SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Former Romney Adviser on Libya: “They Stepped in It”

PLANK SEPTEMBER 12, 2012

Former Romney Adviser on Libya: “They Stepped in It”

BY NOAM SCHEIBER

The verdict is in on Romney’s response to the embassy attacks in Libya and Egypt, and it’s not been kind to the former Massachusetts governor. 

Romney, in case you somehow missed it, seized on a U.S. embassy statement cautioning against “efforts … to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims” and pronounced it “disgraceful that the Obama administration's first response was not to condemn attacks … but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.” (He doubled down on the criticism this morning.) The mainstream media promptly proclaimed the response “over the top,” while Republican foreign policy hands griped that it was a “Lehman moment” and exposed Team Romney as “not ready for prime time.” Peggy Noonan, normally a reliable partisan, told Fox News that “I don’t feel that Mr. Romney has been doing himself any favors in the past few hours, say since last night” and that “sometimes when bad things happen… cool words or no words, may be the way to go.” Even Romney’s allies in Congress seemed to implicitly distance themselves from his comments. 

It’s worth stipulating that Team Romney’s political instincts weren’t entirely off-the-wall. Any time there’s a deadly attack on American officials abroad, it’s reasonable to ask if the president deserves blame. No one would begrudge Romney for raising the question. But the tone and timing of the criticism were self-defeating in ways large and small. Small because, as the news accounts have pointed out, the U.S. embassy statement came before the start of the protests in Cairo and Libya—however ham-handed, it was an attempt to preemptively defuse them, an impulse no one can begrudge an embassy official under threat of violence, not an after-the-fact apologia. Meanwhile, the Obama administration had actually disavowed the statement before Romney released his own critique. (Yes, the Romney campaign can legitimately ask why it took 16 hours to walk back the flaccid statement, which did fill the vacuum left by the administration’s silence. But, you know, they had a few things on their plate. In any case, it's not clear how a rhetorical escalation would have calmed the situation.)

The larger problem is that there just wasn’t any percentage in the move for Romney. If the attacks turn out to expose a major failing on the part of the administration, we’ll know about it soon enough, at which point Romney will be free to criticize relentlessly. And if the attacks rally the public behind the president—already there are suggestions of an Al Qaeda plot in Libya, which could require retaliation—then Romney will be isolated and exposed. 

All of which raises the question: What was Team Romney thinking? I’m not really sure, but I happened to speak this morning to a senior Romney adviser from a previous campaign who offered his own theory. According to this person, Romney may have been feeling defensive over the hazing he took in Charlotte last week--“my opponent and his running mate are new to foreign policy,” the president tweaked him—and was primed to hit back. “They set him up Thursday night at the convention with the smack down on foreign policy,” says the former adviser. “They called him naïve, Palin-esque. Then he got his back up about it and was waiting for opportunity to show, ‘I’m strong, too.’” 

The adviser has no direct, inside knowledge of the campaign’s thinking on this matter. But he does have a good read on Romney--a man with a healthy sense of pride, and who's already invested in the idea of Obama as an appeaser. It was the only plausible explanation the adviser could think of for how “they stepped in it,” in his words. “I always thought it was a one-two punch [by the Obama campaign],” the adviser continued. “Punch one was Thursday night. Punch two would be in the foreign policy debate. To cast Romney as naïf, an empty suit on foreign policy, and tie him to Bush—as a puppet of the bow-tied hawks of the Bush administration. … This intervening event was gravy.” 

Follow me on twitter: noamscheiber

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 119 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

119 comments

I think "naif" is kind actually. Romney merely confirmed what we saw in Britain. Except this was way, way worse. Attacking President Obama when he should have been supportive, under the circumstances - it feels like an attack on US.

- Sophia

September 12, 2012 at 4:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes, it seems peculiarly ham-handed. As Tim says, even just being cynical, there wasn't much to be gained from rushing in to attack the president in this situation anyway. I see increasing signs of panic in and around Romney -- he's not showing especially good judgement.

- ironyroad

September 12, 2012 at 5:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sorry, Noam, not Tim.

- ironyroad

September 12, 2012 at 5:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In my mind, this whole incident just disqualified Romney from getting anywhere into the (202) area code, much less the White House. If he can't just sit back and save his criticism for a day after the terror attacks, how is he ever going to handle a genuine foreign policy crisis situation his watch?

- wildboy

September 12, 2012 at 5:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If not panic, exactly, Romney's ill-considered, premature, and hot-headed comments indicate, at the least, a desparate attempt to grasp on to something, anything, that will give him some tactical advantage, & a boost in the polls. But I think this episode, while it may appeal to a certain sector (viz, neocons) in his base, will not wash with the wider public, & may not even play well with the majority of Republican voters. It certainly flies in the face of the tradition around how opposition politicians are supposed to behave when Amercans come under attack in foreign lands.

- Haole45

September 12, 2012 at 5:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Romney has begun attacking the office of the presidency itself. He should be supporting the office when U.S. territory is attacked and a high American official is killed. Instead, he's showing disrespect of the office, just as Eastwood did at the GOP convention. Republicans want to take over our government (which they say is the Devil) too desperately. Romney could be even more of a disaster than Bush was. I loved Obama's response, where he said Romney "seems to have a tendency to shoot first and aim later." Mitt Romney is about as diplomatic as, well, Mitt Romney, who even sleeps with his foot in his mouth.

- magboy47.

September 12, 2012 at 5:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Is there anyone left who thinks that Romney has any moral compunctions in the political arena? Is there anything of which he would say, "that might help me politically, but I shouldn't do it, so I won't"?

- miceelf

September 12, 2012 at 6:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, he certainly tied himself to Bush. Typical that "No appeasement! Confront always! New American Century!" stuff would sound pretty familiar. Not to mention that shoot first, think later stuff -- we got awfully tired of that in Iraq and Afghanistan. This knee-jerk opposition to however people on the ground try to deal with the situation is NOT a good thing.

- AllanL5

September 12, 2012 at 8:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hitler's foreign minister, Joachim von Ribbentrop, made such bizarre, counter-productive statements that he was known in London as "Brickendrop." What better term to describe Romney's statements on foreign policy, or any policy?

- magboy47.

September 12, 2012 at 8:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

magboy47 has TWO best comments today: "Sleeps with his foot in his mouth" and "Brickendrop." LOL.

- Sophia

September 12, 2012 at 8:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think Romney was so frustrated being serially wrong, that when he saw an Apology coming down over the center of the plate, he took a hard swing for the fence and misjudged a curve ball.

- Nusholtz

September 12, 2012 at 8:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Slogan for Romney and the Republican base, who often speak without thinking: A Mind Is a Terrible Thing to Use

- magboy47.

September 12, 2012 at 8:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Why is this lightweight, this man with no principles, no ideas, no workable policies, and apparently no political skill running for President? I can't wait for the debates, the President will eat him alive. Mittens will discover that debating the likes of Herman Cain and Rick Perry isn't quite the same as debating Barack Obama. AllanL5 makes a good point - we had 8 years of George Bush and his "Bring it on" approach to foreign policy. 4 years later and we're still cleaning up.

- dubyadoubte

September 12, 2012 at 9:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't know if the debates will necessarily play out as you envision them, dubyadoubte. Remember, Al Gore ate George Bush alive in their debates. But somehow due to many factors, including a very low bar set for Bush, it seemed as if Gore lost.

- scrubby

September 12, 2012 at 11:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Gore already had a reputation as a somewhat preachy and smug personality and the media narrative intensified that. Bush had a low bar, yes, but also came across as more accessible in a reformed frat boy kind of way. In any event, the popular vote revealed more of the truth -- Gore won. I think Romney will acquit himself reasonably well in the debates if he doesn't let the angry patrician out at the wrong moment, confusing the president with some guy reclining his seat back too far in the plane; but I suspect that Obama will -- or should -- be able to marshall a more convincing set of arguments and more importantly play his style off of Romney's squareness.

- ironyroad

September 12, 2012 at 11:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

magboy47 is hot today! "I loved Obama's response, where he said Romney 'seems to have a tendency to shoot first and aim later.' " That is a good 'un.

- Haole45

September 13, 2012 at 12:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There is so much wrong with Romney's reaction it's hard to know where to begin. In the end I think it comes down to one thing - this incident makes it clear that when American diplomats are killed in a foreign country Romney's primal gut response is not to think of the people who gave gave their lives for their country, or for their families, but instead to think "how do I blame Obama for this?". He is a dirtbag.

