In the history of mankind, many republics have risen, have flourished for a less or greater time, and then have fallen because their citizens lost the power of governing themselves and thereby of governing their state. TR


Romney Made an Important Point

Lost amid the political gaming of Gov. Mitt Romney’s criticism of the Egyptian Embassy statement is the significant foreign policy declaration he made: That the United States is projecting pusillanimity around the globe, and that he will have none of it.

Once the Beltway crowd gets done agonizing over the Obama campaign-inspired question of whether Romney misstepped by wading into a crisis before a crisis was done, people in America will perceive and appreciate the contrast Romney was trying to draw with President Obama.

That is, this whole thing is a win for Romney.

I don’t think Romney acted too soon Tuesday night by criticizing the embassy statement, released earlier in the day, which sought to appease Egyptian protestors by sympathizing with their “hurt . . . religious feelings.”

The statement was a live issue, and needed to be addressed. It showed U.S. weakness in the face of danger, and even posited limits on free speech by criticizing those “who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.”

Abuse the right of free speech? Well, if something is being abused, then the abuse must stop! We can only take this First Amendment stuff so far, you know.

Did Romney in some way interfere with the administration’s response to the crisis? Please, ask a serious question.

And I have news for the Obama campaign and the White House, which they may not be aware of: THE CRISIS IS IS STILL GOING ON. Protests continued today in Egypt and new ones broke out in Yemen. American diplomatic posts are endangered everywhere lunatics are in charge or tolerated, which is a growing number of places.


The protest by the White House that the embassy statement is some matter untethered from Obama, hovering by its lonely self out there somewhere in Egypt, rings false.

As the great Harry Truman once said, “The buck stops here.” And as the . . . not-as-great . . . Michael Dukakis once said, “The fish rots from the head.”

I don’t think the embassy would have put out such an obsequious statement, even under threat, were Ronald Reagan president. It just wouldn’t fit with the reigning gestalt in the administration.

But it sure fits Obama’s.

From his pandering Cairo speech in 2009 – which proclaimed Muslims the inventors of Algebra, and so forth – to his drawdown in Afghanistan, his military abandonment of Iraq, his failure to draw “red lines” with Iran, his desperation to negotiate with its bloodthirsty leaders, his many slights toward Israel – I’m getting exhausted here, so I’ll stop – Obama has sent a message of weakness to jackals who prey on weakness.

His own solicitude toward those who only understand toughness set the stage for the embassy statement. That was Romney’s point when he said: “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.”

Romney put out word that the United States would seek respect, not accommodation, with those who have America’s destruction on their minds. And voters will ultimately understand this, even as the mainstream media spins itself up over political timing.

222 thoughts on “Romney Made an Important Point”

    1. What a bunch of gunk.

      Mitt Romney keeps trying to gin up an air of swagger to compensate for the stick-up-his-hole persona he has not been able to shake in five years of campaigning, but he’ll always be the guy who chose to sling Books of Mormon door to door in Paris when duty called.

      There is no reason to believe that the conciliatory statement meant to cool down the Cairo mob came from the White House, and given that a few hours later the ambassador in Libya was dead at the hands of another mob, it was probably prescience on the part of Egypt’s ambassador that prompted him to try to soothe the ruffled feathers.

      Romney’s tough talk is just that. Take Iran. Romney sounds like Robo-Cop when when he is on the stump. But in every interview, when asked about how he’d actually deal with Tehran, he mouths the Obama strategy word for word (as for Iraq and Afghanistan, is anyone here rushing down to the enlistment center? No? Get back in your Barca loungers then, tough guys.)

      “I don’t think the embassy would have put out such an obsequious statement, even under threat, were Ronald Reagan president,” says Keith. He conveniently forgets what actually did happen when a truck bomb took out our Beirut embassy. Did Reagan double down? Nope! He pulled up stakes and showed the terrorists America’s ass. Actions speak louder than words.

      How will Romney earn “respect” from angry mobs? Strafe them with helicopters? We’ve dropped bombs on Muslim populations every day for ten years under two presidents. When does the “respect” kick in?

      And let’s not forget The Boy Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest! Allegedly it was a radical Israeli who thought he’d start a riot from the safety of Hollywood and let our embassy staffs clean up the body parts. Why don’t these pussies ever pull off their stunts inside the countries they want to offend? Why do others have to die on their behalf so that Keith Koffler and Mitt Romney can put these fifth columnists on a pedestal?

        1. This isn’t a case where what to *do* in the present tense is up for debate. In the practical sense, what you *do* is protect the embassies and rip the host governments a new one for not protecting them adequately, if the evidence shows they haven’t.

          If, however, what you mean is “what should be our collective response to what has taken place?”, my opinion would be thus:

          1) Let’s begin where the fuse was lit. It is not subverting the 1st Amendment to point out the shameful and worthless act of provocation that set this off.The Innocence of Muslims, the “film” in question (which may in fact be no more than the YouTube clips that are promoting it), was allegedly created by a man named Sam Bacile. The name appears to be a pseudonym, and there is evidence to suggest he is not even American (although the movie was created here). What is known is that he worked with a radical right wing Christian named Steve Klein to make the film, and that it was translated into Arabic (possibly by the filmmakers themselves) and disseminated to Arab audiences, with the express intention of provoking a response.

          Now we have the predictable response, and it has left Americans dead. Was this worth it? The movie is no work of art, no Satanic Verses. It is provocation for its own sake, and the author is now hiding from the consequences of his selfishness. At the very least, we deserve to know his name.

          2) We can stop pretending America’s actions don’t have consequences. Our ten year long response to 9/11 has racked up a lot of dead civilians, and yet the real body count is entirely hidden from our collective consciousness. What do you think our situation will be if we invade or attack yet another Muslim country? “Helping” Libya doesn’t seem to have scored us any points. And do you think all those robot drone attacks are forgotten by Muslims as easily as we forget them?

          1. Wow…So in your world view, if words or videos offend someone, censor the words or video….And please don’t present the lame argument that “We should not offend anyone…Look at the consequences…Let’s shut up for fear of offending someone…” Screw that. You are such a coward to suggest that, if someone gets provoked by words or videos, we should all censor our words or videos…You are as American as Putin…

          2. Who said anything about censorrship? Let the author of the video shout his pride from the mountaintops! He is the one censoring himself today by running from his deeds like any old pussy would.

            If this guy is such a “champion” of free speech, then let him speak today, to the public, to the families of the dead.

          3. Freedom of speech is not unlimited and never has been. Try reading some history, including some constitutional cases. Even if the “film” and Terry Jones promotion of it is “protected speech” which I doubt it is, that does not mean that the content is not vile and that a reasonable person should condemn it. You may have the right to call a person by a racial ephithet. I have the right and the moral obligation to condemn you for doing. Most of us with more than one or two brain cells can have two thoughts at once, which is to condemn the bigot who incites the mobs, and condemning the mobs who respond. That is not “weakness” that is not “pusilanamy” that is evolved rationality.

