Patterico's Pontifications » L.A. Times: Romney Unpresidential for Immediately Criticizing Apologetic Statement That the Obama Administration Also Immediately Criticized

9/12/2012

L.A. Times: Romney Unpresidential for Immediately Criticizing Apologetic Statement That the Obama Administration Also Immediately Criticized

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:54 pm

Like pretty much the rest of the cattle in the media, the L.A. Times adopts the herd mentality and jumps on Mitt Romney for defending free speech and opposing a foreign policy of apologetics:

Romney’s quick criticism on Libya draws rebuke

President Obama and even some Republicans criticize Mitt Romney for assailing the initial administration response on the day of the attacks on U.S. diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt.

The deeply partisan nature of this year’s campaign intruded abruptly into a foreign policy crisis as Republican nominee Mitt Romney sharply criticized the Obama administration for issuing an “apology for America’s values” and the president retorted that his challenger was politicizing a tragedy.

Romney’s speed in assailing — his campaign issued its first statement Tuesday night — appeared to some to violate traditions of at least momentary unity in the face of a foreign threat. In this case, it was the attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and the consulate in Benghazi, Libya, the latter of which took the lives of the American ambassador and three other Americans.

You know who else issued a statement Tuesday night? The Obama administration:

The White House is disavowing a statement from their own Cairo embassy that apologized for anti-Muslim activity in the United States.

“The statement by Embassy Cairo was not cleared by Washington and does not reflect the views of the United States government,” a senior administration official told POLITICO…

“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.

So apparently the President agrees with Romney that the issue is not our speech but their violence. Somehow, that doesn’t make it into the L.A. Times story! Odd!!

And indeed, Romney is right. Let’s look at what he actually said, which comes further down in the story:

Romney’s accusation centered on a statement that U.S. diplomats in Cairo had issued shortly after noon local time Tuesday — about 6 a.m. in Washington — as crowds began to gather near the embassy. The statement, commenting on anti-Islamic video posted on YouTube, said the embassy opposed “continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims — as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions.”

In a brief news conference in Jacksonville, Fla., Romney said that it was “a terrible course to — for America to stand in apology for our values.”

“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. And apology for America’s values is never the right course.”

To hell with waiting and to hell with apologies. Waiting would have just let Obama off the hook. Romney did right. The press’s effort to claim otherwise is a joke.

Comments (201)

201 Comments

Ding.

Comment by Patterico (83033d) — 9/12/2012 @ 9:59 pm
An awful newspaper written by, for the most part, awful people.

Comment by JVW (edec8d) — 9/12/2012 @ 10:12 pm
Everything about this President is a lie. But he and his sycophantic enablers are so invested in the lies, the persist in lying even when we can see the evidence right in front of our faces that it’s a lie.

Now, after the DNC convention in which the leftists unveiled their media strategy of denying that their guy has been in charge of domestic and economic policy for the last four years, we see that part of the media pitch is to portray this juvenile catastrophe as a brilliant foreign policy strategist.

Despite the fact there is no evidence of that, and indeed all the evidence runs counter to that assertion.

So they’re criticizing Romney now for providing leadership during this criminal assault, which Obama eventually followed.

But the the defense the democrats media guard is throwing up requires everyone to forget how the leftists actively undermined Bush for 8 years.

This is some tap dance they’re going to have to do. And they simply aren’t nearly bright enough to pull it off.

Comment by Steve57 (c8ac21) — 9/12/2012 @ 10:15 pm
___________________________________________

I’m re-posting the following, a reference to one of the members of the diplomatic corps who was murdered in Libya. I’m guessing that most people who are screened by a particular president and White House — and will serve under that administration — generally mirror the sentiments and politics of that president. I’d be surprised if that didn’t apply to Sean Smith.

When Smith wrote “assuming we don’t die…” in regards to his situation in Benghazi, Libya, there’s a possibility it was infused with a bizarro-world mentality. A mindset in which Libyan Islamist fanatics are deemed as somehow no more untrustworthy and suspicious as (and even no more contemptible than), say, a Republican running for the presidency.

democraticunderground.com:

A forum I frequent (where Sean Smith, killed in Benghazi, was a moderator) is ENRAGED at Romney. It’s personal because many knew this man in real life but most of us through the online world (he was an outstanding poster and moderator, there was a little piece on him at the end of the Ed Schultz show tonight), Romney’s attempt to wave his bloody shirt in the cause of his own benighted candidacy is offensive on a deeply personal level.

Romney’s pitiful efforts since yesterday have spurred tons of donations to Obama from members as well as stimulating a lot of indifferent folks who were going to go third party or sit things out to commit to voting for Obama and Biden.

I can’t expect this type of thing would happen everywhere because it’s a uniquely personal thing at SomethingAwful forums. But overnight the mood there has gone from pleasant bemusement at Romney’s pitiful campaign to real anger.

^ That makes me think of the story of Amy Biehl…

cbsnews.com, February 2009:

As a college student in California, Amy Biehl dedicated herself to ending apartheid in South Africa. When she won a Fulbright scholarship in 1992, she decided to go to South Africa to immerse herself in the country’s culture and politics. In 1993, the white American was stoned and stabbed to death by a mob of angry black militants.

In 1993, Amy’s parents, Linda and Peter Biehl, decided they had to try to understand their daughter’s commitment to South Africa.

The four young men who killed Amy were convicted and sentenced to 18 years in prison. They applied for amnesty with Archbishop Tutu’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The Biehls attended the hearing; they could have objected but didn’t.

The killers were pardoned and released from prison in 1998 after serving four years. Linda Biehl said that she is not angry. Instead, she said, she feels “a void.” “I think it’s important then to fill that void with understanding,” she said.

The Biehls have also continued to forgive, in even more personal ways. Last year, two of Amy’s killers, Easy Nofomela and Ntebecko Penny, tried to make contact with the Biehls…. The Biehls not only continued to meet and talk with the two young men but decided to help and support them. They are learning trades in one of the Biels’ programs.

“If you spent some time with them, I think you’d really be surprised,” Linda Biehl says. The two men, Peter Biehl says, are hard workers.

…Peter and Linda Biehl have forged an unlikely bond with the two men. “I actually do have sort of a maternal instinct to be honest with you,” says Linda Biehl, who believes that “apartheid” was what really killed her daughter not the four men.

^ What’s frightening about the type of mentality on display with such people, is that they’re the flip side — the opposite extreme — of those people who are very vindictive and overly vengeful. And of the two extremes, I don’t know which side is more likely to exploit or make fools of the other side.

Comment by Mark (5a66fe) — 9/12/2012 @ 10:26 pm
We live in such an Orwellian world. When will the carousel ever stop ?

I suppose that James Madison person possessed excellent insight into the human condition when he famously said, “If men were angels, there would be no need for us to write the Constitution.”

Comment by Elephant Stone (65d289) — 9/12/2012 @ 10:45 pm
“Romney’s speed in assailing — his campaign issued its first statement Tuesday night — appeared to some to violate traditions of at least momentary unity in the face of a foreign threat.”

So it isn’t the criticism so much as the speed of the criticism?

And where was the unity when Bush was president?

Comment by AZ Bob (1c9631) — 9/12/2012 @ 10:45 pm
To hell with waiting and to hell with apologies. Waiting would have just let Obama off the hook. Romney did right. The press’s effort to claim otherwise is a joke.

Bingo, Patrick. As much as they try, I don’t think the MSM trolls will be able to sustain this narrative for much longer. I put the over/under at 30 hours. Then it’s on to: Why didn’t Obama secure our embassies on 9/11. (I don’t expect them to take up Romney’s correct assessment of the apologies.)

Comment by Jim Lakely (3f1575) — 9/12/2012 @ 10:56 pm
What Amy Biehl’s parents fail to grasp is that while the theoretical jail term is punishment for the specific crime that the men committed against their daughter, the justice that the state enforces will affect future crime.
If a person’s moral conscience does not discourage them from committing murder, then perhaps the notion of spending life in prison will be a deterrent. But if 4 years in prison is all that one must “pay” for murder, the deterrent is greatly decreased.

Just as a mandatory long prison sentence awaits bank robbers who brandish a firearm, that potential bank robber may be more likely to take the risk of being caught if he knows that 4 years in prison is the max.

It’s a classic cost-benefit analysis.

Comment by Elephant Stone (65d289) — 9/12/2012 @ 10:57 pm
The media isn’t even pretending any more. Our press corp is looking more and more like Putin’s. And perhaps we’ll have the same kind of election; one where they count the votes fairly but everything else is fixed.

This is the second or third press conference where Romney has been hit with a preconceived narrative of the “have you stopped beating your wife” variety. He needs to hold these live and be ready with the Gingrich response. Otherwise he’ll lose the debates on this kind of crap.

Comment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 9/12/2012 @ 11:28 pm
i don’t really feel a great need to be momentarily unified with a bunch of groveling pansies during foreign threats and such

Comment by happyfeet (5e4920) — 9/13/2012 @ 12:06 am
Our govt. is as sick as it gets.
Torches and pitchforks is what they deserve, then
tar and feathers.

Comment by mg (44de53) — 9/13/2012 @ 12:13 am
Romney held his tongue as long as possible, waiting and hoping that the administration would speak up. They finally did, after seeing Romney’s still-embargoed statement.

Comment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 9/13/2012 @ 1:29 am
“OUR ENEMIES ABROAD JOIN OUR ENEMIES WITHIN”

Their poor and their angry find meaning in lust–
Brutal lives drift on sand covered seas.
These outcasts profess they may murder the just,
Unless free men renounce liberty.

They find thrills and adventure in the heat of the crowds–
The destruction of honest men’s work.
But the rush of the riot somehow never allows,
Any questions about their goals’ worth.

We had signs of their vision of bloody redress—
False “reprisals” for offenses contrived.
But our own Socialist Masters ignored each request,
To forestall or repel crafted lies.

So our self-absorbed “leaders” claimed they were “shocked”,
To see vengeance unearned burning bright.
When our citizens were slain, and our liberty mocked,
Corrupt Media raged like whores in the night.

Yes, our “sages” went whoring on the “5 O’clock news”,
And colluded with our enemies abroad.
And our socialist papers defiled honest views,
Of those Patriots who renounced them as gods.

Our Republic is shaky, our confidence dims,
All the world now perceives us as weak.
Unless we first reject our enemies within—
Then our foreign foes win all they seek.

ROMNEY AND RYAN FOR THE REPUBIC –
THERE IS NO OTHER OPTION

Comment by Baby Clock (a613f3) — 9/13/2012 @ 2:23 am
Seeing these dune coons destroy American lives in American pants, shirts ,shoes and hats, makes me think we have given too much to the turd world.

Comment by mg (44de53) — 9/13/2012 @ 2:51 am
“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.”

