Seriously, Mittens?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/election-2012/mitt-romney-criticism-president-obama-national-moment-grief-backfires-article-1.1158095?pgno=1

Mitt Romney's criticism of President Obama amid national moment of grief backfires
Romney claimed President sympathized with protesters who stormed embassy in Cairo. Statement made before news broke that Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed by protesters in Libya.

Mitt Romney drew fire on Wednesday for slamming the Obama administration during a national moment of grief.
The Republican presidential candidate pounced on what he described as President Obama’s poor handling of the crisis in the Middle East — but ended up fending off criticism even from within his own party for seeming to politicize a national tragedy.
“I think President Obama has demonstrated a lack of clarity on foreign policy,” Romney declared during a campaign stop.
Obama hit back hours later, slamming his Republican rival.
“Gov. Romney seems to have a tendency to shoot first and aim later,” Obama told CBS. “And as President, one of the things I’ve learned is you can’t do that.”
Facing his first true foreign policy test during the general election season, the former Massachusetts governor first weighed in Tuesday after protesters stormed the American Embassy in Cairo and staffers there issued an apology about an anti-Islamic video in an attempt to quell the violence.
The White House did not authorize the apology, which the embassy later withdrew. But the Romney camp saw an opening.
“It’s disgraceful that the Obama administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions,” Romney said in a statement, “but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”

That campaign note, sent in a blast email to reporters, was released before news broke that Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed outside the consulate in Benghazi.
It drew a heated response from Democrats and a few within the GOP fold, who accused Romney of grandstanding against the backdrop of a tragedy — and for breaking an agreed-upon campaign ceasefire on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
“We are shocked that, at a time when the United States of America is confronting the tragic death of one of our diplomatic officers in Libya, Gov. Romney would choose to launch a political attack,” said Ben LaBolt, an Obama spokesman.
But after the news of the four deaths emerged Wednesday, the GOP nominee did not back down.
“The first response of the United States must be outrage at the breach of the sovereignty of our nation,” Romney said in Jacksonville, Fla., “and apology for American values is never the right course.”
“The President takes responsibility not just for words that come from his mouth,” insisted Romney, who said the confusion over the statements “reflects mixed signals to the world.”

Romney, who expressed his condolences to the families of those lost, did not second-guess his campaign’s decision to release its initial critical statement.
The statement was originally embargoed until midnight — meaning it would be released after the Sept. 11 anniversary passed — but that prohibition was lifted just before 10:30 p.m.
“I don’t think we ever hesitate when we see something that’s a violation of our principles," Romney said.
The crisis was Romney’s first chance to respond to a fast-moving international incident, and Democrats have gleefully painted him as a foreign policy neophyte.
“This is one of those moments when Americans must unite as Americans,” said Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), a leading candidate to succeed Secretary of State Clinton if Obama wins reelection. “It is exactly the wrong time to throw political punches.”
Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) went further, labeling Romney and his running mate, Paul Ryan, a “threat to national security.”
The reaction to Romney among Republicans was mixed.
Some conservatives, like South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint, ex-Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, supported their party’s standard-bearer.
“Mitt Romney looked extremely presidential,” said Giuliani during a news conference at City Hall. “He seemed to have the force and the strength that sometimes is lacking in our President.”
But, tellingly, several conservative columnists and high-profile Republicans did not echo Romney’s criticism of the White House.
“We honor the Americans we lost in Libya, and we will stand united in our response,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
“I think he was right on the larger point,” said Rep. Pete King (R-L.I.). “But I probably would have waited a day or half a day.”

There's a thread already MGS

Not about Mitt Romney using it for political gain there isn't.

Good copy

Oh dear.

He's just the worst, I'm no longer going to say take a gak or take a dump, I'm gonna say take a romney.

Just for entertainment value. I hope he wins so I can watch everyone wig out...or Obama wins so everyone can wig out. Either or I no longer care. I'm just going to laugh at the posts here

Did you have anything to add other than posting the article?

 Crablezworth wrote:
He's just the worst, I'm no longer going to say take a s**t or take a dump, I'm gonna say take a romney.

That is degrading to gak actually.

It was a dumb comment and appalling timing.

 Mannahnin wrote:
It was a dumb comment and appalling timing.

et tu Manny?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
It was a dumb comment and appalling timing.

et tu Manny? How was it dumb and bad timing?

@whembly:
1. Riots are incited.
2. Cairo embassy issues statement condemning the inflammatory video.
3. Libyan embassy attacked, Americans killed.
4. Romney makes statement chastizing Obama's administration for sympathizing with the rioters rather than condemning the attack on the Libyan embassy.
5. Obama makes a statement.

Here are the things that are objectively bad about this:
-Romney chose to speak ahead of the president on this event, which I think is telling of his sense of entitlement.
-Romney failed to get his facts straight about the entire event.
-Romney decided to tastelessly use a loss of life as a political jab on the very same day.
-Romney broke his agreement to not compaign on the 9/11 anniversary.

Here is what I find personally terrible, and is my editorial:
-Romney walked off from his speech looking smug and likely thinking that he just spiked the football after a touchdown; having absolutely no idea that what he just did was all sorts of wrong from every angle.


Overall, Romney is rapidly demonstrating just how out of touch he is with society and with the American people. I don't think he's an inherently bad person; I just think that he has never had even the slightest frame of reference of what it's like to not be don't-give-a-feth-rich and thus has an overwhelming sense of entitlement.

EDIT: Romney himself is a moderate, but he's a hollow man like Reagan was: Romney will do and say exactly what he is told to do by his investors. He is a company spokesman, no different than the Geico's Rod Serling impersonator.

Best smirk/smug I ever seen. Reason why I'm voting for him and not the serious issues

For the 9/11 thing, the CIA had extensive knowledge of potential al queda attacks but the pentagon essentially told the Bush administration that CIA was stupid and didn't know what they were talking about.

Maybe there were confusion on the type of attack it was going to be? I think everyone was quite suprise the airlines were used as a weapon.

 whembly wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
False. Any Ambassador position works for the President (logistically, usually reports to the Secretary-of-States).

Obama is ultimately responsible for any actions done by the Ambassadors (and other positions in the Executive Branch). Simply put... he's "The Boss".

Of course, every private in the Army also works for the President, that doesn't mean they are part of the administration. The State Department has people in place long before and after any individual president, barring of course the Head of the State Department since that is a Cabinet position. The President doesn't pick every single ambassador and many will have been there before he was elected, others will be there after he leaves. There has a to be a bit more institutional memory in the State Department than there is in the White House. And yes, he is the boss, but that also doesn't give license to just pull gak out of one's ass to berate him for. This whole line smacks entirely of "anything goes wrong it is his fault, anything goes right it was because of other people".

 Jihadin wrote:
Maybe there were confusion on the type of attack it was going to be? I think everyone was quite suprise the airlines were used as a weapon.

The entirety of the anti-terrorist division of the CIA was considering quitting mid 2001 in order to save face, they knew a major attack was coming and no one would listen to them. I don't think that the administration really new the extent of the threat, largely because of the pentagons influence. They were to complacent and didn't believe bin laden was a threat

Richard Clarke's Against All Enemies breaks down the intelligence failures and willful blindness on the part of the Bush admin about imminent threats of terrorist attack pretty well. IIRC more stuff's been declassified since then, and the stuff from CIA is even more damning. Under Clinton we were bombing terrorist training camps, hunting Al Q and Bin Laden had been declared a target for elimination, but the Rublican narrative at the time was that Bill was "wagging the dog", exaggerating the threat to distract attention from the Lewinsky scandal. They did not believe there was genuine threat of a terrorist attack on US soil, despite guys like Clarke practically jumping up and down about it. And then when 9/11 happened, Clarke & co immediately recognize it as Al Qaeda's style, and say so, but Bushco immediately start asking about Iraq and looking for data to link it to Saddam Hussein.

That's all old news, though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:

whembly wrote:Did I miss something else that he said? If there was something else... my bad...

When did the Obama administration "sympathize with those who waged the attacks"? I'm not seeing it.

Oh... okay...

The official US Cairo Embassy tweet account ( @USEmbassyCairo ) tweeted this: "US Embassy condemns religious incitement" with a link to a statement on the Embassy's official page that reads:

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.

That's what set off the snafu... and the @USEmbassyCairo folks reiterated this position for most of the day until the States Dept. walked back this original statement.

Now, had the States Dept corrected @USEmbassyCairo quickly, this wouldn't have been an issue.

I don't see anything inappropriate in that tweet. I think you're mischaracterizing it, and I'm quite clear that Romney mischaracterized it.

A. Non-appointee State department personnel aren't "the administration". They're part of "the government", but the whole government is never considered synonymous with a given administration.
B. Condemning efforts by misguided individuals to incite hatred is not in any way apologizing for it on behalf of America, or sympathizing with perpetrators of violence.
C. Even the redacted tweet from later said they stood by the condemnation, and they were condemning violence too. Neither of those condemnations should be in any way controversial.

Hey Az... 'sup... :bobs head:

 azazel the cat wrote:
@whembly:
1. Riots are incited.

Yup... and?

2. Cairo embassy issues statement condemning the inflammatory video.

Yup... which we've already covered in earlier posts...

3. Libyan embassy attacked, Americans killed.

The consulate was attacked... but, yeah I'm following you...

4. Romney makes statement chastizing Obama's administration for sympathizing with the rioters rather than condemning the attack on the Libyan embassy.

Let's read what he really said shall we?

I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks

Not only he chastized the Obama Administration, he ALSO condemned the Libyan attack. Try again dude...

5. Obama makes a statement.

Right... on 9/12 at 7am-ish...

Lets do a quick recap shall we?
5:53 a.m., 9/11/12. Shortly before noon local time, @USEmbassyCairo tweets: "Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy,"
6:11 a.m., 9/11/12. @USEmbassyCairo tweets: "US Embassy condemns religious incitement" with a link to a statement
So... the embassy staff knew something was going to happen
11 a.m. 9/11/12. At 5 p.m. local time in Cairo, demonstrators begin to assemble outside the U.S. Embassy.
4:47 p.m., 9/11/12. @USEmbassyCairo tweets: "As Spokesperson Nuland said, protestors breached our wall and took down flag. Thanks for your concern and kind wishes."
6:30 p.m., 9/11/12. @USEmbassyCairo tweets: "This morning's condemnation (issued before protests began) still stands. As does condemnation of unjustified breach of the Embassy." This tweet is later deleted.
7:51 p.m., 9/11/12. Reuters, citing Libyan government sources, reports "An American staff member of the U.S. consulate in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi has died following fierce clashes at the compound."
10:25 p.m., 9/11/12.The Romney campaign lifts the embargo on its statement
9/12 at 7am-ish... was Obama's response.... then, he got on his plane to go to a fund-raising event to Las Vegas

So... on 9/11 of all days, we've had a state sanctioned protest that turned into a riot where our Egyptian Embassy was breached... almost uncannily like 1979 in Tehran.

So... on 9/11 of all days, there was a TERRORIST ATTACK on the Libyan consulate killing 4 Americans, one of which was the AMBASSADOR.

Here are the things that are objectively bad about this:
-Romney chose to speak ahead of the president on this event, which I think is telling of his sense of entitlement.

Okay... here's something I do sorta agree with you... however, given the timeline I gave you above, the lack of response from the Obama Administration (other than the embassy tweet/statements) was sorely lacking.

-Romney failed to get his facts straight about the entire event.

People keep referencing this... what was he wrong on? Most of the criticism against Romeny was that fact that he dared to speak.

