same morning, Obama — with Clinton at his side — also added his voice to the chorus condemning the attacks and called them “outrageous and shocking.”

Again, neither Obama, Clinton nor the State Department spokeswoman issued an “apology for American values,” as Romney described it. All unequivocally condemned the attacks and called them unjustified. And the embassy statement upon which Romney’s claim rests was issued hours before the protest in Cairo.

Asked to explain Romney’s comments, spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom acknowledged that the embassy in Cairo released its statement before the protests occurred. But he said Romney was referring to a deleted tweet from @USEmbassyCairo after the protest that reaffirmed the embassy’s earlier statement. That tweet said, “This morning’s condemnation (issued before protests began) still stands. As does our condemnation of the unjustified breach of the Embassy.”

That does not, however, explain all of Romney’s comments — including the one in which he claims “the administration was wrong to stand by a statement sympathizing with those who had breached our embassy in Egypt, instead of condemning their actions.” The deleted tweet does not necessarily sympathize with the mob, and it does condemn their actions.

Apology Tour

Romney’s claims about the administration “apologizing for American values” fits an ongoing theme of his campaign: accusing Obama of beginning his presidency on an “apology tour” in foreign countries. In fact, that meme informed the title of Romney’s book “No Apology.”

We looked into the Obama speeches that Romney cited as evidence and concluded that nowhere did we see that the president “apologized” for America. In some speeches, Obama was drawing a distinction between his policies and those of his predecessor, George W. Bush. In other instances, Obama appeared to be employing a bit of diplomacy, criticizing past actions of both the U.S. and the host nation, and calling for the two sides to move forward.

Then, as now, Romney’s claim of Obama “apologies” falls flat.
 

Rey C.

Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
No matter a person's politics or the fact that this is an election year, when there is an attack on an American facility, that is not the time to try to score political points. Mitt Romney should try to learn something from John McCain and follow his advice on this matter. Even (sane, non-radical) Republicans are suggesting that he really needs to learn that there are times when silence is golden.

The coffins are arriving at Andrews AFB right now. Possibly Mittens can keep his trap shut while their loved ones and the country mourns.
 

I know you have a raging hard on for factcheck.org, but don't you think its a little odd that the website always seems to agree with your left leaning agenda? Its not a coincidence. That website is funded by the Annenberg Group, if you don't know who they are, look them up. The group has close ties to Bill Ayers as well as, you guessed it, Barack Obama. It must be nice for Obama to have his friends running a "fact" checking site, that is completely biased in favor of him and his agenda.

A quote from Hillary Clinton:
"Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. 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," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in a Tuesday statement.

Even before she says "there is never any justification for violent acts of this kind," she starts by apologizing for, and distancing the US from the man who created "The Innocence of Muslims."
 

Rey C.

Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
A quote from Hillary Clinton:
"Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. 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," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in a Tuesday statement.

Even before she says "there is never any justification for violent acts of this kind," she starts by apologizing for, and distancing the US from the man who created "The Innocence of Muslims."

Considering that absolutely no where in that quote did she apologize for anything, that is a very interesting interpretation. We are not, nor should we be in the business of playing pick & choose with respect to global religions. And of course we should distance ourselves from the radical Zionist and the Evangelical(s) who made this film and are trying to use this film to stoke violence against our republic. But as Clinton said, no matter what was in the film, that is not a justification for a violent act of this kind. To me, that's pretty clear. So that is not an apology, according to my study of the English language over the years.

Imagine this. I have a dog that barks. It keeps my neighbor up at night. He comes onto my property and shoots the dog dead. I come out, AK in hand, and confront him. I tell him that while I do not agree with my dog keeping him up at night, his violent reaction to that circumstance cannot be allowed. He touches the gun that he used to kill the dog and I shoot him 20 times. As those sucking chest wounds kill him, he can (mistakenly) believe that I apologized to him for the dog barking... if he wants to. But just as those who committed this act will likely face a bloody end, he too would be dead. So if it makes him feel better, thinking that he got an apology before he shuts his eyes for the last time, that's fine. It didn't happen, but whatever gets him through to the next life. :dunno:
 
Top