You know damn well POTUS does not go anywhere without pre arranging the visit with an advance secret service combing every damn thing under the sun. Same goes for SoS. There are protocols, in some cases POTUS or SoS being present in a parade like the one in Paris does more harm than goaded it also puts the host country under tremendous unnecessary pressure.
Truth be told, the French are happy they didn’t show up and they didn’t have to make any special arrangements. Abbas and Netanwho, have political reasons to attend, so does Merkel. US AG attended the so called rally? On another note, what the fuck did this rally solve or is going to solve? Netanwho need to stop killing Palestinians and the West needs to stop going to unnecessary wars in the middle east and destroy their country and stop pouring gasoline on raging fire.Today in Paris there was a huge rally in solidarity against the Islamic terrorist murders last week. World leaders joined hands and marched together, even Netanyahu and Abbas, among many others. But no Obama. No Biden. Not even Kerry.
I'm not saying Obama had to be there, but someone from the US should have been.
A tone deaf moment
Wouldn't the French citizens look a bit stronger if they were holding up pistols instead of pencils?
Isn't that what Charlie Hebdo is all about?
The whole point of holding up a pencil is that "the pen is mightier than the sword." Don't you think, perhaps, holding up a pistol would negate that message
I don't believe the pen is mightier than the sword. Not if there is nothing to back up what is written by the pen.
No I don't think holding up pistol would negate that message, I think that holding up a pistol would send a different message.
Not even in the gun-drenched USA could a hundred thousand people march around waving guns. So your "idea" is as pointless as most of what you write.
Uh-huh.
-- Modified on 1/11/2015 3:30:16 PM
Not if American citizens can't bear arms while they protest.
List of countries by number of guns per capita[edit]
Country Guns per 100
residents (2014) Rank
(2014) Notes
United States 90.0 1
Serbia 58.2 2
Yemen 54.8 3
Switzerland 45.7 4
Cyprus 36.1 5
Saudi Arabia 35 6
Iraq 34.2 7
Uruguay 31.8 8
Sweden 31.6 9
Norway 31.3 10
So I guess your solution to this "problem" of yours would be more guns? And where in the Constitution does it guarantee a right to bear arms during a public protest?
So I guess your solution to this "problem" of yours would be more guns? And where in the Constitution does it guarantee a right to bear arms during a public protest?
... if the country was drenched with guns we would see people bearing arms at public protests.
I am actually more comcerned with what we are going to do, rather that what photo op pic the POTUS missed. I do see your point though Nick.
The world needs to come together to exterminate these fkers. They ain't going away with a few hundred sorties or so. And we as a nation, and as a planet, need to finally wake up and not think that this job will ever stop.
It's a 24/7, 365 thing. This situation is so much more analogous to a bug infestation, rather than having a bear in your back yard. The bear you just shoot, problem solved. But roaches? They don't ever really go away for good or it is extremely hard to do so.
And yes, I don't think POTUS needed to be there either, but VP or sec. Def or sec. State would have been nice.
Nice to have a non troll post to respond to for a change. Lol
I don't want to get into the details here but the response needs to be not only military but political, cultural and intel-based. It would have been a nice start if a senior person from this country was there.
-- Modified on 1/11/2015 4:06:45 PM
but since that doesn't seem to be an option, I concede your point. lol
Especially if we can't access their oil fields for several years, just long enough for me to get filthy stinking rich. lol
A tone deaf mistake indeed but his problem stems from the fact that many European leaders have now made public statements linking this current situation with radical Islam. While Obama did eventually this week use the "T" word (which he hates to use), he still can't bring himself to use the "M" or "I" words in conjunction with this terrorism in France. I see more European leaders maybe waking up regarding this (case in point the French PM declared war on radical Islam). Also, more Muslim leaders are speaking out (or at least the press is finding them). Look at what Egyptian President el-Sisi said in a speech to a group of Imams, calling for their help in a religious revolution. That guy needs more body guards.
I think it's as simple as Obama hasn't yet figured out how his policy of never blaming any "M"s or "I" regarding their responsibility in working on this issue needs to be "re-spun" in order to fit into the newly found spine in parts of Europe.
