Purple
when Mitt said this

I think it’s a terrible course for America to stand in apology for our values.”

He leaves himself open to misinterpretation by Muslims who are offended by what they know of the nature of the film.
Is he saying that one of the values is defence of films of this nature no matter what they are?
If a reporter had asked him, when he made the statement, the question I said I'd like him asked .... he may have backed out of that interpretation. Or not. But his position would be crystal clear. (I know, that would be rare for Mitt.)
No matter what, his statement brought up American values, at a time when he had no clear idea about anything. And he probably poured oil on the flames because he brought values into the event...

It should be noted that about a dozen Libyans died both defending and rescuing the American staff at the consullate... This is as much an assault upon Libyans as it was an assault on the US...

The situation in Egypt is different, only in that there are no armed terrorists infiltrating and determined to take advantage. I think if there were, the response by the Egyptian military protecting the embassey would probably be more professional than the original Libyan militia. Many who ran because they suppossedly sympatized with the demonstraters position. But it was, eventually, Libyan forces who came to the rescue. in Libya.

As for the film maker, as I sit, CNN is reporting on his identiy as a coptic Christian out to enflame the Muslim world whilst hiding behind a Jewish identity. If that proves true, and I've read much of a similar vein, again I wonder how Mitt feels about the defence of American values - since he's defending the production of the film with his "defence of free speech" (If thats the value he's alluding towards.)

Ricky, the odd thing is that Romney was - as you say - attacking the Embassy condemnation as an 'apology', but he also did make it clear that he disagreed with the film in very similar words.

So he was not defending the film. But it might appear that way if all you saw was his opposition to the statement.

He condemned the film, too, but that was weakened by his other message.

Purple wrote: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.

Yes, how terrible:

America will not tolerate attacks against our citizens and against our embassies. We’ll defend also our constitutional rights of speech, and assembly, and religion. We have confidence in our cause in America. We respect our Constitution. We stand for the principles our constitution protects. We encourage other nations to understand and respect the principles of our constitution, because we recognize that these principles are the ultimate source of freedom for individuals around the world.

Meanwhile, as the Ambassador was missing, Obama slept and then went to Vegas to a fundraiser.

As a result of the President's forward-looking policies in the Middle East, Iran is closing in on nuclear weapons, Israel can't trust us, and our embassies are ablaze.

Well done, Mr. President!

No mention yet of the Egypt is "not an ally" bungle by the President?

I'm so surprised. The only thing more sycophantic than the liberals here is the media in the US.

Are they an ally? Would you say that a country led by a President who was a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, which has just failed to protect your embassy, and which has for years had to be bribed just to not ressurect a war with Israel is an ally?

If Obama is 'too friendly' to Egypt, you pillory him. If he is 'not friendly enough', you pillory him.

Oh, and if you are blaming Obama for the attacks on US (and other western) diplomatic and commercial premises, rather than the people carrying out the attacks, then I despair.

danivon wrote:Are they an ally? Would you say that a country led by a President who was a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, which has just failed to protect your embassy, and which has for years had to be bribed just to not ressurect a war with Israel is an ally?

If Obama is 'too friendly' to Egypt, you pillory him. If he is 'not friendly enough', you pillory him.

Naturally, you err. You've missed the point in your effort to be the Presidential press secretary.

They are our ally. They have been designated as such for many years. Watch the poor State Department official strain not to say the President is wrong while saying he is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mqjj4l9k ... r_embedded

Oh, and if you are blaming Obama for the attacks on US (and other western) diplomatic and commercial premises, rather than the people carrying out the attacks, then I despair.

He is the President. Our embassies and consulates should have been on high alert and highly protected on 9/11. That they weren't is whose fault? Bush?

I'll agree that the Egypt of military dictator Hosni Mubarak was your ally. Billions of dollars were provided to his government in military aid. The military used some of that (if not all) to maintain power. But there has been a revolution since then, and revolutions, even democratoc changes of government, can alter diplomacy.

