Of course you don’t. I just find it odd how quickly liberals are to come out and go on the attack for “politicizing” an event when-- surprise surprise-- the guy sitting in the White House did the exact same thing in 2008, probably to many nodding heads of liberals. This is just one of those things where people see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear. And make excuses for things that don’t fit in their worldview.
Now me? I don’t care one way of the other. Why? Because these things have always been politicized and will always be politicized. It happened with Carter, Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush and Obama and it’ll happen with future presidents, irrespective of their political affiliation.
I believe the video was originally filmed in English and only recently translated and posted on YouTube. I can look for a cite, if you’re interested … are there any organizations you distrust (so I won’t bother with them)?
The soldier deaths reference were in Afghanistan, not Iraq. But what does it matter? He’s a candidate being interviewed and he’s criticizing his rival, and the current president, for deaths in a war that he actually supports. And as I said earlier, Romney made his comments before the news about the deaths was available. Both statements were political in nature, in that they were made as part of a campaign, but only one referenced actual deaths.
If you’re outraged by one but not the other, then that’s just politics. It’s OK if my guy does it, but not the other guy.
Obama mentions a war we’re in, and an example of the mismanagement that the Bush administration was doing in Afghanistan.
Romney lies outright, characterizing a message that a embassy makes to try and you know, be diplomatic, as an apology for our freedoms. He later finds out that people have been killed and he re-asserts the lie.
Not even a little the same, and if you can’t see that your compulsive devotion to both sides being equal is starting to get the better of you.
Romney released that statement before even the next of kin had been notified.
How long was it before the nine troops were killed, and Obama said one sentence - 15 words including articles and “U.S.” as two - in response to someone else’s question?
Come on, John Mace, do you really think the two statements are equivalent?
Nobody’s said that in this thread. [ETA: OK, I see you have. I’ve been trying to get OMG and aldiboronti to identify their arguments; they haven’t said diddly.] Nobody’s made an argument here based on deaths in Afghanistan and what Obama said about them. All we’ve got from the wingnuts is hints and handwaving, i.e. zilch.
If they’re not going to be specific even about which damned war they’re talking about, then of course it isn’t the same. Because the current incident is quite clear and specific, but they’ve got nothing on the table yet, just “but Obama…” without making it at all clear “but Obama” what.
I’m not going to do their research for them, I’m not going to make their arguments for them, then have to turn around and rebut them, surely only to be told at that point that the argument I imputed to them wasn’t the argument they really had in mind. I’ve played that game, then realized it was a sucker’s game where I did all the work for both sides, and still couldn’t win.
Let them state their case here. All they’ve done is wave their hands at something offstage.
Actually not just in those days. It still goes on in Pakistan and Afgahnistan. There was an article on it not long ago in National Geographic.
And it’s still disgusting because we don’t live in the past and judge by pastism. Well, SOME people live in the past. Some want to bring it back. That’s fairly disgusting too.
What makes you think Obama had anything to do with that statement being released? Do you *seriously *think he, personally, vets every statement released by every ambassador’s office every day? They answer to him, but they act on their own initiative.
Furthermore, as has been pointed out more than once in this thread, that statement was released LONG before any attacks had happened. It was an attempt to calm things down. It was probably doomed to fail, but that doesn’t mean the attempt shouldn’t have been made. Slamming the embassy that released the statement or Obama for the statement’s release is ill-informed, misguided, and crass beyond belief. Romney should be thoroughly ashamed of himself for trying to “score points” at all, much less when his rationale for the attack is so completely flawed.
That Stevens fellow did his job. From what I read, he left safety and put himself in harm’s way for his country’s sake, and hoping to help his colleagues to safety.
Where do we find such men? And where can we find some more?
You ain’t gonna find them under a Romney administration – the existing ones are likely to say “screw this” and quit, and anyone smart enough to do the job to that standard won’t be stupid enough to take it. It’s neatly summed up in “A Foreign Service Officer’s Lament”:
Seriously, sorry about that - I’d been concentrating upthread on whether OMG or aldi was going to actually make a case, or just wave their hands, and I wasn’t paying attention to what you were saying. I should have been. My bad.
Does it matter at all that this was not uncommon practice at that time and place or do we judge the actionf of yester millenia by the norms of western civilization today?
Its not that you can’t ever criticize these things, its that you shouldn’t criticize these things before the dust has settled. And especially in matters of diplomacy, it is useful to speak with one voice and recognize that we only have one president at a time. And we should at least pretend that the Kenyan muslim lizard man in the white house is our current president, just for appearances sake.
Did the statement get vetted by the white house before it was released?
BTW, wtf is wrong with the statement?
Romney’s action was a politically calcualted and desperate attempt to try and regain ground on the foreign policy issue.
If I were Romney I would have kept my fucking mouth shut (like every other Repuublican leader) until the dust settled. Its not just left wing whackos criticizing Romney’s actions as imprudent.
It strikes me that someone who is a member of a religion which has suffered a fair amount of intolerance, including its founder being killed and its members being pushed out into the desert, should think twice about criticizing calls for religious tolerance. I could think of lots of obnoxious things to say about Mormons, all perfectly legal. I’m not talking about legitimate criticisms - I think one could get way out there.
