Behind Mitt Romney's response to killings in Libya -

Behind Mitt Romney’s response to killings in Libya

Luiza Ch. Savage looks at the Republican campaign’s foreign-policy fumble


The heart of Mitt Romney’s critique of Obama’s foreign policy is the claim that Obama “apologizes” for America, and that he “leads from behind.” His differences with Obama’s foreign policy in many ways have more to do with style than substance—for example, he hasn’t offered any distinctive policies on the two most pressing foreign policy issues: Iran and Afghanistan. (Both men agree in keeping the military option on the table with regard to Iran’s nuclear progress, and Romney has not offered a different withdrawal timeline from Afghanistan than the one Obama has proposed. The most concrete policy difference is that Romney plans to increase military spending, while Obama would shrink it.)

Obama has hardly run a soft foreign policy, between taking out Osama bin Laden and expanding the drone-based campaign of targeted killings in several countries. But on the campaign trail, you can hear disgust in Romney’s voice for Obama’s multi-lateral style of foreign policy as the Republican nominee makes the case that the president doesn’t believe in “American Exceptionalism” or that America is “the hope of the earth.”

Romney, whose campaign book is titled “No Apologies,” has also repeatedly claimed that Obama started his first term with an “apology tour” of foreign countries—a claim the fact-checking organization Politifact rates as a “Pants on Fire”-caliber falsehood,

This deep-seated personal view of Obama as an apologizer seems to be what is driving Romney’s behaviour in response to the savage killings of U.S. diplomats in Egypt and Libya.

Around midday yesterday, somebody at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo issued a statement condemning anti-Islamic “incitement” in response to growing anger in Egypt at an online trailer for a low-budget anti-Muslim film produced in the United States. The film had been used by preachers in Cairo to fan extremist hatred against the U.S.

“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.”

Later that day, protests erupted in Egypt and Libya as Islamic fanatics attacked American diplomatic buildings. Four U.S. diplomats were killed in Benghazi, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens.

Romney used the incident to attack the Obama administration in a statement late last night:

“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.”

The statement mischaracterized the statement as being in response to the officials deaths, when it came hours before the attacks, or that it included an expression of sympathy for the attackers. (One detailed timeline is here.)

Later in the evening, the Obama administration said that the Cairo Embassy’s comments had not been cleared by Washington. And around midnight last night, the Obama campaign hit back at Romney with a statement from a spokesman:

“We are shocked that, at a time when the United States of America is confronting the tragic death of one of our diplomatic officers in Libya, Governor Romney would choose to launch a political attack.”

This afternoon, U.S. officials are saying it may have been a planned terrorist attack that included grenades and rocket launchers. Meanwhile, Romney issued another statement sticking by his earlier position:

“I also believe the Administration was wrong to stand by a statement sympathizing with those who had breached our embassy in Egypt instead of condemning their actions.  It’s never too early for the United States Government to condemn attacks on Americans, and to defend our values.  The White House distanced itself last night from the statement, saying it wasn’t ‘cleared by Washington.’ That reflects the mixed signals they’re sending to the world.”

However, some other senior Republicans with foreign policy clout have avoided joining Romney’s critique.

But as the candidates squabble, and the families mourn, the Libya killings are weighing heavily on Hillary Clinton. As the secretary of state, she is responsible for all American diplomats. She was also the strongest voice within the Obama administration in favor of the NATO operation in Libya. In her remarks today, she seemed personally shaken by the events.


Behind Mitt Romney’s response to killings in Libya

  1. Even strong right-wingers and campaign workers are calling this the stick-the-fork-in-him-moment

    And the man is already a pin cushion.

    • The EUSSR needed Libya’s oil and since they have been on US military welfare since WW2, they had their dupe Sodom Hussein Obama arrange the assassination of their newly uncooperative stooge Muammar Queerdaffy, who they previously had on the UN Human Rights Commission…

      In Syria, nobody wants to get involved because it would force them to admit that George Bush was right and the WMDs Saddam Hussein did have and did use on Kurds and Iranians went over to his friend (and formerly theirs) Assad in the Ba’ath Socialist party.

      You EUSSR socialists can never face the facts of what socialism really is.

