Edit: timeline corrected
I was working on a long post yesterday, but didn't get to post it because I was busy last night. I'll post it all here, but some has cross-over implications on the other thread and some has already been argued back and forth a little:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a tragic event, which carries with it some interesting political implications. For this, a timeline and background are critical:
--Protests started in Egypt in the afternoon (local -- morning in the US) on September 11. This included what many in the media characterized as "storming" the embassy. People scaled the walls, but didn't actually enter beyond a few feet.
--The Embassy in Cairo released this statement in the morning on 9/11, but the exact timing I can't pin down because the statement has been deleted:
US Embassy In Egypt said:
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.”
--The attack in Benghazi started at about 10:00pm local time, or about 4:00 pm EDT if my math is correct (EDT is -4 and Libya is +2 I think).
--At 10:09 EDT on 9/11 (4:00 AM, local), Romney's campaign issued this statement:
The Obama administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.
Note: at that time, it was known that one security officer had died. It was not known that the ambassador had died...
--Clinton spoke on Wednesday morning (9/12) about the attack:
Clinton said:
This is an attack that should shock the conscience of people of all faiths around the world. We condemn in the strongest terms, this senseless act of violence and we send our prayers to the families, friends and colleagues of those we’ve lost...
This was an attack by a small and savage group, not the people or government of Libya. Everywhere Chris and his team went in Libya, in a country scarred by war and tyranny, they were hailed as friends and partners.
And when the attack came yesterday, Libyans stood and fought to defend our post. Some were wounded. Libyans carried Chris’s body to the hospital and they helped rescue and lead other Americans to safety.
And last night when I spoke with the president of Libya, he strongly condemned the violence and pledged every effort to protect our people and pursue those responsible...
Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior along with the protests that took place at our embassy in Cairo yesterday as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.
America’s commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear, there is no justification for this. None.
Violence like this is no way to honor religion or faith. And as long as there are those who would take innocent life in the name of God, the world will never know a true and lasting peace.
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/09/12/transcript-video-hillary-clinton-addresses-deadly-attack-in-libya/#more-95225
[IMO, a very good speech]
-At 7:55 pm EDT, she posted this on twitter:
The U.S. deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.
https://twitter.com/StateDept/status/245717059693080576
After Romney responded, he was attacked heavily by media and pundits alike, in one press meeting fielding multiple questions in a row, from separate reporters asking him if he stuck his foot in his mouth. CNN featured prominently the heavily anti-Romney Op-ed, much quoted here.
Fox, predictably had this ant-Obama/liberal media op-ed:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012...-out-at-romney-for-daring-to-criticize-obama/
My take? Romney, whether through prescience or luck, got the Obama administration response right. Calling Romney a "liar" over this is silly and wrong. Several elements to this:
1. The US Embassy in Cairo speaks for Obama. That's its purpose - that's why it exists. That the statement was taken down implies that Obama didn't like the statement and didn't pre-approve it (more on that later). But regardless, Obama chose the ambassador as his spokesperson. She is part of the administration and therefore
that part of the statement by Romney is factually accurate.
2. Romney's statement was made
during the second day of protests and
before the severety of the attack on the second day was known. It referenced the "attacks" and "missions". So while Clinton's response to the attack on 9/12 was the first response to the attack on 9/12, the embassy's response to the protests on 9/11 -- labeled by the media as "storming" -- was indeed the "first response" to the "attacks". So
that part of Romney's statement is also factually accurate. Spun by lumping them together -- and before the severity was known? Certainly. But accurate nonetheless.
3. Clinton's speech on 9/12 was great. But her twitter post echoed the sentement of the embassy statement, making Romney's even more right than it was before (yes, that's possible). More on this later.
The liberal side of the media is heavily focusing on the timing and supposed inaccuracy of Romney's statement, and people on PF are following their lead.
Next is the angle of it being wrong to criticize a sitting President in wartime/crisis. Please: George W Bush. 'nuff said.
And finally, the actual content of Romney's statement. This should, of course, be the focus of our discussions, but apparently, isn't even worthy of discussion, since it isn't mentioned in the CNN anti-Romney article and the first mention of it on PF jumped right to Romney and how this presumed misstep will hurt him. And why ignore the content of his speech?
Because he's right. This is an opinion of course, but my perception is that much of the anti-Romney vitrol is a result of people knowning he's right and wanting to bury discussion of it.
The embassy statement, while understandable in the face of fear, was conciliatory. It explicitly agreed with the purpose of the protests: the protests were (ostensibly) to condemn the video and the embassy broadly and specifically "condemned" (they used that word twice) anti-Islam speech. That is, by definition,
sympathizing (
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sympathize )
Where it gets tricky is that the bulk of the protesters were probably just being sheep. They probably didn't know they were being duped into acting as cover for an actual attack. So they may or may not have agreed with the attack. Still, when everyone is mixed together in one group, they are what they are and the embassy addressed them as a group -- terrorists and all.