          4. my 2 cents:

            regarding #1, the movie (or book, or comic strip or whatever the perceived offense is claimed to be) is really an excuse, not the cause, of the violence. This is far, far deeper than a movie or comic strip – this is a culture clash that runs way more deeply than a bunch of youtube videos. It’s been a while but I would recommend reading The Looming Tower, by Lawrence Wright. Wrights summary (again, if memory serves) is that the modern anti-Western movement started in the 40s – far before any of these perceived insults started. It is aggressively anti-Western and not because of military action but because of the West’s “loose” culture (ironically, championed by the left) – porn, abortion, etc. This is why they see the West as infidels, not because we’re on their soil or because some dude draws their “spiritual” leader as a stick figure in a cartoon. Suggesting that the cause of this attack is some youtube video is like thinking that if the wife-beater’s woman does the dishes tonight, she won’t get hit – it’s not about the dishes at all but about her wack-job husband’s unconscionable desire to put his fist to his wife’s jaw. I’m not saying we should go around provoking radical islam and thinking it would cause problems but, frankly, our actions and their responses are not correlated to the degree (I think) you are suggesting. Personally (if you could already tell), I don’t buy into the “we must have done something so let’s apologize first” line of thinking when something like this happens. Do I agree with the jackhole that burned the khoran or the cartoons or the movies? No – as a religious person, I don’t appreciate it when it happens to my faith and I don’t recall a time that I’ve ever done or condoned doing that to someone else’s. Does that jackhole have the right to free speech – yes. Somehow, somewhere, I was left with the impression that liberals also believed in free speech. If we believe in free speech to the extent that it doesn’t “offend” someone else, then we don’t have much freedom of speech, do we?

            regarding #2:
            I don’t think anyone is pretending America’s actions don’t have consequences – irrespective of our foreign policy stance (aggressive, passive, nothing at all), people all around the world are going to love us, tolerate us, despise us, and hate the US (or sometimes all of the above at the same or different times). Frankly, we’ve tried all types of approaches. Look at what we’ve done for France in the last 100 years and they can’t stand us. We’ve done almost similar things to GB (generally speaking) and we’re very good allies.

            Ubama has tripled the number of drone attacks in the 4 years he’s been president compared to Bush and Ubama is the one that wanted a “new chapter” with the Muslim world. The Arab Spring is his baby – doesn’t look like anything he’s done changed the mind of anyone – if anything Ubama’s actions have made the situation worse. Anything / everything we do will relative to the Middle East will have consequences (including nothing, eg, cutting present funding or reducing the oil we buy from them) – I think the point is that you need a leader who understands how to play this chess match and Ubama clearly is overwhelmed sitting on his side of the board.

          5. In all this talk about “free speech” vs “offending” Muslims, I have not heard anyone come to the defense of the movie’s creator and say that his work was at all GOOD, or WRY, or INTELLIGENT or BENEFICIAL IN ANY WAY. You can wave the 1st Amendment all you want, and I’ll agree with the right of the artist (and I use that term in the broadest possible sense here) to defame, inflame and insult. The question is, has he done us any favors? The answer is “no”.

          6. No, he hasn’t done anyone any favors but I didn’t think free speech is measured in how is benefits anyone, does it? Do union donations to democrats (free speech) benefit me? No. Do corporate donations to Mitt Romney benefit you? No (I’m making an assumption here). Does the piss Christ benefit anyone? My personal answer to that would be no. Does the panhandler hitting you up on the street for dimes (protected speech) benefit you? Probably not.

            Freedoms are not necessarily defined by what good it does to others – it’s a protection of your person – what you say, what you do, where you live, your personal property, your right to defend yourself, etc. I think looking at freedom as a function of how it benefits others, rather than the individual, is a reversal of how I understand the Bill of Right.

          7. I think you’ve been hanging around John Roberts too long. No, money is not speech. If it were, then by the transitive property, speech would be money (try going into a store and buying something just by saying its price out loud and see how that works out.)

            Your further point about how fee speech should be measured is a non-sequitor. No one is talking about revoking anyone’s rights. The point is that a person who lights the fuse on a riot deserves to be shamed for it, at the very least.

          8. I have, in fact, been hanging out with Roberts and, now that you mention it, that dude owes me lunch!!

            Well, the SP says that money in campaign is speech and if I have to abide by their “a tax is a fee if the third Thursday is a full moon” logic on Obamacare, then I have to listen to them all.

            There is a standard (albeit subject to interpretation) that “yelling fire in a crowded theater” (or something close to it) is unacceptable free speech. My original point is that I’m not sure that this joker’s youtube videos cross that threshold (I assume that you do believe that, which is your right). Personally, I think people are holding up this “speech” as causing the terrorism and I don’t believe that’s true – while they may be claiming it was the instigating factor, I believe them pointing to that is simply an excuse – as I said, I think the root cause is far deeper than a comic strip or youtube movie.

            You were saying (prev post) that the video creator didn’t do us any favors – I took that to mean you were assessing the “value” of his speech. I was simply saying that value / favors one’s speech provides is subjective and that I don’t think people speak (especially considering the 1st amendment) to benefit others as much as speak their own mind and opinions – whether that is of value or does anyone any favors is completely secondary to the primary purpose of speaking your own mind.

          9. This isn’t Rotten Tomatoes, chief. Somebody else can debate the merits or the artistry of this film.

            What you’ve been implying here is that 1.x billion practitioners of an entire faith can’t seem to help themselves when exposed to a contrary or critical viewpoint. That they are sub-human and have no choice in the matter and must enact violence. Bigot. You’re no better than the filmmaker you criticize.

            Getting back to first principles: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

            This is not shouting “fire” in a crowded theater. These are people violating civil rights and committing acts of war on American soil and doing so under the thinnest of pretexts.

          10. Actually, what I am saying is that we have seen this pattern repeated several times in the past few years. Someone creates something deliberately provocative, riots ensue, and then the provocateur claims the glorious mantle of free speech, with the question never seriously asked: was what they said WORTHY of the trouble that followed?

            Several incidents come to mind: The Danish cartoons, the Florida Koran burnings, the Koran-in-a-toilet kerfuffle, and now this. In each case, an insult WAS intended The precipitating actions were not some sort of high-minded critique.

            Am I suggesting somehow curtailing people’s freedom of speech? No. But the people who bring on these calamity’s are not free to wash their hands of it either.

          11. curious to know your opinions about Julian Assange (sp?) of Wikileaks fame. Pretty much the same argument with that guy’s action, in my opinion. His speech is causing ripples but I don’t see anyone (at least from the left) asking what his actions have wrought. Is legal action against him justified?

          12. I mentioned Julian Assange in another comment. Julian, of course, released information sent to him, and in that case was acting more in the capacity of a reporter than an artist. The artist in the case of the Mohammed movie seems to have been more specifically interested in provoking a reaction of the very sort that occurred than in creating anything that could reasonably be called “art”. We can split hairs about what all these terms mean, but I am referring directly to intent.

            As far as I know, Julian Assange hasn’t gotten anyone killed, and the purpose of Wikileaks is to disseminate documents containing true facts. That is very different from the rabble-rousing that was Nakoula Basseley Nakoula’s (nee, “Sam Bacile”) goal.

          13. Say, Death,
            What about real art? What should we plan on doing when our government funded artists start producing Piss-Prophets, like the beloved Piss-Jesus? Shall we wait for more suicide attacks so we can fight our battles on our own soil?

          14. please tell me you’re not naive or foolish enough to think that what is going on in the Arab world is really about a straight-to-VHS movie that was apparently filmed on a 2.4mp Panasonic handheld camera and that 99.9% of the world didn’t even know existed until a few days ago. Come on, seriously….

      1. Big anti-Obama news going on, so the Team Obama trolls have to jump on anti-Obama websites and post snarky-arrogant-shallow defenses of the Dear Leader

      2. Speaking of Books of Mormon, it seems that one of Broadway’s biggest hits somehow doesn’t incite Romney and other Mormons to go about and start killing people.

        Apologizing for bad taste in hopes of appeasing rioters, especially on 9/11, is appalling.

      3. DeathRay:

        There are a slew of ways to respond to your hyperventilating nonsense, so, I’ll just select the one that goes right to the heart of you illegitimate argument:

        There is no reason to believe that the conciliatory statement meant to cool down the Cairo mob came from the White House, and given that a few hours later the ambassador in Libya was dead at the hands of another mob, it was probably prescience on the part of Egypt’s ambassador that prompted him to try to soothe the ruffled feathers.

        First, I’m glad to see that you at least are willing to attribute the feckless statement posted on the website of the American Embassy in Cairo to the American Ambassador — the one attacking our First Amendment values, and hours later withdrawn without explanation, but notably after Romney’s criticism.

        Further, there should be no doubt in any reasonable person’s mind that the approval for posting of that statement — perhaps for actually writing the statement – came directly from the United States State Department, and that Sec’y of State Clinton approved it.

        If it did not, the Ambassador, and/or his spokesperson(s) should be immediately recalled and fired. But as I say, common sense strongly suggests that it was otherwise. Everyone knows that such statements must receive approval from “headquarters” before being posted.

        If approval was obtained from the State Department, Hillary Clinton should be fired. There is no excuse for condemning fundamental American First Amendment values in order to “cool down the mob” as you so risibly put it! But, given your throw-away line in your first graph gratuitously (and irrelevantly) attacking Mitt Romney’s faith, I suppose it shouldn’t surprise me that you are utterly insensitive to fundamental American values.

        What remains curious to me is how you came to believe that posting a press release in English on the American Embassy website, condemning someone for exercising their First Amendment rights of expression, was somehow intended to curb the violence of a mob that was attacking the Embassy?

        Seems to me that the posted release was clearly put there for domestic consumption — within the United States, on the mistaken belief that the American people believe that parodies should be out of bounds when it comes to keeping the lid on crazed mobs in foreign lands. Regardless of what you think of the film (if indeed there is one beyond the posted trailer) the Embassy statement in English was an illegitimate attack on the free exercise of the right of expression, not something that an American Ambassador, or a Secretary of State should be engaging in, on any level — ever! It is the job of the Ambassador to represent or values in a foreign jurisdiction, not to denigrate them to mobs.

        Secondly, given the extraordinary political sensitivity of that statement, how is it possible that the Secretary of State did not seek prior approval for the posting of that ugly statement from her handlers in the White House, before sending approval for it’s publication on the American Embassy’s website? I think you are wrong. I think she did, and that it backfired when Romney criticized the statement.

        Of course, it took Barack Obama over 18 hours before he finally realized that Mitt Romney was right to condemn the statement attacking the free exercise of First Amendment rights, and further make the point that that was his job!

        As Neil Monro succinctly put it in his Daily Caller story:

        . . .“We believe in the First Amendment,” Obama told CBS’s Steve Kroft during an interview arranged days earlier.

        “It is one of the hallmarks of our Constitution that I’m sworn to uphold, and so we are always going to uphold the rights for individuals to speak their mind,” he said, according to a transcript narrated by White House spokesman Jay Carney.
        . . . .

        More than a day late, and certainly more than a dollar short — especially given the Administration’s sustained attacks on Romney!

        Gee, looks like Obama’s even thrown YOU under the bus, DeathRay along with you baseless argument!

        How does that feel?

        1. It is one thing to defend the First Amendment. It is quite another to defend it so ardently when it is used in the service of the atrocious, worthless and destructive ends that “Sam Bacile” put it to. Here is the quote from the ambassador to Egypt that has every conservative up in arms:

          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.

          Let us remember that the 1st Amendment has as much to do with freedom of religion as it does with free speech. If you read the quote, you will see that it endorses both those parts of the 1st Amendment amply.

          Note also what is really being addressed: the “efforts” of “misguided individuals” who “abuse” the right of freedom of speech. That is to say, the direct provocation of a restive Muslim public by a private American citizen whose actions were clearly yielding a rotten harvest that our diplomats were about to be forced to reap. You conservatives ask for Julian Assange’s head for *potentially* putting American lives at risk. What about Sam Bacile, who actually DID get American’s killed?

          Are you going to suggest that it is impossible to abuse a right? That one can never go to extremes, or use its power for destruction instead of improvement?

          What this Hollywood a-hole did was within his rights, but that does not at all mean it wasn’t an abuse of those rights.

          1. But your own example highlights the left’s problem . . . why do you defend Assange, who does direct harm to America, but attack some nobody who offends Islam? I’m not saying either are right but surely you can see the left is being inconsistent . . .

          2. Not at all. There is no evidence Wikileaks has led to anyone being hurt, and Assange did not generate the material in question. He merely released it.

            As for the “nobody”, well, he’s somebody today. And since he has left a trail of evidence that implicates him in deliberately trying to provoke a violent reaction from his target audience, he deserves to be held responsible for the natural consequences of his actions.

          3. Bullshit. He has the right to insult (tell the truth about) a bat shit crazy psychopath and the brain dead, inbred scum sucking assholes that follow that tyrannical, oppressive, misogynistic, baby raping, clit cutting, sodomizing, bestiality loving, necrophilia performing form of government.

            I will not cater to their alleged hurt feelings.

          4. Death Ray, I just came back and saw all the comments, both yours and of the other bloggers here. I think it proves a point too. Conservatives will entertain dialog and rebut it if they disagree. Most Liberals will not, preferring to dismiss the “uneducated” with a wave of the hand, feeling they are in some way superior to them. Lets work together to try and find common ground over this fiasco thats caused the deaths of innocent countrymen.

          5. I agree, but I think the correct response is not to look for ways to pin this on Obama, and in doing so race to the defense of the world’s assholes. The putz who made the movie and now hides behind the Constitution, and the thugs who killed our diplomats and hide behind the Koran are all of the same cloth. They are filled with hate, and the rest of us are left to clean up their messes.

          6. I agree up to a point. The movie is idiotic BUT he had a right to make it. Same logic as me bitc&ing about Obama here. I do not fear (yet) armed goons breaking down my door to take me away for doing so. The fact that thugs in other countries use their “offended feelings” as an excuse to murder is beyond the pale. Like it or not, Obama is the boss. I know he does not personally issue orders for embassy security BUT his underlings do. To see that on 9/11, of all days, that ANY embassy was not on full alert is unbelievable to me.

            Not to overly simplify but this is not much different than a sports team where the team is losing. The manager gets the heat. He/she knows thats the price when they take the job.

          7. Really? Really? So in your book bad taste = murder? To posit a moral equivalence in this is simply stunning. People may get over their hurt feelings, but the ambassador is dead for good

          8. Well, as the analogy goes, the man who shouts “fire” in a crowded theater is not necessarily the one who stampeded over the elderly woman on the way to the exit, but he played his part.

            In this case, the evidence is that the movie’s creator WANTED to stir up this hornet’s nest, and so he must take responsibility for his role.

