Associated Press
Romney and his campaign team linked arms and screwed up together.
Towards the end of Mitt Romney's press event yesterday on developments in Libya and Egypt, a reporter asked the Republican whether he would have issued a false and accusatory statement, during a crisis, if he'd realized four Americans were being killed.
"I'm not going to take hypotheticals about what would have been known what and so forth," he said. "I -- we responded last night to the events that happened in Egypt."
Now, part of this is plainly untrue -- the response also reflected the developments in Libya -- but the "I - we" line stood out for me. Romney's first instinct was to take ownership of the scurrilous attack, but his second instinct was to broaden responsibility -- he and his team said this.
Any chance some random staffer made a late-night screw-up, issuing an offensive statement before the facts were in? Apparently not -- the New York Times published this fascinating piece late yesterday.
[O]n Tuesday evening, Mr. Romney, according to his staff, signed off on a blunt attack on a statement issued early in the day -- before the first protests had happened -- by the American Embassy in Cairo. [...]
And as an adviser to the campaign who worked in the George W. Bush administration said on Wednesday, Mr. Romney's accusation that Mr. Obama had invited the attacks because he had weakened America looked like "he had forgotten the first rule in a crisis: don't start talking before you understand what's happening."
The statement that seemed to backfire on Mr. Romney was a team effort, his aides said, written by a group of aides who focus on policy, another that focuses on political strategy and another on communications. Mr. Romney himself signed off on it, they said.
One of Romney's "senior advisers" told the Times they'd worked on a narrative -- Obama's foreign policy is "weak," all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding -- and the team "felt this was a situation that met our critique."
In other words, Romney and his aides had a line of attack, they thought events abroad reinforced their talking points, so they jumped -- like lemmings off a cliff -- before they had any idea what they were talking about. This wasn't some low-level staffer who screwed up after the senior staff had gone to bed; this was the candidate and his advisors linking arms and failing together.
This is no small revelation. Indeed, it's speaks directly to Romney and his team's ability to lead.
James Fallows noted yesterday this was, to a real extent, Romney's "3 a.m. phone call" -- a test to see how he and the most trusted members of his team perform when there's a crisis. And not just any crisis, but a foreign crisis in which Americans are being killed abroad.
Romney has no practical experience in national security, military policy, or foreign affairs at all, so it's all the more important for him to use opportunities like these to show he's capable of being presidential.
And with less than eight weeks to go before Election Day, Romney blew it. Americans got a good look at how the former one-term governor responds when the heat is on, and we got to see him and his team fail.
Now, it's worth noting that the New York Times article cited above has since been edited, without explanation, but the piece originally included specific quotes from senior members of the Romney team, which warrant serious attention.
Leave a Comment:
There are certain instances when presidential candidates seeking to be commander in chief are given tests of their qualifications and their mettle. Voters are often given chances to see if a challenger really has what it takes to lead the free world. Mitt Romney flunked his test, putting American lives at risk and endangering national security in the process. Romney and the GOP could only think of political advantage and bashing the president at a time of great danger for the men and women so bravely serving this nation. Romney is a joke, a man with no clue how to properly act in sober and serious times. He is not qualified for the job. - principled progressive
I think it was Michelle Obama that said something like "being in the White House reveals the character of the individual". Mitt may be a character, but he's shown over and over and over again that he has NO character.
Michelle Obama said in her speech at the DNC convention: "being president doesn't change who you are; it reveals who you are.".
Luckily, we're already seeing who Mittens is and it should scare the bejezus out of the moderates in the GOP and independents.
I just listened to Romney's speech in VA today. He mentioned in the beginning (after a blah...blah...about a promise to get the woman who introduced him a job if/when he gets elected) about the victims of the tragedy in Libya and extend his sympathy for the family, then the crowd started to chant "USA...USA..." and keep chanting even as he started to speak again.
All good thus far...but then Romney throw what I thought was another character indication that I just found totally despicable, he said jokingly (I wish I have the script to quote) something like : "I would offer a moment of silence, but apparently there is a gentleman over there who doesn't want to be silenced...anyway, moving on..." and he move on to his campaign speech without carrying it through or any mentioned about it anymore.
