In which the Publican nominee is criticized. Fixed that for ya...
Statements that the Republican presidential nominee made slamming President Obama led to a day of tumult for Romney, with leading voices in his party criticizing him and his top aides scrambling to prevent further damage.From too soft to waaay too tough. So some say.
"I think it's a terrible course for America to stand in apology for our values, that instead when our grounds are being attacked and being breached, that the first response of the United States must be outrage at the breach of the sovereignty of our nation," Romney told reporters. "An apology for America's values is never the right course."
Whotta right-wing crazy!
"Governor Romney seems to have a tendency to shoot first and aim later," Obama told CBS. "And as president, one of the things I have learned is that you can't do that. You have to make sure that statements you make are backed up by facts and that you have to think through the ramification before you make them."
That's why I use a teleprompter. Don't leave home without it!
Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in an interview that Romney demonstrated "a level of political recklessness and expediency that I think defies America's interest. I think Mitt Romney is very sad," Kerry said, adding, "There ought to be some limits to ambition and trying to exploit every opportunity.""
I know you ALL wanted to know what Big Jawn had to say.
Later in the day, former defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld tweeted: "The attacks on our embassies & diplomats are a result of perceived American weakness. Mitt Romney is right to point that out."
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) said that "Governor Romney is absolutely right, there is no justification for these deadly attacks and we should never apologize for American freedom."
But others said that regardless of the critique, the timing of it was poor. Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.), chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, said Romney was "right on the larger point," but "I probably would have waited a day or half a day."
I agree with Rummy.
Unlike Obama, Romney does not receive national security briefings, and his aides and advisers watched the news and Twitter to monitor the situations in Egypt and Libya on Tuesday.
Clearly, WaPo writers do not get Rantburg briefings, either.
Romney's initial statement, just two sentences, echoed themes of "No Apology," the candidate's 2010 book. "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," he said. "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."
At the time, aides said, they did not know that J. Christopher Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, had been killed in Benghazi.
A statement from the U.S. Embassy in Cairo -- apparently a response to outrage in Egypt over an anti-Muslim film made in California -- said: "The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims -- as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions."
And two hours later, the Ambassador was dead. A few hours after that, other embassies were stormed. But the lesson is Mitt spoke too soon?
Romney also made clear at the news conference that he believes the [Egyptian] embassy speaks for the White House
Only if it's convenient, Mitt; I thought you understood that.