US Ambassador killed in Libya

[spence]

Romney accuses Obama of 'mixed messages' following Libya attacks - latimes.com

This is pathetic.

-spence

[striperman36]

Originally Posted by spence

Romney accuses Obama of 'mixed messages' following Libya attacks - latimes.com

This is pathetic.

-spence

Well he certainly has the spotlight now

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Romney accuses Obama of 'mixed messages' following Libya attacks - latimes.com

This is pathetic.

-spence

Spence, Obama clearly sympathized with those offended by an insignificant video on youtube...(as an aside, Obama takes a million bucks from Bill Maher, who offends Catholics every day, so Obama is apparently on board with Catholic-bashing, but not Muslim-bashing). Many Americans don't feel that an insulting video is just cause for mass murder, and we don't like our President implying that there are 2 sides to this story. Because there aren't.

The administration is bumbling through this. Obama specifically says Egypt is not an ally, his State Departmenmt contradicts this.

Obama's response to this has not exactly been inspirational. Romney is free to criticize him for that, just as then-candidate Obama bashed Bush for mis-handling Iraq.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

just as then-candidate Obama bashed Bush for mis-handling Iraq.

and everything else under the sun

'mixed messages' is an understatement

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

and everything else under the sun

'mixed messages' is an understatement

You're darn right it's an understatement. And the entire media is criticizing Romney for having the hutzpah to be critical of the Messiah. As if candidate Obama never said anything negative about Bush or Hilary or McCain.

Their hypocrisy knows no bounds, and they literally have no shame.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, Obama clearly sympathized with those offended by an insignificant video on youtube...

Jim, this is the fundamental problem with your thinking.

It didn't happen.

During the day on Tuesday the embassy in Cairo independently put out a statement condemning the video before any violence began.

That night, Romney issues an embargoed statement (to be released after the 9/11 truce ironically enough) attacking the administration with "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,".

Before the Romeny's backwards statement was even issued to the press, the Whitehouse had already disavowed the embassy comment. The attack on Obama by Romney and the GOP is either grossly inept or worse an intentional manipulation of an event where Americans serving their country have died.

And on 9/11 of all days

How you can't see that as anything but shameful is beyond me.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Jim, this is the fundamental problem with your thinking.

It didn't happen.

During the day on Tuesday the embassy in Cairo independently put out a statement condemning the video before any violence began.

That night, Romney issues an embargoed statement (to be released after the 9/11 truce ironically enough) attacking the administration with "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,".

Before the Romeny's backwards statement was even issued to the press, the Whitehouse had already disavowed the embassy comment. Obama by RomneyThe attack on and the GOP is either grossly inept or worse an intentional manipulation of an event where Americans serving their country have died.

And on 9/11 of all days

How you can't see that as anything but shameful is beyond me.

-spence

"It didn't happen."

Sure it did. I saw a stament that both expressed sympathy for the hurt feelings caused by the video, and also said that wasn't justification for the attack.

Spence, even if the attack never happened, Obama shouldn't be commenting on that video. If Obama doesn't like the anti-Islamic views in that video, why does he pal around with libs who say hateful things about Christianity? Like saying we've declared war on women?

"The attack on Obama by Romney"

I see. When Obama criticizes someone, that's OK. When we criticize him, it's an attack, is that right?

I don't want to keep you from your Kool Aid stand anymore.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Sure it did. I saw a stament that both expressed sympathy for the hurt feelings caused by the video, and also said that wasn't justification for the attack.

Please show me where Obama expresses sympathy for those hurt by the video. If you saw it it should be easy to find.

Spence, even if the attack never happened, Obama shouldn't be commenting on that video. If Obama doesn't like the anti-Islamic views in that video, why does he pal around with libs who say hateful things about Christianity? Like saying we've declared war on women?

Please provide a link where Obama is commenting on the video.

I see. When Obama criticizes someone, that's OK. When we criticize him, it's an attack, is that right?

No, I'm saying that your criticism is based on a flawed understanding of the facts.

You do like facts right?

-spence

[basswipe]

Btw the man who made the video was detained and questioned by police.Why?When did the right to free speech require detention and questioning?

Also Obama called the man reckless and irresponsible and such behaviour should be monitored and curtailed.He really did.

[spence]

Originally Posted by basswipe

Btw the man who made the video was detained and questioned by police.Why?When did the right to free speech require detention and questioning?

Because he's on probation after pleading no contest to federal identity theft charges. There appears to be a chance he's violated his parole.

Also Obama called the man reckless and irresponsible and such behaviour should be monitored and curtailed.He really did.

Again, I'd like to see exactly what he said.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Please show me where Obama expresses sympathy for those hurt by the video. If you saw it it should be easy to find.



Please provide a link where Obama is commenting on the video.


No, I'm saying that your criticism is based on a flawed understanding of the facts.

You do like facts right?

-spence

"You do like facts right?"

I do. Interesting that you, who deny that Michelle Obama said she wasn't proud of the US until Barack got the nomination, are now consumed with what's fact and what is not. Interesting.

"Please provide a link where Obama is commenting on the video."

