Romney may want to argue over the word “terror” now, but that wasn’t what he did the night of the attack in Libya.
“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,” the statement read. “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.”
The assertion that the administration sympathized with attackers was derived from a statement by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo — before the compound was breached — criticizing an anti-Muslim film that “hurt the religious feelings” of others.
Got that? Romney was responding to a statement from the U.S. Embassy in Cairo – people who were trying to calm a potentially explosive situation. He wasn’t harping on terror. He didn’t call it a terrorist attack. (Not that he should have at the time) He was claiming that President Obama’s first response was to “sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”
LEAD STORY-The (UK) Observer: Former Brazilian PM Urges End to ‘Disaster’, AKA “The War On Drugs” Seriously, does ANYone ANYwhere on the political spectrum agree that this unmitigated disaster makes sense? The human toll in many of the countries in Latin America and South America has been incalculable: “After decades of overflights, interdictions, spraying and raids [...]