Stop Politicizing Libya Mitt Romney

[Straight Shooter]

I know you have a raging hard on for factcheck.org, but don't you think its a little odd that the website always seems to agree with your left leaning agenda? Its not a coincidence. That website is funded by the Annenberg Group, if you don't know who they are, look them up. The group has close ties to Bill Ayers as well as, you guessed it, Barack Obama. It must be nice for Obama to have his friends running a "fact" checking site, that is completely biased in favor of him and his agenda.

A quote from Hillary Clinton:


Even before she says "there is never any justification for violent acts of this kind," she starts by apologizing for, and distancing the US from the man who created "The Innocence of Muslims."

Do you have a problem with any of these websites?

Boston Globe
http://www.boston.com/news/politics...cts-attacks/YvlBS2cDH8EoiC02ic8GXK/story.html

WaPo
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...94acd8-fd32-11e1-98c6-ec0a0a93f8eb_story.html

AP
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap...FGCu2A?docId=7bef9ab9585d4d7b87f7b8e171a9645a

"Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in a Tuesday statement.

Of course the U.S doesn't besmirch other people's religion, we believe in tolerance. That's what makes us the U.S! And I find it funny how you gloss over the fact that after that sentence she says "There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind."

 

[PlumpRump]

Considering that absolutely no where in that quote did she apologize for anything, that is a very interesting interpretation. We are not, nor should we be in the business of playing pick & choose with respect to global religions. And of course we should distance ourselves from the radical Zionist and the Evangelical(s) who made this film and are trying to use this film to stoke violence against our republic. But as Clinton said, no matter what was in the film, that is not a justification for a violent act of this kind. To me, that's pretty clear. So that is not an apology, according to my study of the English language over the years.

My point is that any justification Romney sees (however thin the connection) for attacking Obama politically is an opportunity he's going to take. Even if it is a stretch, if there is even the slightest chance that these statements are going to hurt Obama politically, his advisers are going to tell him to run with it. Anything can be justified or spun to fit the needs of the situation, and both sides do it day in and day out.

Imagine this. I have a dog that barks. It keeps my neighbor up at night. He comes onto my property and shoots the dog dead. I come out, AK in hand, and confront him. I tell him that while I do not agree with my dog keeping him up at night, his violent reaction to that circumstance cannot be allowed. He touches the gun that he used to kill the dog and I shoot him 20 times. As those sucking chest wounds kill him, he can (mistakenly) believe that I apologized to him for the dog barking... if he wants to. But just as those who committed this act will likely face a bloody end, he too would be dead. So if it makes him feel better, thinking that he got an apology before he shuts his eyes for the last time, that's fine. It didn't happen, but whatever gets him through to the next life. :dunno:

So you're saying that the US Embassy is like a barking dog that is keeping radical Islamists up at night? And then you're acting like we are actually going to do something to rectify the fact that they "killed our dog?" I don't really understand your metaphor here?

 

[PlumpRump]

Do you have a problem with any of these websites?

Boston Globe
http://www.boston.com/news/politics...cts-attacks/YvlBS2cDH8EoiC02ic8GXK/story.html

WaPo
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...94acd8-fd32-11e1-98c6-ec0a0a93f8eb_story.html

AP
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap...FGCu2A?docId=7bef9ab9585d4d7b87f7b8e171a9645a

All of those news outlets have a leftist bias, yes. But, you're not seeing my point. Justified or not, Romney (and Obama given the chance) are going to jump all over each other for any weakness, flaw, misstep in judgement or oratory gaffe, real or perceived. Its political capital, and will not be passed up on by either side.

Of course the U.S doesn't besmirch other people's religion, we believe in tolerance. That's what makes us the U.S! And I find it funny how you gloss over the fact that after that sentence she says "There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind."

Unless they happen to be Christians, of course.

And look at the statement again. I didn't "gloss over" anything, that was the first piece of the quote that I addressed.

 

[Straight Shooter]

My point is that any justification Romney sees (however thin the connection) for attacking Obama politically is an opportunity he's going to take. Even if it is a stretch, if there is even the slightest chance that these statements are going to hurt Obama politically, his advisers are going to tell him to run with it. Anything can be justified or spun to fit the needs of the situation.



So you're saying that the US Embassy is like a barking dog that is keeping radical Islamists up at night? And then you're acting like we are actually going to do something to rectify the fact that they "killed our dog?" I don't really understand your metaphor here?

Look my problem with this is that we're forgetting that four Americans died. Earlier you said that both campaigns politicized each others treatment of dogs. I'm sorry but there is no comparing that to what happened in Benghazi, four people died! This isn't just another foreign policy story.

 

[Johan]

All of those news outlets have a leftist bias, yes.

You say they've got leftist bias, some would say, they aren't biased at all.
And some other medias would seem not biased to you buy other people would call 'em rightist biased...

Unless they happen to be Christians, of course.

Christians victimising themselves always seems funny to me, considering all the evil they've been doing for about 2000 years : crusades, inquisition, wars of religion, forced conversions, etc...

