Libyan Embassy Attack

Ouch

Quote :

Romney’s “Lehman Moment”?

By Daniel Larison • September 12, 2012

Scott Galupo discerns panic in the Romney campaign’s shameless opportunism last night and this morning:

Before yesterday, the idea that the Romney campaign was “desperate” would have struck me as myopic and overexcited. Now it seems unmistakably clear. The Romney campaign knows it’s losing.

The extraordinary thing is that Romney may have been losing yesterday, but he wasn’t being widely ridiculed and attacked for having practically disqualified himself from consideration. When senior Republican foreign policy professionals start referring to this as his “Lehman moment,” likening it to McCain’s mid-September meltdown in response to the financial crisis, we can see that Romney’s latest attempt to seize on an international event has done significant and possibly irreparable damage to his campaign. Most Americans may not sympathize with Romney’s more aggressive foreign policy, but they might have been willing to believe him to be competent and have good judgment. This blunder undermines his claims to both of these.

Romney has made many foreign policy blunders before now, but this is the only one that has provoked such swift, harsh, and near-unanimous criticism. The most incredible part is that all of this has been self-inflicted. Romney and his campaign volunteered for this by inserting themselves into the story. If it were simply the other campaign or Democratic partisans that were hammering Romney on this, it wouldn’t be any different from previous mistakes, but the backlash hasn’t been limited to his partisan foes. The dishonesty of the original Romney statement and the gall of his press conference this morning have combined to create serious doubts about his judgment and to confirm the impression that there are no limits to his opportunism.

As a practical matter, this episode shows how useless Romney’s main foreign policy theme has been. According to Romney, Obama “apologizes for” America, and Romney won’t. He tried to shoehorn the embassy attacks into this frame, and it didn’t work for at least two reasons. First, Obama didn’t respond to the attacks by apologizing for anything or sympathizing with the attackers, as Romney’s original statement charged, so it was blatantly false. Romney’s position that the U.S. should never “apologize for” American values is almost beside the point. Would this have made any difference to the people assaulting the embassy in Cairo or the consulate in Benghazi? Would the attacks not have happened if Romney had been conducting his own brand of thoroughly unapologetic activist foreign policy? It seems unlikely. Romney might have legitimately questioned the security arrangements for the consulate, for example, or he could have made the fair observation that Libya’s new government is very weak and Libya as a whole has serious security problems, but that wouldn’t have translated into the easy and satisfying point-scoring that Romney seems to prefer. It wouldn’t have fit his ready-made scheme of Obama-as-Carter, but it would have spared him of most of the ridicule he’s receiving now. Now instead of portraying Obama as Carter, he has presented himself as the bumbling McCain figure of 2012.

Raise your hand if you have fallen for this bullshit.


http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/middle-east-north-africa/249717-rice-at-odds-with-libya-says-benghazi-attack-was-not-premeditated

Rice contradicts Libyan account, says consulate attack was not premeditated

By Julian Pecquet - 09/16/12 12:20 PM ET

The Obama administration is sticking to its position that Tuesday's deadly attack in Benghazi wasn't premeditated, contradicting U.S. lawmakers and Libya's own president.
Speaking on several Sunday shows, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice placed the blame for violence that has spread to two dozen countries across the Muslim world squarely on a U.S.-made anti-Islam video.
Republicans and many others are dubious, with some lawmakers suggesting the attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi was a coordinated attack by a militant group.
“There's no question that as we've seen in the past with things like [Salman Rushdie's] Satanic Verses, with the [Danish] cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, there have been such things that have sparked outrage and anger, and this has been the proximate cause of what we've seen,” Rice said on Fox News Sunday. “We are of the view that this is not an expression of hostility in the broader sense toward the United States or U.S. policy. It's proximately a reaction to this video.”

Pew Poll: Romney’s Middle East Comments Were a Disaster

Quote :

Romney missed an opportunity to look Presidential, and instead did himself serious damage

Wow. It was pretty obvious Mitt Romney really shot himself in the foot when he crassly exploited the deaths of American diplomatic personnel overseas to attack President Obama, but the new survey from Pew Research really drives this point home: Middle East Turmoil Closely Followed; Romney’s Comments Viewed Negatively.

In his rush to parrot the wingnut talking point that Obama “apologizes for America,” Mitt Romney may have truly sunk his campaign.

http://tribune.com.pk/story/437772/ultimatum-to-us-criminalise-blasphemy-or-lose-consulate/

Ultimatum to US: ‘Criminalise blasphemy or lose consulate’

By Rana Tanveer
Published: September 17, 2012

LAHORE:
Several Muslim parties and a Christian group held rallies on Sunday to protest against a movie released in America.
………
One of the participants of the rally, Abdullah Ismail, passed away after he was taken to Mayo Hospital. Witnesses said he had complained of feeling unwell from the smoke from US flags burnt at the rally.




That’s a shame.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Obviously you haven't watched the movie or even have the slightest idea of the disgusting premises contained in it.