I don't care what the 'designation' is - the facts on the ground have changed. Whether Obama's words were intentional or not, they more accurately reflect reality than pretensions that the people your money was used to repress are your friends now.

High alert (and I've not seen evidence either way on whether there was a heightened state of alert or not) would not have stopped the demonstrations, and would not have held back a large mass of people (or easily stopped a determined terrorist attack). San'a and subsequent attacks prove that even in a higher state of alert an embassy can be sacked.

The people to blame are those who attacked American facilities and those who incited them to do it. I do wish you (and Romney and Ryan) would stop trying to make everything about Obama.

A couple of interesting things I saw last night. First, a guy from the Washington Post said Navy Seals had recovered writings from Bin Laden indicating that he was very frustrated that we changed our focus from a War on Terror to a war with Al Qaeda, The relevant point here, supported by Bin Laden himself, is that when you make this a war that can be at least onstrued against Islam then it become much tougher. If you make it a war against Al Qaeda or other identifiable terrorist groups, then it become much easier. I don't think Obama gets near enough credit for this change in focus. Romney seems like he would have the not so deft touch of GW. He has not condemned the film, yet. You can defend freedom of speech and still condemn the film. And this no apology stuff sounds so much like GW Bush. There are a billion Muslims in the world and it is not a wise strategy to be insensitive to their religion.

And two of the victims of the attack in Libya were former Navy Seals, so it is not as if there was no security. Maybe inadequate security for the situation but those kinds of things should be determined internally by the State Department.

Freeman, Romney has condemned the film. He just also said that when someone else condemned it, they were apologising, which makes it very hard to understand which of the two positions he really meant.

Thanks for the correction, Danivon. It is hard to keep up with Romney's positions on things...

Right, the Middle East is aflame and it's all because Obama knows what he's doing . . . whatever.

danivon wrote:I'll agree that the Egypt of military dictator Hosni Mubarak was your ally. Billions of dollars were provided to his government in military aid. The military used some of that (if not all) to maintain power. But there has been a revolution since then, and revolutions, even democratoc changes of government, can alter diplomacy.

I don't care what the 'designation' is - the facts on the ground have changed. Whether Obama's words were intentional or not, they more accurately reflect reality than pretensions that the people your money was used to repress are your friends now.

You just can't admit that he made a mistake, can you?

High alert (and I've not seen evidence either way on whether there was a heightened state of alert or not) would not have stopped the demonstrations, and would not have held back a large mass of people (or easily stopped a determined terrorist attack). San'a and subsequent attacks prove that even in a higher state of alert an embassy can be sacked.

How many Americans dead in Yemen?

The people to blame are those who attacked American facilities and those who incited them to do it. I do wish you (and Romney and Ryan) would stop trying to make everything about Obama.

Why don't you pass that on to the protesters? I understand they were chanting his name--a lot like you Redscape Obama Apologists.

freeman2 wrote:Thanks for the correction, Danivon. It is hard to keep up with Romney's positions on things...

Again, what about Obama's position? Who is the President again?

This is what you guys don't think was an apology:

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.

Bow. Scrape. Rinse. Repeat.

That's the Obama foreign policy.

Please highlight where the apology appears in that statement. I can't see the words apologise, sorry, or regret, so clearly it's not explicit.

Doctor Fate wrote:You just can't admit that he made a mistake, can you?

I don't know if he did. Maybe that is not the 'official' line. I was addressing the real question of whether a Morsi-led Egypt is allied to the US.

How many Americans dead in Yemen?

I'm not aware of any. Then again, I'm not aware of the embassy there being subject to the same kind of attack - terrorist missile.

Why don't you pass that on to the protesters? I understand they were chanting his name--a lot like you Redscape Obama Apologists.

I think we all know you use his name as much as anyone, any excuse to demonise him. If a mob of Arabs blame him, does that mean you have to? You normally agree with hardline Muslims do you (apart from on abortion, capital punishment, gay marriage or a few other moral issues, of course)?