Romney Was Right About That Cairo Press Release

Says the administration.

Funny how some people who claim to be Republicans were so quick to attack him for it, though.

I have to say, though, that no one has talked about one of the most stupid aspects of it. What did they say again?

…continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims.

Yes, that’s exactly right. Even assuming that this was a real documentary by a real person who had problems with Muslims, and not a propaganda ploy by Al Qaeda themselves to justify the attacks, which is coming to seem the most likely scenario, that was the purpose of such a flick — “to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims.” Not to attempt to educate people about the nature of Islam or its founder, because they might present a danger to our own values and security. No. It had no purpose than to hurt other peoples’ feelings. And First Amendment or no, in these peoples’ America, no one’s feelings will ever be hurt on account of their religion.

Except Christians who think that we shouldn’t redefine the word “marriage,” and if they do think that, they’re hateful bigots. Or people whose religion requires them to wear sacred underthings. Those feelings deserve to be hurt, and hard.

These aren’t the words of a serious person. They’re the words of a bi-polar kindergarten teacher. And sadly, that seems to be representative of much of the federal government, including those at the Justice Department and in the military who still refuse to admit that the guy who shot up all the soldiers at Fort Hood did it in the name of Allah. We all know that there’s only one religion that can’t be criticized, and we all know why. It is because we are cowards, unwilling to stand up for the principles on which this nation was founded. And because that is a religion which is almost uniquely anti-western, and that also explains a lot about why the Left is in sympathy toward it, and its “feelings.”

89 thoughts on “Romney Was Right About That Cairo Press Release”

      1. Right. So you can see what is wrong with the following quote from Rand’s post: “Not to attempt to educate people about the nature of Islam or its founder, because they might present a danger to our own values and security.”

        1. Islam is incompatible with Western civilization. All Muslims in the United States should be detained and deported. Their properties should be seized, sold at fair market prices, and the proceeds given to them to finance their new lives in whatever Islamic utopia they choose.

          Ultimately, Islam must be destroyed and all memory of its existence erased.

          “American values” have become a suicide pact. It’s Us or Them. I choose us. And if that offends you, I welcome your offense.

          1. Yanno, that sounds awfully familar:

            Judaism is incompatible with Western civilization. All Jews in the United States should be detained and deported. Their properties should be seized, sold at fair market prices, and the proceeds given to them to finance their new lives in whatever Zionist utopia they choose.

            Ultimately, Judaism must be destroyed and all memory of its existence erased.

            …But for some silly reason I just can’t put my finger on where I’ve heard that before…

        2. “Not to attempt to educate people about the nature of Islam or its founder, because they might present a danger to our own values and security.”

          Let’s see, yesterday we had professors claiming that a movie maker should be jailed because he made a movie about the founder of Islam. The rational for putting the movie maker in jail? He posed a present danger to our values and security be mocking another religion.

          I think Rand wrote his sentence exactly correct.

          1. This might appeal to some of you: imagine writing a computer program that works as a parser for the English language. The goal is comprehension, not just sentence diagrams You’ll find that you have to ask yourself “what is the function of ‘own’ in Rand’s sentence? They are “our values”, so why say “our own values”? Is it some sort of belt-and-suspenders redundancy to ensure comprehension? No. Those get ruthlessly pruned over the years. The purpose is to signal “us” vs “them”.

            This stuff is holocaust-prevention 101. I actually do think it is good to worry about “a second holocaust” in Israel, as Rand bloged about yesterday, but another part of holocaust prevention is to learn to stop dividing people who do share your values into “us” and “them” based on irrelevancies like race and religion. Once again: there are lots of different kinds of Muslims, and some of them are as deeply committed to democracy, liberty, America, mom, and apple pie as you are. Stop playing into Al Queda’s hands.

          2. A good program would have a loop counter that would adjust the output based on the result. Every time M_GROVEL, M_APPEASE or M_APOLOGIZE gets run, the result would be tabulated to measure their effectiveness. I’m guessing you would use a standard long for that counter.