            On the other hand (and it is about time I said this), so must the Middle Eastern media that took a hand in spreading the story. They also had a responsibility to stop this at its source.

            But consider this: what a YouTube video means to Americans may not be the same thing as what it means to a less sophisticated audience. The SIGNIFICANCE of this junk movie to America may not be as well understood by the mobs of Libya, and therefor, it might have been easier for them to believe that this was something akin to network programming with official sanction than some nobody’s personal project. Just food for thought.

          9. It is in no way the business of the U.S. government to disapprove or approve of the content of the free speech of U.S. citizens – under our Constitution, the government cannot do so -and the mission of embassies is to faithfully represent the official positions of the U.S. government.

            Anyone in government (including the President) can personally deplore private speech that they find offensive but, as an official government statement, what would be appropriate would be something like, “The U.S. government respects all religions. The opinions of private citizens does not reflect U.S. government policy or positions.”

            Clear statements of U.S. principles of free speech are especially important when communicating with those who don’t understand or can’t accept the idea of the right of free speech unregulated by government. That they don’t accept it is shown by their demands for an official U.S. government apology. These are people who have never experienced such rights and don’t believe such rights are acceptable when religion is involved (if ever).

          10. Frank Zappa said it best”who you jivin with that cosmic debris. Hey death ray let’s tell the muslims we are gassing up the Enola Gay. This attack was planned long ago for 9/11.Do not let the facts get in the way of your gasbagging ,bloviating talking points. Go back to think progress, or we will spend not ours but all of your This president is the Alfred e nueman of the US. If the media did not cover for this utter narcissist, he would lose this election by 20 points. Name 1 thing other then killing bin laden and US citizens without a trial this man has done. h, he is a good excuse maker which is not at the top of the list for being a good CEO.. My 15 yr. old writes better than you. Put your notepad with the talking points down and quit being a burden on society

          11. DeathRay, you obviously have no interest in engaging in a reasonable discussion of what happened in Cairo. The facts weighed against your silly assertions, so now you are going off on some tangent in defense of Julian Assange?

            Nor are you even willing to try to respond to several basic points that have already been made.

            It is quite clear to any sensible person that the Ambassador in Cairo posted that Press Release response in English on the Embassy website in an improper attempt to foment domestic controversy — i.e., to engage a political argument and exchange here within the United States.

            Your suggestion, above, that it was somehow aimed at quelling the mob unlawfully scaling the Embassy walls and burning the American flag, was simply beyond laughable. So you didn’t address that in your response. You couldn’t. It was an idiotic thing for you to have said.

            And yet you are still trying to “parse” it in defense of the stupid views expressed therein! They took it down!! It was “disappeared!” Get over it. The President has officially disavowed the views therein, and thereby conceded defeat to Mitt Romney on that point.

            And, you have failed to address other points made here. For example, I have little doubt that Hillary Clinton was directly involved in cobbling together that obscene little attack on someone who put together a movie parody.

            It was an utterly inappropriate thing as a first response to a breach of security at the Embassy, a problem that made it clear the Administration was hopelessly unprepared for the 9/11 anniversary response after the Arab spring that the Administration so heartily endorsed.

            You even originally suggest that the statement was “probably prescient” in attempting to smooth “ruffled feathers.” Are you just nuts? If someone within this Administration was so damned “prescient,” how come no one picked up on the now-obvious fact that the Libyan attack was coming, an obviously well-planned operation that took time to put together? How come no one told the Ambassador that it might not be such a great idea to go jogging off the grounds of the Embassy on the Anniversary of 9/11?

            The real problem is that the clowns within this Administration, from the front office on down, have taken their lead from the President in spending way too many of their waking hours attempting to denigrate and marginalize Americans from all walks of life, many of whom are merely exercising their God-given rights to express their misgivings about their own government, and those currently within it.

            The worst, of course, is Janet Napolitano, who somehow finds American terrorists everywhere she looks. Or the Congressional Democrats who have systematically and viciously accused Tea Party protesters of being dangerous radicals, Nazis, and racists, all without a dimes worth of proof.

            It is those hard core cases within the Administration who took the Obama lead seriously when he vaguely promised he would attempt to subjugate us all to a “radical transformation”, one that even those who initially voted for Obama were not asking for, and that we certainly do not want.

            And as usual, when he gets too far out on the limb, he simply throws one of his own under the bus. That’s what he just did to you with your worthless defense of the Embassy Press release. Go read that Neil Munro story. He caved!

            And yet, you’re still prattling on about it!

          12. How does this 2bit movie prohibit the freedom of religion for Muslims? This guy uses his freedom of speech and you think it somehow infringes or prohibits someone from exercising their freedom of religion, half way around the world?

      4. okay answer me this one…Where was the back up for the marines and the ambassador …they were under seige for 8hrs …and they all died…it is disgraceful…Obama has blood on his hands …where was the EMPTY CHAIR…i am so sick of it …sick sick sick

      5. Think about this key statement for a while:

        “those who abuse the universal right of free speech’.

        That is the scariest statement I have heard yet. ‘Abuse’? We are not talking about lying, twisting facts, or perjury type of speech, we are talking about openly and freely voicing an opinion. That is what our forefathers fought our revolution for. It is the basis or our constitution, our way of life, of America. So saying something Allah doesn’t approve of is abuse? Not allowed? Sharia law? To apologize for exercising the right of an American to express his opinion through film is the act of a cowardly traitor, not the POTUS.

      6. @Death Ray–Immediately after the Beirut barracks bombing, Reagan went ahead with the full-scale invasion of Grenada. It was a demonstration of force that put the world on notice. Next time have your facts straight.

        1. What, pray tell, did Grenada have to do with Beirut? Are you implying that the terrorists of Lebanon were taught a lesson by Reagan invading some pipsqueak nation thousands of miles away?

          Get your logic straight?

          1. So, by your logic, Reagan invading Grenada should have prevented Saddam Hussein from invading Kuwait, should have prevented al Qeada from attacking New York…?

            You are connecting non-existent dots.

          2. President Reagan was not President when Saddam invaded Kuwait, nor when Al-Qeada attacked New York. GWB 41 -looked weak after he failed to get Saddam in 1990 and 8 years of Bill Clinton’s weakness led Osama to think we wouldn’t strike back. GWB 43 corrected that, but once again with the bowing/appeaser-in-chief we show weakness. Arabs, as do most, respect power and prey on weakness. What is so hard to understand about that?

      7. The events that occurred and are occurring in the Middle East yesterday and today are evidence that killing Bin Laden was not the final solution. Bush knew that the problem was much bigger and that the solution was to display a strong America. That is what invading Iraq and overthrowing Saddam did, and it worked.

        Bush had the Middle East under control when he left office. Proof he took the right actions. The Muslim extremists feared him. Obama’s policy of apology and appeasement has created a very dangerous situation.

      8. Even if the statement did not come from the WH. The sentiment did. This is the sentiment of the left … of the political cronies of the Obama administration.

        Appeasement to Islamist … but disdain toward Christians / Jews / Non-Atheists.

      9. Because we allow free speech here, unlike those countries where they would kill him. Why don’t artists here in this country go to the middle east and dunk Muhammid in a glass of piss and call it art like they did to a crucifix here?

      10. What a friggin’ idiotic pile of BS.

        Once we get Zero out of the White House and put an adult back in charge, many of these problems will be quickly resolved. Romney will not put Marines in harm’s way with no bullets in their rifles. He won’t apologize for our freedoms. And he sure as hell won’t bow down to foreign heads of state or kiss the butts of islamic terrorists.

