Because they've heard bluster over and over.

Make no mistake Iran will not get nuclear weapons.

Make no mistake Assad's days are numbered.

It's a favorite Obamaism.

Well, Assad's days almost certainly are numbered (not that Obama will have had much to do with it), and Iran doesn't have nukes yet.

I don't think even America's most strident critics would argue that you don't walk the walk where threats of vengeance are concerned, quite the reverse in fact. You've already shown sufficient determination to give payback to your enemies by nearly bankrupting the nation to get Bin Laden and topple Saddam. Those who were involved in the attack on the Benghazi consulate will have taken part in full expectation of having to look over their shoulder for the rest of their lives.

Yet, Obama knew, or should have known since his embassy did, that the Cairo office was going to be besieged. What did he do?

Answer: nothing.

When the ambassador in Libya was missing, what did the President do?

Answer: slept.

Assad's days are numbered. So are yours and mine. He could have 6 or 6,000 or more.

Iran will get a nuke--if Obama is being relied upon in any way to stop it.

Well there are lots of questions to be answered regarding the attack in Libya. What is the standard for security for an ambassador in a very volatile location? What role does the ambassador play in directing his security detail? For instance the POTUS is a handle man when it comes to security, is the same true for ambassadors or are they freer to run around on their own if they choose? Also is it contractors or marines for station security, and who does the moving security?

Which statement came from the US Embassy (and caused Romney to react) and which is a published statement by candidate Romney's campaign?

1)

We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.

2)

[We] reject the reported message of the movie. There is no room for religious hatred or intolerance.

How is one an apology and the other not?

One reason the apology meme took hold was some initial confusion about when the embassy issued their statement. It's intent is apparent only when you know the sequence of events. Read THIS.

For seasoned GOP opinions regarding this business, read THIS.

Mitt Romney's sharply-worded attack on President Obama over a pair of deadly riots in Muslim countries last night has backfired badly among foreign policy hands of both parties, who cast it as hasty and off-key, released before the facts were clear at what has become a moment of tragedy. ... broke with a tradition of unity around national tragedies... just trying to score a cheap news cycle hit... an "utter disaster"... a near consensus in Republican foreign policy circles that, whatever the sentiment, Romney faltered badly... Not ready for prime time. ... It wasn't presidential of Romney to go political immediately...

Those are Republicans talking. Romney's ill-considered and hasty 9-11 politicking smacks of electoral desperation. I had hoped that Romney, lacking any substantive foreign policy experience, would at least display maturity, sobriety and common sense in that area. Those would be qualities I could easily enough associate with Romney. In short: business-like. Instead, I see a mindset not unlike that of some posters here - and that's not a compliment.

Purple wrote:Which statement came from the US Embassy (and caused Romney to react) and which is a published statement by candidate Romney's campaign?

1)

We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.

2)

[We] reject the reported message of the movie. There is no room for religious hatred or intolerance.

How is one an apology and the other not?

One reason the apology meme took hold was some initial confusion about when the embassy issued their statement. It's intent is apparent only when you know the sequence of events. Read THIS.

For seasoned GOP opinions regarding this business, read THIS.

Mitt Romney's sharply-worded attack on President Obama over a pair of deadly riots in Muslim countries last night has backfired badly among foreign policy hands of both parties, who cast it as hasty and off-key, released before the facts were clear at what has become a moment of tragedy. ... broke with a tradition of unity around national tragedies... just trying to score a cheap news cycle hit... an "utter disaster"... a near consensus in Republican foreign policy circles that, whatever the sentiment, Romney faltered badly... Not ready for prime time. ... It wasn't presidential of Romney to go political immediately...

Those are Republicans talking. Romney's ill-considered and hasty 9-11 politicking smacks of electoral desperation. I had hoped that Romney, lacking any substantive foreign policy experience, would at least display maturity, sobriety and common sense in that area. Those would be qualities I could easily enough associate with Romney. In short: business-like. Instead, I see a mindset not unlike that of some posters here - and that's not a compliment.