- Attrill

September 13, 2012 at 12:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And yet ... even if he loses, he'll still get 47%-48% of the vote. Scary times.

- austinous

September 13, 2012 at 12:28am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Can Mitt see Russia from Utah?

- Vogelfam

September 13, 2012 at 12:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Repubs all realize that Romney's toast. If anyone thought he would/could win the election, there'd be nary a peep of criticism from his own side. Rats fleeing a sinking ship...

- AaronW

September 13, 2012 at 1:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Example of Romney losing his "cool." People, even Romney's kids, have been talking about it for ages - Romney's quick "temper." Romney's feeling frustrated. Do we really want this guy in charge?

- Claris

September 13, 2012 at 4:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Meh, that's not so scary Austin. 47% vote GOP no matter what and 47% vote Dem no matter what. The Dems could nominate Marion Barry, and I'd still vote for him. Crack party in the White House!

- AaronW

September 13, 2012 at 7:50am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

How much would I have to donate to be invited to the crack party in the White House?

- roidubouloi

September 13, 2012 at 8:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Out of possibly misplaced pessimism about the outcome of the election, I struggled to convince myself that deep down Romney was not really a bad person, that it wouldn't be the complete end of the world if he won. Yesterday disabused me of these illusions.

- BillW

September 13, 2012 at 8:44am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Lessee, Romney condemns the statement, the media freaks out, and then Obama condems the same statement (after a full night of sleep on his way to VEGAS BABY!). And the media notes Romney is incompetent. JournoList lives! Groveling for peace will never work in the middle east. Most laughably, just prior to the event Obama proclaimed "our country is stronger, safer and more respected in the world.” Hah. From Foreign Policy: But Obama’s remarks belie the enormous frustration of top officials at the State Department and White House with the actions of the man behind the statement, Cairo senior public affairs officer Larry Schwartz, who wrote the release and oversees the embassy’s Twitter feed, according to a detailed account of the Tuesday’s events… “The statement was not cleared with anyone in Washington. It was sent as ‘This is what we are putting out,’” the official said. “We replied and said this was not a good statement and that it needed major revisions. The next email we received from Embassy Cairo was ‘We just put this out.’”… “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 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.’”

- seattleeng

September 13, 2012 at 9:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Suck it up, seattle. Your boy stepped in it up to the waist. Too effin bad. Obama, in supervising State Department employees, was doing his job. Romney, in MISREPRESENTING what occurred and when, was trying to exploit the murders of American officials for political gain, on 9-11 no less. He's a boob, and he is toast. You may want to consider moving to Somalia, libertarian paradise, where you need not be bothered by government.

- roidubouloi

September 13, 2012 at 9:58am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As regards the debates, it is worth pointing out that it really was the media narrative that let Bush "win" the 2000 debates. (Media types were eager to show that they could be tough on Gore after the Clinton impeachment.) Instant polls agreed that Gore won, but the pundits almost unanimously judged Bush the victor, and that was the line the media took next morning. By the end of the week, it somehow turned out that it was Bush, not Gore who was the winner. This was in keeping with a general tendency to cut Bush slack and dump on Al Gore the Serial Exaggerator. As others have pointed out, not only will Romney not get such a pass this time, but he has just about set into stone for the media the negatives that might have been looked over (the convention lies, the false advertising) under other circumstances. This election will still be close but, barring a major screw up by Team Obama, Romney is probably finished.

- timteeter

September 13, 2012 at 10:16am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

timteeter, And I hope one of the moderators has the courage to bring up Romney's tax returns in the debates. There are only 2 possibilities why he has released only one complete return. He's paid little or no taxes (maybe even applied for a credit), or he failed to report foreign income, which is a felony. I'm leaning toward the latter.

- magboy47.

September 13, 2012 at 10:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Of course...I was wondering how long it would take for our esteemed Senator John McCain to come out with his blustery statements about weakness in the White House, yadda yadda yadda. I get the sense the GOP got together last and drew straws to choose who would be the one to go out and stand tall by Mitten's side. It appears Johnny got the short stick. First off...what exactly would be the appropriate response by the WH other than a statement of condemnation? Does Obama send out the drones armed with bunker busters and cluster bombs and starts street sweeping? I'm sure the likes of Johnny 'I was a POW once' McCain and Mittens 'I saved the French from bad cheese' Romney would be pulling the triggers for nukular attacks by now because anything short of all out ground wars and nuclear armageddon is just appeasement and feckless apologizing. Of course Obama can just tell Romney and McCain to "STFU" for real now since a fast response team of Marines is being sent to Libya.

- singlspeed

September 13, 2012 at 10:37am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Seattle, you're almost as big a naif as Romney. The article you site goes directly against Romney's efforts to tie the statement around Obama's neck. Not to mention I'm not even sure what your point was, except to lash out in defense of your boy because he's getting (justifiably) raked over the coals for being a boob with a short temper.

- GSpinks

September 13, 2012 at 10:49am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Romney is a demagogue. The U.S. Embassy statement was issued to try to prevent violence involving religious nuts--to save American lives. You don't go into somebody else's country, no matter how screwed up the culture is there, and say Bring It On! Diplomats are supposed to calm things down amidst turmoil and violence. Romney doesn't know this. Religious Right loons in America are the ones who started the tragedy in Libya. Religious nuts in Libya finished it. Romney supports religious loons, like the West Bank occupiers, as long as they are Americans or from a country that is a strong American ally. Obama suggested at the Convention that Romney is inexperienced in foreign policy, and less than a week later Romney proved it--again. He's still only a presidential candidate, and he's already stirred up things in Russia, Iran, Egypt, and Britain! And he has named Russia and Iran as mortal enemies of America. Who would this fool appoint as his Secretary of State--Bozo the Clown?

- magboy47.

September 13, 2012 at 11:01am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

To paraphrase the late, great Ann Richards, "Poor Mittens. He can't help it - he was born with a silver foot in his mouth".

- hepneck

September 13, 2012 at 11:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Romney's crime is worse than politicizing a foreign situation. The "American value" he says Obama needs to defend was religious bigotry.

- dstatton

September 13, 2012 at 11:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Almost all posts-- and the spin of column--reinforce thec meme that if Mittens does win in Nov (a sudden economic collapse before Nov being by far the most-probable reason), he will be the gods gift to Dems in 2014 and beyond.

- drofnats1

September 13, 2012 at 12:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thomas Dewey. That's who Mitt reminds me of. You had to know him well to really hate him-it was said. The man couldn't open his mouth off script without saying something dumb and off key.

- stanmvp48

September 13, 2012 at 12:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wow. These 35 comments provide such a deadly assault on Romney, I went to YouTube and once again watched the famous bloody battle at the end of Peckinpah's Wild Bunch. But then I thought there is only one main target here, so then I watched the scene at the end of King Kong where the airplanes take out the great ape as he climbs the Empire State Building. Take shelter. A big crash is coming.

- skahn

September 13, 2012 at 12:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In any case, it's waaayyyy to early to be breaking out the champagne. Fifty days are a long time in politics.

- ironyroad

September 13, 2012 at 12:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You guys hate Romney, too much, and you worship Obama too much. Less emotion, you will live longer.

- john336

September 13, 2012 at 12:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

More than anyone else, Romney reminds me of Nixon. It's that nervous little chuckle when a question surprises him. CREEPy.

- robinette

September 13, 2012 at 12:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wise warnings, ironyroad and john. Also, good snark, robinette

- skahn

September 13, 2012 at 1:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

We are not worshiping Obama! Nor do we hate Romney, we love our country and its ideals. Also we don't want to see a bunch of religious nuts taking over our government, aided and abetted by right wingers and tons of corporate cash. Tolerance and religious freedom are pillars of the United States and they're core to our ideals. Romney has attacked both and, when our diplomats abroad have been killed in riots incited by bigotry, he lies (again) and goes after our President. So he's attacked our values, abused the COC after an attack, and defended religious bigotry, hate speech and incitement. What could possibly go wrong with this fool in the White House?