        In other words, Romney will lead.

      11. Dumba$$ – The “embassy” in Beirut was not hit by a truck bomb. It was the Marine baracks. Doubt you were out of diapers at that point – if you were even around.

      12. It wasn’t the Beirut Embassy, it was a Marine barracks and resulted in 260 casualties. After removing the Marines to safety, Reagan bombed the crap out of the military targets from an offshore battleship. This battleship with its 16 inch bore cannons, was a previously mothballed WWII ship decommissioned by Carter’s hollowed out military spending cuts. Reagan didn’t show the terrorist America’s ass, he showed them the gun and used it. Speaking of asses, Death Ray is the south end of a north bound horse.

      13. Death Ray –

        I do have a question for you.

        Two of the individuals killed in Benghazi were private contract security for the embassy. Both were former (not ex) SEALs (like Marines, once a SEAL, always a SEAL). The Twittershere has had some rather nasty comments regarding these two men’s deaths, postings along the lines that they were mercs, and therefore it really didn’t matter what happened to them.

        My question to you, is do you agree with these sentiments? Is the loss of Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods worth less than the loss of Ambassador Stevens because these men were not there under some military order, but rather because of them working for a private contractor?

        If so, answer me this. Why should a person not be allowed to utilize the training, talents, and abilities they have acquired over the years to provide for their families? Is the accountant, who has toiled over double entry book keeping, and earned his CPA not allowed to use his experiences from other employment to become a CFO for a company?

        Would we stop a cook who has studied and practiced the culinary arts from opening his own restaurant and becoming a chef?

        Would we begrudge the journalism major who worked the crime beat for several years honing his writing talents covering the deaths of others from having his own column or blog?

        I spent the majority of my adult life in the law enforcement/investigations field at various levels of government, and have attended thousands of hours of academies, trainings, schools, etc. Should I not be allowed to use the talents and trainings I acquired over the years to be able to provide for myself and my family?

        The left seems to have a serious problem with people using the skills they have learned through their military or law enforcement experience to provide for themselves and their families. So, again, my question to you is: Do you think that the loss of these two former SEALs is simply no big deal, since the left would look on them as nothing more than mercs?

  1. Bulls eye, Keith. I hope that when the guaranteed heartfelt meeting with the families of the dead take place, one or more of them slap him in the face for how cowardly actions.

  2. Agree.

    KarlRove bistered MrO for his mealy-mouthed response to what is an unprovoked attack on America and for his inexplicible carrying on with his campaign by flying off to LasVegas. He believed, as do most of us, that the President should have cancelled his trip, remained in the WhiteHouse and told the American public that he was meeting with his intel partners and monitoring the attacks on us.
    The Press should have commented on that instead of trying to besmirch MrRomney for saying what all of us were thinking.

  3. Thanks, great point that seems to be missed by many. Obama is a wuss, always has been always will be. Romney showed the world he does have a backbone and will not tolerate these types of acts.

    1. Romney is a prominent American, a patriot, at the moment running for the highest office and he said what he thought. Now, of course, the media must spank him. So disgusting. Naturally the one letter they printed in our Gannett paper was how Romney shot from the hip. Someone on Fox said Obama had notice of the Eqyptian thing and should have called Morsi and said–a mob is headed toward our embassy and you better not let it do anything. Maybe that idea was in the intelligence briefing he skipped.

      1. A friend told me just now she heard the Marines being deployed have been told by State they are not to carry loaded weapons. Thats what they said at Beruit before the barracks was attacked. Maybe they can shout “BANG BANG BANG” or something………Dear God, my head is pounding……

  4. I posted this earlier, I know, but I think it bears repeating.

    “It needs but one foe to breed a war, and those who have not swords can still die upon them.”

    -JRR Tolken

    The 9/11 commision echoed this in the wake of 9/11/01 by saying that “We were not at war with them, but they were at war with us.”

    Such has been the condition of the War on Terro- oh, wait, the “kinetic activity to obviate man-caused disasters.”

    N.B. to The Obama Regime;


    Either Obama does not get this, or its all about the taqiyya as he defends his Sunni brethren. You know it was a Sunni group that dragged the Ambassador through the streets. You know Obama’s dad, stepdad, and upbringing were Sunni. You may have noticed that the few times he does war on Muslims, they are Shiite.

    So, AFTER seeing the US ambassador murdered and dragged through the streets, AMERICAN SOVEREIGN TERRITORY invaded and destroyed, the US Flag ripped down and replaced with an Islamist motto over a US Embassy ON THE ANNIVERSARY OF 9/11, what action does our mufti-in-chief take?

    First, disown the offical apology he previously issued. I’m sure there will be a bus-throwing-under party for some porr Embassy hack over that one.

    Then! A “strongly” worded 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.” – B. Hussein Quisling

    Let’s see, start the statement by blaming the US. Toothlessly and faintly “oppose” the action. Offer no corrective “kinetic action”. Finish by calling American Citizens, including one that legally is the embodiment of the US in a foreign country – and your colleage – “Servants”.


    Reagan put a F-111 smackdown on Lybia for a less direct attack on the majesty of the US, and it straightened those folks out towards us for DECADES! As Mr. Koffler points out above, the jackals do NOT respect weakness, and will ONLY respond to a display of military strength. As a Muslim by birth, our Dear Leader would certainly know that.

    Maybe he can’t do anything about it because they are fellow Sunnis? The Umma would not approve! That may also be why he can’t meet with that Jewish leader on the eve of Armageddon.

    And some people still think he’s a good Prezzy. SHEESH!

    1. Well said.
      Remember these savages are still thinking like the Crusades (11-15th Cent. AD)
      H#ll, most of them are still living in the 11-15th centuries…

  5. Another excellent article, Keith!

    It’s unbelievable that Obama cancelled his intelligence briefing yesterday then went and campaigned as if nothing had happened. He hasn’t attended any intelligence briefings since Sept 5th. Apparently he prefers to read the briefing book instead and doesn’t need any explanations or ask any questions. ” In the eyes of this administration, it is a virtue that the president does not meet every day with senior intelligence officials. This president, you see, does not need briefers. He can forgo his daily intelligence meeting because he is, in Vietor’s words, “among the most sophisticated consumers of intelligence on the planet.”

    Shouldn’t Obama have been better prepared for the anniversary of Sept 11th? Why only 4 Libyan security guards and security cameras at the US Embassy in Benghazi? Did Obama gut the military so much that we can no longer afford or have personnel to guard our embassies?

    I also think it strange that when Obama was told the Ambassador was missing, that he went to bed. Seems that other presidents would have stayed awake to keep informed of the ongoing situation. But he needed to rest for a long day of campaigning and God forbid anything get in his way.

    I also think it strange that Obama said Egypt is not an ally, nor enemy, but yet we send them billion$. Besides, they were an ally when Obama took office.

    1. Reminds me of Bill Clinton, on Y2K’s News Year Eve he stayed awake all night until he was sure Americans in every time zone were safe.

      Now he’s carrying Obama’s drool bucket :(

    2. Shouldn’t Obama have been better prepared for the anniversary of Sept 11th? Why only 4 Libyan security guards and security cameras at the US Embassy in Benghazi? Did Obama gut the military so much that we can no longer afford or have personnel to guard our embassies?

      Wow! All this time I thought you were just some common blog surfer, AZ, but it turns out you are an overseas embassy security expert! Imagine how much safer the country would be if you were Secretary of State! Can you tell us a bit more about your training, your education, and how it is you know what the president’s sleep schedule ought to be?

      1. She’d be a hell of a lot better than the shrill that’s currently in that slot. What portfolio did Hillary bring to the table? Oh, that’s right, she was a first lady. Then an obnoxious carpetbag Senator from New Yawk. Big whoop. And before that, a part-time lawyer with a cushy set-up in a big name Arkansas law firm. Again, big whoop. Obama kept his political enemy close when he choose her for that job. No comparison to past heads…Rice, Powell, Baker.

        1. You’re right, Coop. What could an Ivy League educated lawyer with a career in politics and an ex-president for a husband possibly know about world affairs? And good ol’ Colin… what was his major accomplishment as SoS besides bullshitting us into a war that helped bankrupt the country?

          1. Attending an Ivy League school does not make one a scholar or an intellectual. Or even a mediocre lawyer. Or is a pre-requisite for marrying a future president. This loud mouth brood rode her husband’s coattails to her fame. Her portfolio is damn thin and you know it. There is no comparison between Powell and Clinton. Guess you conveinently forgot about all those UN resolutions regarding Iraq, Senate votes authorizing military force, etc. I will say this though, Hillary has more experience, smarts and savvy than that skinny, clueless asshole posing as Preezy.

          2. The latest public proof of Hillary Clinton’s utter incompetence began with the posting of that apology laden and broad-based attack on First Amendment rights on the website of the United States Embassy in Cairo as a first response.

            Bear in mind that that was her first response! She was expressing the official position of the Department of State to the breaching of the territory of the United States in Egypt. That is what an Embassy is, in case you weren’t aware, DeathRay — it is the territory of the country that is currently occupying that building and grounds.

            So, when our Embassy was breached, and the flag torn down, and a mob of thugs were roaming the grounds, the Secretary of State immediately resorted to her craven political roots. Her instinctual response was that of the old blame American first crowd. Somehow it was someone else’s fault — a film maker who has put together a parody.

            Hillary immediately retreated to the gut reaction of the San Francisco Democrats, the ones that Jeane Kirkpatrick so eloquently tagged with that description, all those years ago.

            But now it seems that Hillary has begun reviving that faction, framing the very first response to a mob attacking our Embassy in the form of a political attack in English, obviously intended for domestic consumption within the United States, and aimed at someone who she said was “hurting the feelings” of those attackers in the mob!.

            And you, dear DeathRay have defended that response! You even called it “prescient!”

            Since then, Hillary has had to retreat a bit, but to some extent she actually doubled down on that obnoxious tact — slightly revising it, of course, in the light of the President’s indirect acknowledgement that Mitt Romney was right in pointing out that a domestic political attack on our fundamental values is an inappropriate response for the United States to take to our Embassy in Cairo coming under siege from a mob, and the destruction of a Consulate in Libya that was obviously planned in advance.

            Had Hillary, as the Sec’y of State, paid enough attention to proper security at the Embassy in Cairo and the Consulate in Libya — or elsewhere, for that matter? Some say no, but you seem to think that she is just swell.

  6. Thank you Keith, very succinctly written.
    I hope the fawning Obamabots who are still glassy eyed over their savior’s foreign policy greatness, wake up and add this failure to his economic policy failures and come up with -0.

    Vote Romney/Ryan 2012

    1. Un F-ing believable! This ‘P.C’ Obama-Hilliary State Dept. is PATHETIC.
      Now Im glad I didnt pass the Foreign Service Officer (FSO) test a few years ago… I could not deal with this diplomatic B.S. from Obama & Hilliary

    2. AZ, my apologies. I overlooked your post, basically posting the same thing, head hurting and all. I recall the first words of advice I got as a cop: “Richie, you draw your gun, be prepared to shoot to kill”. These brave Marines…..Maybe they can yell BANG BANG or something. Its time to vomit.

    3. The State Dept is convinced that a nasty picture of Hillary pasted to the front door of the embassy will be a better deterrent than any number of bullets.

      Hmm they may be right…

  7. Excellent article, Keith.

    Not only did Obummer rush off to Vegas to continue campaigning on the same day we learn of the terror attacks and assassination of our Ambassador and diplomats, did you hear what he did this morning?? He was in Colorado, having flown there from Vegas last night for a rally in Golden, CO today. So, you’d think his morning would have started early and been filled with briefings and conference calls about the escalating situation surrounding our embassies, right? Nope, guess what this JACKASS did this morning, (according to Mark Knoller’s tweet):

    In Denver, Pres Obama spent about 40 minute working out at local firehouse before his campaign rally later today in Golden.

    WTF?!?!?! Priorities?? It is absolutely despicable how the lame stream media is covering his ass even though they know what an incompetent lazy moron he is!!

  8. I live in virginia and mrs. obama is here today. They were talking to the voters while waiting in line. it was 20 olds and women. the 20 year old said i want the next 4 years to be like that last. right afterward the news reported unemployment was up again this month, gas and no new jobs posted. i just laughed. my point is i don’t care what asswipe you think romney is he has my vote. team romney!!!!!!

    1. Of coarse, the Mainstream Media are reporting the unemployment numbers had increased because of Isaac. I am not sure what the basis of that claim is but one report I heard attributed 9000 lost jobs to Isaac.

  9. Anyone who believes in a strong USA (1945-200?), who took an “Intro to Foregin Affairs” class would have made the same point as Romney.

    1. True. No coincidence that the aircraft lifted off the ground with those captured in the Iranian Hostage Crisis as Reagan was being inaugurated. Unlike Uncle Jimmah, the ayatollahs knew Reagan didn’t play. Sadly right now we have an agenda being run by committee and enforced by political polling. Vegas is a good destination for Obama, his whole administration has been one big sucker bet.


    also, we have to get the whitehouse back before ‘they’ tip the scales by putting more on aid than those who are not on aid-they will win by default if that happens and it will if he gets another 4

  11. Sorry Keith,

    But unfortunately, the majority of people in this country, including many Repubs, think Romney made a big blunder. And by looking at the recent polls, this could be the last bomb to drop on Mittens’ head. But enjoy your last few weeks of “hope’. :)

    1. I’d love to see your proof. Otherwise, I’d say that is a load of BS. I’ll take a leader with some balls anyday over a gutless empty suit like Obama.

  12. How was mitts political attack useful in a time of crisis and mourning? Can’t wait for someone on the right try and justify it.

    1. Do you see the President and First Lady mourning? I see them out campaigning.
      And answer me this: why was it perfectly acceptable for the Democrats (particularly Robert Kennedy) to criticize Johnson’s handling of the Vietnam war while it is not acceptable for a Republican to criticize a statement issued by an embassy during what I am sure you will say is not a war?

    2. I defended it and continue to–he was more forceful, no bland intoning about “strongest possible terms” or whatever the Other One said. Romney had the right of free speech as an American–and used it. The Outrage is all whipped up by the leftist press. It is ludicrous to behold.

    1. Do you see either the president or first lady morning? I believe they are out campaigning. Why was it all right for the Democrats (especially Robert Kennedy) to attack Johnson’s handling of the Vietnam War but it is not all right for a Republican to attack a statement issued by an embassy in an event that I am sure you would argue does not represent a war. Answer me that.

