Romney Becoming A Pariah Over Libya Attack Screw-Up

[Ziggurat]

Strange that the screwup everyone is talking about is what someone said after the attack, and not the inadequate security that led to the attack being fatal in the first place. I don't know who is responsible for that screwup so I won't point fingers, but it seems to me like it's the far more important one. But I guess that doesn't play to the partisan interests of the posters here. Rather ironic, actually.

 

[A'isha]

Strange that the screwup everyone is talking about is what someone said after the attack, and not the inadequate security that led to the attack being fatal in the first place. I don't know who is responsible for that screwup so I won't point fingers, but it seems to me like it's the far more important one.

And had Romney (and the other right-wingers) made that the focus and substance of their comments instead of the foot-in-mouth stupidity they spouted, we wouldn't be talking about his screwup.

But I guess that doesn't play to the partisan interests of the posters here. Rather ironic, actually.

So why didn't you start a thread about it, or bring it up in one of the (many) threads about the embassy attacks, instead of attempting to deflect attention from Romney's screwup and the legitimate discussion thereof?

 

[DavidJames]

Strange that the screwup everyone is talking about is what someone said after the attack, and not the inadequate security that led to the attack being fatal in the first place. I don't know who is responsible for that screwup so I won't point fingers, but it seems to me like it's the far more important one. But I guess that doesn't play to the partisan interests of the posters here. Rather ironic, actually.

Not at all as most of us can read the OP and keep focused on one topic.

You are welcome to open a new thread about that.

ETA - Trying to dance away from the OP and shift the blame to Obama isn't ironic, it's the SOP for your team and no, I won't respond when you inevitably try to continue your dance.

 

[Olowkow]

...
So why didn't you start a thread about it, or bring it up in one of the (many) threads about the embassy attacks, instead of attempting to deflect attention from Romney's screwup and the legitimate discussion thereof?

He doesn't want to point fingers.

 

[Ziggurat]

He doesn't want to point fingers.

Indeed I don't. The decision on embassy security was probably made several steps down the chain of command, so at this point I have no reason to blame the person at the top of the chain.

But the interests of the posters here was worth commenting on. Namely, that this interest is... not quite where I think it should be.

 

[A'isha]

But the interests of the posters here was worth commenting on. Namely, that this interest is... not quite where I think it should be.

So your complaint is that we're not going wildly off-topic?

 

[Ziggurat]

So your complaint is that we're not going wildly off-topic?

My complaint is that this IS the topic of interest. I made that pretty explicit in my first post. Do you have trouble reading?

 

[Megalodon]

I have trouble understanding why you're not starting a thread on what you think is the topic of interest, instead of derailing a thread focused on Romney's clumsy response to the tragedy.

 

[Olowkow]

Just so we have the actual text in question, here is what HuffPost, which generally is accurate, says:

Romney's reference to an "apology for America's values" was directed at a statement the U.S. Embassy in Cairo put out on Tuesday morning, but that statement, which was itself responding to the outrage over the anti-Islamic film, was issued before the embassy was attacked, despite Romney's statement to the contrary. What's more, the statement does not apologize for America's values, but rather supports a founding American value, religious tolerance, while referencing the "universal right of free speech." The statement in full:


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.

 

[A'isha]

My complaint is that this IS the topic of interest. I made that pretty explicit in my first post.

So why aren't you talking about the thing you want to talk about in the proper place (either a new dedicated thread, or one of the general threads about the attack), instead of complaining that people aren't talking about your personal pet peeve regarding the attacks in a thread that's about something entirely different?

Do you have trouble reading?

I can certainly read the subject line of this thread.

 

[Biscuit]

My complaint is that this IS the topic of interest. I made that pretty explicit in my first post. Do you have trouble reading?

Thats not what Mitt Romney thinks.

 

[A'isha]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns...onsensus-mitt-statement-a-blunder-135284.html

There are a lot of problems with Romney's reaction to the U.S. consulate attacks, but the most straightforward one may be that it burns away time his campaign didn't have. We're now going to spend at least one news cycle — and probably more — analyzing and responding to Romney's incendiary statement, and the issue will surely carry through to the Sunday shows this weekend. When you're trailing in a presidential election with eight weeks to go, you can't afford to spend one of those weeks defending a provocative statement that you didn't have to make in the first place, especially when you were already on the defensive on national security.

I think there's a lot of truth in this: Romney's boneheaded comments have now deflected attention from thing he needs to be hammering Obama about (the economy), and focused it directly on the one thing he's been having constant problems with lately.

