By: whatsamattausa
Mere hours after Americans were killed in savage attacks in Libya and Egypt, Mitt Romney blasts the Obama administration for apologizing for freedom rather than condemning the attacks. Here is the 'apology' statement Romney is talking about: Link - http://egypt.usembassy.gov/
September 11, 2012
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.
Here is a link to Mitt's political speech: http://www.
Here is a link to Obama's statement: http://www.
Can anyone explain to me where anyone apologized? This whole 'apology' thing has been hung on Obama since the GOP lost the election. The right makes sure to use his middle name and to trot this 'apology' line out as often as they can in an effort to make Obama appear to be 'one of them'. In my opinion, the President should be sympathetic to those folks and to everyone. Being sympathetic doesn't mean being agreeable. I find it disgraceful that Romney would use this incident as a stumping ground. Obama's foreign policy had as much to do with these attacks as Bush had to do with the Pakistani riots over the Mohammed cartoon that was published in various publications.
This was Romney's first real foreign relations test... He failed in disgraceful fashion!
Disclaimer from The Elephant in the Room: The article posted above is the work of a blog reader, not an owner of the blog. In promoting an open forum blog, and believing that the passing of information is the reason we exist, we happily post most readers' work with little editing. While the article does appear on our blog, the owners of The Elephant in the Room did not write this article, and posting this article on our blog does not imply endorsement of the ideas and opinions expressed in the article. If you would like us to post your work, check out our Reader's Post page here (http://loudmouthelephant.blogspot.com/2011/12/readers-posts-our-open-forum-blog.html) or email us at loudmouthelephant@gmail.com
Disclaimer from The Elephant in the Room: The article posted above is the work of a blog reader, not an owner of the blog. In promoting an open forum blog, and believing that the passing of information is the reason we exist, we happily post most readers' work with little editing. While the article does appear on our blog, the owners of The Elephant in the Room did not write this article, and posting this article on our blog does not imply endorsement of the ideas and opinions expressed in the article. If you would like us to post your work, check out our Reader's Post page here (http://loudmouthelephant.blogspot.com/2011/12/readers-posts-our-open-forum-blog.html) or email us at loudmouthelephant@gmail.com
Feel pretty dumb yet? Everyone is talking about the "procedure" Mitt ROmney used. You did it too. You drank the Kool aid and went off. Once the facts settled in, you hopefully have realized Romney was addressing the state departments reaction from Tuesday night and yes the state dept is under Obama's admin. Are you going to personally apologize to the former governor?
ReplyDeleteI don't think the administration apologized. Sympathized? Probably. (i'm referring to the original press release near midnight tuesday night). Apologized, no. Tahyah did point out correctly that the timeline here is off. But that's irrelevant. Did the administration apologize? No, but Mitt has a very good point here. We were attacked, violently (even before the ambassador was killed), and all our state department had to say was "we are sorry we upset you." That's bad. But what's worse. This subtle undertones that it's okay to limit our first amendment rights because it might piss some loonies off. THATS what I took but the original state department condemnation. THAT is as dangerous to our democracy as dangerous gets.
ReplyDeleteTexas Tea - You are right on!!! I too was offended by the rebuke of the 1st Amendment and the dichotomy or hypocrisy of the statement (rejecting free speech while embracing religious tolerance). I think someone should apologize to the American people and/or someone should lose their job for what is effectively an anti-American statement. I agree with you that the statement, the one posted in the above, is sympathetic and not apologetic.. I think there is a distinction.
DeleteI also think that this is another example of how religion is destroying the world ( don't take issue with religion itself but rather the way it is administered). It seems as though there is a universal race to see who can be more religious, who can pander most to religion, and, as a result, the extremism from all side of the religious spectrum have increased exponentially.
@Texas Tea:
Delete'This subtle undertones that it's okay to limit our first amendment rights because it might piss some loonies off. THATS what I took but the original state department condemnation. THAT is as dangerous to our democracy as dangerous gets.' I couldn't agree more.
Furthermore, I personally felt like that statement was an attempt to shift the 'blame' for these attacks AWAY from the animals who perpetrated them and ONTO our American First Amendment Right.
My main question of the whole thing is this: From bitter experience, we KNOW how radical SOME of these Islamist 'extremists' can be/we've had precursors in Afghanistan and elsewhere of 'friendlies' killing Americans in recent weeks...
WHY were our people over there NOT better protected on the anniversary of 911?