            And then reset it to zero just before it exceeds its limit.

          3. Bob,

            I’m personally (and I see others doing the same, so I would use “we” but that might confuse some. Again.) separating people into “Us” and “Them” based on this:

            People who want to kill us or actively support people who want to kill us are “them”. Anyone that supports America as a nation or American values as codified in the Constitution and Bill of Rights is “us”.

            99% of the handwringing is arguing over the freaking labeling details – when “them” is self-identifying.

            I don’t give a fairy fart what religion the opposition espouses -or- follows. Nor do I care if there happen to be some of “us” that nominally belong to the same religion. Nor do I care if they’re purple or have four arms.

            The term “Jihadist” fits, and would be a self-identifying label accepted proudly in many cases as well. Perfectly happy using “Crusader” if Jihadist is too viciously racist.

            The handwringing is purposeful obfuscation. Deliberately misinterpreting to portray opposition to “them” as completely blind as to -any- nuance. It’s primarily performed by the useful idiots that believe you can grovel your way to peace with people, nations, and movements based on a “strong horse” culture.

          4. Dammit, I used “us” in the definition of “them” before defining it.

            Take 47:

            Anyone that supports America as a nation andor American values as codified in the Constitution and Bill of Rights is “us”. People who want to kill us or actively support people who want to kill us are “them”.

        3. Are we talking about American Muslims? Americans were not responsible for what took place in Egypt, Libya, Yemen, or any other country where our embassies are in flames.

          It is interesting that the left, the most religiously bigoted people I have ever encountered, want to end free speech in regard to Islam. They gleefully practice their bigotry toward people who don’t fight back but even though they have the same views toward Islam wont speak them alloud because they are pussies.

          I think the left’s love affair with Islam started because because Bush was president on 9/11.

    1. So where are they? Where’s their denunciation of their barbaric co-religionists? Where’s their defense of the 1st Amendment?

      And if we DO consider them foreign we’re just following their lead. CAIR stands for “Counsel on American-Islamic Relations”, which states outright that American and Islamic are two different things.

      1. Exactly right. When I see a few thousand Muslims in Flint, MI walking the streets waving American flags and with signs condemning senseless violence by extremist Islamic nutbags, THEN I will believe in the “peaceful” Muslim.

        In the absence of their condemnation of the extremists I can only conclude that they don’t care, or are either cowards or sympathizers.

      2. Actually, Jack, there have been numerous denunciations from the Moslem community, …but our lovely mainstream press soft-pedals them, because they know those denouncers will not be there to stop the bullets when the Caliphatists storm the newsroom, and slaughter them. Add to that the money slopped into local mosques by salafist groups that also fund CAIR, and there is little incentive for a loyal moslem American to step out and do more denouncement. There is good reason for them to think the only people listening will be Caliphatists, …making a little list of false moslems to be beheaded.

    2. …because they might present a danger to our own values and security
      You seem to have a disagreement. Just curious, what are the values of patriotic Muslims in America and how do they differ from non-Muslims?

      We observe what patriotic Muslims do in other countries when people draw cartoons of Mohammad. We know how patriotic Muslims reacted in Holland when Theo van Gogh made a movie that they didn’t like. So what values do patriotic Muslims in the US have regarding expressions that disrespect their religion?

      1. I can’t speak to Muslims, but when an artist came up with “Piss Christ”; Christians in America denounced such art in the church and some picketted galleries that displayed the art. Christians did not murder members of the art gallery, nor did they storm the galleries, remove various paraphenalia, and burn whatever they took. One could claim there was a demand for censorship if you equate removing government subsidy of such art as censoring. There were no arguments by university professors to have the artist thrown in jail to avoid escalation of Christian protests and show that the US doesn’t tolerate degredation of religious values.