 

[joobz]

Strange that the screwup everyone is talking about is what someone said after the attack, and not the inadequate security that led to the attack being fatal in the first place. I don't know who is responsible for that screwup so I won't point fingers, but it seems to me like it's the far more important one. But I guess that doesn't play to the partisan interests of the posters here. Rather ironic, actually.

You make a good point as to what is the important concern is.

However, it seems to me the discussion here is the attempt of Romney to politicize the event and to do it in such a shoddy manner.

I share your contempt of this, and hopefully other republicans will find Romney's comment to be equally contemptible.

 

[grunion]

Surely she meant "backbone" and not "penis".

I can see why Michelle Bachmann might get these confused but surely Ms. Palin is more familiar with male anatomy than that.

 

[Olowkow]

Indeed I don't. The decision on embassy security was probably made several steps down the chain of command, so at this point I have no reason to blame the person at the top of the chain.

But the interests of the posters here was worth commenting on. Namely, that this interest is... not quite where I think it should be.

Well, from what I read it was a missile attack, so there is no easy way to defend against that if the chance of attack was relatively remote.

Another thought that occurred to me wound up in the same HuffPost article which I quoted earlier:

Romney's rash condemnation of the president, released after it was known that there had been U.S. fatalities, calls to mind Sen. John McCain's snap decision in 2008 to suspend his presidential campaign to deal with the financial crisis. The move was judged deeply unpresidential and contributed to his defeat.

The sheer accumulation of such incredibly foolish and hastily constructed claims cannot but rankle in the minds of his supporters. If Obama were out there making wild assed unsupported claims, I'd be pissed. This is very delicate and important stuff, and Romney should butt out if he can't play the diplomatic game properly.

 

[Olowkow]

Strange that the screwup everyone is talking about is what someone said after the attack, and not the inadequate security that led to the attack being fatal in the first place. I don't know who is responsible for that screwup so I won't point fingers, but it seems to me like it's the far more important one. But I guess that doesn't play to the partisan interests of the posters here. Rather ironic, actually.

I see what you did there.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/12/mitt-romney-obama-libya_n_1877406.html

 

[fishbob]

One clumsy attack on Obama after another.

http://www.sciencedebate.org/debate12/

 

[grunion]

Another thought that occurred to me wound up in the same HuffPost article which I quoted earlier:

(quote comparing this distraction to John McCain's "suspension" of his campaign.)

The difference is that McCain's move was criticized as being politically naive, in that he claimed that he had to focus on the TARP bailout as a matter of public interest instead of his campaign. Romney's was the opposite - politically overzealous without the slightest hint of public interest that he can wrap around this slimy incident.

 

[A'isha]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/12/mitt-romney-obama-libya_n_1877406.html

From that link:

After the Cairo embassy's initial statement, as a mob protest outside the embassy heated up, even entering the compound, and commentators in the U.S. suggested the embassy condemn the protesters, the embassy responded through its Twitter feed: "Of course we condemn breaches of our compound, we’re the ones actually living through this."

The embassy added: "Sorry, but neither breaches of our compound or angry messages will dissuade us from defending freedom of speech AND criticizing bigotry."

The diplomats in Cairo survived the assault on their embassy. When the protests spread to Libya, diplomats there weren't so lucky: Four U.S. State Department officials, including Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens, were killed in an hourslong assault. Romney responded by attacking the diplomats in Cairo.

"The embassy in Cairo put out a statement after their grounds had been breached, protesters were inside the grounds," said Romney at his press conference. "They reiterated that statement after the breach. I think it's a -- a terrible course for America to stand in apology for our values."

Did Romney expect the Cairo diplomats to retract their defense of religious tolerance in the face of the attack? Or did Romney expect the Obama administration to denounce the diplomats who were under siege?

"It's their administration," said Romney, referring to the embassy in Cairo. "Their administration spoke. The president takes responsibility not just for the words that come from his mouth but also from the words of his ambassadors, from his administration, from his embassies, from his State Department. They clearly sent mixed messages to the world. The statement that came from the administration -- and the embassy is the administration -- the statement that came from the administration was a statement which is akin to apology. And I think was a severe miscalculation."

Wow. Just...just wow.

 

[Ziggurat]

Well, from what I read it was a missile attack, so there is no easy way to defend against that if the chance of attack was relatively remote.

There are conflicting accounts of his death. This report, for example, attributes his death to asphyxiation from smoke inhalation. But there are indeed ways to defend against RPG attacks, and nothing indicates that the "rockets" involved were anything heavier than RPG's.