Mitt Romney in essence just apologized to the terrorists who on 9/11 killed the American Ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens. In an interview with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos, Romney used very similar language to what he, his campaign, and GOP Chair Reince Priebus have been calling an apology by the Obama Administration — the tweet and official statement by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo — sent prior to the violence that ultimately resulted in the deaths of four U.S. foreign service officials.
John Aravosis, an attorney who was a foreign policy adviser to Republican Senator Ted Stevens, and who has worked at the World Bank, and has a “masters in foreign service from Georgetown, where he studied under former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright,” and now publishes AmericaBlog, in an article today, “Mitt Romney apologizes to terrorists who killed US ambassador“ explains:
So let’s compare:
US embassy: “The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims… We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.”
Romney: ”I think people should have the common courtesy and judgment– the good judgment– not to be– not to offend other peoples’ faiths.”
Romney just said exactly the same thing that the embassy did, but Romney went one more step. He said that you should abuse the First Amendment. Remember, Republicans were upset that the embassy didn’t DEFEND the First Amendment. Romney, went one step further and accused the filmmaker of abusing it. So there are moral limits on the First Amendment, Romney says. So is Romney saying the violence was justified? Well, he’s certainly suggesting that the filmmaker doesn’t have clean hands here.
This is beyond belief. If anything, Romney’s statement is “worse” than the US embassy statement, because Romney made clear that there are moral limits to the First Amendment.
Under Romney’s definition, and Fox’s and GOP Chair Reince Priebus, Mitt Romney just apologized to the folks who killed our ambassador.
You can read the full transcript and watch the full interview on ABC’s website. Below is the relevant clip.
Friends:
We invite you to sign up for our new mailing list, and subscribe to The New Civil Rights Movement via email or RSS.
Also, please like us on Facebook, and follow us on Twitter!
{ 3 comments }
Trust me, I dislike Mitt Romeny for a lot of reasons. However, this articles really seems to be reading in between the lines.
How is this 'reading between the lines?' The two quotes — one from the US Embassy in Egypt before the attack, and one from Willard Romney. They say exactly the same thing. If the first is an "apology" then the second is too. Remember, it is Willard who insists that the first statement is an apology — not the State Dept. This is NOT reading between the lines — this is applying a consistent standard. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
The first amendment or any freedom of speech law does not give everyone carte blanche to say whatever they want in every single instance. That is why we have slander, libel and hate laws in place. Freedom of Speech is not an absolute. However 'moral' grounds is not one of those exceptions. There isn't even a definition for 'moral' grounds.
If this film, which apparently has links to a christian charity group that is virulently anti- muslim was filmed primarily as a hate film, then the first amendment does not apply under our own laws.
And yes this article is really grasping at straws and I am not a Romney supporter either. David Badash tends to grasp . This isn't the first article I have read of his AND commented on that really was just made up out of thin air.
Comments on this entry are closed.