No, our first response when our embassies are attacked ought to be to shoot to kill (before our people are murdered).

We can talk things over later.

Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 9/13/2012 @ 4:36 am
#14 Yeah. we probably coulda gone all day without seeing this turned into a racial/racist rant.

With a mob, you can’t afford to be weak. You make it clear that some day you might love to hear how pissed off they are about things…but for now, the next guy over the wall dies of lead poisoning. But that all has to be a part of a strategy of strength, maturity and consistency. We have not had that for a while.

The Iran/US Embassy hostage taking was in 1979. Khobar Towers was 1996. 911 was 11 years ago. And we don’t have security better than this in place NOW?

Comment by ukuleledave (c59551) — 9/13/2012 @ 5:18 am
Romney needs to get in front of this and boldly put down the media and the administration’s approach with some short, pointed remarks.

This is not a time to be timid, in politics or foreign affairs. People are free to speak in America, and foreign nationals are NOT free to murder our diplomats. If we can’t stand for that, we will soon not stand anywhere.

Comment by Amphipolis (d3e04f) — 9/13/2012 @ 5:27 am
“And we don’t have security better than this in place NOW?”

Obviously not. We have tons of troops guarding the Koreans, the Japanese, the Euros…nobody left to guard our embassies.

Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 9/13/2012 @ 5:35 am
Don’t you guys understand – Romney made a gaffe when he made a honest and accurate statement of Obama’s naive and misguided foreign policy bungle.

We should support and applaud obama’s efforts to install an illusionary islamic democracy in each and every middle eastern country controlled by the Muslim brotherhood and islamic extremists – Jimmy Carter will attest that the elections will be fair, just as there were fair elections in palestine and venzuala (sp)and egypt which brought democracies to those countries.

Comment by joe (a00dc1) — 9/13/2012 @ 6:01 am
It’s funny. There’s a “random press reaction generator” like a big roulette wheel. This time it came up “I question the timing.”

Next maybe will be “The optics are wrong,” or “This true statement might offend _____.”

Comment by ukuleledave (c59551) — 9/13/2012 @ 6:04 am
Obama was against the Islamic militants before he was for them.

Comment by Dirty Old Man (abcf84) — 9/13/2012 @ 6:06 am
Wth? Just who isn’t in the tank for Urkel? Got my propaganda today from daily New Yorker. Ask is Romney finished? Talks about Netanyahu Neocon gambit which has gone too far in criticizing the president. Seriously, can’t we start tar & feathering these jackasses? Wouldn’t bother me much to see them strung up from lamp posts.

Comment by calypso louis farrakhan (13b04f) — 9/13/2012 @ 6:12 am
“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,”

Get a clue you stupid fucks.

September 11 is the day we remember the thousands of Americans murdered in cold blood by Muslim fanatics (and, now you can add four more to the total). It isn’t the day we wring our hands over the hurt feelings of Muslim fanatics.

Romney was right to tear the Obama administration a new one…and the liberals need to get their fucking priorities straight (not that that will ever happen).

Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 9/13/2012 @ 6:16 am
calypso louis farrakhan,

Oh, please. Lynching these imbeciles would just play into their ‘persecuted heroes’ fantasy. Stop buying or reading their drivel. Ignore them. Their entire existence is tied up in making us notice how superior they are. Think how much being ignored would hurt them!

Comment by C. S. P. Schofield (4feea2) — 9/13/2012 @ 6:38 am
HotAir reminds us of the time in 2008 when “a major-party presidential nominee went on television immediately after the deaths of several Americans abroad to attack the policies of the current administration and his opponent.” The candidate? Barack Obama.

Comment by aunursa (7014a8) — 9/13/2012 @ 6:42 am
aunursa – already working on that one

It is not possible for the MFM to be more hypocritical. Hypocrisy is simply not strong enough to describe their mendoucheity.

Comment by JD (16fdce) — 9/13/2012 @ 6:44 am
I think Chris Muir’s depiction of Obama as the Sun King is the most spot on.

All criticism of Obama is lese majeste to the Obama shills.

Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 9/13/2012 @ 6:54 am
Nice spin, but no dice. Romney shot himself in the foot, and just because the White House condemned the statement doesn’t change the facts.

First of all, Romney criticized Obama for the statement. And as we know, it wasn’t even Obama’s statement, nor was it said in response to the attacks in Libya (as Romney initially claimed). It was a statement from the U.S. Consulate in Cairo.

Secondly, whatever criticism of the statement some might have, it wasn’t an “apology for America” under any stretch of interpretation. It merely said, in relevant part:

“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.”

What about that is an “apology for America”? In fact, what about that is even objectionable (even if Obama had said it, which he didn’t)?

Romney’s GOP critics are correct: Romney tried to cravenly capitalize on an international incident to ding Obama, and instead shot himself in the foot because he didn’t have his facts right. If there was a larger criticism to be made about Obama’s policies in the Middle East, Romney did it badly, in a bad way, using bad timing. This guy isn’t ready for prime time.

Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 9/13/2012 @ 6:54 am
Kman repeats the theme that nothing that Obama’s administration does is Obama’s fault.

While Obama takes credit for everything done by others.

Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 9/13/2012 @ 6:57 am
Ah, I should have checked this morning, because Muir gives us this apt cartoon on the events reminding us of Obama’s juvenile gestures.

Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 9/13/2012 @ 6:59 am
Kmart – thank you for the mendoucheous MFM narrative. You are a good little parrot.

Comment by JD (16fdce) — 9/13/2012 @ 7:02 am
Mildly retarded commercial liason for the Ministry of Truth, Eugenie Robinson, says “talking about something before you know what you’re talking about makes you look like an ass.”

You don’t say?

http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/13/news/economy/obama-trade/index.html?iid=Lead

CNN, “the most trusted name in news” needs a new slogan, one slightly less ironic.

http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/BDIY:IND

The only reason rents aren’t lower is shippers are failing too quickly for the auctions to reassign capacity.

Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 9/13/2012 @ 7:03 am
It sure is unpresidential to use foreign policy failures/war deaths to criticize a political opponent …

Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 9/13/2012 @ 7:05 am
The hypocrisy of Obama and the Media is stunning Barack Obama had no problem back in 2008 attacking Bush and McCain. But now any criticism of him is unacceptable. Nonsense.

Oh and those reports from the White House that the crowd was “helping” Ambassador Stevens after the attack? Riehl World View is reporting the crowd raped Ambassador Stevens before he died.

Comment by EBL (f71fce) — 9/13/2012 @ 7:06 am
Kman,

Your doctor warned you about mixing alcohol with your meds !

Comment by Elephant Stone (65d289) — 9/13/2012 @ 7:09 am
Let Obama off the hook for what?

Comment by time123 (33ce8e) — 9/13/2012 @ 7:10 am
Ken at Popehat does a nice job on the “apology” from Cairo embassy.

Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 9/13/2012 @ 7:11 am
Basic facts, common decency, and honesty are never an impediment to kmarts asshattery.

Comment by JD (16fdce) — 9/13/2012 @ 7:12 am
The media has to attack Romney, not only because his response was right and far more Presidential than anything Obama could manage, but also because killing an American Ambassador and diplomats could especially demoralize the liberal base. Events like this discourage all Americans, but liberals may be more likely to despair because it shows their Wilsonian ideas of how to influence the world don’t work.

Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 9/13/2012 @ 7:14 am
Bush – personally responsible for every error made by even enlisted personnel

Obama – not responsible for anything done by anyone in his administration, but takes credit for every accomplishment. No matter how few.

If only there was a word for this …

Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 9/13/2012 @ 7:16 am
US Citizens getting hazing but Barry be fundraising.

Comment by Rodney King's Spirit (aeda60) — 9/13/2012 @ 7:17 am
DRJ, sadly, nothing ever convinces the liberal’s that their view of foreign policy is a failure. Nothing.

Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 9/13/2012 @ 7:17 am
So apparently the President agrees with Romney that the issue is not our speech but their violence. Somehow, that doesn’t make it into the L.A. Times story! Odd!!

That’s the problem. When Obama does it, it;s different.

Romney criticized this as being the policy of the Obama Administration. When the Obama/Clinton State Department semi-repudiates it, or comes up with additional and revised phrasing, and new emphasis, the old statement is no longer his!!

So Romney then has nothing to criticize.

Now the truth is a bit more complicated. That statement was really not good even before the first embassy attack.

What Obama criticized Romney for was going to oquickly, as Romney had said the only reaction was to apologize.

The statement had actually been issued before. While it was reaffirmed,it was not written later, and the true initial statement was the one issued about the same time Romney made his statement.

Comment by Sammy Finkelman (8c951a) — 9/13/2012 @ 7:19 am
28. Appeaser in Chief, just squared the Malaise circle. No Marines on duty 9/11 to guard consulates in unsecured territory.

What goes on in Vegas no longer stays in Vegas babe, ask ‘Arry.

In perfect parallel to collapsing revenues with skyrocketting regulation, his foreign policy is coming to fruition.

Just inconveniently sooner than Affirmative Action Token par excellence could have imagined.

Don’t worry the half-wit Journalism majors will distract us with their own incompetence.

Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 9/13/2012 @ 7:19 am
Every liberal is a potential conservative to me, SPQR.

Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 9/13/2012 @ 7:20 am
Comment by EBL — 9/13/2012 @ 7:06 am

Oh and those reports from the White House that the crowd was “helping” Ambassador Stevens after the attack? Riehl World View is reporting the crowd raped Ambassador Stevens before he died.

But that whole version of events may be disinformation.

Comment by Sammy Finkelman (8c951a) — 9/13/2012 @ 7:21 am
The problem is that new ones come along to replace the ones we convert.

Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 9/13/2012 @ 7:21 am
DRJ, that’s going to take a lot of mugging.

Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 9/13/2012 @ 7:22 am
The embassy in Yemen has now also been attacked (and overrun?)

Comment by Sammy Finkelman (8c951a) — 9/13/2012 @ 7:22 am
43. Sorry, Romney pointed to “mixed signals”, deleted Tweets count.

The flaccid reaction on Libya is of more consequence, “this does not end our partnership with Libya”.

Fool, you broke it, fix it, meaning leave us with some credibilty and influence in country. No can do?

Lessee, incomplete on economic policy, what say you on this foreign policy now? NA?

Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 9/13/2012 @ 7:26 am
Hopefully no one will convince Romney to back-track.

Attacking embassies and killing ambassadors should be seen as acts of war, and anything less than an immediate reprisal should be described as forbearance, giving the countries in question a small time period to appropriately address the situation while getting US personnel out.

Even if the governments were not involved, at best they have revealed they cannot guarantee control over their own country and safety of US personnel.

If the US public can’t tell the difference between fecklessness and covering for fecklessness and common sense and follows the attack on Romney and re-elects Obama, we are in very, very deep doo-doo.

