Romney un-Presidential & unpatriotic in criticizim of Obama regarding Libya attacks
Candidate Romney's first response to the news that American citizens had been killed in Libya? Criticize the President of course!
"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." – AP
Now did the President "sympathize" with the attackers? No! But it doesn't matter, because… well, Romney's running for President and he needs some attention!
What did the President actually say?
"I strongly condemn the outrageous attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi, which took the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Right now, the American people have the families of those we lost in our thoughts and prayers. They exemplified America's commitment to freedom, justice, and partnership with nations and people around the globe, and stand in stark contrast to those who callously took their lives."
What's "disgraceful" is Romney's characteristically un-Presidential, political and partisan response to a very serious matter.
I haven't gotten into Presidential political commenting very much this campaign, but for some reason, this particular response made me a bit mad. We're attacked, our citizens die and the initial response from the Romney campaign is to make shit up about the President and condemn him for something he didn't say?
Unpatriotic and undeserving of the title of "President".
Comments are closed.
Maybe you truly don’t know what the hubbub is about, but here is how this went:
The US Embassy released this statement:
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 (emphasis mine).
Romney responded to that with this:
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.
Looking at how it actually happened, you can see Mitt’s response was appropriate.
Hopefully you now understand.
Well Dan time for a new talking point. Apparently the Obama administration was upset with the released statement as well..
“People at the highest levels both at the State Department and at the White House were not happy with the way the statement went down. There was a lot of anger both about the process and the content,” the official said. “Frankly, people here did not understand it. The statement was just tone deaf. It didn’t provide adequate balance. We thought the references were inappropriate, and we strongly advised against the kind of language that talked about ‘continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims.’”
So, Mitt expressed his disapproval with the statement and privately Obama did as well.
Like I said, the President’s “first response” to the attacks wasn’t to sympathize with those who did the attacking. The “sympathetic” embassy statement was made BEFORE the protests in Cairo and the attack in Libya began. That didn’t matter to the Romney campaign, or to you, and that’s fine I guess.
So no, Pres. Obama’s first response was not to sympathize as I stated above.
“It’s disgraceful that the Obama administration’s first response” – MItt Romney
Notice it does not say, “President Obama’s first response”.
No one’s “first response” to the attacks was to “apologize”. I’ll repeat:
The “sympathetic” embassy statement was made BEFORE the protests in Cairo and the attack in Libya began.
The statement was made to try to diffuse an inflammatory situation before it got out of hand, by letting people in the area know that the movie does not express the opinions of the U.S. Government nor the majority of its citizens. The people on the ground in the embassy understood that a people who lived most of their lives under a dictatorship until recently don’t understand that one person’s critical film does not reflect the government’s view; they are used to nothing getting out of their country that is not cleared by the government. Obama was right not to publicly criticize the statement and thus put the lives of those in the embassy in immediate danger. Even McCain, like some other American prisoners of war, made anti-U.S. propaganda tapes, but everyone knows it was coercion. Nobody would have made a public statement criticizing him when his life was in danger in an enemy prison camp. The personnel at the embassy did not even make an anti-U.S. statement — they just tried to get the people who were surrounding the embassy to understand it was not the official American view of Islam. It was not the time to go into a lecture about free speech in America. Romney could have endangered all those Americans at the embassy with his big mouth, and all to score political points. Reagan and Bush stood behind President Carter during the Iranian hostage crisis when Carter’s rescue attempt failed. Even though they were in a hotly contested campaign against him for the Presidency at the time, they wanted to show unity at a time of crisis. That is what makes Romney’s extremely transparent attempt to win the election at any cost so pathetic.