-Romney decided to tastelessly use a loss of life as a political jab on the very same day.

Let me say this with feelings: We. Were. Attacked. AGAIN. On. 9/11. I would certainly expect any political candidate to comment on events like these at that time (they're running for that office you know).

-Romney broke his agreement to not compaign on the 9/11 anniversary.

See my previous response.

Here is what I find personally terrible, and is my editorial:
-Romney walked off from his speech looking smug and likely thinking that he just spiked the football after a touchdown; having absolutely no idea that what he just did was all sorts of wrong from every angle.

You don't like the guy... I get it, but that was the press conference where the reports were colluding to all ask questions to make him look bad... and he handled them deftly... which is why the media is howling.

Overall, Romney is rapidly demonstrating just how out of touch he is with society and with the American people. I don't think he's an inherently bad person; I just think that he has never had even the slightest frame of reference of what it's like to not be don't-give-a-feth-rich and thus has an overwhelming sense of entitlement.

Replace "Romeny" with "Obama" and I'd agree!

EDIT: Romney himself is a moderate, but he's a hollow man like Reagan was: Romney will do and say exactly what he is told to do by his investors. He is a company spokesman, no different than the Geico's Rod Serling impersonator.

 whembly wrote:

Oh. I see.

 Chongara wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Spoiler:

Oh. I see.

Really?!?!?

Cool bro!

Neither Obama nor his administration made a statement until they had a more solid sense of what was happening/had happened.

Romney had no such restraint, instead jumping on the chance to pretend that the Obama admin had said something so he could disagree with it. He mischaracterized the statement (which was made by embassy personnel, not anyone in the adminstration) as "not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions", but instead "sympathizing with those who waged the attacks."

Romney's stupid statement is factually wrong on multiple counts.

1. The original tweet condemned the makers of the video, but did not in any way sympathize with any attackers. There weren't any attackers at that point.
2. The later tweet which "doubled down" on condemning the inciters of hatred, ALSO condemned the perpetrators of violence.

So Romney's claims were completely false, and he was attributing them to the wrong people. And, just to add extra jackassery, he decided that his ignorant opinions were so important that they didn't bear waiting until after the 9/11 truce on campaigning against one another. Totally worth doing that. Totally.

I still disagree that lecturing people about the First Amendment would serve any useful diplomatic purpose. And this is coming from a guy who's happy to lecture people about the First Amendment, and to donate money to other people who do it full time.

The statement by the Embassy in Egypt was issued before the crazy protests started and the embassy was breached. Romney keeps on insisting it was issued after the breach, which it wasn't.

There was a campaign truce on 9/11, and Romney decided to break it so he could score a quick political point.

Romney ignored a long standing tradition of not playing politics during an acute crisis where US lives are at risk.

For a guy who keeps on playing "I know what he said, but it just feels wrong" when it comes to Obama you seem pretty quick about dismissing a big smirk on the face of a guy who just got done blaming the deaths of people on Obama .

If there's a significant lack of response its pretty much saying "we're weak".

 Jihadin wrote:
If there's a significant lack of response its pretty much saying "we're weak".

^^this...

And lets take a breath here...

*puff* *puff*... pass?

Except there has not been a significant lack of response. We have been responding very actively.

We just haven't been responding by shooting people and blowing gak up.

 d-usa wrote:
The statement by the Embassy in Egypt was issued before the crazy protests started and the embassy was breached. Romney keeps on insisting it was issued after the breach, which it wasn't.

Where you seeing this? I've got a source that his response was after the embassy was breached...

There's all sorts of misinformation going on... tweets being removed, statements being edited, states depts walkbacking...

It's all over the map...

There was a campaign truce on 9/11, and Romney decided to break it so he could score a quick political point.

Okay, I get the anger here...

Romney ignored a long standing tradition of not playing politics during an acute crisis where US lives are at risk.

He responds hours later... he wasn't commenting on it as it happened...

For a guy who keeps on playing "I know what he said, but it just feels wrong" when it comes to Obama you seem pretty quick about dismissing a big smirk on the face of a guy who just got done blaming the deaths of people on Obama .

Is he now effectively known as the "smirk" now? You do know the whole story about that particular press conference right?

One of the reason why I'm voting for Romney. He has a much better smirk.

 whembly wrote:
Is he now effectively known as the "smirk" now? You do know the whole story about that particular press conference right?

The grand conspiracy of reporters actually working together to get an answer from the guy known for not really answering questions?

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Is he now effectively known as the "smirk" now? You do know the whole story about that particular press conference right?

The grand conspiracy of reporters actually working together to get an answer from the guy known for not really answering questions?

Right... so, it was obvious, and Romney knows what they're doing... hence the smirk.

Did the exact same thing during the Republican primary... the conservatives HATED that smirk...

Here it is:

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: …pointing out that the Republicans… *unintelligible* …Obama….

CBS REPORTER: That’s the question.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: *unintelligible*

CBS REPORTER: Yeah that’s the question. I would just say do you regret your question.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Your question? Your statement?

CBS REPORTER: I mean your statement. Not even the tone, because then he can go off on…

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: And then if he does, if we can just follow up and say ‘but this morning your answer is continuing to sound…’ – *becomes unintelligble*

CBS REPORTER: You can’t say that..

**Later**

CBS REPORTER: I’m just trying to make sure that we’re just talking about, no matter who he calls on we’re covered on the one question.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Do you stand by your statement or regret your statement?

As to the timeline of what was said when:

http://news.yahoo.com/timeline-exactly-romney-decided-double-down-143601945.html

And just because:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/sep/12/romney-says-us-embassy-statement-was-apology-was-i/


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Is he now effectively known as the "smirk" now? You do know the whole story about that particular press conference right?

The grand conspiracy of reporters actually working together to get an answer from the guy known for not really answering questions?

Right... so, it was obvious, and Romney knows what they're doing... hence the smirk.

Did the exact same thing during the Republican primary... the conservatives HATED that smirk...

Here it is:

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: …pointing out that the Republicans… *unintelligible* …Obama….

CBS REPORTER: That’s the question.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: *unintelligible*

CBS REPORTER: Yeah that’s the question. I would just say do you regret your question.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Your question? Your statement?

CBS REPORTER: I mean your statement. Not even the tone, because then he can go off on…

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: And then if he does, if we can just follow up and say ‘but this morning your answer is continuing to sound…’ – *becomes unintelligble*

CBS REPORTER: You can’t say that..

**Later**

CBS REPORTER: I’m just trying to make sure that we’re just talking about, no matter who he calls on we’re covered on the one question.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Do you stand by your statement or regret your statement?

So reporters whose job it is to ask questions and get answers worked together to ask the question and get the answer. Clearly they are monsters, how dare they except a guy who wants to lead this country to actually answer a question.

The reporters are also influence by what they write by the stance of their news organizations

Here is the grand conspiracy of a question:

Do you stand by what you said?

If that question is a conspiracy then we are all doomed...

 whembly wrote:

Um... the embassy IS the administration.

No it isn't. Even The Newt doesn't think so, unless the Democrats are in power.

We're only doomed becuase of our perception of the question. Our perception on how the question was answered. Our perception on what we see. Our perception on what we hear.

edit
Yes its Winnie with a M4 shooting. My perception is he might be cute and cuddly but underneath he's a killing machine. Its the quiet guy you have to watch out for

 d-usa wrote:

Spoiler:

As to the timeline of what was said when:

http://news.yahoo.com/timeline-exactly-romney-decided-double-down-143601945.html

And just because:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/sep/12/romney-says-us-embassy-statement-was-apology-was-i/


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Is he now effectively known as the "smirk" now? You do know the whole story about that particular press conference right?

The grand conspiracy of reporters actually working together to get an answer from the guy known for not really answering questions?

Right... so, it was obvious, and Romney knows what they're doing... hence the smirk.

Did the exact same thing during the Republican primary... the conservatives HATED that smirk...

Here it is:

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: …pointing out that the Republicans… *unintelligible* …Obama….

CBS REPORTER: That’s the question.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: *unintelligible*

CBS REPORTER: Yeah that’s the question. I would just say do you regret your question.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Your question? Your statement?

CBS REPORTER: I mean your statement. Not even the tone, because then he can go off on…

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: And then if he does, if we can just follow up and say ‘but this morning your answer is continuing to sound…’ – *becomes unintelligble*

CBS REPORTER: You can’t say that..

**Later**

CBS REPORTER: I’m just trying to make sure that we’re just talking about, no matter who he calls on we’re covered on the one question.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Do you stand by your statement or regret your statement?

So reporters whose job it is to ask questions and get answers worked together to ask the question and get the answer. Clearly they are monsters, how dare they except a guy who wants to lead this country to actually answer a question.

No...it's not their job to work together... they're competing news organizations. And you wonder why some of us complain about "media bias".

So if a presidential candidate gives remarks about a foreign-policy crisis, you’d be forgiven for thinking that in the Q&A held immediately afterward, reporters would ask him about . . . foreign policy. But when Mitt Romney took questions today after talking about the situation in Libya and Egypt, the dominant theme of the questions was all about process and politics. Here are the seven questions asked:

1. Reporter brings up that Romney had a “toughly worded statement last night,” and asks, “Do you regret the tone at all given what we know now?”

2. “Do you think, though, coming so soon after the events really had unfolded over night was appropriate, to be weighing in on this as this crisis was unfolding in real time?” Follow-up: “What did the White House do wrong then, Gov. Romney, if they put out a statement saying they disagreed with it?”

3. “The world is watching. Isn’t this itself a mixed signal when you criticize the administration at a time that Americans are being killed? Shouldn’t politics stop for this?”

4. “Some people have said that you jumped the gun a little bit in putting that statement out last night and that you should have waited until more details were available. Do you regret having that statement come out so early before we learned about all of the things that were happening?”

5. “If you had known last night that the ambassador had died, and obviously, I’m gathering you did not know . . . if you had known that the ambassador had died, would you have issued such a strongly-issued statement?”

6. Reporter comments that Romney is running on his “economic know-how and private sector experience,” and adds, “but now that foreign policy and the situation in the Middle East has been thrust into the presidential campaign, can you talk about why specifically you think you are better qualified than President Obama to handle these issues?”

7. “How specifically, Governor Romney, would a President Romney have handled this situation differently than President Obama did? You spoke out before midnight, when all the facts weren’t known. How would you have handled this differently than the president did?”

Only the last question even addressed what Romney would have done if he was in office. None of the questions asked Romney to give details or be more specific about what he thinks the United States should do going forward.

I’ve long been critical of how few press conferences Romney has held, both in the primary and in the general election. Sure, the media can be biased. But 1) I think it’s good for a presidential candidates to be available to the press, to be subject to tough questions, and to be asked about a variety of matters; and 2) I think that a Republican candidate should prove he can deftly handle biased questions — it’s not fair, but it’s the reality of what he will face as president day after day.

But today’s press conference was really an example of how the media sometimes just doesn’t deserve that access. Let political consultants talk about the timing and tone of the statement. The candidate should be grilled on policy, on issues, on what he thinks is the right course going forward, not politics and strategy.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/316652/insane-msm-questions-romney-faced-presser-katrina-trinko


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Um... the embassy IS the administration.

No it isn't. Even The Newt doesn't think so, unless the Democrats are in power.

Okay... now I'm confused...

Answer me this: Can President fire the Ambassador?

No...it's not their job to work together... they're competing news organizations. And you wonder why some of us complain about "media bias".

feth that stupid gak. If the candidate is stonewalling all of them, and all of them want an answer to a simple question, it's in their mutual self interest to get the answer. And you wonder why some of us think complaints about media bias are stupid.