  1. Or as Obama said in the linked article, “In an effort to cool the situation down, it didn’t come from me, it didn’t come from Secretary Clinton. It came from people on the ground who are potentially in danger,” Obama said. “And my tendency is to cut 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.” (emphasis mine).

    Or from the comfort of their office chair safely thousands of miles away.

    1. “And my tendency is to cut 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.”

      “Besides,” continues the Head clown, “I was asleep anyways and I had important business in Las Vegas…”

    2. So Chris, since you correctly point out that Obama is all about campaigning and not about governing – are you still going to vote for him?

        1. … rather than try to question their judgment from the comfort of a campaign office.” (emphasis mine).

          Why else would you quote such an revealing phrase if not to highlight that he is busy campaigning when he should be leading? Not very presidential behavior, but I understand if your programming doesn’t allow you to see the fnords.

    3. “And my tendency is to cut 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.”

      And when I say, “cut them some slack” I mean throw them under the bus. Now if you excuse me *blows on dice* WINNAH WINNAH CHICKEN DINNAH!

    4. Yes, because no one in the US Government should be held accountable for what they say in the name of the US government.

    5. So the take away, if we are to believe it, is that our embassy people are incompetent. Wait… no, that’s not it. Obama can try to throw them under the bus, but in this case there is a problem with that. They work for him. He and the state department (Hillary) are completely responsible for what comes out of each and every embassy. They won’t stay under the bus.

      Also note how quick the press was to condemn Romney… for being too quick.

      How did they kill someone in the embassy? Where are the marines?

    6. Was Obama cutting them slack when he condemned their apology without getting all the facts or did the cutting of the slack only come the next day when Obama and the media colluded to use this against Rommey?

    7. “The Cambridge Police acted stupidly.” Now let’s see, who said that, how many first-hand facts about the situation did that person have at the time, and how far away from the scene of the action was that person? Wait, don’t give me any clues, I’ll think of his name in a minute…

      1. If the cops arrest you for breaking into your own home, you’d think they acted stupidly. That’s because arresting a man for breaking into his own home is stupid, especially after he produced ID that said he had a right to be there.

        1. He was not arrested for breaking into his own home, but for disorderly conduct. That’s what happens when you get mouthy with the cops for doing their job.

        2. Gerrib scrawls:

          “If the cops arrest you for breaking into your own home, you’d think they acted stupidly. That’s because arresting a man for breaking into his own home is stupid, especially after he produced ID that said he had a right to be there.”

          You are effing BEYOND clueless.

    8. What’s amazing about that statement is he’s throwing himself under the bus. Ok class, who is the American head of state? No, not Hillary, she would be second. Obama is the head of state. Now if he trusts Hillary, she could clear any statement to be made, but he remains head of state. He is responsible.

      His, ‘cut them some slack,’ statement is just a way to shift the responsibility off himself to someone else. HE CAN NOT DO THAT. They are not responsible. He is; for appointing them to the position.

      Jobs in the state department aren’t burger flipping. They have international consequences and those in those jobs understand that (or did before these clowns took over.)

      The best you can say about Obama is that he’s incompetent. Hillary made the decision not to have armed marines protecting American soil (which is what embassies and consulates are.) They shouldn’t just have response teams after the fact. Marines should be part of every embassy staff, always prepared to do their job. It’s one thing to claim we can’t guard thousands of miles of borders. It’s another to say we can’t defend one building or complex. In any case where we actually can’t, there should not be an embassy there.

      Embassies are a privilege we bestow on other countries. The threat of removing them should be all we need to have other countries do what they can to protect them from any perimeter breach. This means even simple graffiti is an assault not to be tolerated and reason enough to get on the phone.

      That the press isn’t aware of this incompetence and nailing Obama for it shows their bias and incompetence.