Regarding the Biehl situation above, as said, there is a difference between personal forgiveness and inappropriate justification of evil actions and institutional injustice. I think it is possible (though miraculous) and rationally consistent for Biehl’s family, for example, to not demand vengeance out of personal hate, but that does not mean the society is given permission to radically reduce the sentence; and if they do, it would be warranted, IMO, only if the criminal would be better able to “make amends” as possible outside of prison than in.

Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 9/13/2012 @ 7:27 am
Comment by Kman — 9/13/2012 @ 6:54 am

“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.”

What about that is an “apology for America”? In fact, what about that is even objectionable (even if Obama had said it, which he didn’t)?

Technically, there’s nothing really wrong with it.

But saying they “reject” the actions (!? – these are words!) of those who “Abuse” rights (rights cannot be abused, they are not on trial. People can do wrong things, but the rights should not be in question – you wouldn’t speak of a pickpocket s someone who abused the right to be among people)]

Saying they reject what some Americans did is in fact apologizing for them and for America tolerating them.

This guy isn’t ready for prime time.

This is the truth. He still might be better than Obama.

Comment by Sammy Finkelman (8c951a) — 9/13/2012 @ 7:28 am
SPQR,

Obama’s commitment to liberalism makes the consequences of liberal policies crystal clear. It’s the only good thing about Obama, but the price of this lesson has been terrible.

Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 9/13/2012 @ 7:28 am
Technically, there is something wrong with that statement, Sammy. Read the essay by Ken at Popehat (linked above) if you want to know why.

Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 9/13/2012 @ 7:30 am
Comment by Dave Surls — 9/13/2012 @ 4:36 am

No, our first response when our embassies are attacked ought to be to shoot to kill (before our people are murdered).

No, destroy the coding equipment and cables, and escape. Demand the host government protect the embassy. Shooting into a crowd is only a last, last, resort. And you still need to escape or protection by the host government.

If anyone is going to shoot, the host government is supposed to do that. An embassy or consulate is not a military base.

Comment by Sammy Finkelman (8c951a) — 9/13/2012 @ 7:33 am
_____________________________________________

Your doctor warned you about mixing alcohol with your meds !

That almost wouldn’t be such a bad thing, because it suggests people of his ilk are absurdly, astonishingly dogmatic due to outside circumstances, due to temporary factors. But one has to have a brain that’s hard wired (and intrinsically lacking in common sense) to end up the way he is.

When people are so ludicrously liberal well past their teenage and college years, or closer to their middle and post-middle-aged years, then it enters the realm of arrested development, of stunted maturity.

I recall once assuming that while famous news anchor Walter Cronkite was of the left, he at least wasn’t of the loony left. Then I read about the opinions he held and activities he endorsed well into his retirement years, and thinking, wow, something is innately wrong there. It was like discovering the crazy aunt in the attic, or seeing skeletons in the closet.

Comment by Mark (5a66fe) — 9/13/2012 @ 7:35 am
How many more Embassies are going to be attacked?

I don’t remember where I saw it yesterday, but there was a message from a staff member in Libya (while playing some game on the Internet) that “one of the so-called security people is taking pictures of our building right now. I wonder if we’ll live through the night”. [Not a word for word quote, but I think an accurate "gist"].

I wonder if they even had access to arms.

Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 9/13/2012 @ 7:37 am
52. “Respect”? You mean Dhimmitude. Respect for religion goes hand in hand with free speech.

The ‘holy rage’ is entirely a smoke bomb at the main exit of the theatre. The back alley was the target.

Pentagon has already nailed the ruse.

Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 9/13/2012 @ 7:38 am
If anyone is going to shoot, the host government is supposed to do that. An embassy or consulate is not a military base.

Comment by Sammy Finkelman — 9/13/2012 @ 7:33 am

I don’t think the host governments in charge got your notice, Sammy.

But you are correct about needing to destroy sensitive intel. Maybe they should all have a fail-safe self-destruct mechanism, except for a “black box” that records at least audio of the last minutes before an embassy is captured.

Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 9/13/2012 @ 7:41 am
______________________________________________

Technically, there’s nothing really wrong with it.

In a similar vein, one could say, “while I do believe that women should dress modestly and tone down their sexuality, it’s still unacceptable for anyone to rape them.”

Or, “while I believe it’s irresponsible for homeowners to go without an anti-burglary system, I do condemn people for trying to break in and steal things.”

Comment by Mark (5a66fe) — 9/13/2012 @ 7:47 am
Sammy – technically, there were all sorts of things wrong with that statement.

Comment by JD (16fdce) — 9/13/2012 @ 7:52 am
#52

Saying they reject what some Americans did is in fact apologizing for them and for America tolerating them.

Rejecting something is not “in fact” apologizing for it. It’s only an apology if you spin it that way.

Ever hear the quote: “I disapprove of what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it?” That’s a rejection without apology. That’s just what the embassy was saying: “These American film-makers have a right to say whatever they want, but we personally don’t agree with the premise of their film.” I can’t see what problem anybody -= particularly a presidential candidate — would have with that.

Now, if Romney wanted to make a broader attack on Obama’s Mideast policy, or Obama’s policies regarding Libya or Egypt, that’s fair game and appropriate. But he didn’t (at least not on 9/11). He attacked Obama for “apologizing for America”, which — quite simply — didn’t happen.

Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 9/13/2012 @ 7:52 am
62. The appropriate response(to Egypt) is to recall the delegation having made clear their safety in coordinated departure is the responsiblity of government, any shortcomings with which being extracted tenfold.

Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 9/13/2012 @ 7:58 am
What there was nothing really wrong with saying they don’t like the purported movie or disapprove of continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions.

What was wrong was saying that at the place and the time where they said it, and using very strong language like “condemns”

I noticed something interesting:

In the New York Times today Gail Collins Gail Collins quotes the above language but replaces the first condemns in the Cairo Embassy statement with “deplores” and leaves it outside the quote (Paragraph 10 in her column)

If she can’t even quote it accurately or completely, that’s probably telling you something right there.

Here is the key quote – I will put in bold the words that are wrong:

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 words as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions are no good unless it is meant as condemning efforts by Moslems. Otherwise it is saying, we condemn it the way we would an attack on Mormonism. There is no reason to state such a thing. They only say it because in fact they do not really condemn attacks on Mormonism or anything more common in the United States. It’s apologizing to Americans for the first part of that sentence. That’s added for home consumption.

Freedom of speech and religion, it must be clear, includes the freedom to attack other the premises behind other religions. That is in fact why the two are in the same amendment – why freedom of speech immediately follows freedom of religion. In 1789 they were not thinking primarily of political censorship.

They embassy in Cairo came very close to placing Islam in a superior position to all other religions.

Also anyway, the proper response is words.

Comment by Sammy Finkelman (8c951a) — 9/13/2012 @ 8:00 am
The Obama Administration apologized for American free speech.

Romney got gang tackled by the media.

Obama avoids media and went to Las Vegas to fund raise.

You gotta love this country.

Comment by AZ Bob (1c9631) — 9/13/2012 @ 8:04 am
“Saying they reject what some Americans did is in fact apologizing for them and for America tolerating them.”

Comment by Kman — 9/13/2012 @ 7:52 am

Rejecting something is not “in fact” apologizing for it. It’s only an apology if you spin it that way.

They did more than just reject it. They also said these people “abuse” the universal right of free speech.

The whole statement was an apology for the fact that our freedoms and our constitution, allow off the mark and off the wall attacks on Islam to be made.

Yes, Romney exaggerated.

That’s probably it sounded like an easy thing to say.

Comment by Sammy Finkelman (8c951a) — 9/13/2012 @ 8:06 am
62, 64. The Embassy is US territory, equivalent to the protest, sans visas, being conducted on Times Square.

You’re saying the appropriate response includes mollifying the complaintants, suggesting that next time they use diplomatic channels to express their worthy concerns.

You people haven’t raised children.

Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 9/13/2012 @ 8:08 am
“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, unless of course, you’re a Mormon running for President, or you’re a Catholic hospital that has a tradition of not providing abortions to patients.”

Comment by Elephant Stone (65d289) — 9/13/2012 @ 8:14 am
__________________________________________

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslim

What’s sickening and ironic is that so many of those who will nod heartily in approval over that particular sentiment made at that particular time — made in that particular way — will also be the first in line to tout or defend “Piss in Christ” or Christ-made-out-of-dung artwork. They’ll proclaim, “but THAT is such a creative form of political expression!! Besides, Christians can be such fuddy-duddies. They can be such killjoys. Worse of all, they’re WASP-y, intolerant and imperialistic, and my heart therefore can’t bleed for them. Bleech to them!”

And when I observe the mentality of people along the lines of Sean Smith’s peer group or Amy Biehl’s parents, per the 4th post from the top, I’m being only a tiny bit sarcastic. Actually, I may have to adjust that and say I’m not being sarcastic in the least.

Comment by Mark (5a66fe) — 9/13/2012 @ 8:15 am
I think the Lost Angeles Times is correct; Mitt Romney should be arrested for his lethal attacks on our embassies in Libya and Egypt !

Comment by Elephant Stone (65d289) — 9/13/2012 @ 8:17 am
DRJ, sadly, nothing ever convinces the liberal’s that their view of foreign policy is a failure. Nothing.

Comment by SPQR — 9/13/2012 @ 7:17 am

SPQR

I have found that once a liberal starts to have to pay personal income tax that they become at least more fiscally conservative.

Some of them, I think there is hope, Obama’s cold and rather detached press conference and then when dead Americans are the subject turns his back on the media and walks away

Comment by EPWJ (d84fb0) — 9/13/2012 @ 8:36 am
So now Lebanese news services are reporting the Ambassador took a butt-full before passing.

Must be the sloppy seconds that caused him to “suffocate”.

Ah, but Muslim men are so sexually frustrated, we deplore their means of relieving themselves but understand the urge.

Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 9/13/2012 @ 8:37 am
They embassy in Cairo came very close to placing Islam in a superior position to all other religions.

That’s a pretty astounding spin of the actual statement (which you quoted).

The embassy issued the statement, and singled out Muslims, because it was the Muslims who were (literally) trying to climb the walls into the embassy. But the embassy made it clear that ragging on religions applies to ALL religions.

Freedom of speech and religion, it must be clear, includes the freedom to attack other the premises behind other religions

Sure, Americans have the RIGHT to attack the premises behind other religions, but it’s still condemnable.

Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 9/13/2012 @ 8:40 am
It’s really precious, isn’t it, how Kmart is so utterly self-unaware he doesn’t appreciate the enormous hypocrisy of his and the administration’s position that it’s “condemnable” to denigrate religion.

Just say the magic words “same sex marriage” and all that purported respect for religion goes out the window.