Meh. From your link:

But the third official defended the substance of Romney's words: "Romney's attack is spot-on — disgusting that the first Obama administration impulse was to apologize instead of condemning violent religious intolerance. Obama's gotten a real pass on his intervention in Libya, his failed strategy in Afghanistan, and his lack of leadership in the aftermath of the Arab Spring. By trying to cut it down the middle in his foreign policy, no one knows where or for what Obama or America stands in the world these days."
The Republicans declined to speak for attribution, for fear of being publicly disloyal to their party's nominee

Foreign policy seems to be a bit of a blind spot for both candidates. Obama has made some significant blunders in the last 4 years and only really gotten away with it because he entered office on a tidal wave of global approval due to being seen to mark a clear break with the universally loathed (in international circles at least) Bush administration. He's largely spent all that goodwill now though. Romney seems if anything like he's going to be even worse than Obama, which is saying something. His foreign policy team is full of Bush era retreads and he gives every indication that his policies, such as they are, need to be cleared with Binyamin Netanyahu. I'm still baffled at how he managed to screw up his trip to Britain a couple of months back, that has to be a first for any Presidential contender. Obama treated Gordon Brown like something pungent he just stepped in for two years while Hillary flew into Buenos Aires and practically offered to make us give up the Falklands, but even those two clowns managed to not piss off their hosts when they were in town.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:I was going by the reports I'd seen up to then. It seems they may be wrong about the security personnel who were killed. Still, it is not an 'embassy', there was security (are Marines the only way to guard an embassy/consulate?).

Interesting. You want to harp on what I got wrong, but you couldn't be bothered to make sure you were right?

Well, the question of whether the two men were marines was - until I saw your links - simply based on reports in the media. You were not the only one to refer to the consulate as an 'embassy', and we cross-posteed.

The Embassy is an arm of the State Department, thus it speaks officially for the US in Egypt.

Yes. Of course, if it issues statements that have not been cleared by the State Department, then it may not actually be doing so correctly.

It did "apologize."

Where? I see no apology in the words I have seen. Please supply the text which clearly shows an apology. As Purple has shown, it's almost the same as the wording used by the Romney campaign, at the same time as they attack the Embassy for 'apologising' (now that is hypocrisy).

If not, why even mention the movie--which Hillary did repeatedly today? Why do we have to tell the Muslim world that violence is not an acceptable response to a film? If they have not learned it yet, they won't learn it.

When the statement was first issued, there was a demonstration that was angry and unruly, but not an attack on the embassy. There was a lot of hot air and it was directly about the film. Thus, it would be odd not to address the subject of the complaints of a noisy crowd outside the doors when issuing a statement that is trying to calm things down.

Yes you have freedom of speech, but you also have to accept respopnsibility for what you say. Using it to lie, to incite violence, or to exploit division is wrong, even if it may be legal.

Incite violence? In a foreign country?

What is interesting is that more evidence is coming in about the Mr 'Bacile' who is behind the film. It seems likely that the man behind the identity (claimed to be an 'Israeli American' is actually a Copt. From Egypt. Which would explain the part of the film that is about Muslims and Copts, and perhaps also why the first Arabic translations of the film appears to have arisen in Egypt. It looks like there was a clear attempt to stir things up (after all, why would an Egyptian Christian pretend to be an Israeli Jew when making a film that is designed to insult Islam and Muslims?

Unless you can provide evidence that the US government up to Obama knew, you are offering conjecture with less basis than the guff that started this thread.

Rubbish.

It's 9/11. Recent history suggests terrorists try to strike on "meaningful" days. We had a consulate that was unprotected. So, it's surprising that it was attacked?

You are moving goalposts. Sure, there would likely be a general increase in risk on 11th September, but in the statements and questions you made, you seem to be referring to specific and known threats:

Doctor Fate wrote:Not only did the Egyptian Embassy apologize for an American exercising freedom of speech, they also did this BEFORE the attack. They knew what was coming. What did Obama tell Morsi? He knew about the attack in Egypt. What did he do?

How do you know they 'knew' that an attack was coming on the Egyptian Embassy? What evidence do you have that even if the Embassy did, that Obama also had full knowledge as well? What could he tell Morsi that would make a difference? What could Obama actualy do between finding out about the attack on Cairo's Embassy and the assault in Benghazi?

Again, we see the phenomenon where if anything anywhere in the US government is seen as going wrong, you want to pin the blame on Obama personally and appear to assume that he must have known of, approved of, decided what was happening, despite not actually providing evidence that such information got anywhere near the Oval Office.

The Embassy in San'a was overrun, even though it is heavily guarded (with marines included) and was on high alert. I'm not sure that it is as simple as saying that more protection would have stopped this happening. There was security at Benghazi, but it was not likely to be able to do much given a riot going on, and then what seems to be a clear deliberate attack which was planned to use the general unrest as cover.

Looks like Romney is facing more political fall-out over this than Obama. http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/09/13 ... -protests/

.