@ Whatsamatta
'Demonstrators' in BOTH Cairo and Libya chanted - 'Obama, Obama, we're a billion Osamas'
Ya think maybe some of those who breached the walls of our Embassies could have watched the DNC where the theme of speeches by Obama/Biden included stuff like 'GM's alive and Bin Laden's dead.'
Pander to religion? And which ONE 'religion' condones, in fact, DEMANDS the killing of those who do NOT believe as they do?
Our OWN government seeks to override the religious rights of the Catholics to NOT be FORCED to PAY for birth control that INCLUDES abortion. Elected Democrat Representatives TRASH Romney's Mormon faith on a regular basis.
THEN, officials of that SAME government 'blame' OUR Constitutional First Amendment right to free speech for the murderous, destructive acts - committed by those animals, as a result of THEIR religious beliefs.
Hypocrisy much?
Dara -
DeleteThis chanting stuff seems to me to be more talking points. I've yet to see/hear any evidence of such other than folks claiming it occurred. I saw a picture of some men dragging Stevens, presumably and reportedly out of the building he was it, to take him to a hospital. It is hard to reconcile the two. Also, I asked before for a link to the statement you keep referring to as I'd like to know what part of it is "as dangerous to our democracy as dangerous gets"... please provide a link.
I seriously doubt any of them watched even 3 seconds of either convention so no, I don't think they heard the campaign slogan. To think otherwise is, in my opinion, grasping at straws.
Religion is a HUGE problem in our society and the world over and it is becoming a bigger problem as time goes on. It seems that all religions are moving toward extremism. I personally don't care what ONE religion demands, as you say. I treat all religions the same. You keep your beliefs to yourself and I'll keep mine to myself. I can guarantee you the world would be a better place to live if everyone had their own beliefs. No more churches and no more bully pulpits. My understand of all religions is that god could care less if you are at church or not (I, in fact, think that if god did care, it would be committing one of the 7 deadly sins... Pride - but that's a different conversation and not likely one for this blog). People will interpret their respective religious books in any number of different ways and I am happy for those folks to have the freedom and opportunity. Religion is an eroding force, not the other way around as it is supposed to be. You said it yourself, everyone focused on Romney's Mormonism... WHO CARES?!?!?!?
We'll agree to disagree about the statement. I'll look forward to seeing/hearing the statement you keep mentioning.
'This chanting stuff seems to me to be more talking points.' Really?
Deletehttp://www.drudge.com/news/160904/obama-obama-there-still-billion
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/09/11/On-9-11-Egyptians-Chant-Obama-Obama-There-Are-Still-a-Billion-Osamas-As-They-Destroy-American-Embassy-Flag
The Statement:
'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.'
The really offensive words (to me) are 'hurt the religious feelings of Muslims.' and 'We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.' BOTH specify CENSORSHIP of our Free Speech RIGHT. I don't have to like what you say, but I will defend your RIGHT to say it.
Such as you say: 'You keep your beliefs to yourself and I'll keep mine to myself.' and immediately follow that with 'No more churches and no more bully pulpits.'
Which (to me) seems to be an attempt to inflict YOUR belief that 'Religion is a HUGE problem in our society and the world over and it is becoming a bigger problem as time goes on.' and 'Religion is an eroding force.'
Note: I probably wouldn't TRY voicing THOSE opinions in Cairo or Libya...
Quran (4:95) This passage, among others, criticizes "peaceful" Muslims who do not join in the violence, letting them know that they are less worthy in Allah's eyes.
Quran (66:9) - "O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and
be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey's end."
In America, you are GUARANTEED the right to say these things that I may not agree with. You are GUARANTEED the right to NOT capitalize God's name, if you choose. Bear in mind that we ARE NOT and have NEVER BEEN a 'secular nation'. America was FOUNDED with the blessing of Divine Providence.
"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have removed their only firm basis: a conviction in the minds of men that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever." - Thomas Jefferson
I watched the clip and read the Drudge story. I don't speak Arabic (assuming that's what they're speaking in the video) but I didn't hear mention of Obama or Osama, both of which should be pronounced generally the same in both languages. So I'm still not buying the chanting stuff. The apology stuff is also made up. You interpret it that way while I do not. Your position is not as big a leap as I initially thought but it is still an interpretation without the word apology being in the statement.
