Father of murdered US ambassador to Romney: Leave my kid alone

Shutter_Label

Rookie
Jun 27, 2012
36
17
1
Father of murdered US ambassador to Romney: Leave my kid alone

The father of slain US ambassador to Libya, Christophers, is calling for politicians to stop making the death of his son into a campaign issue.
And there’s only one campaign, and one political party, that’s been treating the murder of our ambassador as an “opportunity,” and that’s Mitt Romney and the Republicans.
First, the father:

The father of Christopher Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya who was killed in the attack in Benghazi last month, said his son’s death shouldn’t be politicized in the presidential campaign.

“It would really be abhorrent to make this into a campaign issue,” Jan Stevens, 77, said in a telephone interview from his home in Loomis, California, as he prepares for a memorial service for his son next week.

In an earlier post, I walked you through exactly how the Romney campaign, and Republicans overall, have been politicizing Stevens’ death.

Here’s the link:

Romney and the GOP need to stop politicizing the deaths in Libya

1. It was the Romney campaign that told AP that they saw the death of the US ambassador as an “opportunity.”

2. It was Mitt Romney himself who said on the infamous 47% tape that he would keep his eye out for another “opportunity” like the Iran hostage crisis, that he could milk to his electoral advantage.

3. It was Mitt Romney himself, who embarrassingly, in his best Al “I’m in charge” Haig, had the audacity to issue a statement blasting the administration in the middle of the Libya crisis, before we even knew who was killed, or how many. As you’ll recall, Romney was roundly criticized for politicizing the death of the US ambassador and others through his statement and poorly-timed press conference, and he was even criticized by Republicans.
To show you just how cavalier Romney was about the deaths, note how, purely by chance I’m sure, Romney’s backdrop for his press conference, below left, looked a lot like the White House briefing room, below right. Blue background, the flag, the podium, the dais. The setting was clearly meant to evoke the White House Briefing Room, and thus use Romney’s speech as an – let’s say it all together now – “opportunity” to make Romney look “presidential.”

4. It was Mitt Romney who was blasted yesterday by the mother of one of the victims in Libya, an American Navy SEAL, for politicizing the death of her son.

5. And then yesterday, the House Republicans, led by GOP Reps. Issa and Chaffetz, again politicized the deaths in Libya by holding a partisan hearing in order to embarrass the Obama administration, and as a result Issa and Chaffetz compromised national security by exposing the existence of a classified CIA base at the site of the attack in Benghazi, Libya, potentially putting even more lives at risk.

Then, last week we had a Republican group in Florida use a photo of Ambassador Stevens’ limp corpse in a despicable campaign ad.

Florida GOP group uses ambassador's dead body in anti-Obama ad

And now we have the father of a US ambassador, the second family member of someone killed in this tragedy, calling on the Republicans to stop treating the murder of American government officials as an “opportunity” to score political points.

Mitt Romney said he’d keep his eyes open for another “opportunity” where American lives are in danger. And he’s found it.
 
The father of slain US ambassador to Libya, Christophers, is calling for politicians to stop making the death of his son into a campaign issue.

With all due respect Sir, your son's death could've been prevented. If it were me, i would be royally pissed and demand an explanation.
 
while i can be sympathetic to how he feels (I guess, for all i know he is motivated by some desire to help obama politically by saying this - but assuming he isnt) the fact is this is a political issue and a consequence of the fact that his son chose a life in what is really - well - politics. So he can say this and people can respect him for it but he has no right to ask that debate on this be stiffled. Victims families simply dont have the right to stiffle debate on these things.
 
His son's death is not a campaign issue. The circumstances that led to his son's death and the cover up that followed are issues that concern us all, not just him.
 
Did the DNC demand Nixon's resignation because of the Watergate scandal? No. This was a simple B&E that went wrong. Did Nixon plan, assist or facilitate the break in? No. He didn't even know about it. Was this minor crime even worth the interest of the American People? No. It impacted no one. No one was hurt. It was simply a bungled burglary.

What did Nixon know, and when did he know it because the slogan of the cover up. When Nixon said "The American People have a right to know their president is not a crook" he wasn't referring to the break in. Everyone knew he had no involvement. It was at what point did he know. What did he do about it when he knew and did he actively work to conceal the crime. We have a right to know that obama is not a crook. That right to know has nothing to do with the death of the Ambassador.
 
His son's death is not a campaign issue. The circumstances that led to his son's death and the cover up that followed are issues that concern us all, not just him.

