LOL! WSJ: Yeah, Mitt's statement was bullshit, but give him a break!!!

[ProSense]

Wall Street Journal Defends Romney Against ‘Pundit Class’

The Wall Street Journal editorial board defended Mitt Romney against the "pundit class" who condemned the Republican nominee's response to the attacks on the U.S. embassy in Cairo and consulate in Libya Tuesday. While many commentators and politicians on both sides of the aisle felt Romney's statement, which attacked President Obama's response to the crisis, showed bad judgment, the Wall Street Journal editors disagreed.

The Journal acknowledges that Mitt Romney's initial statement is flawed because it cites a statement from the U.S. embassy in Cairo from before the protests began as a "first response" to the protests. But the editors didn't see this is as a big deal.

Whatever the timing of the Cairo Embassy's statements, Mr. Romney is right that a U.S. Embassy ought to ignore YouTube videos produced by obscure cranks. As Tuesday's events showed, pandering to Islamists who would use the video to inflame anti-American sentiment isn't going to stop the protests...

His political faux pax was to offend a pundit class that wants to cede the foreign policy debate to Mr. Obama without thinking seriously about the trouble for America that is building in the world.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/wall-street-journal-defends-romney-against-pundit-class

Despicable assholes!

"Romney was faced with an important leadership test last night. He failed spectacularly."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021325813

"Romney’s moment was...rash and shameful...Crass, undignified and troubling on many levels."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021327008

Mitt's smirking disaster...
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/10021326694

Consensus: Mitt Romney Made A Fool Of Himself With Libya Response
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021327702

[FSogol]

1. K & R. n/t

[nc4bo]

2. There is no excuse for that much FAIL. Zip, nada.

I suggest that Bain Capital purchase a turd polish company. Eventually all existing supplies are going to run out before November.

[spanone]

3. WSJ = rupert murdoch....unreliable source

[alcibiades_mystery]

4. Every time they are forced to defend Mitt, they seem to say that he missed a lobbed softball

His faux pas. His mistake this time. His miscalculation.

Even in the construction of some "pundit class" waiting to attack Mitt, they'd have to admit that he's simply not very good at anticipating and deflecting counterattacks, which would seem to be a fairly strong implicit argument against putting him across a table from, say, Vladimir Putin. If they guy can't fend off counterarguments from Krugman and Eugene Robinson, how's he going to deal with Putin?

So, even if we take the WSJ editorial at face value, there's a strong implicit argument about Romney's general incompetence at dealing with moments that require judgment and rhetorical skill. But that's 90% of the Presidency. The WSJ is, in effect, arguing against Mitt's qualifications for the job, even if they think they're not.

[ProSense]

9. It's the new talking point

First, this is a great point about the WSJ message.

"...If they guy can't fend off counterarguments from Krugman and Eugene Robinson, how's he going to deal with Putin?

So, even if we take the WSJ editorial at face value, there's a strong implicit argument about Romney's general incompetence at dealing with moments that require judgment and rhetorical skill. But that's 90% of the Presidency. The WSJ is, in effect, arguing against Mitt's qualifications for the job, even if they think they're not. "

These idiots are playing defense on a failed reaction that was totally unnecessary. All Mitt had to do was express condolences, which he failed to even offer in his initial statement. Why, because he jumped the gun, reacted to an unofficial statement issued prior to the deaths. It was a completely craven and opportunistic move.

Here's more defensiveness along the same lines as the WSJ.

Portman Comes To Romney’s Defense On Libya But Concedes Lack Of Awareness Of Sequence Of Events

Pema Levy

The Romney campaign continued to play defense Thursday morning for a misleading statement issued late Tuesday night about the attacks on Americans in Egypt and Libya, using already debunked talking points to claim that Mitt Romney responded appropriately to the unfolding attacks on Americans in the Middle East on Tuesday.

Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH), a top campaign surrogate, continued to muddle the facts in an appearance on “CBS This Morning” while defending Romney’s original statement, claiming that Romney’s remarks had been a response only to the statement issued by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and mixing up the actual timeline of events that occurred.

- more -

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/09/rob-portman-libya-romney-cairo-apology.php

[Heather MC]

5. This Article is incorrect the Statement made in Ciaro was not an "approved" White House Statement

They can repeat that all they want it doesn't make it true.
It's clear the writer of this Article recieved his talking points, this will be the new puh from FAUX news, LIMPBALLS and all the rest
LAME!!!

[ProSense]

6. How else is the WSJ going to mount a lame defense of Mitt's lie except to lie? n/t

[central scrutinizer]

7. speak opportunistically and be a big dick

instead of speak softly and carry a big stick

[justiceischeap]

8. Should the US also ignore growing tensions caused by said video?

I don't agree with how the Cairo embassy handled this whole thing, it's obvious they were trying to do the right thing but didn't do it so well. That said, if they had ignored the protesters outside their doors and something happened, the Neo-cons would be latching on to that as proof that the Obama administration doesn't know what it's doing.

When you're in the middle of a crisis in an area that has tenuous feelings towards the US already, burying your head in the sand isn't the answer.