Romney and Rome on Libya attack
In light of Mitt Romney’s verbal attack on the Obama administration’s response to the murder of the U.S. ambassador to Libya, I wonder what he would say about the Vatican’s statement:
Profound respect for the beliefs, texts, outstanding figures and symbols of the various religions is an essential precondition for the peaceful coexistence of peoples. The serious consequences of unjustified offence and provocations against the sensibilities of Muslim believers are once again evident in these days, as we see the reactions they arouse, sometimes with tragic results, which in their turn nourish tension and hatred, unleashing unacceptable violence.
The message of dialogue and respect for all believers of different religions, which the Holy Father is preparing to carry with him on his forthcoming trip to Lebanon, indicate the path that everyone should follow in order to construct shared and peaceful coexistence of religions and peoples.
The violence was sparked by the release of a trailer for an amateur film that smears the Prophet Muhammad; Islamist militants killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans on Tuesday night. Romney quickly responded by assailing a statement, released by the American embassy in Cairo, that said, “We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.” As it turned out, the Cairo statement was issued before the attack. But Romney responded as if it followed the attack, charging, “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.”
The Vatican’s statement reflects concern for the plight of Christians throughout the Middle East who would be endangered if the violence continues. It comes just as Pope Benedict XVI is heading to Lebanon, as Catholic News Service notes. It’s a delicate situation that calls for something other than Romney’s bluster.
Update: And while we’re at it, contrast the Vatican’s statement with the one the Catholic League issued.
I’m confused, didn’t the administration itself disavow the statement made by its own embassy? If so, where do they get off attacking Romney for criticizing the statement too?
There were two attacks, one in Cairo, the other in Libya. Was the administration’s statement issued in response to the Cairo attack?
I have to say, the Vatican’s statement misses, not only the bull’s-eye, but the entire target. The sequence of events seems to be:
* Some amateur private person or organization makes a movie of zero cultural significance in the US
* Extremists in Libya respond by assassinating our diplomat – even though the government he represented had absolutely no involvement in producing the film and had done nothing to promote it
* The Vatican’s statement criticizes the film-makers (good) – and has nothing whatever to say of the criminals who killed a diplomat (indefensible)
I hate to see the Pope go to Lebanon at this time. Surely it isn’t safe, and what good will it have done if he is assassinated? JP II was lucky. He might not be. Hard-headed man.
Mark P has the Romney’s despicable comments wrong .. just to keep the record straight, .. because it’s all over and no one will care on Jan. 20 2013 at Obama’s inauguration
http://keller.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/12/mitt-and-bibi-diplomacy-as-demolition-derby/?hp
The Vatican’s looks cowardly – willing to turn a blind eye to murder in order not to rile Muslim sensibilities on the eve of the papal trip. Understandable but extremely unfortunate.
The Vatican’s statement … has nothing whatever to say of the criminals who killed a diplomat (indefensible)
The Vatican’s looks cowardly – willing to turn a blind eye to murder
Actually, the Vatican did talk about “unacceptable violence” being unleashed.
The relative timidity of its criticism, of course, reflects worries about the safety of Christians in the Middle East. Those worries were already present during the preparation of the Vatican 2 declaration on non-Christian religions. In his journal (May 3, 1965), Congar presented the following analysis: (sorry for the French language and lack of accents, I’m in a bit of a hurry and can’t take the time to translate)
Les questions difficiles concernent le paragraphe sur les Juifs. Mgr Willebrands a fait deux voyages: Liban, Jerusalem, Egypte, Addis-Abeba. Il s’est rendu compte de la situation exacte. En Orient, aussi bien les chretiens que les Juifs et les arabes, et, du cote chrétien, aussi bien les orthodoxes que les catholiques, prendront cette declaration dans un tout autre sens que son sens véritable. Entre arabes et Juifs, toute parole touchant les Juifs tombe dans une situation de guerre. Meme si les gouvernements etaient rassures par les explications, le peuple ne comprendrait ni explication ni nuance. Les Juifs, de leur cote, exploiteront le texte, comme ils l’ont deja fait. Certains d’entre eux y trouveront une justification de leur presence en Palestine: car s’ils sont les fils de l’alliance, ils ont droit aux terres de l’alliance.