      “The U.S. has lost track of some of Syria’s chemical weapons, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Friday, and does not know if any potentially lethal chemicals have fallen into the hands of Syrian rebels or Iranian forces inside the country.”

      – Foreign Policy (9-29)

      Leon Puñettas was too busy having gay pride celebrations at the Pentagon… now there is a dead ambassador and all they can do is play with their wee wees and cry about some stupid movie?

      • Take your meds and stop talking rubbish.

  2. Balderdash!! How on earth is this a “foreign policy fumble” by Romney and the Republicans? Quote: “The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing
    efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of
    Muslim.” The statement could not be more clear–the real fault lies with the film-maker, not with the mob. The US Ambassador in Cairo, an agent of Obama’s government, quite plainly places the “hurt feelings” of Muslims at the top of his list of concerns. It is outrageous, and yet somehow not a surprise. Spin away Ms Savage–you are not even the tiniest bit convincing on this one.

    • The Cairo statement was before any attack took place, and was not from the WH.

      • They were obviously trying to quell violence that they were afraid was being threatened. Romney mouths off without evening knowing the facts.

        • Yeah, it was an armed group apparently….a planned attack not a rowdy crowd.

          Romney has really stepped in it.

          • And an absolute no no to play politics when the country has been attacked. He probably just lost John McCain.

          • Wow. Bad enough you can’t make a horse drink after you lead it to water, but in this case you can’t even make him see the water. I guess he’s well named.

          • I think he lost John McCain before this.

        • Not going to let fact-checkers dictate our etch-a-sketch platform.

    • The statement could not be more clear–the real fault lies with the film-maker, not with the mob.

      One problem. The mob DIDN’T EXIST YET when the statement was made. The only way that the statement can be seen as a response to the mob is if one believes that the American Embassy in Egypt has access to a TARDIS.

      • You read my mind. Obviously Obama’s got to be a time lord too in order to measure up for Mitt.

      • Of course the mob existed you idiot. That’s why the embassy was making pronouncements, the embassy was under attack.

        • Different embassy my dear. You guys aren’t following this at all.

          • To be fair, the Embassy in Cairo was also attacked, just not as violently as the one in Libya, and to my knowledge no Embassy staff in Cairo were harmed. Egyptian protesters did scale the walls and pull down the American flag though, and that’s clearly an “attack” on the Embassy.

            However, the attack in Cairo also clearly happened about five hours AFTER the Embassy had issued the statement in question.

          • I know, but they have completely confused the two.

          • LKO has confused the two, and apparently you’re just as confused.

          • I have in no way confused the two.


            (All times ET)

            6:15 am – Embassy issues the statement that is now the point of controversy.
            10:15 am – Protesters start gathering in Cairo
            11:15 am – Protest in Cairo turns violent.
            11:15-2:00 – Embassy in Cairo is attacked.
            4:00 pm – Consulate in Benghazi is attacked.

            Romney called that first statement a response to the attacks, despite the fact that it came four hours BEFORE the Cairo protests began, and FIVE hours before the Cairo protests turned violent. A statement that is issued hours before an attack even begins cannot be a response to said attack.

            Please explain what it is exactly that you believe that I’m confused about.

          • So now you’re trying to claim the embassy actually caused the riots themselves? Their statement incited a mob to form? And how is that supposed to be better?

            Eventually Obama the flip-flopper decided to condemn the very same remark that was condemned by Romney. The only difference is that it took him 16 hours to figure out which way the wind was blowing.

            There’s not the slightest thing wrong with what Romney said, so much so that after 16 grueling hours the white house finally repeated the same thing, they also disavowed the remarks, and then the remarks were deleted from the embassy feed.

            This is basically crazy. I can’t understand what kind of bizarre track you’re on.

            This comment applies to directly to you:

            This has been one big feckless and incompetent performance by Obama, and now it comes out they were warned about an impending attack 48 hours before! And the craziness has spread all over the middle east! And an American diplomat has been killed the first time since 1979! Libya was tormented by civil war only recently, the Americans were warned about a potential attack, and they didn’t even have any Marines at the embassy. They had nothing! A battle went on for five hours and there was no help to be found anywhere. It’s one continuous f***-up, but psychos like you are trying to claim there is nothing to criticize! You’re truly insane. You’ve not a shred of humanity or credibility to your name. People like you should be ashamed.

