GGT back-tracking already.
GGT back-tracking already.
Hope is the denial of reality
Then stop defending him. What's ridiculous is suggesting Romney (and his campaign advisors) had more FACTS than people on the ground, our own state dept. and intelligence / military officials. The FACTS are still being sorted out. That's the point.Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
No, it's the Romney campaign trying to back-track. They must think timestamps can't be followed.GGT back-tracking already.
But I'm not up for your trolling tonight, Loki. I'll check back tomorrow to see how you've solved the middle-east problems, and what parts of a Romney foreign policy you'd support.
You don't have to be defending someone in order to be rational in your analysis. Romney didn't have more facts then the people on the ground, but that doesn't mean he has to agree with the decisions they made. I certainly don't agree with posting and then defending an apology of free speech at any time - especially when you are under siege, and I somehow doubt it did anything to improve our image in the Middle East.
I find it interesting that most of the media stories on this question Romney's judgment in making the stupid statement, but very few are questioning the ambassador's security arrangement (the compound wasn't secure and meant to be temporary, yet there were no Marines protecting it, and no effort was made to evacuate the place in the face of growing protests). Apparently scoring a minor political point takes precedence over someone's life.
Hope is the denial of reality
Yep, lets call Romney a dumbass for his statement but not call the State Dept inept for their incompetence.
I do think Romney should have just sticked to an angry response to these attacks and advised how his administration would secure our people who are overseas representing us. The unsaid comparison would have been sufficient.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
Where are you seeing this "apology of free speech"?
I guess it's somehow easier to hold a person personally accountable for personal bad judgement of this sort than it is to blame an organisation for system-level mistakes.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-...s-image,29553/
Warning: Holy Penises
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
I disagree with the bolded parts. Romney just wanted to make a criticism of Obama, and pounced before having all the facts.
1. The Cairo consulate press statements (and tweets) were meant to acknowledge Muslim anger/offense at that stupid movie, distance the US from religious hate speech, and -- more importantly -- quell an escalating situation on the ground. It was NOT an apology for the movie....or free speech.
2. Romney tried to turn snapshots in time, during an evolving situation, into a broad Obama foreign policy criticism. He manipulated words and intent to fit his recurring theme -- the "No Apologies" campaign tour. That's being an opportunist, for political self-interest. Doing it by condemning our own embassy/ambassadors, while they were handling an escalating emergency, is that's reprehensible.
And in case you think I'm being partisan, there are plenty of Republicans who agree:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...ks_115416.html.... there is nothing wrong in principle with making clear to people, who have yet to embrace the categorical right to free speech, that Americans and their government deplore the deplorable, that we reject vile attacks on Muslims as vigorously as we reject vile anti-Semitic attacks.
To do so does not constitute sympathy for the people besieging our embassy, as Gov. Romney alleged. Nor is at an apology for America, as some Obama critics have claimed. It’s an expression of our decency.
The Romney camp has released proposed answers for others to defend his misled strategy, and make it look like strong American diplomacy after-the-fact. Doublespeak negative? http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...ibya-response/
Questions & Answers:
Don’t you think it was appropriate for the embassy to condemn the controversial movie in question? Are you standing up for movies like this?
– Governor Romney rejects the reported message of the movie. There is no room for religious hatred or intolerance.
– But we will not apologize for our constitutional right to freedom of speech.
– Storming U.S. missions and committing acts of violence is never acceptable, no matter the reason. Any response that does not immediately and decisively make that clear conveys weakness.
– If pressed: Governor Romney repudiated this individual in 2010 when he attempted to mobilize a Quran-burning movement. He is firmly against any expression of religious hatred or intolerance.
What facts did he need, GGT? The consulate released a poorly worded statement - a statement that even the Obama administration later distanced itself from - and Romney picked up on it. What other facts did he need?
And a fine job that did? To interject the State Department into a situation that they bear absolutely no responsibility for, (the creation and release of this film) makes little sense, and I doubt it made an impact on the protesters. Should we also acknowledge and seek to quell Muslim anger/offense that we don't execute homosexuals and women who have brought shame upon themselves and their families by having sex outside of marriage, or who murder their unborn children?1. The Cairo consulate press statements (and tweets) were meant to acknowledge Muslim anger/offense at that stupid movie, distance the US from religious hate speech, and -- more importantly -- quell an escalating situation on the ground. It was NOT an apology for the movie....or free speech.