Fatalement aussi, une déclaration du concile compromettrait TOUS les chretiens aux yeux des musulmans. Ceux-ci ne feront pas de distinction entre orthodoxes, coptes et catholiques. Or leurs reactions peuvent etre extremement brutales. Deja, cette année, un muezzin ayant dit, le vendredi soir, dans un village d’Egypte: Comment? Vous vous dites musulmans et vous tolérez deux eglises chretiennes dans le village… A la sortie de la mosquée, la foule stupide a incendie ces deux églises… Il existe une pression extremement forte contre les Coptes en Egypte; un peu partout le Christianisme est brime de mille façons. On peut etre sur qu’une déclaration sur les Juifs declencherait une persécution avec incendies d’églises et meurtres de chrétiens. Des maintenant, cette perspective a cree une tension entre les Orethodoxes et nous. Les Orthodoxes prennent leurs distances a l’egard des catholiques et veulent se qualifier comme meilleurs patriotes… Si le concile procedait a sa déclaration et qu’il s’ensuive de graves difficultes dans lesquelles les Orthodoxes et les coptes seraient entraines avec les catholiques, les orthodoxes nous reprocheraient amerement d’avoir procede seuls, d’avoir fait bon marche de la presence chrétienne en Proche-Orient, bref d’avoir agi de facon inamicale a leur égard.
Et qui prendrait la responsabilite de déclencher une persecution contre les catholiques, alors qu’il ne s’agit pas d’une question de Foi?
Then he outlined the suggestions, discussing the pros and cons of each:
- Le Pape, lui, serait favorable a la declaration, mais en tachant d’eviter les risques en supprimant le mot “déicide” et le paragraphe sur l’antisémitisme.
- Autre solution – que preconise assez formellement Mgr Willenbrands: annuler la declaration purement et simplement.
Ed–
Can you be a little more specific on what I have wrong? Any of the facts? Or do you have a different interpretation of what the facts mean?
I would hope whoever ends up running the country has the common sense to first get the facts before deciding what we should or shouldn’t do. Romney’s statement was premature at best.
David Smith
“The Vatican’s looks cowardly – willing to turn a blind eye to murder in order not to rile Muslim sensibilities on the eve of the papal trip. ”
How then would you want the Vatican to respond?
This statement was released today (13 September) by Father Federico Lombardi, SJ, the spokesman of the Holy See.
http://press.catholica.va/news_services/bulletin/news/29643.php?index=29643&lang=it
Mark, it’s very simple: Romney’s statement, which he released on the evening of 9/11, and doubled down on the following day, gets the facts wrong. And gets the role of a presidential candidate wrong. First, the press officer in Cairo released the statement, an attempt to tamp down protests that we now know the officer was right to worry about, six hours before the violence began. Romney pretends that it was a response to the violence. Nor was it issued by Obama. Nor was it an expression of sympathy with the people who attacked Americans on that day. Romney used a tragic loss of life as a political wedge. In desperate times…
Has the link to the amateur video and the murderers been established? Has there been some public statement from the perpetrators saying or suggesting this? I followed the story yesterday on BBC, and I didn’t see it. The attackers just moseyed to the corner hardware store to pick up rocket-propelled grenades after seeing a silly video earlier in the afternoon?
I wonder if the anger is a continuing foment for people, Muslim, Tea Party, or whatever. And like an insect tapping on the edge of a spider’s web, the angry response comes over at any opportunity.
Mr Romney has shown himself to be as easily manipulated as the US bishops. Some key Republicans have already shushed in his direction. The Democrats used to have foot, aim, shoot worked up to a science. Looks like its catching.
Two points:
1) for Claire: I’m not quite sure where the word déicide comes from; was that in the original draft of Nostra Aetate? Even if it was struck out, the meaning of that document was pretty clear in repudiating the idea.
One of the interesting points of Congar’s observation, of course, is that a declaration by Rome might also have negative consequences for non-Catholic Christians in the Middle East. A real quandary, and one to which there’s probably no good answer, either now or then.
2) On Romney. According to the news this morning (so far as I’ve heard it) no one in a position of leadership in the GOP seems to be endorsing his less than intelligently temperate remarks on Benghazi and Cairo. It would also be interesting to know how he thinks maintaining our present swollen defense budget would help prevent future attacks like those of yesterday. Does he think that more nuclear weapons and aircraft carriers would do the trick?
I wish the interviewer on last night’s PBS News Hour had asked Sen. Coleman (Romney’s putative defender on that show) the question.
This explanation by David Ignatius, which includes some pointed criticisms of Romney, seems to shed light on what is going on.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/09/13/piercing_the_fog_of_revolution_115422.html
Although each of us has some artisan position that is practically unchangeable at this time, I assume, I don’t know how anyone can defend Romney’s ill timed and uninformed remarks. It was inappropritae at best at this time and circumstance and it shows terrible judgment, I beliieve, regardless of political advantage or price.
John Page, thanks for that link to Fr. Lombardi’s statement. It fills the yawning gap that was left by the Vatican’s statement that Paul Moses quotes.
That was “partisan,”though perhaps some are “artisans” as well — not me!
