Liberals are in a tizzy. How dare Romney critique Obama on apologizing for free speech. How dare Romney criticize Obama when a U.S. diplomat is dead as a result of Obama’s complete incompetence. How dare Romney push to get a man out of office whom he believes, justifiably so, is so inept at everything he does that to let him have another 4 years in the Oval Office would lead to irreparable damage to both this nation and our allies. How dare he! For shame, Romney, for shame!
So no shocker liberals are idiots for multiple reasons, but let’s go over a few of them.
The first, and possibly my favorite: How dare he use the murder of people to help himself. The first thing I try to do in an argument, believe it or not, is to look at it from the other person’s point of view (you’d be surprised how this makes you feel other people are idiots more often than it builds tolerance, but that’s another discussion for another day). So liberals from Romney’s point of view Obama is inept, putting the lives of U.S. citizens at risk, and the first inclination of both he and his administration is to apologize to butchers at any and every chance. If you were Romney, the only ethical thing to do is to get Obama out of office through any and all ethical means. * Bringing up Obama’s many failures is a an ethical and important way to get rid of the ass.** To do anything less would be to allow such a terrible executive to stay in power—to not make a point of this would have been to allow Obama to stay in power, to actively work for what Romney believes will harm this country—in short to not bring it up would be unethical. Yes, for shame that Romney did the only ethical thing available to him.
And both parties are guilty of this. Right now, it’s being highlighted that the media didn’t throw this hissy fit when Kerry used dead soldiers in Iraq to hit Bush. () Yes some Republicans said it was classless and tacky, I don’t recall doing so myself because quite frankly if you think the war isn’t worth it that’s a damn valid point. I thought the war was worth it, and it was—granted it would have been better if it had been carried out by someone with a brain, but just because Bush was a moron doesn’t negate the fact that Kerry would have been even more incompetent at bringing democracy to Iraq. So Kerry bringing up dead soldiers or not isn’t relevant (the fact that Kerry seemed shocked that people die in war however might be a good point of showing how dumb Kerry was) to the argument, fewer people were dying because Saddam was gone. Now any Republicans who had a problem with Kerry doing this back then would be hypocrites to complain about Democrats outrage now, just as the media is hypocritical of showing outrage for one but not the other.
The fact is that there is really no shameful behavior in a campaign there is only a question of relevant and effective. Bringing up Obama’s failures is relevant if you’re argument is that Obama is utterly incompetent, which he is. Bringing up dead soldiers in Iraq is relevant if your argument is that the Iraq war was wrong, which it wasn’t (it was just managed by idiots). Shame is only relevant when you’re acting against what you believe, which in both cases was not the fact. However Kerry’s central argument was dumb so this point was irrelevant. It’s just like liberals now bringing up Romney’s tax returns. Their argument is they need to see them to determine if Romney has done anything illegal…which is dumb…if a candidate is that rich they’ve got good lawyers and accountants, which means even if they are doing as many illegal back door deals as say, Nancy Pelosi, their lawyers and accountants are not going to be dumb enough to put them in their tax returns. Further you don’t think the IRS under Obama didn’t already go through them with a fine tooth comb? Trust me if there was stuff there Obama would have already leaked it…I mean it’s not like Romney’s taxes are a classified state secret (and we know Obama has no qualms about leaking that).
Now you can argue that Romney doing this might not have been effective and counter to his goal of unseating Obama, as many in the McCain/RINO wing of the Republican party seem to be doing (yes because we should listen to McCain advisors on how to run a campaign because they clearly know how to win…) but really that’s tangential to the faux outrage by the Democrats.
Second you have people getting upset about insulting the president (yes Republicans were guilty of this too during Bush). I’m sorry but I live in a Constitutional Republic. The president and politicians work for me, not the other way around. They are not gods, they are not kings or nobility; they are human beings. And they deserve to be called out on their failings. Due to their position of service they deserve to be called out on it even more as they are my employee and when they do such a terrible job they deserve to be told what utter !@#$ing scum and idiots they are. And like the outrage over calling out people when others have died, the only question is, is it relevant. Calling Bush Hitler for defending liberty…doesn’t quite make sense (an idiot he was, evil no…of course liberals were seldom calling him an idiot for the right reasons). Calling Obama a socialist when he acts and says everything a socialist would, perfectly justified. ()
Now, onto the real meat of the matter. Obama’s foreign policy incompetence and Romney’s justified critique of it.
Let’s get our timeline set.
1. The US embassy in Cairo issued an apology for free speech.
2. Riots began in Cairo and Libya. The embassy repeats the statement several times.
3. It became known that a US citizen had died in Libya (it was not known at the time that it was the Ambassador).
4. The Obama administration, after some dithering, has the initial apology removed.
5. Romney issued a condemnation of the initial apology.
6. The day after this all happens Romney gives a speech calling for leadership and condemning Obama for not offering any, and Obama gives a speech that once again apologizes for the fact that we have free speech.
The problem here for liberals is that because the apology came before the attacks that Romney’s statement is wrong and false.