You never know what will set off a few religious or twisted ideology kooks. and every culture has their own version of a Glenn Beck to stir things up. Just look at all the anti-abortion nuts.
It should be pointed out that probably 99.999% of Muslims did not engage in violent behavior as a result.

That film serves no purpose other than to inflame and infuriate Muslims.

[b]Do you believe that this country should ban further showings or distribution of this movie, seeing as how much trouble it has allegedly caused?

Slow day in trolltown? I'm still waiting for you to explain why there is no rioting in the US over the movie?

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Obviously you haven't watched the movie or even have the slightest idea of the disgusting premises contained in it.

You never know what will set off a few religious or twisted ideology kooks. and every culture has their own version of a Glenn Beck to stir things up. Just look at all the anti-abortion nuts.
It should be pointed out that probably 99.999% of Muslims did not engage in violent behavior as a result.

That film serves no purpose other than to inflame and infuriate Muslims.

[b]Do you believe that this country should ban further showings or distribution of this movie, seeing as how much trouble it has allegedly caused?

Slow day in trolltown? I'm still waiting for you to explain why there is no rioting in the US over the movie?

There is no mass rioting in the U.S. because the would-be rioters do not have home-field advantage, and they know that they would get their miserable asses kicked for attempting such a thing. That should be obvious to normal people.

Now, as to your answer to my question:

Do you believe that this country should ban further showings or distribution of this movie, seeing as how much trouble it has allegedly caused?

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Slow day in trolltown? I'm still waiting for you to explain why there is no rioting in the US over the movie?

There is no mass rioting in the U.S. because the would-be rioters do not have home-field advantage, and they know that they would get their miserable asses kicked for attempting such a thing. That should be obvious to normal people.

Really? That's going to scare them? You don't think rioters in other countries never suffer consequences? They could hold mass demonstrations here,yet I don't believe they have. No suicide bombings either. Your answer simply makes no sense.

Quote :

Now, as to your answer to my question:

Do you believe that this country should ban further showings or distribution of this movie, seeing as how much trouble it has allegedly caused?

Not at the present time.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Slow day in trolltown? I'm still waiting for you to explain why there is no rioting in the US over the movie?

There is no mass rioting in the U.S. because the would-be rioters do not have home-field advantage, and they know that they would get their miserable asses kicked for attempting such a thing. That should be obvious to normal people.

Really? That's going to scare them? You don't think rioters in other countries never suffer consequences? They could hold mass demonstrations here,yet I don't believe they have. No suicide bombings either. Your answer simply makes no sense.

Quote :

Now, as to your answer to my question:

Do you believe that this country should ban further showings or distribution of this movie, seeing as how much trouble it has allegedly caused?

Not at the present time.

[b]Under what circumstances do you think they would be justified in doing so?

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

You don't think rioters in other countries never suffer consequences?

[b]Such as?

Too complicated for you to google middle east riots crackdown? Palestinians for starters.

happy jack wrote:

Thanks. I'll do that.
Now - too complicated to give a straight answer to ....?

happy jack wrote:

By saying this .... [/b]

Artie60438 wrote:

Not at the present time.

[b].... you clearly think that there is a time when such censorship would be appropriate.
When do you think that time would be?

1)You have no idea what I think.
2) I'm not interested in engaging in an endless hypothetical with you.
Find somewhere else to troll.

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Thanks. I'll do that.
Now - too complicated to give a straight answer to ....?

happy jack wrote:

By saying this .... [/b]

Artie60438 wrote:

Not at the present time.

[b].... you clearly think that there is a time when such censorship would be appropriate.
When do you think that time would be?

1)You have no idea what I think.
2) I'm not interested in engaging in an endless hypothetical with you.
Find somewhere else to troll.

My, my – we’re a touchy little monkey today, aren’t we?
You said that censorship was not required "at the present time”. That clearly demonstrates that you find the option of censorship a possibility – just not "at the present time”. So, what circumstances would cause you to place the option of censorship back on the table?
It’s a quite simple question.

Man, I really don't think that the censorship question is hypothetical. I'm sure that many people have thought about it, given the fallout from this video.

For what it's worth, I consider Jack's question entirely relevant, and I will answer it.

Censoring or banning this video, no matter how repugnant it may be, is not how we roll in America. I'd be interested to hear any argument in favor of censorship in a situation like this, but in my mind, it's clearly protected speech, covered by the First Amendment.

Scorpion wrote:

Censoring or banning this video, no matter how repugnant it may be, is not how we roll in America. I'd be interested to hear any argument in favor of censorship in a situation like this, but in my mind, it's clearly protected speech, covered by the First Amendment.

Yup.

happy jack wrote:

Raise your hand if you have fallen for this bullshit.

http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/middle-east-north-africa/249717-rice-at-odds-with-libya-says-benghazi-attack-was-not-premeditated

Rice contradicts Libyan account, says consulate attack was not premeditated

Fell for what exactly?

happy jack wrote:

My, my – we’re a touchy little monkey today, aren’t we?