Whembly wrote:

But today’s press conference was really an example of how the media sometimes just doesn’t deserve that access. Let political consultants talk about the timing and tone of the statement. The candidate should be grilled on policy, on issues, on what he thinks is the right course going forward, not politics and strategy.

What moron wrote that? Romney jumped on a political situation and the chance to sound off and try to look like a tough guy and like he was correcting the President. He jumped the gun and made himself look like an idiot and an donkey-cave. Asking him questions about what he was thinking, and whether he stood by those statements now that more information had come out, was absolutely legitimate and the job of the news media. We the voters need to know what was the rationale behind his comments, and whether he wants to stand by them or will admit error.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Whembly wrote:

Dogma wrote:

whembly wrote:Um... the embassy IS the administration.

No it isn't. Even The Newt doesn't think so, unless the Democrats are in power.

Okay... now I'm confused...

Answer me this: Can President fire the Ambassador?

Answer me this: Did the President hire the Ambassador? Is the Ambassador part of the team the President established to lead the Executive Branch and execute his policies?

The answer is no.

 whembly wrote:

Okay... now I'm confused...

Young Newt likes to rail on about how the State Department has a mind of its own. And he is correct, but that it has a mind of its own is a good thing.

 whembly wrote:

Answer me this: Can President fire the Ambassador?

Yes, but I'll bet that the President can't name all of our Ambassadors. Of course, I can't either.

 Mannahnin wrote:

No...it's not their job to work together... they're competing news organizations. And you wonder why some of us complain about "media bias".

feth that stupid gak. If the candidate is stonewalling all of them, and all of them want an answer to a simple question, it's in their mutual self interest to get the answer. And you wonder why some of us think complaints about media bias are stupid.

Manny... when was he stonewalling? Did you even see the open mic activities prior to the conference?

Whembly wrote:

But today’s press conference was really an example of how the media sometimes just doesn’t deserve that access. Let political consultants talk about the timing and tone of the statement. The candidate should be grilled on policy, on issues, on what he thinks is the right course going forward, not politics and strategy.

What moron wrote that? Romney jumped on a political situation and the chance to sound off and try to look like a tough guy and like he was correcting the President. He jumped the gun and made himself look like an idiot and an donkey-cave. Asking him questions about what he was thinking, and whether he stood by those statements now that more information had come out, was absolutely legitimate and the job of the news media. We the voters need to know what was the rationale behind his comments, and whether he wants to stand by them or will admit error.

Fine.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Whembly wrote:

Dogma wrote:

whembly wrote:Um... the embassy IS the administration.

No it isn't. Even The Newt doesn't think so, unless the Democrats are in power.

Okay... now I'm confused...

Answer me this: Can President fire the Ambassador?

Answer me this: Did the President hire the Ambassador? Is the Ambassador part of the team the President established to lead the Executive Branch and execute his policies?

The answer is no.

A President's "administration" normally refers to Executive Branch personnel. Ambassadors don't work for the Executive Branch, they work for the State Dept.

 Mannahnin wrote:
A President's "administration" normally refers to Executive Branch personnel. Ambassadors don't work for the Executive Branch, they work for the State Dept.

Ohkay...

So... what branch does that State Department fall under?

And, who runs it?

 whembly wrote:

Irrelevant... they all work for him.

And, ultimately, I work for a guy that doesn't know my name. People don't blame him if I feth up, they blame me.

 whembly wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
A President's "administration" normally refers to Executive Branch personnel. Ambassadors don't work for the Executive Branch, they work for the State Dept.

Ohkay...

So... what branch does that State Department fall under?

And, who runs it?

I take it you don't understand the basics of civil servants and their role in national government vs elected administrations and their staff?

 Mannahnin wrote:
A President's "administration" normally refers to Executive Branch personnel. Ambassadors don't work for the Executive Branch, they work for the State Dept.

I'm going to bed... here's the answer:

Within the Executive Branch, the Department of State is the lead U.S. foreign affairs agency, and the Secretary of State is the President's principal foreign policy adviser. The Department advances U.S. objectives and interests in shaping a freer, more secure, and more prosperous world through its primary role in developing and implementing the President's foreign policy.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/dos/436.htm

So... President is da boss.

 whembly wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
A President's "administration" normally refers to Executive Branch personnel. Ambassadors don't work for the Executive Branch, they work for the State Dept.

Ohkay...

So... what branch does that State Department fall under?

And, who runs it?

Pardon me, you're right, it's under the Executive Branch. It's still inaccurate at least and dishonest at worst for Mitt to pretend that the announcement was made on behalf of the President and represented his official opinions. If Hillary had said something, or an announcement been issued by the State Dept, that'd be a bit different. But we're talking about a tweet issued by an individual Embassy. Which is certainly not speaking on behalf of the whole State Dept, much less the entire administration.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Irrelevant... they all work for him.

And, ultimately, I work for a guy that doesn't know my name. People don't blame him if I feth up, they blame me.

They will if he or by extension the Secretary of State (or management) doesn't hold you accountable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
A President's "administration" normally refers to Executive Branch personnel. Ambassadors don't work for the Executive Branch, they work for the State Dept.

Ohkay...

So... what branch does that State Department fall under?

And, who runs it?

I take it you don't understand the basics of civil servants and their role in national government vs elected administrations and their staff?

See my link:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/dos/436.htm

In what specific manner do you expect Obama (or Hillary) to hold the embassy staff accountable?

 Mannahnin wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
A President's "administration" normally refers to Executive Branch personnel. Ambassadors don't work for the Executive Branch, they work for the State Dept.

Ohkay...

So... what branch does that State Department fall under?

And, who runs it?

Pardon me, you're right, it's under the Executive Branch.

No problemo dude!

It's still inaccurate at least and dishonest at worst for Mitt to pretend that the announcement was made on behalf of the President and represented his official opinions.

Yeah... okay, I get this sentiment.

If Hillary had said something, or an announcement been issued by the State Dept, that'd be a bit different.

True, but my criticism was more on the opportunity to explain our 1st Amendment... but we already went over that.

But we're talking about a tweet issued by an individual Embassy. Which is certainly not speaking on behalf of the whole State Dept, much less the entire administration.

Trust me, I work in the executive branch. It's a far stretch to think that somehow any statement from me or anybody at my workplace is indicative of what Obama is thinking.

whembly wrote:Let me just say this... this is one clusterfeth on all sides.

I think that's false equivocation. I hate that when someone one on side of the political aisle does something stupid, their supporters inevitably jump to point out an occasion when someone on the other side did something similarly stupid, as if that excuses it. It allows people to rationalize away misdeeds and stupidity rather than holding politicians responsible.

In this case the embassy did have some issues with their communications, although considering the situation they were personally in, it's hard for you or me to play armchair quarterback and second-guess them.

whembly wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:In what specific manner do you expect Obama (or Hillary) to hold the embassy staff accountable?

Are you reference my conversation with Dogma? I just trying to tell him that Ambassadors answers to the Executive branch.

I was curious what you think the embassy staff really did wrong, and what you think their ultimate bosses will do to them.

 Mannahnin wrote:
I think that's false equivocation. I hate that when someone one on side of the political aisle does something stupid, their supporters inevitably jump to point out an occasion when someone on the other side did something similarly stupid, as if that excuses it. It allows people to rationalize away misdeeds and stupidity rather than holding politicians responsible.

In this case the embassy did have some issues with their communications, although considering the situation they were personally in, it's hard for you or me to play armchair quarterback and second-guess them.

Agreed.

I apologize (truly) if anyone is mad at me...

I'm mad at the following:
1) on 9/11, of all days, our Libyan consulate and 3 other Americans were murdered
2) on 9/11, of all days, the Egyptian Embassy was breached
3) Missed opportunity for Clinton (I think it's more appropriate of her to do this, not Obama) to explain our 1st Amendment rights.
4) I'm mad that no one else is mad. (maybe I'm derange?).

All that other stuff (the tweets, Romney's smirk, followup conf)... you said it better there Manny...

They have explained our 1st ammendment rights, over and over again.

I don't know... I'm not on the ground there. Whatever they did/said they have their reasons. I know I shouldn't have a say as I'm not "in their shoes".

I'm just so irritated that we are always the bad guy... that it's our fault for their behavior.

Now I know this is incindiary(sp?)... but it's like blaming a rape victim because of the way she dresses... know what I mean?

Hey... if I'm wrong... I'm wrong.

Like what Jihadin said earlier, maybe the best course to close the Embassy and withdraw all aids (we send them billions).

We're not the bad guy. The donkey-cave who made the video is a bad guy. Most of the protestors are just ignorant people stirred up by bad guys. The violent ones are also bad guys.

We need to be able to condemn the bad guys without lumping in all the angry people as bad guys too, in part because treating them all the same is likely to make more bad guys.

People who lump all the protestors together and equate the non-violent ones with the violent ones are making the same mistake the protesters are in equating one group of bad guy Americans with all Americans.

 Mannahnin wrote:
We're not the bad guy. The donkey-cave who made the video is a bad guy. Most of the protestors are just ignorant people stirred up by bad guys. The violent ones are also bad guys.

We need to be able to condemn the bad guys without lumping in all the angry people as bad guys too, in part because treating them all the same is likely to make more bad guys.

People who lump all the protestors together and equate the non-violent ones with the violent ones are making the same mistake the protesters are in equating one group of bad guy Americans with all Americans.

Thanks... I feel better.

You're right.

I need to cool it.

Thanks, sir. I think you make some bad arguments sometimes, and get a lot of info from bad sources (bad guys), but most of the time it looks to me like you're making an honest effort and are being truthful based on your understanding of a situation. I really appreciate your willingness to listen and consider other viewpoints. Especially since a lot of us have a tendency to get a bit strident.

agnosto wrote:
but then he's already said he doesn't want fact checkers in his campaign...\

Facts get in the way of profits and personal gain after all...

np... just trying to keep a level head.

I missed this, so giving credit...

:fist pump:

This is what I wanted and Mrs. Clinton delivered:

“Our country does have a long tradition of free expression, which is enshrined in our Constitution and in our law,” she said during a long-planned meeting with leaders from Morocco, a Muslim country concurrently governed by a Western-oriented king and an elected Islamist government.

“We do not stop individual citizens from expressing their views no matter how distasteful they may be,”

http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/13/hillary-clinton-adopts-romney-free-speech-policy/

A is the White House.
B is the State Department.

Perhaps that will help clear up things up a bit? The State Department isn't just a fry cook at the White House's restaurant. It has a level of independence and yet is also answerable to the White House. This is where government institutions differ from business. The WH and the SD are separate but connected entities. Presidents come and go but the need for strong diplomatic ties to other states in consistent and thus the people there often are a bit more consistent. It is still a political job and if an ambassador pisses of a President they can be let go (like saying something inapproriate or having an affair with the daughter of the head of the country they are in), but generally many stay there until they leave or are moved up. You have to remember for each ambassador there is a large cadre of people below them that need to know the area they are working in. When an administration comes in their people come in, when it leaves they leave, but the vast majority of State Department employees and officials will still be there.

Wasn't one of the candidates in the Republican primary criticized for being an ambassador during a democrats presidency? I think he had a good answer to the critics that sums up the state department pretty well:

"I serve the Country, not the President."

 whembly wrote:
[

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
A President's "administration" normally refers to Executive Branch personnel. Ambassadors don't work for the Executive Branch, they work for the State Dept.

Ohkay...

So... what branch does that State Department fall under?

And, who runs it?

I take it you don't understand the basics of civil servants and their role in national government vs elected administrations and their staff?