I don't disagree at all that it was opportunistic, and completely done out of political self interest. I don't see how it was reprehensible. What is reprehensible is the lack of security, foresight, and planning, even when they likely had some warning about what could happen. Where does the buck stop, GGT?2. Romney tried to turn snapshots in time, during an evolving situation, into a broad Obama foreign policy criticism. He manipulated words and intent to fit his recurring theme -- the "No Apologies" campaign tour. That's being an opportunist, for political self-interest. Doing it by condemning our own embassy/ambassadors, while they were handling an escalating emergency, is that's reprehensible.
I think you are being partisan, just as I think the Romney campaign was being shortsighted and opportunistic.And in case you think I'm being partisan, there are plenty of Republicans who agree:
Talking points aren't new in politics. It's why you'll hear the same thing on cable news networks from any number of different talking heads. I'm not sure how this is supposed to be a gotcha for the Romney campaign. Do you think that Obama strategists don't use talking points when they are campaigning?The Romney camp has released proposed answers for others to defend his misled strategy, and make it look like strong American diplomacy after-the-fact. Doublespeak negative? http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...ibya-response/
So, having started by attacking the diplomatic premises of an organization which had nothing to do with the distribution and production of this film because they represent the country where it was made, they have now progressed to attacking the diplomatic premises of completely different countries such as the UK and Germany, and have also protested at UN facilities. Presumably, they next they will start violently protesting against each other.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
White people are to blame.
Hope is the denial of reality
Romney, his campaign staff, PR handlers, and "foreign policy expert" advisors...should have had the wisdom and good sense to know that anything in the middle east -- particularly hot spot areas -- can change faster than tweets or internet posts. Particularly protests that revolve around religion, in front of our embassy, where US diplomats and their staff could be at risk. That's not the time to inject campaign politics, at least not if a candidate wants to be seen as a statesman or diplomat.
Red herring.And a fine job that did? To interject the State Department into a situation that they bear absolutely no responsibility for, (the creation and release of this film) makes little sense, and I doubt it made an impact on the protesters. Should we also acknowledge and seek to quell Muslim anger/offense that we don't execute homosexuals and women who have brought shame upon themselves and their families by having sex outside of marriage, or who murder their unborn children?
That's a separate argument from Romney's behavior. I find it reprehensible that his political ego came ahead of the people on the ground, their safety/security, and any plans, communications or negotiations still underway.I don't disagree at all that it was opportunistic, and completely done out of political self interest. I don't see how it was reprehensible. What is reprehensible is the lack of security, foresight, and planning, even when they likely had some warning about what could happen. Where does the buck stop, GGT?
Then you have a strange definition of partisan, just because I'm critical of Romney.I think you are being partisan, just as I think the Romney campaign was being shortsighted and opportunistic.
Talking points aren't new in politics. It's why you'll hear the same thing on cable news networks from any number of different talking heads. I'm not sure how this is supposed to be a gotcha for the Romney campaign. Do you think that Obama strategists don't use talking points when they are campaigning?
The facts are that there were no active Marines there and the ambassador was killed. But apparently the killing of our ambassador is less important than some empty rhetoric.
Hope is the denial of reality
It's not empty rhetoric when Romney wants to be POTUS. But I have made an effort to address the two things separately.
Maybe later I'll join in and speculate about all sorts of things, too. Incompetencies...maybe some conspiracy theories....what's the bandwagon today?
So because an event or situations on the ground could change in the near future, we should expect politicians to refrain from talking about them? If you expect our leaders to wait for absolutely perfect information before they comment then you are going to be waiting a long time to hear anything.
Come to think of it, that might not be a bad idea...
No, it's not. Those are values that many of us hold dear that are also deeply offensive to many Muslims.Red herring.
Then where's the criticism to the people who actually could have made a difference in the safety of the people on the ground? Where does the buck stop?That's a separate argument from Romney's behavior. I find it reprehensible that his political ego came ahead of the people on the ground, their safety/security, and any plans, communications or negotiations still underway.