"Apology" may be a little more difficult, but supporters of Obama on this tend to require actual usage of the word (the word "sympathy" wasn't used either, of course). I tend to take a broader view and I think in other contexts, even Obama supporters would agree: an "apology" is an expression of sorrow for a wrong, whether the word "apology" is used or not. From the dictionary:
1. a written or spoken expression of one's regret, remorse, or sorrow for having insulted, failed, injured, or wronged another: He demanded an apology from me for calling him a crook.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/apology
If we demand that the word be used in order to be considered an apology, sure, it doesn't qualify. Also, the embassy didn't make the insult, so it can't realistically apologize for something it didn't do -- or can it? The protesters were there because they saw the US embassy as a proxy for the speaker of the insult. And the US embassy condemned the insult, acknowledging the "wrong" for the purpose of mollifying them. So the sentiment is certainly there.
Clinton's twitter post was concise and non-specific (3, continued), it was also
completely and utterly wrong. I don't mean factually, I mean as a matter of position. The US government does
not exist to protect people from being insulted. That is not part of its mission at all. In fact, the first Amendment exists precisely to protect the people who say the unpopular things, lest they be bullied by the government into keeping quiet. Clinton is supporting the wrong side of the argument. No that doesn't mean she condones violence, but it does mean that on the issue of anti-Islam speech, the Obama administration is on the side of the terrorists.
Obama might have had a leg to stand on in claiming the embassy spoke out of turn, but when Clinton reiterated the sentiment, that leg collapsed. Either way, that wouldn't have made Romney a liar because the error was still the embassy's, not Romney's.
What makes this worse is that freedom of speech is essentially the key precipitating concern behind the Arab Spring. Governments -- including Egypts -- were overthrown largely because they violently suppressed non-violent protests. What's interesting though is while Egypt's government is calling for prosecution of the filmmaker, Libya's is calling for prosecution of the terrorists:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/13/world/arab-leaders-reactions/index.html
So in a cruel, twisted irony, our leaders are dithering on one of the most important freedoms we have and undercutting the point of the Arab Spring in front of the whole world including those very governments involved. The Libyan ambassador speaks against terrorism and in support of freedom and praises the deceased ambassador for being a part of that fight in Libya while simultaneously Obama administration officials are undercutting the very freedom that they fought for.
It goes a little deeper, though. A US official is quoted as saying:
"It was not an innocent mob," one senior official said. "The video or 9/11 made a handy excuse and could be fortuitous from their perspective but this was a clearly planned military-type attack."
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/12/world/africa/libya-consulate-attack-scene/index.html
See, this isn't about whether Romney is trying to score points with this misstep by the Obama administration, it is about
the Obama administration allowing itself to be manipulated by our enemies! This attack was timed to coincide with 9/11 and the protests were created by the perpetrators as a cover for the attack. No one had heard of this video before the protests and the protersters surely heard about it from the attackers, manipulating them into covering their attack. And by focusing so heavily on the video, the Obama administration is falling for it too. Instead of
condemning the video, the Obama administration should be
downplaying it. Condeming it gives it legitimacy that will actually fan the protest flames (as appears to be happening).
This is an issue with a significant potential to sting Obama, but only if the full story gets told. He took a lot of flak over the so-called "Apology Tour" (so-called because it didn't include an explicit apology) and this issue has a very similar flavor. Non-Americans on PF praised Obama for that at the time, and as well they should: Obama dipping his head in deference to Europe reduces American stature and raises theirs. But Americans should not praise him for weakening us and I don't think, overall, they will.
Another angle: Bush got heat for the Patriot Act. That heat has largely dissipated now that Obama has extended it (
), but the tone of that criticism was essentially that by restricting our freedom via the Patriot Act, we're handing the terrorists a victory. No. The primary issues in the Patriot Act are about monitoring, not restriction. What
does hand the terrorists a victory is condemning and at least verbally admonishing free speech in direct response to an attack. Or having the Secretary of Defense call an American to ask (strong-arm?) him into not exercising his free speech (!). Scaring us into silence is
exactly what they want out of this (secondary goal: the primary goal is to kill us, of course) and Obama's administration is assisting them in achieving that goal.
As a footnote (should this be?), there is also the issue of why the ambassador was so poorly protected. On Wednesday, Obama sent a platoon of Marines to protect our diplomatic mission there. Given that this is one of the Marine Corps' primary missions, I wonder why there weren't any Marines around the ambassador when he died. I don't suppose that's worthy of discussion either, though. :rolleye:
