But sainfan, as I said, there is no context in which this phrase, "“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam”, belongs. A lovely speech, for sure. Except for the fact that it fictitiously blames the murder of Chris Stevens and others on the video, when they knew that was never the cause. But that’s another argument that everyone knows is true, but some are unwilling to admit to. It detracts from the good points of the speech when things like that are added. I suspect that these sort of mixed feelings that the administration has, is the reason why we didn’t send someone of importance to stand with the 40 other world leaders in France. However, I appreciate that they are admitting their mistake, and don’t feel that people should belabor that point forever.
“busdriver, how does one conflate calling the French president/offering intelligence support/making public statements condemning the attacks with “being blasé about the slaughter”? If that’s not hyperbole I don’t know what is. And the insinuation that the president sympathizes with the Islamic terrorists is completely ridiculous”
I think he is being rather blasé by just making speeches, and not sending a serious representative to show our solidarity. What a picture, the leaders of France, Germany, Israel, the Palestinian territories, standing arm in arm. But where were we? As I said, they admitted their error, though, so that’s a good thing. I’m glad they understand that it looks bad.
I don’t think that the president sympathizes with Islamic terrorists. However, I do not think that he understands or fully acknowledges the extent of the problem. I guess we will just have to wait for his speech. Will he blame terrorism on us? We haven’t given enough money, it’s poverty, inequity, our fault. Or is it a violent and misguided ideology? We will just have to hope and wait to see what he says.
Please, and I’m being sincere, provide a link that says the White House regrets not sending President Obama.
Yup. It was a great photo op. And yes, they admitted that it “looks bad” not to have been there for it. Can we be done talking about this now? People are dead and others are grieving. Terrorists are still on the loose and people in numerous countries, including ours, are facing an elevated level of danger.
And truly–why do you care what the president says in his next speech? Won’t you just take whatever you want out of context? BTW, here’s the rest of the Islam quote from his UN speech.
[quote]
The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.
[quote]
“Please, and I’m being sincere, provide a link that says the White House regrets not sending President Obama.”
Mr. Earnest said they regret not sending a higher level official and then took a bunch of questions about the decision making process and what the president was doing that day instead, which basically went unanswered. The spokesman doesn’t know except to say he was at home and the Secret Service was not contacted about possible security concerns. So, to be fair it could be they regret not sending Kerry or Biden, either but that’s about the end of the list. And, there is really is no “they” that sends anyone. After all he is the president so he decides, we hope.
Quote from the article that you post:
“It is fair to say we should have sent someone with a higher profile,” spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters Monday. The only noted American official in attendance was the U.S ambassador to France.
Earnest said the rally was conceived on Friday evening and did not allow enough time to pull off the security feat required for President Barack Obama to march amid the public, which attracted more than three-and-a-half million people. Earnest said it posed “significant security challenges.”
That part that you quote is editorial interpretation and NOT what was actually said by the official spokesman.
Well I wasn’t there so all I can do is trust the credible news sources and that is what they reported.
The spokesman did say that saintfan, in fact he said it a lot before conceding that the US should have been better represented. But, the Secret Service also said they were never asked and could have pulled it off if they had been. The spokesman was a little flustered, actually. And, this is a little like mistakes were made. It’s about as much of a concession as you are ever going to get from any White House, ever.
The secret service can’t even seem to pull off protecting the President in the White House these days. At this point with their recent record it hardly seems worth the risk to me.
On the credible news source issue what you can do is read the actual quote. It is fairly short and right near the beginning.
Thanks, guys. Thought I’d missed a statement from the WH saying they regret not sending President Obama, specifically.
Sorry about your team, saintfan. I was rooting for them just for you.
Well, it was a rather long press briefing, One sentence is not the whole thing, by far.
I am just an ancillary Duck and OSU really did earn it so bittersweet but not overly upset. Now if my team loses next Sunday then I will be upset, worthy opponent and all.
Here, Saintfan, you can watch the press briefing yourself:
http://www.mediaite.com/online/watch-live-white-house-press-briefing-11214/
At about 1:01, (and I am paraphrasing from memory, so watch it yourself if you want the exact quotes), Mr. Earnst says President Obama regrets not sending a higher official, then a reporter asks which higher official does President Obama think would have been appropriate, and Mr. Earnst replies that President Obama would have like to have gone himself.
" Now if my team loses next Sunday then I will be upset, worthy opponent and all."
As will I. Very unhappy.
"Yup. It was a great photo op. And yes, they admitted that it “looks bad” not to have been there for it. Can we be done talking about this now? People are dead and others are grieving. Terrorists are still on the loose and people in numerous countries, including ours, are facing an elevated level of danger.
And truly–why do you care what the president says in his next speech?"
I think it was a meaningful and symbolic gesture of unity against terrorism. To merely call it a photo op is rather degrading to the 40 world leaders who showed up.
I care what he says because I still hope that he can acknowledge the threat of Islamic terror. I could list the things that have been done and not done that make it seem obvious that he doesn’t fully understand the threat. Sending the Attorney General to a terror summit makes me wonder if he still thinks this is just a law enforcement issue. As you said, “terrorists are still on the loose and people in numerous countries, including ours, are facing an elevated level of danger”. This did not happen overnight, in a vacuum, and I am hoping to hear honesty, because as long as one is pretending the problem is something else, and that, “Al Qaeda is on the run,” then I certainly don’t feel that we are safer.
busdriver, he DID acknowledge the threat of Islamic terror–on multiple occasions related to this event, and every other time something has happened. Has he handled every incidence of terrorism perfectly? No. Did Bush? Obviously not, and 9/11 and other horrific events happened on his watch.
You may use gestures and symbols as the barometer of whether our country is safe. That’s a little hard for me to believe, but OK. I’d rather know that dangerous people are being watched and plots to hurt us are being thwarted. (Apparently we did have the Paris terrorists on a watch list.) Seeing 40 world leaders, mostly from Europe and the surrounding region, walking down a street as if they were actually among the masses does not give me a warm, fuzzy and safe feeling. It’s 40 people. It was not the heads of all of the countries that export terrorism or that violate human rights in other ways.
This is priceless.
I was curious if he made his apology on Fox - but apparently only tweeted it and I haven’t been able to find if Fox News reported his apology on air or has acknowledged his totally inaccurate information.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/terrorism-expert-apologizes-for-totally-inaccurate-comments-on-fox/
Emerson is geographically challenged. Maybe he’s thinking of Birmingham, Alabama? 
Foxnews acknowledging putting out inaccurate information? If they did that, it would take 24x7x365.
I’m a little confused now. Shouldn’t Obama’s critics be attacking him for showing weakness by apologizing to the French?