 

[PlumpRump]

Look my problem with this is that we're forgetting that four Americans died. Earlier you said that both campaigns politicized each others treatment of dogs. I'm sorry but there is no comparing that to what happened in Benghazi, four people died! This isn't just another foreign policy story.

I both understand and, believe it or not, agree with you. Its a tragedy, and the way it is currently being handled (i.e. a "he said/she said contest") is simply deplorable. Two of the ex-seals who were killed in the attacks lived right up the road from me, and there has been a significant outpouring of community support for their loved ones, and it breaks my heart, it really does. I understand the significance and sheer sadness of this moment, and personally don't see it as a good opportunity to throw political jabs.

Having said that, my point is that this is what American politics, especially in an electoral cycle, boils down to anymore. Its political opportunism, and its just a fact of political life for Americans. Any chance a candidate sees to take a shot at his/her opponent, they are going to take it, plain and simple. Its been done on both sides of the aisle, and will continue to happen for the foreseeable future. Its a disgusting fact of electoral politics in the US, and everyone, right, left, etc. etc. etc... is participating.

 

[meesterperfect]

Problem is the US are actualy facing a culture who's very touchy when it comes to its religion.
So what should Obam have said :
-Shut up you bastards or we'll bomb your ass. This guy who made a movie insulting your Prophet and your shit religion was right and our nation will support him.
OR
-Ok, calm down guys, I know you're feeling insulted by this crap movie but you got know that it doesn't reflect the opinion of ou entire nation about your religion. We respect it, as we respect all religions.
You may think the 2nd sentence would make the US look weak. Buy you gotta know that the President must be all what he can do to protct the US citizen living outside the US. And his speech must also tell the american muslim citizens that they are still considered as good ameican citizens as christians, jews, buddhists, or whatever US citizens.

Romney's been politicizing this since he's very first reaction

Oh boo hoo for those poor muslims.
the ones who mutilate their women and have sex with children.
The ones who are attacking us and killing innocent people because they don't believe in the same invisible man as them.

you are dead wrong Johan. it is time to show them no respect in both Europe and the US.

 

[Rey C.]

My point is that any justification Romney sees (however thin the connection) for attacking Obama politically is an opportunity he's going to take. Even if it is a stretch, if there is even the slightest chance that these statements are going to hurt Obama politically, his advisers are going to tell him to run with it. Anything can be justified or spun to fit the needs of the situation, and both sides do it day in and day out.

I guess it comes down to how dumb the candidate thinks the American people are. We typically do not like it when a candidate is this obvious in trying to score political points when there are coffins arriving at an Air Force base with dead Americans inside them. The only people who seem to be on Romney's jock over the way he handled this are the ones who were already set to vote for him, or those who dislike Obama more than a cold winter day. Romney already had those votes. The battle for votes is over those people in the solid center who live in purple states. And based on what I've read so far, Romney has actually hurt himself with those people. So morality or good taste aside, even politically, it doesn't seem that this was a good move on Romney's part.

So you're saying that the US Embassy is like a barking dog that is keeping radical Islamists up at night? And then you're acting like we are actually going to do something to rectify the fact that they "killed our dog?" I don't really understand your metaphor here?

I don't pretend that my analogies always play out or make total sense. But what I'm saying is, the Islamists may see the embassy or the presence of Americans after this film like barking dogs. That may be the way they see it. But whatever their gripe is, they didn't get an apology. Clinton simply said that we don't condone inflammatory films or bigoted film makers. IMO, it is a gigantic reach to (mis)interpret what she said as any sort of apology.

And then you're acting like we are actually going to do something to rectify the fact that they "killed our dog?"

Hmm, I can't say for sure. So let's ask Osama bin Laden what he thinks. Oh, that's right, we can't. Cause he got shot in the face and now he's fish food. Let's put it this way, I wouldn't want any of the people who were behind this attack walking within 100 yards of my house. I'm not totally sure just how accurate those drones are.

 

[Straight Shooter]

I both understand and, believe it or not, agree with you. Its a tragedy, and the way it is currently being handled (i.e. a "he said/she said contest") is simply deplorable. Two of the ex-seals who were killed in the attacks lived right up the road from me, and there has been a significant outpouring of community support for their loved ones, and it breaks my heart, it really does. I understand the significance and sheer sadness of this moment, and personally don't see it as a good opportunity to throw political jabs.

Having said that, my point is that this is what American politics, especially in an electoral cycle, boils down to anymore. Its political opportunism, and its just a fact of political life for Americans. Any chance a candidate sees to take a shot at his/her opponent, they are going to take it, plain and simple. Its been done on both sides of the aisle, and will continue to happen for the foreseeable future. Its a disgusting fact of electoral politics in the US, and everyone, right, left, etc. etc. etc... is participating.

