News Can Romney regain credibility after his Cairo/Libya Embassy blunder?

[Evo]

Here, Evo: Those are implied apologies from the embassy for the actions of the makers of the film, to the protesters.

That's not what Romney said, is it?

I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. 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.

 

[russ_watters]

That's not what Romney said, is it?

I don't follow, Evo. Please clarify. Please explain yourself.

And again, please answer my questions. I've been extremely courteous in answering yours. You owe me the same.

 

[Angry Citizen]

Those are implied apologies from the embassy for the actions of the makers of the film, to the protesters.

To protestors; not to attackers. The embassy statement came before the attacks. It was an attempt to quell an imminent threat. And frankly, the embassy was right to do so. The film that stirred up the protests was so blatantly offensive and downright evil that an apology - not an implied one, but a full one - was warranted on behalf of the American people. That's not saying the embassy deserved to be attacked, but the statement wasn't made after the attack, now was it?

Something to consider: Most Muslims in the Middle East come from a culture where speech is officially approved by a totalitarian or theocratic figure; it is not free. Most Muslims in the Middle East, by virtue of their being poor as dirt, are also often uneducated and ignorant of American values with regard to free speech. Is it any wonder that they think these films and statements made to offend were approved by the government of the United States?

On another note, and to respond to this thread in general, no, I think Romney's foreign policy credentials are shot at this point. He flubbed Britain, he flubbed Israel, he flubbed Russia, and now he's flubbed the Middle East. This man is a walking foreign policy disaster, far worse than Bush the Younger. This will very likely nudge independents even further into Obama's arms, but not by much - as others said, this election is about the economy, not foreign policy. If this were 2004, Romney wouldn't have a chance. (Not that he has much of a chance regardless.)

 

[SixNein]

That's not what Romney said, is it?

***trying to resist the urge to say I told you so***

 

[Evo]

I don't follow, Evo. Please clarify. Please explain yourself.

And again, please answer my questions. I've been extremely courteous in answering yours. You owe me the same.

So, this has been cleared up now, you agree that there were no protesters gathered outside the Cairo embassy at the time of the statement and that Romney made a mistake?

 

[Evo]

Embassy posts moved to the embassy thread.

 

[Evo]

Let's keep this on the topic, what Romney said in response to the Cairo embassy statement. He confused the timeline and threw Libya into it in error. This thread isn't about Libya.

Thanks.

 

[turbo]

Let's keep this on the topic, what Romney said in response to the Cairo embassy statement. He confused the timeline and threw Libya into it in error. This thread isn't about Libya.

Thanks.

I don't think that "credibility" with likely Romney voters will carry much weight. They will vote for him no matter what, and they won't spend much time wondering if he mis-spoke or lied. There is little in the popular press to indicate that even progressives are willing to take him to task. Just my opinion, but voters are getting really lazy.

 

[Angry Citizen]

I don't think that "credibility" with likely Romney voters will carry much weight. They will vote for him no matter what, and they won't spend much time wondering if he mis-spoke or lied. There is little in the popular press to indicate that even progressives are willing to take him to task. Just my opinion, but voters are getting really lazy.

I don't see this. The media and the progressive establishment has pounded Romney and Ryan for making blatant falsehoods. The media and the conservative establishment has pounded Obama and Biden for gems like threatening SCOTUS. They're taking each other to task too readily, if anything. And there are so many things to take people to task over that it just becomes a blur in the minds of voters.

 

[russ_watters]

I had brunch with my parents yesterday. My mom asked: "What did you think of Romney's gaffe last week?" I responded: "I think it was a cheap shot, but he was right that the Obama administration/our embassies should not be making statements against freedom of speech; condemning the filmmaker to mollify the protesters/terrorists". She had no idea what I was talking about, so successful was the media in framing the issue against Romney and bypassing the content of what he said -- she had no idea what he said, just that the media told her it was wrong to say it!

 

[russ_watters]

To protestors; not to attackers. The embassy statement came before the attacks.

Yes, Romney lumped several pieces together. Fortunately for him, both Clinton and the embassy later repeated the sentiment he was criticizing, making his bungling of the timeline moot.

It was an attempt to quell an imminent threat. And frankly, the embassy was right to do so. The film that stirred up the protests was so blatantly offensive and downright evil that an apology - not an implied one, but a full one - was warranted on behalf of the American people.

Sorry, that's just not how freedom of speech works in the US. It is understandable that the embassy acted out of fear, but that doesn't make it jive with our Constitutional principles.

 

[daveb]

Sorry, that's just not how freedom of speech works in the US. It is understandable that the embassy acted out of fear, but that doesn't make it jive with our Constitutional principles.

Exactly what Constitutional principal? The principal is the govermnet is to make no law against Freedom of Speech. But on numerous occasions, it has enacted such laws. LIkewise, the government has condemned others that exercise that free speech (and I don't just mean the Obama administration, because all sides are guilty of it).

Freedom of Speech also means the freedom to condemn the speech of others

 

[daveb]

Romney made a gaffe at first, Later, when he didn't admit he made a gaffe, and insisted that he was right, and even upped the ante so to speak, he showed he's just like every other politician (and Obama is probably guilty of it too) who can't admit when he's wrong because otherwise it would make him look bad. (all IMO)

 

[russ_watters]

Freedom of Speech also means the freedom to condemn the speech of others

Not if you are acting in official government capacity.

 

[daveb]

Is this some law or actual policy somewhere (having never worked for the government, I don't know).

 

[D H]

The film that stirred up the protests was so blatantly offensive and downright evil that an apology - not an implied one, but a full one - was warranted on behalf of the American people.

No apology was warranted. We cherish freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is not there to protect my right to say sweet nothings that no one finds offensive. It's there to protect my right to make truly ugly, outrageous, and offensive statements.

The government can condemn what I or other citizens say as free citizens, but they should never apologize for such statements unless those statements have crossed into the realm unprotected speech. An apology would imply that the government will do something about it. A condemnation says that while they don't like it, they still condone it as an exercise of free speech.