          • I don’t understand how it’s somehow OK for Romney to criticize a statement from the Embassy that wasn’t vetted by the White House as the administration’s “first response” to the attacks despite the fact that the statement came out before the attacks. That a condemnation of religious intolerance (especially in just a single sentence in the MIDDLE of a response) is in no way an “apology” nor does it constitute “appeasement” is also an important point. More importantly, the notion that an American President condemning religious intolerance has somehow lead to a spread in protests against the supposed religious intolerance of the United States is asinine.

            On a purely political level though, what is, is. Right now, it seems to me that this whole thing is hurting Romney more than Obama right now. As David Gergen commented on CNN last night, every moment spent talking about foreign affairs rather than the economy hurts the Romney campaign, and as Gergen put it, especially when Romney is doing it so BADLY.

            The larger point is that anyone who’s blaming the President for contributing to violent protests in the Middle East by not being sufficiently vocal about the superiority of America and the way of life in western democracies, and being too harsh in his criticism of anti-Muslim bigotry might as well be blaming the President for contributing to grass being green by supporting efforts to repeal subsidies for fertilizer. People are free to believe that a Romney administration’s more explicit focus on American exceptionalism and the general awesomeness of democracy and pluralistic societies would do more to stop angry young unemployed men in the Middle East from protesting against America, but I wonder if such people think Romney will bring back unicorns too.

            Finally, I don’t think I’ve ever claimed that there’s noting to criticize the President’s administration over here. What I’m saying is that the Romney campaign has been criticizing the WRONG THINGS, and has been doing so ham-handedly.

          • Talk about a load of straw-men and red herrings. Can you even remember what the conversation was about?
            You should be ashamed.

          • I’ll give you this, perhaps I’m not sure what the conversation is supposed to be about because I’m too focused on what Mitt Romney’s been making the conversation about.

          • Why the heck are you obsessed with Romney? Are you insane?

            US embassies are being attacked across the middle east and Europe, foreign flags have been hoisted on US embassy soil, an ambassador has been killed, and for some insane, bizarre reason you’re focused on the fact that Romney has criticized Obama.

            Which produces two observations:

            1) It’s painfully clear that shit has hit the fan, and when shit hits the fan, you blame the person in charge, which is the incumbent president, head of the executive branch of government and the armed forces. You don’t obsess yourself with the guy running in the next election, who literally has nothing to do with the current situation in the middle east.

            2) If you’re so crazy you want to ignore point (1) and you still want to obsess yourself with the challenger in the next election, then it’s hard to believe you would criticize the challenger for criticizing the president’s foreign policy, when it’s painfully clear that shit has hit the fan: the president has failed to prevent foreign flags being hoisted on US embassy soil, an ambassador has been killed, and there is widespread chaos in the middle east. See point 1. There is chaos going on and the challenger has every right to criticize the guy in charge.

          • I wouldn’t say that I’m obsessed with Romney so much as that I’m commenting on a blog post about Romney.

            I also wonder where all this “blame the President!!!” furor was among conservatives on September 12th, 2001. Seems to me that, back then, blaming the President rather than rallying the nation together in a time of crisis was considered wrong.

          • Are you insane?

            The media and anyone on the left spent the next four years blaming the president. They obsessed with every little thing he did or did not do, whether it was blaming the lax security at airports, blaming him for what he was doing when it happened, or blaming him for causing it in the first place. They blamed him for finishing the book he was reading to little kids. Michael Moore put it in a hollywood movie.

            We even have psychos who claim the president actually planned the attacks, there’s so many of them they have a name: 9/11 truthers. One of them named Van Jones was appointed by president Obama.

          • Wow.

            The “the liberal used to do it!!!” argument is incredibly versatile, isn’t it?

            I’m beginning to think that the old right/left divide has been completely supplanted by the in-power/out-of-power divide. How quickly we begin to emulate the behaviour that we were just deriding.

          • SCF: It’s not right
            LKO: Only liberals get blamed for it
            SCF: Repubs were blamed for same thing before
            LKO: You’re saying it’s ok because liberals do it?
            SCF: ???

