Piers Morgan: Romney was right about his Olympics criticism
posted at 10:01 am on July 27, 2012 by Ed Morrissey
Were Mitt Romney’s comments about Olympic security impolitic? I think we can agree on that, as did our own Mary Katharine Ham and Charles Krauthammer did last night on Fox News. When a political candidate goes abroad, it’s usually to demonstrate that he can bolster relationships with key allies, not start kerfuffles. (The President we have is already awfully good in the latter department.) This trip wasn’t a time for Romney to put on his Olympics-consultant hat and offer constructive criticism over security arrangements; it was a moment for him to say “Hooray for our allies!” and “Go, USA!”
But was Romney wrong about Olympic security? Not according to CNN’s Piers Morgan, who wonders why Brits are annoyed at Romney for telling the truth — and saying what everyone else is about the problem:
“It’s no secret over here that for the last three weeks the security around the Olympics has been a shambles,” said Morgan. “The outside firm they got in to run it has been all over the place – they didn’t have enough people and the army had to be drafted in. So, Mitt Romney was only saying exactly what has been happening.”
“He’s run an Olympics, so I thought he was perfectly entitled to be critical,” Morgan continued. He said that the English press jumped on him because they wanted Romney to “talk us up a bit,” but the substance of Romney’s critique was on point.
“I thought it was a bit of a fuss about nothing,” said Morgan. “He was just speaking the truth which can sometimes be rather unpalatable.”
No one will remember this in November, but it did start Romney’s foreign tour off on the wrong foot.
Related Posts:
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Unexpectedly!
Washington Nearsider on May 7, 2013 at 10:44 AM
How do you like your dose of Lean Forward, Libyans? Right into the mass grave.
Good job, Preznit Smart Power.
Bishop on May 7, 2013 at 10:45 AM
Whats the difference….h clinton……
crosshugger on May 7, 2013 at 10:47 AM
“This is some rescue. When you came in here, didn’t you have a plan for getting out?” -Average Libya citizen
“He’s the brains, sweetheart!” -Hillary, pointing at Barack
Chris of Rights on May 7, 2013 at 10:49 AM
Well, this is going much better than expected, isn’t it?
hawkeye54 on May 7, 2013 at 10:49 AM
Clearly tea party… Err. LIBYAN tea party.
Gatsu on May 7, 2013 at 10:50 AM
Samantha Powers takes a bow !
Jabberwock on May 7, 2013 at 10:52 AM
One stupid step for Obama…
One giant leap for Jihad.
coldwarrior on May 7, 2013 at 10:54 AM
“Into the garbage chute, no-fly-zone-boy” – (pointing at Barack)
Difficultas_Est_Imperium on May 7, 2013 at 10:54 AM
And once again, we see why a POTUS must have Congress on board when going to war.
Had Congress given its imprimatur, they too would be on the hook for this mess, and would be under pressure to fix it. But, no. Team Liar and President Gutsy Call just had to do it on their own.
And now, the music has stopped, and they are the ones without a chair…
JohnGalt23 on May 7, 2013 at 10:57 AM
I note Ms. Power hasn’t been heard from lately.
R2P = R2FU
PattyJ on May 7, 2013 at 10:58 AM
Because Chaos is Progressive…
Lean Forward!
workingclass artist on May 7, 2013 at 10:59 AM
So this was another war for oil,right?
docflash on May 7, 2013 at 11:04 AM
Are we even sure that that wasn’t the intended consequence?
1) Allow radical muslims to come to power.
2) Be able to blame riots and attacks on a video no one’s seen
3) Get on board the muslim push for a UN treaty that outlaws blasphemy
4) Get rid of the First Amendment, along with the Second etc., which are part of a charter of negative rights anyhow.
rbj on May 7, 2013 at 11:05 AM
Legacy baby
cmsinaz on May 7, 2013 at 11:06 AM
Take heart, Libyans because this situation was brought to you by a dude who won a Nobel Peace Prize, that’s worth something, right?
Bishop on May 7, 2013 at 11:09 AM
Hmmm, looks about right.
hawkeye54 on May 7, 2013 at 11:11 AM
And dear leader went around Congress for this boondoggle didn’t he
cmsinaz on May 7, 2013 at 11:13 AM
I’m sure the Administration will see this as a simple ‘evolution’ in the ‘process of transition’. “Nothing serious, nothing to worry about. Hey! What time do you want to head to the course and do nine holes?”
Liam on May 7, 2013 at 11:13 AM
Which would be true, but this wasn’t a “War” in the traditional sense.
This was probably the worse ‘Covert Action’ ever run by a Administration…
For what?
Was Khadaffi replaced by a more open minded government?
Was any Strategic or National Intelligence gained by this move?
Are we better off now, before this boondoggle was launched?
Talk about a deficit of political capitol.
BlaxPac on May 7, 2013 at 11:13 AM
Libs care not for outcomes, but only for intentions.
Difficultas_Est_Imperium on May 7, 2013 at 11:17 AM
Arab Spring!
myiq2xu on May 7, 2013 at 11:25 AM
Apparently the resignation was withdrawn.
YiZhangZhe on May 7, 2013 at 11:33 AM
A really well done piece:
Difficultas_Est_Imperium on May 7, 2013 at 12:01 PM
What if we hadn’t intervened? Ghaddafi’s tanks would have leveled Benghazi and thousands would have died. There would have followed a period of intense repression and Ghaddafi would have ceased any cooperation with the West. There would be the probability of ongoing conflict and Islamification…another Syria, as rebels fought a diehard regime.
That’s not happening now and there is gratitude in Libya for what we did.
That being said, Obama’s intervention was at the 11th hour, reluctant and short-lived. He let the war go on too long and botched the aftermath. That’s his real legacy.
breffnian on May 7, 2013 at 12:04 PM
I actually disagree with the bolded part above. I actually think Ghaddafi would have done exactly the opposite. He would have attempted to increase his ties with the West as an act of self-preservation.
I think he would have pointed gone to the western nations and said he was fighting their enemies vis-a-vis Ansar al Sharia. He would have asked why we would want to support the rebels, backed by jihadist groups that hate us. He also probably would have said that supporting his regime would provide a bulwark against the Arab Spring spreading further and throwing the entire region into chaos… witness Syria. That once one nation stands up against this regime change, other rebel groups in other nations… Syria, Bahrain, etc… will be less emboldened to begin or continue high profile protests and outright civl war for regime change in their states. I think he probably would have acknowledged privately that he knows we don’t like him, but our choices would be his Libyan state or turning Libya into another Somalia in North Africa.
And it’s certainly looking like we are going to get the latter… Somalia Redux in Libya.
gravityman on May 7, 2013 at 12:47 PM
Al Watan, the MB party, is founded by Bel Hadj, he was the leader of the Libyan Fighting Group, he runs camps for Syrian jihadists in the desert, he brought in Bin Qumu, head of Ansar al Sharia, to train the militants during the war,
narciso on May 7, 2013 at 1:35 PM