- Sophia

September 13, 2012 at 1:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Seattle, Despite the fact that you have proven yourself to be unscrupulous in citation, analysis and reply; and even though I read your stuff more out of bemusement than enlightenment; and finally, guarding against undue exuberance over the latest Romney fracas, I find this post of yours more baffling - if in good faith - or idiotic - if in bad faith - than most. First, I don't know if you know anything about how diplomatic missions work. I suspect you don't. The United States has, I think, an embassy in every recognised state in the world - 198, I believe - and consulates in most major centres. They report to the State Department and get instructions back in respect of most of their official communication. It is, however, understood that in the event of a crisis, the Mission has not only a responsibility but a duty to act first and seek instructions and clarification later. This is because for an Ambassador or a diplomat, when faced with a criticial issue, and one potentially of life and death, it is no answer to say, "I did not have instructions and so let the shit hit the fan." You deal with the issue, and hope you got it right. And if not, you will get corrected the next day by the capital. This is standard practice in the diplomatic services of all democratic countries. There is a standard question in diplomatic service interviews - the facts differ from country to country, but the essence of the question is the same - "would you bribe an official to release your colleague from an illegal detention, knowing that if it came out, it could affect relations between the two countries?" The correct answer is, "If the life of my colleague is in danger, I will pay the bribe, report it to the capital, and pack my bags to get recalled." Simple as that. If the embassy is under attack, you put out a statement to diffuse the situation, hoping that attack will not happen. The statement, if not agreed, can be corrected and no harm is usually done. The problem with Romney's statement on the embassy statement - and setting aside the timing issue for now - is that it demonstrates Romney to be either immensely cynical or staggeringly ignorant. I bet on both, but that is neither here nor there. It is an axiom of sound management that when your far flung missions are under attack, you don't attack them for trying to protect themselves. That is the minimum of respect the embassy staff, who were under attack at the time the Romney statement was issued, are owed. In addition, it is a basic principle of government that the White House does not control, nor should it, anything and everything an embassy staffer decides to send out, nor - until the matter is clarified - could the White House, or the State Department, be actually held responsible for any such statement, until they adopt and accept it. To call "the Obama administration" disgraceful because of the statement was moronic, inexcusable, unethical and outright incompetent. To double down on it the next day, and to accuse the President of sympathising with the attackers is unconscionable. And your attempt at equating Obama's and Romney's statements is simply a lie. A rank lie. A damned and damnable lie, all the more so because you are not stupid enough to know that it is not a lie. Because, of course, Romney did NOT simply denounce "the statement"; he denounced the "Obama administration" for the statement issued by the embassy. Romney might have said, "the statement is unfortunate"; he still would have been a fool, because he was ignoring the context. But that is not what he said. And he should be condemned for his ignorance, cynicism or both. Second, what we do know about the timing issue is that by the time the Romney statement was issued, it was known that at least one Benghazi-based diplomat had been killed. It was not clear by whom, how, why ... to accuse the President of the United States, in the middle of a developing crisis and without any information at all about what is going on, of disgraceful conduct and sympathy with the attackers, is disgraceful, reckless, abjectly political and, frankly, disqualifying in itself. Third, Romney actually got up and denounced the administration for not taking a strong line, immediately after Clinton took a strong line - so he lied - and immediately before Obama did - so he goofed. I am not sure this will have any impact on the electorate other than confirm people's idea of Romney and Obama - the election will be won by Obama on the basis of 52-48 split and nothing is likely to change it between now and then. But whatever moral standing Romney might have had up to now - all of the nonsense about his faith and his helping out and his tithing to the Church - all of that, is gone. For good. And good riddance.

- icarus-r

September 13, 2012 at 1:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

drof: "Almost all posts-- and the spin of column--reinforce thec meme" Huh. Do you even know what a "meme" is?

- icarus-r

September 13, 2012 at 1:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

John: "You guys hate Romney, too much, and you worship Obama too much. Less emotion, you will live longer." Actually, revulsion and hate are two different things. What you see on this thread is sober revulsion and not active hatred. More to the point, not one commenter here has been faithfully uncritical of Obama. It is a trick of the weak mind, and one in panic, to see admiration as worship and harsh criticism as emotional hatred. I really do hope that those who don't like Obama for whatever reason stopped this incessant and annouying "Worship the One" nonsense and attended to the issues. Because, logically speaking, even if we are all hysterially emotional about worshipping Obama, that fact does not, in itself, make him wrong, or Romney right. Reflect on that.

- icarus-r

September 13, 2012 at 1:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

John, I don't worship anyone, real or imagined. I certainly have been a robust critic of Obama in private, and not rarely, here. I in fact regret not supporting Hillary Clinton 4 years ago. Nor do I hate Romney, although I'll cop to deeply detesting the notion of having him as President - and that's the real point here. Whatever you think about Obama's strengths and weaknesses, you have to be blind to fact and reason not to conclude that Romney suffers from serial dishonesty, lack of conviction, and poor judgement to a degree that ought to disqualify him for any high office, let alone the one he's seeking.

- IowaBeauty

September 13, 2012 at 1:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And Seattle and John: here is Daniel Larison, writing in "The American Conservative", a Pat Buchanan publication.

The overwhelming majority of critics objected to Romney’s original statement and press conference remarks because they included the scurrilous lie that the administration sympathized with attackers in Cairo and Benghazi. Romney went ahead and told this lie on the flimsy basis of an unauthorized embassy statement, which he continued to pretend was a response to the attacks, and persisted in his larger lie that has been one of the main themes of his entire campaign (i.e., that Obama has repeatedly “apologized for” America).
Emphases mine. Obama worshipper and MSM stooge, no doubt.

- icarus-r

September 13, 2012 at 1:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It gets better ... you can't possibly write fiction this unbelieveable:

Convicted criminal Nakoula Basseley Nakoula is behind the anti-Muslim film being blamed for mob attacks in Egypt, Libya and Yemen ... As part of his sentence after being convicted on bank fraud charges in 2010, Nakoula was forbidden from using computers or the Internet without permission from his probation officer, adding another wrinkle to Nakoula’s alleged online activity under the name “Sam Bacile.”
Somehow it does not surprise me that Romney is out there defending the First Amendment rights of a bank fraudster in violation of his parole conditions.

- icarus-r

September 13, 2012 at 1:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hey, John336. Romney is unfit to be president of the United States. Get over it and move on. You'll live longer.

- roidubouloi

September 13, 2012 at 2:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Somehow it does not surprise me that Romney is out there defending the First Amendment rights of a bank fraudster in violation of his parole conditions." Does that mean that a "bank fraudster in violation of his parole conditions." has no right to freedom of speech? There is something deeply disturbing about this statement. Freedom of speech only for good people. The no-so-good people don't deserve any rights. Interesting take on our democratic principles and the nature of law. All you need is just to have a congregation of jeerers and haters goading other jeerers and haters and before you know it, willy nilly, the little fascist demon peeps out. Like a genie. Beware of crowds, people.

- noga1

September 13, 2012 at 2:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

icarus-r: Close but not quite--the U.S. does not have embassies in every recognized state in the world. Off the top of my head, we have no embassy in North Korea or Iran, for example, nor embassies in Sao Tome, Somalia or the Maldives, or the Comoros, to name a few. For these places, an embassy in a nearby country usually handles relations with them (e.g. embassy Gabon for Sao Tome.) We also have no embassy in, or an ambassador accredited to, Cuba; instead we have "interests section" there staffed by foreign service officers. The rest of your post is essentially correct. I have worked overseas in embassies, sometimes in crisis stituations, although not an actual assault on a mission or its personnel, but in situations of civil strife and armed conflict. Acting quickly was the order of the day without waiting for Washington clearance, which necessarily would take precious time that you didn't have. The embassy officers are trained and expected to exercise their best judgment. That doesn't mean every decision they took was the correct one. Again, I have been in situations where this pertained, where a chief of mission, understandably made a decision that was deemed inappropriate, if understandable, by Washington later. From what I can tell, this is what happened with the mission in Cairo and why the President said later he was inclined to cut folks overseas in a crisis a little slack. But to say it shows the President sympathises with those assaulting an American Embassy, like Romney did, is absolutely reprehensible.

- ballston

September 13, 2012 at 3:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ballston: of course - duh ... what I should have said, based on the State Department website, is something along the lines of "the United States aims to have representation in every recognised state with which it has diplomatic relations." Three of the examples you provide are in the "no relations" box; one has not government; and the other two, I suspect, as too small. I stand corrected on the numbers; but I think the principle stands: there are a lot of missions abroad, and many in dangerous parts of the world, and neither State nor the White House could, or should, police each and every crisis statement on the ground. Obama's statement on "cutting a little slack" mirrors the practice of most other diplomatic services with which I am familiar.

- icarus-r

September 13, 2012 at 3:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Romney is an ass. That is not the big story. The big story is that the Muslim world is imploding. Murdered Americans, riots, burning flags, attacking buildings, stoning consulates and embassies, irrational hatred, violence aimed at America. This is bad for everyone. And if it keeps up, it is particularly bad for Obama, politically--regardless of his culpability, which is in my view nil.

- Vogelfam

September 13, 2012 at 3:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga: "There is something deeply disturbing about this statement." Which statement would that be? If you mean, "Freedom of speech only for good people" and the rest of your paragraph, the statement you I agree entirely. I agther you did not mean what you wrote, but whoever wrote that or meant it naturally has no democratic principles, is a fascist, no doubt a Muslim, certainly an anti-Semite, a hater, an inciter of the mob, a Democrat - ugh, one of those - an Obama worshiper and so on and so forth. D I S T U R B I N G indeed. And no doubt about it. If, however, you are referring to the sentence of mine that you have quoted, well, what can I say. If you are disturbed by a sentence making fun of what is an interesting, possibly humorous, if not an ironic, moment (a Republican plutocrat defending a convicted bank fraud artist on the lam who may or may not be a bigot on Freedom of Speech grounds - surely you see the humour in that :)), that, I think, it your prerogative. In the latter event, one might argue, of course, that your attempt at what could be called a "reinterpretation" is not entirely accurate, quite possibly distorting, at best baffling, and generally besides the point. One might. I could not possibly comment. For the record, the bank fraudster has the right to make whatever movie he wants to make. Of course, he should not have quite lied to the actors about the project, and should not have overdubbed their lines with his own - at a minimum, it might be considered another instances of fraud - but as to his First Amendment rights, you get no argument from me. As to the wisdom of a Presidential candidate jumping into the fray - this is not a question of First Amendment rights, but one of judgement, and I have said my piece on that. But. Let me say that I will not reply to any other post you have on this particular subject: whether you find me funny or not, whether you find the statement disturbing or not - not my business. Whatever conclusion you want to draw, draw to your heart's content. Whatever accusations you wish to hurl, hurl. No reaction from me at all. :) On this issue and my, er, "democratic credentials" and the disturbingness factor of my post, I will leave it to the readers of these comments to figure out who is saying what and why. Peace.

- icarus-r

September 13, 2012 at 3:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It is certainly possible that Romney could give the nod to the Bushes who would in turn contact their Saudi friends and gin up some violent Islamic events to give the impression that Obama is overwhelmed by crisis. It would be like the Reagan team's secret deal with Iran not to release the hostages before the 1980 election in return for delivery of weaponry afterwards. Which of course never happened. No American would ever negotiate to delay the release of American hostages in order to win an election.

- ironyroad

September 13, 2012 at 3:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ugh ... "the statement you *wrote* ... I *gather* ..."

- icarus-r

September 13, 2012 at 3:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

icarus-r: Maybe I've got nothing better to do today, so I'll nitpick! I assume you're referring to Somalia as the county that has no government. Actually, it does. It may not be the strongest government in the world in that strife torn country--in fact it's new leader just survived an assassination attempt. But there are several embassies in Mogadishu (none of them American of course). We and some other countries maintain relations with Somalia with diplomats based in a neighboring state (e.g. Kenya). This of course doesn't change anything--Romney's still an ass and his behavior is prompting me to send still more cash to BHO's campaign.

- ballston

September 13, 2012 at 3:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga, by definition, those on parole have *limits* on their freedoms. No one is claiming he has *no* free speech, but a consequence of his criminal activity is a restriction of certain freedoms. Just as freedom of association takes a hit when one is in prison. Hell, that's actually what prison is.

- miceelf

September 13, 2012 at 4:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Romney looks like he's going for the 2012 FPCN (Foreign Policy Clueless Narcissism) Prize. This prize was established in 2011 as a recognition of the work of the first winner, Republican primary candidate Newt Gingrich, who demanded on TV that the president should push a resolution for a Libyan no-fly zone through the UN Security Council and then use U.S. and NATO assets to enforce it, and then two days later attacked the president for pushing a resolution for a Libyan no-fly zone through the UN Security Council and using U.S. and NATO assets to enforce it.

- ironyroad

September 13, 2012 at 4:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Iowa. What you have seen in BHO are Hillary's economic policies via her economic advisors. Would she have recognized the Repub intransigence faster than BHO.. I suspect so. But it is why the Dem leadership need a complete overhauling-- which will NOT occur with a BHO victory in November. roi. I agree Romney is a terriible choice.. but no worse than 10-15 others we've elected since van Buren. The Republic would survive the now-unlikely event of a Prez Mittens. Sure would have the beneficial side-effect of unleasing the Progressive side of most posters currently silenced because to do so would put BHO in a bad light. noga. You are correct. Icarus has interalized the meme's of crowds.. and has little clue as to what that means or your critique.

- drofnats1

September 13, 2012 at 4:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Micelf, If you or icarus are actually the author of the film, does that change anything?

- drofnats1

September 13, 2012 at 4:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Drof: As for your note to Mice, what is the point you are making? This is a political blog about whether Romney, a presidential candidate, demonstrated sound judgement in interjecting in a developing crisis without knowing anything about it, and then lying about what he had done. Because, you know, nothing I wrote said anything about Freedom of Speech, or the riots or the mobs, or whatever. Not a thing. Not one word. If I had been the "author" of the film, what would I think of Romney's interjection? What is the relevance of that to anything? I find it amusing that Romney purports to defend a bank faudster, but there is ends. Amusing. For me. Meanwhile, you have been blathering on about the need to let the Republicans win so that true Democrats could come in and defeat bankers and plutocrats. Do I then understand, from your newfound respect for Romney's muscular defence of the Freedom of Speech rights of the said fraudster - about which there is no dispute in any event - that you really like Romney and think Obama an apologiser and a terrorist sympathiser? I mean, let's finally come clean. As for your "meme's of crowds" ... to quote my favourite philosopher, "I do not think that word means what you think it means." Again, please indulge me and tell me what "meme" it is that I have, er, "internalized" - and which crowd, and how does that affect my understanding of the specific issue. Which is that Romney lied, that his intervention was disgraceful and that he is unqualified for the presidency for lack of judgement and temperament. You disagree? Let's hear your defence of Romney.

- icarus-r

September 13, 2012 at 4:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ballston: point taken and consider the nit picked clean! There, I knew I would learn something today. Somalia: government. I now wait for drof to tell me what a "meme" is and why it is bad for your digestion.

- icarus-r

September 13, 2012 at 4:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thanks. But sorry, I can't help you with Drof.

- ballston

September 13, 2012 at 5:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Romney is an ass. That's not the big story. The big story is murdered Americans, embassies and consulates attacked, burning flags, gutted buildings, riots, hatred and anti-American violence. This is not good for anybody. And if it keeps up it is certainly not good for Obama politically, regardless of his culpability. Romney is certainly a gift for BHO, but this mess may turn out to be a gift for Romney.

- Vogelfam

September 13, 2012 at 5:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

On the First Amendment issue, Noah Millman, of The American Conservative - the Pat Buchanan outfit - and evidently another Obama Kool-Aid drinker and crowd meme internalizer, has the following to say about Romney's statement:

His criticism was that in Obama’s Administration, every event is not used as an opportunity to assert its awesome Americanness, and throw that awesomeness in the teeth of the world. There is no theory of public relations or diplomacy according to which the wise thing to do when an angry mob approaches is to recite the text of the First Amendment. Because, according to the Romney frame of mind, what is wise or unwise is not the question we should be asking. Instead, we should be asking: what would make the folks at home feel proudly angry? ... Mitt Romney has consistently talked this way, and this time he did it in the middle of an ongoing crisis. And what he said is ludicrous. The less damning tack to take is to say: well, it’s just appalling politics. It’s much more damning to take Romney seriously, and assume that he would, in fact, order his embassies never to cater to the sensitivities of the local population, but instead to issue grandstanding proclamations whenever an angry mob shows up.
(emphasis added) Could not have said it better myself.

