Are you referring to the administration's strong language condemning the attacks while simultaneously reiterating our values that we don't, as a nation, seek to denigrate other religions, whatever they may be? Wasn't this type type of respect for religion exactly the type of values that conservative presidents repeated ad nauseam during the cold war to contrast our nation with the godless Soviets? 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. On a personal note, Chris was a courageous and exemplary representative of the United States. Throughout the Libyan revolution, he selflessly served our country and the Libyan people at our mission in Benghazi. As Ambassador in Tripoli, he has supported Libya’s transition to democracy. His legacy will endure wherever human beings reach for liberty and justice. I am profoundly grateful for his service to my Administration, and deeply saddened by this loss. The brave Americans we lost represent the extraordinary service and sacrifices that our civilians make every day around the globe. As we stand united with their families, let us now redouble our own efforts to carry their work forward.” I'm not sure how you could honestly take that reading of this, unless maybe you just got your news from Romney. It's just common sense to oppose incitement for incitement's sake while condemning this violence in the strongest terms. Romney is not much of a diplomat. Shallow of though reactions like his play exactly into the hands of the people who made this video. He's revealed himself to be somewhat of a dupe.“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.
Please don't put words in my mouth and I won't accuse you of getting your talking points from the DNC. The US Government should NEVER have a position crossways of any Amendment and certainly not the first. From the OFFICIAL state department tweet: The US deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Really? That is not an acceptable position. How about this: the US deplores any intentional effort to refrain from self incrimination? As an aside, within 24 hours the the film-maker gets exposed, BY NAME, his neighborhood and town identified, and then gets hauled in for a potential parole violation. Sure. What was that you said about the soviets? _XC PS - the people who made sure that this video was seen by anyone certainly were the people who breached out embassy security. And I doubt they are Romney supporters.
The US Government should NEVER have a position crossways of any Amendment and certainly not the first. From the OFFICIAL state department tweet: The US deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Really? That is not an acceptable position. I don't need to put words in your mouth, you said it right there. Saying that the US is against intentional denigration of religion is not an acceptable message. Lets ignore the fact that these types of messages have been made by presidents since our county's inception and have even been written into the language of laws passed long ago. No, THIS is different. THIS is bad. Um, if he is unmasked in the media as the man behind this internet film that the whole world is looking for, and his parole officer is aware that he's not allowed to use a computer or internet as terms of his probation you don't think they are going to check to see if he violated them? Or the condition that he was under requirements to provide authorities with records of all his bank and business accounts, yet he made this film incognito? Or here is the real kicker: Which he clearly did, and there is no way his probation officer could possibly ignore that. No no, it's much easier to invent a Soviet style conspiracy and pretend he didn't do it to himself and make it COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE for them to ignore what look to be at least some blatant probation violations. Give me a break.Please don't put words in my mouth and I won't accuse you of getting your talking points from the DNC.
As an aside, within 24 hours the the film-maker gets exposed, BY NAME, his neighborhood and town identified, and then gets hauled in for a potential parole violation.
"The probation order authorized in June 2010 warned Nakoula against using false identities. Nakoula was told not to "use, for any purpose or in any manner, any name other than his/her true legal name or names without the prior written approval of the Probation Officer."