Book of the Month

tmccarthy0's picture

Mitt Romney: Unfit to Be President

by tmccarthy0 9/12/2012 - 9:41 am

This morning Mitt Romney has accused the President of  sympathizing with the people who killed the US Ambassador to Libya. In a statement released Tuesday evening but held back until 12:01 AM Wednesday, Mitt Romney said: “It’s disgraceful, that the Obama administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”

Unbelievable stuff, seriously, Mitt Romney is claiming that the President is sympathetic to the killers of our Ambassador to Libya and 3 members of his staff.  Guess who else made this ridiculous claim? The political genius Sarah Palin and idiot Reince Priebus.

Mitt is a man of course who continues to claim Foreign Policy is not important, even though it is a large part of the President actual job. Romney didn't mention either Iraq or Afghanistan in his convention acceptance speech.  So we do get the idea that Mitt Romney doesn't believe foreign policy is important, especially since Russia is our biggest geopolitical enemy and it is 1960.

But this seems beyond anything I would imagine a candidate for the Presidency would say, he is making the claim that this President supports the killers of our Ambassador and members of his staff, and it is beyond disappointing that anyone, but particularly a man who is running for President would politicize this even, in fact, one might say it is unpatriotic. Mitt Romney seems to believe he can only win by making sure people believe our President isn't one of us, he isn't American. We need to teach him a lesson on that one, because no matter our party, when a member of our diplomatic mission is killed in action, we become a nation of one,  Mitt Romney doesn't seem to understand that making him unfit for the Presidency.

  • Share this
  • Add new comment
  • 365 reads

Chris Mathews was correct in his attack on Priebus. Journalists like Tom Browkaw who played "the both sides do it" card and didn't support Mathews' obvious truth should be ashamed.

Priebus should be forced to step down. This statement should serve as the focus of Republican response to an American trade guy. The first question Mittens is going to be asked is how soundly he rejects Priebus' statement. If Romney says those aren't the words I would have used, then he is a bigger coward than I thought.

This is disgusting. These are the mental cases are the ones that obstruct Obama at every turn.

thanks for this post.

by rmrd0000 9/12/2012 - 10:29 am

The Cairo embassy was aware of rumors circulating about a US film characterizing Muhammad as a fraud and womanizer. The embassy released a tweet criticizing the film to try to quell any violent reaction.

The attack happened anyway.

Following the attacki, the Obama administration, distanced itself from the tweet. Hillary Clinton criticized the attack.

Romney then released his attack on Obama.

Romney continues to stand by his statement despite the above timeline.

Romney is unpatriotic.

Romney is receiving criticism from all corners

 

by rmrd0000 9/12/2012 - 12:23 pm (re: rmrd0000)

Following the attack, the Obama administration, distanced itself from the tweet.

I have not heard that. Can you supply a link? The embassy's tweet seems right and smart by any standard and the subsequent violence supports that conclusion. Why would the administration distance themselves from it.

by A Guy Called LULU 9/12/2012 - 12:40 pm (re: rmrd0000)

OK, I have now seen where the administration distanced itself from the embassy's statement. I do not understand why they did so. If anyone can explain how that might make sense I would appreciate it.

I saw the link on Greenwald's Guardian column. Warning, as always, Greenwald talks about the specific incident in its larger context so some here may wish to look for the link somewhere else. It also has a link to the movie trailer which is worth watching. I hope everybody involved with planning, writing, producing, and financing that piece of war-mongering trash is exposed. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/series/glenn-greenwald-security-...

 

by A Guy Called LULU 9/12/2012 - 1:40 pm (re: A Guy Called LULU)

When an ambassador is killed, you show a strong stance. Being upset about a film does not justify killing. Full stop. The people who made and translated the film are beneath contempt. The people who attacked the embassy are murderers.

A strong religion can stand up to strong criticism.

by rmrd0000 9/12/2012 - 1:53 pm (re: A Guy Called LULU)

Full stop my achin' ass. If you are going to take the time to write a response, why don't you  actually respond to the question?
 By your own account:

The Cairo embassy was aware of rumors circulating about a US film characterizing Muhammad as a fraud and womanizer. The embassy released a tweet criticizing the film to try to quell any violent reaction.

A direct quote of the tweet in question;

We condemn the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims—
US Embassy Cairo (@USEmbassyCairo) September 11, 2012

I asked if anyone could explain why the administration, Obama, would want to distance itself from that statement. Your reply is that when an ambassador is killed you show a strong response.

 OK, let's bomb somebody, that's what the film makers ultimate goal is anyway.

A strong religion can stand up to strong criticism.

So now you want to include in your non-response your own criticism of Islam as a whole thru bullshit innuendo. You are really a piece of work.

 

by A Guy Called LULU 9/12/2012 - 2:37 pm (re: rmrd0000)

The tweet was sent out before any death occurred. Once the death happened you send a message that no matter in the film justified murder.Thus you reject anything sounding like appeasement.

The diplomatic screws ups in the Middle East becomes a separate issue. Whether the Arab Spring failed is a separate issue. Whether we should get out of the Middle East is a separate issue. The message is being sent to whoever was responsible for the attack is that their is no rationale for the deaths.

I thought my statements were clear. You address the deaths now by not seeming to accept excuses for the deaths.

 

by rmrd0000 9/12/2012 - 2:55 pm (re: A Guy Called LULU)

Further clarification, the people who attacked the embassy don't care if you agree with the movie or not. They were out for blood. The majority of the population in the city did not cause the attack. Since the people who did the attack won't accept an apology. You make clear that a movie is not something punishable by death

 

by rmrd0000 9/12/2012 - 3:26 pm (re: rmrd0000)

The way I read this distancing thing is that freedom of speech was not mentioned in the tweet.