Nope,just not interested of engaging in hypothetical discussion with someone that I never learn anything from.

Scorpion wrote:

Man, I really don't think that the censorship question is hypothetical. I'm sure that many people have thought about it, given the fallout from this video.

For what it's worth, I consider Jack's question entirely relevant, and I will answer it.

Censoring or banning this video, no matter how repugnant it may be, is not how we roll in America. I'd be interested to hear any argument in favor of censorship in a situation like this, but in my mind, it's clearly protected speech, covered by the First Amendment.

I'm not advocating censorship. I have a different idea as to how to deal with this type garbage.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444450004578002010241044712.html


• Updated September 19, 2012, 3:27 p.m. ET

Stephens: Muslims, Mormons and Liberals

Why is it OK to mock one religion but not another?


'Hasa Diga Eebowai" is the hit number in Broadway's hit musical "The Book of Mormon," which won nine Tony awards last year. What does the phrase mean? I can't tell you, because it's unprintable in a family newspaper.
On the other hand, if you can afford to shell out several hundred bucks for a seat, then you can watch a Mormon missionary get his holy book stuffed—well, I can't tell you about that, either. Let's just say it has New York City audiences roaring with laughter.
The "Book of Mormon"—a performance of which Hillary Clinton attended last year, without registering a complaint—comes to mind as the administration falls over itself denouncing "Innocence of Muslims." This is a film that may or may not exist; whose makers are likely not who they say they are; whose actors claim to have known neither the plot nor purpose of the film; and which has never been seen by any member of the public except as a video clip on the Internet.
No matter. The film, the administration says, is "hateful and offensive" (Susan Rice), "reprehensible and disgusting" (Jay Carney) and, in a twist, "disgusting and reprehensible" (Hillary Clinton). Mr. Carney, the White House spokesman, also lays sole blame on the film for inciting the riots that have swept the Muslim world and claimed the lives of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three of his staff in Libya.
So let's get this straight: In the consensus view of modern American liberalism, it is hilarious to mock Mormons and Mormonism but outrageous to mock Muslims and Islam. Why? Maybe it's because nobody has ever been harmed, much less killed, making fun of Mormons.
Here's what else we learned this week about the emerging liberal consensus: That it's okay to denounce a movie you haven't seen, which is like trashing a book you haven't read. That it's okay to give perp-walk treatment to the alleged—and no doubt terrified—maker of the film on legally flimsy and politically motivated grounds of parole violation. That it's okay for the federal government publicly to call on Google to pull the video clip from YouTube in an attempt to mollify rampaging Islamists. That it's okay to concede the fundamentalist premise that religious belief ought to be entitled to the highest possible degree of social deference—except when Mormons and sundry Christian rubes are
And, finally, this: That the most "progressive" administration in recent U.S. history will make no principled defense of free speech to a Muslim world that could stand hearing such a defense. After the debut of "The Book of Mormon" musical, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints responded with this statement: "The production may attempt to entertain audiences for an evening but the Book of Mormon as a volume of scripture will change people's lives forever by bringing them closer to Christ."
That was it. The People's Front for the Liberation of Provo will not be gunning for a theater near you. Is it asking too much of religious and political leaders in Muslim communities to adopt a similar attitude?
It needn't be. A principled defense of free speech could start by quoting the Quran: "And it has already come down to you in the Book that when you hear the verses of Allah [recited], they are denied [by them] and ridiculed; so do not sit with them until they enter into another conversation." In this light, the true test of religious conviction is indifference, not susceptibility, to mockery.
The defense could add that a great religion surely cannot be goaded into frenetic mob violence on the slimmest provocation. Yet to watch the images coming out of Benghazi, Cairo, Tunis and Sana'a is to witness some significant portion of a civilization being transformed into Travis Bickle, the character Robert De Niro made unforgettable in Taxi Driver. "You talkin' to me?"
A defense would also point out that an Islamic world that insists on a measure of religious respect needs also to offer that respect in turn. When Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi—the closest thing Sunni Islam has to a pope—praises Hitler for exacting "divine punishment" on the Jews, that respect isn't exactly apparent. Nor has it been especially apparent in the waves of Islamist-instigated pogroms that have swept Egypt's Coptic community in recent years.
Finally, it need be said that the whole purpose of free speech is to protect unpopular, heretical, vulgar and stupid views. So far, the Obama administration's approach to free speech is that it's fine so long as it's cheap and exacts no political price. This is free speech as pizza.
President Obama came to office promising that he would start a new conversation with the Muslim world, one that lectured less and listened more. After nearly four years of listening, we can now hear more clearly where the U.S. stands in the estimation of that world: equally despised but considerably less feared. Just imagine what four more years of instinctive deference will do.
On the bright side, dear liberals, you'll still be able to mock Mormons. They tend not to punch back, which is part of what makes so many of them so successful in life.