U.S. Ambassador to Libya, 3 Other Embassy Staff Killed in Rocket Attack

[MACH1]

Originally Posted by Killer

So Obama knew - LIHOP ( Let it happen on purpose)?

Where's the truthers now?

We all know fund raising in Vegas, polishing Reids knob is of vastly more importance and hobnobbing with Leno and Letterman out weigh everything.

I'll bet you dollar to doughnuts they had a live feed to watch it all go down too. But nooo Vegas is more important.

[MACH1]

Originally Posted by Atlanta Dan

If only W was still in charge the "apology" would never have been issued

Ooops - maybe "apologies" have been issued before the Kenyan Islamist Socialist became President

It is clear now that much of the misunderstanding surrounding the statement by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo stems from the fact that some commentators thought it had been issued after protesters stormed the embassy compound. Instead, the embassy had released it hours before the protests began, in an apparent effort to cool down emotions over a film that defamed the prophet Muhammad. ...

In context, the embassy statement appears similar to previous statements issued by embassies or spokesmen for the U.S. government in response to provocative actions that might inflame Muslims. The practice dates back at least to the appointment of Karen Hughes as undersecretary of state for public affairs in the second presidential term of George W. Bush. ...

In context, the embassy statement appears similar to previous statements issued by embassies or spokesmen for the U.S. government in response to provocative actions that might inflame Muslims. The practice dates back at least to the appointment of Karen Hughes as undersecretary of state for public affairs in the second presidential term of George W. Bush.

The Bush administration had been stunned by the violent anti-American protests in 2005 that erupted after Newsweek erroneously reported that U.S. interrogators had tried to rattle an al-Qaeda suspect by flushing a Koran down a toilet. Hughes pushed for a much more proactive communications effort, in an effort to get ahead of such reports.

Following is the full Cairo embassy statement, followed by two other examples that we found of similar statements. These statements follow a similar pattern, which we will highlight in the text:

1. Condemn the potential offending action.

2. Emphasize that the United States believes in religious freedom and religious tolerance — as well as freedom of expression or freedom of speech.

3. Make a reference to American democracy, or at least the U.S. Constitution.

Of the examples we found, the 2012 Cairo embassy statement is perhaps the weakest, though perhaps that is because it is shortest. It refers to “abuse” of the “universal right of free speech” without emphasizing that Americans have an absolute right to freedom of speech — no matter how distasteful.

The longest and most thorough statement is by the State Department spokesman in 2006. But a statement made at the daily briefing carries the full weight of the U.S. government, whereas the embassy statement is just that — a statement by the embassy, drafted in house, with little or no coordination with Washington (let alone senior State Department officials who are political appointees of the current administration).

Indeed, an interesting inside account published by Foreign Policy magazine says the statement and tweets were the work of communications staffer Larry Schwartz. The article says he cleared the statement with only one person at the embassy — not the ambassador, who was in Washington — and he posted it even though Washington, once it got wind of it, told him not to post it without changes. When The Fact Checker was diplomatic correspondent for The Washington Post, he knew and respected Schwartz as a blunt professional who was not afraid of ruffling a few feathers every so often.

Without the tragic events of this week, the Cairo statement likely would have passed unnoticed — along with the other embassy statements on Facebook contests, the ambassador’s visits to polling stations and so forth.


U.S. Embassy, Cairo, 2012:


U.S. Embassy Condemns Religious Incitement

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. 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 others.

— September 11, 2012 ...


State Department spokesman, 2006


Daily press briefing,

QUESTION: Yes? Can you say anything about a U.S. response or a U.S. reaction to this uproar in Europe over the Prophet Muhammad pictures? Do you have any reaction to it? Are you concerned that the violence is going to spread and make everything just —

MR. MCCORMACK: I haven't seen any — first of all, this is matter of fact. I haven't seen it. I have seen a lot of protests. I've seen a great deal of distress expressed by Muslims across the globe. The Muslims around the world have expressed the fact that they are outraged and that they take great offense at the images that were printed in the Danish newspaper, as well as in other newspapers around the world.

Our response is to say that while we certainly don't agree with, support, or in some cases, we condemn the views that are aired in public that are published in media organizations around the world, we, at the same time, defend the right of those individuals to express their views. For us, freedom of expression is at the core of our democracy and it is something that we have shed blood and treasure around the world to defend and we will continue to do so. That said, there are other aspects to democracy, our democracy — democracies around the world — and that is to promote understanding, to promote respect for minority rights, to try to appreciate the differences that may exist among us.

We believe, for example in our country, that people from different religious backgrounds, ethnic backgrounds, national backgrounds add to our strength as a country. And it is important to recognize and appreciate those differences. And it is also important to protect the rights of individuals and the media to express a point of view concerning various subjects. So while we share the offense that Muslims have taken at these images, we at the same time vigorously defend the right of individuals to express points of view. We may not agree with those points of view, we may condemn those points of view but we respect and emphasize the importance that those individuals have the right to express those points of view.

For example — and on the particular cartoon that was published — I know the Prime Minister of Denmark has talked about his, I know that the newspaper that originally printed it has apologized, so they have addressed this particular issue. So we would urge all parties to exercise the maximum degree of understanding, the maximum degree of tolerance when they talk about this issue. And we would urge dialogue, not violence. And that also those that might take offense at these images that have been published, when they see similar views or images that could be perceived as anti-Semitic or anti-Catholic, that they speak out with equal vigor against those images.

