Romney is toast!

Whirly, you have my permission to bump this thread until November 7th, as well!

From the Washington Post:

Romney owes an apology

By Ruth Marcus, Published: September 13

To a certain extent, no one should be surprised by Mitt Romney’s decision to seize on — actually, make that exploit — the attack on U.S. diplomatic outposts in Egypt and Libya as ammunition in the presidential campaign.

After all, the Republican presidential nominee wrote a book in 2010 premised on, and titled with, the false notion that Barack Obama has been going around the world apologizing for America.

“There are anti-American fires burning all across the globe; President Obama’s words are like kindling to them,” Romney wrote in “No Apology: The Case for American Greatness.”

Romney repeated this falsehood in his acceptance speech in Tampa, claiming that Obama launched his presidency “with an apology tour.”

Oddly enough, Romney’s evidence for Obama’s alleged apologizing is bereft of certain words — like apology, or sorry, or regret. To Romney, apologizing means never actually having to say you’re sorry.

In the speeches that Romney criticized, Obama concedes imperfections and even mistakes in American behavior, but he couples those acknowledgments with critiques of other nations as well.

Thus, in his 2009 Cairo speech, Obama referred to the “tumultuous history” between the United States and Iran, noting that “in the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government.” Then he immediately pivoted to Iran’s “role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians.”

This is more factual recitation of history than craven slobbering, yet to Romney it is part of “the steady stream of criticisms, put-downs and jabs directed at the nation he was elected to represent and defend.”

So when the U.S. Embassy in Cairo released a statement condemning “the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims,” Romney was predisposed to see it through the distorted, if politically convenient, lens of apology.

Facts be damned. The embassy statement was issued Tuesday morning, before the protests started, not to mention before the embassy walls were breached, not to mention before there was a murderous assault on U.S. diplomats in Libya. On Tuesday night, Romney issued his statement describing the administration’s behavior as “disgraceful” and charging that its “first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”

By that point, the Cairo embassy, the State Department spokesman and the secretary of State had all condemned the attacks. “Let me be clear,” Hillary Clinton’s statement said. “There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.”

As irresponsible as Romney’s behavior Tuesday night, even worse was his move to double down at a Wednesday morning news conference, following word of the deaths of the U.S. ambassador and three other American diplomats in Libya. Tuesday night, before the killings were known, was amateurish. Wednesday morning was unconscionable.

“It’s never too early for the United States government to condemn attacks on Americans and to defend our values,” Romney said, apparently believing that the embassy should have been able to foretell the attack before it occurred. In the space of three sentences, he criticized the administration for standing by the embassy statement and accused it of sending “mixed signals” by disavowing it.

The question and answer session was even worse. “Simply put, having an embassy which . . . has been breached and has protesters on its grounds, having violated the sovereignty of the United States, having that embassy reiterate a statement effectively apologizing for the right of free speech is not the right course for an administration,” Romney said.

Leaving aside his flawed timeline — later tweets from the embassy combined criticism of anti-Muslim bigotry with condemnation of the attacks — Romney’s interpretation of what constitutes an apology is once again far off-base.

“We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others,” the original embassy statement said. This formulation reflects a sensitive balancing of competing interests, not an apology for free speech. You can deplore the idiocy of the movie but defend to the death the producer’s right to make it.

To Romney, this amounts to “a disgraceful statement on the part of our administration to apologize for American values.”

There is something disgraceful happening here, but it doesn’t involve a comment by an obscure embassy spokesman. It is Romney’s cynical, dishonest effort to take advantage of this national tragedy for his own political ends.

You might ask, how is Romney's disastrous criticism of the Obama Administration polling with the American people? Politico asked that question and here are their results thus far.

POLLitico

Making a statement

Do you think of Mitt Romney's remarks following the embassy and consulate attacks will help or hurt him?


Help.26%
Hurt.70%
I'm not sure.2%

I will provide an update later on in the day.

Romney gets post-debate bounce in Fla., Ohio, Va

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/...e-fla-ohio-va/

Romney gets post-debate bounce in Fla., Ohio, Va

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/...e-fla-ohio-va/ Originally Posted by Whirlaway

In the event you did not see the other post:

"That being the case you should be willing to take me up on my kind and generous offer of a 5 Benji wager. Just to set the record straight one more time, my 5 Benji's are on Obama winning an electoral college victory and yours are on Romney winning. Is it a bet?"

I definitely agree Obama is the best choice. Capitalism is not working, unfortunately. It works for the small percentage of Americans who are very rich, but we need a government who works for all people, in an objective manner.

I definitely agree Obama is the best choice. Capitalism is not working, unfortunately. It works for the small percentage of Americans who are very rich, but we need a government who works for all people, in an objective manner. Originally Posted by HoustonMilfDebbie

You go Deb!

Double Post

I definitely agree Obama is the best choice. Capitalism is not working, unfortunately. It works for the small percentage of Americans who are very rich, but we need a government who works for all people, in an objective manner. Originally Posted by HoustonMilfDebbie

So for this country to work for all people, not just the very rich what changes in Government would have to be implamented?

Double Post Originally Posted by bigtex

I'll be happy to care for the common good or "people"...that's what the original constitution stands for. Remember?

Washington denied repeated requests from Americans in Libya for more security

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=566848

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=566855

Sorry Debbie but you said that Obama and his ilk will help all people in an objective manner...lets look at GE, Solyndra, Fisker, Klingman, SEIU, AFL-CIO, etc. Obama helps only those who help him and screw the rest (the other 99%). Google anyone of them and see how much they got paid. There is a reason why they call it crony capitalism.


As for the original post...fail. Romney attacked what the embassy said and it was an apology. He did not attack the administration. Of course in the long run the embassy is a spokesman for the administration. So your cut and paste writer had a key point wrong. Wrong enough to call fail on them.

I am self employed, a small business. Why didn't I get a bail out?

I am self employed, a small business. Why didn't I get a bail out? Originally Posted by Blaze

I guess you got fucked.

More dribbling bullshit-blather from the pile of bullshit AKA Assup! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Dipshit of the year.

I suppose I'm takin you away from focusing on the real issue, flossing your tooth!