I was standing in front of my TV in awe...I mean (at least for me) a moment of silence is something you do out of respect to some event...the very least he can do is carry the moment of silence through. The fact that he throw a joke giving an excuse of not carrying it through because some guy can't stop chanting "USA...USA..." just blow my mind. He can't tell one guy in his audience to shut up out of respect to the victims and their family in a moment like this and he wants to be the President of this country? And what is the point of joking about it? Just like the giggling over the bullying he did years ago, I think it really reveals the kind of person he really is...even before he becomes President.
This is no small revelation. Indeed, it speaks directly to Romney and his team's ability to think.
Missing from the transcript:
"Hey! Is that thing on? You're not recording this, are you?"
One thing still missing from all I've heard from Romney- any condemnation at all for the patently and blatantly offensive movie that started the whole thing. Both the President and Ms Clinton mentioned our first amendment, but also both said that media like this is not what America stands for.
Somebody needs to ask Mr. Romney what >he< thinks of the movie.
Otherwise yeah, Romney failed his '3am' call.
That is because Romney was infuriated by the condemnation of the film implied in the Cairo statement.
That's what brought him out of his chair in an absolute rage: defense of Christian fanaticism and anti-Islamic propaganda. He was ANGRY that anyone dare to criticize anything Christian. And he did not back down, claiming '1st amendment rights' FOR THIS FILM.
What we saw yesterday was a fanatic pretending to be a moderate. Chilling.
Yet again a dead-on comment by jj
Romney has made himself a creature of wingutopia, where the belief is that criticizing something a conservative says, no matter how offensive, is an attack on free speech. (However, telling the critic to shut up isn't.)
Yeah, about that movie: it looks like a deliberate provocation by a shadowy figure whom no one claims to know or have seen. Someone says he's Israeli; the Israelis deny having any citizen of that name. Someone else hammers on the claim that he's Jewish; no one really knows what he is or what his real name is. An actress in the movie claims she thought the film was about something else entirely; the offensive remarks have been obviously, and crudely, dubbed in. No one is even sure that there is an actual movie for which this is reputedly the "trailer." Is this some attempt to provoke an international incident and blame it on otherwise uninvolved parties?
Anyone who has ever read a Le Carre novel can see this whole deal is an Israeli false flag disinformation campaign - Netanyahu's "fall surprise." The fact that stories of who did the movie are all over the place are the perfect giveaway.
Google "the Lavon Affair."
The fact this Administration is in a reactionary position and caught flat footed on this possible explosive situation that many others have predicted implies an earlier point that President Obama may have done better to attend more than 50% of the National Security briefings.
But for gosh sakes, let's blame the words of the Republicans.
My question to President Obama: Do you believe the first amendment of the United States applies or is it more important not to offend?
I assume that the FromDownHere you're speaking from is your rectum.
Once again, right wing zealots have created a mess that Democrats have to clean up. The filmaker, that oh-so-brave perpetrator, goes into hiding, protected by my tax dollars.
Instead of hiding like a coward behind his "first amendment rights", why isn't he joining up so he can kill some A-rabs?
I think we've lived this before. The Danish Cartoon controversy in 2005, and Pastor Terry Jones's Quran burning stunt in 2010 and i can go back to the late Ayatollah Khomeini's notorious edict against Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses in 1989. Anybody who has a cue of familiarity with the Muslim world knows that sacrilege and blasphemy are not understood as acts of free speech, political expression, or artistic creativity.there are bright red lines that promise public panic and guarantee violence. So, as history repeats itself, the only thing ludicrous is the incessant bullheadedness of both the West's commitment to "free speech" and the Muslim world's rush to violence, the irony of which is lost upon both of them.On our part,we've got to understand that Free speech comes with some modicum of responsibility.We can not force our ways unto them and vice versa.If we i.e the west consider ourselves "civilized",i think we have to behave as such.Rights come with responsibility.
lets assume that Romney is being accused falsely and that he got all the information after the Libyan attack and that he was right in critiquing the Obama administration. Romney's statement, makes no mention of condolences for the family of the (as far as he knew at the time) one American who had been killed.Does that sound Presidential?
FromDownHere, you're really going with "caught flat footed?"
Why stop your mind with a cliche instead of looking keenly into the complex world of foreign policy? Your query comes off a bit smarmy specifically because of its sophistry.
I do believe it is you my friend who is offended! -Kevo
the first amendment says you have a right to speak . it doesn't say you get to speak without consequence or without thought. you can't yell fire in a crowded theater and just because you can make a film that denounces someone else's religion doesn't mean the country that gives you the right to do so shouldn't let people likely to be offended know that the individual right isn't the view of the entire country.
romney, and it seems, you, need to be careful about touting rights without consideration that those rights have a value attached to them. otherwise, i could call your wife or child or mother all kinds of names and make all kinds of videos about them then hide behind my first amendment rights.
the fact the embassy put out a statement six hours before shows they did see it coming and tried to stop it. romney had to know that and decided to put out a false and inflammatory statement anyway. one that implies it doesn't matter what an american says they can insult you and your religion because we have a first amendment.
worse than being flat footed this was flat foot in mouth and it was done on purpose. just because someone knows how to make money doesn't mean they know how to make other kinds of decisions. of this, we have daily proof.
but the error, that Romney made a comment without knowing all the facts- Obama is not the kind of person who is going to announce what he is goig to the world, today you are going to die, he does it quietly and then tells you the punishment is done. he does this to prevent war and any further deaths of innocent people. The video that was posted on You TUBE by an American, who tried to start a war in the middle east, is an Republican and by admission
The question is impertinent. The First Amendment gives you the right to be an a-hole in print (or on film, or in the alternative medium of your choice). It does NOT prevent others from calling you out on your a-holery (that's free speech, too), nor does it prevent any government representative from disavowing your a-holery, especially when said a-holery creates conditions that threaten American lives. Note that there has been no suppression of speech here; the government has simply stated, "this a-hole does not speak for us."
Um, you know that claim about Obama missing the Presidential Daily Brief is nonsense, right?
Formerly apolitical - Look a couple days back on this blog, it talks about President Obama missing 50% of the National Security briefings and choosing to read the briefs instead. MSNBC and TRMS probably wouldn't appreciate you referring to their reporting as "nonsense".
I'm with everyone to the fact that what this person has produced with their video is total B.S. Allot of horrible things get published every single day. Do we as a country defend that right unequivocally?
The protests in these foreign countries are not new. The Embassies not being in a better defense mode shows a lack of concern and attention on the part of our government.
And yes, I do believe Governor Romney should have kept his mouth shut. You have to give an acting Administration time to respond.
Some though would say 16 hours later is a bit extreme. Our Chief Fundraiser was probably a little distracted.
Who are the "some" here? I think you're projecting yourself onto other people.
Why did the president wait so long? Is it because it took that long to get information or for some other reason? You're acting like you can set an arbitrary meter- in this case the time in which the president spoke- and from that judge that the president had his thumb up his hiny. But this meter is completely ludicrous. We STILL aren't sure what happened that prompted the assault in Libya. We believe that it was an opportunist group either using the current protests as cover or starting the protests so that they could use it as a distraction. But we don't know 100% what happened. But we're supposed to be making snap judgements and screaming our heads off anyways? You do realize how reactionary and immature this is, yes???
People on the internet love issuing their opinions about issues without ever stopping to consider that there may be more information out there than what they are being given. Like, for instance, I read an article in which a teacher was fired for revealing to her 2nd grade class that Santa Clause isn't real. Everyone was so willing to hang this teacher by her words screaming how dare she! how dare she ruin in the innocence of our children! Then it was found out later that the child had directly asked her if Santa Clause was real or not and she felt it was unjustified to lie to the child. But of course that piece of information wasn't in the previous article that everyone felt so inclined to judge by. Their reaction was immediate and later found to be entirely stupid given the context. But now some are saying we should go ahead and make these kind've brash statements because, ya know, gotta make sure our emotions are the only guiding principle in life.
How in the hell did you construe the statement given by the US Embassy as not unequivocally upholding our right to free speech? The statement specifically said we uphold the right to free speech, but that we do not condone people using that right to mock religion.
Lastly how is the administration in a reactionary position? What do defense briefings have anything to do with this situation? How was the administration caught flat footed?
You do realize in making this initial accusation you've now had to back-peddle slightly in the span of a few posts. Perhaps this is evidence of why you should think six seconds before you speak out.
Read the statement issued by the embassy in Cairo. It condemns those who "abuse the universal right of free speech." In what way is that a failure to uphold the first amendment?
It always baffles me how people assume anyone that doesn't agree with the running of government is an endorsement to the other side. Truth is, if this exact situation happened between then President Bush and then candidate Obama you would be the first to dump on Bush like stink on a cow pie. The difference between you and me is I would also.
The more people that realize the opposition between the Republicans and the Democrats is a manufactured civil dispute created to divert smart people's attention from the real opposition: The people and the government, the better off we will all be. This blind loyalty to any actions or politician with an "R" or a "D" behind their name only serves the powers that be, which they are all the same. Actions of the government are not dictated by the good or safety of the people but by how a politician will look in the public eye and how best they can keep their job or hold a higher office.
My point is this story of how horrible Romney is to make a statement before the President could was used as a cover to hide the, at best, poor handling of this possibly escillating situation. The last thing I want to see in a situation like this is our President (either Dem. or Rep.) doing as little as possible, passing it off to the State department, then high-tailing it out of D.C. to "Vegas Baby" to collect his campaign contributions on the taxpayer dime. It's absolutely disturbing.
Who do you want to answer that 2am phone call?
Why is everyone so hung up on the memo that was released and the reaction to it. The issue here is that Romey disrespected the death of four Americans by trying to turn into a political plus for his campaign.
Truth is, if this exact situation happened...
See how "truth" is idle speculation?
To whom is this in reference to? Most of the posters did not make this accusation so who are you arguing this to?
How horrifically arrogant and presumptuous of you. I also enjoy the fact that you are postulating a hypothetical and then using that hypothetical as evidence of fact. Hypotheticals are not fact. I do NOT, for the life of me, understand this phenomenon. You can postulate that you believe this is how people would react, but you cannot assert that this is how people react. You then move on to assume that everyone will react the way that you say, but you are mr/mrs holier-than-thou. So if I postulate the hypothetical back that you would not be outraged I am quite sure you will have no problem with this reasoning? I think you need to re-evaluate this statement and come down from your high horse. I for one can assert that I'd be equally annoyed if the Democrat had reacted the same way as the Republican. But since you assume you know everything about me and other bloggers here please do tell us what our favorite color is???
.....OK first and foremost no, there are substantive policy differences between the parties. Do the parties have similarities? Yes. But you cannot take the absolutist position. You cannot assume that because they have some things in common that this therefore means that they have all things in common. The two are not the same. People do care about differences in issues like gay marriage, abortion, tax policy, etc. While these issues may not be as diverse as you and I would like them to be (or as diverse as they need to be) they are still diverse. It is a fallacy to state that the parties are identical. Secondly we are the government. The people of this country are their government. This is a false dichotomy that you are presenting. You and I live in a constitutional republic that is ran via democratic rule. That means that we make up the political power structure. If you don't like your government and your laws then you change them. This is one of the only countries in the world where that actually is true. Are you running for office? Are you out volunteering? Are you out getting people registered to vote? Helping them get IDs? Are you actively contacting your US Congressional representative? Are you actively petitioning your local government? If you answered no to all these questions then you do not get to bitch that the government does things that you don't agree with. You ARE your government and when you take the attitude that it's about government versus the people you then facilitate further the idea that nothing can be changed and that people have no power over themselves. You are then allowing for more people to excuse their inactivity and you in effect breed the exact same atmosphere you're railing against.
Actions of the government are often dictated by the good and safety of the public. The government is not a monolithic entity- it is comprised of many people who work towards the goal of protecting and serving their community. I have acknowledged here that I am an animator, but I am also a reservist in my county sheriff's department and I have to tell you this callous attitude that YOU the spoiled rotten US citizen has is the most obnoxious. Your US military, your police, your firefighters, your teachers- that IS your government. And they work their ass off to protect you, to keep you safe, and to provide you with the services that you demand from them. There are people who spend every second of the day making sure that YOU have what you need so that you can sit here on the internet insulting how lazy and spoiled rotten government workers are. The fact of the matter is you don't deserve the hard work these people put into effort and you especially don't when you act like an entitled little brat who gets to whine that the uniforms aren't shiny enough or that the service wasn't 100% good it was only 90%. F you. If you don't like the people who are in office then get off your lazy ass and petition your government and if that doesn't work then run for office and stop acting like you're some prisoner within your own democracy. Democracy begins and ends with YOU.
What the hell are you talking about? How did the Obama Administration "poorly handle" the possibly escalating situation. You do realize how utterly illogical that statement is, yes? If you state that a situation could become bad you are, again, postulating a hypothetical. Which means that you have to hypothesize how to deal with that situation. Hence the embassy statement. But you derided the embassy statement as to denouncing our American principles despite it's attempt to de-escalate. So which is it? Should we attempt de-escalation to make a situation better or should we defend racist and bigoted videos that start riots in other countries so that the people in those countries will be even more pissed off and even more inclined to insurrection??? This doesn't make any sense. What would Obama have done? What was he supposed to do in your mind? Bomb the country? Preemptively send troops in to prevent a riot? Usurp the authority of the locals? Hm??
How is he doing as little as possible? How do you even come to this conclusion? So you know everything the US President is doing right now, right this second? I would not describe a pre-planned campaign event that has been scheduled weeks in advance as "high-tailing it." That makes me wonder: if I tell you I'm giving birth 9 months from now will I be "high-tailing it" to the hospital when I suddenly am not home to cook you dinner? I mean this is a ludicrous standard for you to set. And you're insisting that it's a non-partisan standard? Really???
Why are so many of you taking the drivel of a moron born with his head up his ass like you're Roger Rabbit and he just did "shave and a haircut - two bits"?
Still wonder what the President and his Administration did wrong?
Watch the news
Told you so
I wish just one of the legion of trolls here criticizing Obama's handling of the "Arab Spring" in the Middle East and North Africa would put on his leader of the free world hat and explain what he would have done differently.
Come on, Mr. President for a day, what would you have done?
Then there's this apology thing. Nobody's actually come up with the quote from Obama. And see, there's also this thing called diplomacy. It works by not only forcefully expressing to other nations your national desires and interests, but also demonstrating an understanding of other nations' desires and interests. Then you negotiate. Or you could just bomb 'em.
"...a reporter asked the Republican whether he would have issued a false and accusatory statement, during a crisis, if he'd realized four Americans were being killed.
"I'm not going to take hypotheticals about what would have been known what and so forth,""
"...I would have issued a false and accusatory statement no matter what!"
After November 6th, the only human beings on earth who will be able to stand to be in Romney's presence will be those who want his money.
How's that different than now?
Right here, right now: Bugs Bunny would have a heyday with these Romneyites!
With each passing day Team Romney takes us a little further down that road of Looney Toons adventures.
Ahh, What's up Mitt? -Kevo
As Daffy Duck would say,"Mitt, you're dethpicable!"
Man I sure want to jump in on this but dang it how can you follow such a great line as -When failure is a team effort
That is a great line (Benen is a very talented political commentator)!
Still, I'm not sure which is more alarming - that this mess was the act of "Cowboy Willard" or that it may have been the collective misjudgment of the entire "Team Rawmoney"...
Vulture/Voucher 2012
Proving Two Rights DO Make a Wrong!
;-)
It's important not to put too much weight on the quotes that the NY Times has elided from the original report. I don't know why the Times took them out, but it seems at least conceivable that they discovered the sourcing was insufficient. When presented with something that confirms your pre-existing narrative, only a fool jumps in and cites a thing before knowing the whole story.
You know, like a certain ex-governor of Massachusetts.
And of course, whatever the article says about what might have happened in the heat of the moment the night before, he double downed on it the next day. He is actually stupid enough to think he is winning this argument and he has made it clear that he has no intention of turning back now. I expect that today he will be busy digging that whole a bit deeper.
If Americans have any ability to connect dots, this is a clear sign that electing Romney is inviting Iraq Redux. This is the exact kind of thinking that led us to a costly, needless war of choice: (1) we have a preexisting bias toward a particular course of action; (2) we see a set of facts that appears to validate it; (3) we so badly want to validate our actions that we jump immediately without any real investigation, deliberation or strategy.
No f'in way I want this guy and his team in charge of war machinery.
You could not be ore correct
Paul your right. Obama showed it, Playing around in Vegas. While we watch are citizens dragged through out the streets. And of course the Apology. And will give Egypt 2 billion. What if it was your brother being dragged around, would you feel the same. All Americans is our brother and sister. Obama will do nothing, all talk It's election time. Oh sure, we sent two cruise missile ships over there. YEPPER, nothing done. There an ole saying. A LEOPARD WILL NEVER CHANGE HIS SPOTS. That includes Obama. And now they blame the Hurricane for the poor jobs report. More CRACK smoking from MSNBC. Can't wait for the wise crack punk response.
It's so cute when people troll like this. :)
Posting and functional illiteracy....
perhaps 1 million monkeys randomly bashing a keyboard.
And 391 Hemi ... a blockhead -how apropo
https://www.google.com/search?q=392+hemi&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=b7U&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=U9tRUIz6HZSo8AS5r4C4Bw&ved=0CDwQsAQ&biw=1662&bih=807
Hemi, you have said some things in the past worth considering, but today you just made the ignore list. Bye bye. In your next incarnation, make an attempt to communicate your best thoughts. Because those are the ones that have the power to bring others to your way of thinking. This road of accusatory repression of other points of view is a dead end. Just look at the demographic shift. It may make you feel good at the back fence with like minded buddies, but it is a losing path.
You want to be a dead ender? Or do you want to preserve some of the values that you think are worth defending? Your choice.
By your thoughts, and way you express them in writing, 392 hemi, lead me to suspect your intellect is as warm and fuzzy as a hedgehog's hide!
You sound like a character right out of a Sam Bacile production! -Kevo
PLONK!
you have no idea- what is up his sleeve and he is going to make sure this = No one is going to get a penny of America money unless they can proof they can stand on their own an take care of their people = Remember we are part of NATO, and each country is responsible to help - we dont give as much as we use to.
The country of Libya did not attack us, jackass. Libyans were caught on video tape fighting off the attackers and trying to help save the ambassador before he died. They were then shown carrying his body to a local hospital and that hospital- staffed with Libyans- immediately rushed to try to save the man who unfortunately had already died. So now the entire country must be punished for the actions of a handful of idiots?
And you say what if it was your brother being dragged through the streets. If it were my brother I'd want the people responsible to be brought to justice. I would be MORTIFIED if people who had nothing to do with anything were the ones "brought to justice" because that would not BE justice. If you just over-react to every single situation then you will only have piss-poor results to show for it like innocent people being blamed for a crime they didn't commit. That's not going to honor my brother's memory, that's going to shame everything he as an ambassador and a diplomat worked to achieve. And punishing an entire nation for something that it did not do, did not and does not condone, and that the nation itself is actively participating in correcting for is just vindictive and mean. It serves no purpose other than to satisfy our temporary emotions while we wait for the next thing to set us off. And considering that this entire incident started by someone exploiting a situation in which overly emotional people reacted without thinking....I think you probably should issue your apology now
Hemi, obviously you are now getting all of your information from Fox News. And their information always proves to be reliable???
Randy Newman, Political Science, 1972
Republicans are predictably circling the wagons this morning around their ridiculous and shameful presidential candidate. It must never be forgotten that Romney did not understand, and refuses to understand, that the tweet he pounced on was an effort to calm tensions and that Romney is lying when he calls it an apology. The second thing that can't be stressed enough is that while Romney is now an armchair quarterback, he couldn't even successfully handle a softball trip overseas to visit our allies.
June, I totally agree that Romney's team did not understand the first tweet. The other option is that they think we can insult Islam on a regular basis and regularly beat down the protesters with little regard for our people over there.
That's the takeaway I get, too, Tom. When Romney crows that the tweet didn't represent American values what, exactly, is he talking about? That having respect for others' religions is un-American? The way he stood up there as the pretender he is.... and presumed to speak for the country.... just disgraceful.
It's called "Stalnization" - bend yourself into a pretzel if necessary to follow the new party line.
Todays word of the day is Inepttitude
A house of cards, built on lies, manufactured fears and stirred hatreds, neatly packaged by monied interests in Jesus' name amen. Thanks Mitt.
Failure is a team effort and TEAMROMNEY go right on proving it! Fact checkers?? WE don't need know stinkin' fact checkers!! We'll just double down on our lack of knowledge. Just like W., Cheney, Condi, Palin, Priebus, FOX "News", and their dark overlord Darth Limbaugh! All tragically comical, and deadly in their assertions of some overall superiority! When will enough truly be enough to shut down this poor circus?? How much longer will these clowns wallow in the dung of their elephants? Stay tuned....
Actually, Cheney was the smart one in the bunch. He single-handedly maneuvered the US into a long ground war so the Military Industrial Complex could make gobs of money.
Right you are...Haliburton's trollish trollop did MUCH more than just double down!!
Romney's team of aides are hired to advise, some on policy, political stratergy and communication.
They brain storm and "advise" for the best outcome. If Romney had a brain, he'd take the advise and come up with his own brand, his own voice.
That he chose "we" instead of "I" should scare the pants off everyone that planned on voting for him!
That there, folks, is some of that "no excuses", take "responsibility" leadership that Romney promises to bring. His reflex is to push off responsibility onto his underlings.
Did anyone notice when Romney doubled down yesterday, his beady hateful eyes, and his thin lips? I have noticed this at other times in his speeches, especially when challenged. Its like "how dare you question me, when I am the CEO, and rich too boot." Obama can take advantage of this in the debates.
He blinks alot too, a sure sign of lying.
So how does political criticism of the President's actions by Republicans, showing lack of unity in our government in response to these serious anti-american actions abroad make us look stronger?
The Right and Mitt are incredible in this nonsense, actually accusing Obama of having made us look weaker when the accusing statements by them are doing that very thing. These guys are idiots.
The comments Romney made were part of a continuation of his campaign policy of distortion, obfuscation, and lying. He went out BEFORE anybody knew all the facts. He injected a variation of the catch phrase "apologizing for America" before the facts came out. This was a calculated move so that the next day when the violence, and, yes, even killings, came to light, the whole thing was linked with the notion of Obama "apologizing." This was not a mistake, it was definitely a strategy. (A dangerous strategy to play around with American security.)
Romney said, "It's a terrible course for America to stand in apology for our values." When did hate speech become an American value?
"Know"...Augh!!... should be "no" in that last post!!
spellcheck is not going to catch that one. I no how it feels.
I don't mean to be rude to you Mr. Benen, but I find this entire article you wrote to be very annoying. Romney stated that if someone works for you and you are the leader of that group then you carry the responsibility for statements and actions taken by that group. By his own logic that means that Romney is responsible for the statement he gave regardless of who wrote the statement or who said the statement.
But this is even more annoying, Mr. Benen, because why in the hell would it be OK for a person to say "well the words that just came out of my mouth, those words weren't really mine." In what universe are you living where this kind of excuse has ANY logical play whatsoever???? Romney is the one who made this statement. How he came about to making the statement is irrelevant. HE is the one who made it. It wasn't a surrogate that we have to play 6 degrees to Kevin Bacon in order to blame it on Romney, it wasn't someone on his staff, it was ROMNEY himself who said it. And the irony here, of course, is that his attack was using the 6 degrees to Kevin Bacon logic in order to blame the US President.
If you implicitly go along with this idea that in some universe it would be OK to argue that Romney's staffers are to blame for what Romney said out of his OWN mouth then you implicitly agree with the stupidity of the scapegoat argument. Romney is a grown ass man and that means that if he is wrong he needs to own up to it like a grown ass man. He doesn't get to blame other people, he doesn't get to project his mistakes onto other people, and he doesn't get to whine about it. That's part of being an adult. Do not give him any leeway on this.
Yes I understand- you're a liberal and that means your liberal heart wants to give him the benefit of the doubt. But honestly this is not a circumstance meriting the benefit of the doubt.
My take on the article was that not only is Romney incompetent to lead, he has surrounded himself with low-quality advisers. Anyone with a clue about foreign policy would have advised Mitt to shut the hell up while the crisis unfolds.
They obviously put the wrong copy on the teleprompter.
It's amazing to me how often I hear the right wing say that their faith is being attacked; that there is a war on religion in this country. The movie maker, Terry Jones, and all those who are concerned about the spread of Islam around the world need to understand that the right wing intolerance of other faiths is the ultimate hypocrisy and is what drives me (and many others) to push back on their religious encroachment in our government.
As much as I believe we need a strong foreign affairs policy, we also need to have more sensitivity for other faiths. Otherwise we will end up in a war mongering spiral of poking Muslims in the eye, being aghast when they attack us, and then further perpetuating the problem with military involvement.
Let's dial down the anti-Muslim rhetoric so we don't end up creating the very thing we fear the most. The religious right could end up pushing us right off the cliff into a religious holy war.
Spread hate - get hate back
I agree - why would a nation founded on the concept of religious freedom want to evolve into a theocracy that actively rejects all other beliefs? Doing so only puts an even larger target on our backs.