The Continuing Adventures of Romney, the Idiot

Submitted for your approval: a group of American embassy workers in Cairo perceive that extremist Islamist elements are attacking their property as part of a protest against a film they perceive as insulting to their beliefs. What would you do? Your options:

A. Shake your fist in defiance and shout at them, “You stupid morons! You people are crazy! We will stand up against you in the name of free speech and we don’t care how offended you are!”

B.   Or you realize that, as a member of the American diplomatic corps, you possess the skills required to diffuse the situation and release a statement reiterating the American values of religious tolerance, in the hopes that the extremists will pull back and rethink their violent intentions.

The American Embassy in Cairo went for option B. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney obviously would have chosen option A, judging from his premature criticisms of a statement which he incorrectly assumed had been approved by the Obama administration.

Let us all thank God now that Mitt Romney was never a diplomat serving America’s interests abroad. Otherwise, the world would have been nuclear toast a long time ago.

The protest in Cairo and the violent uprising against the American Embassy in Libya, which resulted in the loss of four citizens, at first seemed to be coincidental that they occurred when our country was marking the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Twenty-four hours later we realized, once we had more information, that the attacks were planned. Twenty-four hours later, once Romney should have had more information, he should have back-pedaled on his criticism of the administration's reaction to the violence in Libya.

Instead he “double-downed” on his previous statement that the administration should not have apologized for America’s values. Okay, stop me if I go too fast for you, Mitt. The statement released by the Cairo Embassy did not contain the words  “We apologize,” or “We are sorry,” or “We deeply regret that you were offended by …” You maintain that we sympathized with the Muslim extremists, and by the extension of that idea they should not be held accountable. Later in the day, the Obama administration upheld the American value of religious tolerance (which presumably would include those with beliefs in Islam), and denounced the violence (so the perpetrators will be held accountable after all).

The attacks on this 9/11 anniversary, the film which inspired the attacks, and the statements from all sides have provoked outrage from all quarters. Pundits have decried Romney’s statements. Republican leaders, much to their credit, have criticized the Romney campaign for its verbal missteps. They are also most likely angry that Romney’s foot-in-mouth moment is quickly sinking the prospects of a Romney presidency.

In the spirit of our dear departed sound bites “I like to fire people” and “You didn’t build that,” let’s extend Romney’s logic and examine what he might really be saying with his criticism. He claimed the Obama administration sympathized with the Muslin protestors. Actually, the statement condemned damage to the feelings of all religious people, not just Muslims. 

So if Romney disagrees with the statement condemning religious bigotry, then does that mean he supports religious bigotry and intolerance? Of course, he didn’t say so, but we can certainly claim it was implied. Okay, I know I’m reaching a bit, but as a biased member of the liberal blog media, and as an American claiming my freedom of speech rights, then I will say this: it certainly sounds like Romney is intolerant of other people’s beliefs!

Now I am outraged.

And he wants to be President of the United States? And couldn’t you see that punch line coming from miles away?

This whole debacle reminds me of a little known fact in American history. In the summer of 1932, the Bonus Army marchers were an embarrassment to the Hoover administration.  The marchers — World War I veterans who had not seen a day’s pay in nearly three years - camped at a site dubbed “Hooverville” in the nation’s capital. They came to Washington to demand immediate payment of bonus certificates that were not due to be redeemed until 1945. Hoover ordered the marchers removed from the campsite, but the army’s overzealous commanding officer — by the name of Douglas MacArthur — pursued the marchers until many were wounded and many others arrested.

 

The media exaggerated the real events until it appeared that Hoover might be guilty of war atrocities. Upon hearing news of the Hoover administration’s handling of the marchers, the Democratic nominee for President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, told an adviser, “Well, this elects me!”

Romney may very well have just put Barack Obama back in the White House for four more years.

(Thank you for reading. Or am I just dreaming…?)