  2. I feel for the victims of this crime. There is no excuse that can ever be made for the behavior we are witness to in the Middle East. Having said that there is little new here, just another incident that follows a pattern we have seen there over and over again for longer than I have been alive. We can only accept that it will be repeated again, and that any diplomat sent there from the western world, regardless of country, is in danger. This is the cost of doing business in the Middle East. I suggest we stop doing business there. We have proven energy reserves that are far greater than those reserves in that part of the world. Simply stop doing business there. Stop propping up their governments. Stop pandering to their feelings. We do the world a great disservice by investing any time or money in the region. Let’s move on and cut our losses. We are being savaged in a foreign land because we refuse to stand up to a political movement in America that tells us we must endure any insult or injury rather than develop our own resources. We must die the death of a thousand pin pricks rather that burn coal we have, instead of shipping it across the world to be burnt elsewhere. We are to be beheaded rather than build nuclear power plants that would solve all our energy problems. We are choosing this path.

        1. Thanks Ed,
          I was sitting on an airplane waiting to go when the helicopters crashed and at the time we thought that was the begining of the Big War most people in the military were expecting. Although the circumstances were a bit different then, my concern is the same. This part of the world will always be dangerous for Westerners.

        2. I remember the Carter malaise very well. It’s the only time in my life that we had gas lines. Before that we use to fill up our VW microbus for $3 (not one gallon, but a full tank.) Before Carter gas wars were common where stations across the street from each other would lower their price by just a penny a gallon less than the other guy and people would change behavior based on that. 22 cents a gallon I remember.

          It’s the idea that attacking an embassy isn’t an act of war that is new. It was and is. That people don’t understand that is what is new. We have an unbelievably dim witted class of people these days. It’s what amazed me about Obama’s election. Obama could never have been elected in the 70s, not because he’s black, but because he didn’t come close to having the credentials of even Carter who was a businessman, governor and scientist.

  3. To a normal person, comments from various progs/libs blaming people who publish works critical of Islam for the barbarous actions of Islamic radicals seem insane. However, once you understand the mindset of those progs/libs it makes sense.

    Most progs/libs view much of humanity as animals barely capable of reasoning. It is the progs/libs self-proclaimed mission to protect them from exploitation and from themselves. They view Islamics as particularly viscous animals, hard-wired for hostile behavior against anything they perceive as ‘disrespectful’.

    Given that it’s not surprising that progs/libs harshly condemn people who publish works critical of Islam. To them it’s like someone walking into a pack of hyenas carrying raw meat and then complaining that they were attacked.

  4. Yep, the right wing blogsphere has definitely lost it. They don’t even have their time line right, just like Governor Romney got his wrong. Next thing they will be blaming President Roosevelt’s policies for World War II and Pearl Harbor.

    The earthquakes in California must be from President Reagan spinning in his grave from how his beloved Republican Party is acting…

    1. Well, somebody’s lost it, and somebody doesn’t understand what it means to be a Republican, or what American values are, but I don’t think it’s the “right wing blogosphere” (whatever that means).

      There was nothing wrong with what Romney said, and there was nothing wrong with when he said it. Your attempts at analogies are insane.

      1. Rand,

        What a laugh, you talking about Republican values when you never voted for a Republican for President. Not even Ronald Reagan. As for American Values, the post you make here on your view of them are not something Norman Rockwell would recognize.

          1. Rand,

            So are you going to vote Republican this year given how important his election is? Like I am. Or are you going to vote for some third party candidate and them complain if Governor Romney doesn’t win?

    2. Check the timeline of deleted tweets. With the most transparent President in history, you always have to check the deleted public records.

    3. And we all know that John Kerry and Obama [i]never[/i] questioned Bush’s foreign policy decisions, and never attacked him viciously and immediately for [__insert long list of attacks over every single thing that occured while he was President___]

      1. George,

        They wanted until the crisis was over, rather then when Americans were in harm’s way. That is another American tradition the radical right seems to have tossed under the bus.