In other words, his son's death is a campaign issue to be exploited.
 
His son's death is not a campaign issue. The circumstances that led to his son's death and the cover up that followed are issues that concern us all, not just him.

In other words, his son's death is a campaign issue to be exploited.

No its a tragedy that highlights the incompetence and failure of this current presidents foreign policy. As such, it is no mere "campaign issue". Chris Stephens was an American Ambassador serving in the public eye.

It not only ought to be a campaign issue- It needs to be an issue that motivates a thorough investigation into this presidents failures that led up to it.
 
His son's death is not a campaign issue. The circumstances that led to his son's death and the cover up that followed are issues that concern us all, not just him.

In other words, his son's death is a campaign issue to be exploited.

YES!!!!

Hey Obama -- that wasnt a bump in the road. That was the grave of 4 americans who were killed because your administration ignored their pleas for security while you were appearing on The View and going to Hollywood fundraisers. Like that.
 
Father of murdered US ambassador to Romney: Leave my kid alone

The father of slain US ambassador to Libya, Christophers, is calling for politicians to stop making the death of his son into a campaign issue.
And there’s only one campaign, and one political party, that’s been treating the murder of our ambassador as an “opportunity,” and that’s Mitt Romney and the Republicans.
First, the father:

The father of Christopher Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya who was killed in the attack in Benghazi last month, said his son’s death shouldn’t be politicized in the presidential campaign.

“It would really be abhorrent to make this into a campaign issue,” Jan Stevens, 77, said in a telephone interview from his home in Loomis, California, as he prepares for a memorial service for his son next week.

In an earlier post, I walked you through exactly how the Romney campaign, and Republicans overall, have been politicizing Stevens’ death.

Here’s the link:

Romney and the GOP need to stop politicizing the deaths in Libya

1. It was the Romney campaign that told AP that they saw the death of the US ambassador as an “opportunity.”

2. It was Mitt Romney himself who said on the infamous 47% tape that he would keep his eye out for another “opportunity” like the Iran hostage crisis, that he could milk to his electoral advantage.

3. It was Mitt Romney himself, who embarrassingly, in his best Al “I’m in charge” Haig, had the audacity to issue a statement blasting the administration in the middle of the Libya crisis, before we even knew who was killed, or how many. As you’ll recall, Romney was roundly criticized for politicizing the death of the US ambassador and others through his statement and poorly-timed press conference, and he was even criticized by Republicans.
To show you just how cavalier Romney was about the deaths, note how, purely by chance I’m sure, Romney’s backdrop for his press conference, below left, looked a lot like the White House briefing room, below right. Blue background, the flag, the podium, the dais. The setting was clearly meant to evoke the White House Briefing Room, and thus use Romney’s speech as an – let’s say it all together now – “opportunity” to make Romney look “presidential.”

4. It was Mitt Romney who was blasted yesterday by the mother of one of the victims in Libya, an American Navy SEAL, for politicizing the death of her son.

5. And then yesterday, the House Republicans, led by GOP Reps. Issa and Chaffetz, again politicized the deaths in Libya by holding a partisan hearing in order to embarrass the Obama administration, and as a result Issa and Chaffetz compromised national security by exposing the existence of a classified CIA base at the site of the attack in Benghazi, Libya, potentially putting even more lives at risk.

Then, last week we had a Republican group in Florida use a photo of Ambassador Stevens’ limp corpse in a despicable campaign ad.

Florida GOP group uses ambassador's dead body in anti-Obama ad

And now we have the father of a US ambassador, the second family member of someone killed in this tragedy, calling on the Republicans to stop treating the murder of American government officials as an “opportunity” to score political points.

Mitt Romney said he’d keep his eyes open for another “opportunity” where American lives are in danger. And he’s found it.

I hope Romney brings it up as if he could or would have done things differently. It's going to backfire on his nasty unlikable ass.
 
His son's death is not a campaign issue. The circumstances that led to his son's death and the cover up that followed are issues that concern us all, not just him.

In other words, his son's death is a campaign issue to be exploited.

It's ridiculous. Of course questions need to be answered but does Romney need to get his pandering and idiotic face in there not understanding that he is bringing this man even more pain?

Republicans.. Self absorbed morons.
 