But how much should you mention in a tweet anyway and why are embassies tweeting?

by Richard Day 9/12/2012 - 2:59 pm (re: A Guy Called LULU)

The way I see it is that someone in the embassy, someone on a diplomatic mission, was not interested, in that particular situation, in lecturing anyone in the Middle East about how we respect freedom of speech in the United States. Instead, as diplomats, they were trying to mitigate the deliberately intended harmful effects of a bunch of jerks who abused their freedom of speech in the united States by creating hate speech with the intent of arousing hateful feelings in  Muslim countries. I think that is why they were tweeting.

by A Guy Called LULU 9/12/2012 - 3:21 pm (re: Richard Day)

I have no doubt about the purpose of the messaging.

It just could have been worded better.

The American Government and the vast majority of Americans despise the denigration of any religion.

America disavows the actions and statements of the few who would denigrate and debase Islam.

But in America free speech is as sacred as freedom of religion.

Our government disavows any attempt of a few radicals who would abase the Great Prophet Mohammed!

 

I don't know. Something like this.

by Richard Day 9/12/2012 - 4:39 pm (re: A Guy Called LULU)

It just could have been worded better.

 Am I to accept being put in the position of calling the statement perfect in order to defend it as a good and proper statement?

The American Government and the vast majority of Americans despise the denigration of any religion.

I see the American government using propaganda to denigrate any damned person, government, or organization they choose to whenever it suits their [often misguided] purpose. I think most of the sentient, informed, clear thinking people of the world see it too.

 I estimate that about 60% of the American people are completely comfortable denigrating the religion of 'others'. Consider your own many comments about the right wing fundamentalist of our own country's dominant religion.

by A Guy Called LULU 9/12/2012 - 5:00 pm (re: Richard Day)

His name is Pastor Terry Jones, he was exposed yesterday, but was also a man who lead a Koran burning in Florida.

by tmccarthy0 9/12/2012 - 5:07 pm (re: A Guy Called LULU)

Pastor Terry Jones is one person, hardly the entire gang responsible. I have read that he has been promoting the film, hardly surprising, but there are plenty more.

The anti-Islam film was written, directed and produced by an Israeli real estate developer living in California, Sam Bacile. He claimed, in an interview with Haaretz, that the film "cost $5m to make and was financed with the help of more than 100 Jewish donors". Its purpose, as described by the Israeli newspaper, was to show that "Islam is a cancer" and to provide a "provocative political statement condemning the religion". It's hard to believe that the film – which is barely at the level of a poorly rehearsed high-school play – required $5m to make, but the intent seems clear: to provoke Muslims into exactly the sort of violent rage that we are now witnessing.

 

by A Guy Called LULU 9/12/2012 - 5:17 pm (re: tmccarthy0)

That is interesting. I've been at work an didn't know the developments. That guy should be deported, immediately.

But that's just what I would do.

by tmccarthy0 9/12/2012 - 5:35 pm (re: A Guy Called LULU)

interesting post.

I just read elsewhere that while condemning Obama for the Embassy attacks, republicans had condemned him for using drones during the NATO Lybian conflict. Seems Obama is damn either way he goes ... just as trying to play the bipartisan card with republicans in Congress.

I suspect because Romney didn't get a convention bounce and Obama did as well as flowering reviews about the various speakers, he's falling back to the old republicans campaign standard ... wedge issues.

With the voters evenly separate between both camps, it'll be difficult to debate the issue reasonably with facts to base positions on. However, the more wedge issue that rear up before the election, the more Obama has to defend himself while Romney attacks without ever having to sate what he would do differently.

Romney could win simply by default ... too many wedge issues for Obama to answer while Romney waltz's around without having to take a position on any issue.

 

by Beetlejuice 9/12/2012 - 12:34 pm

Obama has Osama Bin-Laden, the Somali pirates and drone strikes as evidence that he is not weak when it comes to going after enemies. Romney's only out is to suggest that we should turn the Middle East into a dessert parking lot by bombing attacks. 

by rmrd0000 9/12/2012 - 1:58 pm (re: Beetlejuice)

This is just one more prime example of his shooting from the lip and definitely not a viable candidate for POTUS. 

I just read on Politico that he's 'tanking' in the European polls too:

According to the poll, 38 percent of respondents in the European Union said they did not know whether they had a favorable or unfavorable view of Romney, or refused to respond on that subject. Of the European respondents who were familiar with Romney, 39 percent viewed him unfavorably, while just 23 percent had a positive take on the candidate, according to the survey.

“On Romney himself, I think a lot of Europeans have the same kinds of questions and reservations a lot of Americans have,” said Constanze Stelzenmueller, the survey project leader, who works for the German Marshall Fund out of Berlin.

by Aunt Sam 9/12/2012 - 2:24 pm

The film producers name, Sam Bacile, sounds close to "imbecile". The name is probably a pseudonym. Bacile may not be Israeli, but a Christian Evangelical

by rmrd0000 9/12/2012 - 6:28 pm

Thanks. Curiouser and curiouser. I hope we get the complete, accurate, skinny on all involved. Goldberg might have his facts right but I never trust his evaluation.   

by A Guy Called LULU 9/12/2012 - 7:07 pm (re: rmrd0000)

Here is more about the production of the movie.

http://www.onthemedia.org/blogs/on-the-media/2012/sep/12/religious-refer...

by A Guy Called LULU 9/12/2012 - 7:40 pm (re: A Guy Called LULU)

Latest Comments

more