  5. Ah, documentary it is not, most emphatically. Now we are finding that even those involved with shooting it were not aware of its true nature. Aspiring starlets, beware!

    1. Really. If they had just done the casting call on Fox News they wouldn’t have to lie to the actors and the production team 🙂

          1. I think he realizes his heroic Dumbocrat Party is going to lose everything in 8 weeks – to the Tea Party, horror of horrors!

  6. stop dividing people who do share your values

    I’ll stand by that, will you Bob? The point is that some do not share our values. What values? You don’t riot and kill people because they expressed 1st amendment rights. We aren’t dividing them. They are dividing themselves from us. People are often born into a religion. You don’t fault somebody for that. At some point, they are no longer a child and have to take responsibility for their actions.

    Islam teaches that all the rest of us are infidels. This is not, in any way, shape or form, consistent with American values… the melting pot which makes immigrants Americans. If your religion says god will destroy the unworthy, that’s fine. It’s not fine when you shout ‘Allah Ackbar’ or whatever while putting bullets in other Americans. If you are ‘For it’ you are not an American.

      1. Once seen, it can not become unseen. It certainly is offensive but not just to Muslims, anyone involved in the production, needs to find a new field of work.

      2. I managed to watch only a couple of minutes of the movie before shutting it off. What an utter piece of crap. The writing, acting, production values, all of it sucked ass. Well, the lighting was good. I’m glad it was free to watch on youtube, I would have been pissed if I had paid to see it.

  7. Since I know Rand won’t post this since it doesn’t conform to his bashing of the President I will.

    It appears the individual was convicted of financial fraud and is on probation. He appears to have also been involved in meth (drugs…) trafficking. He may have violated his probation in making the movie.

    I am sure the radical right is already setting up his defense fund….

    1. I haven’t been seeing any comments about how awesome this person is. All I see are people saying he has as much right to be a dick as you do.

    2. So, an Egyptian-Egyptian hires Americans with a bad script, overdubs heinous crap, gets 6000 hits on YouTube and sets off spontaneous outrageous outrage that happens to have a skilled mortar team and access to the unannounced schedule of pre-warned US diplomats on September 11.

      But the radical right are the ill-educated redneck rubes who are living in bizzaro world for -their- commentary, which can be summarized “Offensive speech is still protected, because no one has ever figured out Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?“.

      Good to know where you stand.

    3. Thomas, SO F%$&@#G WHAT!

      inflammatory movie about the prophet of Islam

      What movie about Mohamed, Piss be upon him, would not be inflammatory… especially if it stated the plain truth as found in Islamic documents?

      This is about how our state department failed. Attack someone irreverent all you want (you do realize the protest on SEPTEMBER ELEVENTH was planned and had nothing at all to do with the movie… which apparently isn’t even out yet?)

      We have not yet begun to bash this incompetent president.

      1. What movie about Mohamed, Piss be upon him, would not be inflammatory… especially if it stated the plain truth as found in Islamic documents?

        None. Because even creating an image of Mohamed is blasphemy.

        And now back to the story. Yes the State Department failed. It failed to act on intelligence. We know more from a video game thread that concerns were aired well in advance. We know now that it takes about 48 hours for Marines to respond (well, 24 hours, but first you have to get Obama away from the Vegas tables and “fundraising” to call them to action), so the ambassador could have been guarded. This is all another boring story of Muslims protesting the Great Satan if the ambassador is protected. He was not. So instead of protecting the ambassador, Democrats want to attack American citizens. Sadly, this is being lead by American academics.

        1. Because even creating an image of Mohamed is blasphemy.

          That’s funny. For Christians, the worship of Allah is blasphemy.

          1. You’re right. Christians have this notion that justice for such a crime is for God alone. They figure if God is all powerful, he can handle those that denounce him without their help. Muslims hold a different belief and thus handle the crime differently.

  8. “Bi-polar kindergarten teacher”–great metaphor. We need to send this group back to the kindergarten classroom where they belong, where they can do what they do best: making pictures using finger paints.