Comment by Steve57 (c8ac21) — 9/13/2012 @ 8:44 am
73. “Americans have the RIGHT to attack the premises behind other religions, but it’s still condemnable.”

Indeed, every time I eat a waffle cone full of Hagen Daz Belgian Chocolate I feel the eyes of chubbies about me flaying my chest open and cutting my heart out.

Luckily they only chose theirs badly, and still have coin in they pocket to redress the wrong.

Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 9/13/2012 @ 8:47 am
Aaaaand he’s off! (Boy, is he ever OFF!)
Nice spin, but no dice.
– Sounds like what you heard at the end of your last date.

Romney shot himself in the foot
– Translation: hit it out of the park

and just because the White House condemned the statement doesn’t change the facts.
– Romney and the White House both condemned the statement, so they’re both wrong? Well, you’ve never let the truth stand in your way before, so why start now?

First of all, Romney criticized Obama for the statement. And as we know, it wasn’t even Obama’s statement
– Actually, factually, he said “the Obama administration’s first response.” But that’s okay. We know that the Chief Executive isn’t really in charge of the Executive Branch of government.

nor was it said in response to the attacks in Libya (as Romney initially claimed).
– Please show us where he made this ‘claim’.

It was a statement from the U.S. Consulate in Cairo.
– Are you saying that the statement is somehow innocuous because nobody got killed at the U.S. Embassy (who’s confusing their countries now?) in Egypt? If so, then the White House disagrees with you.

Secondly, whatever criticism of the statement some might have, it wasn’t an “apology for America” under any stretch of interpretation.
– Well then, I guess it’s a good thing that Romney did not call it that, huh?

“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.”

What about that is an “apology for America”?
– They are in effect saying “We’re sorry that certain people to whom we have given the right of free speech have seen fit to speak freely.”

In fact, what about that is even objectionable?
– To a leftist, fairness doctrine touting, supporter of censorship for the sake of political correctness?
Nothing at all.

Comment by Icy (d49355) — 9/13/2012 @ 8:48 am
Just keep in mind that following the “Arab Spring” Obama had his State Dept. eliminate sections on religious freedom from their Country Reports on Human Rights.

Since the administration was in the tank for the Muslim Brotherhood (and remember that Hamas’ charter proclaims itself the territorial Israeli branch of the MB), they didn’t want to be put in the awkward position of criticizing the MB/Hamas for their persecution of Christians; forced conversions, kidnapping and rape of Christian women, desecration of churches, destruction of Christian owned businesses and homes, ethnic cleansing of villages, etc.

Of course, groups like Boko Haram also benefited from the Obama administration’s willful blindness and deliberate silence r.e. their atrocities.

The Obama administration’s respect for religion, like the Muslim demand for it, runs one way and one way only. It only concerns one religion.

It’s really cute how Kmart and the Obama administration think they can spin this into some sort of universal principle after years of demonstrating contempt for the very concept of respect for religion.

Comment by Steve57 (c8ac21) — 9/13/2012 @ 8:52 am
Ever hear the quote: “I disapprove of what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it?”
– Tell that to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who personally called Pastor Terry Jones to “ask” him to stop promoting the controversial anti-Muhammed film.

the embassy made it clear that ragging on religions applies to ALL religions.
– Yes, that was the “abuse the universal right of free speech” part. And by “abuse” they apparently mean “say what you think”. Gee, don’t you just HATE it when people do that?!

Comment by Icy (d49355) — 9/13/2012 @ 8:59 am
Icy – Kmart is desperate today. It is comical. Romney is wrong wrong for stati g a position that Hillary came around to by 10 PM and Obambi, kind of, the next day.

Comment by JD (16fdce) — 9/13/2012 @ 9:03 am
Icy

He asked him to consider withdrawing his support. Gen Dempsey’s first duty is to the men and women who serve with him.

Comment by EPWJ (d84fb0) — 9/13/2012 @ 9:04 am
76. “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.”

What about that is an “apology for America”?
– They are in effect saying “We’re sorry that certain people to whom we have given the right of free speech have seen fit to speak freely.”

In fact, what about that is even objectionable?
– To a leftist, fairness doctrine touting, supporter of censorship for the sake of political correctness?
Nothing at all.

Comment by Icy — 9/13/2012 @ 8:48 am

What is objectionable about that statement? The fact that it’s coming from leftists whose first instinct is to deny Chik-fil-A a business license because the President of the corporation dared to express his religious beliefs.

Seriously, we can go on all day producing examples that demonstrate the obvious hypocrisy of the people proclaiming their respect for religion.

BBC is full of liberals afraid to mock Islam (says veteran of the BBC) Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2202379/BBC-liberals-afraid-mock-Islam-says-veteran-BBC.html#ixzz26MlipBnn

A respected BBC broadcaster has claimed television is dominated by ‘liberal sceptical humanists’ who laugh at Christianity but are afraid to mock Islam.

Roger Bolton, a former editor of Panorama, said an obsession with human rights over religious beliefs had left corporation bosses out of touch with the public.

…Mr Bolton said it had got to a point where audiences thought it was ‘fun’ to mock Christianity but would not dare laugh at jokes about Islam.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2202379/BBC-liberals-afraid-mock-Islam-says-veteran-BBC.html#ixzz26MluKuEF

So goes the BBC. So goes the US MFM. So goes the Obama administration.

What’s funny is that none of them, Kmart included, think anyone has noticed.

Comment by Steve57 (c8ac21) — 9/13/2012 @ 9:04 am
Instead of insisting that Romney not jump the gun, perhaps the media should suspend its ~~moronic~~ traditional rush-to-judgement on developing issues of the day; ones that they have usually found themselves behind the 8-ball on eventually:
Gabby Giffords;
Aurora CO/TEA Party;
OKC/Right-wing Talk Radio;
the list goes on.

Their main complaint with Romney is that HE WAS RIGHT!

Comment by AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92) — 9/13/2012 @ 9:13 am
Sec Def and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs have no business contacting a puissant pastor about how he chooses to exercise his Rights.

Comment by JD (16fdce) — 9/13/2012 @ 9:14 am
“Yes, Romney exaggerated.”

Sammy and Kman – Sure he did. As the statements put out by the Embassy in Cairo directly imply as well as Obama’s statement yesterday, it is clear they view the government as the arbiter of what is appropriate speech in our new totalitarian America and have just not managed corral all the unruly blasphemers yet, but they are working on it, especially with the help of the media and the academy. Free speech has limits and they recognize it should not be used to inflame violent people such as yourselves. But hey, Obama got bin Laden! Shot him in cold blood too. How do you like them apples?

Romney looked and sounded way more presidential than President Gutsy Call over this incident and the media determined once again he must be attacked. Meanwhile, with our embassies and interests under threat of attack throughout the region President Foreign Policy decides he has to go to Vegas for a fundraiser with a bunch of celebrities. Voting present once more.

Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/13/2012 @ 9:19 am
He asked him to consider withdrawing his support. Gen Dempsey’s first duty is to the men and women who serve with him.
Comment by EPWJ — 9/13/2012 @ 9:04 am

– And that supercede’s this?
all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution (Article VI, clause 3)
Are we under martial law, right now?

Comment by Icy (d49355) — 9/13/2012 @ 9:20 am
Icy, if we are, a lot of innocent people are going to get hurt in the cross-fire – but that is usually the case when the forces of the state just spray-and-pray.

Comment by AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92) — 9/13/2012 @ 9:25 am
EPWJ doesn’t have a real clear view about the role of the military, what their Oath pertains to, etc …

Killing of Americans in Libya in a coordinated attack on 9/11, Page 7, under the fold.

Romney’s criticism of silly statement from embassy, that Sec Clinton and Obambi eventually came around to, Page 1 abo e the fold and proof of his incompetence.

Comment by JD (16fdce) — 9/13/2012 @ 9:31 am
___________________________________________

Sec Def and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs have no business contacting a puissant pastor about how he chooses to exercise his Rights.

When one observes the response of the upper echelon of the US military — of their political correctness gone berserk — is it any surprise that Nidal Hasan was allowed to rant against his adopted country in front of his colleagues — all part of that same military, no less — and no one lifted a finger until it was too late?

I have to repeatedly point out the insanity that led up to the Fort Hood massacre, because if the situation was absurdly bad there, then don’t be surprised if things are even worse elsewhere. IOW, if the consulate in Libya was nonchalantly allowed by the US government to be protected by only Libyans, the thinking probably was: “We can rely on our friends in Libya to keep us safe, because to respond otherwise — to be suspicious about them — is racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic and Islamo-phobic!!”

Comment by Mark (af03f3) — 9/13/2012 @ 9:31 am
Comment by AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! — 9/13/2012 @ 9:13 am

There you go again, pointing out facts.

Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 9/13/2012 @ 9:34 am
Doc, I’m just your friendly neighborhood troglodyte.
Just never got the hang of this Post-Modernism thing.

Comment by AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92) — 9/13/2012 @ 9:37 am
“Post-modernism” is no better excuse than blaming a bad movie. Sometimes people just don’t want to do the right thing, so they act like there is no right thing, or if there was, there’s no way to know it.

Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 9/13/2012 @ 9:42 am
“the embassy made it clear that ragging on religions applies to ALL religions.”

Unless you’re showing Christ crucified suspended in urine, or crawling with ants, in which case the cowards in our government subsidize it.

The only reason the government whiners cry like little babies when someone insults the fake prophet is because they’re afraid HIS followers will take it out on them.

Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 9/13/2012 @ 9:55 am
What’s Gen. Dempsey going to do next? Call Aaron Walker and say “Hey, could you kinda sorta forget about that ‘Everybody Draw Muhammad’ thing? See, it makes those people that already hate us get all pissy and stuff”?

Comment by Icy (d49355) — 9/13/2012 @ 10:00 am
If Obama had any balls at a minimum he would expel the Egyptian Ambassador to Washington and cut off aid to Egypt until he gets a proper apology.

Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/13/2012 @ 10:08 am
Libya is the issue. Egypt was just Arabs behaving like Arabs.

In Libya, they killed our ambassador. I would remove all American citizens and then napalm the whole place.

But nobody voted me to make those decisions.

Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/13/2012 @ 10:13 am
If anybody believes that Quadaffi was removed because he was not freedom-loving enough ….

We have a Manchurian Candidate in the White House who has been steadily selling us out to his real loyalty — Islam.

Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/13/2012 @ 10:17 am
The question of WHY the ambassador was spending his time on 9/11 ANYWHERE other than inside the (one would assume) relative safety of the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli is an intriguing one.

Comment by Icy (d49355) — 9/13/2012 @ 10:18 am
“Libya is the issue. Egypt was just Arabs behaving like Arabs.”

nk – Wasn’t the staff evacuated in Cairo? Who’s to say they would not have killed the Egyptian Ambassador if they had the opportunity. The Libyan Arabs acting as Arabs just planned better.

Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/13/2012 @ 10:20 am
Arabs/North Africans

Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/13/2012 @ 10:22 am
You said it, daleyrocks. Planned better. With the aid and consent of the Libyan government.

Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/13/2012 @ 10:23 am
Obama is probably burning up the phone connections to Rashid Khalidi and rehashing their conversations. Rashid, you told me these people would love me and America if I apologized to them, was humble and put distance between the U.S. and Israel.

Barry you moron, you believed me. These people respect strength, not weakness. You are an utter fool.

Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/13/2012 @ 10:30 am
_________________________________________

Ya can’t make this s*** up…

bikyamasr.com, 9-13-12: Egypt President Mohamed Morsi spoke out in condemnation at the attack on the United States Embassy in Cairo on Thursday, saying violence has no place in protests.

“Expressing opinion, freedom to protest and announcing positions is guaranteed but without assaulting private or public property, diplomatic missions or embassies,” said Morsi in his first comments on the attack on the embassy.

usatoday.com, 8-11-12: An Egyptian court ordered the Saturday editions of a newspaper confiscated over allegations it insulted Islamist president Mohammed Morsi and instigated sectarian discord, Egypt’s official news agency said.

Editions of Al-Dustour, a privately owned daily, were seized after several individuals filed lawsuits accusing it of “fueling sedition” and “harming the president through phrases and wording punishable by law,” MENA said.

The paper, a tabloid owned by a Christian businessman, has been fiercely critical of Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood while showing strong support for the military council, which took power after the ouster of Hosni Mubarak in last year’s uprising.

al-monitor.com, 9-13-12: Egypt’s presidency instructed its embassy in Washington to take all legal measures against the makers of the film that degrades the Prophet, condemning the attempt of “a sinful type of person” to insult the Messenger of God.

Comment by Mark (af03f3) — 9/13/2012 @ 10:41 am
In an interview with the Spanish-language network Telemundo, President Obama says the U.S. would no longer consider the Egyptian government an ally, “but we don’t consider them an enemy.”

– Ear Leader votes “present” . . . again.

He also failed to refer to the murder of the U.S. Ambassador to Libya as a ‘terrorist act’. Perhaps it was just another one of Sec. Napolitano’s “man-caused disasters.”

Comment by Icy (d49355) — 9/13/2012 @ 10:44 am
The LA Times’ hackiest hack, James Rainey has sunk to a new low with his latest.

Comment by LukeHandCool (eb8fe6) — 9/13/2012 @ 11:42 am
Good thing we engaged in a kinetic military action not-war in Libya.

Comment by JD (16fdce) — 9/13/2012 @ 11:56 am
Rush played some of John F. Kerry’s (the war hero) ranting in 1971 about the US forces of Genghis Khan. I guess the idea of not under-cutting the US government in time of war has a long and distinguished history- of hypocrisy.

Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 9/13/2012 @ 11:59 am
Currently the one is choosing non-kinetic military action.

Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 9/13/2012 @ 11:59 am
Just read Rainey’s column. What a piece of crap! Him AND his op-ed. By criticizing the administration’s handling of events Romney was supporting the film in question?
Disgusting.

Comment by Icy (d49355) — 9/13/2012 @ 12:48 pm
Kman – it was the obama administration that approved the comments – It wasnt until Romney pointed out the error of appeasement that Obama changed the message.

Comment by joe (a00dc1) — 9/13/2012 @ 2:11 pm
I used Rainey’s column in my birdcage, and my bird left me.

Comment by AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92) — 9/13/2012 @ 2:12 pm
BREAKING: Like the U.S Consulate in Egypt, Romney is now apologizing for America by condemning the film which angered the protesters.

Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 9/14/2012 @ 8:44 am
Kman,

It almost sounds like you lefties believe Romney is the President, given all the focus you put on Romney after our embassies were attacked.

Certainly, nobody seems to give a damn what the actual elected President, Barry Obama, has to say about what is going on.

It actually makes Obama look small, just as Clinton’s speech at the Convention was the speech that was more discussed than Barry’s.

Comment by Elephant Stone (65d289) — 9/14/2012 @ 9:12 am
Kman – Sure, Romney’s statement was just like Obamapologists, except that even Obama’s statement on Wednesday led off by recognizing hurt feelings rather than condemning the violence in the key paragraph. Wrong mixed message.

Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/14/2012 @ 9:28 am
Kman – Did you happen to catch all those people in Cairo shouting “we are all Osama” during the embassing takeover? Do you think that had anything to do with Democrats spiking the football so many times over shooting bin Laden in the face during the Vagina Monologues last week? Have you seen the media ask any questions about that?

Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/14/2012 @ 9:32 am
111. BREAKING: Like the U.S Consulate in Egypt, Romney is now apologizing for America by condemning the film which angered the protesters.

Comment by Kman — 9/14/2012 @ 8:44 am

Kmart, obtuse leftard spin isn’t actually an argument. Especially from Talking Points Memo. What’s next? Quoting the comment thread from the Democratic Underground?

Comment by Steve57 (b2dac8) — 9/14/2012 @ 9:57 am
Elephant Stone:

Certainly, nobody seems to give a damn what the actual elected President, Barry Obama, has to say about what is going on.

Romney sure did.

Daley:

Do you think that ["we are all Osama" protesters] had anything to do with Democrats spiking the football so many times over shooting bin Laden in the face during the Vagina Monologues last week?

No, I think it had to do with getting Osama bin Laden. And if getting bin Laden ruffled the feathers of Islamic extremists — well, I think that was the point. Would you prefer they be appeased by leaving bin Laden alone?

Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 9/14/2012 @ 9:57 am
Bye the bye, the point still stands. No Republican has ever condemned offensive speech as an abuse of a right. Republicans unequivocally state offensive speech is protected speech.

Only Democrats condemn offensive speech as an abuse of a right. I.E. not legitimate free speech. Only Democrats think that the First Amendment couldn’t possibly protect speech they don’t like. And issue official statements stating as such.

Comment by Steve57 (b2dac8) — 9/14/2012 @ 10:00 am
__________________________________________

Obama’s statement on Wednesday led off by recognizing hurt feelings

That was blatantly the case with the original statement put out regarding Libya, which Barry’s White House attempted to spin as not really reflecting his sentiments.

BTW, I’ve mentioned in the past that almost every major blunder of a Republican/conservative president, dating back to Herbert Hoover, has been when they allowed the liberal side of their thinking to get the better of them. That was the origins of Reagan’s Iran-Contra mess, that was certainly the case of various aspects of Bush Sr and his read-my-lips missteps and Bush Jr’s compassionate-conservatism shortcomings.

And now we have a president who is chock full of, 100% swarming with, thoroughly beholden to, leftist sentiment. What can possibly go wrong?!

Comment by Mark (674399) — 9/14/2012 @ 10:06 am
Steve57:

Only Democrats think that the First Amendment couldn’t possibly protect speech they don’t like. And issue official statements stating as such.

Except no Democrat ever said that. Including during the most recent events. Saying that someone “abuses a right” does not amount to advocating oppression of that right.

FWIW, it’s the ACLU that defends free speech cases.

Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 9/14/2012 @ 10:07 am
Kmart loves its wordplay and sophistry.

Comment by JD (16fdce) — 9/14/2012 @ 10:13 am
Kman,

For the American government to say it’s an abuse of the right to free speech encourages protesters, don’t you think? And since the protesters don’t live in the U.S., they may not understand the legal distinction so it may very well encourage them to lawless behavior. In those circumstances, this strikes me as a stupid statement.

Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 9/14/2012 @ 10:14 am
Except no Democrat ever said that.

Except for the Democrats who want to use The Fairness Doctrine to get Rush Limbaugh and other conservative commentators off the air.

Or the various left-leaning colleges that have enacted “hate speech” codes.

Comment by Chuck Bartowski (3bccbd) — 9/14/2012 @ 10:14 am
“And if getting bin Laden ruffled the feathers of Islamic extremists — well, I think that was the point.”

Kman – Are you seriously suggesting the point of Democrats spiking the football last week about shooting Osama bin Laden in cold blood was to rile up Islamic extremists, why are we even discussing a freaking film. Should not Democrats be concerned about the effect their words have on people overseas and the safety of our personnel or is that only for lesser mortals they can wag their fingers at?

Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/14/2012 @ 10:21 am
Kman,

The media don’t seem to care what Obama says about the acts of war against our embassies. The Jihadists don’t seem to care what Obama says about the acts of war against our embassies. And you don’t seem to care what Obama says about the acts of war against our embassies.

The reason people are more concerned with what Romney says about the acts of war against our embassies is because there’s a pretty good chance he’s going to be “the new boss.”

Listen, pal, I’m sorry you depend upon entitlement checks, and that you feel marginalized by society. You probably also feel underappreciated for your talents and skills.

But it’s not a good strategic move to impose more taxes and regulations on employers because that makes it less likely that they’ll be able to offer you a job. And more likely they’ll lay people off in the future. Is that what you want ? I suppose that’s a rhetorical question because we know that misery loves company.

Comment by Elephant Stone (65d289) — 9/14/2012 @ 10:22 am
For the American government to say it’s an abuse of the right to free speech encourages protesters, don’t you think?</blockquote?

Not at all. You think Islamic extremists give a damn about an American's free speech rights?

And since those protesters don’t live in the U.S. and may not understand the legal distinction, it may very well encourage the protesters to lawless behavior.

Really? You think Egyptian protesters are going to get all lathered up because they have the (mistaken) impression that some dumb American hack movie director may have violated the U.S. Constitution?

Look, I know how badly you want to pin this on Obama, but can’t we all agree that there is a certain element in Islamic countries that really don’t need any incentive to just go randomly apesh*t? That they pretty much just do it anyway?

Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 9/14/2012 @ 10:24 am
“Saying that someone “abuses a right” does not amount to advocating oppression of that right.”

Kman – What exactly does it mean then? If somebody is not going beyond the bounds of a right they have, how can it be termed an abuse, with all the implied consequences.

Please enlighten everybody about these concepts.

Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/14/2012 @ 10:26 am
Daley:

Are you seriously suggesting the point of Democrats spiking the football last week about shooting Osama bin Laden in cold blood was to rile up Islamic extremists, why are we even discussing a freaking film.

No, I’m saying this has NOTHING TO DO with the Democratic convention. Extremists are riled about us getting bin Laden, not our reaction to getting bin Laden.

Should not Democrats be concerned about the effect their words have on people overseas and the safety of our personnel or is that only for lesser mortals they can wag their fingers at?

I think BOTH parties should be concerned about that, but I don’t think it came as a surprise to anybody in the Arab world that Americans were happy to get bin Laden. I think the cat was out of the bag way before the Democratic convention.

Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 9/14/2012 @ 10:29 am
“Look, I know how badly you want to pin this on Obama, but can’t we all agree that there is a certain element in Islamic countries that really don’t need any incentive to just go randomly apesh*t? That they pretty much just do it anyway?”

Kman – It not necessarily a question of “pinning it” on Obama, although his foreign policy of appeasement and apology is not a great formula for success, it is a question of the reactions to what happened.

Obama acted stupidly, through his State Department and directly.

Romney acted presidential.

The left and the media(BIRM) cannot let that stand, which is why you and your ilk are in such a lather.

Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/14/2012 @ 10:31 am
Daley:

“Saying that someone “abuses a right” does not amount to advocating oppression of that right.”

Kman – What exactly does it mean then? If somebody is not going beyond the bounds of a right they have, how can it be termed an abuse, with all the implied consequences.

Speech can be abusive in the sense that it goes beyond the bounds of common decency. That’s not to say, however, that it should be oppressed or made illegal. Do you need examples?

Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 9/14/2012 @ 10:32 am
Cue the idiot:
BREAKING: Like the U.S Consulate in Egypt, Romney is now apologizing for America by condemning the film which angered the protesters.
Comment by Kman — 9/14/2012 @ 8:44 am
– By all means, please share a quote of WHAT Romney said that constitutes an ‘apology’ to ANYONE.

Except no Democrat ever said that. Including during the most recent events. Saying that someone “abuses a right” does not amount to advocating oppression of that right.
Comment by Kman — 9/14/2012 @ 10:07 am
– Perhaps you should avail yourself to exploring a wider swath of the blogosphere. Have you met Bette Midler?

BTW, have you managed to come up with ANY further examples of government entities condemning the expression of a private citizen as an abuse of the right of free speech? You’ve had 24 hours to come up with something. Where is it?

Comment by Icy (0f57a0) — 9/14/2012 @ 10:33 am
Kman – Obama has no clothes. Deal with it.

Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/14/2012 @ 10:34 am
Kman,

May I politely suggest you attempt to become better informed before you pontificate from your ~~soapbox~~ sandbox.
The filmmaker of the alleged video in question is actually an ex-patriate Egyptian who now lives in America.

Comment by Elephant Stone (65d289) — 9/14/2012 @ 10:37 am
“Speech can be abusive in the sense that it goes beyond the bounds of common decency.”

Kman – We are not discussing the adjectival form, abusive speech. We are talking about abuse of the universal right of free speech. Stop dodging and explain how the concept works in your mind.

Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/14/2012 @ 10:38 am
but can’t we all agree that there is a certain element in Islamic countries that really don’t need any incentive to just go randomly apesh*t? That they pretty much just do it anyway?

If they need no excuse, why are you and yours yammering on about a YouTube movie trailer and abusing free speech rights?

Comment by JD (16fdce) — 9/14/2012 @ 10:41 am
Kman – What do you think of when you hear about human rights abuses?

How would you relate that to abuses of rights of free speech?

Do people associate consequences with the former?

Your argument claims we should not contemplate any consequences to the the latter. Does that make any sense?

Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/14/2012 @ 10:44 am
Seriously, Daley?

Fine.

Speech can be an abuse of the universal right of free speech in that it goes beyond the bounds of common decency. Is that better?

“Abuse” doesn’t mean that it is “outside the bounds of”. It just means that it is “taking advantage of”, for an improper purpose.

Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 9/14/2012 @ 10:44 am
Kman:

Look, I know how badly you want to pin this on Obama, but can’t we all agree that there is a certain element in Islamic countries that really don’t need any incentive to just go randomly apesh*t? That they pretty much just do it anyway?

I agree with you, so either I misunderstood your point or you misunderstood mine.

Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 9/14/2012 @ 10:45 am
can’t we all agree that there is a certain element in Islamic countries that really don’t need any incentive to just go randomly apesh*t? That they pretty much just do it anyway?
Comment by Kman — 9/14/2012 @ 10:24 am
– Yes, WE agree. Now, can you share this with all of the (almost universally) left-wingers that are calling for that filmmaker to be jailed?

I don’t think it came as a surprise to anybody in the Arab world that Americans were happy to get bin Laden. I think the cat was out of the bag way before the Democratic convention.
Comment by Kman — 9/14/2012 @ 10:29 am
– Yeah, that’s how human nature works; right? You rub it in their face and they just say “Whatever; we already knew that you felt this way.” There’s no such thing as feeling publicly humiliated, is there?

Comment by Icy (0f57a0) — 9/14/2012 @ 10:46 am
JD:

If they need no excuse, why are you and yours yammering on about a YouTube movie trailer and abusing free speech rights?

I wasn’t. I posted about how Romney stepped in it and shot himself in the foot.

Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 9/14/2012 @ 10:47 am
“I posted about how Romney stepped in it and shot himself in the foot.”

Kman – Except that he didn’t. He acted the way an American President should. It was Obama who looked like a fool.

Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/14/2012 @ 10:50 am
Icy:

Now, can you share this with all of the (almost universally) left-wingers that are calling for that filmmaker to be jailed?

Who? And since it’s “almost universal”, give me some prominent left-wingers.

There’s no such thing as feeling publicly humiliated, is there?

And you CARE that bin Laden supporters are publicly humiliated? What you propose doing? Instead of killing bin Laden, we should take all the Islamic extremists out for ice cream?

Geez, no wonder polls are starting to show that Democrats are viewed as stronger on defense and foreign affairs. The ONE THING that conservatives had going for them….

Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 9/14/2012 @ 10:50 am
“Abuse” doesn’t mean that it is “outside the bounds of”. It just means that it is “taking advantage of”, for an improper purpose.
Comment by Kman — 9/14/2012 @ 10:44 am

– So, we have descended to the level of playing semantic games now, have we?
If “improper” is ‘within the bounds of,’ then what exactly is “outside” those bounds? Anything?

Comment by Icy (0f57a0) — 9/14/2012 @ 10:53 am
Do you ever get dizzy?

Comment by JD (16fdce) — 9/14/2012 @ 10:54 am
“Speech can be an abuse of the universal right of free speech in that it goes beyond the bounds of common decency. Is that better?

“Abuse” doesn’t mean that it is “outside the bounds of”. It just means that it is “taking advantage of”, for an improper purpose.”

Kman – No, it is not better. To label something as an abuse of a universal right, somewhere in your definition the right which is being abused and why must be included. Define the right and cite the abuse. Why do you keep dodging the fundamentals?

Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/14/2012 @ 10:56 am
Icy:

So, we have descended to the level of playing semantic games now, have we?

Well, if by “semantic games”, you mean “using the definition of words”, then I suppose the answer is yes.

Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 9/14/2012 @ 10:57 am
Kman – You claim to be a lawyer, this should be easy for you.

Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/14/2012 @ 10:58 am
JD: If they need no excuse, why are you and yours yammering on about a YouTube movie trailer and abusing free speech rights?

I wasn’t. I posted about how Romney stepped in it and shot himself in the foot.
Comment by Kman — 9/14/2012 @ 10:47 am

– Back here in reality-land it was YOU that posted the text of the tweet from the embassy in Cairo and asked what was wrong with it. Just because we have painstakingly described to you what was wrong with it doesn’t mean you can now pretend that you didn’t ask the question in the first place.

Comment by Icy (0f57a0) — 9/14/2012 @ 11:00 am
Kman – Do you have any problems with “works of art” that denigrate the beliefs of Christians or Jews or believe that they violate common decency?

Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/14/2012 @ 11:04 am
To label something as an abuse of a universal right, somewhere in your definition the right which is being abused and why must be included.

Well, the right is free speech, of course.

But just because one has the right to free speech does NOT mean they should act boorish or rude. Doing so is an abuse of that right. Which means… you can DO it, but it’s not commendable behavior.

Just like getting a bl*owjob in the Oval Office is an abuse of power.

Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 9/14/2012 @ 11:06 am
Do you have any problems with “works of art” that denigrate the beliefs of Christians or Jews or believe that they violate common decency?

Well, I don’t know what particular “works” you’re talking about, but I can think of some that violate what I believe to be common decency and/or are denigrating to Christians and Jews.

Do I have problems with them? Sure. Should they be banned? No.

What’s yer point?

Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 9/14/2012 @ 11:10 am
“Well, the right is free speech, of course.”

Kman – Not being polite is an abuse of the universal human right to free speech? Thank you so much. That clears everything up.

Still waiting for a definition, though.

How are we expected to have a conversation if you are unwilling to define the amorphous terms and words you are bandying about?

Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/14/2012 @ 11:12 am
Daley:

Define “free speech”? Seriously?

It’s the ability to express what one wants to express without governmental repercussion.

Why?

Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 9/14/2012 @ 11:16 am
Who? And since it’s “almost universal”, give me some prominent left-wingers.
– There’s a separate thread about one of them right here on THIS blog. You really only see & hear what you want to, don’t you?

And you CARE that bin Laden supporters are publicly humiliated?
– Are you having some difficulty in figuring this out? Well, since the entire thrust of this subject is on knowing what to say, and when to say it, that’s not too surprising.

What [do] you propose doing? Instead of killing bin Laden, we should take all the Islamic extremists out for ice cream?
– I propose exercising common sense and not spiking the football for the sake of a re-election bid around Sept. 11th while parts of the Middle East and North Africa are literally on fire.

Geez, no wonder polls are starting to show that Democrats are viewed as stronger on defense and foreign affairs. The ONE THING that conservatives had going for them….
Comment by Kman — 9/14/2012 @ 10:50 am
– Sure . . . as the events of the last few days have shown, in spades.

Comment by Icy (0f57a0) — 9/14/2012 @ 11:18 am
“Well, I don’t know what particular “works” you’re talking about, but I can think of some that violate what I believe to be common decency and/or are denigrating to Christians and Jews.”

Kman – It doesn’t really matter whether “you” think the works violate common decency or denigrate beliefs under your argument, does it? As long as some believers do Obama should instruct the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to get on the horn and demand the artist(s) cease and desist. Am I right?

Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/14/2012 @ 11:20 am
Could someone please give me the Cliff’s notes version of this thread? Who deserves to be jailed or killed if their speech offends or stirs things up toward violence somewhere else in the world? For American citizens who gets to make those pronouncements and decisions and on whose behalf/benefit would they be carried out?

Comment by elissa (8d5592) — 9/14/2012 @ 11:24 am
_________________________________________

but can’t we all agree that there is a certain element in Islamic countries that really don’t need any incentive to just go randomly apesh*t?