- icarus-r

September 13, 2012 at 5:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Icarusr: I would think that if this thread is about "whether Romney, a presidential candidate, demonstrated sound judgement in interjecting in a developing crisis without knowing anything about it, and then lying about what he had done. " then your interjection that "Somehow it does not surprise me that Romney is out there defending the First Amendment rights of a bank fraudster in violation of his parole conditions." would appear to be oddly irrelevant. Why bring up this "argument" at all? What I assumed you meant to convey was your perplexity that Romney, a presidential candidate, would stoop to defend the fundamental right of freedom of someone as loathsome as "a bank fraudster in violation of his parole conditions." That's where I paused to wonder: Are rights meant only for nice people? So I went to look at the text of the First Amendment and couldn't find anything there that circumscribed the right to nice people only. And then it dawned on me that you must have intended it to be taken in the spirit of the saw: show me your friends and I'll tell you who you are. Romney, by defending the Right of someone to make a religiously offensive film in the name of Freedom of expression, was not actually talking about the Right of freedom of expression but was defending "a bank fraudster in violation of his parole conditions."

- noga1

September 13, 2012 at 5:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Is the blunder the rhetoric of Romney, a pro-immigration Republicrat? Maybe the blunder is promoting Muslim immigration. Do Muslim immigrants become patriotic Americans, or do they make America more Muslim? Oh well, "it can't happen here." We will never admit a sharia-loving, honor-killing, Islamic fanatic Muslim component. (wishful thinking, TNR diviison)

- raygun

September 13, 2012 at 5:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

icarus writes: "Because, of course, Romney did NOT simply denounce "the statement"; he denounced the "Obama administration" for the statement issued by the embassy. " Last I checked, the embassies are part of the state state department, the state department rolls up through hillary, and she reports to the president. To pretend that somehow this is not part of the Obama administration is ridiculous. Now, should the administration be held responsible for someone making statements under duress? No, of course not. But this isn't what happened. A full 13 hours before the deaths occurred, an embassy statement effectively condemning free speech was made. It was a flaccid and embarrassing statement and deserved the ultimate rebuking Hillary gave it. This was not made under duress, the crowds wouldn't tear down the flag for another 7 hours. If these folks were fearing for their life at that point, there was ample opportunity for Egypt's government to come in an help coordinated by US military in the region. I assume these guys have a satellite phone. Apologies only embolden extremist and fuel their rage. This administration hasn't learned that yet. That our embassy would type those words shows they didn't understand this either. What bothers you the most about this is that Romney showed spine 12+ hours ahead of Obama. Got it. I do understand there were JayZ and Beyonce meetings the president had, so I guess the time lag is understandable. BTW, Hillary again affirms she would better handle the 3AM calls.

- seattleeng

September 13, 2012 at 6:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is the most extraordinary and frightening series of TNR comments I can remember ever reading. The purposes of a Presidential campaign, as far as I can tell: 1. Who can con/advertise/market himself into getting elected? 2. Who can demonstrate most effectively that he is a dangerous idiot who must not be entrusted with the management of our country in an increasingly confusing and dangerous world? 3. Who is lucky? [As looney as this may seem I think this is relevant. I despised Reagan, but he was probably the luckiest President in my lifetime. 4. Who is so stupid even stupid people will begin to mumble, "This guy is short of a 60-pack." I think Romney is winning going away on all accounts except #3, which is desirable. Hope I'm right. I'm often very wrong.

- skahn

September 13, 2012 at 6:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga: I said I would not reply, but I liked your analysis so much that I just had to say a word or two. I am certain you will forgive me for taking your posts seriously. It won't happen again. Principally because I respect the others enough not to hijack the thread for an irrelevant digression into the arcania of the First Amendment. "would appear to be oddly irrelevant." Not just irrelevant, but "oddly"? As in, your digression on freedom of speech when we are talking about Romney's lies? Actually, I fully admit my post was irrelevant to the point of the discussion. Oddly? Matter of perspective, I guess. "Why bring up this "argument" at all?" Not an argument. Just an amusing point. You and drof are the only ones exercised by it. I wonder why. "What I assumed" That was the problem. You assumed. Suggestion: don't assume. "That's where I paused to wonder:" You can always wonder on what you assume. No harm done to me. Your assumption, your wonder. But not mine. "So I went to look at the text of the First Amendment and couldn't find anything there that circumscribed the right to nice people only." That's the other problem. Refer you to the discussion on "textualism". FOR EXAMPLE - and I have to stress that I mean this as an example, because otherwise you might "assume" otherwise and "wonder" other imponderables - but AS AN EXAMPLE the First Amendment does not entitle you to issue death threats. You can look at the text, but there is nothing in the text about it. That, incidentally, is why people go to law school and occasionally read jurisprudence. To read the "text" of a constitutional provision, a law or a municipal ordinance and arrive at a definitive conclusion about its scope is another danger of wondering on the basis of assumptions. "Romney, by defending the Right of someone to make a religiously offensive film in the name of Freedom of expression, was not actually talking about the Right of freedom of expression but was defending "a bank fraudster in violation of his parole conditions."" I guess this is another one of your assumptions- that Romney was defending anyone's freedom of speech. If that is all you are getting from all of this, you are doing the man a huge disservice. Don't defend him so poorly. He was attacking Obama's habit of bowing to King Fahd, throwing Israel to the Hamas terrorists and enabling Iran's millenials. But he knows that those attacks don't work anymore, if they ever did, so he had to pile one lie on top of another in the middle of a crisis in which a US ambassador has been killed. No, the profession and the criminal activities of the bank fraudster - a Copt who passed himself off as an Israeli-American and impicated "100 Jews" in all of this - are a matter of amusement. That a plutocrat purports to defend a convicted felon is a fun fact, that is all. Romney's error has nothing to with the film or the timing of the embassy statement. It is that he told a ridiculous lie and was caught. Even his buddies are leaving him out to dry on that score.

- icarus-r

September 13, 2012 at 6:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Seattle: "To pretend that somehow this is not part of the Obama administration is ridiculous." Don't be ridiculous. Romney did not mean it that way. There are 3.5 million federal civil servants. All of them report up in one way or another. When you talk about the "Obama Administration", you don't mean the entire civil service. And if you do, you're an idiot. The rest of your post not worth responding to, on account of this attempt at changing the subject.

- icarus-r

September 13, 2012 at 6:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The title of this article came to me as "How Obama Goaded Romney Into a Foreign Policy Blunder." This is simply not true and a ridiculous title for the article. Follow the timeline (1) US embassy employee expresses alarm about the content of the FILM, understanding why Muslims are upset; (b) attackers take embassy and tragically kill Ambassador and others, (3) President Obama issues his statement condemning the attack. President Obama did not goad Romney into anything!

- hmseil01

September 13, 2012 at 6:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"would appear to be oddly irrelevant." Not just irrelevant, but "oddly"? As in, your digression on freedom of speech when we are talking about Romney's lies? " It wasn't I who introduced the digression, icarusr. It was you with your comment: "Somehow it does not surprise me that Romney is out there defending the First Amendment rights of a bank fraudster in violation of his parole conditions." that did that. Can you see that " First Amendment rights " in your statement? There. That's what did it. I have not read beyond the quote above. Maybe later or not at at all. It's not really interesting to read a chap as smart as you going through silly hoops of fire in what seems a rather pugilistic attempt to complain that I actually read what you said carefully enough to reflect on it and respond to it. What I take away from this exchange is that one should not respond to the SUBSTANCE of your comment but rather to the TONE AND SPIRIT in which that comment is made. I'm sure the crowd of like-minded people here responds as you would wish it to.

- noga1

September 13, 2012 at 7:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Does that mean that a "bank fraudster in violation of his parole conditions." has no right to freedom of speech?" noga1, There are limits to free speech. You do not have a constitutional right to scream "kill him!" when a lynch mob gathers. The virulent anti-Muslim video was meant to incite mobs of fanatic Muslims to violence. It has already resulted in the deaths of Americans, and will cause the deaths of Coptic Christians in Egypt. The First Amendment does not protect incitement to violence.

- magboy47.

September 13, 2012 at 7:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Does Magboy47's comment mean that we should never say anything, even if truthful, that would annoy Islamic brownshirts because they'll retaliate by burning embassies and murdering more bystander Coptic Christians. I think that's called blackmail.