What is the standard for security for an ambassador in a very volatile location?

The Secretary of State, and by extension, the Chief of Mission (COM), are responsible for developing and implementing security policies and programs that provide for the protection of all U.S. Government personnel (including accompanying dependents) on official duty abroad. This mission is executed through the Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS).
In addition to SEOs, RSOs depend upon Marine Security Guards, U.S. Navy Seabees, surveillance detection teams, local guards, cleared American guards, local investigators, host government officials, and other DS elements domestically and abroad to provide assistance in combating criminal, intelligence, and terrorist threats against U.S. interests worldwide. These entities play a crucial role in the DS security efforts overseas.

http://www.state.gov/m/ds/about/overview/c9004.htm

Its unlikely that an embassey or consulate would ever have the security, especially the armed might, to withstand an attempt by a large group of armed terrorists armed with heavy weapons.
Embasseys rely upon the cooperation of local governments to defend the embassey from violence.
Even then a determined group of armed combatants can always strike with effect. During Reagans Lebanese adventure terrorists killed dozen of marines in one attack.In iraq the green zone was regularly mortared... Navy warships have suffered from determined terrorists.

Operating consulates and embasseys in volatile countries is a dangerous business, especially for the US. Why should one expect that Ameican Consulates or Embasseys always be immune from hostile actions by determined terrorists? It would be nice if there were some guarantee that specific actions might create an impereable shield but thats just unrealistic.
The only way to ensure no one in an American consulate or embassey is ever the victim of terrorism is to shut them all and stay home. Does that make sense?

I'm going to set aside my earlier comments ridiculing why there were no Marines. I'm still puzzled as to why there wasn't, but this was an intentional 9/11 armed attacked that fortuitously benefited from some typical protests that masked their approach. Being surprised by 20+ guys with machines guns is going to leave a pile of bodies...period. Probably only the Baghdad embassy is truly prepared to repel that kind of assault.

If this is an outright planned terrorist attack than our internal political fodder amounts to little more blaming the victim. It appears two things happened simultaneously, a mob protest and a terrorist attack, they aren't one in the same.

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.

— September 11, 2012
The embassy in Cairo put out a statement after their grounds had been breached,” Romney told reporters on Wednesday. “Protesters were inside the grounds. They reiterated that statement after the breach. I think it’s a terrible course for America to stand in apology for our values.”

source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... _blog.html

I wish someone would ask Romney first, exactly how the first press release was an apology? And does he disagree with its premise that free speech shouldn’t be used to flame religious intolerance?
And second, I wish someone would ask him what values he thought the provocative video represented?
Does he really think the right to free speech expands to include a hateful, dishonest film made entirely for the purpose of inciting violence?

rickyp wrote:Does he really think the right to free speech expands to include a hateful, dishonest film made entirely for the purpose of inciting violence?

Your post made sense right up until this point, then it went over a line. Romney hasn't defended the film; we don't know the film is "dishonest"; we don't know the intent of the filmmaker.

We do know that the filmmaker has been dishonest about their identity. There have been statements that are from people associated with the film that it is designed to provoke. I am not aware of any evidence to support some of the depictions of Muhammed in the film, such as homosexuality (not that there's much evidence about Muhammed outside Koranic and Hadith accounts).

romney was not defending it. But he was attacking someone else's condemnation of it.

Romney: "[We] reject the reported message of the movie. There is no room for religious hatred or intolerance."

Be satisfied with the screw-up Romney really committed - don't accuse him of worse.

The Libyan government has arrested four suspects in the 9/11 attack on the U.S. Embassy that killed four Americans including Ambassador Chris Stevens, vindicating President Obama's declaration on Wednesday that the United States was not going to walk away from a newly liberated Libya because of a terrorist attack.

"Four men are in custody and we are interrogating them because they are suspected of helping instigate the events at the U.S. consulate," Wanis el-Sharef, eastern Libya's deputy interior minister, told Reuters, the first new service to report the arrests.

Other wires services, such as this CBS/AP report, also cast more light on the turbulent attack that unfolded late on Tuesday local time, describing a series of street protests that were inflitrated by orchestrated armed men in the late evening and early morning Wednesday that escalated and led to the deaths and burning of the building. The reports underscoted that Libyan government security forces helped evacuate other Americans and kept looking for the men who were found dead.

The domestic political impact of the Libyan arrests in the U.S. presidential campaign cannot be understated.

Oh, I think it will be understated by Romney.