While I'm very sympathetic to Mr. Stevens' grief on the loss of his son, he's mistaken. This is NOT just a campaign issue. It's about the issues of national security, foreign policy, and the future safety of our diplomats going forward. Does it suck for Obama that his failures and his dishonesty on these matters are showing right before an election?... sure. But ultimately he has only himself to blame. If he'd been competent at his job, those four Americans wouldn't be DEAD right now. And I don't use the word incompetent lightly. There were PLENTY of mistakes made which didn't have to happen:

1. An unstable country with large pockets of radical Islamists.
2. Requests for additional security were denied.
3. Multiple incidents of violence and unrest which suggested a need for more security.
4. Plenty of chatter threatening revenge for the killing of Abu Yahya al-Libi.
5. The ANNIVERSARY OF 9/11!!!

Meanwhile back at the ranch, we've got Barack Obama not even bothering to meet half of his daily security briefings. :wtf:


So... we've got the initial screw-up of the entire situation, but why dissemble about it? :eusa_eh:
Simple... because his entire Middle East strategy is UNRAVELING, and the massacre in Libya was about to put a giant spotlight on it.

Why the deception? Because if you conclude the Benghazi massacre had nothing to do with a cockamamie video no one has seen, you soon realize Obama’s favorite campaign theme — namely, that killing bin Laden decimated the terror network — is nonsense. And you realize that what happened in Benghazi on September 11 is directly traceable to Obama’s Middle East policy.

As noted above, the recent intelligence we’ve just reviewed arose in a historic context. Beginning in 2009, the Obama administration, echoing the Republican establishment, told Americans that Qaddafi had become a key ally of the United States against terrorism. Obama even substantially increased the American aid the Bush administration had begun providing to Qaddafi’s regime. The rationale for embracing the dictator was straightforward: Not only had Qaddafi abandoned his nuclear program; he was providing vital intelligence about jihadist cauldrons throughout his country. By percentage of population, more Libyans traveled to Iraq to wage terrorist war against American troops than did citizens of any other country. And in Libya, Benghazi was the epicenter of the jihad.

In 2011, however, President Obama initiated an unprovoked war against the Qaddafi regime. Though Qaddafi had taken no intervening hostile action against the United States, and though no vital American national interest would be served by Qaddafi’s removal, Obama chose to side with the Islamist rebellion against him. Why? As demonstrated in my new book, Spring Fever: The Illusion of Islamic Democracy, the president was determined to sell the “Arab Spring” fantasy of a Middle East seized by the desire for freedom rather than strangled by the ambitions of freedom-killing Islamic supremacists.

In Libya, Islamists were the backbone of the rebellion: the Muslim Brotherhood partnering, as it is wont to do, with violent jihadists — in this instance, al-Qaeda and its affiliates. Toppling Qaddafi would necessarily result in their empowerment. They’d insinuate themselves into any new government. They’d set up sharia enclaves where they were strong enough to do so. And they’d strengthen themselves by seizing chunks of Qaddafi’s arsenal of high-powered weaponry. Being incorrigibly anti-American, they’d use their new influence and power against the United States.

cont... Denying the Libya Scandal - National Review Online

As sorry as I am for Mr. Stevens, he's mistaken. This isn't just about his son's death, horrifying as it was. It's not even about punishing Obama for his incompetence and lies. It's about choosing a better path while we've still got time to do so.
 
Last edited:
Biden said that he and Obama didn't know of the requests for more security in that region. Why didn't they know? Who's fault is that? Could one of the problems be that Obama has lost control, or just lack of interest?

According to a recent study by the Government Accountability Institute, Mr. Obama has only attended 43.8 percent of his Presidential Daily Briefs in the first 1,225 days of his Administration.

Exclusive: No Record of Intel Briefings for Obama Week Before Embassy Attacks | The TexasFred Blog

The president needs to be held accountable for his lack of interest as POTUS. just sayin....
 
Biden said that he and Obama didn't know of the requests for more security in that region. Why didn't they know? Who's fault is that? Could one of the problems be that Obama has lost control, or just lack of interest?

According to a recent study by the Government Accountability Institute, Mr. Obama has only attended 43.8 percent of his Presidential Daily Briefs in the first 1,225 days of his Administration.

Exclusive: No Record of Intel Briefings for Obama Week Before Embassy Attacks | The TexasFred Blog

The president needs to be held accountable for his lack of interest as POTUS. just sayin....

Exactly. The week before the anniversary of 9/11, and this guy is skipping the daily briefing. Unbelievable. :eek:
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top