  9. There have been several mentions of President George W. Bush in this thread (and how the left just reacts against him, etc).

    I wish everyone could be as enlightened as President Bush was on the subject of Islam. Although electoral politics make his commentary unwanted, I think it would be great if he would weigh in regarding events in the middle east.

    1. I like his philosophy of not being an in-your-face ex-president. He would always be on TV if he responded to every act of violence like this out of the ME.

      Something tells me that when Obama is an ex-president he will still consider himself to be an expert on every subject and drone on and on from MSNBC to Letterman. Sure, some things will change when Obama is no longer president but golfing and being on TV wont be those things.

      1. I should have directed my comment directly at you Wodun. You said, roughly, “the left’s love affair with Islam started because Bush was president on 9/11.”

        When I read that, I wanted to point out to you that the left’s “love affair” is no more than acting the same way Bush acted and implored others to act. I’d say, as a liberal that Bush understands Holocaust Prevention 101 much better than most of the people here, including our host, who blogs about preventing 2nd holocaust in Israel and yet seems ok with “othering” people based on the broadest possible description of their religion. (Islam => 1 billion people, Islamist = a small minority).

        1. No, wait, that wasn’t eye-roll inducing enough.

          The reference to the 2nd holocaust is a reference to Iran building an atomic bomb, which, I readily acknowledge, is a worrisome prospect and a preventative military attack may be the best option. But if we’re trying to learn the lessons of WWII and not repeat them, note that the atomic bomb was the solution in WWII, not the problem. The problem in WWII was, primarily, nationalist aggression, but the war’s death toll climbed much higher, in both Asia and Europe, because of racial and religious intolerance. So, sure, worry about the proliferation of nukes, but also worry about the proliferation of hate.

          But that still wasn’t sufficiently eye-roll inducing.

          Since I’m a liberal, you won’t listen to me. But you should listen to your fellow right wingers. So listen to Thomas Matula. He’s not right about everything, but he’s right about the Republican party.

          1. There’s your problem right there Bob. You think we don’t listen. Not only do we listen, we actually try to make sense of what you say. That’s not always easy because your reasoning is often bizarre.

            It’s not productive to name call. Be specific. What crazy ideas?

          2. Obama might have the position that he doesn’t care if Iran has a nuke, or doesn’t care enough to use force to prevent it. He has more or less stated this but by doing so it makes all of his diplomatic efforts uneffictive because they always rely on the threat of force.

            I would respect Obama more if he came out and said we wont go to war to prevent Iran getting nukes because then he is being honest and that would also force him to use tactics that don’t rely on the threat of force. Well, assuming he would take any serious non-violent actions.

            Obama isn’t honest with his intentions and motivations and other countries know this and more and more Americans are noticing.

        2. I do think the left has a soft spot in their heart for Islam because Bush was president on 9/11. Even though Bush said numerous times we were not at war with Islam, Democrats always portrayed him as being racist toward Islam and that our problems in the Muslim world stemmed from Bush.

          The left viewed Islam at war with Bush and because they hate Bush so much, thought Islam was cool. They thought Bush was against Islam so therefore they must be for it. This led them to turn a blind eye not only to mainstream Muslim practices but also militant Islamists. Which is back fireing now because as rational people already knew, it wasn’t Bush’s policies that cause hatred and violence to errupt from Muslims in the ME.

      2. I think former President Obama will be like Al Gore. He’ll come up with some plan to part idiots from their money. Al Gore did it with Global Warming alarmism and then creating the fake commodity of carbon credits. Perhaps the Obama’s will continue their fight against obesity. They can offer Processed Food credits, which they’ll simbolically buy each year for their Superbowl party. Good progressives will then “show their patriotism” by buying more PF credits to offset their runs to Starbucks, which will gladly offer such credits in their stores to show how convenient and caring their stores are.

Comments are closed.