They weren't on security detail, at least one was in the country looking for and destroying shoulder fired missiles. If there was credible intelligence that there was a threat 48 hours in advance and nothing was done, who is to blame?Then you have a strange definition of partisan, just because I'm critical of Romney.
I.E. You're a partisan hack whose ability to function at a level higher than that of a chimp flies out the window the second a Republican's name is mentioned.It's not empty rhetoric when Romney wants to be POTUS. But I have made an effort to address the two things separately.
Maybe later I'll join in and speculate about all sorts of things, too. Incompetencies...maybe some conspiracy theories....what's the bandwagon today?
Hope is the denial of reality
So, how come you guys only ever go on about people being "partisan" every time someone criticizes Romney?
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Probably because a vast majority of the political posts here do that?
Hope is the denial of reality
That movie is a complete mockery on a foreign culture. In Lybia you just had a war, people are armed to the teeth. What did you expect in a protest? A peaceful protest with flowers?
It tells me about racism and discrimination towards foreigners in US. If arabs made a movie on how a US president is a child molester, a corrupt, a thief, Americans would have been upset too.
Quite a tragedy. Despite the mythical glamour media give to ambassadors, they are just public employees who go to work every day. No big deal.
Freedom - When people learn to embrace criticism about politicians, since politicians are just employees like you and me.
Erm, you do realize that Americans are regularly vilified in films in the Middle East, including films sponsored by governments. I don't recall Americans besieging foreign embassies.
Got to love reflexive anti-Americanism. The only racists I see are people like you who think attacking an entire country for the actions of a private individual is acceptable.
Hope is the denial of reality
Well, that's fine. As long as it's not an attempt to create some kind of discourse which discourages people from expressing opinions you disagree with by labeling them 'partisan' and presenting yourself as a objective observer equally critical of both sides whereas in reality almost all of your criticism is actually directed exclusively at one side and you are just as 'partisan' as anyone else here, and are merely using that word as a ploy to make the opposition think twice before expressing counter view points to yours in order to create an intellectual environment more favorable to the candidate you in the most part support but, for whatever reason, don't feel able to come out in favour of more openly. Because that would be pretty partisan, if you ask me.Probably because a vast majority of the political posts here do that?
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Being partisan is the least of the problems of people like GGT. Inability to think rationally and critically seems like a bigger issue.
Let's look at this thread. On the one hand, you have Romney supporters who all agree that what Romney said was politically motivated and more than a little stupid. On the other hand, you have Obama fanboys who parrot the talking points of the DNC.
Hope is the denial of reality
Do you realize how frequently that happens? Much worse things are said about the US and it's president on a regular basis. Americans just don't burn down embassies and murder diplomats in response.
This is new, cause you started out by defending the timing, then immediately jumped to blaming Obama for putting these people in harms way
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
I like the way Romeny has supporters but Obama has fanboys.
Anyway, what Romney supporters have done in this thread is try and paint what he said as politics as usual and gloss over the fact that what he did was actually to violate a pretty major taboo against using events like this to score political points, and that was the primary cause of all the criticism he's received over it, and then claim there are more important issues to talk about - another classic tactic to shut down something you don't want to see discussed, such as recently used by the Tories against Lib Dem ideas about house of lords reform - but with the excuse that there actually is a limited amount of parliamentary time to devote to issues where as here we can discuss Romeny's comments, the failures of security at the Libya embassy or any other failings of Obama people think are relevant.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Eh? I've probably been the most vocal "supporter" of Romney in this thread, and I'm anything but. I think that blaming Romney for making an announcement before an event that could not be foreseen is partisan. That being said, the criticism of him doubling down on his original statement seems fair to me.
I don't think calling someone partisan is a valid or relevant criticism.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
I think the titles are pretty accurate. I don't believe a single Romney supporter here is really a fan of Romney; we just think he's better than Obama. Most of the Obama supporters here believe him to be some kind of a beacon of goodness who would save the world if only not for the mean Republicans getting in his way.
As for the second point, when exactly did this become a taboo? I recall Bush getting attacked whenever a soldier was killed...
Hope is the denial of reality
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote