mozartpc27 wrote:Frankly, the ludicrous use of that statement as some kind of political football, and the attempt to use the statement as evidence of Obama's secret-Muslim-anti-semite agenda, by some of those on the right, should serve as an urgent reminder of the dire need to wipe stupid, violent, short-sighted, imperialistic NeoCon thinking from the face of our political thinking forever, and to salt the earth from whence it came so nothing can ever grow there again.

Romney and ANYONE who takes the "Obama is apologizing!" talking point out of this is so vile, so deceitful, and so disgusting they should have their citizenship stripped.

TenuredVulture wrote:I'm behind the curve on all this, but do the Romney people really think a more aggressive foreign policy (MORE WAR! WAR WITH IRAN! DEFEND ISRAEL!) is really a political winner?

jerseyhoya wrote:

td11 wrote:i think the difference between the articles jerz posted about why all those tweets were a bad idea is much different than what romney is trying to say, which is something like, "the embassy should've just told those angry muslims outside the walls to fuck off, USA! USA!"

imho

The first article was telling them and the rest of the world to eat our taint because we respect freedom of speech in our country unlike what they do in Egypt and Western Europe and if they can't understand that they should go fuck themselves.

imho

pacino wrote:the libya one was likely not even about the video and was just an opportune time for them to pull the trigger on an attack already being planned on the embassy

pacino wrote:evangelical muslims need to get out of the 15th century and get over films and depictions of muhammad. your faith must be #$!&@ if you are threatened by a crappy, dumb film by crazies. guess what? us non-muslims don't have to follow the rules you fundamentalist muslims do. so dont get mad when we dont.

Soren wrote:

pacino wrote:evangelical muslims need to get out of the 15th century and get over films and depictions of muhammad. your faith must be #$!&@ if you are threatened by a crappy, dumb film by crazies. guess what? us non-muslims don't have to follow the rules you fundamentalist muslims do. so dont get mad when we dont.

(some, a minority even) Christians in this country are outraged because we say "happy holidays" instead of "merry Christmas." If that is a war on Religion, imagine how sensitives Muslims in the Middle East feel about people denigrating their Prophet

dajafi wrote:

Soren wrote:

pacino wrote:evangelical muslims need to get out of the 15th century and get over films and depictions of muhammad. your faith must be #$!&@ if you are threatened by a crappy, dumb film by crazies. guess what? us non-muslims don't have to follow the rules you fundamentalist muslims do. so dont get mad when we dont.

(some, a minority even) Christians in this country are outraged because we say "happy holidays" instead of "merry Christmas." If that is a war on Religion, imagine how sensitives Muslims in the Middle East feel about people denigrating their Prophet

True, but to my knowledge they're not burning buildings or killing people who say "happy holidays." (Yet?)

SK790 wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

td11 wrote:i think the difference between the articles jerz posted about why all those tweets were a bad idea is much different than what romney is trying to say, which is something like, "the embassy should've just told those angry muslims outside the walls to fuck off, USA! USA!"

imho

The first article was telling them and the rest of the world to eat our taint because we respect freedom of speech in our country unlike what they do in Egypt and Western Europe and if they can't understand that they should go fuck themselves.

imho

it's a wonder why muslums would have a negative view towards Americans when half of the country's attitude towards the is for them to "lick our taint".

imovho

The fact is that the First Amendment, no matter how embattled, protects a range of expression unthinkable even in Western Europe. Because of that unique position, and because the U.S. seems doomed to play an outsized diplomatic and military role in the tumultuous Muslim world, it behooves the State Department to constantly explain the vast differences between state-sanctioned and legally protected speech in the so-called Land of the Free. If the U.S. government really was in the business of "firmly reject[ing]" private free-speech acts that "hurt the religious beliefs of others" there would be no time left over for doing anything else.

It's really not that hard. The values in that film (or "film") are not our values; our government respects religion, religious expression, and religious pluralism (including and especially that of Muslims, even in the wake of murderous Muslim-led attacks on American soil); and we are not in the business of approving or (for the most part) regulating the private speech of our citizens. To the extent that that message is not sufficient for rioters, the problem is theirs.

President Obama suggested Wednesday that Mitt Romney acted too quickly in responding to the U.S. embassy in Cairo's statement condemning an anti-Islam video.

"There's a broader lesson to be learned here. Governor Romney seems to have a tendency to shoot first and aim later," Obama said in an interview with CBS News's Steve Kroft that was scheduled before four Americans were killed at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

"As president, one of the things I've learned is you can't do that," Obama added. "It's important for you to make sure that the statements that you make are backed up by the facts and that you've thought through the ramifications before you make them."

Asked if Romney's remarks were irresponsible, Obama responded: "I'll let the American people judge that."

In his interview with CBS News -- according to Carney's reading of the president's statements -- Obama defended the embassy's response, saying it was "an an effort to cool the situation down" as protests broke out in Cairo. "It didn’t come from me. It didn’t come from Secretary Clinton. It came from folks on the ground who are potentially in danger. And my tendency is to cut those folks a little bit of slack when they’re in that circumstance rather than try to question their judgment from the comfort of a campaign office."

*** A tricky situation: There’s no question that Mitt Romney had a rough day yesterday. But putting Romney aside, there is a much bigger story going on: President Obama is dealing with a full-fledged foreign policy crisis, and it’s a crisis some 50 days before the election. As he admitted in his interview with Telemundo last night, Egypt right now isn’t an ally and it isn’t an enemy. In Libya was the attack on the embassy there an organized terrorist attack? (It turns out that the U.S. is moving war ships there.) And this morning, we’ve learned that hundreds stormed the U.S. embassy in Yemen. And this all comes on top of the Israeli government trying to pressure the Obama administration to do more to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. You wonder if Team Obama learned the lesson that Romney and campaign forgot yesterday: Everything gets amplified this close to an election. And what’s being amplified right now is a potentially serious situation in the Middle East.

*** And questions for Obama to answer: There are a TON of questions that the Obama administration now has to answer. Do we have an intelligence gap in Libya? Why weren’t extra security precautions being taken in Libya and Egypt? (After all, the White House let the word out that extra security precautions were being taken to protect Americans abroad on 9/11.) After Obama’s Cairo speech in 2009, where does the U.S. now stand with the Muslim world? And was the decision to nudge Mubarak out of power the right call? And the questions could go on… but they’re a reminder that while, yes, Romney had a very bad day yesterday, Obama could be in for some very tough weeks ahead.

The Nightman Cometh wrote:RCP has Obama up 3.5 and the dems up in the generic congressional ballot by 1.8. This bounce might actually be sticking.

Soren wrote:

pacino wrote:evangelical muslims need to get out of the 15th century and get over films and depictions of muhammad. your faith must be #$!&@ if you are threatened by a crappy, dumb film by crazies. guess what? us non-muslims don't have to follow the rules you fundamentalist muslims do. so dont get mad when we dont.

(some, a minority even) Christians in this country are outraged because we say "happy holidays" instead of "merry Christmas." If that is a war on Religion, imagine how sensitives Muslims in the Middle East feel about people denigrating their Prophet