- amidut

September 13, 2012 at 7:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Romney defending freedom of speech in this context is grotesque. When someone says something awful, let alone likely to cause harm. a decent person, if he says anything at all, should deplore it, not natter on about freedom of speech. Regardless of whether the author of this film had the right to make and distribute it -- he surely did -- that does not somehow remove it from the realm of criticism, and the administration is right to deplore such speech. Freedom of speech includes the freedom to say that someone else's utterances are deplorable. Can anyone imagine this pompous moron responding to Moslem attacks on "the American way" by insisting that everyone has the right to speak their mind? Can anyone imagine noga responding to, "Jews are monsters who drink the blood of Christian children," by saying, "Well, freedom of speech isn't only for nice people. He is just exercising his freedom of speech." Not hardly.

- roidubouloi

September 13, 2012 at 7:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I didn't see the movie. I read that it was a very silly and badly made one. Did you see it? Does it contain passages that "incite mobs of fanatic Muslims to violence."? Does it actually goad Muslims to go on killing rampages? If your premise is correct than the movie producer should be charged with committing a hate crime and incitement to violence. Has anybody suggested that there should be an investigation launched against him? Do you consider the film that Theo Van Gogh made with Ayaan Hirsi Ali as "incitement to violence"? Did he incite Muslims to murder him by opining about the Islamic religion? Why stop there? Why not accuse any Hollywood film that depicts a scantily dressed woman with to be an incitement to rape?

- noga1

September 13, 2012 at 8:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Is this an incitement to violence? http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-image,29553/ "Following the publication of the image above, in which the most cherished figures from multiple religious faiths were depicted engaging in a lascivious sex act of considerable depravity, no one was murdered, beaten, or had their lives threatened, sources reported Thursday. "

- noga1

September 13, 2012 at 8:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Muslims in foreign countries, being as incendiary as they are, will react violently to even mild slights against their religion. That's evident. I'm speaking from a diplomatic point of view, of which Romney knows nothing. Bush lied when he told us that Islam is basically a peaceful religion. Christianity used to burn women at the stake, and now Muslims bury them alive. I'd like to see both of these religions gone from the earth. They go against almost all the teachings of their founders. The spider fight that they're in now could threaten humanity. But I believe we should save lives, when possible. Americans have died because of this video. That should bother Romney more than what the U.S. Embassy and Obama said about it. Obviously, it doesn't.

- magboy47.

September 13, 2012 at 8:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mag and Roid: I have already conceded that my post on the "First Amendment" was irrelevant. Noga has noted that she does not read replies she does not like. At this point, the First Amendment issue is just a game. At issue is not the First Amendment, or whether the movie was offensive or how awful are those Mooslims who get incited at the sight of the slightest thing. The whole discussion on the movie and the First Amendment is, as Noga aptly put it, oddly irrelevant. Let us concede the point. The movie wsa badly made and should not have incited anyone to violence. The mobs were wrong. Nothing at all to justify what they did. Let us concede the point. The convicted felon - he is also a meth cooker - is entitled to his First Amendment rights, unabridged, and alone among 330 million US citizens, to be defended in full court press by a Presidential candidate. Let us concede all of that. And all of that, as Larison and Millman of the American Conservative have pointed, as Joe Scarborough just stated - none Obama lovers - all of that is beside the point. The point - and the only point in this, and do not be distracted by textualist disquisitions on the First Amendment - is Romney's manifest incompetence in foreign policy, ignorance of diplomacy and increasingly unbelievable capacity to lie. I mean, not unbelievable because he lies, but because he does so so badly. "Scurrilous lie", as Larison put it; "grossly inappropriate" in Scarborough's words. He is unfit to be president. Don't let yourselves be distracted.

- icarus-r

September 13, 2012 at 8:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Icarus writes: " The rest of your post not worth responding to, on account of this attempt at changing the subject." I figured when presented the time line you'd have nothing to say. Your narrative only holds if the tweets were desperately typed out while the barbarians were at the gate. They were not. Read the tweets from the US embassy in Egypt. They have historically read as if they were written by a 13 year old in a pissing match over some treasure being stolen in World of Warcraft. This was not an isolated incident. This is not diplomacy. A repeated pattern that is unchecked does indeed indict higher and higher managers at each level of an organization.

- seattleeng

September 13, 2012 at 8:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Could we get one thing straight? This incident in Benghazi was not a mob attacking a US consulate, this was a well-planned paramilitary attack using the cover provided by angry demonstrations over the movie to fire RPGs or similar at the building. To that extent, therefore, it's worth remembering the the US consulate staff and Amb. Stevens appear to have been popular figures in Benghazi, and it is probable that only a very small percentage of the population approved of the violence today. To that extent, too, fulminations by Romney about how the Obama administration is somehow on the side of people attacking US installations are both offensive and ridiculous. seattle, you often have intelligent things to day that I disagree with, but your remarks above are simply stupid. A US mission acting in a crisis and seeking to defuse possible violent events to secure the safety of embassy staff and property is not expressing the political philosophy of the president (indeed, in this case, the philosphy projected by the Republican Party onto the president). Common sense crisis management on the ground is neither D or R.

- ironyroad

September 13, 2012 at 8:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

". . . approves of the violence . . ."

- ironyroad

September 13, 2012 at 8:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Seattle: You made the point that because everyone reports up, the President is responsible for the tweets of a 13-yo. I pointed out that there are 3.5 million federal civil servants, and all of them report up. To suggest that the President personally, or the White House as an office, should be held responsible for all of their tweets is plain silly and manifestly ridiculous. And to suggest that Presidential candidate Romney was exercised over the tweets of a 13 yo - to actually issue a statement in the middle of a crisis - and to attack "The Obama Administration" meaning really the entirety of the 3.5 million tweeters who eventually "report up" really does not do much for the man's image. You can twist and turn all you want, and you can insult the embassy staff to your heart's content. But the very basis of your argument just paints Romney as not just without judgement, but an ignoramus without judgement. Suggest you read The American Conservative and see how exercised true conservatives are about Romney's behaviour. You really are not good at this.

- icarus-r

September 13, 2012 at 8:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

icarus-r, I'm an existentialist, and I believe that the video maker, Romney, and Obama have a right to say anything they want--but they also have a responsibility to consider the consequences before they speak. Romney and Obama are paying the price for what they said, and others in faraway countries are paying for what the video maker said--with their lives. The latter is taking no responsibility whatsoever for his actions. Being who he is, he cannot be expected to, but Obama and Romney can. You're spot on about Romney. I now believe that he is less qualified to be president than Bush was. How could we imagine that there is somewhere, somehow a bigger fool than Incurious George? But it's okay to get off message occasionally. As Sydney Greenstreet said in The Maltese Falcon, "Talking's something you can't do judiciously, unless you keep in practice." Maybe we commenters here at TNR should practice more.

- magboy47.

September 13, 2012 at 8:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No, he isn't good at it. I wasn't distracted, icarus. I got your joke the first time. I was trying to do my bit to get us off what turned out to be an unhelpful excursion into the First Amendment. Simple fact is that Romney injected himself inappropriately into a serious tragedy and diplomatic matter, trying haplessly and unscrupulously to exploit it for political gain, and was lying about what occurred when he did so. I am actually impressed that conservatives too are disgusted by Romney. They should be, but I didn't really think they had any conscientiously held principles at all. I may have to reconsider.

- roidubouloi

September 13, 2012 at 9:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

magboy - I am fully aware that TNR threads meandre and stray off message quite often. But, there is organic off-messaging, and then there is deliberate misdirection. Noga wanted to get to the point that she eventually got to: the film was not really insulting. You draw your own conclusions about Muslims and Obama and the craven pathetic 13 yos who populate our embassies and who tweet about things they know nothing about. But of course, the issue here is not the First Amendment or who defends it more thoroughly. It is that Romney had a chance: "We all stand with the families of the fallen civil servants. In due course, it is necessary to determine what happened and ensure that Justice is done." Instead, you have an ill-considered attack on the basis of no information, and an outrageous press conference on the basis of a manifest lie. With the added bonus that the head of the RNC accuses Obama of siding with the people who killed his own - his own - ambassador. WTF. Do timelines matter? Not a bit, though they demonstrate Romney to be even more craven and crass than one would have thought possible. Does the First Amendment matter? Not all, except as a reminder that we are generally not consistent with our defence of the freedom of speech of others. That is why it is important to stay on message. Concede that the film is not that bad and the people in Cairo overreacted, as they always overreact. So what? Does that make Romney a better diplomat? No.