DeleteI do agree with you regarding the 1st Amendment issue though. That aspect of the statement is indefensible. My religious position is my opinion and in no way an attempt to influence that to reality. If someone looks at what I've written and agrees that's great but I generally tune religion out (unless someone knocks on my door to talk about god... then i give them an earful of my position - most walk away in shock). I also don't think my position is really opinion but rather an unjustifiable fact (which I understand is opinion) - people supporting child molesters in the name of god, the church hierarchy protecting the predators in the name of god, people beheading people in the name of god, the crusades being the bloodiest wars ever fought, etc. It is my opinion that the world would be better off without it. Heck, gay people may even be able to be treated as equals if it weren't for the righteous religious pontificating about homosexuality being an abomination and marriage being solely between a man and a woman. Religion hides behind god with its messages of hate, across all religions. Now, I also believe that religion does alot of good things. But the good things arise out of individuals whereas the bad is derived from large portions of the church acting as an internal hate support group.
Wow! Talk about 'interpretation'! The ONLY people who have denied the Cairo Embassy statement WAS an apology - were those on the left.
DeleteP.S. Your 'opinion' on religion has come through loud and clear, on more than one occasion on this blog alone... I can't imagine a poor soul standing on your porch! I find it hard to believe you don't care one way or the other and display such obvious and outspoken distaste of it.(I won't resort to your preferred word choice - hate - which is a better definition of the attitude your words convey.)
The crusades were bloody AND in the distant past. Muslim 'extremists' killing ANYONE who doesn't believe the way they do - PRESENT DAY, ONGOING and NOT LIKELY TO END SOON.
And I've said before I'm NOT into any 'organized' religion, but I DO believe in God... and that's MY choice and my privilege. That said religions, like corporations and governments are made up of people... I like to believe there are many more good ones than bad in EVERY walk of life - even those who choose to boldly defy the rules of grammar, by NOT capitalizing the first letter of a proper noun.
Unlike you, I refuse to lump ALL wrongs done by SOME people in ANY group into the same pot and call the whole thing spoiled.
A person can believe whatever they want - so long as they don't break my leg or pick my pocket...Thomas Jefferson.
So I guess I'm on the left? Or could it be that I'm simply reading the words that were written without any interpretation at all? I agree with Texas Tea that it was a sympathetic statement. You want to argue that it was a weak statement, I won't disagree. I could care less what all the people on the right think or what all the people on the left think, when reading the words for what they are, it is not an apology. If you want to read them with an agenda that's your choice.
DeleteHey, if those folks want to come on my property to discuss God, we'll do so but they better be prepared. I'm never rude but I am direct in my thoughts and questions. Some seem to enjoy the debate but not many. As I said, I recognize the good that the church does but I think the bad outweighs it. You make it sound like I want to abolish religion and houses of religion. That is not so. I think it would make for an interesting social experiment and I feel strongly that such a society would be a more peaceful one. I can tell you though that as strongly as I feel about the church, I feel 100 times more strongly in favor of the church's right to exist openly and freely and without discrimination (though I don't think they should be subsidized). I don't doubt that there are more good ones than bad ones but the bad ones and the inner network of support of the bad ones is what makes the organized part of organized religion a sham. Sure, the crusades were long ago but the corrupt nature of the church has remained and evolved.
I can tell you that I come from a large Catholic family and I, myself, am in fact Catholic - I was an altar boy for years. Most of my family believes in a version of God. I do not believe in god... See what I did there??? god is only a proper noun if you believe in God... I do not so save me the "even those who choose to boldly defy the rules of grammar" garbage!
I don't see how you figure me lumping everything. I was clear that I see the distinction between the good and the bad and I see the bad as outweighing the good. I'm not the one saying "The ONLY people who have denied the Cairo Embassy statement WAS an apology - were those on the left." which sounds kind of like grouping to me. I strongly believe in individuality and to 'each his/her own' which is what makes me a social liberal. I believe very much in that TJ quote you posted though I wonder, as a conservative, how much you do. I don't want to regulate self, it seems the GOP can't stop doing it. I'd be glad to know that you break from party as it relates to social issues.
I wish I'd read your post re: the Onion piece, before commenting and I wouldn't have bothered. It appears you're LOOKING for reasons to bash Romney, who you consider too 'elite' for your taste.
DeleteYou apparently prefer someone who ignores his OWN nation, his OWN relatives, who, when an Ambassador he SENT into a volatile area WENT MISSING - went to SLEEP while he was reportedly being sodomized before being murdered.
