Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

@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.