This is one of those moments that are especially conducive to manufactured outrage.[/quote]
I don’t know man.
“We condemn the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslimsâ??
US Embassy Cairo (@USEmbassyCairo) September 11, 2012”
Sure sounds like “sorry what that american said hurt your feelings.”
But maybe it is just my point of view, and a little monday morning QB’ing on my part. And I get where they are coming from in that they are trying to protect their literal ass here.
I would have prefered: “American’s believe all men are granted the right of religous freedom, to worship how they please. The views expressed in the video, however unfortuantly disrespectful, do not express the views of all Americans, nor the Government of the…” You get the picture.
But, real world, no tweeted statement would have stopped what happened. So it really is a moot point.
Incorrect. When an embassy speaking in its capacity as a diplomatic arm of the United States attempts to apologize in the way it did for an attack on US sovereignty, that is worthy of criticism.[/quote]
You are correct - the embassy apologized for the exercise of speech, not the attack, but that is still perfectly worthy of criticism. Is it not? If not, why not?
[quote]smh23 wrote:
I’m simply making the point that the embassy’s statement, issued before the attack, should not be misconstrued as “we were attacked and then we apologized for the movie.” That is not what happened.[/quote]
Right, which almost makes it worse.
They said “sorry” (or not depending on contextual point of view I guess) and were still slaughtered.
Incorrect. When an embassy speaking in its capacity as a diplomatic arm of the United States attempts to apologize in the way it did for an attack on US sovereignty, that is worthy of criticism.[/quote]
You are correct - the embassy apologized for the exercise of speech, not the attack, but that is still perfectly worthy of criticism. Is it not? If not, why not?[/quote]
First, your original statement was: “When an embassy speaking in its capacity as a diplomatic arm of the United States ATTEMPTS TO APOLOGIZE IN THE WAY IT DID FOR AN ATTACK ON US SOVEREIGNTY, that is worthy of criticism.” [EMPHASIS ADDED]
This, as you’ve just admitted, was not true. The difference may be subtle but it is extremely important, and when you or Mitt Romney or anyone characterizes the situation in such a misleading, self-serving light, it does nothing but undermine your own credibility.
Second: you may object to the statement all you’d like, but it did not, as you say, apologize for free speech. It stated the simple fact that the United States does not support vitriolic mockery. The US does, however, support the right to free speech, a claim not under assail by a single American official or statement.
This is one of those moments that are especially conducive to manufactured outrage.[/quote]
I don’t know man.
“We condemn the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslimsâ??
US Embassy Cairo (@USEmbassyCairo) September 11, 2012”
Sure sounds like “sorry what that american said hurt your feelings.”
But maybe it is just my point of view, and a little monday morning QB’ing on my part. And I get where they are coming from in that they are trying to protect their literal ass here.
I would have prefered: “American’s believe all men are granted the right of religous freedom, to worship how they please. The views expressed in the video, however unfortuantly disrespectful, do not express the views of all Americans, nor the Government of the…” You get the picture.
But, real world, no tweeted statement would have stopped what happened. So it really is a moot point. [/quote]
I see where you’re coming from. Perhaps it could have been worded differently, and I actually prefer the wording you provided there as an example. i just don’t think this is the issue that the campaigns will make it–the embassy, as you said, was covering its ass. And while it didn’t make the outright appeal to principles of freedom that you did (and that would have been nice to see), it did not exactly profane the Bill of Rights. It was what it was–and at the time, it was very little, because no one could have predicted the tragedy that came after.
No American–not Obama, not anyone–thinks or would intentionally imply that anything like this was justified, or that an apology is in order.
Stating that the US does not support mockery and denigration is not an apology, it is a statement of fact. It was made trivial by the violence that came after, but in itself it was rather uncontroversial and any attempt to characterize it differently is the political equivalent of an opportunistic infection.