In this country we’re hypocritical about our professed belief in free speech. Yes we have it but it happens all the time that when someone makes public statements that offends a particular group-the offender apologizes as people in power denounce the comments. You don’t hear about our valuing freedom of speech but rather about the offensive content of the speech. The offender can lose his/her job and/or often back tracks the comments. When religions are offended there are always people in positions of power who come out in full force to denounce the content .What would happen if that were not so? What would happen if say an anti-semitic cartoon were placed in a newspapaer and not denounced? What would happen if a racist cartoon were published and not denounced? how long would it take till there would be demonstrations ? We’re being quite hypocritical in claiming anything goes in this country regarding speeech. People get fired and or back track and apologize for offensive comments all the time -after being denouced by people in positions of power[media and/or politicians].What would happen if their were no such rebukes? Even in law we recognize the concept “fighting words.” We too have our sacred cows .We recognize that some language is provocative and inflamataroy and meant to well- start a fight. That’s what this film was meant to do -and it did.Demonstations are part of what we profess to value .Good for the egyptians that they are free to demonstrate against what they find offensive.If they tresspassed and destroyed property then those are laws the authorities could inforce. Democracy is messy. That people were murdered is of course a different story. These noble american diplomats became the scapegoats for the filmaker and the understandable perception of many muslims that the west is at war with muslims.Let’s not be hypocrites however and not recognize that though we profess to value free speech-we too have sacred cows and when transgressed there are just enough people in positions of power who denounce offensive statements which neutralize the offense. It is right that our government would try to neutralize the offensive of this film by apoligizing for it’s content. When we’ve been in muslim countries for 10years now dropping bombs and even torturing detainees in prisons-you can’t expect people to see an anti-muslim american film as on par with a” piss Christ” exhibit in a bklyn museum.Romney is being dishonest.It was not the value of free speech that the state deptartment apoligized for but rather the content of the speech. That happens every day in this country[Aiken, Rush Limbaugh, Don Imus etc].
first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.
It seems to me that we should ALWAYS condemn the violence. There is no justification for violence against innocent individuals, regardless of what was spoken. That is the primary message. That said, we should not just idly by and accept ‘fighting words’; but just because some group is ‘offended’ does not mean the words were ‘fighting words’.
Grant–
I believe you made a number of assertions that you have either not supported, or are subject to a different, and more reasonable, interpretation:
“Romney’s statement…gets the facts wrong.”
Which pertinent facts did he get wrong?
“And gets the role of a presidential candidate wrong.”
Why is it not the role of, very possibly, our next president, to let us know where he stands on this important issue, and where he would do things differently than the current president?
“First, the press officer in Cairo released the statement, an attempt to tamp down protests that we now know the officer was right to worry about, six hours before the violence began.”
Yeah, how did that tamping down effort work? Is it not more likely that the fecklessness of such statements only encourages violence? Wasn’t Romney prescient in recognizing that potential?
“Nor was it issued by Obama.”
Does the president no longer appoint our ambassadors? Not approve them? Not responsible for his appointments? Not responsible for statements they make that he is delinquent in disavowing?
John Page–thanks for that link. The Vatican got it wrong, the Pope got it right.
Mark P… “Romney pretends that it was a response to the violence’ You pretend you see a defense of Romney’s despicatable stance.
They’re demonstrating in egypt-what’s wrong with that?Hopefully no violence breaks out .But come on -we should be APPLAUDING the freedom to demonstrate-not hypocritically getting thin skinned that they burn flags!.We’re sounding more and more like it is we -who don’t value freedom of speech and of assembly.How dare they disapprove of us!The world and it’s peoples don’t belong to us-no matter how many war ships we place in their waters. The concept fighting words is a legalism that does not legitimize violence but recognizes human psychology-that there are indeed provocations they lead to violence.
Mark:
You seem to me to be so determined to undermine this president and defend Mitt Romney that you cannot think straight.
I remind you the Republican Party got us involved in a war that was unprovoked (thus unjust) unbudgeted for, and under false pretenses. In addition, the Catholic Church in Iraq has been decimated as a result. (See: Speech given to our bishops at their June meeting by Chaldean Auxiliary Bishop Shlemon Warduni of Baghdad describe the persecution of the church in Iraq since the U.S. War in Iraq.)
Augustine said that the only justifiable purpose for war was to restore peace and look what we have now in the Middle East.
I take a measured, diplomatic approach over a “growing big stick” approach any day.
This timeline in Slate was helpful for me to figure out what happened and who said what when.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/09/12/timeline_the_romney_campaign_s_odd_response_to_the_embassy_protests.html
Which pertinent facts did he get wrong?
Mark Proska,
First, the embassy statement was not an apology. Second, it was issued before the violence, so it was not a response to the violence or a justification of violence.
It seems to me people, and especially Obama critics, are merging the Cairo incident and the Benghazi incident into one garbled narrative instead of keeping them separate. The accounts I have read suggest the demonstration in Cairo was a spontaneous protest of the anti-Muslim film, whereas the incident in Benghazi was a planned assault on the consulate. They are taking a statement that was made prior to the demonstration in Egypt and claiming that the Obama administration is responsible for “apologizing” after our ambassador was killed in Benghazi. At best, that is muddled. At worst, it is a lie. It seems to me that if the attack on Benghazi had not happened, there would be little or no controversy over what happened in Cairo.
