What happened when Toto sauntered over to the curtain
and exposed the Great Oz for what he really was?
Posted on 09/13/2012 8:21:30 AM PDT by Qbert
Tuesday's assaults on the U.S. Embassies in Benghazi and Cairo have injected foreign policy into the Presidential campaign, but suddenly the parsons of the press corps are offended by the debate. They're upset that Mitt Romney had the gall to criticize the State Department for a statement that the White House itself disavowed.
We're referring to the statement issued Tuesday under the headline "U.S. Embassy Condemns Religious Incitement." The statement came in response to Muslim protests against a 13-minute anti-Islamic video making the rounds on YouTube.
In response to anger in Egypt at the video, the Embassy in Cairo issued its statement saying that "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."
[Snip]
One problem is that the statement came not long before Egyptian protestors stormed the Embassy and some of them made it over a wall and into the compound. An Embassy Twitter post after the assault said its earlier statement "still stands."
Mr. Romney reacted late Tuesday with his own statement: "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."..[Snip]
The Obama Presidential campaign jumped on the remarks Wednesday as inappropriate, yet a "senior Administration official" had told the website Politico later on Tuesday night that "The statement by Embassy Cairo was not cleared by Washington and does not reflect the views of the United States government." So the White House can walk away from its own diplomats, but Mr. Romney can't criticize them?
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
"Romney must be on right track"
Yep. The pro-Obama media operatives know how damaging this event was to Obama, and they are only lashing out at Romney to try and change the subject. The louder they yelp, the more you know you've hit the mark...
Shouldn't that be Puntist!
The pundits are all going to vote for Obama anyway
Fudge em.
Who gives a rats patoot what they say, Only idiots listen to them.
"The pundits are all going to vote for Obama anyway Fudge em."
I think we should start identifying them by what they really are- instead of calling them "pundits" or "journalists", etc., we should simply call them "Democrats". ("Democrat Chuck Todd said today that he doesn't agree with Romney's statements, and Scott Pelley (D-CBS) agreed with him; Democrat Brian Williams went ever further saying...", etc.).
I found these quotes :
In that same National Review op-ed in April Romney said he agrees with former Ambassador John Bolton’s assessment that Obama set himself up for “massive strategic failure” by calling for Gadhafi’s removal. And in July, Romney was equally dubious about bringing down Gadhafi, saying “who’s going to own Libya if we get rid of the government there?”
When opposition forces killed the Libyan dictator in October, Romney praised the rebels for taking out “one of the worst actors on the world stage, responsible for terror around the world.”
“The world is a better place with Gadhafi gone,” Romney told reporters at a campaign event in Iowa shortly after Gadhafi was killed. “I think it’s about time.”
Mitt Romney’s Evolving Position On Libya
You see? He kind of warned about this happening but then later got on the other side praising the overthrow and the rebels wanting to be on the 'winning' side. Kind of like Italy in WWI and WWII.
They sure do and last time they won.
See where that got us?
What Would You Do?
How is this for politics. If you commit a blunder and a tragedy ensues and your opponent calls you on it... what should you do?
1. Deflect - Trash your opponent for speaking out of turn? (making up that rule on the fly)
2. Distract - Have your media minions trash your opponent and downplay the tragic events.
3. Demagogue - Wag your finger at your opponent and say he doesn’t know what he is talking about and to let you do your job. Especially when he is right and you have no clue.
ANSWER: All 3 of them
What happened when Toto sauntered over to the curtain
and exposed the Great Oz for what he really was?
Then what those pundits are saying does matter.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.