He was NOT 'too busy' to meet with the new Muslim Brotherhood pres of Egypt - who NOW has TANKS in GAZA, in VIOLATION OF THEIR TREATY WITH the U.S. and ISRAEL and has been all but ABSENT in protecting OUR Embassy in Cairo.
BUT way 'too busy' to have a chat with our oldest and strongest ally - because he 'has to' appear on Letterman and party with some Hollyweird elites. And no matter how you FEEL about Israel - bear in mind - 'death to America' is right behind 'wipe out Israel' on Akmadinijhad's (sp) list of things to do... and by ALL reports that nutjob will SOON have the nukes to do BOTH if he gets a chance.
(If your mind's NOT set in stone re: Romney - you might have a look at a piece that will play on theBlaze, tonight at 5 p.m. ET)
My feeling is this: We've had a 'rock star' for FOUR years - and look where THAT's gotten us. I didn't vote for him, but I GAVE him a chance... so far - he's spent us into near oblivion, he's pandered to our enemies and weakened our defenses while leaving our soldiers in harms way, (Afghanistan). He rammed his vision of healthcare through with 24,000 pages of lies and deception that NO ONE read before it passed. He's golfed, vacationed and 'partied with the Big Dogs' more than ANY pres. before him. He's spent the last 3.6 yrs 'fiddling while America burned.'
MORE info has come out that the Campaigner-in-Chief had some knowledge that there MIGHT be a problem over there on the anniversary of 911 a FULL 48 hours beforehand - and HE continued on his merry campaigning way without addressing it. In FACT he had NOT attended ANY State Department briefings for the TWO weeks PRIOR.
Personally, I'd have preferred HE 'jumped the shark' and given them a bit of a heads up on that.
I've said before, Constitutionally, social issues belong with the STATES.. but...If you look back across this campaign - it was NOT the GOP who started the 'social issue' stuff (this time around). The LEFT started the 'War on Women' hooplah when O's HHS tried to FORCE the Catholic church to go against their beliefs with the BC 'mandate'...
Seems like the 'separation of Church and State' thing only goes ONE way with the Left... whichever way THEY choose that day - religious rights be damned! unless you're a member of the Muslim faith... In that case, according to Hillary and our 'allies' in the U.N. it appears that OUR First Amendment right to free speech might soon be moot... while Muslim 'extremists' continue to burn churches and Bibles; kill Christians and ANYONE not of their faith - at will.
'All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.' ~ Animal Farm
I do look for things to bash Romney on in the same way you look for things to bash Obama on. I also look to bash Obama but I don't find as much material. The Onion thing I admitted right away when I was wrong. Can you do the same? I don't consider Romney too 'elite' for my taste. I think he is too arrogant and patronizing for my taste just as every other candidate is unacceptable for one reason or another to your taste.
DeleteRon Paul "ignores his OWN nation, his OWN relatives, who, when an Ambassador he SENT into a volatile area WENT MISSING - went to SLEEP while he was reportedly being sodomized before being murdered." did all that (among the other things you've accused MY CHOICE of doing)? Please explain. Since, you know, he is my preference (regardless of who YOU prefer my preference to be). Unlike you, I don't see things as black and white, left or right, democrat or republican. I see them as I see them.
Seems you've got all the talking points into this one. I won't address them as it's not worth my time. Not to mention you keep moving the target and have yet to produce anything of substance (I sent your video link to a friend of mine in India who speaks 13 different middle eastern dialects. I'll let you know if there is any such chanting as that which you've represented).
I did vote for Obama. I won't make the same mistake twice. Unlike you, I recognize my electoral options and they're not limited to heads or tails!
Tahyah - I'm not sure what you're talking about. The closest thing I've seen to an apology is what I've posted and I don't see that as an apology at all although I find the statement unsettling for other reasons. State release two statements as far as I know: 1 - http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2012/09/197628.htm and 2 - http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2012/09/197630.htm
ReplyDeleteIt is possible I've missed something and if I have than I would hope you'll inform me. Apologize for what? and what would I feel dumb for? One thing you'll come to know about me... I don't drink kool-aid. Sure my point of view is generally liberal but I stand above party lines.
@Texas Tea - I actually have very similar feelings to you on this one.
ReplyDelete@Tahyah - It is true, regardless of which side of the aisle whatsamattausa's writings are on, he is above party lines. I can vouch for this.
I just came across this article that speaks to exactly what Texas Tea mentioned, the 1st Amendment aspect. Thought it was on topic and it is worth a quick read.
ReplyDelete