Yeah, how did that tamping down effort work? Is it not more likely that the fecklessness of such statements only encourages violence? Wasn’t Romney prescient in recognizing that potential?
Are you seriously blaming the violence on the embassy statement? The embassy encouraged violence by issuing a conciliatory statement? I thought the protestors were the only ones to blame. You seem to want to let the creators of the anti-Muslim film off the hook . . . and blame the embassy!
Hey Mark,
“How well did that worK”
We don’t know. The situation could have been even worse without it. And at the end of the day, it makes a positive difference that we said it–not to the people who perpetrated the attack, but to the innocent people back in Egypt and Libya (not to mention the rest of the world) that are Muslim.
http://imgur.com/a/tlCyI
Don’t forget that the people who attack may very well have an interest in destabilizing the regimes that have lately come to power. It’s not all about us.
I guess my view on this contretemps is that Romney leveraged a foreign affairs occurrence to score some political points. In my view, that’s within the field of play. (If not, then we’d have to equally condemn President Obama for criticizing the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, Gitmo, et al during 2008).
Romney’s criticism of the Cairo embassy statement hinges on his attributing the statement to the “Obama Administration”. That is, depending on one’s point of view, adroit or misleading.
As laid out in the Slate timeline I linked to in my previous comment, I don’t find the Cairo embassy’s statement overly feckless; it’s the kind of thing diplomats say. What seems important to note, and what I haven’t seen discussed or acknowledged here yet, is that both the Romney campaign *and the Obama State Department* criticized the statement; the latter by disavowing it. Why should the Obama administration disavow it, if not for political reasons?
The Obama administration can’t have it both ways. If the statement from the Cairo embassy was so bad that it needed to disavow it, then I have a hard time faulting the Romney administration for criticizing it. If the Cairo statement was fine and Romney was wrong to play politics with it, then why did the State Department run away from it as fast as it could?
Deja vu – 1964 and shades of Barry Goldwater.
I appreciated Mitt Romney’s remarks about the violence in Cairo and Libya because his cheap pandering to “American values” (?) helps confirm for me that the guy should not be president.
The Obama administration can’t have it both ways. If the statement from the Cairo embassy was so bad that it needed to disavow it, then I have a hard time faulting the Romney administration for criticizing it. If the Cairo statement was fine and Romney was wrong to play politics with it, then why did the State Department run away from it as fast as it could?
Jim,
Here’s what Obama said about the embassy statement: “It didn’t come from me. It didn’t come from Secretary Clinton. It came from folks on the ground who are potentially in danger. And my tendency is to cut those folks a little bit of slack when they’re in that circumstance rather than try to question their judgment from the comfort of a campaign office.”
The embassy statement is not beyond criticism, but Romney completely mischaracterized it. It was not an “apology.” It was not a reaction by the administration to the events in Cairo or Benghazi. Romney was force fitting the statement into his phony narrative that Obama apologizes for America and American values. If people believe that, they are probably anti-Obama already, and the facts of what happened in Cairo and Benghazi won’t make any difference to them. But neither the Obama administration nor the embassy “apologized.”
Can you give a clear explanation of exactly what Romney found objectionable about the statement that you agree with? I liked Gail Collins’s observation in the Times today:
Are the “American values” Romney accused the statement of betraying really the First Amendment right to make a sleazy film and trash a major world religion? Would Romney have defended the free-speech rights of Americans who made a similar film about Jesus?
I agree that the Vatican got it all wrong. Every time something like this happens it needs to call for another Crusade: my Jesus will kick the s**t out of your Muhamed (or however the republicaths spell it). Call out the troops and march into each and every place where Muhammadens are and kill a few thousand of them. And be sure to do it publically and in the presence of a very large crucifix. And while the Vat is at is, it’s time to resurrect the old 1950s slogan of “Kill a Commie fer Christ!”
That will teach them to have a sense of humor.
JP: you can accuse Ryomney of many things, but adroitness is not in the cards.
The Vatican statement about interreligious respect reminded me of the last testament of Dom Christian, the prior of the Trappist monastery in Tibhirine, Algeria. Written about two years before he and six fellow monks were kidnapped in 1996 and subsequently executed, most likely by Islamic fundamentalists, the last testament when read as a whole is a powerful statement about peaceful coexistence and religious tolerance. John Kiser captured the monks’ story in his wonderful book “The Monks of Tibhirine,” and the story was also depicted in the critically acclaimed film “Of Gods and Men.”
Below is one of my favorite parts of Dom Christian’s testament:
I am aware of the scorn which can be heaped on Algerians indiscriminately.
I am also aware of the caricature of Islam which a certain islamism encourages.
