The Tragic Embassy Attacks in Libya Are The Iranian Style Crisis Immoral Mitt Romney Was Hoping For
Mitt will work to take advantage of an "opportunity" of American's suffering during a crisis?Much like they exploited 9-11 for political gain - election cycles in 2004/2006/2008 all used ads that either implied or outright said if you do not vote for conservative wackos you'll all die. Romney and conservatives who are trying to turn the tragedy of the Libyan embassy deaths into their substitute for an Iranian hostage crisis are not concerned about the morbid and shameless nature of their unfounded attacks, they're smiling from ear to ear at the great timing of the deaths so they can exploit for for political gain.
This guy is a real piece of work and one has to ask, what loyalty does he have to America? How about none. His only loyalty is to himself and his bank account. What a disgusting tool.
- In the video, Romney is caught hoping for an Iran hostage type situation to help propel him into the White House. Is it any surprise that he has tried to make political hay out of the Benghazi terror attacks?
As you watch the video, notice the man (is that a British accent?) asking Romney how he can “duplicate” an Iran hostage type scenario. Instead of dismissing the question as going against American interests, Romney agrees that the strategy would be beneficial. The entire video is worth a listen but at the end, Romney says, “if something of that nature presents itself, I will work to take advantage of the opportunity.”
Transcript courtesy of kossack rovertheoctopus and Mother Jones:
Audience member: If you get the call as president, and you had hostages…Ronald Reagan was able to make a statement, even before he became, was actually sworn in—
Audience member: the hostages were released—
Romney: on the day of his inauguration, yeah.
Audience member: So my question is, really, how can you sort of duplicate that scenario?
Romney: Ohhhh. [A few chuckles in audience.] I'm gonna ask you, how do I duplicate that scenario.
Audience member: I think that had to do with the fact that the Iranians perceived Reagan would do something to really get them out. In other words [unintelligible]…and that's why I'm suggesting that something that you say over the next few months gets the Iranians to understand that their pursuit of the bomb is something that you would predict and I think that's something that could possibly resonate very well with American Republican voters.
Romney: I appreciate the idea. I can't—one of the other things that's frustrating to me is that at a typical day like this, when I do three or four events like this, the number of foreign policy questions that I get are between zero and one. And the American people are not concentrated at all on China, on Russia, Iran, Iraq. This president's failure to put in place a status forces agreement allowing 10-20,000 troops to stay in Iraq? Unthinkable! And yet, in that election, in the Jimmy Carter election, the fact that we have hostages in Iran, I mean, that was all we talked about. And we had the two helicopters crash in the desert, I mean that's—that was—that was the focus, and so him solving that made all the difference in the world. I'm afraid today if you said, "We got Iran to agree to stand down a nuclear weapon," they'd go hold on. It's really a, but…by the way, if something of that nature presents itself, I will work to find a way to take advantage of the opportunity.
Jen Rubin: The Beltway's Waldorf and Statler
The Washington Post writer's attack on Hillary Clinton over Benghazi manages to get everything wrong about feminism in less than 100 characters.That is some far fetched partisan twisted logic to exploit Benghazi to go after women's rights.
Secretary Hillary Clinton took responsibility for the situation in Benghazi on Monday, noting to the press that the “president and the vice-president wouldn't be knowledgeable about specific decisions that are made by security professionals.” There are a number of appropriate reactions this statement. One could assume it’s a bit of politicking during election season, an attempt to take the heat off the president and help his re-election bid. One could see it as a diplomatic move, aimed at quelling tensions in the Middle East. One could take it at face value. Or, one could lose her ever-loving mind and accuse Clinton of betraying feminism.
The last option was the one chosen by WaPo's Jennifer Rubin, whose writing has become synonymous with “mindless partisan bleating.”