- icarus-r

September 13, 2012 at 9:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Also, just to make it clear to seattle, I have no problem whatsoever with genuine arguments over broader questions as to whether this administration has approached the series of transformations in the Arab world correctly or not. I think they have, but I recognize real grounds for disagreement. That is, however, something of quite a different nature from (a) groundless attacks on US missions overseas trying to deal with a sudden crisis situation or (b) ludicrious suggestions that fast-reaction measures taken locally are some kind of White House agenda for dismantling American leadership or whatever the drivel-du-jour is.

- ironyroad

September 13, 2012 at 9:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roid: of course you did. But then, you are one of the - how did noga put it - "the crowd of like-minded people here [who] responds as you would wish it to." :)

- icarus-r

September 13, 2012 at 9:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I also fwiw heard Romney on the radio addressing a crowd in VA today. When he produced his backing-away-but-sort-of-not-really mealy-mouthed comments about the deaths of the ambassador and the other staff he sounded about as convincing and presidential as a guy selling gold coins on late-night cable.

- ironyroad

September 13, 2012 at 9:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"This incident in Benghazi was not a mob attacking a US consulate, this was a well-planned paramilitary attack using the cover provided by angry demonstrations over the movie to fire RPGs or similar at the building." Good point, irony. I saw the Libyan Ambassador on TV yesterday, and he confirmed that there's very little order in his country. You can bet that there are other paramilitary units in Libya ready to strike--some of them even without the cover of a mob.

- magboy47.

September 13, 2012 at 9:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What does it mean to sound "presidential"? I hear this over-chewed term bandied about endlessly as if has some real significant substance beyond the wishes and fantasies of the followers of the candidate they apply it to.

- noga1

September 13, 2012 at 9:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The lesson, as always, is don’t get Icarus fired up. “Bad MF-er” must be etched on his wallet, a la Jules Winnfield. The Inigo Montoya ref was fun, btw.

- OkiSaru

September 13, 2012 at 9:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga, do you believe that people convicted of crimes should not go to prison because it impinges on their freedom of association, and we don't want freedom of association to be something for nice people only? Should there be no limits on the freedoms of people on parole? If so, what does "parole" mean? Can I expect you to join me in a public protest of the laundry list of books that prisoners are not allowed to read? Although, I have to say, I like it when you get as postmodern as this (What is crime? do we know with existential certainty that just because someone is convicted of bilking people on the internet that they should have their internet activity restricted, etc.). It suggests that things are looking bad inded for your boy Willard. Kind of like how drofnats absolutely loathes the financial wrongdoers, unless they are somehow convenient for aforementioned ratboy.

- miceelf

September 13, 2012 at 9:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This lady at the post office was rude to me. Why does the Obama administration hate me?

- miceelf

September 13, 2012 at 9:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

miceelf: Is that supposed to be your riff on Swiftian irony? Or what?

- noga1

September 13, 2012 at 10:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/michael-j-totten/egypts-president-imitates-ayatollah-khomeini "While Libya’s people and government seem genuinely shocked and appalled by the murderous attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Egypt’s president Mohamed Morsi has instructed the Egyptian Embassy in Washington to use “all legal measures” to punish whoever it was who made the “blasphemous” film that sent the Arab world’s fanatics over the edge. Meanwhile, protesters outside our embassy in Cairo are demanding that President Barack Obama take action against the filmmaker. There is no chance anything of the sort will ever happen. A lunatic religious studies professor named Anthea Butler thinks the filmmaker ought to be jailed, but she pretty much stands alone. We don’t punish people who blaspheme Christianity. We’re certainly not going to start punishing people who blaspheme other religions, especially not when we’re ordered to do so by terrorists. Morsi is shaping up to be Egypt’s own Ayatollah Khomeini. Followers of the Iranian tyrant also attacked our embassy and its staff. And Khomeini himself tried to enforce his reactionary blasphemy code beyond Iran’s borders by sending death squads to hunt down Salman Rushdie to punish him for his novel, The Satanic Verses."

- noga1

September 13, 2012 at 10:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"We find them offensive, and we certainly understand why Muslims would find these images offensive. "Some of the comments that have been uttered about Islam do not reflect the sentiments of my government or the sentiments of most Americans." "We will reject the kinds of comments you have seen recently where people in this country say that Muslims are responsible for the killing of all Jews and who put out hatred. This kind of hatred must be rejected … This kind of language must be spoken out against. We cannot allow this image to go forth of America." "He apologized for that in the sense that he said that we take it very seriously. We are concerned about the reaction." .... You know what the problem with the Obama Administration is? It is that when they are copying the Bush Administration apologies, they are so bad at being abject and apologetic. No wonder the Romney camp hides Bush - they don't want to be reminded of all these apologies. Seems like 13 yos were running the Bush White House as well. I mean, it's one thing to be partisan and to support your own guy. But in this day and age, when the hypocrisies can be detected and distributed with a five minutes google search, why is it necessary to be stupid about the support?

- icarus-r

September 13, 2012 at 11:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"This lady at the post office was rude to me. Why does the Obama administration hate me?" It doesn't hate you, mice, it hates America. America is awesome and a Romney administration will make the US Postal Service awesome once again. Oh wait, now I'm confused . . .

- ironyroad

September 13, 2012 at 11:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thanks for noting my very short post, noga, and ignoring my longer one. Let me ask again, and keep it short. Given that you believe that there should be no conditions of parole that impinge on freedoms (you oppose forbidding internet swindlers from using the internet, for example), you extend your 'no punishment for a crime should entail a loss of freedom ' standard to other aspects of criminal law?

- miceelf

September 14, 2012 at 7:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree with the premise of this article, at least in its short-term effects. If the rioting in the Middle East dies down in a few days, American voters will most remember Romney's rush to judgement, his quick trigger finger, and his ignoring of the facts. But if the rioting continues over a longer period of time, this could prove to be an open wound to American pride, thus damaging President Obama's standing as Commander in Chief and protector of American interests abroad. It might be a stretch to compare it to the 1979-80 Iranian hostage crisis, but that is the risk that comes to my mind when I see television images of American embassies being stormed, cars burned, and ambassadors attacked. For Obama's sake (not to mention America's and the cause of peace), the rioting must end relatively quickly.

- rpearson

September 14, 2012 at 10:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Incidentally, here is Pat Buchanan himself on the latest. http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/time-to-come-home/ You don't have to agree with anything he says; but in this article the Father of Culture Wars sounds more "Presidential" than Romney in all of the past five years.

- icarus-r

September 14, 2012 at 10:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't exactly agree with Buchanan, but a fair amount of that piece is actually surprisingly lucid, and he sounds sane. Indeed, much saner and more presidential than Romney.

- roidubouloi

September 14, 2012 at 10:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Tee hee ... incidentally, here is Mr First Amendment himself on the movie. Funny, especially given Seattle's posts, how Romney pretty much goes a lot further than the embassy itself in denouncing the movie. And he was not even being threatened with a mob attack. Really amusing ...

"I think it’s dispiriting sometimes to see some of the awful things people say. And the idea of using something that some people consider sacred and then parading that out a negative way is simply inappropriate and wrong. And I wish people wouldn’t do it," he said. "Of course, we have a First Amendment. And under the First Amendment, people are allowed to do what they feel they want to do." "They have the right to do that, but it’s not right to do things that are of the nature of what was done by, apparently this film." "I think the whole film is a terrible idea. I think him making it, promoting it showing it is disrespectful to people of other faiths. I don’t think that should happen. I think people should have the common courtesy and judgment -- the good judgment -- not to be -- not to offend other peoples’ faiths. It’s a very bad thing, I think, this guy’s doing."

- icarus-r

September 14, 2012 at 10:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

After four years - there is one question. Who can not see failure?

- sf4200

September 14, 2012 at 1:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The American people, apparently, a majority of whom prefer Obama on national security.

- ironyroad

September 14, 2012 at 1:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Romney's criticism of the film, its quality and advisability, is orthogonal to the principle of freedom of expression.

- noga1

September 14, 2012 at 1:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

But, the embassy's criticism of the film is also orthogonal.