It is too easy to salve one’s conscience by identifying this religious way with the fundamentalist ideologies of the extremists.
For me, Algeria and Islam are something different: they are a body and a soul.
I have proclaimed this often enough, I believe, in the sure knowledge of
what I have received from it, finding there so often that true strand of the Gospel
learnt at my mother’s knee, my very first Church, already in Algeria itself,
in the respect of believing Muslims.
http://www.davidson.edu/academic/religion/PLANK/Christian%20de%20Cherge%20revised%20pub.pdf
Jim McCrea
“I agree that the Vatican got it all wrong. Every time something like this happens it needs to call for another Crusade… .”
What is wrong with the statement?
“Profound respect for the beliefs, texts, outstanding figures and symbols of the various religions is an essential precondition for the peaceful coexistence of peoples.”
Where do yo see Crusade rhetoric?
“We find them offensive, and we certainly understand why Muslims would find these images offensive….Anti-Muslim images are as unacceptable as anti-Semitic images,” which are routinely published in the Arab press, “as anti-Christian images, or any other religious belief.”
State Department 2006–on the occasion of publishing anti-Mohammed cartoons.
6 years later:
The embassy condemned “the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims, as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions”.
U.S. Egyptian embassy 2012–on the occaision of the release of an anti-semitic movie.
maybe Mark P. can link us to Mitt’s 2006 outraged comments or even his own 2006 comments.
Today’s Gospel reading (Luke 6:27-38), “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who treat you badly. . . &c &c.” seems particularly apposite (and not only in the field of foreign policy).
Nicholas: the controversy around the word deicida is mentioned in Congar’s journal on 2/7/65, 2/26/65, and implicitly 3/1/65. That’s all I know. But I found the whole discussion interesting, in particular the considerations not just about what was correct, but also about how it would be received in the context of conflicts in the Middle East.
Helen, I think Jimmy’s comment about the Crusades was sarcasm.
It seems the filmmaker is not American. http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/09/sam_bacile_film_embassy_attacks.php?ref=fpnewsfeed
Romney and his advisor’s of course will be ‘moving on’ to the next event. His next problem will be seeing Obama and Hillary Clinton front and center at Ambassador Steven’s funeral in Piedmont [Oakland Ca] . So Romney advisors’ next task will be to secure a Romney invitation. Good luck with that.
Obama just gave a short little speech in Colorado which was Obama at his oratorical best. Catch it if you can. Kind of sounds like he’s been reading Lincoln.
My nephew journalist, a young who lives in the Middle East sent me this link about the take on the issue by his friend, Fr. Douglas May, Maryknoll priest in Egypt.
http://www.arabwestreport.info/year-2012/week-37/47-muhammad-film-trailer-american-priest-reacts
For further info on Fr. May:
http://www.maryknollafrica.org/EduMay.htm
Come to think of it-it seems to me that in egypt anyway-having mobs go UNARMED to the embassy shouting pro Osama slogans, hoisting an alquada like flag and burning american flags -on 9-11 off all days-was itself a resorting to the use of inflamatory speech to responds to inflamatory speech [the film].They were doing what we claim to value-using speech instead of violence to counter inflammatory speech. Just what we claim we believe in.Fight words with more words. Of course this does not diffuse the situation but there is something hypocritical about us tauting our value of freedom of expression regarding the film while unable to recognise their demonstration on 9-11 as a reciprical use of speech too.Of course they did transgress property and tressspassing laws and such but hey such things happen here too.In the name of art[demonstration at an embassy as street art] and civil disobediance.
rose-ellen caminer
“resorting to the use of inflamatory speech to responds to inflamatory speech”
Just like a bunch of Bill Donohue clones.
Perhaps Romney can fly to Egypt and Libya and explain his comments to the Muslims of those countries?
Did Romney ever serve in the U.S. armed forces or in the U.S. foreign service?
Did Romney ever face a hostile crowd out for vengeance against the U.S.?
I’d suggest Romney has “foot-in-mouth” disease.
If he’s so damn sure of the rightness of his viewpoint, let him prove it.
Fly to Libya and Egypt and tell the folks how he sees these situations!!!!!
And take his advisors with him!!!!!
Romney’s comments were about events in Egypt.
Regarding Libya, it is worth noting that at least a half-dozen Libyan guards were injured trying to defend the American embassy staff, and that the current Libyan government, weak though it is, nonetheless has apologized for this entire tragedy.
Egypt seems to be another matter however, and time will tell how the Muslim Brotherhood rules that nation, whether or not they will be (as they have been) an American ally and consequently, whether or not we will continue giving Egypt some $1.3 billion dollars a year in assistance.
Yes, I know that the Libyans as a people are more sympathetic to U.S. presence, and I know that an Egyptian crowd engaged the local U.S. embassy.
Troublemakers/terrorists, however, do not respect international boundaries, do they?
Perhaps a hostile crowd whipped up by local troublemakers in either country, attacking Romney on their turf, and Romney being pushed by bodyguards into his limo/suv — perhaps such an experience might scare the bejeebers out of this presidential wannabe, thereby giving him time to reflect on his words — and fire his advisors when he returns to the safety and security of U.S. soil.
It’s easy to be *brave* at home; Romney demonstrated this fact.
Now let the guy be *brave* on foreign turf for a change.
Hi, David N., I’m not sure what you’re asking me to give a clear explanation of, but my view is that there is nothing objectionable about the embassy statement, and I think President Obama got it exactly right – the embassy personnel were there on the ground, rightly feared for their safety, and the statement should be read in that context.
I agree with you that Romney is trying to fit the embassy statement into a pre-existing meme for political benefit. That’s politics.
“[The Romney campaign] are taking a statement that was made prior to the demonstration in Egypt and claiming that the Obama administration is responsible for “apologizing” after our ambassador was killed in Benghazi”
According to the Slate timeline, the Romney campaign wrote and distributed its statement to the media, and lifted the embargo on its being released to the public, before it was known that our ambassador was killed in Benghazi. In other words, Romney’s statement shouldn’t be read to refer to the killing of our ambassador.
Whether Romney or his campaign has subsequently clarified this, I don’t know, but it would seem to be a really important clarification, because the ABC News radio report I heard on this story during the daytime on 9/12 definitely implied what you state here: that Romney’s statement was in reaction to the killing of the ambassador in Benghazi. If Slate’s timeline is accurate, that take on the story is surely incorrect.
Joesph J, your comment ‘Now let the guy be *brave* on foreign turf for a change.’
You are forgetting and denigrating his 3 years service knocking on doors of potentially angry French Housewives.
ed gleason:
and trying to convince the French to become Mormons who don’t drink wine. Now that takes courage!
CNN just said that arrests have been made in Libya.
Islam 206 as a slight cure for righteous indignation:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/12/ambassadors-killing-shines-light-on-muslim-sensitivities-around-prophet-mohammed/
According to the Slate timeline, the Romney campaign wrote and distributed its statement to the media, and lifted the embargo on its being released to the public, before it was known that our ambassador was killed in Benghazi. In other words, Romney’s statement shouldn’t be read to refer to the killing of our ambassador.
Jim,
Romney and his advisers did know that someone had been killed in Benghazi, since they refer to it.
What Romey calls the Obama Administration’s “first response” was actually the statement released by the Cairo embassy before any of the events took place, and we now know that the statement was issued against the wishes of the White House and the State Department. If Romney had merely criticized the statement he would not look so bad, since the administration has disavowed it. What was reprehensible was mischaracterizing the statement as an “apology” and as the “first response” of the Obama administration. It was neither.
Best summary of what happened and why Romney’s statements were so off kilter:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2012/09/the_mohammed_movie_and_the_embassy_attacks_romney_betrays_free_speech_.html
“The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.”
What is wrong with that statement? Where’s the apology? I see no reason for our State Department or White House to disavow it.
Hey Jim.. you got caught in ‘spin’
“Romney’s statement shouldn’t be read to refer to the killing of our ambassador.’
Romney “I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi’
Jim P: Dude, put away the shovel. Stop digging!
“Jim, Here’s what Obama said about the embassy statement: “It didn’t come from me. It didn’t come from Secretary Clinton. It came from folks on the ground who are potentially in danger. And my tendency is to cut those folks a little bit of slack when they’re in that circumstance rather than try to question their judgment from the comfort of a campaign office.””
Here is what Byron Tau of Politico reported under the headline, “Obama administration disavows ‘apology’”:
“The statement by Embassy Cairo was not cleared by Washington and does not reflect the views of the United States government,” an administration official told POLITICO.”
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/09/white-house-disavows-cairo-apology-135247.html
“Disavowal” seems like an accurate descriptor.
“Romney and his advisers did know that someone had been killed in Benghazi, since they refer to it.
“I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. 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.”"
What you quoted here is not the Romney campaign’s initial statement I referred to above. Saletan in Slate reports that the statement you quote here was given by Romney at a press conference on Wednesday morning – when reporters were already following up on his initial statement.
Here is the text of the Romney campaign’s initial statement:
“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.”
Ed G – see my previous comment.
David G – just trying to get the facts (timeline) established.
Here is the text of the Romney campaign’s initial statement:
“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.”
Jim,
That is part of the Romney statement from Tuesday night. See CNN:
Romney knew that at least one person had died in Libya.
David – ok.
Helen asked:
This, from Father Lombardi (thanks, John Page, 8:59)
is far better than the statement quoted by Paul in his blog entry. Who speaks for the Vatican?
Oops, sorry about the orphaned “Helen asked:” Sloppy editing.
