Home / Culture and Society / Romney Angered by Muslim Sensitivities

Romney Angered by Muslim Sensitivities

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest1Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

President Obama , and the Republican candidate for the presidency, Mitt Romney, have made statements regarding the rioting in Cairo, Egypt, and in Benghazi, Libya. While seeking a safe haven during the Libyan protest by extremist Muslims, American Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens was killed, as was Sean Smith, a Foreign Service information management officer, and two security persons who are at this point unnamed.

President Obama has taken action, particularly in Libya, in response to the rampaging. The president has called for the use of troops and drones, as well as missile-armed warships, and outlined the American position. While pundits alter their input from hour to hour, there is cause to believe that both riots are at least partly in response to an insulting promotional video which many agree is insulting to the Islamic religion and goes beyond a depiction of The Prophet, Mohammed.

The video preview depicts a handsome young actor in the role of Mohammed, Prophet and founder of the Muslim religion, which serves a great part of humanity. It opens with a view of an attractive woman telling the young portrayer to place his head between her bare legs, which he does. The video is very graphic, deserving of an X-rating and certainly not suitable for television or family viewing. As her arousal is satisfied, she questions, “Can you still see him?” It is unclear if the reference is to God, the Devil, or too some third apparition. “No!” he answers.

In the next scene the pair and the woman’s cousin are outside the tent where the love-making took place. They gesture to a fine looking donkey there, and the male actor says, “I will make him the first Muslim animal.” The cousin, older and wizened asks, “Does the donkey like women?” “No,” the younger man replies. “Nafore does not like women!” The video clip continues: The woman, now called Sadlicka, talks to her cousin who replies, that he will make a book for the younger man… a compilation of conversions including the New Testament. The young man says he is searching for an answer. “If I don’t find it, I will kill myself, as I have attempted twice before.”

I had considered including a link to the video, but to do so would be a violation of a high premise of the Islamic religion regarding depictions of and characterizations of the Prophet. While we may agree that much can be achieved by interested parties viewing the video, we must consider the Muslim sensitivities.

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

Powered by

About John Lake

John Lake had a long and successful career in legitimate and musical theater. He moved up into work behind the camera at top motion pictures. He has done a smattering of radio, and television John joined the Blogcritics field of writers owing to a passion for the liberal press, himself speaking out about the political front, and liberal issues. Now the retired Mr. Lake has entered the field of motion picture, television, and video game (now a daily gamer!) critique. His writing is always innovative and immensely readable!
  • John Lake

    I might take a moment to mention that a bipartisan commision has pretty much concluded that an organized terror attack took the life of the ambasador and some of his staff. But again it is stressed that government spokespersons did their best to assertain responsibility shortly after the attack. There was no demonstration, no referrence to the depiction of Mohammed. The investigation is ongoing.
    Praise God.

  • Rushman

    Allah akbhar

  • Igor

    Maybe Lee got that from Warren (not the liberal actor) Beatty. He seems to be tied into that stuff.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Lee –

    I am a strong Christian, but I also read al-Jazeera fairly regularly, and if 100,000 were killed in Egypt, I’d know about it. Guy, you need to get a life, get away from the right-wing echo chambers that tell you only what you WANT to hear, and start reading papers from around the world and find out what your right-wing media aren’t telling you.

  • Igor

    @33-Lee: you must provide a reliable primary source for this lurid assertion:

    “I bet you did not know over 100,000 Christians have been killed int he last month in the country of Egypt alone.”

    I’ve heard no such thing, and, frankly, I don’t believe it. After all the signed articles I’ve read, and the known sources I’ve checked out, that statement seems utterly fabulous, to me.

    You only damage your own credibility by making such assertions.

  • John Lake

    Obama, the only candidate for the presidency with any insight into theories of government, and society, and morality… any ideology at all, has made the point several times that as nations transit from oppressive dictatorships to democratic centers of freedom and human worth, the path is never going to be smooth. “Bumps in the road”, not the best possible choice of words, perhaps, were predictable and inevitable. But in the long run, the global society and the people of Egypt, and Libya, will benefit beyond comprehension.
    Romney has already specultated on three new wars; does he think we will balance the budget and pay down the national debt, while proving our “leadership” to the world?
    I’ve yet to find a perfect religion. There are extremest Muslims,extremist Christians, and (holy holiday) extremist Jews.
    Obama’s policy is limited or non-involvement, and thank God for him.
    Clarification of three new wars: Iran, Syria, and (this is so unbelievable!) China.

  • Zingzing

    Lee, care to share a source for your 100,000 christians killed in egypt thing? I hate to tell you it’s nonsense. As for the rest of your diatribe, I think if you and a radical Muslim stood across from each other, you’d see how much you are alike. You are their mirror image, and it strikes me as rather sad that you look upon them with such hatred while failing to see the same qualities in yourself. To those of us that want nothing to do with your stupid war, you’re as much the problem as they are, and looking at you must be just as frustrating for me as it is for a moderate Muslim to look at what assholes do in the name of their religion.