See my link:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/dos/436.htm

I read it.

Again, do you not understand the difference between the civil service and the elected partisan executive within a western democratic government? (also, less of the /facepalming orks until you've understood what I've asked you, it makes you're response read as trite).

@MeanGreenStompa,
@D-USA,
@Ahtman

Why are we arguing this? This "it's too big, there's no way the Executive Branch runs the States Department" is asinine.

Ambassadors are appointed by the President (or prior Prez) and approved by the US Senate (via the Advise & Consent clause).

The President appoints the Secretary of State, which is part of the President's Cabinet.

The Secretary of State oversees the States Department.

Ambassadors falls under the pervue of the States Department.

At any time Ambassadors can be replaced by the Secretary and/or President. And, yes usually the staff stays onboard from previous administrations, but the point still stands.

And I quote:

the Department of State is the lead U.S. foreign affairs agency, and the Secretary of State is the President's principal foreign policy adviser. The Department advances U.S. objectives and interests in shaping a freer, more secure, and more prosperous world through its primary role in developing and implementing the President's foreign policy.

Ergo.. The Prez is da Boss and is accountable.

Now, back to the topic on hand at the Embassy's response... like I said when discussing this with Manny I was fustrated... But, giving credit when due, H. Clinton did defend what we're about in Morocco!

Next time I am rude to somebody at work, I will hold the President accountable for my actions...

 d-usa wrote:
Next time I am rude to somebody at work, I will hold the President accountable for my actions...

If it goes that far... makes you wondering if your superior weren't doing their job...

Look, you should've seen me during the Iraq War when Bush was Prez... I was howling over some of the crap the States Dept were doing... And yes, I blamed Bush for that... Abu Gharib? States Dept bungled that up badly and Bush really didn't address it quick enough for me...

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Next time I am rude to somebody at work, I will hold the President accountable for my actions...

If it goes that far... makes you wondering if your superior weren't doing their job...

Look, you should've seen me during the Iraq War when Bush was Prez... I was howling over some of the crap the States Dept were doing... And yes, I blamed Bush for that... Abu Gharib? States Dept bungled that up badly and Bush really didn't address it quick enough for me...

Please tell me that you haven't just compared a US run detention facility where they were torturing prisoners with a tweet in terms of accountability or "seriousness"?

PhantomViper wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Next time I am rude to somebody at work, I will hold the President accountable for my actions...

If it goes that far... makes you wondering if your superior weren't doing their job...

Look, you should've seen me during the Iraq War when Bush was Prez... I was howling over some of the crap the States Dept were doing... And yes, I blamed Bush for that... Abu Gharib? States Dept bungled that up badly and Bush really didn't address it quick enough for me...

Please tell me that you haven't just compared a US run detention facility where they were torturing prisoners with a tweet in terms of accountability or "seriousness"?

Nope... not equating.

 whembly wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Next time I am rude to somebody at work, I will hold the President accountable for my actions...

If it goes that far... makes you wondering if your superior weren't doing their job...

Look, you should've seen me during the Iraq War when Bush was Prez... I was howling over some of the crap the States Dept were doing... And yes, I blamed Bush for that... Abu Gharib? States Dept bungled that up badly and Bush really didn't address it quick enough for me...

Please tell me that you haven't just compared a US run detention facility where they were torturing prisoners with a tweet in terms of accountability or "seriousness"?

Nope... not equating.

Never mind me then. Everyone please continue with your discussion on whether the president of the United States should be held personally accountable for a tweet made by some unknown State Department employee while under duress. Its fascinating stuff!

How exactly did you expect the State Department to deal with Abu Gharib? Which was a DoD facility. The Blackwater free fire zone maybe but AG...
Try again.

 AustonT wrote:
How exactly did you expect the State Department to deal with Abu Gharib? Which was a DoD facility. The Blackwater free fire zone maybe but AG...
Try again.

Huh...

It was a diplomatic disaster. (I just remember that the optics was really bad and States Dept could've done "more"

The Blackwater free fire zone? What was that? <--- tried to wiki/google...

Like Romney's ideology, dislike Romney's ideology---one thing that everyone can agree with (I think)--as a candidate, he's just not very good. The last two weeks have been devastatingly bad for Romney and his staff. He has to go all in for the debates I think--and if the GOP primary was anything to go by, a debate with Obama will likely prove more a minefield than a chance to get a bump. Guess we'll see.

I see Obama's new priority he gave to NASA is working out great....

 Harriticus wrote:
I see Obama's new priority he gave to NASA is working out great....

There can only be one JFK.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
How exactly did you expect the State Department to deal with Abu Gharib? Which was a DoD facility. The Blackwater free fire zone maybe but AG...
Try again.

Huh...

It was a diplomatic disaster. (I just remember that the optics was really bad and States Dept could've done "more"

The Blackwater free fire zone? What was that? <--- tried to wiki/google...

September 16, 2007
The event just illuminated how free of a reign BW had in using deadly force against Iraqis when in the employ of State.

Talking about the BW incident where they engage a crowd. If I remember correctly some of the BW shooters were Iraqi's

Good summary:

Yep. Now we look like idioits. It doesn't really matter if the Cairo embassy is not on the same sheet as the White House.

"

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."

It happen on Obama watch so its going to be contribute to him. No if and's or buts

Romney just stabbed him in the back and probaly got away with it. Heck he's already considered a felon and a murderer by some on this board. So whats the big deal

Romney made himself look stupid by jumping the gun and saying factually inaccurate things, and by using violence against Americans as an excuse to try to make a cheap political point on 9/11.

Nothing the Embassy said was conciliatory toward the perpetrators of violence.

Apparently saying "sorry you're offended, but that doesn't excuse the violence" is the same as ":I'm sorry, please hit me some more" .

D-USA, you win 15 Internets.

Embassy made that statement to save some lives or prevent injuries to US personnel. I've done the same freaking thing to if I was in charge. Embassy made the statement to try to defuse what was about to go down. Neither Obama nor Romney nor Dakkadakka have the justificationton to second guess the embassy since neither of three were "Jimmy on the spot".

Right. The embassy made a statement which was sympathetic to people who were offended over the video. That's a totally separate thing from being sympathetic to people who got violent over the video, which no one did at any point.

Hency Romney's statement being false both in what he claimed was said, and who he claimed said it.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Right. The embassy made a statement which was sympathetic to people who were offended over the video. That's a totally separate thing from being sympathetic to people who got violent over the video, which no one did at any point.

Hency Romney's statement being false both in what he claimed was said, and who he claimed said it.

And don't forget "when it was said". He insisted that the statement was a response to the attacks, when it was issued before the attacks.

Seems Romny gain a point and Obama lost a partial of a point in the national polls today.....

Romney a "Snookie" fan.....OMG....

Which national polls are we talking about?

In the Economist Obama's picked up four point lead over Romney in the past few days, while in Rasmussen, Romney's never been worse off than Obama.

Do they show Obama 48.8 to Romney 45.3?

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/09/america%E2%80%99s-presidential-race

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/index.html

I keep with Fox

edit




We're one big nation

 Jihadin wrote:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/index.html

I keep with Fox

edit




We're one big nation

I laughed because I assumed it was a joke...it was a joke right?

Aye...joke
Same as me saying I'm voting for Romney because he has a better smirk
Same as I'm voting for Romney becuase Obama creeps me out more.

You know. The very important issue...now I'm back on the ledge because Romney likes "Snooki" but now since I watched the video of Obama making the call to Harold and Kumar I'm leaning towards him. Decisions decisions decisions

Kumar (Kal Penn) had a job in the White House for a while.

Think one of them in a TV seris. Think its Harold. "Go On" I think

Looks like fivethirtyeight has had Obama sitting at ~51% all month, and Romney maybe dropping half a point.

Should never have come out he was a Snooki fan.....

 Jihadin wrote:
Should never have come out he was a Snooki fan.....

He could make her Ambassador in one of the dangerous areas...

 d-usa wrote:
Looks like fivethirtyeight has had Obama sitting at ~51% all month, and Romney maybe dropping half a point.

Honestly the popular vote doesn't really matter as anything but a media talking point. The spread in Ohio, Virginia, and Florida are what matters and Obama holds a considerable lead in those states.

We're doomed if he does......

@D-USA or @Mannahnin

Its fair to criticize Romney on the timing, but what did Romney say that was "infactual"?

According to this:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/heres-a-timeline-of-the-confusing-statements-on-libya-and-egypt/262264/

5:53 a.m., 9/11/12 @USEmbassyCairo starts tweets: "Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy"

6:11 a.m., 9/11/12. @USEmbassyCairo tweets: "US Embassy condemns religious incitement" with a link to a statement which said:

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.

4:47 p.m., 9/11/12. @USEmbassyCairo tweets: "As Spokesperson Nuland said, protestors breached our wall and took down flag. Thanks for your concern and kind wishes."

5:58-59 p.m., 9/11/12. @USEmbassyCairo tweets in three parts: "1) Thank you for your thoughts and prayers. 2) Of course we condemn breaches of our compound, we're the ones actually living through this. 3) Sorry, but neither breaches of our compound or angry messages will dissuade us from defending freedom of speech AND criticizing bigotry."

6:30 p.m., 9/11/12. @USEmbassyCairo tweets: "This morning's condemnation (issued before protests began) still stands. As does condemnation of unjustified breach of the Embassy." This tweet is later deleted.

7:51 p.m., 9/11/12. Reuters, citing Libyan government sources, reports "An American staff member of the U.S. consulate in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi has died following fierce clashes at the compound."

10:09 p.m., 9/11/12. The Romney campaign releases a statement "embargoed until midnight tonight" from Mitt Romney condemning the administration and the attacks: "I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks." The U.S. Embassy statement from Cairo was issued before the attack in Libya.

10:25 p.m., 9/11/12.The Romney campaign lifts the embargo on its statement, which now comes on a day historically seen as a time to refrain from the most pointed forms of political combat, in honor of those who died.

Add what was tweeted

 whembly wrote:
@D-USA or @Mannahnin

Its fair to criticize Romney on the timing, but what did Romney say that was "infactual"?

...You have to be kidding.

Right? This is all some elaborate joke? You cannot really be this gullible, right?

According to this:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/heres-a-timeline-of-the-confusing-statements-on-libya-and-egypt/262264/

5:53 a.m., 9/11/12 @USEmbassyCairo starts tweeting...
...
6:30 p.m., 9/11/12. @USEmbassyCairo tweets: "This morning's condemnation (issued before protests began) still stands. As does condemnation of unjustified breach of the Embassy." This tweet is later deleted.

7:51 p.m., 9/11/12. Reuters, citing Libyan government sources, reports "An American staff member of the U.S. consulate in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi has died following fierce clashes at the compound."

10:09 p.m., 9/11/12. The Romney campaign releases a statement "embargoed until midnight tonight" from Mitt Romney condemning the administration and the attacks: "I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks." The U.S. Embassy statement from Cairo was issued before the attack in Libya.

10:25 p.m., 9/11/12.The Romney campaign lifts the embargo on its statement, which now comes on a day historically seen as a time to refrain from the most pointed forms of political combat, in honor of those who died.

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, WHATSOEVER, THAT SYMPATHIZES WITH THE INDIVIDUALS WHO ENGAGED IN THE ATTACKS.

For the record, here is the statement issued by the Embassy of the United States in Cairo:

"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."

That's not "sympathizing with the individuals who engaged in the attacks", now is it?
How is this so difficult to understand?

 Jihadin wrote:
Add what was tweeted

Done...

