During the early stages of rioting and flag burning, a spokesman for the embassy in Egypt stated that they “condemn the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. 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." Secretary Clinton later wrote, "The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. 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."
Candidate Romney, incensed by the violence and angry at the Democratic administration on Wednesday morning stated, "I think it is a terrible course for America to stand in apology for our values. That instead, when our grounds are being attacked and being breached, that the first response of the United States must be outrage at the breach of the sovereignty of our nation. And apology for America's values is never the right course. The fact that the statement came from the American embassy in Egypt, not from the president himself, doesn't negate Obama's responsibility." Romney, while outraged, spoke out against the American administration saying, "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 feels that when an embassy under attack “deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others,” the administration is apologizing for the basic American right for free speech.
While we appreciate Romney describing what his course of action would have been were he president, we have to wonder at a major political figure being so transfixed by a coming election as to speak out of frustration and political expedience.
Photo: New York Post
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - kelmattzz
America should condemned such an attack from this extremist Muslim group, but still no one has the right to take life even one's religion get insulted. especially like a good loving Libyan American Ambassador Libya Chris.
2 - Cindy
If Romney is president there will be another war. He is too insecure-macho just like Bush he wants to solve everything by showing people how big his dick is. Great culture we have to create men like that.
3 - Cindy
The world is going to be destroyed by men who need to prove they are manly.
4 - John Lake
Romney takes the ball from GWB and runs with it. All macho.
5 - Dr. Joseph S. Maresca
Wars cost money. The federal budget deficit stands like a sword of Damocles to limit the excessive
projection of military might in response to foreign civil unrest.
6 - Glenn Contrarian
Cindy -
If Romney is president there will be another war. He is too insecure-macho just like Bush he wants to solve everything by showing people how big his dick is. Great culture we have to create men like that.
Did you see Sarah Palin's statement about this brouhaha? In her comparison of Obama to Teddy Roosevelt:
"We already know that President Obama likes to 'speak softly' to our enemies. If he doesn’t have a 'big stick' to carry, maybe it’s time for him to grow one."
Insecure men with an apparent need to compensate are the problem - absolutely! - but enablers like Sarah Palin don't help.
7 - Cindy
Glenn,
I just want to clarify something, because I know I come across as being critical of men, as if it's simply their male sex that makes them upsetting. It's not. Despite the way I speak, I don't have any problem with men, per se. I do have a problem with the dominant gender indoctrination for both males and females though, and the men and women who adopt them where they are detrimental to others.
It happens to typically be males who have been brainwashed t9o be aggressive and dominating. That does not mean that females cannot be or never are. Females also raise males. So, I am not very happy with their part in the drama either.
Never-the-less, I try to limit my disgust (as opposed to my empathy) to those who actually effect others significantly--that would include Sarah Palin. Her statement, among other things about her, make her as despisable as Mitt Romney to me. So, I agree with you.
8 - Glenn Contrarian
Cindy -
I really doubt whether you're as critical of men as I am - there's been a lot of times that my wife complains to me about how suspicious I am of other men's actions and motives. I've thought for many years now that women are generally more intelligent than men, and it's pretty obvious that nearly all the misogyny in the world is due to men who can't accept and overcome their own insecurity.
But times are changing, slowly, surely, and women are gaining a measure of power and influence they never really had before...and the world is more peaceful in the past twenty years than ever before (relatively speaking).
Back before I reported on board my last ship, I had only served on men-only ships, and I bought into all the claptrap that women on ships are bad luck (yes, just like the guy said in Pirates of the Caribbean , and that having women on board would turn the crew's life into a hell of political correctness (I was still fairly conservative at the time). It didn't help that there was a rumor that one ship in our battle group (just after the first Gulf War) that did have women on it had to send 10% of their female crewmembers home due to pregnancy. That was a rumor and nothing more...but you know as well as I do that rumors (true or untrue) can do a lot of damage.
But once I got on board my last ship - the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) - and about 10% of the crew were females (which meant about 300 out of a non-airwing crew of 3000). I noticed fairly soon that the ship was cleaner and (most surprisingly) the men on board were MUCH better behaved. The men didn't cuss as much, didn't fight as much, and didn't stink as much...but of course there were still a lot of misogynists on board who couldn't - or wouldn't - see the difference.
It sorta takes me back to another song from South Pacific - "There Is Nothing Like A Dame", which is a group of men singing about how things really are much better when women are around. Rogers and Hammerstein knew a few things, they did....
9 - Cindy
women are gaining a measure of power and influence they never really had before
The female impetus, which is to feed children for free, without competition, and without expected repayment is not, imo, gaining space.
The masculine indoctrinated training of domination via force and coercion is still the rule.
It does not help, imo, to make women guards in a prison created by domination. That is no power at all. If I cannot effect what kind of society we have, its values and means of operation, then I am not gaining anything but the "right" to act like a "man"--and according to what the masculine indoctrination deems appropriate and valuable.
I am not interested in being given the right to join the military and slaughter people, nor to join Wall St and financially rape people, nor to become whatever "men" deem powerful.