            You can’t even remember your own argument long enough to prevent yourself from contradicting yourself. Grow a brain.

          • No, more like this:

            SCF: It’s not right, and it’s Obama’s fault.
            LKO: Didn’t conservatives used to think that it was important to rally around the President in times of crisis rather than jumping immediately into attack mode.
            SCF: Liberals jumped into attack mode immediately after 9/11
            LKO: Yes, some did, and conservatives thought that was TERRIBLE! Why’s it OK now to do it to Obama???

            Your timeline of our argument only works if you take my sentence “I also wonder where all this ‘blame the President!!!’ furor was among conservatives on September 12th, 2001” and eliminate the words “among conservatives”. Blaming Bush for 9/11 was derided by conservatives as unworthy and unpatriotic partisanship in 2001, but suddenly, blaming Obama for the attack in Libya is fine, because everything’s Obama’s fault.

            Finally, you can infer that I’m “insane” and call on me to “grow a brain” all you like, I’m not going to sink to attacking you personally.

          • That’s a complete lie, from beginning to end. You invented a conversation that never happened.

            Everytime you do something so ridiculously stupid, I will repeat that you should grow a brain.

          • Time to award you the Black Knight Award – long overdue.


          • If you’re going to call me an insane, brainless, liar, at least do me the courtesy of explaining what it is that you think I’ve misrepresented.

          • You can either debate what I say, or you can debate what you are pretending that I say.

            The former is a conversation, the latter is lying and brainless.

            I have never in this conversation every even remotely suggested that Bush should not have received criticism. Yet you have claimed I said this because some other Conservatives somewhere in the world at some time have said so (“Why is it ok…”). You have claimed this because it is convenient for you to do so. That is brainless and lying.

            I have never in this conversation claimed that ONLY the left criticized Bush (“Didn’t conservatives used to think..”, “Yes, some did, and conservatives thought”). You have claimed this because it is convenient for you to do so. That is brainless and lying.

            I have never in this conversation claimed that no conservatives criticized Bush, or that Conservatives should not have done so. You have claimed this because it is convenient for you to do so. That is brainless and lying.

            I have never in this conversation made any comparisons between these events with Obama and prior events with Bush. You have done this because it is convenient for you to do so, while ignoring the things that I have actually said. That is brainless.

            Finally, the most brainless thing of all, is that false conversation you created in which you claimed my responses were responses to those lies that I have just listed. That is why the complete thing was a lie from beginning to end, you are claiming I am arguing for things which I never claimed in the first place. You are claiming that your false straw-men are in fact things that I said, or things that I am arguing for. No, they are things that you said, and now you are trying to insinuate that I somehow agree with those stupid lies. So the whole thing is a lie.

            Now, I’ve completely had it with this stupidity. For me this sorry excuse for a conversation is over.

          • Fair enough I suppose. It had never occurred to me that anyone outside of the “loony left” thought, or could think, that the immediate post-9/11 criticism of President Bush was anything other than inappropriate and overly hasty. To the extent that conservatives in general seemed to have pretty universally condemned such criticism as such (and rightly so in my opinion) then in that context, it seemed to me that the immediate Romney attack on Obama couldn’t be seen as anything but inappropriate, overly hasty, and hypocritical. I guess I should have only criticized that immediate attack (within hours of the attacks), and any defense thereof as simply inappropriate and overly hasty, but not necessarily as hypocritical.

            That said, I too am glad that the conversation is over. The personal nature of the attacks was starting to get to me, frankly.

          • Oh, and not to worry. I’m sure before long we’ll have psychos who claim that Obama planned the attacks on the consulate in Libya.

            Clearly conservatives are quickly learning the lessons from their teachers: Michael Moore, the MSM and the 9/11 truthers.

          • And there has been no irrational criticism of Obama since he’s been in office?

        • Re-read paragraph six above, or any of the multiple timelines of the day’s events posted on news sites all over the internet.

          The Embassy issued the statement in question at 6:17am Cairo time. Crowds began to gather outside the Embassy around 4 hours later, and sometime around 11:00am things turned violent and the protesters started climbing the embassy walls.

          The statement was, no doubt, an attempt to head off potential violence given the rhetoric around the bigoted video. And it failed. However, it was quite clearly issued BEFORE the violence occurred. Hours before even the protests (initially peaceful) had begun in fact.

          I maintain my position that the only way in which the 6:17am statement from the Embassy can be seen as a “response” to the 10:00am protests or the 11:00am violence is if the U.S. Embassy in Cairo had a Time Lord on staff.

        • Cairo is not in Libya.

          • See my reply to your other post. The embassy in Cairo was attacked too, as protesters scaled the wall and pulled down the American flag (I don’t believe anyone was hurt though). However, the attack did happen around five hours after the statement from the Embassy that Romney has called a “response” to the attacks.

          • Of course not. Good for you. It never has been and never will be, Egypt does not contain Libya. The Great Sphinx is not in Libya, Alexandria is not in Libya, Sharm El Sheik is not in Libya and the Sinai is not in Libya. What the heck is wrong with you? Do you normally blather out random and obvious facts?

      • Well, the statement predated the “unofficial” start of the protest by about 3.5 hours, according to this

        The story claims the statement went out at 12:18pm Cairo time, and the protest started about 4:00.

        Now what do you think? Is that the time the first person in the crowd showed up? Or the time that the embassy realized there was something wrong?

        I submit that there were probably the beginnings of an angry crowd there already, and/or the embassy staff were probably starting hear rumblings that there was something going down that day, and that is what prompted them to put the statement out.

        • The tweet came from the Cairo embassy…not that the facts matter to you at this point.

        • The Washington Post says that a small crowd BEGAN to gather around 4 hours after the Embassy’s initial statement.

          No doubt the Embassy’s statement was intended to try to head off protests in Egypt, as protests had already occurred elsewhere in the Middle East, but it’s pretty clear to me that it wasn’t until at least 3 or 4 hours after the statement that anyone started to gather outside of the Embassy, and at least 60-90 minutes more until there was any violence.

          IMHO, in NO WAY can a statement from around 6:15am be considered a response to violence perpetrated around 11:15am by a crowd that started gathering around 10:00am. Not without the use of a flux capacitor.

          • Or if they had an infinite probability drive stashed somewheres?[traded in my tardis for a heart of gold…hope you’re keeping up?]

  3. Romney: “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.”

    And the best part: President Obama had not yet responded to the attack in Libya. There’s the real fumble – attack something before it happens.

    • It seems to me, which is truly hard to believe, that you actually think this is a good thing that Obama has said and done literally nothing, all the while an American ambassador’s dead body was dragged through the streets in Libya. You see nothing wrong with the fact Obama has failed to lift a finger, to even get out of bed, while his ambassador was dragged through the streets? You see nothing wrong with the fact that the administration failed to prevent this from happening in the first place? I don’t know, maybe get on the phone to Libya and ask perhaps if they might go out of their way to prevent the assassination of an American government official? Perhaps he should have said something before his amabassador was hit by a rocket attack? What a feckless and impotent president.

      • I don’t know, maybe get on the phone to Libya and ask perhaps if they might go out of their way to prevent the assassination of an American government official? Perhaps he should have said something before his amabassador was hit by a rocket attack?

        Are you under the impression that President Obama can see in to the future? Does he have access to the same TARDIS that apparently allowed the Cairo Embassy’s staff to issue a “response” to the attacks hours before the attacks happened?

        • It appears you have absolutely no idea what happened. Go read the news then come back here. The embassy in Cairo was responding to the mob attack in Cairo. The ambassador was killed in Libya. There were two mob attacks you fool, one in Cairo and one in Libya. You’ve not the slightest idea what you’re talking about. And yes, it is possible to do something when your ambassador is in a gun battle that lasted for five full hours.

          • The protesters started gathering outside of the Cairo Embassy FOUR HOURS after the Embassy issued that statement. The violence erupted about an hour later.

            There were indeed two attacks on two Embassies, and neither attack started until HOURS after that Cairo statement was issued. (Cairo Embassy Statement: 6:15am ET, Protesters start to gather at Cairo Embassy: 10:15am ET, Violence erupts at Cairo protest: approx.11:00am ET, Gunfire breaks out at Libyan Consulate 4:00pm ET).