We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others."

This one sentence right here started the snowball. The embassy represent the US Gov't in the country.

 whembly wrote:

They will if he or by extension the Secretary of State (or management) doesn't hold you accountable.

No, they'll blame him if the issue is of great significance to the company. If it isn't, and the situation being discussed is not of great significance, then they'll just blame me; provided they ever find out.

Personally, I think that this has become an issue is ridiculous, and find it hilarious that people are essentially whining because their idea of American strength wasn't affirmed; which says a lot about how weak many defense hawks actually are.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:
@D-USA or @Mannahnin

Its fair to criticize Romney on the timing, but what did Romney say that was "infactual"?

...You have to be kidding.

Right? This is all some elaborate joke? You cannot really be this gullible, right?


THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, WHATSOEVER, THAT SYMPATHIZES WITH THE INDIVIDUALS WHO ENGAGED IN THE ATTACKS.

That's not "sympathizing with the individuals who engaged in the attacks", now is it?
How is this so difficult to understand?

This is the part you are missing source(http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/heres-a-timeline-of-the-confusing-statements-on-libya-and-egypt/262264/):

6:30 p.m., 9/11/12. @USEmbassyCairo tweets: "This morning's condemnation (issued before protests began) still stands. As does condemnation of unjustified breach of the Embassy." This tweet was later deleted.

Emphasis mine.

When Romney said the embassy apologized after the breach he was on solid ground because he was relying on the later tweet that reaffirmed the apology-like language after the mob breached the embassy grounds, tore down our flag and flew the flag of our enemies in its place…on fricking 9/11!!!!!!!!

This is why the deletion of public records (which official government Twitter feeds are) is so dangerous... as it adds to the overall confusions. They knew it was bad... which is why they attempted to delete it.

Not to call that into question Whem. Link where you got that info. Rest of us need to remember that the embassy is the voice of our government to these people.

 Jihadin wrote:
Not to call that into question Whem. Link where you got that info. Rest of us need to remember that the embassy is the voice of our government to these people.

oops. forgot. It's the same link I've been using.

My bad Whem. I'm bit.....well...watching Hachi

 whembly wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Not to call that into question Whem. Link where you got that info. Rest of us need to remember that the embassy is the voice of our government to these people.

oops. forgot. It's the same link I've been using.

If you questions The Atlantic's information... here's yahoo's link showing that same 6:30pm deleted tweet:
http://news.yahoo.com/timeline-egypt-libya-undercuts-romney-attack-obama-140315144--politics.html


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
My bad Whem. I'm bit.....well...watching Hachi

No prob...
I think I'll be more likable soon as I'm on the 3rd cup of vodka/OJ/cherry...

 whembly wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:
@D-USA or @Mannahnin

Its fair to criticize Romney on the timing, but what did Romney say that was "infactual"?

...You have to be kidding.

Right? This is all some elaborate joke? You cannot really be this gullible, right?


THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, WHATSOEVER, THAT SYMPATHIZES WITH THE INDIVIDUALS WHO ENGAGED IN THE ATTACKS.

That's not "sympathizing with the individuals who engaged in the attacks", now is it?
How is this so difficult to understand?

This is the part you are missing source(http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/heres-a-timeline-of-the-confusing-statements-on-libya-and-egypt/262264/):

6:30 p.m., 9/11/12. @USEmbassyCairo tweets: "This morning's condemnation (issued before protests began) still stands. As does condemnation of unjustified breach of the Embassy." This tweet was later deleted.

Emphasis mine.

When Romney said the embassy apologized after the breach he was on solid ground because he was relying on the later tweet that reaffirmed the apology-like language after the mob breached the embassy grounds, tore down our flag and flew the flag of our enemies in its place…on fricking 9/11!!!!!!!!

Absolutely nothing about the language used was "apologetic". That's the simpleton Romney continuing on with his attacks on the Obama administration, which he constantly accuses of "appeasement".

If you do not understand the difference between condemnation and apologies, I think we're done having a discussion.

This is why the deletion of public records (which official government Twitter feeds are) is so dangerous... as it adds to the overall confusions. They knew it was bad... which is why they attempted to delete it.

Or because of the fact that they were told to retract their statement, due to idiots like Romney and his fanboys believing it was the "official stance of the United States government" and not a statement issued by a group of trained and experienced professionals who understand how to defuse and mitigate a potentially volatile situation.

But hey. Let's just ignore that this is a hallmark of the Romney campaign, to continually "misspeak" or "be misquoted" despite making their sentiments very clear.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Or because of the fact that they were told to retract their statement, due to idiots like Romney and his fanboys believing it was the "official stance of the United States government" and not a statement issued by a group of trained and experienced professionals who understand how to defuse and mitigate a potentially volatile situation.

Out of curiosity, are there other embassies in other locations that publish statements that aren't the official stance of the US government?

Why have none of the other diplomatic compounds that have since been attacked done one of these whiz-bang diffusion jobs, aside from the fact that they don't work?

Spoiler:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:
@D-USA or @Mannahnin

Its fair to criticize Romney on the timing, but what did Romney say that was "infactual"?

...You have to be kidding.

Right? This is all some elaborate joke? You cannot really be this gullible, right?


THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, WHATSOEVER, THAT SYMPATHIZES WITH THE INDIVIDUALS WHO ENGAGED IN THE ATTACKS.

That's not "sympathizing with the individuals who engaged in the attacks", now is it?
How is this so difficult to understand?

This is the part you are missing source(http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/heres-a-timeline-of-the-confusing-statements-on-libya-and-egypt/262264/):

6:30 p.m., 9/11/12. @USEmbassyCairo tweets: "This morning's condemnation (issued before protests began) still stands. As does condemnation of unjustified breach of the Embassy." This tweet was later deleted.

Emphasis mine.

When Romney said the embassy apologized after the breach he was on solid ground because he was relying on the later tweet that reaffirmed the apology-like language after the mob breached the embassy grounds, tore down our flag and flew the flag of our enemies in its place…on fricking 9/11!!!!!!!!

Absolutely nothing about the language used was "apologetic". That's the simpleton Romney continuing on with his attacks on the Obama administration, which he constantly accuses of "appeasement".

If you do not understand the difference between condemnation and apologies, I think we're done having a discussion.

 Seaward wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Or because of the fact that they were told to retract their statement, due to idiots like Romney and his fanboys believing it was the "official stance of the United States government" and not a statement issued by a group of trained and experienced professionals who understand how to defuse and mitigate a potentially volatile situation.

Out of curiosity, are there other embassies in other locations that publish statements that aren't the official stance of the US government?

Do you expect me to dig through every instance where an embassy which has been attacked or has protesters at the gate published an unapproved statement?

I'm sure it has happened at some point, but the simple fact of the matter is that they published an unapproved statement.

Why have none of the other diplomatic compounds that have since been attacked done one of these whiz-bang diffusion jobs, aside from the fact that they don't work?

Please note that the Egyptian compound was NOT attacked. If you think it was, you're as clueless as Mittens and Ryan. The perimeter was breached, a flag was hung.

Oh my God! How could they do something so horrific!

The attack on the compound in Libya was almost certainly going to happen, no matter what, given that it was a less secured compound and there was not a police presence as there was at the Cairo embassy. There's also the seeming fact that the individuals who attacked were going to attack anyways, this was a convenient instance for them to get closer to perform their attack.

Whembly wrote:
[forgive me, seriously buzzed now]
So you're hung up on the word "condemnation and apologies"? Dude... that whole statement was MEANT to be apologetic... ya know, conciliatory in the face of the imminent protest.

Do you know what an apology is?

I never thought I would have to ask someone that, but for feth sake it seems like you're as clueless as Mittens.

Apology
noun, plural a·pol·o·gies.
1.
a written or spoken expression of one's regret, remorse, or sorrow for having insulted, failed, injured, or wronged another: He demanded an apology from me for calling him a crook.
2.
a defense, excuse, or justification in speech or writing, as for a cause or doctrine.
3.
( initial capital letter, italics ) a dialogue by Plato, centering on Socrates' defense before the tribunal that condemned him to death.
4.
an inferior specimen or substitute; makeshift: The tramp wore a sad apology for a hat.

Now...none of the statements which were published fall under those definitions.

A hallmark of an apology is taking responsibility, which was never once done. Any responsibility was put onto the shoulders of the individual who created the film and the individuals who attacked the Libyan consulate/embassy.

We went over this... the Embassy is ran by the States Dept...

Yes and what you failed to grasp from "going over this" is that while an entity can fall under the purview of an organization, it does not mean that the entity in question has received approval for the expression of their statements.

This was quite blatantly a case of the Cairo embassy publishing a statement without approval, and the jackals that Romney has on his staff saw an opportunity to latch onto something.

It blew up in their idiotic faces, as it rightly should have. Romney ran his mouth off before having all the facts. It's a hallmark of his campaign and his inept staff.

 Kanluwen wrote:
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, WHATSOEVER, THAT SYMPATHIZES WITH THE INDIVIDUALS WHO ENGAGED IN THE ATTACKS.

You're right, there isn't.


But that doesn't stop people from being worthless liars.

I respectfully disagree Kan.

Had Obama stayed at the WH and monitored/addressed the situation, he'd be clobbering Romney. But, no, after that early morning press conf on 9/12, he jetted to Vegas for fundraising... bad optics dude.

Sec of State Hillary Clinton

Religious freedom and religious tolerance are essential to the stability of any nation, any people. Hatred and violence in the name of religion only poison the well. All people of faith and good will know that the actions of a small and savage group in Benghazi do not honor religion or God in any way. Nor do they speak for the more than one billion Muslims around the world, many of whom have shown an outpouring of support during this time.

Unfortunately, however, over the last 24 hours, we have also seen violence spread elsewhere. Some seek to justify this behavior as a response to inflammatory, despicable material posted on the internet. As I said earlier today, the United States rejects both the content and the message of that video. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. At our meeting earlier today, my colleague, the foreign minister of Morocco, said that all prophets should be respected because they are all symbols of our humanity, for all humanity.

Next step down from a apology and its view as a sign of weakness. Hence the additional rash of Embassy attacks. BTW this is a opinion and everyone has an opinion.

 whembly wrote:
I respectfully disagree Kan.

Why? Because you're wrong?

The sheer amount of doubletalk coming from you would make Romney proud.

Had Obama stayed at the WH and monitored/addressed the situation, he'd be clobbering Romney. But, no, after that early morning press conf on 9/12, he jetted to Vegas for fundraising... bad optics dude.

Uhhuh.

Romney's statement was idiotic and opportunistic. Pure and simple.

When one of his advisors, speaking on the condition of anonymity, says that the team was more concerned with criticizing Obama and ensuring that Romney's statements made it into the morning news...it paints a picture of just how inept the campaign team is.

Oh yes, showing respect for other people while not backing down from one's principles is a sign of weakness.

 Melissia wrote:
Oh yes, showing respect for other people while not backing down from one's principles is a sign of weakness.

Clearly, it's just American exceptionalism at work!

 Kanluwen wrote:

Do you expect me to dig through every instance where an embassy which has been attacked or has protesters at the gate published an unapproved statement?

Yes. I think you'll discover it does not happen anywhere near as frequently as you seem to think, largely because embassies are our mouthpieces to foreign governments and citizens. Our diplomats generally do not conduct foreign policy of their own devising - little something called the Logan Act.

I'm sure it has happened at some point, but the simple fact of the matter is that they published an unapproved statement.

I am not as sure.

Please note that the Egyptian compound was NOT attacked. If you think it was, you're as clueless as Mittens and Ryan. The perimeter was breached, a flag was hung.

