Take a deep breath, jazzy, and actually read the statement and not the hyperventilation on the part of the pro-Obama media. Keep in mind the White House later distanced themselves from the same release Romney is referencing. Why all the hysteria over this rather benign statement? Politics, pure and simple.

ROMNEY: Good morning. Americans woke up this morning with -- with tragic news and felt heavy hearts as they considered that individuals who have served in our diplomatic corps were brutally murdered across the world.

This attack on American individuals and embassies is outrageous, it’s disgusting, it -- it breaks the hearts of all of us who think of these people who have served during their lives the cause of freedom and justice and honor.

We mourn their loss and join together in prayer that the spirit of the Almighty might comfort the families of those who have been so brutally slain.

Four diplomats lost their life, including the U.S. ambassador, J. Christopher Stevens, in the attack on our embassy at Benghazi, Libya. And of course with these words I extend my condolences to the grieving loved ones who have left behind, as a result of these who have lost their lives in the service of our nation.

And I know that the people across America are grateful for their service. And we mourn their sacrifice.

America will not tolerate attacks against our citizens and against our embassies. We’ll defend also our constitutional rights of speech and assembly and religion.

We have confidence in our cause in America. We respect our Constitution. We stand for the principles our Constitution protects. We encourage other nations to understand and respect the principles of our Constitution, because we recognize that these principles are the ultimate source of freedom for individuals around the world.

I also believe the administration was wrong to stand by a statement sympathizing with those who had breached our embassy in Egypt, instead of condemning their actions. It’s never too early for the United States government to condemn attacks on Americans and to defend our values.

The White House distanced itself last night from the statement, saying it wasn’t cleared by Washington. That reflects the mixed signals they’re sending to the world.

The attacks in Libya and Egypt underscore that the world remains a dangerous place and that American leadership is still sorely needed. In the face of this violence, American cannot shrink from the responsibility to lead. American leadership is necessary to ensure that events in the region don’t spin out of control. We cannot hesitate to use our influence in the region to support those who share our values and our interests.

Over the last several years, we’ve stood witness to an Arab spring that presents an opportunity for a more peaceful and prosperous, but also poses the potential for peril if the forces of extremism and violence are allowed to control the course of events. We must strive to ensure that the Arab spring does not become an Arab winter. With that, I’m happy to take any questions you may have.

Hope, God forbid you should quote the actual initial statement that has resulted in all the criticism:

"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," Romney said in a statement issued to reporters late Tuesday. "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 problem with Romney's statement, of course, is that he was either deliberately lying by claiming that the embassy statement (which he didn't identify as such) was made as a response to the attacks rather than before, or was so absymally stupid, and so desperate to make an impact, that he jumped in, foot firmly lodged in mouth, before bothering to confirm what actually happened.  And as much as most of you despise Obama, Romney's implication that he sympathizes with terrorism was despicable.   Not one single prominent Republican has backed him up in any way.   But, yeah, go ahead, it's all the media's fault, just like all other bad political news.

Then again, being aware of how dismal Romney's performance has been in general has not been your strongest point.  I occasionally checked the reaction here to the conventions.  Some of you were so busy blathering on that Obama is the unlikeable one without a "moral center" (talk about projection!), and praising that idiotic performance by Clint Eastwood -- the old white guy standing over and arguing with a completely imaginary (in every sense of that word) black man -- that not a single one of you seemed remotely aware at the time of what an unmitigated disaster both conventions were for the Republican party.   The first Republican convention in 50 years or so without any material "bounce" for the Republican candidate?  Even a Fox poll showing that there's been a 15-point swing among independents in Obama's favor?  An electoral college situation that makes it almost impossible for Romney to win unless he runs the table in every state that's in play?  And forget the national polls, which are way closer than the polls in many of those states.   It's not a coincidence that the people who've been applying "sabermetric"-type analysis to elections since 2008 and earlier all give Obama a 70+% chance of winning.

Obviously, things can change.  I'm sure you're all pinning your hopes on the debates.  Good luck, but don't hold your breath.  One of the last times I posted here, several months ago, I said you were all whistling in the dark.   It's time you turned on the light and faced reality.   Your candidate is in huge trouble, and always has been. 