If it wasn’t apologetic pleading, then what was the point of the statement? What was it supposed to accomplish? Remind Islamists about their dedication to free speech? The next Joe Schmoe who makes a youtube video insulting some aspect of Islam…don’t even bother. I can’t believe we tried to remind them it was act of free speech. They already knew. That’s what pissed them off! If they don’t have the offenders in front of them, they’re going to kill whoever is closest. Don’t grovel, get reinforcements!
2012 and we don’t even understand these folks yet? Remind them of free speech, as if to soothe their fury, when it’s the very thing which pisses them off? You’re not talking to some western minded male, at first pissed off to the point of a clenched fist. Then, begrudgingly, relaxing it when reminded that as Americans/Westerners we believe everyone has a right to voice their opinion. Opinions on politics, and yes, on religion. We can make an appeal to that person’s sense of citizenry, shaped by what we believe in. To those people, the same principle, found in the appeal we made to them, is the very reason people have to die. Don’t bother ever again, just send in Marines, pronto.
First, your original statement was: “When an embassy speaking in its capacity as a diplomatic arm of the United States ATTEMPTS TO APOLOGIZE IN THE WAY IT DID FOR AN ATTACK ON US SOVEREIGNTY, that is worthy of criticism.” [EMPHASIS ADDED]
This, as you’ve just admitted, was not true. The difference may be subtle but it is extremely important, and when you or Mitt Romney or anyone characterizes the situation in such a misleading, self-serving light, it does nothing but undermine your own credibility.[/quote]
I acknowledged that the embassy apologized for the flag-waving, not the attack itself - why are you still having a tantrum over it? And I wouldn’t about my “credibility” so much, just FYI, but thanks anyway.
No, it is an apology for free speech - and you’ve made the point yourself.
You said the embassy was stating that the US did not support “vitrolic mockery”. The act in question - the waving of a flag - is the act of “vitrolic mockery”, i.e., the exercise of free speech and the “vitriolic mockery” are one and the same.
The embassy apologized for it. No, not the principle of speech, as you are trying to cavil, but the “abuse” of it in this context, and not a word about the “abusive:” tearing down of the flag. The embassy wants to report that the flag waving was, in its mind, an illegitimate use of speech. It’s absurd, and worse, it’s bad diplomacy.
No, it is an apology for free speech - and you’ve made the point yourself.
[/quote]
Bullshit. “We don’t agree with what this man says” is not anything close to “We’re sorry that one of the founding principles of our government guarantees him the right to say it.”
Romney desperately needs to take an introduction to International Relations course, especially before he criticizes anyone on a subject he apparently knows little about. EVERYONE knew this in my undergrad IR classes. And you want this man to be our Chief Diplomat?
[quote]Legionary wrote:
Romney desperately needs to take an introduction to International Relations course, especially before he criticizes anyone on a subject he apparently knows little about. EVERYONE knew this in my undergrad IR classes. And you want this man to be our Chief Diplomat?
“This means that Romney either had no idea what the capital of Libya was when he said it was Benghazi (it’s Tripoli, obviously), or he had no idea what the difference was between “embassies” and “consulates,” which is so basic Diplomacy 101 that it’s frightening that Mitt Romney wants to be commander in chief in four months and had no idea about the difference.”
No, really, attention to detail in something as sensitive as diplomacy is not an insignificant matter. I would think that we would want a potential Chief Diplomat to demonstrate that he possesses even an elementary understanding of, um… Diplomacy. Clearly he is no subject matter expert in this regard. Whats worse is that he is trying to politically capitalize on the deaths of men who were actually in the service of this country. He should have taken the respectful and solemn lead of the archetypical Republican, Ronald Reagan.
[quote]Legionary wrote:
No, really, attention to detail in something as sensitive as diplomacy is not an insignificant matter. I would think that we would want a potential Chief Diplomat to demonstrate that he possesses even an elementary in, um… Diplomacy. Clearly he is no subject matter expert in this regard. Whats worse is that he is trying to politically capitalize on the deaths of men who were actually in the service of this country. He should have taken the respectful and solemn lead of the archetypical Republican, Ronald Reagan.