Oh my God! How could they do something so horrific!

That's an attack. I'm sorry if you feel differently, but it most certainly is. Even the French would have something to say if we, for example, scaled the walls of their embassy in DC and replaced the French flag with one of our own. That act, incidentally, is not exactly without significant meaning.

"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."

This statement made by the embassy has to be cleared by a certain number of levels within the Dept of State before public disemination.

Please note that the Egyptian compound was NOT attacked. If you think it was, you're as clueless as Mittens and Ryan. The perimeter was breached, a flag was hung.

Now thats freaking funny. Who ever made this statement need to reword it.

 Seaward wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Do you expect me to dig through every instance where an embassy which has been attacked or has protesters at the gate published an unapproved statement?

Yes. I think you'll discover it does not happen anywhere near as frequently as you seem to think, largely because embassies are our mouthpieces to foreign governments and citizens. Our diplomats generally do not conduct foreign policy of their own devising - little something called the Logan Act.

LOL.

Really? You're going to cite the Logan Act?

You have no fething clue what you're on about, clearly. The Logan Act is not applicable here, as the statement was not published to a foreign government.

Oh, and by the way?

In 1975, Senators John Sparkman and George McGovern were accused of violating the Logan Act when they traveled to Cuba and met with officials there. In considering that case, the U.S. Department of State concluded:

The clear intent of this provision [Logan Act] is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in section 953 [Logan Act], however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution. In the case of Senators McGovern and Sparkman the executive branch, although it did not in any way encourage the Senators to go to Cuba , was fully informed of the nature and purpose of their visit, and had validated their passports for travel to that country. Senator McGovern’s report of his discussions with Cuban officials states: "I made it clear that I had no authority to negotiate on behalf of the United States — that I had come to listen and learn...." (Cuban Realities: May 1975, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., August 1975). Senator Sparkman’s contacts with Cuban officials were conducted on a similar basis. The specific issues raised by the Senators (e.g., the Southern Airways case; Luis Tiant’s desire to have his parents visit the United States) would, in any event, appear to fall within the second paragraph of Section 953. Accordingly, the Department does not consider the activities of Senators Sparkman and McGovern to be inconsistent with the stipulations of Section 953.

I'm sure it has happened at some point, but the simple fact of the matter is that they published an unapproved statement.

I am not as sure.

About what? It being an unapproved statement or that embassies or government employees will make statements without clearing them?

Please note that the Egyptian compound was NOT attacked. If you think it was, you're as clueless as Mittens and Ryan. The perimeter was breached, a flag was hung.

Oh my God! How could they do something so horrific!

That's an attack. I'm sorry if you feel differently, but it most certainly is. Even the French would have something to say if we, for example, scaled the walls of their embassy in DC and replaced the French flag with one of our own.

Yes, and if you think it would have resulted in any kind of retaliatory action by the French government against United States citizens, you're delusional.
It would have been handled exactly as it was in Egypt: the individuals were forced to leave the premise by local law enforcement/military forces and the protest was conducted in a rather peaceful manner.

That act, incidentally, is not exactly without significant meaning.

And your point is?

It's not like they actually took over the compound and hoisted their flag in triumph. They breached the perimeter and changed the friggin' flag. It's nowhere near as big of a deal as you and Mittens want the populace to believe.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:

"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."

This statement made by the embassy has to be cleared by a certain number of levels within the Dept of State before public disemination.

Because never in the history of governments have individuals made statements without clearing them.

I must have missed the part where the embassy staff have remote control locks on their fingers, mouths, and computers preventing them from making statements before they are published.

Please note that the Egyptian compound was NOT attacked. If you think it was, you're as clueless as Mittens and Ryan. The perimeter was breached, a flag was hung.

Now thats freaking funny. Who ever made this statement need to reword it.

Not really. You just need to actually step back and look at things without your typical internet bravado.

Not really. You just need to actually step back and look at things without your typical internet bravado.

Last time I was involve in a perimeter breach it was a 4 hour fire fight. So yes I have RL experience in dealing with breaches in the perimeter

Because never in the history of governments have individuals made statements without clearing them.

I must have missed the part where the embassy staff have remote control locks on their fingers, mouths, and computers preventing them from making statements before they are published.

Sorry another RL experience. Embassy attacks in Kabul Afghanistan all statements had to be cleared by the DoS. Nothing is posted on the website, twitter etc etc from someone within the embassy without it being cleared by their Chain of Command.

 Seaward wrote:
Our diplomats generally do not conduct foreign policy of their own devising - little something called the Logan Act.

The Newt disagrees.

And the Logan Act is now more than a bit tenuous.

 Kanluwen wrote:

LOL.

Really? You're going to cite the Logan Act?

You have no fething clue what you're on about, clearly.

Calm down. Have a Coke. No need to get so angry.

The Logan Act is not applicable here, as the statement was not published to a foreign government.

You may be right. It was published on an official government account without proper clearance, though.

About what? It being an unapproved statement or that embassies or government employees will make statements without clearing them?

I'm quite sure embassies and government employees are supposed to clear statements made officially, yes. I am not at all sure of your assertion that FSOs will routinely make official statements contrary to the approved US posture because they think it's a good idea at the time. You're more than welcome to find some examples outside of this one to prove me wrong, though.

Yes, and if you think it would have resulted in any kind of retaliatory action by the French government against United States citizens, you're delusional.

So your contention is that governments the world over routinely let foreign nationals attempt to breach their embassies without attempting to stop them? Interesting.

And your point is?

It's not like they actually took over the compound and hoisted their flag in triumph. They breached the perimeter and changed the friggin' flag. It's nowhere near as big of a deal as you and Mittens want the populace to believe.

No, it's most certainly a big deal. I understand you're upset, but don't get out too far ahead of your own argument.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:
The Newt disagrees.

I have little doubt he'll be devastated to hear I don't value his opinion all that much.

 Seaward wrote:

I have little doubt he'll be devastated to hear I don't value his opinion all that much.

And I'm sure that State Department officials will continue to conduct foreign policy of their own devising.

It won't completely diverge from that of the Administration, but they'll be its final arbiters.

You want to know exactly how "upset" I am?

I'm going to sleep. You, Whembly, and Jihadin can have fun over in Romneyland.

 Kanluwen wrote:
You want to know exactly how "upset" I am?

I'm going to sleep. You, Whembly, and Jihadin can have fun over in Romneyland.

I wouldn't call myself in Romneyland on this issue. While I don't think the Cairo embassy situation will be going down as a shining example of how to do things in the annals of the Foreign Service, Romney made a pretty craven attempt to pick up some lost ground in the foreign policy realm, and badly miscalculated. It was a dumb thing for him to say.

So apparently the Right's narrative is dependent on pretending:

A. That a condemnation = an apology.
B. That making a sympathetic statement aimed at nonviolent people upset over an offensive video = sympathy toward violence.
C. That a later affirmation of that statement, alongside a condemnation of violence = sympathy toward violence.
D. That a statement made by an Embassy representative is the channel by which a Presidential Administration communicates its opinions.

None of these is accurate or even plausible.

This may be a stupid question Kan, but....Mittens is Romney, right?

And I also think I'm coming down on the side of 'he seems to have spoken too soon/based his speech on incorrect information'. There is just no real excuse as to making mistakes like that...I mean, if he had been spot on and hit Obama with good information when he wasn't replying to the situation, then (also if there hadn't been that truce, and the guys hadn't died) kudos for good politicking. I can appreciate good sneaky politics, its a lot smaller scale but the University of Queensland had a hilarious issue with their student elections about a month ago, the party in power changed some statutes or something and BAM the leader of the party in power's brother was now running under the oppositions name on the ticket...before the opposition could register. That was funny, and sneaky politicking. I can appreciate that. But I can't appreciate someone moving off incorrect information because they want to score points and score points fast, on a day they were not meant to, and in a situation (regarding the deaths) where they really shouldn't have.

 Mannahnin wrote:
None of these is accurate or even plausible.

Yeah, but the people who believe it don't care, and the politicians selling it to them know that.

Happy Happy Joy Joy, Happy Happy Joy Joy, Happy Happy Joy Joy...

I don't think you're happy enough!

Quite frankly I'm surprised this thread isn't locked. It's just turned into a back and forth between Whembly's trolling and everybody else facepalming at said trolling.

We can haz padlock?

 Squigsquasher wrote:
Happy Happy Joy Joy, Happy Happy Joy Joy, Happy Happy Joy Joy...

I don't think you're happy enough!

Quite frankly I'm surprised this thread isn't locked. It's just turned into a back and forth between Whembly's trolling and everybody else facepalming at said trolling.

We can haz padlock?

I don't think its fair to say he's trolling, he is arguing the other side with his own sources. Those sources may not be too good, and in the case of this thread he and the mod seem to have actually reached an agreement, if he was just trolling I wouldn't say that would happen...

Obama Team

"

The statement by Embassy Cairo was not cleared by Washington and does not reflect the views of the United States government," an administration official told POLITICO.

The Cairo Embassy

"

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions," the embassy said in a statement published online.

A statement from the DoS does not have to be cleared by the White House. The White House should have affirmed the statement but in such a way not to draw more "fire" on it. All this did was showed the US Gov't can't get it together.

edit for grammer

 Jihadin wrote:
Obama

"

The statement by Embassy Cairo was not cleared by Washington and does not reflect the views of the United States government," an administration official told POLITICO.

The U.S. embassy in Cairo put out a statement early Tuesday that was pegged to anger over an anti-Muslim film being circulated by an Israeli-American real estate developer.

The Cairo Embassy
"

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions," the embassy said in a statement published online.

A statement from the DoS does not have to be cleared by the White House. The White House should have affirmed the statement but in such a way not to draw more "fire" on it. All this did was showed the US Gov't can't get it together.

True, it doesn't have to be cleared by the White House, but it does have to be cleared by the DoS. My understanding of this whole situation - perhaps outdated - is that the guy responsible for maintaining the Twitter feed basically came up with this stuff, and ran it without checking with anybody above him.

CAIRO – Al Qaeda's branch in Yemen has praised the killing of the U.S. ambassador in Libya and called for more attacks to expel American embassies from Muslim nations.

The statement, posted Saturday on Islamic militant websites, suggested Al Qaeda was trying to co-opt the wave of angry protests in the Muslim world over a film produced in the United States denigrating the Prophet Muhammad.

Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula said the killing this week of Ambassador Chris Stevens in an attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was "the best example" for those attacking embassies.

It said protesters' aim should be to "expel the embassies of America from the lands of the Muslims" and called on protests to continue in Muslim nations "to set the fires blazing at these embassies."

Fanning the embers a bit more

edit

KABUL, Afghanistan – Hundreds of Afghans — some shouting "Death to America" —burned the U.S. flag and an effigy of President Barack Obama on Friday during a protest against an anti-Islam film outside the eastern city of Jalalabad.

The film depicts the Prophet Muhammad as a fraud, a womanizer and a madman.

Since it surfaced on the Internet, it has prompted violent protests at U.S. embassies in the Middle East. The American ambassador and three other U.S. staff members were killed when the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya was attacked.

Mohammad Zhirullah, a protester who spoke to The Associated Press on the phone from the site, said the crowd called on Afghan President Hamid Karzai to sever relations with the United States.

"When the movie was shown around the world, it broke the heart of every Muslim," Zhirullah said. "We condemn this act and those who are behind it should be put on trial and should be hanged to death. ... It cannot be tolerated by the Afghan people."
It is unclear who organized the demonstration, which lasted about an hour, in the Marko area of Nangarhar province between Jalalabad and the Pakistan border.

