The Cairo Statement

For my last I have been called an evil person and an idiot by two of my cherished interlocutors. If this keeps up, I could get my feelings hurt. My chief point was to criticize this now infamous statement issued from the Cairo embassy hours before the protest began.

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions.

That my criticism was correct is confirmed by the White House's efforts to distance itself from the statement. Josh Rogin at Foreign Policy has a revealing summary of the boondoggle.

President Obama commented on the controversy in an interview to be aired Wednesday evening on 60 Minutes. "In an effort to cool the situation down, it didn't come from me, it didn't come from Secretary Clinton. It came from people on the ground who are potentially in danger," Obama said. "And my tendency is to cut folks a little bit of slack when they're in that circumstance, rather than try to question their judgment from the comfort of a campaign office."

I gather from other reports that it wasn't cleared by the Ambassador either. In the Obama White House the buck doesn't stop, it drops like a stone.

Apparently the stone carries little weight.

Cairo senior public affairs officer Larry Schwartz, who wrote the release and oversees the embassy's Twitter feed, according to a detailed account of the Tuesday's events…

After the breach [of the embassy walls], as public criticism of the statement grew, the Cairo Embassy Twitter account continued to send out tweets defending the statement, some of which were later deleted. One deleted tweet, originally posted at 12:30 a.m. Cairo Time, said, "This morning's condemnation (issued before protests began) still stands. As does condemnation of unjustified breach of the Embassy."…

The White House says that it ordered Schwartz not to release the statement, but this apparently had no effect. Where was the ambassador and why is he not in trouble? Why did Secretary Clinton's statement contain a kernel of the same apologetic language? If it's all the fault of this one Twitter-twit, how are they dealing with him?

Despite his disregard of Washington's instructions and his actions throughout the day Tuesday, Schwartz has not yet been disciplined in any way and is still the lead public affairs officer at the embassy.

What do you have to do to get fired from this operation? Of course, if they fire him, he might tell us what actually happened.

I would add this piece from Evelyn Gordon at Commentary:

Just two weeks ago, a Cairo court sentenced 76 people indicted over last September's mob attack on Israel's embassy in Cairo. The net result is that not a single person is going to jail over that attack, sending the clearest possible message that mobs can attack foreign embassies in Cairo with impunity. Yet no world leader has lodged even a pro forma protest over this decision.

This is not just an Obama Administration problem; it is a global law and order problem. Embassies are a vital part of the diplomatic system and they are sometimes the only thing that stands in the way of chaos and war. To allow murderous thugs to violate them is an existential threat to world peace. To defend that system requires courage and force, not sensitivity.

ps. It seems that the Ambassor was in Washington while all this went down.  Good thing, that. 

Comments

[Donald Pay]

How many embassy personnel died in Cairo? Zero. The statement worked. Some "boondoggle." I guess to be a rousing success in Republican world you have to have thousands of deaths, like in Iraq. You're pathetic. You're wrong. There was no apology. Why are you so anti-American and evil?

[A.I.]

There are a few other factors you might consider KB:

One: Not all speech is protected speech, as in yelling fire in a crowded theater. The exact wording of the embassy statement may not have been the best it could have been, but under the circumstances, who are you (or Mitt Romney) to quibble. It certainly was not some over-arching statement of American foreign policy as Romney, you and others are trying to portray it.

Two: What transpired is likely the result of something far more sinister and organized than people protesting a film as I doubt the typical protester came armed with RPG's. The statement may or may not have impacted those simply protesting the film. It certainly would not impact a group using the protest as cover to launch full-blown attacks on the embassy.

Three: What you post on this blog has historical context. This blog got its start leveling unrelenting attacks on Tom Daschle back in 2004. Virtually everything posted here is overtly or covertly politically motivated. But Tom Daschle knew and had the common decency not to knit pick and criticize the Bush administration when America was attacked on 9/11, 2001. He was a big enough, intelligent enough and patriotic enough person to put politics aside. Too bad that sort of statesmanship was and is lacking among a small group or craven opportunists like yourself and Mitt as our nation responds to the attack of 9/11, 2012.

Four: Maybe you just don't get it. Do you understand an attack on one of our embassies is an attack on the United States just as much as was the attack on the World Trade Center? Do you understand that now, during the immediate aftermath or the attack, is not the time for politics? Obviously not because if you did, you would show some restraint.

Five: Criticism may be warranted at a later date. However, that is not a concession you and the Right ever made regarding the Iraq war and Bush foreign policy in general. You hid behind the notion that criticism of George Bush during a time of war was anti-American and treasonous and painted Democratic criticism as such. So what the hell is it when you and Romney say the kind of crap you're saying before we even know all the facts behind these attacks? You both should be ashamed but alas, I doubt either of you has that capability.

[Bill Fleming]

Perhaps a note here that the people in the Embassies would be aware of that we may not, necessarily, is that the people in those countries don't really know of any other type of media other than Government sanctioned media.

Hence, it's entirely reasonable for them to think that anything posted by Americans in our "free press" has US Government approval, since that's the only media paradigm they have heretofore ever known.

It is therefore understandable that the US embassies would explain to them the Government's position, not as an apology, but rather as clarification, and hopefully, enlightenment.