Flip Romney: They Have A Right To Make It, But It's Not Right

[SheHateMe]

GOP nominee Mitt Romney made his first comments on an anti-Muslim video that has been blamed for riots in Egypt, Libya and elsewhere in the Middle East in an ABC News interview released Friday.

Romney said he had no plans to see the video, "Innocence of Muslims." "I think it’s dispiriting sometimes to see some of the awful things people say. And the idea of using something that some people consider sacred and then parading that out a negative way is simply inappropriate and wrong. And I wish people wouldn’t do it," he said. "Of course, we have a First Amendment. And under the First Amendment, people are allowed to do what they feel they want to do."

Romney went on, "They have the right to do that, but it’s not right to do things that are of the nature of what was done by, apparently this film."

Source

 

[AstroManLuca]

LOL.

So basically he's 100% in agreement with the President. And apparently it is now possible to criticize both the makers of the film AND the attackers at the same time without being "un-American."

Cool flip flop mittens.

 

[SheHateMe]

So funny, the Obama bashers have yet to comment.

 

[cybrsage]

I do not understand what is wrong with his comment? What about it do you guys find offensive or wrong?

 

[michal1980]

LOL.

So basically he's 100% in agreement with the President. And apparently it is now possible to criticize both the makers of the film AND the attackers at the same time without being "un-American."

Cool flip flop mittens.

Wrong.

Difference is the president uses that line to explain the actions of the enemy.

Oh poor sensitive people that can't take criticism, this movie is wrong and bad, and I know we shouldn't make things like this. (in small voice - but killing is bad).

There should be no but.

 

[SheHateMe]

I do not understand what is wrong with his comment? What about it do you guys find offensive or wrong?

Hold the phone!

You are okay with his comments but not Hilary's?

Whoa.

 

[Emos]

Could be an Onion article: Romney denounces anti-Muslim film that he denounced Obama administration for denouncing!

 

[SheHateMe]

Wrong.

Difference is the president uses that line to explain the actions of the enemy.

Oh poor sensitive people that can't take criticism, this movie is wrong and bad, and I know we shouldn't make things like this. (in small voice - but killing is bad).

There should be no but.

Okay, when (source?) did Obama try to "explain" the actions of the enemy?

 

[Matt1970]

You people have no problem with our own Government apologizing for its citizens exercising its rights but then have a problem with this?

 

[Skitzer]

Ummm ... just exactly where is the flip flop?
Help me out here, explain please. Thanks.

 

[emperus]

You people have no problem with our own Government apologizing for its citizens exercising its rights but then have a problem with this?

Matt you missed the point. Isn't this the same type of rhetoric you are criticizing Clinton for?

 

[CountZero]

Wrong.

Difference is the president uses that line to explain the actions of the enemy.

Oh poor sensitive people that can't take criticism, this movie is wrong and bad, and I know we shouldn't make things like this. (in small voice - but killing is bad).

There should be no but.

No, the embassy in Cairo that was surrounded by protestors made a comment that "condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims.''. That comment was made before they breached the wall in Cairo and before the events in Libya. Romney criticized that comment at the earliest possible moment and incorrectly laid it at Obama's feet.

When Obama did actually give a statement it was pretty much what Romney just said.

There is no doubt Romney completely flubbed this, he went full political before having all of the facts and he tried to tie something to Obama that wasn't said by Obama at all. The latter has been a common tactic by his campaign thus far but he got caught when this turned out to be a much bigger deal. Now he has had to back peddle. He could have used this as a way to claim Obama's foreign policy failed or to demonstrate his own mastery of foreign policy but he blew it. His latest comments are just trying to bring him in line with what was already said by Obama and Clinton and deflect as much attention as possible from this misstep.

 

[SheHateMe]

Ummm ... just exactly where is the flip flop?
Help me out here, explain please. Thanks.

This

Its starting to make sense now. You guys bash Obama but don't bother to take the time to read up on anything Mitt Romney is doing. Its cool, I'll do the dirty work for you.

The gunfire at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, had barely ceased when Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney seriously mischaracterized what had happened in a statement accusing President Barack Obama of "disgraceful" handling of violence there and at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo.

"The Obama administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks," Romney said in a statement first emailed to reporters at 10:09 p.m. Eastern time, under the condition it not be published until midnight.

In fact, neither a statement by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo earlier in the day nor a later statement from Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton offered sympathy for attackers. The statement from the Cairo Embassy had condemned anti-Muslim religious incitement before the embassy walls were breached. In her statement, issued minutes before Romney's, Clinton had offered the administration's first response to the violence in Libya, explicitly condemning the attack there and confirming the death of a State Department official.

"I condemn in the strongest terms the attack on our mission in Benghazi today," Clinton said in a written statement received by The Associated Press at 10:08 p.m. "As we work to secure our personnel and facilities, we have confirmed that one of our State Department officers was killed. We are heartbroken by this terrible loss."

Then, at 10:24 p.m., a Romney spokeswoman lifted the release restriction on the Republican's statement, and it was widely published.

And then he goes on to say (today) what is in the article in my OP.

 

[AstroManLuca]

Ummm ... just exactly where is the flip flop?
Help me out here, explain please. Thanks.