Keep your power. Give me my freedom.
10 - Igor
Sarah Palin has a bad case of stick envy.
11 - Igor
The USA had a Really Big Stick in New York fondly called "World Trade Center". In fact, it was two Big Sticks, just like a Possum.
But somebody cut it down so we started two trillion dollar wars and killed a lot of people. We also started to replace the Big Stick(s), but we seem to be taking a long time to Get It Up.
12 - RetireInStyleBlog
I was shocked that Romney would find a political opportunity in the death of embassy employees. This incident was one that required measured silence on the part of political parties keeping in mind that the President has information that most people are not privy to.
And, I did not see any apology in the President's response or that of the embassy. An attack on any religion is not acceptable ever. To state that the video was not an opinions held by most citizens of the United State was an obvious response. We all know (at least most of us do) that every religion has its bad apples. Unfortunately those bad apples cause the whole barrel to appear rotten. It really doesn't matter if they are Christian or Muslim.
13 - John Lake
It benefit the Republicans to wage war all over the globe. Private corps sell weapon parts, bandages,food... to the government. Romney wants to substantially increase the military budget more even than recommended. This stinks of Bush/Cheney. Romney screams, waves, and carries a big stick.
14 - Brian aka Guppusmaximus
Cindy,
While I agree with your accurate sentiment about the macho mentality overriding intelligence, I do feel wholeheartedly that this country didn't take a proper & united stance against such an atrocity! I don't care if you believe in The Flying Spaghetti Monster, NO ONE has the right to cause mayhem & murder over hurt feelings due to the freedom of expression. Personally, I think making important life decisions for a person or group of people based on a fairytale is far more detrimental than a macho attitude that flares up from time to time. No matter what kind of war Bush may have waged, those religious morons have been killing far more innocent people for a much longer time that they should be dealt with like the plague! And as far as that video is concerned, if anyone here really believes that's the reason for such a brutal attack then they are truly disconnected from reality! These brainwashed idiots have had the same M.O. for thousands of years,except now, they no longer have the power to do it on a massive scale!
15 - John Lake
Two points: The Muslim rioting is not just in response to the disgusting portrayal of the Prophet in a U.S. permitted video clip. Mentioned by protestors are things dating back to our destruction in Iraq, our gloating over the killing of bin Laden, the ongoing threats to Palestine as echoed particularly by American Republican political candidates, and of course the film. As to the threats to Muslims, it is understandable that the civilian population of Iran is living in constant fear of a surprise attack. Further, it is agreed that the new freedom in countries affected by the Arab Spring has resulted in some anarchic overtones, as might have been expected.
Point two is important. The Movie preview “Innocence of the Muslims” was not, as first thought, produced by Jews. In fact the producer and the promoter of the movie are both Coptic Christians. “Coptic” simply means Egyptian, so “Egyptian Christians.”
It is irresponsible of Romney to criticize the President over a statement made by embassy personnel who are under attack. They made the point that the United States does not share the view of the filmmakers.
16 - Glenn Contrarian
Brian -
No matter what kind of war Bush may have waged, those religious morons have been killing far more innocent people for a much longer time that they should be dealt with like the plague!
Actually, many more people have been killed in the name of Christianity than were ever killed in the name of Islam...and athiests killed even more, though not so much in the name of atheism.
Bush's illegal, unprovoked invasion of Iraq (which he first began officially planning 10 days after he first took the oath of office (seven months BEFORE 9/11)) cost the lives of at least 100,000 innocent Iraqi men, women, and children. Tell me, Brian - if a Muslim nation did that to us, or did it to England all in the name of jihad (Bush called it a 'crusade', remember), and THEN continued firing off drones in several 'Christian' nations, and those drones were responsible for yet more innocent deaths, how would we in America react to Islamic nations in general, and against whatever the biggest baddest Islamic nation was in particular?
In other words, Brian, I can't blame them. Remember, Saddam Hussein was there because of US. Iran had a democratically-led nation before America and England deposed him and installed the Shah in his place (who was then overthrown by a guy named Ayatollah Khomenei). And why did we and England do it? To protect the oil reserves controlled by a company now known as BP!!!! WE supported England's installation of the nation of Israel even though England had already promised the Palestinians the same nation, and those Palestinians had lived there for much longer - Google "Twice-Promised Land" sometime.
And that last one is most of the reason the Islamists have such a hatred of Israel - it's not a hatred of Jews per se, but a hatred of the Zionist state that was supposed to be a Palestinian nation until England decided otherwise. In fact, if you'll check your history, even though Jews have usually been treated as second-class citizens in Islamic nations (and there has been some real persecution of course), in the big picture of history, Jews have been FAR safer in Islamic nations than they have been in "Christian" nations - Nazi Germany was majority Lutheran, remember.
Really, Brian, you should see what the West has done to screw up the Middle East over the past century. While we have to respond to attacks as we must, I honestly can't blame them for hating us - it's largely OUR fault! And what's even worse is that over there, because blood feuds there can last generations, even centuries. How much longer will their hatred of us last?