    1. Well, he said he could heal the planet and make the oceans recede, or some such nonsense that babbling morons find inspiring. So waving a magic wand should not be too hard for Barry. Come on Barry, show ’em that big stick that Joe claims you carry around.

  13. Poor Mittens. I guess you tried your best? Looks like you are going to be unemployed for quite a while. At least you will always have Kolob.

    1. You really ought to study Jimmy Carter’s polls at this time in 1980. Obama is finished – look at the polls of independents. The election will be decided by independents, and Zero has lost nearly all of them. Zero is raising as much money as he can because he knows (and inside Democrat polls show) that he hasn’t a chance. Nice try, but your party’s BS is worn out.

      1. I am an independent. The Carter comparison is not nearly as succinct as you would like it to be, I am afraid. It is fine to hate Obama, I don’t care for him, but why does it mean you have to love Romney? He stands for nothing.

  14. Excellent article, Mr. Koffler. The president jetting off to Vegas for a fundraiser just hours after accusing Romney of putting politics first at a time of crisis is hilarious — or, it would be, if the MSM hadn’t neglected to mention this “minor” detail to their audiences. And the Big 3 network news programs wonder why they are losing viewers! Thank God for the internet.

  15. I support Romney,s statement. America needs to wake up, I just, don’t have
    the feeling that our president is looking out for us. It is about the economy and
    and our security. I did vote for President Obama; but will be voting for Romney.

  16. Good point about the initial embassy statement. A statement such as that is the closest thing there is to an official statement. Obama/Hilary should be sure that all spokes people are understand they are speaking for all of us.

  17. Pingback: ACFJ up to the minute Political News «

  18. The Embassy apologizes for free speech in an attempt to quell violence, which has never worked, then reiterates the statement. Obama says his own Embassy doesn’t speak for him, then does a no-questions presser only about Libya, bashes Romney as shoot first and aim later (Trayvon Martin, Professor Gates), does not mention Egypt because no one died, even as Clinton says that the Libyans took our guys to the hospital, though they were missing for 5 hours and pictures surfaced of them bloodied in the streets, near dead if not already. Then Obama goes on a campaign trip to Las Vegas, to offer a half-hearted “thanks for your service to 4 dead Americans” and some platitudes about American resolve, before starting up his divisive, Hitler-theme-song “Forward” campaign again. Campaigning. Campaigning. (Think, If Bush did that…) Now he promises “justice,” whatever that means, while at the same time the media turns a blind eye to the DNC “Osama is dead” chants, and gives the POTUS a complete pass to Obama’s horrific Middle East foreign policy, if there is one, aside from ensuring Iran develops a bomb and ignoring and disgracing Israel. Meanwhile, the media does Obama’s dirty work smearing Romney, and gets help from sympathetic foreign policy and campaign “experts.” Romney is apparently doomed if he speaks, doomed if he doesn’t, regardless of content, and the POTUS gets to move ships into the Persian Gulf (hopefully they are American ones) and Marines into the embassies to “protect” our interests (think we could have been a little proactive there on 9/11?). Reagan blasted Carter every day for the hostages, Kerry the same on Bush. Hypocrisy?

    I am beginning to understand how hard it is to defeat a sitting President. Especially this one. Apparently, job performance is not important.

    Got it.

  19. Seriously, who would say:

    “those who abuse the universal right of free speech’.

    That is a very scary thought.. ‘Abuse’? We are not talking about lying, twisting facts, or perjury type of speech, we are talking about openly and freely voicing an opinion. That is what our forefathers fought our revolution for. It is the basis or our constitution, our way of life, of America. So saying something Allah doesn’t approve of is abuse? Not allowed? Sharia law? To apologize for exercising the right of an American to express his opinion through film is the act of a cowardly traitor, not the POTUS.

  20. Great column. When all’s said & done, this helps Romney. Never forget that Obama wanted to make NASA’s #1 mission making Muslims feel good about themselves.

  21. Obama’s Dept. of Justice is now “investigating.” That is, they have already leaked the name, age and location of the Coptic Christian who made the supposedly offensive film that supposely drove Arab Muslims to murder. It doesn’t take much. See

    “Fauzi Natzche, a twenty-eight-year-old resident of East Jerusalem, stabbed seventeen-year-old Yosef Lepon, a resident of the Jewish Quarter, on February sixth. When asked why he did it, Natzche explained, ‘I was depressed because I owed so much money, so I decided to go out and kill a Jew!’ “

    1. Maybe Obammie should release his college records, what’s he hiding Sam? Maybe he lied and said he was a foreign student, ya think?And after four years in office, Obama still knows nothing about foreign policy and the economy. The guy could not run a Quickie Mart, it would be out of business in a month. Yet the stupids of this country, like you, bought into his BS without knowing anything about him. Did he make your leg tingle like Chris Matthews? Well done, Sammie!

    2. What do school records have to do with tax returns? I will say that Obama and Michelle know what it is like to repay student loans and that is something I can definitely relate to. You are concerned that he may have been fuzzy on his college applications? That is what concerns you? The idea of offshore accounts and Swiss bank accounts set up to hide money and avoid paying taxes by someone who has plenty of money does not concern you at all? I feel like a heel for following the rules and paying taxes like the rest of the serfs in Romney’s fiefdom.

  22. Mitt Romney, in his fake angry rage has done more to stimulate the attacks on US embassies that any other known human being alive today. Because he knows that President Obama has acted, both wisely in, at first acting in a moderate way, while both investigating the attacks, and by NOT riling up the already tense situation, somewhat caused by Romney’s statements encouraging more aggressive US action against Syria and Iran BEFORE the attacks on the US embassies had even happened, has raised the level of potential for MORE anti-American violence, that existed because Obama took out Ghaddafi, Mubarak, and don’t forget bin Laden, also taken out under orders from President Obama.

    So, who is in fact the real cause of all the current anti-American violence??
    And the Teapublicans were so happy when President Obama’s actions, along with our allies, took out Ghaddafi and Mubarak. The Republicans are complete hypocrites! Not to mention that falsely blaming the president for something Romney’s big mouth caused involves LYING.

  23. “I don’t think the embassy would have put out such an obsequious statement, even under threat, were Ronald Reagan president. It just wouldn’t fit with the reigning gestalt in the administration.”

    Are you kidding me? Last time I checked, it was during Reagan administration that our soldiers were attacked in Lebanon and Reagan decided to flee rather than stay and fight. Also, I recall something about dealing with terrorist during his administration — something called Contra-Gate.

    Of course, given your logic, Bush must have put out a weakest statements possible to lead to 911 attacks. After all US’s weakness must be responsible for that.

    Perfect example of lazy journalism.

    1. Jeez, another one, stick something in his or her cake hole. Job well done, troll!

      Really though, if you want lazy journalism, you need look no further than the MSM. They to suffer from the open mike syndrome, they have learned well from Dear Leader.

      1. So what? There are lazy journalist all over the net and print media. So, we have to excuse it because some of them happen to be supporting our guy? All the arguments made in this piece can be used to paint Bush, Reagan, Carter, Obama, and Clinton as weak. That is lazy journalism.