Obama made a statement condemning the film before the attacks. Once the attacks happened, he also condemned the attacks and clarified that they were in no way justified.

Romney first criticized Obama for "sympathizing" with the attackers based on his initial statement (which he didn't realize was made before the embassy was attacked). He later reinforced his criticism of Obama even though Obama obviously doesn't sympathize with people who kill Americans. Finally, after taking a lot of heat, he flip flopped and basically took the same stance as the president - that the film was wrong and that the attacks were still totally unjustified.

 

[AstroManLuca]

You people have no problem with our own Government apologizing for its citizens exercising its rights but then have a problem with this?

You do realize why our government had to come out and publicly denounce the video, right? They're not pursuing legal action against anyone who made or distributed it, but that doesn't mean they're not allowed to criticize it.

If the government DIDN'T say anything, it would be viewed as supporting it and would just provoke more attacks.

 

[Matt1970]

Matt you missed the point. Isn't this the same type of rhetoric you are criticizing Clinton for?

Does that sound like the same thing Clinton said?

 

[AstroManLuca]

Wrong.

Difference is the president uses that line to explain the actions of the enemy.

Oh poor sensitive people that can't take criticism, this movie is wrong and bad, and I know we shouldn't make things like this. (in small voice - but killing is bad).

There should be no but.

That's not true. Obama's initial statements about the film were made before the attacks occurred, which is why he appeared to be spending more time condemning the filmmakers than he did condemning the attacks. That's what caused Romney to lash out against him.

At any rate, the President and Mr. Romney are now in agreement - making incendiary films is bad, and killing is worse.

 

[HomerJS]

Ummm ... just exactly where is the flip flop?
Help me out here, explain please. Thanks.

Could be an Onion article: Romney denounces anti-Muslim film that he denounced Obama administration for denouncing!

brilliant retort by Emos!

 

[Jaskalas]

Could be an Onion article: Romney denounces anti-Muslim film that he denounced Obama administration for denouncing!

Romney 101, all positions all the time.

 

[SheHateMe]

Obama made a statement condemning the film before the attacks. Once the attacks happened, he also condemned the attacks and clarified that they were in no way justified.

Romney first criticized Obama for "sympathizing" with the attackers based on his initial statement (which he didn't realize was made before the embassy was attacked). He later reinforced his criticism of Obama even though Obama obviously doesn't sympathize with people who kill Americans. Finally, after taking a lot of heat, he flip flopped and basically took the same stance as the president - that the film was wrong and that the attacks were still totally unjustified.

No, he did not. The Embassy in Cairo did. But this was before the other embassy was attacked in Libya. Romney tried to seize an opportunity for his campaign but he was not fully informed and he ended up falling flat on his face.

Unless of course he actually did make a statement and the news outlets didnt say anything. AFAIK, the wasnt an official White House statement until Stevens was killed.

 

[Matt1970]

You do realize why our government had to come out and publicly denounce the video, right? They're not pursuing legal action against anyone who made or distributed it, but that doesn't mean they're not allowed to criticize it.

If the government DIDN'T say anything, it would be viewed as supporting it and would just provoke more attacks.

I guess we lose then. If they start coming down our streets throwing stuff at our houses I guess we have to let them in.

And our Government HAS publicly denounced the video, and things are much worse today. Did the denouncing work?

 

[AstroManLuca]

No, he did not. The Embassy in Cairo did. But this was before the other embassy was attacked in Libya. Romney tried to seize an opportunity for his campaign but he was not fully informed and he ended up falling flat on his face.

Unless of course he actually did make a statement and the news outlets didnt say anything. AFAIK, the wasnt an official White House statement until Stevens was killed.

Sorry, my bad. I must have misread something.

I guess we lose then. If they start coming down our streets throwing stuff at our houses I guess we have to let them in.

And our Government HAS publicly denounced the video, and things are much worse today. Did the denouncing work?

Allow me to answer your question with another question -- what do you think would happen if Obama said "I strongly support this film and all other anti-Muslim propaganda. Death to Islam."? Do you think that would be a more appropriate response?

 

[rudder]

Isn't this how most rational people view the situation? The film was produced with the sole intention of pissing off a group of people. Sure it is inappropriate and wrong... but our freedoms allow douches to do things like this. Life goes on.

 

[SheHateMe]

I guess we lose then. If they start coming down our streets throwing stuff at our houses I guess we have to let them in.

And our Government HAS publicly denounced the video, and things are much worse today. Did the denouncing work?

It took a while for things to go back to normal about the video of Rodney King being beaten came out.

Its ridiculous for you to expect these rioters to be all dough-eyed for the US making an apology about the video. They probably think its a farce..whatever the case may be, their own Governments are lashing out against the protesters and are trying to curb the violence. A few protesters have been killed or arrested. Things will probably die down in the next week or so.

 

[SheHateMe]

Isn't this how most rational people view the situation? The film was produced with the sole intention of pissing off a group of people. Sure it is inappropriate and wrong... but our freedoms allow douches to do things like this. Life goes on.

Yes, if this happened in the US. Life would simply go on...but the prospect of a horrendous backlash from this incident in the form of another attack is probably looming over the White House right now. Damage control is most important. Other embassies are under attack as we sit here comfortable and safe at home bitching at each other.