I wholeheartedly agree but I think there are boundaries, apparently you think otherwise. Our embassies are attacked and Romney's first instinct is to issue a statement attacking the president? Four Americans are killed, one of which is our ambassador to Libya, and your first instinct is not to call for the justice but to score political points for yourself? Romney’s rushed statement Tuesday night calling the Obama administration’s response to the violence “disgraceful” was a new low in a campaign already scraping bottom. Domestic affairs differs from international affairs in that when a crisis arises, the U.S comes together and speaks with one voice. In times like this you put patriotism ahead of politics. Think back to the Aurora shooting when both Obama and Romney came together and decided to suspend ads in Colorado, both decided that it was proper to put politics on the back burner. In his speech the day after the shootings, Romney said "Ann and I join the president and first lady and all Americans in offering our deepest condolences for those who's lives were shattered in a few moments." That was the right thing to say and the same should have been said in regards to the deaths of these four Americans

 

[PlumpRump]

I wholeheartedly agree but I think there are boundaries, apparently you think otherwise. Our embassies are attacked and Romney's first instinct is to issue a statement attacking the president? Four Americans are killed, one of which is our ambassador to Libya, and your first instinct is not to call for the justice but to score political points for yourself? Romney’s rushed statement Tuesday night calling the Obama administration’s response to the violence “disgraceful” was a new low in a campaign already scraping bottom. Domestic affairs differs from international affairs in that when a crisis arises, the U.S comes together and speaks with one voice. In times like this you put patriotism ahead of politics. Think back to the Aurora shooting when both Obama and Romney came together and decided to suspend ads in Colorado, both decided that it was proper to put politics on the back burner. In his speech the day after the shootings, Romney said "Ann and I join the president and first lady and all Americans in offering our deepest condolences for those who's lives were shattered in a few moments." That was the right thing to say and the same should have been said in regards to the deaths of these four Americans

I think there should be boundaries, but I realize that, in reality, there aren't. Again, not agreeing or disagreeing with any of the tactics, but its just a reality. Pleasantries have long been gone out the window. This is an example to two people fighting over 1 very important job, and to think either side wouldn't do anything in their power to discredit the opposition and ultimately win that job is just a narrow way of seeing things. Realize that "job acquisition" is prioritized over all else in these campaigns, and nothing will be left unsaid that has a potential for political harm to one's opponent. I don't necessarily like that it is this way, I feel we get too far off the issues, and convolute the electoral process by filling up the rags and news feeds with utter nonsense, but nonetheless, electoral politics is more an exercise in mud slinging and name calling, and less of an actual statement as to why we should give the job to person A or person B.

 

[bobjustbob]

Christians victimising themselves always seems funny to me, considering all the evil they've been doing for about 2000 years : crusades, inquisition, wars of religion, forced conversions, etc...

Johan let's stay with what happened this week not 1000 years ago.

 

[Will E Worm]

Johan let's stay with what happened this week not 1000 years ago.

We will try to do that when we can.

The Crusades and the Inquisition were not Christian.

They were perpetrated by Catholicism.

 

[mikexmoran]

I don't think Romney and Obama will agree not to talk about the other one on current issues. It isn't like Obama can't defend himself well and doesn't.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/12/obama-romney-libya_n_1878761.html

 

[lurkingdirk]

We will try to do that when we can.

The Crusades and the Inquisition were not Christian.

They were perpetrated by Catholicism.

Catholics believe the teachings of Christ, which you don't.

 

[meesterperfect]

I don't think Romney and Obama will agree not to talk about the other one on current issues. It isn't like Obama can't defend himself well and doesn't.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/12/obama-romney-libya_n_1878761.html

Oh yes, he can defend himself well when he has a rehearsed speech with a teleprompter......or being interviewed by a "journalist" of his choosing.
And what is it with you people and the huffingandpuffington post? It's a totally biased rag.

 

[xfire]

A Justified or not, Romney (and Obama given the chance) are going to jump all over each other for any weakness, flaw, misstep in judgement or oratory gaffe, real or perceived. Its political capital, and will not be passed up on by either side.

You just illustrated why I won't budge for a partisan hack like you. I can't stand you fucking lying opportunist pricks. Not everyone engages in that kind of slander and mudslinging. Others take great glee out of it and that's a lot of the problem with the politics in this country.

 

[Straight Shooter]

Oh yes, he can defend himself well when he has a rehearsed speech with a teleprompter......or being interviewed by a "journalist" of his choosing.
And what is it with you people and the huffingandpuffington post? It's a totally biased rag.

Do you know the difference between a news report and an opinion piece? That article was a news report, there is no bias in it. It just gives a detailed report of what happened, in this case Obama's response to Romney's criticism.

 

[Will E Worm]

Catholics believe the teachings of Christ, which you don't.

Not at all.

That's why they changed the Ten Commandments so they could worship idols.

 

[lurkingdirk]

Not at all.

That's why they changed the Ten Commandments so they could worship idols.

They didn't change the Ten Commandments, nor do they worship idols. That practice was abolished centuries ago. You don't understand what icons are, nor what they are used for, nor the very scriptural, spiritual function they can serve. What a stupid thing to say.

 

[Will E Worm]

They didn't change the Ten Commandments, nor do they worship idols. That practice was abolished centuries ago. You don't understand what icons are, nor what they are used for, nor the very scriptural, spiritual function they can serve. What a stupid thing to say.

They sure did.


The Roman Catholic "Church" takes away one of God's Ten Commandments Link