Obama vows to 'bring justice' to killers in US Embassy attack in Libya | Fox News

"While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants," Obama said.

Good enough? There is Obama commenting on the video. OK? Satisfied?

I responded to your question directly. Perhaps you can respond to one of mine, and here it is...

If Obama is sincere in that he "rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others", why does Obama's PAC (run by Obama pal Bill Burton) take $1 million from Bill Maher, who bashes Christianity every night? Why does Obama surround himself with staffers and friends in the media who relentlessly bash Catholics? Why did the Democratic convention feature one fanatical feminist after another who lied about some war on women? That was clearly a direct response to the Catholic Church's request that they not have to abandon deeply held religious beliefs, for the sake of a liberal pet project. Isn't that a wee bit hypocritical, Spence?

Spence, when you deal with me, you would do well to keep in mind that everyhting I believe is based on facts and common sense. Unlike you, I'm not blindly devoted to one side.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I do. Interesting that you, who deny that Michelle Obama said she wasn't proud of the US until Barack got the nomination, are now consumed with what's fact and what is not. Interesting.

It's called critical thought, they teach it in grade school.

"While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants," Obama said.

Good enough? There is Obama commenting on the video. OK? Satisfied?

He's not talking directly about the video here, he's talking in general terms about the senseless denigration of religion and violence. It's an indirect comment at best, prompted by the video but not direct judgement.

If Obama is sincere in that he "rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others", why does Obama's PAC (run by Obama pal Bill Burton) take $1 million from Bill Maher, who bashes Christianity every night? Why does Obama surround himself with staffers and friends in the media who relentlessly bash Catholics?

Maher is critical of all organized religions. His ire for Catholics is largely fueled by an organized tolerance of pedophilia. He's plenty harsh on fundamentalist Islam as well.

It would be intellectually dishonest to claim parity with the "Innocence of Muslims" move that started all this. It was intended only to insult, denigrate and provoke a negative response. From what I understand there isn't a single constructive element to it and even the actors were misled as to it's purpose.

Why did the Democratic convention feature one fanatical feminist after another who lied about some war on women? That was clearly a direct response to the Catholic Church's request that they not have to abandon deeply held religious beliefs, for the sake of a liberal pet project. Isn't that a wee bit hypocritical, Spence?

Perhaps because you're so consumed with hate you don't see things clearly. You see a "liberal pet project" while others see preventative care to improve women's health.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

It didn't happen.

During the day on Tuesday(9-11) the embassy in Cairo independently put out a statement condemning the video before any violence began.

-spence

this is comical....I guess the buck stops over there

let's see

unaffiliated "independent" mystery embassy statement-

“[B]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.” So declared the Obama State Department in a statement issued on the website of its Egyptian embassy

Obama statement-

"While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants," Obama said.

this seems a bit backward to me, Obama has, and many of his most ardent supporters routinely denigrate the religious beliefs of others, it's practically a sport with many on the "intellectual left"....I don't recall any opposition or apologies.....

the second part of the statement is what should have been first.... senselessly murdering someone or burning buildings because someone on the other side of the planet offended your sensibilities would seem to be the logical object of your scorn...wouldn't it? I don't think the first and the second deserve equal treatment...not even close

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

this is comical....I guess the buck stops over there

let's see

unaffiliated "independent" mystery embassy statement-

“[B]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.” So declared the Obama State Department in a statement issued on the website of its Egyptian embassy

Obama statement-

"While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants," Obama said.

this seems a bit backward to me, Obama has, and many of his most ardent supporters routinely denigrate the religious beliefs of others, it's practically a sport with many on the "intellectual left"....I don't recall any opposition or apologies.....

the second part of the statement is what should have been first.... senselessly murdering someone or burning buildings because someone on the other side of the planet offended your sensibilities would seem to be the logical object of your scorn...wouldn't it? I don't think the first and the second deserve equal treatment...not even close

Damn right.

(1) I have never heard Obama chastise his fellow liberals for bashing Christianity. These people hate Catholics, and they make no secret about it. But since Catholics have not been anointed with "victim" status by liberals, it is therefore acceptable to attack Catholics at every available moment. SInce Muslims have been anointed with "victim" status by the left, they are a protected species.

(2) as for Obama's statement...the only reference to the youtube video should have been a statement that Muslims, like everyone else, need to accept the unfortunate reality that there are jerks out there, and even jerks have the right to free speech.

I cannot wait to hear Spence's "response" to this...

[scottw]

and it doesn't appear as though the initial "independent" statement nor the reworded statement were very effective

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Damn right.

(1) I have never heard Obama chastise his fellow liberals for bashing Christianity. These people hate Catholics, and they make no secret about it.

See you see hatred in things like the health services bill. I see a policy that doesn't require members to violate their personal beliefs by taking advantage of contraceptives (which largely should reduce unwanted pregnancies, and the potential number of abortions, no?), but lets those who may work in a Catholic hospital/school who may not have the same fervent belief's in the churches stance on contraceptives.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

See you see hatred in things like the health services bill. I see a policy that doesn't require members to violate their personal beliefs by taking advantage of contraceptives (which largely should reduce unwanted pregnancies, and the potential number of abortions, no?), but lets those who may work in a Catholic hospital/school who may not have the same fervent belief's in the churches stance on contraceptives.