            On the last point, if you’re aware of a contingent of U.S. troops that could have gotten to the Benghazi Consulate in the 3 hours between gunfire breaking out around 4pm ET and Ambassador Stevens being declared dead at 7pm ET I would be interested to hear about that.

      • Do you have a good source for the notion that the Ambassador’s body was “dragged through the streets” in the sense that you imply here?

        While I can find some pretty dubious sites claiming that “angry Muslims” dragged his body through the streets, all the “legitimate” news sites I’ve checked seem to suggest he was dragged to the Benghazi Medical Centre by Libyans who didn’t realize who he was, and that he later died of asphyxiation there. He was the only American taken to that Medical Centre and staff there apparently did not realize initially that he was the Ambassador. I’m more than willing to consider the possibility that this treatment was the act of an angry mob, but the pics I’ve seen seems just as consistent with the notion of a group of men trying to drag the Ambassador to medical assistance, and none of the sites I’ve found claiming that the images represent something more nefarious are remotely credible.

      • It was only a matter of minutes before Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued the _official_ government response. President Obama personally responded later that day.

        Also, what? Whatever you’ve been smoking, it sure ain’t tobbaccy – not even Al-Jazeera reports Stevens being dragged through the streets.

        Also – I cannot fault a man for not having a crystal ball. You can’t blame him for not saying something about which he didn’t know was happening… or about to happen.

        Right wing nutter.

        Maybe hiring rent-a-thugs with AK-47s was a stupid idea. It was cheaper than the military, so I’m sure you right wingers can get behind slashing the budget. You know, better a little security than a ton. Or no security is cheaper…

  4. Didn’t see Romney’s statement but I’ll bet he batted Bambi eyes
    while he said it.

  5. Obama was probably saving his statement for his appearance on David Letterman. We all know he’s a busy guy, too busy to meet with Netanyahu, so it seems like combining his statement with late night talk show appearances is an excellent way to get back some of that lost time.

    Imagine if we had a media that could find the stones to criticize that kind of foreign policy blunder.

    • Did you miss his press conference with Hillary this aft? Grasping John G, grasping. Romney is toast.

      • Was Netanyahu there? If not…do try to stop missing the point, would you?

        • Is anyone surprised Obama is not welcoming him with open arms after Nettie’s rude and arrogant performance on his last visit?

          • Was that the visit where Obama publicly trashed him on an open mic? #AwesomeForeignPolicyMoments

          • No it was the one where he decided to lecture the President in front of the press at the White House. Imagine if anyone did that to Harper, you would be outraged.

    • “Imagine if we had a media that could find the stones to criticize that kind of foreign policy blunder.”

      I thought that’s what we are doing.

    • obvious and clear media bias, absolutely…

  6. An American ambassador is dead, along with 3 other Americans, the Obama administration failed to do anything to prevent it or so anything about it (in fact Obama apparently never got out of bed), and and all the Obama cheerleaders want to do is talk about the fact that Romney criticized the feckless American administration.
    It’s truly pathetic and disgusting.

    • Romney attacked the administration for its response to the attack, citing a statement from the Cairo embassy that was issued four hours before the protests outside the Embassy began, and about FIVE hours before violence broke out. How is that an appropriate criticism??? It doesn’t even conform to basic physics and the linear nature of time for Pete’s sake.

      Also, you may not think that the White House acted quickly enough, but they didn’t do “nothing”. The President has sent 50 Marines and two warships armed with Tomahawk missiles to Libya.

      • Your loving this aren’t you Sherlock :) Right up your alley.

        • Well, equating me with Sherlock Holmes is flattering, but it’s a bit of a stretch, lol.

          One doesn’t have to be a master of deductive reasoning to figure out that 6:15am ET is earlier than 10:15am ET!

          • You’d be surprised how tough it is for some people.

