Moderator: Bill Glasheen
Instead of apologizing to these idiots, we should be telling them to grow up. Christians have endured a century of mockery, seen Jesus depicted upside down in a glass of urine, Mary smeared with elephant dung, and both defiled in countless other ways. No one would excuse a horde of Christians stampeding a government facility and slaughtering the occupants. The U.S. government wouldn't be apologizing for anything, either.
Wouldn't it be shocking to the Muslim world if every democratic country in the world unleashed a coordinated, fact-based assessment of their precious prophet? You can't wage a holy war against the entire world. Even the most ignorant zealot could understand that. If they can't get around to a Reformation, maybe it's time the world pushed them into one.
Valkenar wrote:I'm not totally sure what you guys are referring to in terms of leadership apologizing. You do know that Romney's accusation was nonsense, right? Do you have a quote you can share that constitutes some kind of apology for the first amendment?
Posted on Sat, Sep. 15, 2012 04:00 PM
The Cairo embassy statement was fair game
By E. THOMAS McCLANAHAN
The Kansas City Star
For Republican Mitt Romney, it must have seemed a clear shot: A mob storming the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, and a limp embassy statement apologizing for an anti-Islam YouTube film produced in the U.S.
“The Embassy of the United States,” the statement said, “condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims — as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions.”
Romney quickly put out a news release highlighting the misplaced emphasis on Muslim feelings, but it was badly worded and he would have been better advised to wait. He had a valid point to make, but in his haste he unwittingly triggered a media bonfire.
It’s not hard to understand why the embassy statement cried out for a retort.
Obama began his administration with what many have dubbed an “apology” tour, including a speech in Cairo in which he sought to ingratiate himself with the Muslim world and contrast his administration with that of George W. Bush.
And few could forget Obama’s creepy habit of bowing to various foreign leaders, or his inability to articulate the concept of American exceptionalism. Or his administration’s laughable attempt to rebrand war as “overseas contingency operations” and terrorist attacks as “man-caused disasters.”
The Obama administration was and is vulnerable to accusations of insufficient vigor in defending U.S. interests and values, and Obama’s “lead from behind” approach has arguably contributed to the spectacle of a Middle East in flames.
But Romney’s initial statement was marred. Its key passage said the Obama administration’s “first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”
That made it sound as if he was accusing the administration of sympathizing not only with the attackers in Cairo but those in Libya, where a coordinated assault by terrorists resulted in the death of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other U.S. personnel.
Yet in his statement the next day, Romney made it clear that his “sympathize” remark had applied only to Cairo. The administration, he said, “was wrong to stand by a statement sympathizing with those who had breached our embassy in Egypt, instead of condemning their actions.”
Many in the media worked themselves into a how-dare-you-lather, arguing that Romney had been too hasty (agreed), and claiming the Cairo statement wasn’t fair game (absurd).
It turns out that administration officials in Washington also saw the Cairo release as appalling.
Josh Rogin of Foreign Policy magazine reported that the embassy official who put out the “feelings of Muslims” statement first sent it to Washington and was told not to release it without revisions.
It went out anyway, angering top people at the White House and State Department, according to Rogin. Rogin’s source told him officials in Washington found the statement “tone deaf.” That’s putting it mildly, which explains why it was later disavowed.
A subsequent statement by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, “Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.”
In other words, she put in what Romney said the Cairo statement had left out.
Romney was also assailed for “conflating” the embassy statement with administration policy, which strikes me as weird. How was he to know the Cairo official was a loose cannon? Don’t U.S. embassies represent the U.S. government?
And yet, had Romney waited a few hours he might have avoided a good bit of this muddle, leaving his main point clear.
As is evident from this — as well as the antagonistic coverage of his foreign trip during the summer — Romney is facing an extremely hostile press, and he will have to learn to manage that problem more adroitly.
To reach E. Thomas McClanahan, call 816-234-4480 or send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
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.
Bill Glasheen wrote:Sorry, Justin, but I have to call you on this. I came into this impartial with respect to parties, and you're now coming in as an Obama apologist.
The embassy statement was an apology. If you can't acknowledge that, I can't help you. We should NOT be apologizing for our First Amendment. It exists for this very situation, Justin. Do a little research.
What Muslims have done to Coptic Christians...
Then come back and tell me why our Embassy needed to talk about the "hurt religious feelings" of ethnic cleansers and barbarians. And remember it was they - and not the US - who violated international law by storming our embassy.
By the way... Why didn't you comment on the author and editorial writer I posted about above?
Steve Hatfield wrote:Just curious. If the statement put out by the Embassy was benign and not apologetic in "nature", then why would the Administration come out and say it was not an authorized, nor agreed with statement? There must have been something about that statement that the Administration did not want to be tied to??
"People at the highest levels both at the State Department and at the White House were not happy with the way the statement went down. There was a lot of anger both about the process and the content," the official said. "Frankly, people here did not understand it. The statement was just tone deaf. It didn't provide adequate balance. We thought the references to the 9/11 attacks were inappropriate, and we strongly advised against the kind of language that talked about ‘continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims.'"
Valkenar wrote:For example, conservatives are now twisting it into an apology for free speech.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests