Thursday, September 13, 2012
What I Should Have Said Theater
Here are the first two paragraphs of President Obama’s statement on the attack in Libya:
I strongly condemn the outrageous attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi, which took the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Right now, the American people have the families of those we lost in our thoughts and prayers. They exemplified America's commitment to freedom, justice, and partnership with nations and people around the globe, and stand in stark contrast to those who callously took their lives.
I have directed my Administration to provide all necessary resources to support the security of our personnel in Libya, and to increase security at our diplomatic posts around the globe. While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.
The first part is fine. Here is what he should have said instead of the last sentence he did use:
The United States will always stand up for freedom, especially freedom of speech for Americans. A movie is not sufficient provocation to attack a consulate and kill four people. Mitt Romney and his fellow Mormons aren’t burning down the theater for “Book of Mormon.” No one killed Bill Maher after “Religulous.” There were mild, non-violent protests over the ABC show “Good Christian Bitches.” We must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I'm pretty sure that if the President mentioned GCB and Bill Maher in an official White House statement, he'd be trashed by conservative pundits, among others.
I see nothing wrong with the statement at all. He expressed outrage and anger in a clear headed way.
Mitt Romney is the guy who put his foot in his mouth on this issue and needs to read "What I Should Have Said Theater."
You are really ok with the President building an excuse/apology into his statement about the murder of a US ambassador? How can anyone be ok with that?
How can you possibly read an apology into that statement? It says that attacking religion is no excuse for this violence. If Mitt Romney issued the exact same statement, I seriously doubt you'd be interpreting it incorrectly like this.
-Damino
Saying we reject efforts to denigrate other people's religions. No we don't. We embrace them, look at the examples I gave. Free speech is the core of our democracy. We fight to protect that. They fight to take it away. Putting that line in there makes it seem (and not just to me) like he is saying "sorry for the bad movie you didn't like but please don't kill us."
As for your last remark that's patently untrue. If Romney said it I would kill him for it. Same as I kill him for being a boring stiff. For being anti-gay marriage and for being a healthcare flip flopper and plenty more.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this because I've read and re-read the statement 10 times and don't see even a hint of an apology in there. The sentence you quoted simply means that the U.S. gov't itself does not denigrate other people's religions, which is 100% true. The gov't didn't create this movie, or Book of Mormon or Religulous and its position is to be separate from but not to attack religion of any type.
I think you're perpetuating the false GOP narrative that Obama "apologizes" for America, and are reading this statement through those lenses.
There's no reason the movie should have been mentioned at all. Especially because it was all a ruse and the attacks were planned and premeditated to coincide with the 9/11 attacks.
Couple that with the removal of Jerusalem from the DNC platform (and other things) and it seems like our new national policy towards the Muslim world is appeasement. Because we saw how well that worked for Neville Chamberlain.
If you Republicans want another war in the Middle East, go ahead and fight it. Send Newt Gingrich on the front lines and I'll happily pay for his extra, extra large helmet.
We've already lost thousands of American lives this decade in 2 wars, not to mention the collateral damage of many innocent civilians, and the financial burden of war. The last thing we need is a war with Libya, so I'm ok with showing a little restraint here.
And I don't care about the Jerusalem thing. At least Democrats support Israel with honest intentions. All those evangelicals screaming about protecting Israel are not doing so because they love Jews (which I do). They're doing it because they're delusional Jesus freaks who think the rapture is coming and want Jews in control of Palestine when Christ returns to send them to heaven (and not the Jews). So painting Democrats as anti-Israel is to me just another GOP talking point that has no basis in fact.
it is idiotic to even reference some youtube quality movie made by some nutjob. why even go there? amateur hour.
Post a Comment