  7. The attacks in Libya and Egypt are linked. They are both the work of salafist muslim radicals. The U.S.(including the Cairo embassy) has nothing to apologize for. We have freedom of speech. We can’t stop the ravings of some low budget film crew. It is obvious that islamic radicals were looking to attack on the 9-11 anniversary. The truth is that Obama did do an apology tour of the middle east when he first took office. The only thing he didn’t do was lick the boots of the leaders there(although I’m sure that EmilyOne and much of the anti-American Canadian left wishes he had). Also, there are two questions that aren’t being asked. One, is why were radical Eygptians allowed onto the embassy grounds in Cairo? Did the Democrats learn nothing from 1979 when Iranian radicals stormed the U.S. embassy in Tehran? Does anyone remember that the Marine guards in Tehran were not allowed to use force to repel the crowd? Does anybody remember that a similiar attempt to storm the U.S. embassy in Pakistan was only prevented after a firefight in which one Marine and one U.S. army soldier were killed? The Marine guards should have been able to respond with force. Second, in unstable Libya, why wasn’t there a U.S. military force guarding the consulate in Benghazi? I far more trust an armed Marine to successfully defend American diplomats than any of the local crew. In the case of Egypt, we have an anti-American Muslim Brotherhood government(whose election was endorsed by Obama). This group willingly stepped aside and let the mob attack the embassy. Now, in Cairo, there is a second night of mob attacks however now there are Eygptian troops in the streets(who magically appeared). Also, does anyone remember the Muslim Brotherhood government standing on the sidelines when Coptic Christians were being murdered by mobs? The truth of the matter is that Americans are pissed and want these guys killed. Romney’s statement fits in perfectly with that. Sorry, to disappoint all you Obama clones. Obama has no choice, he has to hunt down and kill all the characters involved. If he goes soft and makes a citizen’s arrest, it will erase any of the goodwill he got with the American public when he killed Osama. This. together with the falling off of his convention bump, is causing big problems for Obama. Don’t worry. After Obama loses reelection, you can ask him to move to Canada, become a Canadian citizen, and run for the Liberal Party leadership. If he is as helpful to the Canadian left as he has been to Democrat officeholders(around 800 lost seats or defections since 2008), then Harper will have a majority for at least another decade.

    • Yada, yada yada. What’s Romney’s plan – bomb the entire mideast back to the stoneage?

  8. So Obama and John Kerry criticizing foreign policy of George Bush at a time of war was just fine. Rommney criticizing Obama’s foreign policy that contributed to a international incident his policy is at least partially responsible full is terrible. What a laughable double standard.

    • … and don’t forget the other former president’s share part of the blame for the troubles they stirred up – that continue to be stirred up. Nutter.

      Romney criticized “the Obama administration’s response”, which actually was a statement issued from the embassy at Cairo. That. Is. A. Bad. Fumble. Cairo != Washington

  9. So…

    One day after multiple terrorist attacks and amidst a rising wave of anti-american protest in the Muslim world…

    And President ForeignPolicyExpert skips his daily intelligence briefing for a Vegas campaign event.

    One day after a terrorist attack. And we read about it on an editorial page.

    By all means, faithful media, don’t take your eye off the ball on what the real issue here is…Romney’s response.

    • Can’t let a dead US ambassador get in the way, and of course most people will never even hear about this.

      You know, at one time I read someone’s opinion that US media bias provides about 3-4 points to the Democrat’s favour in an election. At the time I was skeptical, mostly because most people simply don’t trust the media.
      But in the middle of this campaign, from what I’ve seen, I’ve changed my mind, I think it’s true. Even when people don’t trust the media, it is still difficult to get all the facts, many still rely on just a few media outlets to get the whole story.
      The fact that Obama remains in the lead (slightly) while presiding over such a disaster in the domestic economy and such fecklessness in foreign policy make me thing it’s true that’s he’s benefiting from the media for a good 3-4 points. They’re really going into overdrive in this election to try to win it for him.

      • Oh, haven’t you heard? Obama’s campaign staff compare favorably with murdered embassy staff.

      • Yeah, Rupert Murdoch really wants a second term for a socialist who won’t cut him tax breaks. #unlikelytobetrue

        No, if anything, the media’s been in overdrive rooting for Romney. Everybody likes an underdog. Besides, it wouldn’t be a presidential _race_ if Obama had a 8-12% lead.

