…with added spin from its pro-Obama journalists, here’s today’s statement by Romney and his answers to the on-message hacks all asking variations on the same question. Make up your own minds about what he said.
My spin – guy did good. Never apologise for free speech.
“Mitt Romney, Mr Obama’s political foe, criticised his handling of the crisis” – that’s what the BBC website offers in the first 30 paragraphs.
That plus Cameron bleating in the full knowledge that he and Hague took a decision not to come in heavy ‘on our friends in Tripoli’ after the British Ambassador was shot up in Benghazi and British war graves desecrated, again and again (unreported by the BBC).
Our reward was a refusal by Tripoli to extradite anyone for Lockerbie or PC Yvonne Fletcher.
The questions show they’re more concerned about the President’s hurt feelings than the victims. The BBC dutifully follows along. Now it’s time to make Him look strong.
“Obama vows justice….”, but no Beeboid is calling Him a cowboy, or fretting over such language, like they did when Bush was in charge.
Not on the next Big Question or Any Questions or any other BBC programme: Should that Jerry Springer opera be banned now because it deliberately abuses free speech to attack a religion? Should Serrano be arrested for “Piss Christ”? Should Mark Mardell be condemned for insulting Mormon beliefs? Should Justin Webb be condemned for insulting what he thought were Sarah Palin’s religious beliefs?
Press caught on open mic coordinating line of attack:
http://www.therightscoop.com/exclusive-open-mic-captures-press-coordinating-questions-for-romney-no-matter-who-he-calls-on-were-covered/
Romney’s message about constitutional first principles is a good one, and he’s apparently using it on his stump speeches today.
I’m sure they all do this all the time. They all mostly want to ask the same things anyway, so if only one or two get called on each time, it’s not surprising that they’d want to help each other out.
I hope we don’t get the usual radio silence on things like this from our defenders of the indefensible who are news professionals, as their insight would be useful here.
The question is: what line of attack were they coordinating? Answer: one about how wrong it is to criticize the President as opposed to an actual foreign policy question that might end up making Romney look good.
For INBBC:
“US officials suspect strike on Benghazi post ‘coordinated,’
timed for 9/11 anniversary”
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/12/us-officials-suspect-strike-on-benghazi-post-coordinated/#ixzz26HhPtase
It makes good sense. I read that the film had been posted in July, when I watched it yesterday only 13,000 hits. Not exactly viral is it?
Yeah, and take a look at this seemingly sympathetic article from the British Islamic Proselytizer Corporation (they just had to blame an Israeli didn’t they). Bastards!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19572912
PS whoever wrote this excrement has significantly changed the sympathetic tone since I first read this early on in the day. Told off by editor for being to pro-Islam perhaps?
Oh God, now that lumbering brown-noser has to get the boot in on Romney…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19579640
I thought Romney was every inch the professional and patriotic statesman, just what the West needs right now.
What opponents see as a rejection of American exceptionalism and willingness to apologise for his country, supporters portray as an ability to foster alliances with a lower profile on the world stage and greater sensitivity to other cultures, Islam in particular.
Bwahahahahaha! Which alliances have been fostered, then?
Quite. You’re unlikely to make your enemies like you by being nice to them – it’ll just increase their contempt for you.
Saw a tweet somewhere yesterday, can’t remember where: “This presidency began with an apology in Cairo, and seems will now end with an apology in Cairo”.
Mitt Romney here looks more presidental here than Obama ever has.
Mr Romney remided me of President Reagan. That’s a good thing in my opinion.
This started in Cairo when a mob stormed the US embassy.Then theytore down the stars and stripes, replacing it with a black Al Qaeda monstrosity.
What we will do with that flag tells you all you need to know about the trajectory of this thing.
More at:
http://john-moloney.blogspot.com/
Yeah, I’m no Romney fan but that was good stuff.
Although I fear it’s too late; too many Americans depend on the Federal govt for their income. Welcome to socialism.
Thanks for this, DB
Had I not seen this, I`d have thought that Romney was shroud waving and guilty of cheap opportunism…for that is what the liberal elite has been saying.
Isn`t it good to get the whole speech?…now why does the BBC give me their few cents worth each and every day?
Sinister and cynical!
I used to accept that the media’s role was necessary condensing of raw material so the public could be presented with adequate summaries of the facts to gain a fair assessment of any given news topic.
No longer.
With the current crop in charge of the edit suite I trust little that passes through their filters.
It’s ironic that it was the Graun who once created a great commercial to highlight how anything can be viewed differently depending on what angle is taken and for what duration.That was a while ago, of course.
While the BBC tells you this is a disaster for Romney, he’s now a point up on the President in the latest Rasmussen poll, 47%-46%. Romney is also currently supported by 77% or Republicans, while only 72% of Democrats have the President’s back. Then there are those 18% of racist white Democrats who currently favor Romney. He’s also up by 3% in Florida.
In other words, Republicans and the Rightosphere are rallying behind Romney, which is not the result the media was hoping for.
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton is spending just as much time condemning the film as she is the violent murders.
Oh, dear:
Obama: Egypt is not US ally, nor an enemy
President Barack Obama has said the United States does not currently consider Egypt to be an ally.
So is this an example of the President’s ability to, as Mark Mardell put it, to foster alliances with a lower profile on the world stage and greater sensitivity to other cultures, Islam in particular? Or is it more of what his predecessor Justin Webb once described as sophistry in the matter of confusing his enemies? Depends on who you think the President’s enemies are, I guess.
Yes, they really do think like that. Justin Webb won a coveted seat at the Today mic for such brilliance.
Jonathan Marcus’ analysis can basically be summed up as the President triangulating on the issue, and in that he’s partially correct. I’d have added that there’s a whole lot of scrambling going on to cover up obvious disarray and the fact that a lot of people are unhappy with the Administration spending as much time condemning the film in question as they have the violent murders and attacks on our people.
Any BBC experts going to comment on how this is evidence that the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate-in-Chief dropped the ball on the Arab Spring?