— Feb. 3. 2006

The Bottom Line

We have looked in vain for an “apology” in the Cairo statement, as well as significant differences between that statement and earlier ones. One could criticize the Cairo statement for lacking a meticulous defense of freedom of speech. But that is not the same thing as an apology — especially since the embassy clearly issued the statement long before the protests began.

This all started because some people got the timeline wrong. In the fog of war and protest, it often helps to get the facts straight before you act — or speak.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...54e1_blog.html

Nah - shoot first then aim

And it's back to bu, bu, bu bush.

We wouldn't want a president that acted stupidly would we.

[Atlanta Dan]

Originally Posted by MACH1

And it's back to bu, bu, bu bush.

We wouldn't want a president that acted stupidly would we.

If Obama is accountable for some tweet that went out of the embassy in Cairo before the freaking attacks occurred then it is helpful to check on whether those sorts of statements have occurred before

This campaign talking point about "apologies" is part of the same nonsense that pretends deficits, expansion of health care and attempting to respond to insults to Muslims never occurred prior to January 20, 2009, when the White House was under prior management




As far as the Gipper goes, I voted for him but bombing Libya wasn't the only thing that occurred in the Middle East on his watch

25 years later, bombing in Beirut still resonates

http://www.usatoday.com/news/militar...barracks_N.htm

If that happened on Obama's watch Paul Ryan would be introducing articles of impeachment

My point is that sh*t constantly happens to the U.S. in the Middle East and not just when the Democrats occupy the White House

[tony hipchest]

Originally Posted by Atlanta Dan

We have looked in vain for an “apology” in the Cairo statement, as well as significant differences between that statement and earlier ones. One could criticize the Cairo statement for lacking a meticulous defense of freedom of speech. But that is not the same thing as an apology — especially since the embassy clearly issued the statement long before the protests began.

This all started because some people got the timeline wrong. In the fog of war and protest, it often helps to get the facts straight before you act — or speak. [/I]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...54e1_blog.html

Nah - shoot first then aim

cmon dan, you dont wanna ruin a perfectly good GOP circle jerk with facts now do you?

Originally Posted by MACH1

And it's back to bu, bu, bu bush.

We wouldn't want a president that acted stupidly would we.

is it also obamas fault that regan was a horrible actor?

so ronald bombed a terrorist's house and missed the target and is applauded by the GOP. clinton bombed a terrorists house and missed and is demonized by the same people?

makes sense to me.

both said terrorists were eradicated during obamas watch. moral of the story is not to send in a bush to clean up and do the dirty work (unless its nut hugging the saudi arabs).

[NEPatriots]

[YOUTUBE]FqAF-Alc7CM[/YOUTUBE]

[MACH1]

So Bush used drones to take out terrrorists and was deemed a war criminal and obama uses them the same and he is somehow labeled a hero, peace prize winner?
The hypocrisy boggles the mind.

Lets make more excuses for obama.

America 'was warned of embassy attack but did nothing'

The newspaper, The Independent, plastered its cover with the headline, “Revealed: inside story of US envoy’s assassination,” and reported inside: “The killings of the US ambassador to Libya and three of his staff were likely to have been the result of a serious and continuing security breach … American officials believe the attack was planned."

The article continued: "According to senior diplomatic sources, the U.S. State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, and the embassy in Cairo, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and ‘lockdown’, under which movement is severely restricted."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz26ULFv3bP

You would think when something like this happens he could take just one day off from panhandling to do his job.

[Atlanta Dan]

Originally Posted by Killer

Hillary's turn...

Clinton calls anti-Islam video 'disgusting'

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is sharpening her criticism of an anti-Islam video that provoked protests in the Arab world.

Clinton says the film is "disgusting and reprehensible." She calls it a cynical attempt to offend people for their religious beliefs.

Romney's turn

How about the film that seems to have sparked all this, the Innocence of Muslims film? Secretary Clinton today said she thought it was disgusting. How would you describe it?

MITT ROMNEY: Well, I haven’t seen the film. I don’t intend to see it. I you know, 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. Of course, we have a First Amendment. And under the First Amendment, people are allowed to do what they feel they want to do. 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....

I think the whole film is a terrible idea. I think him making it, promoting it showing it is disrespectful to people of other faiths. I don’t think that should happen. I think people should have the common courtesy and judgment– the good judgment– not to be– not to offend other peoples’ faiths. It’s a very bad thing, I think, this guy’s doing

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...d-mitt-romney/

Why does Mitt love Islam?

[MACH1]

Bu, bu, bu romney.

[ricardisimo]

Originally Posted by MACH1

So Bush used drones to take out terrrorists and was deemed a war criminal and obama uses them the same and he is somehow labeled a hero, peace prize winner?
The hypocrisy boggles the mind.

Lets make more excuses for obama.

The hypocrisy has not gone unnoticed. I imagine that no Democrat will ever again complain about Henry Kissinger's Nobel Prize... at least not with a straight face. Monster though he most certainly was, at least Henry got his for actually ending a war.

[Atlanta Dan]

Originally Posted by MACH1

So Bush used drones to take out terrrorists and was deemed a war criminal and obama uses them the same and he is somehow labeled a hero, peace prize winner?

I recall W got the war criminal tag for the "enhanced interrogations" rather than the drones - I think the torture actually has ceased but I do not have the security clearance to verify that guess

As far as Obama getting into remote control murders, I recall he developed a taste for drones after he won the Nobel Peace Prize for not being W - since I believe you cannot repeat as Nobel Peace Prize champ maybe he figured since that was off his bucket list he did not have to worry about droning hurting his chances to win that prize

And I think he got the "hero" tag by some for happening to be POTUS when Osama was killed, something that his predecessor botched and then claimed did not matter