"See you see hatred in things like the health services bill. "

No, the bill isn't hate...it's religious intolerance. The reaction to the Catholic Church's stance on the bill was what was hateful.

RIROCKHOUND, can you honestly say that, after the Catholic Church resisted paying for contraception, that liberals weren't bashing Catholicism? All this nonsense about a war on women? That's not hate-mongering and fear-mongering?

ROCKHOUND, liberals constantly refer to the 'war on women'. either (1) you believe that there is literally a war on women, or (2) liberals are misleading the public to cast Catholics in a negative light.

Which is it? You tell me, which is it?

As to the bill, you are wrong. The Catholic Church believes contraception is immoral. "Separation of church and state" has been interpreted to mean that the federal government not appear to either endorse nor reject the beliefs of any religion. Telling the Catholic Church thatthey must provide what they teach is immoral, can easily be construed as a rejection of Catholic cathechism. We;ll see how it plays out in court.

as to your over-simplified suggestion that increased availability of contraception will reduce abortions and unwanted pregnancies? That sounds very logical...but the facts don't support it. During the sexual revolution of the 1960's, those in favor of contraception availability used that same argument...that if birth control was available everywhere, we'd have fewer abortions and unwanted pregnancies. And what happened, was the exact opposite. we now have more abortions and unwanted pregnanices. Many sociologists say it's because liberals have created a public perception that sex is a casual thing. I don't know what caused it. All I know is that after contraception became widely available, we see more abortions, more infidelity, more STD's, more kids born out of wedlock. Not less, but more. Way more. Way, way more.

Try making that wrong.

That's liberalism, ROCKHOUND. Something that sounds like common sense, and makes a great bumper sticker, but blows up in your face when you implement it. What I will never understand (maybe you can explain it), is why folks continue to say things like "widespread availability of contraception results in fewer abortions", when we have 30 years of data tells us it just ain't so.

[JohnR]

FYI - getting close to locking this thread down

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

See you see hatred in things like the health services bill. I see a policy that doesn't require members to violate their personal beliefs by taking advantage of contraceptives (which largely should reduce unwanted pregnancies, and the potential number of abortions, no?), but lets those who may work in a Catholic hospital/school who may not have the same fervent belief's in the churches stance on contraceptives.

This business of the federal government demanding that a third party pay for contraceptives befuddles me. If buying something as cheap as contraceptives should be povided for all women, not just very poor ones who government could provide with all the other stuff they get, then what else should not be provided by third parties? If contraceptives should be provided by insurance then cars and houses and clothing and college education . . . and . . . and . . . etc., which are much more expensive, should be provided by some form of insurance other than the insurance you provide for yourself by earning the money to buy them.

And tying contraception to health care is also befuddling. Every thing you do or buy can be tied to health care as much or more. The primary purpose of contraCEPTIVES is to prevent pregnancy. So, is pregnancy to be considered a disease? Some forms of contraception, condoms, can also prevent venereal diseases, but their main function was to prevent pregnancey, and they are cheap.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

See you see hatred in things like the health services bill. I see a policy that doesn't require members to violate their personal beliefs by taking advantage of contraceptives (which largely should reduce unwanted pregnancies, and the potential number of abortions, no?), but lets those who may work in a Catholic hospital/school who may not have the same fervent belief's in the churches stance on contraceptives.

Bryan....this is rhetoric and hyperbole

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

this is comical....I guess the buck stops over there

let's see

unaffiliated "independent" mystery embassy statement-

“[B]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.” So declared the Obama State Department in a statement issued on the website of its Egyptian embassy

I'm not aware of any issuance by the State Department using the words "feelings of Muslims".

What you have is a right wing media trying to manipulate an unfortunate situation through confusion for political gain. I'm not sure what's worse, those who knowingly manipulate or those who see it and knowingly pass it along.

Sad.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I'm not aware of any issuance by the State Department using the words "feelings of Muslims".

What you have is a right wing media trying to manipulate an unfortunate situation through confusion for political gain. I'm not sure what's worse, those who knowingly manipulate or those who see it and knowingly pass it along.

Sad.

-spence

Cairo protesters scale U.S. Embassy wall, remove flag


After the protest, the U.S. Embassy issued this statement on its website:

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims â?? as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of other

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

Cairo protesters scale U.S. Embassy wall, remove flag


After the protest, the U.S. Embassy issued this statement on its website:

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims â?? as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of other

It's a matter of record that the statement was put out 6 hours before the attack by embassy staff alone. I've never read that it was reissued and would suspect the article you quote is in error as it is four days old.

The first actual Administration response by the State Department came later by Clinton:

“I condemn in the strongest terms the attack on our mission in Benghazi today,” Clinton said, confirming the death of a consulate diplomat. “Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.”

I'm sure you'll be happy to see she has the elements in the right sequence.

-spence