Considering the dominant, leading theological belief system that part of the world is resting upon, that’s quite odd. I mean, given the backdrop of the history below, so contrary and contradictory, so against tradition and history…

thereligionofpeace.com:

To understand Islam, you must understand the harsh circumstances into which the religion was born… This partly explains Islam’s inherent hostility to music and art, which some extremists, such as the Taliban, take quite literally. Islam does not encourage the pursuit of knowledge outside of itself. It is, as Oriana Fallaci puts it, it is “the religion which has produced nothing but religion.”

For these people, morality was dictated merely by necessity, and obligations did not extend beyond one’s tribe. This is a critical basis for the development of the Islamic attitude toward those outside the faith, including the moral principle that the ethics of any act are determined only by whether or not it benefits Muslims.

Muhammad’s Quran did not contain a single original moral value and it contributed only one new idea to world religion – that Muhammad is Allah’s prophet. In fact, Muhammad’s “Allah” seemed oddly preoccupied with making sure Muslims knew to obey Muhammad’s every earthly wish, as this mandate is repeated at least twenty times in the narration of the Quran.

His amalgamation of Judeo-Christian theology and pagan tradition grew more sophisticated over time… Even if he did not remember the Biblical stories correctly, for example, each one was conspicuously modified to incorporate a common theme: “Believe in the Messenger (Muhammad) or suffer the consequences.”

…Muhammad rejected the offer of peaceful co-existence. His new religion was obviously intended to dominate the others, not be on equal standing with them. Meanwhile, the Muslims were beginning to become violent with the people around them.

Stinging from the rejection of his own town and tribe, Muhammad’s message quickly become more intolerant and ruthless – particularly as he gained power. Islam’s holiest book clearly reflects this contrast, with the later parts of the Quran adding violence and earthly defeats at the hands of Muslims to the woes of eternal damnation that the earlier parts of the book promises those who will not believe in Muhammad.

It was at Medina that Islam evolved from a relatively peaceful religion borrowed from others and into a military force that was intended to govern all aspects of society. During these last ten years of Muhammad’s life, infidels were evicted or enslaved, converted upon point of death and even rounded up and slaughtered depending on expediency.

Muhammad’s personal life became the picture of hedonism and excess, all justified by frequent “revelations” from an increasingly arbitrary and capricious god. In his later years, he frequently used his influence for purely personal goals, including sex, wealth and power.

In the span of a dozen years, he married eleven women and had access to an array of sex slaves. When he wanted a woman, even if she were the wife of another man, his own daughter-in-law, or a child as young as 6-years-old.

Not content with waiting for Allah to act on his behalf, Muhammad had personal critics executed, including poets.

^ I recall Patterico some time ago expressing a rather come-see-come-saw attitude about the Islamic religion, and I wonder if that was based largely on an ignorance of what its underpinnings are really all about.

Comment by Mark (674399) — 9/14/2012 @ 11:25 am
“Define “free speech”? Seriously?”

Kman – Define the universal human right to freedom of speech and what constitutes an abuse of such right. Yes, seriously. I believe those are the concepts being discussed.

You also threw out the concept of common decency. Who defines that? Does it differ between countries? Does something which meets the standards of common decency in one country but does not in another create issues under this undefined universal human right of freedom of speech?

Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/14/2012 @ 11:27 am
Why are you being abusive/impolite, Daley?

Comment by JD (16fdce) — 9/14/2012 @ 11:29 am
“Who deserves to be jailed or killed if their speech offends or stirs things up toward violence somewhere else in the world?”

elissa – Kman won’t tell us. The Obama Administration clearly frowns on abuses of the right of free speech. Egyptians want us to punish abusers the right to free speech. Kman says you don’t have to, but since it is a universal right, he has not clarified who is right.

Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/14/2012 @ 11:36 am
It’s the ability to express what one wants to express without governmental repercussion.
Why?
Comment by Kman — 9/14/2012 @ 11:16 am

– And having a subdivision of one of the main departments of one of the three constitutionally defined branches of government CONDEMN (your language) one’s expression as an “abuse [of] the universal right of free speech” somehow does NOT qualify as a repercussion?

How so? Is it because ‘no publicity is bad publicity’? Funny, I don’t remember reading that part of the Constitution.

Comment by Icy (0f57a0) — 9/14/2012 @ 11:36 am
JD – I universally condemn myself.

Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/14/2012 @ 11:37 am
This was on the other thread;

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/times_changes/

Comment by narciso (ee31f1) — 9/14/2012 @ 11:38 am
elissa – I think what it really amounts is that Islam, because of the violence prone nature of its radical practitioners, is supposed to enjoy some special status or protection under this theoretical but undefined universal human right to freedom of speech which Kman and his ilk are unwilling to acknowledge or grant other religions because it puts their hypocrisy about freedom of speech in a bright spotlight, but that’s just me. YMMV.

Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/14/2012 @ 11:43 am
Daley:

You also threw out the concept of common decency. Who defines that? Does it differ between countries? Does something which meets the standards of common decency in one country but does not in another create issues under this undefined universal human right of freedom of speech?

Nobody does. But certainly the President is entitled to use the bully pulpit to condemn something which he feels is outside the bounds of decency.

Do you have a point to make?

Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 9/14/2012 @ 11:44 am
Could someone please give me the Cliff’s notes version of this thread?
– If you want the Cliff Clavin’s notes version, isolate and only read Kman’s posts.

Who deserves to be jailed or killed if their speech offends or stirs things up toward violence somewhere else in the world?
– Anyone that opposes Islamists . . . because you know how they get when someone pisses them off!

For American citizens who gets to make those pronouncements[?]
– Those people that fancy themselves “progressives”.

and on whose behalf/benefit would they be carried out?
– On behalf of the Peace-Through-Killing-The-Haters movement, and their unofficial figurehead, Roseanne “Bring Back the Guillotine” Barr.

Comment by Icy (0f57a0) — 9/14/2012 @ 11:49 am
And having a subdivision of one of the main departments of one of the three constitutionally defined branches of government CONDEMN (your language) one’s expression as an “abuse [of] the universal right of free speech” somehow does NOT qualify as a repercussion?

LOL! No.

You can use caps and all the high-falootin’ words you want, but when the President expresses an opinion, it does not have any repercussions. He’s not a king issuing an edict. He’s not issuing an executive order. He’s not sending anyone to jail. Nor ordering an investigation. He’s weighing in on an issue. Happens all the time.

Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 9/14/2012 @ 11:49 am
elissa:

Could someone please give me the Cliff’s notes version of this thread? Who deserves to be jailed or killed if their speech offends or stirs things up toward violence somewhere else in the world?

I’m not sure myself, elissa.

All I know is that BOTH the Egyptian embassy (when they were being overrun) AND Romney have the same views about this anti-Muhammad movie, i.e., that it is offensive, yet it is protected by free speech.

Which happens to be my view as well.

MY point in posting was that, two days ago, Romney deemed that condemning the movie was tantamount to “apologizing for America”. Now he’s condemning the movie.

And I don’t know what daley is going on about.

Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 9/14/2012 @ 11:53 am
WHAT word did I use that was “high-falootin’”[sic]?

Comment by Icy (0f57a0) — 9/14/2012 @ 11:53 am
Kmart – don’t you ever feel just a little silly?

Comment by JD (16fdce) — 9/14/2012 @ 11:55 am
This violence is not about an effin movie clip on YouTube.

Comment by JD (16fdce) — 9/14/2012 @ 11:58 am
Arabs suck. Egyptians more than most. Libyans swallow.

There is some Arab virginity sharia. Which means they look to their camels and the widow with the five daughters.

Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/14/2012 @ 11:59 am
Comment by DRJ — 9/13/2012 @ 7:20 am

That’s very “Irving Kristol” of you, DRJ.

Comment by AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92) — 9/14/2012 @ 11:59 am
And I should be prosecuted for writing that.

Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/14/2012 @ 12:00 pm
Why would this administration make any attempt to protect the lives of Embassy/Consulate workers from an intrusion from outside, they make minimal attempt to protect the sovereignty of the country from foreign incursions along our borders?

Comment by AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92) — 9/14/2012 @ 12:03 pm
I say. Clearly. The murder of our ambassador must be avenged.

nk — the murderous racist bigot.

Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/14/2012 @ 12:04 pm
167.

elissa:

Could someone please give me the Cliff’s notes version of this thread? Who deserves to be jailed or killed if their speech offends or stirs things up toward violence somewhere else in the world?

I’m not sure myself, elissa.

All I know is that BOTH the Egyptian embassy (when they were being overrun) AND Romney have the same views about this anti-Muhammad movie, i.e., that it is offensive, yet it is protected by free speech.

Which happens to be my view as well.

MY point in posting was that, two days ago, Romney deemed that condemning the movie was tantamount to “apologizing for America”. Now he’s condemning the movie.

And I don’t know what daley is going on about.

Comment by Kman — 9/14/2012 @ 11:53 am

He’s probably going on about how nothing you write is remotely truthful.

Like the forgoing distortion and mistatement of the facts quoted above.

There’s no need for me to explain it; it’s obvious to everyone not living in your echo chamber.

Reading your comments is like watching a WH press conference. And knowing even after dismally failing to spin their delusions effectively, Gibbs, Carney, et al go backstage and get high-fived by the other idiots as they congragulate themselves.

Comment by Steve57 (b2dac8) — 9/14/2012 @ 12:06 pm
nk, who was it that said:

“Millions for defense, not one cent for tribute”?

That philosophy is anathema to this bunch of bozos.

Comment by AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92) — 9/14/2012 @ 12:09 pm
Comment by DRJ — 9/13/2012 @ 7:20 am

Every liberal is a potential conservative to me, SPQR.

Even Barack Obama. He’s actually getting a little bit better on foreign policy, although there are still a lot of problems. (there’s also the flagrant dishonesty on domestic issues)

Comment by Sammy Finkelman (8c951a) — 9/14/2012 @ 12:13 pm
155. Could someone please give me the Cliff’s notes version of this thread? Who deserves to be jailed or killed if their speech offends or stirs things up toward violence somewhere else in the world? For American citizens who gets to make those pronouncements and decisions and on whose behalf/benefit would they be carried out?

Comment by elissa — 9/14/2012 @ 11:24 am

Sure. I can give you the abridged version.

1. Private citizens deserve to be jailed if they make a movie that offends Muslim sensibilities. So says the the administration which actively collaborated with the makers of the movie “Zero Dark Thirty,” the movie that celebrates Obama for killing OBL, who is now widely proclaimed a martyr by Muslims.

2. Leftists get to make those pronouncements.

3. It depends on if it benefits their Messiah, or not.

Comment by Steve57 (b2dac8) — 9/14/2012 @ 12:13 pm
Comment by Steve57 — 9/14/2012 @ 12:06 pm

Gibbs, Carney, et al go backstage and get high-fived by the other idiots as they congragulate themselves.

More likely they go: “Give me a glass of water. Slurp. Slurp. Glad that’s over. Boy we dodged a question about …. What’s going to happen if… Did I say they right?”