Thanks, Claire, for Father Conger’s comments. Truly, no matter what a public figure says – individual or institution – it’s going to be read and responded to in unintended ways. Public figures are punching bags. But if one simply compares the Vatican statement quoted by Paul in his blog entry with the Vatican statement furnished by John, immediately above, it’s clear that public figures can do far better than they often do.
Fr. Lombardi had it right. Thank God there is some clear thinking people in the Vatican. Hopefully, there will be more.
The issue is real simple. These American diplomats did nothing to deserve being murdered. This mob was completely irrational and there was no police control of their activities. You don’t murder people. Period.
Dear Mrs. Stevens:
We are sorry for your loss. However, please rest assured knowing that your husband, Chris, and his three fellow workers in Benghazi, give their lives because some blithering idiot posted a disgusting video that insulted Mohammed. But, then, these deaths are a small price to pay for the American sacred cow entitled “Freedom of Speech.” We pride ourselves that it is virtually unlimited and unbridled. We realize that, with the advent of YouTube, anything that is crafted here under the guise of free speech goes viral virtually instantly. It’s irrelevant that a large portion of the world does not place the same value on unbridled, immature, disgusting, degrading and deliberately provocative speech that Exceptional America does! Their thoughts and religious beliefs and sensibilities don’t mean a hill of beans when compared with our idiots’ right to spew idiocy. We are Numbah One and they had better not forget it, either!
Someone quoted this at me: “What is permissible is not always honorable.” Marcus Tullius Cicero. But I ask you: what does a dead Roman know about Our Rights here in Exceptional America!
Here’s something for you to think about: there will most likely be more American ambassadorial and consular staff that will lose their lives because of disgusting things that a few sad, sick people feel a need to spew to the rest of the world. That means that your husband and his co-workers will be part of a larger Band of Brothers (yeah, and I guess a few Sisters, too). Won’t that make you and your children feel so very speshul each September 11th when you recall the untimely death of Christopher?
I guess I had better not sign this off with iconic US complimentary closings: Have a nice day – and God Bless Amurika, OK?
Back to Claire’s kind memory of Congar’s diary. My French is pretty rusty, but for those of us who don’t read it at all, here is a quick translation, followed by a couple of comments:
Difficult questions concerning the section on Jews. Willebrands made two trips to Lebanon, Jerusalem, Egypt, and Addis Ababa. He realized precisely what is going on. In the [Middle] East, Christians (both Orthodox and Catholics), Jews and Arabs, will distort this statement by taking it in a direction that doesn’t correspond to its true meaning.
When it comes to questions about Jewish-Arab relations, every single word about Jews that provoke a bellicose situation [“state of war” is excessive]. Even if governments were reassured by the explanations, [ordinary] people won’t understand the explanation or get the nuance. For their part, Jews will exploit the text; some have already done so. Some of them will find a justification for their presence in Palestine because they are the children of the covenant [b’nai b’rit], and thus entitled to the land of the covenant.
In addition, a statement of the Council will inevitably compromise ALL Christians in the eyes of Muslims, who will not make a distinction between Orthodox, Copts and Catholics. However, their reactions can be extremely brutal. Earlier this year, a muezzin said at the Friday [afternoon] prayer [jumuah] in an Egyptian village: “What? You call yourselves Muslims and you tolerate two Christian churches in the village?” When they left the mosque, the crowd stupidly torched these two churches…. There is extremely strong tension between [Muslims and] Copts in Egypt. Christianity is bullied and pushed around in a thousand ways.
A [conciliar] Declaration on the Jews may trigger persecution, with burning of churches and killing of Christians. This situation has already created tension between us and Orthodox Christians. The Orthodox are keeping their distance from Catholics and want to qualify as the best of patriots….
If the council goes forward with its Declaration on the Jews, and serious difficulties ensue, and the Copts were estranged from the Catholics, the Orthodox might bitterly reproach us for having gone on alone, for having made good progress of Christian presence in the Middle East, just short of [accusing us of] having acted in a hostile manner towards them. And who would accept responsibility for initiating a persecution against Catholics, if it were not on a matter of faith?
Then [Congar] outlined some suggestions, discussing the pros and cons of each:
Pope [Paul VI] would support the Declaration, but is trying to avoid risks by deleting the word “deicide” and the section on antisemitism.
Bishop Willenbrands formally proposed another solution – cancel the Declaration altogether.
As one inside St. Peter’s in the 3rd and 4th sessions, I recall this sense of fear among many of the Council fathers, including the great Patriarch Maximos. I am also glad that Nostra Aetate came out.
As a human being, I am deeply saddened by this gross violation of one of the oldest international laws of history: don’t kill the messenger.
I concur that Guv Mitt has a faster mouth than a brain, which he demonstrated repeatedly in his trip to Jerusalem in August. I also acknowledge that many of us have that problem from time to time, but no one on list serv is running for the presidency . Marty Indyck (former US Ambassador to Israel) was appalled at the Guv’s willingness to subcontract American foreign policy on the Middle East to his friend PM Bibi.