        It’s in media interests to keep Romney propped up, not propped down. But you know you’re losing when Fox says you’re lagging behind by four points…

  10. OK, Let’s see…what else can we try to push through the media embargo today about President ForeignPolicyExpert’s superiority compared to the gaffe-tastic Mitt?

    1) But Mr Obama….what about your gaffes clarifications? Talk about shooting first and aiming later…

    2) Why exactly were the Marines defending the embassy in Cairo not allowed to use live ammo?

    3) OK hands up…who here knew that the Benghazi consulate suffered an IED attack in June of this year, and that the State department had asked for the Libyan interior ministry to beef up security? And that when asked if the attack might signify danger ahead for the security of Libya, was told “On the contrary”?

    I’m going to put the over/under for that one at 2 (counting myself). Given what’s happened there, doesn’t that seem like important context that someone in the media might want to draw attetion to? Oh yeah…that might prove embarrassing to our Foreign Policy expert in chief…better just leave that one alone.

    Remember, these are just distractions…keep your eye on the ball people…Romney’s response is the most important issue facing the nation today, along with Paul Ryan’s marathon time.

    Oh and don’t forget that article about how Obama plays basketball and goes shopping…riveting stuff.

  11. Note to Luiza, Parisella, Teitel, & whoever else pretends to cover US politics at this magazine…

    When Jimmy Freaking Carter has to correct Obama on a Middle East gaffe on whether Egypt is an ally or not, and no-one in your industry bothers to report it, while you all continue to pile on Mitt Romney…there’s no word in the English language to describe the level to which you are beclowning yourselves.

    And then there’s this

    “According to senior diplomatic sources, the US 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.”

    Puts the twitter feed of the Cairo Embassy in a whole new light, doesn’t it? This is a rather large hole in that carefully crafted timeline you’ve all created to make Romney look unstatesmanlike, isn’t it? And needless to say, if your industry had any integrity left, this would be a monster size problem for Obama to deal with.

    But…I have to read this information in British newspapers because of the unwillingness of you and your American / Canadian lapdog colleagues to do your jobs. All I have to say is, thank the Lord for Matt Drudge.

  12. New information from the left-leaning British daily newspaper The Independent shows that the U.S. government was given 48 hours notice that something was going to happen in Libya. Also, there are now questions as to whether the U.S. ambassador was possibly tortured before he died(during the 5 hours that no one knew where he was). Obama is the head of the freakin government isn’t he? What he wasn’t informed over the last 48 hours? Oh yeah, I forgot Obama is the secular left Jesus Christ so he is always blameless. Kid gloves doesn’t work in this region. The movie excuse is a farce because the movie was released in July. This is about attacking Americans on a solemn day(9/11). Also, there is now a report that the Marines guarding the two locations(Benghazi and Cairo) were ordered not to carry live ammo. Where did that stupid order come from? Romney was right to call for getting tough with these scumbags.We have been fighting these guys with one hand behind our backs. Drop the politically correct garbage and exterminate the savages. We have talked and talked while they have spit in our faces. Now, is the time for Obama(Jimmy Carter Jr.) to grow a pair of cahones and teach the Radicals never to lay a hand on an American again. Oh yeah, hats off to the guys that caught the group of reporters(from NPR,ABC, and others) trying to figure out how to set up Romney with a gotcha question the other day to make him look bad.. The result was that 7 reporters asked practically the same question about whether his statement undermined Obama.Funny, didn’t Hillary Clinton say that it was patriotic for any American to speak out against any government policy. Also, what about statements made by John Kerry and Obama(like about the surge) that could be said to have tried to undermine the war in Iraq? Oh yeah, I forgot. Its okay to protest Republican presidents but wrong to protest Democrat ones. Amazing about those reporters! Gee, If I didn’t know any better I would think that they had shifted from reporters to attack dogs for Obama.

    • Wall of text fail. Also, I think this is an example of “blurt a hundred, now it’s true” tactics in play. GO HOME, EH! Where the heck do you get the time to do this?

      • George, stop being a lapdog for Obama! Any more sucking up and you’ll be building an altar to worship him. Obama’s middle east policy is pander , pander, and pander some more to the Muslims.Then again, you leftists have always wanted to bring America to its needs. Long live Prime Minister Harper!