I pretty much know there's hardly any internet around JAF besides whats in the JAF FoB. This one started by word of mouth.

Squigsquasher wrote:Happy Happy Joy Joy, Happy Happy Joy Joy, Happy Happy Joy Joy...

I don't think you're happy enough!

Quite frankly I'm surprised this thread isn't locked. It's just turned into a back and forth between Whembly's trolling and everybody else facepalming at said trolling.

We can haz padlock?

Please do not refer to whembly as a troll. Trolls post inflammatory bs for the sole purpose of getting people riled up. While much of what whembley posts certainly fits that bill, the difference is that he honestly believes what he posts.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
None of these is accurate or even plausible.

Yeah, but the people who believe it don't care, and the politicians selling it to them know that.

On the plus side, the people that believe it have already decided who they'll vote for, and whether or not they'll vote.

 Jihadin wrote:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/index.html

I keep with Fox

just wow...

 CT GAMER wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/index.html

I keep with Fox

just wow...

They gotta be doing something right... it's the top news cable show after all.

I don't watch it that much (rather watch sports), but their format bugs me for some reason (hence, I usually stick with CNN, if I watch news at all).

 whembly wrote:
They gotta be doing something right... it's the top news cable show after all.

That doesn't mean what they are doing right has anything to do with being accurate, trustworthy, or the news. It might be what they are doing right is appealing to the lowest common denominator as selling a bogus narrative that some people want to hear.

Or maybe I'm conning people

Right Ahtman. Sensationalism sells and news media markets are becoming more divisive and demographic oriented. For example, MSNBC is following Fox's model (although shifting to the left rather than right)--whereas an organization such as CNN, which may be deemed more moderate compared to MSNBC/Fox is struggling with ratings.

Which, really isn't a surprise. I know several liberal friends that listen to Rush, in what I can only describe as a self flagellation political ritual--even if they know he is intentionally provocative to draw such viewers. *Shrug*, we all love us some drama I guess....

But whats Rush entertainment value. I laugh my arse off on a majority things that Rush says


edit
Libyan Government is saying it was a planned attack.

Are they the top news cable show because they use facts, or are they the top news cable program because they are largely just an editorial show that only tells people what they want to hear?

But to be fair, a very small percentage of all cable news is actually focused on the reporting of news. Most shows are just editorials telling you what the news must mean and what you should think about them. It's not a symptom that is isolated to FoxNews.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AgeOfEgos wrote:
Right Ahtman. Sensationalism sells and news media markets are becoming more divisive and demographic oriented. For example, MSNBC is following Fox's model (although shifting to the left rather than right)--whereas an organization such as CNN, which may be deemed more moderate compared to MSNBC/Fox is struggling with ratings.

Sadly people don't want to watch the news to find out what is going on.

People want to watch the news to find out that they are right, so FoxNews and MSNBC.

I have found more and more good programming on BBC and NPR.

 d-usa wrote:
I have found more and more good programming on BBC and NPR.

Both stalwarts of the communist plot to overthrow America, according to conservatives.

NPR can be quite biased. Its lead WH reporter made a major point about not standing up for the Pledge of Allegiance. Seriously?

BBC less so, but it admitted an antiIsraeli bias sometime back.

(Note I listen to both of them pretty much daily. i didn't say I didn't like them)

Honestly, I don't do the pledge anymore. I still stand up for it if I am in a group, just don't recite it and don't do the hand on the chest thing. But that is probably something to rage over in another thread.

Bias is hard to overcome in all news though. NPR has funny non-news broadcasts as well though. We can all get behind car talk, may the show rest in peace.

 Frazzled wrote:
NPR can be quite biased. Its lead WH reporter made a major point about not standing up for the Pledge of Allegiance. Seriously?

I don't either, and haven't since grade school.

The "under God" part pretty much did away with it at schools. I remember we recited it every morning in elementary. I know of no places that does the "Pledge of Alligience" besides the one lead by Gilford at the DNC.

I'm of the opinion that if the flag doesn't believe me by now, it never will.

NPR is far and away my favorite news outlet. What happened to Car Talk?

 Jihadin wrote:
The "under God" part pretty much did away with it at schools. I remember we recited it every morning in elementary. I know of no places that does the "Pledge of Alligience" besides the one lead by Gilford at the DNC.

We still had it in school all the way until I graduated in 2000. Still used in most political settings around here and even some community functions.

 Seaward wrote:
I'm of the opinion that if the flag doesn't believe me by now, it never will.

NPR is far and away my favorite news outlet. What happened to Car Talk?

The guys are retiring, no new episodes after October.

America today is way different then america at that time

 Jihadin wrote:



America today is way different then america at that time

You can pay more taxes for your country.

But its not a tax....and I fall over 200K

Um... this is bad...

The Obama administration’s Department of Justice official Thomas Perez, who is the assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division, refuses to say that his department won’t attempt to criminalize blasphemy in the future.

I can’t imagine that the Department of Justice would ever actually try such a thing, and the Supreme Court would break it in half if it did, but this is appalling.

You can watch the video of the sordid incident here.

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
NPR can be quite biased. Its lead WH reporter made a major point about not standing up for the Pledge of Allegiance. Seriously?

I don't either, and haven't since grade school.

Do you make a big deal about it?

 whembly wrote:
Um... this is bad...

The Obama administration’s Department of Justice official Thomas Perez, who is the assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division, refuses to say that his department won’t attempt to criminalize blasphemy in the future.

I can’t imagine that the Department of Justice would ever actually try such a thing, and the Supreme Court would break it in half if it did, but this is appalling.

You can watch the video of the sordid incident here.

Care to post the blog/editorial/opinion piece where you get your news from?

Because by actually watching this clip it is fairly easy to understand why Perez did what he did and that the Chairperson is only trying to score a political point which is only made more evident by refusing to let anybody else speak and continually cutting off his attempt to answer.

Hint: the relevant part is at the 50 second mark.

Frazzled wrote:NPR can be quite biased. Its lead WH reporter made a major point about not standing up for the Pledge of Allegiance. Seriously?

Ya do know it's a hollow gesture invented in 1942, right? And the guy that created it originally wanted to include a sieg heil salute, too.

 whembly wrote:

 CT GAMER wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/index.html

I keep with Fox

just wow...

They gotta be doing something right... it's the top news cable show after all.

I don't watch it that much (rather watch sports), but their format bugs me for some reason (hence, I usually stick with CNN, if I watch news at all).

Pandering to the lowest common denominator?

Brokering in racism, fear mongering and religiousd zealotry is indeed a surefire way to get viewers in this country, which says alot about how much further this country still has to go to be the place it likes to claim it is...

 azazel the cat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:NPR can be quite biased. Its lead WH reporter made a major point about not standing up for the Pledge of Allegiance. Seriously?

Ya do know it's a hollow gesture invented in 1942, right? And the guy that created it originally wanted to includ ea sieg hail salute, too.

Right, but why go on about it?

Reply by: dogma - click to view full reply 

5534

US Ambassador to Libya murdered... Romney blames Obama...  @ 2012/09/17 18:33:40

Post by: dogma

 Frazzled wrote:

Do you make a big deal about it?

That depends. Other people have called me on it, so they thought it was a big deal. Assuming you're talking about this I suspect that a similar thing is happening now.

I also don't stand for the national anthem (It really is a terrible song.) or take off a hat if I'm wearing one. A guy actually once knocked my hat off at a Cubs game because I didn't take it off.

Reply by: whembly - click to view full reply 

34390

US Ambassador to Libya murdered... Romney blames Obama...  @ 2012/09/17 18:37:09

Post by: whembly

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Do you make a big deal about it?

That depends. Other people have called me on it, so they thought it was a big deal. Assuming you're talking about this I suspect that a similar thing is happening now.

I also don't stand for the national anthem (It really is a terrible song.) or take off a hat if I'm wearing one. A guy actually once knocked my hat off at a Cubs game because I didn't take it off.

Were you wearing a Cardinal hat?

Reply by: Frazzled - click to view full reply 

221

US Ambassador to Libya murdered... Romney blames Obama...  @ 2012/09/17 18:39:30

Post by: Frazzled

 dogma wrote:
I also don't stand for the national anthem (It really is a terrible song.) or take off a hat if I'm wearing one. A guy actually once knocked my hat off at a Cubs game because I didn't take it off.

Of course he did. Chicagoans should only be permitted to watch Da Bears (and occasionally Da Bulls)

Reply by: CT GAMER - click to view full reply 

14152

US Ambassador to Libya murdered... Romney blames Obama...  @ 2012/09/17 18:40:04

Post by: CT GAMER

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Do you make a big deal about it?

That depends. Other people have called me on it, so they thought it was a big deal. Assuming you're talking about this I suspect that a similar thing is happening now.

I also don't stand for the national anthem (It really is a terrible song.) or take off a hat if I'm wearing one. A guy actually once knocked my hat off at a Cubs game because I didn't take it off.

I stand but don't recite/put hand over my heart. When we actually achieve the whole "with liberty and justice for all..." bit I'll consider participating.

I hope you punched him in his face...

Reply by: Jihadin - click to view full reply 

50512

US Ambassador to Libya murdered... Romney blames Obama...  @ 2012/09/17 18:43:50

Post by: Jihadin

Think it be more then just getting a hat knocked off if he was. People have their values. Respect on certain areas is not the same as the rest. Some view what I do is for God and Country. I do what I do for troops and my buddies by me. God and Country isn't helping me with the now.

Reply by: Frazzled - click to view full reply 

221

US Ambassador to Libya murdered... Romney blames Obama...  @ 2012/09/17 18:43:54

Post by: Frazzled

 CT GAMER wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Do you make a big deal about it?

That depends. Other people have called me on it, so they thought it was a big deal. Assuming you're talking about this I suspect that a similar thing is happening now.

I also don't stand for the national anthem (It really is a terrible song.) or take off a hat if I'm wearing one. A guy actually once knocked my hat off at a Cubs game because I didn't take it off.

I stand but don't recite/put hand over my heart. When we actually achieve the whole "with liberty and justice for all..." bit I'll consider participating.

I hope you punched him in his face...

I try to sing, but get gang tackled in a vane attempt to stop my voice from wraeking devastation. Inevitably at least a few birds fall from the sky. Occasionally a concrete wall cracks.

Reply by: Jihadin - click to view full reply 

50512

US Ambassador to Libya murdered... Romney blames Obama...  @ 2012/09/17 18:45:04

Post by: Jihadin

Careful Frazz...you might get the DNR on you for hunting out of season

Reply by: Frazzled - click to view full reply 

221

US Ambassador to Libya murdered... Romney blames Obama...  @ 2012/09/17 18:48:10

Post by: Frazzled

 Jihadin wrote:
Careful Frazz...you might get the DNR on you for hunting out of season

Actually the birds commit suicide by choking on their own tongues. Its the only way to stop the horror. The wiener dogs are ok with this because Rodney loves to east birds. Like whole.

Reply by: CT GAMER - click to view full reply 

14152

US Ambassador to Libya murdered... Romney blames Obama...  @ 2012/09/17 18:48:31

Post by: CT GAMER

 Frazzled wrote:

 CT GAMER wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Do you make a big deal about it?

That depends. Other people have called me on it, so they thought it was a big deal. Assuming you're talking about this I suspect that a similar thing is happening now.

I also don't stand for the national anthem (It really is a terrible song.) or take off a hat if I'm wearing one. A guy actually once knocked my hat off at a Cubs game because I didn't take it off.