As always there are few advocates for the children. Turns out that much more than five million a year die before the age of five from lack of basic food and medicine. From today’s NY Times.
“Fewer than seven million children around the world died before their fifth birthday from disease and birth complications in 2011 — a new low — the World Health Organization, the United Nations Children’s Fund and other agencies announced Wednesday. About 12 million children that age died in 1990, and the number fell below 10 million for the first time in 2007, so the pace of saving children’s lives is accelerating, experts said. Half of all the deaths occurred in five countries: India, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Pakistan and China. The leading causes, in descending order, were pneumonia, premature birth, diarrhea, birth complications and malaria. Most of those deaths were preventable with relatively cheap interventions, the United Nations agencies said.”
Romney should be more knowledgeable of foreign policy since he knows every corner of the world he can hide his money! He’s already has international financial ties which run all the way from Switzerland to the Cayman Islands. Never mind that he’s never been involved with politics outside of the US- only his millions of dollars have. Read about the role of Mitt’s money and his Magic Mormon Underwear are playing in the polls at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2012/05/mitt-romneys-magic-mormon-underwear.html where you can see for yourself the true power of both on display in full color!
Brandt ==
There is a great deal of American commercial investment in Israel. i wonder how much of it Mitt owns if any.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/opinion/roger-cohen-chris-stevens-in-benghazi.html
Our Man in Benghazi
By Roger Cohen
. . . Whoever made the film . . . was driven by the visceral loathing of Islam that forms a significant current in post-9/11 right-wing thinking in the United States. So perhaps it is no surprise that Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential candidate, would attempt to pander to that thinking in his response to the killing of Mr. Stevens and three of his staff. He claimed the Obama administration’s first response was “to sympathize with those who waged the attacks,” called it “disgraceful,” and said “apology for America’s values is never the right course.”
Huh?
Even coming from a man who on a brief trip abroad in late July lost no opportunity to put his foot in his mouth, blundering into squabbles with the British and the Palestinians, this was heavy-handed. In fact, to use Romney’s word, it was disgraceful.
The Obama administration never expressed sympathy for the assailants. It never apologized for American values. What the Cairo embassy did, as violence brewed in the Egyptian capital and well before the Benghazi attack, was to condemn “actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others” — specifically Muslims. . . .
This September surprise has given the world cause to appreciate the cool head in the White House and worry about the hothead who aspires to replace him. Romney, in Jacques Chirac’s immortal phrase, “lost a good opportunity to keep quiet.”
His words reflected a shoot-from-the-hip, America-first approach to the world that will not fly in a time of deep interdependency. Two scarring wars have demonstrated that.
Stevens understood the interdependency. He . . . died for American values. The least Romney might have done was avoid misrepresenting them. His terrible death was a rebuke to the quest for squalid political capital and a demand for reflection on the best of America.
How does Terry Jones get to call himself a ‘Reverend”?
With all the current hype about religious freedom, when is a church not a church? Could I just start calling myself a reverend and insist that any hate speech I want to promote should be protected as a matter of religious freedom? I hear a lot of rhetoric about how government shouldn’t be defining what is and isn’t religious belief, but I think maybe it should; is there some minimum standard of what constitutes a religion and what is religious expression?
Gene, thanks for quoting that powerful commentary by Roger Cohen. Right on and well said.
Good news from Lebanon so far — even Hezbollah had a sign welcoming the Pope.
“With all the current hype about religious freedom, when is a church not a church?”
Be very careful. There are many arch-conservative protestants who do not believe that Roman Catholicism is a valid church; it is a cult. Ditto for Mormonism.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/opinion/sunday/kristof-the-foreign-relations-fumbler.html?hp
Michael Lewis, of Liar’s Poker and Moneyball fame, has an article in Vanity Fair on how Obama makes decisions, including his initial decision about becoming involved in Libya. One cool and moral man. It’s also about how his basketball playing reveals his character.
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/13488-focus-obamas-way
Grant’s post chases the WHO question. Very flaky ID of a non-producer, non-director, with a whole cat of actors who had no idea they were making an attack the Prophet film.
Add that to the WHEN question and WHERE question (date and venue of release) and we may inch closer to the big WHY question.
Claire’s post of the Congar quote shows how far back this volatility goes. If someone wants a very finely etched historical narrative of howmuch further back it goes (Brits & French setting up these animosities for their own interests), see David Fromkin, A Peace to End All Peace, and Robert Fisk, The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East.
Ed G
Gene –
Interesting article by Kristof. It’s yet another dismissal of the Republican candidate even before the election has settled things. It’s written as if Mitt already has lost. I don’t remember any presidential election in which so many journalists have publicly shown so little respect for a candidate.