Comment by Sammy Finkelman (8c951a) — 9/14/2012 @ 12:19 pm
Monroe, AD?

Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/14/2012 @ 12:19 pm
Comment by nk — 9/14/2012 @ 12:04 pm

I say. Clearly. The murder of our ambassador must be avenged.

The problem right now with Obama is that his goals seem limited to that.

Also, he has no idea whom to blame and may wind up acting on disinformation.

Comment by Sammy Finkelman (8c951a) — 9/14/2012 @ 12:23 pm
I like my rules better. Teaching them to the daughter. Safe. http://krites.blogspot.com/2010/04/rules-for-swordfighter.html

Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/14/2012 @ 12:29 pm
“Do you have a point to make?”

Kman – I’m waiting for you to define the terms you are using in your comments so we have a possibility of understanding what you are trying to say.

It seems like all you intend on offering up is another typical self-defeating lowering the bar argument about how free speech is not absolute and Muslims are a special case although you will not specifically acknowledge it and that people need to be more careful of what they say and that unilateral disarmament, appeasement and apology are a totally awesome foreign policy strategy.

I am declaring victory, taking my football and moving on for the time being.

Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/14/2012 @ 12:31 pm
#
Comment by AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! — 9/14/2012 @ 12:09 pm

nk, who was it that said:

“Millions for defense, not one cent for tribute”?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070119093041AAMILUH

“Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute.”

– Representative Robert Goodloe Harper, Address, June 18, 1798 (Harper was the Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means)

A footnote in the Oct. 19 issue of TIME states that ” ‘Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute’ was voiced in 1798 by Robert Goodloe Harper.”

Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations states that it was said by Charles Cotesworth Pinckney when Minister to the French Republic in 1797.

A footnote says, “Inscribed on the cenotaph in his memory in St. Michael’s Church, Charleston, S.C. What Pinckney really said was more forcible, ‘not a damned penny for tribute.’

Answer:

>Bartlett is wrong. In 1797 a secret agent from Talleyrand told Pinckney that the American Commissioners sent to Paris to protest French attacks on U.S. shipping would be received only if they paid a £50,000 bribe and made a large loan to the French government. Pinckney’s words at this point, according to his own story, were, “Not a sixpence, sir.”

On June 18, 1798, at a Philadelphia banquet for John Marshall, one of the three Commissioners in what became known as the XYZ affair, Harper proposed the 13th toast of the evening: “Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute.” The remark was later credited to Pinckney and although he never denied it publicly, he did so privately several times.—ED.

The Yahoo page has 1708, an obvious typo.

More:

The wording of this quotation usually reads: “… not a penny.” For further discussion of the wording used by Pinckney and of the quotation frequently but mistakenly attributed to Pinckney—“Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute,” actually said by Robert Goodloe Harper—see The Home Book of Quotations, ed. Burton Stevenson, 10th ed., p. 63 (1967) and “Notes and Queries,” South Carolina Historical and Genealogical Magazine, vol. 1, pp. 100–103, 178–79 (1901).

Comment by Sammy Finkelman (8c951a) — 9/14/2012 @ 12:31 pm
Thanks, Sammy.
We can always count on you to track down obscure tactoids.

Comment by AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92) — 9/14/2012 @ 12:37 pm
I realize this is too “nuanced” for Kmart, but Romney has not “come around” to the original embassy’s apology, or the various administration grovelings restating that apology while denying that’s what they were in fact doing.

The US embassy in Cairo betrayed American values in order to appease it’s host country, which later launched a violent mob against it, when it posted 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

They rejected as an “abuse” exactly what the First Amendment protects. As the SCOTUS recently ruled:

Again, this is too sophisticated for someone as obtuse as Kmart to understand, but the US embassy rejected as an “abuse” exactly what it was required to defend.

That’s what Romney rightly condemned. And exactly what the Obama administration failed to do.

Today’s weather forecast: Cloudly, cool, with continued avoidance of reality by hypocritical leftists.

Comment by Steve57 (b2dac8) — 9/14/2012 @ 12:40 pm
For some reason the quote disappeared. This is what the SCOTUS ruled:

“Speech is powerful,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and — as it did here — inflict great pain.”

But under the First Amendment, he went on, “we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker.” Instead, the national commitment to free speech, he said, requires protection of “even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.”

Comment by Steve57 (b2dac8) — 9/14/2012 @ 12:41 pm
169. Kmart – don’t you ever feel just a little silly?

Comment by JD — 9/14/2012 @ 11:55 am

I’m sure he’ll be along shortly to demonstrate he never feels silly no matter how stupid he must make himself look for his Messiah.

Comment by Steve57 (b2dac8) — 9/14/2012 @ 12:43 pm
Paging Graham Chapman, it’s gotten very silly.

Comment by narciso (ee31f1) — 9/14/2012 @ 12:44 pm
Kman,

Why do you have such low expectations of behavior for Muslims ?
Why do you believe they are so incapable of controlling their emotions and actions ?

At Thanksgiving Dinner, if a very small child throws a tantrum, or starts crying, the adults tend to at least understand it or overlook it because the small child is immature and not yet expected to behave better.
But if a thirty year old person started throwing a tantrum or played with their mashed potatoes in an immature fashion, the adults would think poorly of that person.

Again, why do you not expect Muslims to behave to the civil standards that you expect of other people ? Do you perceive Muslims to be like little children, incapable of controlling their own emotions and actions ?

Comment by Elephant Stone (65d289) — 9/14/2012 @ 1:06 pm
Comment by Elephant Stone — 9/14/2012 @ 1:06 pm

But if a thirty year old person started throwing a tantrum or played with their mashed potatoes in an immature fashion, the adults would think poorly of that person.

The problem is, some people wouldn’t know hwow to handle it if the 30-year old has a gun.

This is not a one time thing.

But anyway it has nothing to do with the movie.

The American Embassy in Islamabad was overrun in 1979 because of a rumor (or using the claim that) American troops had occupied the central mosque in Mecca.

So what would anybpdy do about that?

Again, why do you not expect Muslims to behave to the civil standards that you expect of other people ? Do you perceive Muslims to be like little children, incapable of controlling their own emotions and actions ?

Comment by Sammy Finkelman (8c951a) — 9/14/2012 @ 1:32 pm
Sammy, do you have Asperger’s ? It’s a serious question.
I ask that question, because you never seem to be able to relate to what people are writing.

My analogy with the Thanksgiving Dinner is that Kman perceives Muslims to be like small children who are not expected to behave as well as the grownups at the table.

I didn’t mention anything about the movie, yet you inferred that I did.

Comment by Elephant Stone (65d289) — 9/14/2012 @ 1:51 pm
193. Stones, we’ve been over this B4. This ‘relating’ has to do with social cues like body language, tone of voice, facial expressions, etc.

Victims of its heartbreak tend to have superior reasoning skills. Not Sammy’s prob.

Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 9/14/2012 @ 1:59 pm
Did the WH really approach YouTube a out taking down this clip?!

Comment by JD (16fdce) — 9/14/2012 @ 2:07 pm
195. I see the producer was a government informant.

Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 9/14/2012 @ 2:25 pm
BREAKING: Like the U.S Consulate in Egypt, Romney is now apologizing for America by condemning the film which angered the protesters.

Yeah, I wish he wouldn’t do that, but he’s not the administration. He’s expressing his personal view. I disagree with that view, but he’s entitled to it. The administration speaks for the USA, and is not entitled to such a view.

Comment by Milhouse (15b6fd) — 9/14/2012 @ 3:10 pm
195. Did the WH really approach YouTube a out taking down this clip?!

Comment by JD — 9/14/2012 @ 2:07 pm

Yes.

WaPo: White House asked YouTube to review anti-Muslim film

Tommy Vietor, spokesman for the National Security Council, said the White House has “reached out to YouTube to call the video to their attention and ask them to review whether it violates their terms of use.”

However, the video remained on the site as of Friday afternoon, and it is posted many other places on the Internet.

Messages to YouTube, and Google, which owns the site, were not immediately returned Friday. On Wednesday, a YouTube spokesperson said the video “is clearly within our guidelines and so will stay on YouTube.”

No doubt Obama has Holder working on some bogus charge to shut YouTube down as we speak.

Tomorrow’s forecast: Clearing with a 20% chance of rain, highs in the mid 80s, and more embassy attacks as the MB realizes the craven Obozo the President will desperately dance to their tune as they flex their falsely aggrieved muscles.

The three day forecast: the MB will scour the interwebs possibly taking offense at racist PB&J sandwiches that Muslims don’t eat, forcing Moochelle to take a stand against Islamophobic eats.

Comment by Steve57 (b2dac8) — 9/14/2012 @ 3:13 pm
Milhouse @197,

Romney hasn’t sunk as low as this administration and condemned “hurtful” speech as an “abuse” of a right.

Since his statements make clear that, unlike this administration, he’s aware that inoffensive speech doesn’t require a Constitutional amendment to protect it. Offensive or “hurtful” speech is precisely what the First Amendment protects. Ergo, pace the DoS and the Obama administration, it is not an “abuse” of a right to engage in it.

Which is why they sold out American values when they condemned it as such.

Comment by Steve57 (b2dac8) — 9/14/2012 @ 3:18 pm
191. Well done, in every respect.

Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 9/15/2012 @ 4:11 am
[url=http://h1m20121003230346-8731714.webstarts.com/]Moncler weste[/url] dS4^hJ@c3Ou#2Rb3^Q [url=http://h1m20121003230346-8731714.webstarts.com/]Moncler weste[/url] eX9^gR%b2Fl&1Zk2$O http://h1m20121003230346-8731714.webstarts.com/
[url=http://monclerdaunenjacke.webeden.net]Moncler Jacken[/url] pQ8@mP%n5Rw%9Wa7&C [url=http://monclerdaunenjacke.webeden.net]Moncler outlet[/url] zE7^zK#l8Ec%5Rb6@K http://monclerdaunenjacke.webeden.net
[url=http://monclerdaunenjacke1.webs.com/]Moncler Jacken[/url] iT6#yZ$j2Ov@7Xk2%R [url=http://monclerdaunenjacke1.webs.com/]Moncler Jacken[/url] iJ3&zW&c5Xa%9Wv0%S http://monclerdaunenjacke1.webs.com/

Comment by zaochbbfu (d39c86) — 10/12/2012 @ 9:21 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

9/12/2012

L.A. Times: Romney Unpresidential for Immediately Criticizing Apologetic Statement That the Obama Administration Also Immediately Criticized

201 Comments

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out

September 2012
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Aug				Oct »
					1	2
3	4	5	6	7	8	9
10	11	12	13	14	15	16
17	18	19	20	21	22	23
24	25	26	27	28	29	30