    And if their religion says they must kill, and your thoughts say that those who would kill must be killed, I think that means you have to target yourself as well. Logically. Of course, that would be stupid.

  • Lee

    Cindy, we have been at war for centuries with ideologies like Islam. Do you so detest violence that you would refuse to stand up for a child being raped or a child being murdered because of their beliefs? This is exactly what this “Spring” in the Middle East has produced. I bet you did not know over 100,000 Christians have been killed int he last month in the country of Egypt alone. And you can thank Barack for that. He stood by and encouraged the “Spring”. As the Muslim Brotherhood and other Terrorist factions took power from American Allies.

    It is you and the liberal kind that are responsible for these atrocities that are happening in Libya, Syria, and Egypt. 1 for voting in a coward, 2 for being spineless in the face of evil, and 3 for hating and fighting those that would give their own life to protect yours and this last bastion of Freedom. Do not come here and spew this hatred and nonsense any longer. Just because you cannot and will not protect and fight for this country and your fellow brethren, does not mean the rest of us cannot and will not. I refuse to be brow beaten any longer be you idiots. So be it if you want to call me a “War Monger”, Hate Monger”, “Racist”, “Fascist”, or any other inflammatory nonsense to make us back down.

    I will no longer stand in the Dark! I will not go quietly in the night! I will stand up and fight for what is right. Not because I want to, but because no one else has the balls too.

    You cannot reason with a religion that has in their doctrine that their religion must dominate the world, That they must kill none believers, and their families. If someone is hell bent on killing you, the only recourse is to kill them 1st. It sucks, but it is the cold hard truth.

    It does not matter if Romney or Obama is in. That will only change where it will be foguth. Abroad, or here.

    The war is coming, and in some ways is already here. And that part is also the fault of the liberals. Appeasement and apology has never worked with a crazy leader or religious sect that is bent on world domination. It only makes them stronger in their belief that you are easily dominated and are to be controlled by them.

    It kills me to see my fellow Americans that their fathers, grandfathers, and great grandfathers died for, systematically tear it all down in the name of tolerance.

    This is my question to all of the “Tolerant”. Who’s tolerance to we judge by? Yours? Mine? The Governments? Alla’s? Jesus’s? There is no real tolerance, you judge only on what you choose to tolerate. That is human nature. But, freedom trumps Tolerance. Freedom gives us all a right to speak, and to be heard. Regardless of if anyone wants to hear it or not.

    The Tolerance of the Left cannot do that. Because they choose to not tolerate any speech that they deem “Hate Speech”(Code for Free Speech). Without total free speech, there is not freedom, and one group or another can have total control in the name of Tolerance.

  • Deano


    China and Russia agree when it is in their interest to agree. Given both countries records (China with Tibet and other border regions; and Russia with Hungary, Czechosolvakia & Afghanistan) neither is in a position to scream about jurisdiction.

    The thing to remember about international law is that is very mallable – it is generally determined on the basis of what you can get away with.

    The US is very good at leveraging multilateral organizations to back them up for their foreign adventures. China and Russia traditionally had a harder time with that piece of political theatre as the US and western nationas traditionally dominated the UN and multilateral institutions until recent years.

    International law is a weird mix – you want the law to restrain and help control international activities of everyone else, but you generally don’t want it restricting your sovereign ability to do what you want and need internationally and domestically, hence the UN, China, Russia etc. are terrific at supporting multilateral trade agreements but abysmal about things like controlling how a nation-state treats its own population.

    Hence Syria! Cynically, no wants to intervene in Syria, it has too much potential to suck up money, resources and lives for few to no long-term benefits for any of the parties involved. It is far enough from the gulf not to seriously impact the oil, and Israel is probably stronger with Syria in a state of chaos. The Russians and the Chinese are content to make money on the weapon sales and off-set the US influence, and frankly the US is probably secretly pleased as punch that Russia and China are stalemating the UN security Council from doing anything that actually might entail active intervention, especially in an election year.

  • John Lake

    I question the jurisdiction we had over Hussein. How a sovereign ruler keeps his house in order is not necessarily our business; China and Russia agree.
    If Bush/Cheney haven’t been punished for crimes including profiteering and torture (which went far beyond the repeated drowning in waterboarding) it isn’t because of a lack of international agreement, rather because these corporate family members have power to remain above the law.
    There may be some merit to “it IS our business.” We might have little right to stop the things we don’t approve of, things like nuclear ambition, but we have the good sense to move forward anyway.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Deano –

    You’re speaking more of the pragmatic side of the matter, and I understand that – I really do. While I will always rail about war crimes by Bush and Cheney, I know quite well that they will never be brought to justice – it simply ain’t gonna happen. But they took us to war on false pretenses…and it wasn’t even about the WMD’s that they claimed – that was just the excuse. Bush had determined before he ever took the Oath of Office that he was going to be a war president, that he was going to attack Iraq and do what his daddy didn’t – as I detail in comment #16 of this article. The guy is a war criminal who through his idiocy caused the deaths of over 100,000 innocent men, women, and children – and immeasurably strengthened Iran’s position in the region.

    Such is the power of human stupidity when it’s backed up by pride and military might. But my wish for justice in this matter will never be anything more than a wish. America, OTOH, will still pay a steep price as the years go by, for after illegal invasion and hundreds of drone attacks and the deaths of so many innocents, it will be many, many generations before the people there stop hating us…

    …and for the life of me, I can’t blame them.

  • Deano


    I understand the desire to bring them to trial however it “ain’t a gonna happen” for a wide range of reasons, not the least of which is that international law is very ambivialent about authority and responsibility and jurisdiction.

    When you *lose* a war, or you are being faced down by the international community that included the superpowers, (i.e. the Serbs, or the Rwandan genocidists) you might be brought to trial and held to account, but when you win or when you are operating for a major power, it isn’t going to happen. In practice, the difference between a just war and an unjust one is winning, more than any other factor.

    You can dispute the Bush war criminal concept on a wide range of levels (and mind you, I’m not saying they are right or justified, it isn’t about that. International law is generally about expediency and what works to suit the state, not justice in any sense of the word).

    You can argue about whether waterboarding is defined as torture, whether the detainees/prisioners were covered by the Geneva Convention or not (as non-uniformed combatants, I think they don’t meet the standard from what I’ve heard. The convention needs to be updated), you can argue about the moral justifications of going to war on the basis of the common good of humanity (Saddam killed a significant number of his own and other people), you can claim the war was “illegal” but that is highly disputable and hard to define, particularly when the UN and the international community had agreed upon some type of response.

    In short, the call for Bush/Cheney to be tried as war criminals is nothing but empty hyperbole and posturing theatre – unlikely, improbable and difficult to justify legally – however much you and many others might like to see them brought to account.

    What I would like to see is a detailed and searching investigative commission into the march to war, the conduct of that war and have them pull the curtain aside on the bitter and painful aftermath that has resulted. I would like to see the American people get a clear and unadulterated factual examination of the events, the manipulation and where the responsibility and decision-making lay. I would like to see all the stupidity and venal motivations laid bare on stage, stripped to of the political hyperbole and the posturing.

    I should live so long….

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Deano –

    I’ll avoid giving a long reply, but the need for the war crimes court for Bush and Cheney is quite justified seeing as how both personally approved the torture, never mind that we hung Japanese officers who waterboarded POW’s during WWII.

  • Deano

    John & Glenn,

    No offence but both of you need to start paying a bit more attention to actually reading the comments that get posted back to you.

    At no point did I note that the regional threat Saddam presented justified the invasion of Iraq nor any of the subsequent “spin-offs” of death and torture. I noted that John’s claims of no “progressing hostility” was spurious and ill-informed, and that Saddam was systematically involved in both developing and using WMDs. He had a long and colourful history with WMDs and provided little evidence or trust that he had changed his stance under sanctions.

    As for searching for WMDs, John, Saddam wasn’t exactly cooperating with the UN teams. In fact, he often deliberately misled them and misdirected them, so it is important if you are looking at the history and the events that you don’t make assumptions that everything was known at the time and was being deliberately misconstrued. Bush and Cheny looked for the evidence that supported their justifications and ignored (and at times surpressed) views and evidence that did not support it. They had a very specific policy direction in mind, and worked towards implementing it. Their objectives and goals notwithstanding, Saddam had his own agenda and purpose around his own regional status and domestic political control. He was not an innocent party.

    Lastly Glenn your statement about the war crimes court is nice hyperbole but probably not justifiable under international law.

  • John Lake

    As you point out, “HOWEVER, at the time GWB began drum-beating for war, Saddam had divested himself of most of his stockpiles…” We had inspectors on the ground with full authority and permission to search anywhere, including the royal palace, and no weapons were found. Additionally, at the time of our “preemptive strike”, Hussein had no ongoing plans to threaten the West. In fact, he was involved in ending the hostilities between Muslim sects in Iraq.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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!

  • 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.”

  • 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.


    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.

  • 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.”

  • Brian aka Guppusmaximus

    “The rest of your comment I’m [NOT]very well versed on…”

    Gawd, Blogcritics should start using Disqus:)

  • 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…

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Brian aka Guppusmaximus


    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!

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Igor

    Sarah Palin has a bad case of stick envy.

  • 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.

  • 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….

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • John Lake

    Romney takes the ball from GWB and runs with it. All macho.

  • The world is going to be destroyed by men who need to prove they are manly.

  • 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.

  • 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.