Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
At 6:17 a.m. ET on Tuesday, the U.S. Embassy in Egypt released this statement:
The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims...(etc.)
At 6:25 p.m. ET, Nuland confirmed, via email, that the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, was under attack:
At 10:10 p.m. ET, the Romney campaign emailed a statement from the Republican presidential nominee to media organizations about the violence in both countries, reporting of which was prohibited (or "embargoed") until 12 a.m. ET Wednesday:
At around the same time, POLITICO posted a story featuring a quote from a "senior administration official" appearing to disavow the statements from Cairo. This would emerge as fodder for Romney on Wednesday: (MY EDIT: this was Obama admin clarifying that it had not authorized/cleared the comment from the Egyptian Embassy)
Even though it didn't come from Obama, I don't see why he would personally disagree with it - and in subsequent statements by him and Hillary, it seems that they've affirmed that.
Those of us who can walk and chew gum at the same time can understand that you can consistently support freedom of expression, disavow the content of hateful expressions that stereotype a religion of tens of millions, AND condemn and vow to track down killers who used freedom of expression as a basis for violence. It's not that hard to understand, and there is nothing "mixed" about it to competent adults.
BTW, with this message first coming out exactly EIGHT MINUTES before the embassy announced it was under attack....
...do you suppose there's any chance the attack started BEFORE the announcement? Like maybe even MORE THAN EIGHT MINUTES before?
And just maybe, the embassy personnel saw the mob coming, heard and felt the bullets hitting the walls, and so THEN composed this mealy-mouthed apology and blurted it out... and THEN composed a second message, announcing they were under attack?
That "apologetic" statement Romney says Obama & co. made after the attacks? It was made before them.
...and repeated over and over by the embassy, via social media like Twitter etc., for many hours AFTER the attack.
Nice try.
And? So what?
I was just pointing out that the statement didn't originate from Obama after the attacks, as basically everyone is now assuming.
But that aside, there was absolutely nothing wrong per se with the statement anyway. Even if it had come directly from the President, it would have been perfectly fine.
As I stated above, intelligent and fair-minded people can disavow bigoted free speech expressions while STILL condemning those who respond with violence.
That "apologetic" statement Romney says Obama & co. made after the attacks? It was made before them.
...and repeated over and over by the embassy, via social media like Twitter etc., for many hours AFTER the attack.
Nice try.
And? So what?
I was just pointing out that the statement didn't originate from Obama after the attacks, as basically everyone is now assuming.
But that aside, there was absolutely nothing wrong per se with the statement anyway. Even if it had come directly from the President, it would have been perfectly fine.
As I stated above, intelligent and fair-minded people can disavow bigoted free speech expressions while STILL condemning those who respond with violence.
BTW, with this message first coming out exactly EIGHT MINUTES before the embassy announced it was under attack....
...do you suppose there's any chance the attack started BEFORE the announcement? Like maybe even MORE THAN EIGHT MINUTES before?
And just maybe, the embassy personnel saw the mob coming, heard and felt the bullets hitting the walls, and so THEN composed this mealy-mouthed apology and blurted it out... and THEN composed a second message, announcing they were under attack?
Perhaps they did send the message during the attack. I don't know.
Either way, it changes nothing.
Again, for the third time just for you: you can support free speech, disavow bigoted expressions of free speech, AND condemn and respond against violence in a consistent manner. What is so hard about this?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
