Embassy Attacks

Attacks were made against U.S. property in Libya and Egypt and U.S. citizens were murdered. Instead of condemning these monstrous acts, many are condemning presidential candidate Romney for his criticism of the initial statement issued by the U.S. government, calling him wrong for saying the statement amounted to an apology to the terrorists - an apology for daring to allow U.S. citizens, engaging in their right of free speech, to make a nasty video offensive to Muslims.

I was by directed by another to an article detailing fact checkers where it was stated:

"PolitiFact asked four apology experts whether those words constituted the sort of regretful statement that qualifies as an apology."

Apology "experts"? Seriously? So because these so-called experts say a statement does not constitute an apology, that makes it a fact?

The original statement this issue is about "condemns" and "rejects" those that use their free speech to *hurt the feelings* of Muslims. Is there really a significant difference between using those words and saying "we are sorry" for hurting their feelings? I guess that depends on what the meaning of "is" is, as Clinton would say.

This statement was issued in response to violence against the embassy - allegedly as a result of someone producing a nasty video. Speech never justifies violent acts. Thus the ONLY proper statement that should have been made would have been along the lines of:

"While we do not condone those that deliberately insult others or their beliefs, we stand firm in upholding the right to free speech EVEN WHEN IT OFFENDS and we categorically condemn the violent actions of those taking part in the attacks on the embassy and wholly reject any attempt to hold the speech of others as a cause or an excuse for such acts."

In other words, the ONLY condemnation and rejection should be against those using violence. Free speech, even by those intending offense, should NEVER be condemned. Doing so implicitly grants the enemy the link between their actions and our speech, giving them license to commit more violence in response to speech in future.

And note that this entire issue is based on the fact that the MURDER of U.S. citizens was not yet known. Once that was known, any statement coming out of the U.S. government should have been far harsher and backed with action.