I stand but don't recite/put hand over my heart. When we actually achieve the whole "with liberty and justice for all..." bit I'll consider participating.

I hope you punched him in his face...

I try to sing, but get gang tackled in a vane attempt to stop my voice from wraeking devastation. Inevitably at least a few birds fall from the sky. Occasionally a concrete wall cracks.

Reply by: azazel the cat - click to view full reply 

50336

US Ambassador to Libya murdered... Romney blames Obama...  @ 2012/09/17 19:05:37

Post by: azazel the cat

Frazzled wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:NPR can be quite biased. Its lead WH reporter made a major point about not standing up for the Pledge of Allegiance. Seriously?

Ya do know it's a hollow gesture invented in 1942, right? And the guy that created it originally wanted to include a sieg heil salute, too.

Right, but why go on about it?

Because it's a gesture that has been adopted as mandatory (at least on a social level) when it in fact holds no more relevance than would singing the Oscar Meyer song.

Reply by: Jihadin - click to view full reply 

50512

US Ambassador to Libya murdered... Romney blames Obama...  @ 2012/09/17 19:10:14

Post by: Jihadin

Whoa now. Back off Oscar Meyer. Thats like everyone childhood fav food.

Reply by: Frazzled - click to view full reply 

221

US Ambassador to Libya murdered... Romney blames Obama...  @ 2012/09/17 19:25:54

Post by: Frazzled

 Jihadin wrote:
Whoa now. Back off Oscar Meyer. Thats like everyone childhood fav food.

I wish I were an Oscar Meyer wiener!

Reply by: d-usa - click to view full reply 

37231

US Ambassador to Libya murdered... Romney blames Obama...  @ 2012/09/17 20:18:48

Post by: d-usa

And just to bring it back on-topic:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/17/poll-more-approve-of-obamas-response-to-embassy-attack-than-romneys/

Reply by: Melissia - click to view full reply 

29408

US Ambassador to Libya murdered... Romney blames Obama...  @ 2012/09/17 21:23:39

Post by: Melissia

 whembly wrote:
They gotta be doing something right...

Why?

I mean, just because something's popular doesn't mean it's good. It just means that it sells well. Or that Will Smith is in it.

Reply by: whembly - click to view full reply 

34390

US Ambassador to Libya murdered... Romney blames Obama...  @ 2012/09/17 21:47:22

Post by: whembly

 Melissia wrote:

 whembly wrote:
They gotta be doing something right...

Why?

I mean, just because something's popular doesn't mean it's good. It just means that it sells well. Or that Will Smith is in it.

True... anything Will Smith is golden!
I mean come on... who doesn't like the Fresh Prince from Bel-Aire?

Reply by: Melissia - click to view full reply 

29408

US Ambassador to Libya murdered... Romney blames Obama...  @ 2012/09/17 21:48:07

Post by: Melissia

I like it ironically, because I'm a total loser.

Reply by: whembly - click to view full reply 

34390

US Ambassador to Libya murdered... Romney blames Obama...  @ 2012/09/17 21:48:17

Post by: whembly

 d-usa wrote:
And just to bring it back on-topic:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/17/poll-more-approve-of-obamas-response-to-embassy-attack-than-romneys/

Yup...

That makes sense... whenever there's a global conflict, Americans generally rally around the President.

Reply by: Melissia - click to view full reply 

29408

US Ambassador to Libya murdered... Romney blames Obama...  @ 2012/09/17 21:52:04

Post by: Melissia

That, or they think that Romney's being a douche.

Reply by: whembly - click to view full reply 

34390

US Ambassador to Libya murdered... Romney blames Obama...  @ 2012/09/17 21:56:40

Post by: whembly

 Melissia wrote:
I like it ironically, because I'm a total loser.

Huh?

Why you liking Will Smith makes you a loser?

"Gak just got real man !"

Reply by: Jihadin - click to view full reply 

50512

US Ambassador to Libya murdered... Romney blames Obama...  @ 2012/09/18 17:04:22

Post by: Jihadin

Burning an American flag proved fatal for a Pakistani protester, who reportedly died from inhaling fumes from the ignited icon of independence.

Some 10,000 people rallied this week in Lahore, the capital of the Punjab province, to protest the movie trailer that Muslims say insults Islam, according to the International Herald-Tribune. One participant, identified as Abdullah Ismail, died after being taken to an area hospital. Witnesses said he had complained of feeling sick from the smoke from American flags burnt at the rally.

The rally was organized on the city's landmark mall by the Tehreek Hurmat-i-Rasool. Despite a ban on rallies on The Mall, local officials blocked off the road leading to it from noon to 6 p.m., apparently to facilitate the event.

The film trailer that has spurred angry protests throughout the Middle East, "Innocence of Muslims," was produced by a California man. The trailer ridicules Islam and depicts the Prophet Muhammad as a fraud, a womanizer and a pedophile.

But protesters asserted it was created with the backing of the U.S. government.

“The U.S. must make a law against blasphemy – or we will not let the US consulates in Pakistan function,” a rally organizer told the paper.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/09/18/protester-dies-after-inhaling-fumes-from-burning-american-flag/#ixzz26qFCczuo

I chuckled for quite a bit. Actually WTH guy. How big a flag did they burn?

Reply by: AustonT - click to view full reply 

29110

US Ambassador to Libya murdered... Romney blames Obama...  @ 2012/09/18 17:37:30

Post by: AustonT

 Jihadin wrote:

Burning an American flag proved fatal for a Pakistani protester, who reportedly died from inhaling fumes from the ignited icon of independence.

I chuckled for quite a bit. Actually WTH guy. How big a flag did they burn?

Justice.
It was probably one of those synthetic fabric ones that smokes a lot. Thats why my flags are all Cotton.

Reply by: MrDwhitey - click to view full reply 

38860

US Ambassador to Libya murdered... Romney blames Obama...  @ 2012/09/18 19:17:01

Post by: MrDwhitey

I didn't realise burning a flag means death.

It's almost as silly as drawing someone meaning death...

Reply by: Ahtman - click to view full reply 

241

US Ambassador to Libya murdered... Romney blames Obama...  @ 2012/09/18 19:21:00

Post by: Ahtman

Good lord that had to be one big flag or one tiny Pakistani.

Reply by: azazel the cat - click to view full reply 

50336

US Ambassador to Libya murdered... Romney blames Obama...  @ 2012/09/18 19:56:55

Post by: azazel the cat

AustonT wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

Burning an American flag proved fatal for a Pakistani protester, who reportedly died from inhaling fumes from the ignited icon of independence.

I chuckled for quite a bit. Actually WTH guy. How big a flag did they burn?

Justice.
It was probably one of those synthetic fabric ones that smokes a lot. Thats why my flags are all Cotton.

...So you can burn it without making a lot of smoke? I don't understand your statement.

Reply by: Jihadin - click to view full reply 

50512

US Ambassador to Libya murdered... Romney blames Obama...  @ 2012/09/18 20:44:39

Post by: Jihadin

Fumes from the flag. Breathing in the fumes from the burn is real bad

Reply by: d-usa - click to view full reply 

37231

US Ambassador to Libya murdered... Romney blames Obama...  @ 2012/09/18 21:21:18

Post by: d-usa

I used to participate in an annual flag burning. The cotton ones burned pretty and calm. The giant synthetic ones just burn like a wildfire, melt and stick to your gloves, and smoke like a mother. Especially the giant 12 foot versions.

Reply by: AustonT - click to view full reply 

29110

US Ambassador to Libya murdered... Romney blames Obama...  @ 2012/09/18 22:54:10

Post by: AustonT

 azazel the cat wrote:

AustonT wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

Burning an American flag proved fatal for a Pakistani protester, who reportedly died from inhaling fumes from the ignited icon of independence.

I chuckled for quite a bit. Actually WTH guy. How big a flag did they burn?

Justice.
It was probably one of those synthetic fabric ones that smokes a lot. Thats why my flags are all Cotton.

...So you can burn it without making a lot of smoke? I don't understand your statement.

Actually: Yes. The sun and frequent gusting winds do a number on flags here and when they look raggedy I need to dispose of them.

US Flag Code. TITLE 4 > CHAPTER 1 > Sec. 8(k). wrote:

The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning

Reply by: youbedead - click to view full reply 

7926

US Ambassador to Libya murdered... Romney blames Obama...  @ 2012/09/19 00:40:59

Post by: youbedead

It's actually a pretty neat ceremony if you get the chance to see one.

Reply by: Samus_aran115 - click to view full reply 

27872

US Ambassador to Libya murdered... Romney blames Obama...  @ 2012/09/21 00:45:18

Post by: Samus_aran115

I've seen one, once. It was beautiful. This flag had been flying for over ten years, and the stripes were almost totally separated.from each other. It was a magnificent flag, and it was pleasant to see it given the respect it deserved.

This isn't the same thing though. Honestly, I do care, but I also really don't. I've lost all faith in that area as a whole. There's no hope for people who place more significance on practicing their religion than being civilized people. Everything is a affront to them, and no grudge is ever forgotten. It's madness.

Reply by: Jihadin - click to view full reply 

50512

US Ambassador to Libya murdered... Romney blames Obama...  @ 2012/09/21 04:33:56

Post by: Jihadin

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/09/20/anti-jihad-avage-ads-going-up-in-new-york-city-subway/

Here we go...off to the race...we have to get that 5 min of fame.

Reply by: Samus_aran115 - click to view full reply 

27872

US Ambassador to Libya murdered... Romney blames Obama...  @ 2012/09/21 04:42:19

Post by: Samus_aran115

Why are people antagonizing this behavior? The conspiracist in me wants to imagine this a deliberate, calculated effort to stir up nonsense.

Reply by: whembly - click to view full reply 

34390

US Ambassador to Libya murdered... Romney blames Obama...  @ 2012/09/21 04:44:29

Post by: whembly

 Samus_aran115 wrote:
Why are people antagonizing this behavior? The conspiracist in me wants to imagine this a deliberate, calculated effort to stir up nonsense.

So what?

They're free to say that... right?

Reply by: Samus_aran115 - click to view full reply 

27872

US Ambassador to Libya murdered... Romney blames Obama...  @ 2012/09/21 05:03:00

Post by: Samus_aran115

 whembly wrote:

 Samus_aran115 wrote:
Why are people antagonizing this behavior? The conspiracist in me wants to imagine this a deliberate, calculated effort to stir up nonsense.

So what?

They're free to say that... right?

Of course they are, but doesn't it seem like it's all coming out of the woodwork at the same sort of time? I think a little discretion would a long ways right now, when a good part of the world isn't very happy with us.

Reply by: whembly - click to view full reply 

34390

US Ambassador to Libya murdered... Romney blames Obama...  @ 2012/09/21 05:06:16

Post by: whembly

 Samus_aran115 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Samus_aran115 wrote:
Why are people antagonizing this behavior? The conspiracist in me wants to imagine this a deliberate, calculated effort to stir up nonsense.

So what?

They're free to say that... right?

Of course they are, but doesn't it seem like it's all coming out of the woodwork at the same sort of time? I think a little discretion would a long ways right now, when a good part of the world isn't very happy with us.

True... but, that's the way its ALWAYS been.

In the article, the practicing muslim said maybe they should put up a counter ad... I'd say... have at it bro!

Reply by: Samus_aran115 - click to view full reply 

27872

US Ambassador to Libya murdered... Romney blames Obama...  @ 2012/09/21 05:10:06

Post by: Samus_aran115

Yeah, definitely! I guess I just didn't really notice it until it was over my head, like a lot of things.