The Middle East is a Gordian Knot largely of our own (and England's) making. I don't see a way that it will end in our lifetimes.
17 - Brian aka Guppusmaximus
"Actually, many more people have been killed in the name of Christianity than were ever killed in the name of Islam."
Historically speaking, in regards to the World you are correct,but, I don't believe this to be accurate when speaking of the U.S. Though, personally, I'm not siding with any religion as I find all of them to be a form of slavery & not a true progressive solution for humanity!
"and athiests killed even more, though not so much in the name of atheism."
Probably, because the term "Atheist" is derogative. Historically, it has been used as an insult and as a weapon to cast people from society.
"...(which he first began officially planning 10 days after he first took the oath of office)"
How would you be privy to such information?
Please give us a source. And, to suggest that such a war was waged in the name of oil is ludicrous because even The Middle East at that time & still is drilling offshore for that resource.
The rest of your comment I'm very well versed on except for the fact that Afghanistan had no quarrels with taking our training & weapons to defend themselves from Russia...
18 - Brian aka Guppusmaximus
"The rest of your comment I'm [NOT]very well versed on..."
Gawd, Blogcritics should start using Disqus:)
19 - Glenn Contrarian
Brian -
1. I am quite Christian but do not hold either the Catholics or Protestants to be Christian - it's a long story. I was not speaking of the U.S., but of the religion as a whole - which is what I thought you were speaking of since you were referring to religions and not nations.
2. I think you'd find it difficult to find any label whatsoever that hasn't been used as an insult at one point or another.
3. It wasn't me - it was Bush's Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill:
And what happened at President Bush's very first National Security Council meeting is one of O'Neill's most startling revelations.
"From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," says O'Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.
"From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime," says Suskind. "Day one, these things were laid and sealed."
As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" says O'Neill. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."
20 - Igor
@17-Brian: GWBs first Treasury Secretary Paul O'neill revealed the Iraq plans in his memoirs. O'neill figured he was safe from retribution by Bush because "I'm old and rich". But (other sources say) he was threatened with prison, so he finally shut up.
O'Neill
And what happened at President Bush's very first National Security Council meeting is one of O'Neill's most startling revelations.
“From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration , eight months before Sept. 11.
21 - John Lake
Saddam was targeted by GWB. He was hung, and 100,000 Iraqis died. Saddam had no link to the September 11 attacks, no WMD's, no progressing hostility toward any foreign nation. In fact, al Qaeda and Saudi Arabia are now considered to be responsible for 9/11.
While I have your attention, the media is again misusing the word insurgent. In fact an insurgent is not an armed military agent from a distant location, rather a local man in opposition to developments. It is not based on "surge", but rather on "rise", as "to rise up."
22 - Glenn Contrarian
But remember, Dubya "kept us safe", and Mission Accomplished, too!
And I will remain ticked for the rest of my days that he had that "Mission Accomplished" on MY ship in MY Navy!
23 - Boeke
The reason Condoleesa Rice ignored the threat of Al Queda was because Bush had re-focused the NSA on Saddam Hussein and Iraq. It was a great blunder.
24 - Deano
"no WMD's, no progressing hostility toward any foreign nation"
Actually John this isn't true. Saddam stockpiled and used chemical weapons, both internally against the Kurds and externally against the Iranians in the past.
The evidence that Saddam at various times had sought out both biological and nuclear elements is also fairly consistently and conclusively documented...HOWEVER, at the time GWB began drum-beating for war, Saddam had divested himself of most of his stockpiles and research efforts under pressure from the UN, the US and their allies. - the long pressure of sanctions and inspections had taken their toll but Saddam did not advertise that fact. For him, having the appearance or the illusion that he might still have or be seeking an active stockpile of WMD gave him a stronger political position in the region (i.e. with Israel, iran and Saudi Arabia) and to help manage his own internal dissent (namely the Kurds).
As for your comment on "no progressing hostility towards any foreign nation", you could claim that truth only if you ironically note he failed to "progress" in his hostility or expansionist efforts - in short his consistently hostile regional expansion failed against Iran initially and later against Kuwait and the Saudis.
Saddam was consistently a strong regional threat in the Middle East. The GWB administration certainly went out of its way to exaggerate and justify their own motivations for war but Saddam certainly did his part wholeheartedly in contributing to the manifestation of events and his own downfall.
Given the man's thuggish and vicious record or abuse and repression, he well deserved hanging.
25 - Glenn Contrarian
Deano -
Saddam was a regional threat, and he certainly deserved hanging...but he was not a threat to America, and there's many a despot that deserves hanging. Neither of these were sufficient reasons for us to invade them on false pretenses and kill 100,000 innocent men, women, and children in the process, not to mention losing 5,000 of our troops and over $1T of our treasure along the way. Moreover, there's the torture that we committed...and that Bush himself approved.
Frankly, Bush and Cheney need to be standing in front of the war crimes court at The Hague.