- miceelf

September 14, 2012 at 1:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think in this kind of discussion one needs to agree on frames. If the frame is the specific and -- in our view -- universal validity of the right of free speech, then we can legitimately agree to park very particular contexts and circumstances for the duration and talk about universals. If however the frame is a very particular and potentially dangerous situation in which a presentation of the universal value will not, say, protect US personnel and property in another country from potential injury or damage, then we must at least agree on that frame in order for any kind of rational discussion to follow. I think that slipping around from one frame to the other -- even if it's honest misunderstanding -- will lead to a frustrating exchange because one camp is talking about universals and the other about local particulars where that universal carries implications that are not universal in that frame. So the truth may be that universals, although universal, are not equally and at all times the primary unchallenged value and that normal human social life is only possible if other values (immediate crisis management to protect lives and property, for example) are allowed to play a role where needed. To concede that is not to elevate the local above the universal -- in other words, not to make a universal out of the local -- but to recognize that the universal can come into conflict with the local in such a way as to pose a limited existential problem for those in that locality.

- ironyroad

September 14, 2012 at 1:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Seattle says "Hillary again affirms she would better handle the 3AM calls." Not sure I agree Seattle since the Embassies are under Hillary's responsibility as Sec. of State. Her responsibility is to administer the Embassy operations and effectively "ok" such statements. It took her some time to come up with her own 'disavowing statement' prior to the WH's own statement. So maybe she didn't handle the 3AM call. Maybe it was a determined and deliberate process at both the State Dept, WH and intelligence services to actually find out what was happening. Twelve hours seems like a long time in this day and age but in dealing with the complexities of what is going on in Middle East, I can't say shooting ourselves in the foot with bombastic blustering would do anything to the change the situation on hand. Was the initial Egyptian Embassy tweet flaccid? Yes. Is it an outright apologia as some would purport? No. Was it trying to preemptively tamp down any anger in the Arab Street? Yes. But it obviously didn't. Perhaps our Embassy should have stayed quiet altogether. But obviously it's all Obama's fault because he didn't say "We're protecting free speech mother-f*cukers! I'm goin' to releasing the dogs o' war on your madrassa squatin' asses" and then proceeded to carpet bomb the Egyptians, Libyans and Yemenese protestors. Despite the Right's protestations to the contrary, Romney shot off his pie hole when he simply should have kept his mouth shut. I guess he's just trying to show the world his foreign policy chops .

- singlspeed

September 14, 2012 at 2:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Orthogonal or not, the fact is that Romney made the statement from the comfort of a campaign office, whereas he was criticising an embassy staff potentially, and eventually, under siege for making more or less the same point, perhaps not as eloquently, in a series of tweets, and extrapolating from those series of on-the-ground tweets support for the mob on the part of the President himself. There is the man's lack of integrity. Irony: I appreciate your point, but in fact this is not a framing issue; it is a "squirrel" moment. I am willing to concede the point on the First Amendment, both on the universal and the particular frames. I am even willing to concede that Romney has suddenly joined the ACLU on the First Amendment issue. Neither of these alters the nature of the "scurrilous lie" uttered at the "grossly inappropriate" press conference, nor the uttery incomprehensible and reprehensible accusation that the President of the United States was siding with the mobs attacking an American embassy. As it happens,the whole framing issue breaks down in any way, because the great champion of the First Amendment rights of a parole-violating meth-cooker actually went ahead to make exactly the point that the embassy staff were making, no doubt more eloquently. Of course Mitt "ACLU" Romney was being orthogonal - we know how loves to be orthogonal. But even if he had, again, issued a full-throated defence of the First Amendment and doubled-down on the duty of an embassy to be as offensive to the local population as it is possible, regardless of context or consequence, so long as the embassy defends to the max the right of meth-cookers on parole to produce badly-made movies, again regardless of any other consideration relating to America's national interest - a right that I, too, defend without reseravtion ... why, it would make not one bit of difference to the analysis. His statement Wednesday morning was reprehensible and indefensible, and fundamentally disqualifying.

- icarus-r

September 14, 2012 at 2:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Lovely, ironyroad. But the issue of freedom of speech in this context is pure bullshit, the "Look cows!" strategy, meant to divert attention from the issue at hand or render discussion thereof difficult or impossible. Why? Because Romney is a bum and the Obama-haters would prefer that no one notice. The issue is not freedom of speech. There is no serious argument that the video could be supressed. Nor is there a serious argument that its offensive nature justifies the violence that ensued, if indeed the video provoked the violence rather than being the occasion for it. Rather, the issue is how people who aspire to be president, and the current president and his administration, ought to talk about these matters in public, and what we expect of them. On that score, Romney has clearly disgraced himself. Lying, invoking freedom of speech to avoid criticizing execrable speech, criticizing those who did criticize it for doing so (and they were in extremis no less), and then reversing himself and joining the criticism of that speech. Utterly devoid of scruple. Whoever said here that Romney is a sociopath, at least in politics, had it just right. Many sociopathic liars are gifted with great charm, and it is astonishing what they can get away with. But poor Mitt has no charm. He is the rare example of a wooden sociopath. His lying is so bad, and he so clearly telegraphs that he knows he is lying when the sociopath's art is to make people believes at least that the sociopath believes what he is saying, that he cannot get any mileage at all out of preposterous lies and evasions as Reagan and Bush II did. The right and the Obama-haters are out of luck this time. Tough. No one should have his or her attention diverted from that fact by the faux issue of freedom of speech.

- roidubouloi

September 14, 2012 at 2:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roid: Unscrupulous, for me, rather than sociopathic - the term is a clinical one - but it is also the same word used by Joan Walsh on Salon:

When the shocked pool reporters asked Romney directly whether he might have phrased his comments differently had he known about the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens, his callousness was stunning: Reporter: If you had known last night that the ambassador died, and I am gathering you did not know – Romney: Well, that came later. Reporter: If you had known that the – Romney: I am not going to take hypotheticals about what would have been known and so forth we responded last night to the events that happened in Egypt. The brass that it takes to call Stevens’ death a “hypothetical” is breathtaking. Or maybe it’s not brass. It’s almost sociopathic.

- icarus-r

September 14, 2012 at 3:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I would go with sociopath as in lacking moral responsibility or social conscience relative to actions taken. But it is his Bain performance that does it for me. I would argue that capitalism rewards sociopaths. In fact reaching the highest level of corporate management or finance is almost impossible unless you are, in fact, a clinical sociopath. But of course I digress.

- Vogelfam

September 14, 2012 at 4:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yeah ok. I was merely pointing out that a discussion on the universal value of freedom of speech is not irrelevant to this discussion as it has developed. Noga's point is a valid one if the question is whether the universal value of free speech maintains its status (or can/should be protected) against local pressures to compromise that universal. However, the other side of that coin is that the fact of a local constraint on the universal means that it can be in particular cases incredibly stupid to insist on that universal. Thus the embassy's attempt to defuse potential mob anger was a perfectly legitimate response in the circumstances as those circumstances -- by any rational consideration that can be allowed -- did not allow for trumpeting the universal at the moment. Universal values do not justify painting a target on one's back, or indeed on other people's who may look to you for safety. Thus -- my last point -- Romney displayed his complete unsuitability for the presidency this week as he failed or, worse, refused to understand the nature of a tense crisis situation overseas (the kind of thing that could easily happen if he were in office), failed to grasp the measures taken on the ground, and used the death of American diplomatic staff instead to attack the president for something that everyone knows to be offensive and ludicrous nonsense.

- ironyroad

September 14, 2012 at 4:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If Romney is naive, what is Obama? Read YNETNEWS: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4281665,00.html

- sf4200

September 15, 2012 at 4:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Naive" is not quite the word I'd choose for Romney.

- ironyroad

September 15, 2012 at 7:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Buy "sewage" is the word I would use for ynet. Worth reading that linked piece just to see what demented swill it is. Figures that someone thinks this is a way to support Romney. The tenor of Romney and the tenor of ynet are of a piece. Yecccch!

- roidubouloi

September 16, 2012 at 7:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roid: I read the paragraph and fell off my chair laughing. You can't blame a candidate for the tone of his supporters, or the stupidity of the arguments the supporters press in favour of the candidate. In principle, at any rate. With Romney, he deserves all the blame he gets for the execrable campaign he is running.

- icarus-r

September 16, 2012 at 11:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close