Mitt Romney goes off the deep end with new defense of his embassy attack
by Jed Lewison
In an interview with George Stephanopoulos aired on ABC's Good Morning America, Mitt Romney offered a new explanation for why he accused President Obama of sympathizing of with the people who attacked and killed American diplomats in Libya—and as you'll see, Romney's new explanation is nothing short of insane.
Stephanopoulos started the interview by asking Romney to respond to President Obama's statement that Romney had a tendency to shoot first and aim later.
MITT ROMNEY: Well, early on, with the developments in Egypt, the embassy there put out a statement which stayed up on their website for, I think, 14-15 hours.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: But before the protestors had breached the wall.
MITT ROMNEY: Well, it first went up before they breached the wall. But it stayed up. And they reiterated the statement after they breached the wall, even after some of the tragedy in Libya, the statement stayed up. And I thought the statement was inappropriate and pointed that out.
But when Romney released his statement, that's not what he said. Instead, he said that the Obama administration's "first response" to the assault on the consulate in Benghazi was to "sympathize with those who waged the attack." But as he now admits, the embassy statement was released before the attacks. It simply could not possibly have expressed sympathy with attackers who had not yet attacked.
Faced with the incontrovertible falsehood of his attack, Romney tried a new defense:
And of course, the White House also thought it was inappropriate.
Wait, what? Now Romney thinks the White House supported his criticism of the statement? Surely, he can't be serious. Yes, the White House said the embassy's statement did not reflect official administration policy, because it didn't, but they never condemned the statement as being an expression of sympathy with America's enemies.
Yet Romney was serious:
I made the statement- my point at the same time, I think, the White House did. So I think we said about the same thing there. I just thought the statement was wrong.
That's as insane as it is inaccurate. The White House never said the statement sympathized with the killers—because it didn't. Instead, the White House said the statement wasn't official White House policy—because it wasn't. Yet Romney says "I think we said about the same thing there."
"The same thing?" Is he fucking nuts? Remember, these were his words on Tuesday night:
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.
That's basically an accusation of treason, and I can assure you, the White House never said anything of the sort. But now Romney is claiming that he and the White House said "about the same thing" and that they'd said it "at the same time" that he did.
That's not true, but if it were true, then what was the point of Romney's statement? It's absolutely baffling. His argument basically comes down to this:
I was right to accuse the president of sympathizing with the people who killed Americans because before the killings the U.S. Embassy in Egypt released a statement that stayed online after the killings. And the proof that I was right is that the president said basically the same thing that I did at the same time that I said it.
Seriously, this is insane. Romney is saying that he has no regrets about accusing the president of sympathizing with America's attackers because at the same time that he made the accusation, the White House was saying the same thing. Huh? Absolutely crazy. Completely unhinged. And I don't know what's worse: if Romney doesn't realize that what he's saying is mind-numbingly nuts—or if he thinks other people will be convinced by his absurd argument.
But wait: it gets worse. When George Stephanopoulous asked him what he thought of the movie that prompted the statement from the U.S. Embassy in Egypt, here's what Romney said:
I think the whole film is a terrible idea. I think him making it, promoting it showing it is disrespectful to people of other faiths. I don't think that should happen. I think people should have the common courtesy and judgment- the good judgment- not to be- not to offend other peoples' faiths. It's a very bad thing, I think, this guy's doing.
So after issuing a statement on Tuesday night slamming the embassy for rejecting the message of a bigoted movie ... Mitt Romney now does the exact same thing? In fact, he actually went beyond what the embassy said because he specifically attacked the filmmaker. The embassy's statement was a more general statement—and it recognized the "universal right to free speech."
This whole thing would be crazy enough if Romney at least disagreed with the embassy's statement. But it's clear he agrees with it. All this drama that he created was over nothing. And his completely unhinged behavior should disqualify him as a serious candidate. This week, Mitt Romney demonstrated for the world to see that he is unfit to be president. He might have been a great private equity CEO. But I don't want his finger anywhere near the nuclear button.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/14/1131716/-Mitt-Romney-goes-off-the-deep-end-with-new-defense-of-his-embassy-attack
Will anyone stop the madness? Doesn't anyone have a big hook to yank the fool off the stage?
Note:
= new reply since forum marked as read
Follow the money.
And who benefits from what?
And whom is hurt by what?
Is the ability of the cortex to bitch slap that badass ol reptile brain in about .08 seconds. you gotta keep things real simple and straight forward, so as to boost processing speed and keep that prehistoric whoopassasaur on te road, and not pitchin you into the trees
and hedges (dave edmunds below) Once you seize upon the ability to keep in control of that little tasmainian devil while giving him his head - it gets better.
When youre the boss of that little prick, he'll never slap your wife first,
or offer to square off with an old guy with A ""MMA New Generation Offical" jacket filling up a masonry truck.
Driving fast cars demands that for a period of time, you need to be able to keep your lizard brain in control - not by being fearless, but by being in control of fear. A little
rage
can be a good thing, but that control circuit is easy to breaker out, and the collateral damage is apt to run into money..
Notice that, in this video the ol' road runner truth that greed ./ hubris go hand in hand. And the trouble really is cost of greed - see how going for an extra yard can be 'spensive.
With fearful folks - if you can keep 'em riled up, you can distract them from the important stuff, while dripping venom in theough a produce sprayer to neutralize 'em. Then send the imps arount to pull credit cards and $$$ out of wallets and put them back, along with swipes of. bank atm cards.
See the heavy burdens of rage, avarice, and stupidity land on this f'n idiot like a ton of wet cement.
2 quick questions -
Exactly who the fuck died and left you boss? 
What the fuck do you have left to cover up before the election?
Do you eat with that mouth?
the neocon chickenhawk cavalry to the Sunday talk shows to offer lame defenses of Mitt, even agreeing with him.
Considering the point of the OP, either these people or fools or they believe most Americans are fools, which would make them fools.
