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.

Jihadin wrote:Just want to clarify your reading the smirk the same way some people are reading her lips.

Yes that'd be the one. I really have no idea what she said but having watched BLR it could very easily be anything.


"Not every soda can be free. But will chop a squid and mash a pickle and watch you drink it"
Mitt Romney

How dare an embassy call for religious tolerance?

 whembly wrote:

Bah... that's old news. But poltifacts has problems too dude...

Dude, I don't know how you do it but I'm not patient enough to do so many small quotes. I'll address your points in order (1-....):

1. Actually, the Embassy is not a direct representative of the administration but of the American people. The Ambassador to Egypt is an experienced diplomat with years spent in hot-beds throughout the middle-east...I think, after reviewing her credentials, as a taxpayer I'm comfortable with her actions. http://egypt.usembassy.gov/ambassador.html

2. Yes, yes it is. I recommend you read more on 9/11 and all the warnings etc that were ignored leading up to it; here's an excerpt from a released presidential daily brief from August 6, 2001:

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

Full, here: http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch8.htm

Read that and you might start to think our government was asleep at the wheel on this one.

3. About Rice, see above. I think th 9/11 commission actually unearthed some memos that were set in front of her that basically screamed imminent attack; I could be misremembering though.

4. Technically we're playing nice with the Russians now but Czar Putin is looking for excuses to change that...redirect attention from his power grabbing and onto the established boogeyman, the US.

5. In his meeting in London, Romney expressed doubt that London could put on a successful games. He later flipflopped and said

I am very delighted with the prospects of a highly successful Olympic Games. What I have seen shows imagination and forethought and a lot of organisation and [I] expect the Games to be highly successful,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/26/mitt-romney-olympics-blunder

6. I was referring to something I hear years ago about staffers nearly frisking Reagan before speeches to take some cue cards from him that contained inane tidbits. Amusing.

What are the chances that this creepy waste of skin will become President?

Are any of our American friends seriously planning to vote for him?

Why yes I am voting for Romney. I find Obama creepy myself. So hence Obama wins out on the creepy scale

 agnosto wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Bah... that's old news. But poltifacts has problems too dude...

Dude, I don't know how you do it but I'm not patient enough to do so many small quotes. I'll address your points in order (1-....):

Just copy the "/quote" (replace the double quotes with square bracket) and it's easy peasy.

1. Actually, the Embassy is not a direct representative of the administration but of the American people. The Ambassador to Egypt is an experienced diplomat with years spent in hot-beds throughout the middle-east...I think, after reviewing her credentials, as a taxpayer I'm comfortable with her actions. http://egypt.usembassy.gov/ambassador.html

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".

2. Yes, yes it is. I recommend you read more on 9/11 and all the warnings etc that were ignored leading up to it; here's an excerpt from a released presidential daily brief from August 6, 2001:

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

Full, here: http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch8.htm

Read that and you might start to think our government was asleep at the wheel on this one.

3. About Rice, see above. I think th 9/11 commission actually unearthed some memos that were set in front of her that basically screamed imminent attack; I could be misremembering though.

Man, I don't wanna go there. Simply put, the way things were *done* there, it was difficult to put the pieces together... not due to willful ignorance.

4. Technically we're playing nice with the Russians now but Czar Putin is looking for excuses to change that...redirect attention from his power grabbing and onto the established boogeyman, the US.

Like I said, I thought it was strange for Romney to do this... but we've ALWAYS been the boogeyman... Putin doesn't need anyone's help .

5. In his meeting in London, Romney expressed doubt that London could put on a successful games. He later flipflopped and said

I am very delighted with the prospects of a highly successful Olympic Games. What I have seen shows imagination and forethought and a lot of organisation and [I] expect the Games to be highly successful,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/26/mitt-romney-olympics-blunder

I just think that whole ordeal was a faux-outrage in order to make Romney look bad.

6. I was referring to something I hear years ago about staffers nearly frisking Reagan before speeches to take some cue cards from him that contained inane tidbits. Amusing.

@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