  24. This columns reads like the many posts on the RCP and WSJ message boards; the dumbed-down prose, the ticky-tacky short sentences, the idiot phrasing – “I have news for the Obama campaign”… your writing style and approach to journalism is, frankly, nothing short of feeble. Let’s hope your sub gets to this before you read it eh?

    1. Soros wants his underwear starched and ironed, Ander. Better hop to it or you’ll be up all night writing libtard BS on conservative blogs as punishment, eh? Seriously, do you trolls get paid minimum wage or a free pizza to do this crap? Y’all come across like Al Gore. If your going to post here at least put some effort into it, like X-Ray, Death Ray, whatever he calls him or herself.

  25. Woo, Keith, you really made a bunch of trolls nervous.
    It looks to me as if the tone-deaf (understatement) o’s, both of them, are in a firestorm they didn’t see coming. Judging by the number of fresh new trolls here, it looks that way.

  26. @Death Ray,

    You posted “….it was probably prescience on the part of Egypt’s ambassador that prompted him to try to soothe the ruffled feathers.”

    Since you are such an expert on Egypt and the Middle East, I’m surprised you referred to the American ambassador to Egypt as “him”.

    Anne W. Patterson – Career FSO
    Title: Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary
    Appointed: July 2011
    Presented credentials: Unknown
    Terminated mission: Incumbent (since August 1, 2011)

    1. Good job ImNoDhimmi! Your thorough research and keen eye invalidates DeathRays entire line of reasoning. Great catch! DeathRay is now, no doubt, contemplating burning his small library of liberal / socialist, left wing, communist-laden coloring books.

      P.S. Thanks for the scholarly citation too!

  27. Thank you. You wrote eloquently what I was thinking.

    Thank you for the work you do here everyday.

    ovomit, the lying, thieving commie rat bastard MUSLIM, has to go.

  28. Of course, Romney is good and Obama is bad — that goes without saying and will always be true.

    But, was Romney right. What would Reagan do?

    Candidate Reagan after the failed rescue of hostages in Iran: “This is a difficult day for all of us Americans…It is time for us…to stand united. It is a day for quiet reflection…when words should be few and confined to our prayers.”

    Candidate Romney DURING attacks on American consulate in Benghazi: “It’s disgraceful that the Obama Administration’s first response was not to condemn the attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”

    1. Try to pay attention to the timeline:

      Romney’s comments were made following the attack on the American Embassy and *before* the attack on the consulate in Libya.

      No announcements from the WH were made until the morning of September 12th from the WH (the single announcement was made from the Embassy in Egypt).

      1. Sadie – Your point? That Romney was prudent in his “timely response” – exercising sound judgement by eviscerating the Office of the President in the middle of an explosive / tense / international incident?

        1. Come on Booger, you should know better. You can’t eviscerate (great word choice, by the way, love it!) what is not there. Obama is ephemeral, like a wisp, an empty suit or an empty chair. Our Dear Leader jetted off during this moment of crisis to be with his Obots in Colorado. Priorities first!

  29. Barak “Jimmmah” Obama has lost the election through the process of voting ‘present’ yet again. POTUS cannot vote present on a 3 AM phone call.
    The 0bumblers only chance to produce good visuals on this was to run over to congress and drop the hot potato in their lap. Ask congress if they think raping and killing an American ambassador is worth going to war over, If they say no, then let them deal with the voters. If they say yes, then he sics the Pentagon on the bad guys. That is the way the system works.
    A short victorious war would not only deal with the Islamic problem but jump start the economy. It would also guarantee Obama being re-elected.

    “I say we pull out and nuke ‘em from orbit. It’s the only way to make sure.”
    – FO Ripley.

  30. Do you really consider it pusillanimous to condemn hate speech? Even if you are ignorant of the timeline — which you apparently are — when is wrong for our government to apologize for despicable behavior by people living in the U.S. The film makers clearly intended to rile up followers of Islam. Why ask the State Department to ignore hate speech, when they had every reason to fear that the film would succeed in its goal of causing hatred toward to nation which created it.

    Would you condone a film which portrayed Jesus performing fellatio? Would you not expect the government of an ally (e.g. Japan) to express regret for the making of such a film in their country?

    1. While it’s not wrong to condemn hate speech, when was the last time that a riot of Christians pilloried Michael Moore for his very provocative and at times misleading offerings? What really came out of this is that the Islamic world is bound by cruel tribal precepts which they intend and expect to impose on the rest of the world. Obama has taken the route of pandering and giving them money, which has obviously has not worked. Time for Teddy Roosevelt’s big stick.

  31. I think Mitt did exactly the right thing at the right time. The empty suit that is our president has no gonadal fortitude to do anything but apologize … that’s all he’s been doing for the past 3.5 years, and I’m sick and tired of it. He embarrasses me to be an American, and those that think he’s the messiah are truly morons. We need a real president, and Romney is so much more qualified than the putz we’ve currently got in that position. November cannot come soon enough for me!

    1. Jeff – Agreed. Mitt was all over this, and even expediting the release of his concern earlier than his aides thought prudent. Obama works too hard at capitulating to the world stage – sorry for this, sorry for that – we’ll try harder… I am embarrassed too – a mean, when the socialist world starts to like you and begins to take an active role beating back some bad guys when *** WE *** should be in there doing it right – the AMERICAN WAY! Agree with you too that most Americans are MORONS, truly so. With Romney in there, the American majority MORONS, will just have to bite their collective lower lips while ole Mitt “gets ‘er done”.

      Right on Brother Jeff!

      1. Right on, Brother Booger! The truth shall set you free!

        Unfortunately it sounds like your already a committed socialist. Go red or be dead? I agree with you, that many (not most), Americans are morons. These are the ones that vote for people like Obama based on race, looks, clothes, cool factor?, smile, family or other similarly vacuous reasons. They don’t consider if the person has the experience for the job or has the chops to deal with people and governments, hostile or friend. Obama is profoundly unqualified for the office and still is, even with his four years of OTJT. He should have done what LBJ did way back in 1968 but he does not now and will never put the country first. I pray he gets his ass ‘shellacked’ come Nov. 6 and it’s a Republican sweep. Good riddance.

  32. I am tired of this Celebrity President. He hangs out with them, he speaks to them, he gets campaign money from them. And the only reason I can figure they support him is because someone somewhere told them it was hip. I have already emailed Letterman to ask if he’s interested in entertaining people anymore. And by the way, how come appearances by Obama and his wife aren’t included in the cost of campaigning?

  33. Good show Keith. Romney is standing up for America in the face of murder-mobs-and a neutered Administration. Anne Patterson is an accomplished diplomat and even though she was out of the country I am perplexed by her staff’s pathetic and lengthy twitter trail of abject apology. It strains credulity that this response was not officially sanctioned. Even though it was walked back for Egypt Hillary kept up the charade of it’s all about free speech in Morocco. And finally Hillary and Barrack need to reacquaint themselves with the term ally. Amateurs – Valerie needs to take them to the woodshed.

    where BIlly Jeff?

    1. @gracepmc – Nice post:
      Generic Complement, i.e., “good show” – Check
      Standing up for America – Check
      Reference to Genital Area in some obtuse manner – Check
      Personal “Insight” (perplexed, pathetic, implied conspiracy) – Check
      Sweeping swipe of Administration in general – Check
      A Fix – Someone punished – Check

      I’m all in, you had me at “Good Show Keith”.

Comments are closed.