Let’s deal with this.
I’ve tried to watch the video, I might condemn it for poor production value or the fact that it was clearly made by a moron, but by doing so I would be doing it as a private citizen. A US Embassy has no right to critique, let alone condemn the expression of free speech by citizens of the US. Furthermore as this was made by Coptic Christians who are being slaughtered by the Muslim Brotherhood, you might understand why they’re taking their frustration out on Muslims (it’s the only religion I know of that was founded by a child raping butcher who personally ordered the genocidal massacre of the Jews of Medina…but I’m sure it’s a religion of peace having started with such an upstanding beginning). But my point in bringing this up is I’ve haven’t heard of any condemnations by the US Ambassador condemning the abuse of Jews, Coptic Christians, or hell even women by the Muslim Brotherhood…but let’s condemn people for using their Constitutional Rights. It also makes such fascinating comments like “Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy.” (Didn’t notice much of it in Charlotte when half the party objected to the word God being put in the platform…that was unfair actually…they were booing the inclusion of Jerusalem being listed as the capital of Israel. So I apologize for saying the Democrats are against religion. They’re not. They’re just against Jews.) Also I hate to tell them this respect for religions isn’t a cornerstone of America (it’s also a republic not a democracy)…right to express your beliefs is a cornerstone, but I don’t have to respect you when you do. I have every right to think you’re a complete moron or even evil (and before you begin to argue with me on that, you first have to tell me you respect the beliefs of the Westboro Baptists and that you would condemn anyone who would try to denigrate them for their batshit crazy ideas). I will defend your right to express your dipshit ideas, so long as such expression does not harm me or others, but don’t expect me to respect you for being dead wrong.
And Romney’s response.
Okay so since the attacks occurred after the apology it might be a little out of line that Romney said the administration’s “first response” to the attack was not to condemn them but to apologize. Yeah sure the embassy repeated the message after the attacks began but I mean it’s not like the Secretary of State issued an apology of her own after the attacks had already begun at about 7:54pm…oh wait…what…she did? Oh shit, I guess he’s right their first reaction was to condemn free speech rather than condemn the butchers who throw a hissy fit over a video that one would otherwise ignore if you weren’t crazy (you know the same butchers murdering Coptic Christians and putting Jews and women in their sights).
You can see the original at https://twitter.com/StateDept/status/245717059693080576 (but I expect that will be taken down soon.)
[Author's note: it would appear I have my times a little mixed up, Hillary's tweet came about 10 minutes after Romney's statement...which is despicable in its own right...however as it also appears that the embassy twice sent out messages backing up their previous abhorrent statements, Romney is still correct in say that the administration's first inclination was to apologize after the attacks begun...I messed up in my time lines, Romney did not. 9/13]
So then we had this morning where
Romney made the point that
“An apology for America’s values is never the right course”
And Obama again apologized for the First Amendment, “We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.”
Question, which of these two sounds closer to “I may not agree with what you say but will defend your right to say it to the death” which is supposedly the American tradition that keeps the Westboro Baptists from being beaten to death.
So all that is left is Romney right that this is symptom of a greater amount of incompetence on Obama’s part. Yes it is. Because it is Obama who has attempted 4 years of appeasement to no avail. Because it is Obama who gave help to the Muslim Brotherhood in Libya and Egypt and allowed these al-Qaeda tied Islamists to take over (yes the two countries had dictators, but US policy should not be to change one dictator for a worse one). Obama in turn left pro-democracy forces in Iran be slaughtered. He is currently backstabbing our ally Israel at every turn. He is chummy with a Russia that is giving nuclear capabilities to Iran and helping Syrian tyrants slaughter people (I’m not thrilled with either side in Syria, but that doesn’t mean I want outside forces helping to encourage the pointless slaughter). He is the one giving money to the butchers in Egypt. He and his administration are responsible for their not being a Marine contingent in Libya to defend the ambassador but only local hired help…who may have been involved in the attack.
I could go on and I probably will later. But on numerous levels the administration may not have caused the riots but it has done everything in its power to make sure the butchers behind these riots came to power and even today this administration is giving them cover and blaming things like free speech as the cause, not a culture of barbarism in countries run by tyrants.
And to attack Romney and not Obama is either rank hypocrisy or utter cluelessness. Either way, shame on you liberals. Shame. Obama created the situation that killed the ambassador by being weak, by backing butchers, and by apologizing for America.
*You could assume that Romney is not ethical, out for power for power’s sake, and has no principles…however, there is no evidence to justify such a claim. He gives overly generously to charity and does not live in garish style, so greed doesn’t seem to be a factor. I can’t find any evidence of cronyism in his administration as Governor. Nor does he seem centered on himself at every moment, so ego doesn’t seem to be his motivation. Now those things do seem to drive other people, but I see no evidence of it in Romney, so assuming he’s not acting out of what he believes to be ethical duty seems a foolish assumption.
**Democrats, don’t like being called asses or jackasses? Too bad, you’re the ones who put it on the letterhead. Or have you repudiated the jackass for the ostrich?