But if he loses, I am quite sure that not one conservative will be willing to admit that the electorate rejected conservative ideology in any way.  As always, the loss will be blamed on the candidate, and the way he ran his campaign.  And the media, of course.  Just as was the case for Bush the father, and Dole, and McCain.  It's all entirely consistent with the right-wing culture of victimization and paranoia and blame of the "other."   Who was the Republican who said recently that the party's fundamental problem is that there just aren't as many angry white people as there used to be?   Whoever it was, he was right.     

-- Edited by DonnaL on Thursday 13th of September 2012 09:04:46 AM

 Never shoot a weapon at a friendly. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0913-tall-ships-buckshot-20120913,0,6880118.story

"The Ocean Institute's reenactment of a battle between 19th century schooners went awry when buckshot was mistakenly fired from a cannon, injuring two people off Dana Point."

It was an accident. :)

"

 Does that tired excuse apply to Romney's dismal performance in Britain as well?   As I recall, the conservative press couldn't stand him either.

In all sincerity, hope, it's not us....it's him.  

The Obama-is-Carter meme is a dog that won't hunt, despite the relentless coaxing.   (The hallelujah chorus from the choir already converted doesn't count.) 

Obama sent soldiers into harm's way to kill Osama and that mission was successful in not only killing the target, but yielding valuable intelligence.   Obama has used drone attacks effectively to decimate the top leadership of Al-Quada and that is an accomplishment that can't be denied.  So when the president says, "justice will be done" and we will pursue these killers, he has credibility.    

Mitt, on the other had, has nothing but that smirk and a growing reputation for ineptitude in the foreign policy realm.   He also jumped the gun criticizing the administration regarding the release of a Chinese dissident.....just before the dissident was released.   A success for the administration, not a "sad day."  Romney takes a trip abroad and all anyone remembers is the headline "Mitt the Twit" in British newspapers. 

This is one of those instances, like when Lehman collapsed, that you see candidates acting as they would act when confronted with stressful events as they are happening.      Four years ago, McCain announced he was suspending his campaign and would blow off a planned debate, and return to Washington to be superfluous in meetings going on.  No doubt his campaign expected Obama to follow suit.    Obama did not.  He said,  "Sen. McCain is going to run his campaign and I am going to run mine" and said he would attend debate.   As we all know, it was McCain who ended up following Obama's lead and attending the debate.   It was McCain who looked rash and flustered and "No-drama" Obama who looked steady and sure of himself.   Pivotal point in the campaign. (You can even look it up.)

This is probably also one of those pivotal points.   And Romney blew it.

And how badly he blew it can be seen in the observation busdriver made.    Nobody is talking about anything regarding whether the consulate (not embassy) in Libya should have had better security on the anniversary of 9-11 ---- the conversation is about Romney's hasty and craven political attack.  

And btw if attacks on U.S. embassies abroad were some sort of gauge, then Bush would never have been relected in 2004 given all the foreign attacks on American embassies that occurred  during his first four years.      

"and the statement came from the administration — and the embassy is the administration"

This sounds eerily like "corporations are people too"

I'm surprised that you folks are still talking about Romney.  The election is over.  You should be looking at 2016 and coming up with a more moderate candidate like Santorum.

___

Romney completely blew it by rushing out with an inaccurate and cravenly partisan statement.     He appears rash at a time when caution would have served him better and more concerned about his political ambitions than the loss of American lives.    And what is it with that smirk he's got on his face?  What is he half-smiling about?     

What does it say about this candidate that he has so little judgement to not hold off on political attacks while a crisis is underway and not even all the notifiation of next of kin has been completed?  It says to me that he has terrible advisors and doesn't have the strength or sense to ignore bad advice.      

This is "not ready for prime time" as the former aide to McCain commented.     No telling how much damage he did to his campaign by looking like an opportunistic amateur on the national stage during a crisis with international implications. 

Pathetic that when I woke up this morning, CNN and MSNBC were busy jumping to the conclusion that this was all caused by the wacky Florida pastor's "anti-Muslim" film, while simultaneously accusing Romney of playing politics.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/how-the-media-turned-obamas-foreign-policy-bungle-into-a-romney-gaffe/article/2507779#.UFE0OvmXmZQ

Interesting, the President had time to crassly politicize the event by commenting on Romney's crass politicization of the event during a 60 Minutes interview, a portion of which has been released.