-- Modified on 1/11/2015 5:00:53 PM
Folks here who are criticizing Obama for not attending the march in Paris simply do not understand the logistical nightmare it would cause, and frankly, the security hazard it would present for all the other World leaders at the event. An attack on the POTUS would rank as the highest prize target for many terrorist organizations worldwide. Moreover all the food & fuel for Airforce 1 has to be sourced and transported from the US for a variety of security and quality reasons --- Overseas Presidential trips are usually planned months in advance to accommodate all the support operations (fuel tanker aircraft, etc that must also fly to the destination to allow AF1 to refuel, cargo planes to deliver the multiple decoy presidential limousines and helicopters, etc). it is an amazing feat of planning and logistics that simply can't be pulled off on a single day's notice? Not possible, not even close. and no president - Democrat or Republican - could ever pull it off in today's world
Simply that some high-ranking member of his administration should have been there. It could have been Biden, Kerry, even Bill Clinton.
Clinton would get caught in a sex scandal with that hot chick on the far right in your pic. Lol
Ah, who am I kidding.
He is proly already fking her! 
Btw, is the dude to the right of Angela Merkel, her left, Sting? Lol
It does look kinda like him though.
Better get back on topic or they'll close this branch as well.
He is Donald Tusk, President of European Council former Prime Minister of Poland.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/pmo-confirms-france-opposed-netanyahus-attendance-at-paris-rally
He didn't even want Holder to go. They've all been dodging the "war with radical Islam" question and they don't want to associate with those that are starting to embrace it.
To say he's "dodging the war with radical Islam" is just nuts. He surged more troops into Afghanistan. He green-lighted the killing of Bin Laden. He started bombing ISIS in Iraq and Syria and got several Arab and European states to back the effort.
He's made mistakes, too. But how can you possibly ignore the above. These are facts, no opinion. When you ignore them you lose your credibility.
Otherwise you would know I am talking about dodging CALLING it the radical war with Islam.
-- Modified on 1/11/2015 9:29:17 PM
You say you can't understand my post yet you actually spent time writing a retort. How well did you think that was going to work out for you (i.e. responding to something that was incoherent)? Of course you responded to something I never said so maybe you should return to your original Plan A which was to just STFU. It was working so well for you.
If you are thinking of responding again I suggest you first Google the definition of "retort". We wouldn't want you responding to things that you do not understand.
Missed the little, tiny word "question" there, huh?
I think he was referring to now the Obama admin. refers to it, not the military action you are speaking of.
With France now stating they are at war with "radical Islam," I think it's high time for our country to do the same.
Agree?
he knows when and where to criticize his guy Obama. He was so anxious to prove me wrong, he never bothered to actually read the entire sentence which to his dismay stated quite clearly that Obama has been dodging the war with Islam question. Anyone that's read a newspaper today knows what the question is.
My first post to inicky made it quite clear that Obama and his admin do not want to use the phrase war on radical Islam. So much so that they avoid even using the words "Islam" or "Muslim" in the same interviews where that are actually forced to say the word terrorism (which they also hate of course). But as he stated, he never read it.
Thanks for providing a link, Jack. I guess I should learn that some of these guys only know what is put in front of them in complete ways that they can understand. No one should ever assume they take any self initiative to pay any attention to the world outside TER unless someone spoon feeds them a link. From now on, if I reply to inickey (and you aren't around to interpret my posts) I will make sure I first get out the 5th grade dictionary and the crayons.
-- Modified on 1/11/2015 11:56:17 PM
Not to mention the Taliban in Paki and Afghanistan. Also recently the Shabab in Africa. Actions speak louder than words. You'd think this would be true even for the incoherent. But apparently not.
is avoiding official use of this inflammatory and inaccurate phrase. As Mr. Holder clearly explained on the Sunday talk shows that you apparently snoozed through, the administration views the terrorists as perverting the theology of Islam in an attempt to justify their murderous acts. We are at war with the terrorists, NOT the religion.
Once you start talking about war on “radical Islam” – a phrase that does not appear in Islam at all- you essentially are talking about war on the religion itself. There is no “radical Islam” that teachers this kind of slaughter any more than :radical Christianity” justifies Tim McVeigh, The EU leaders characterizing the struggle in this manner have shown a poor understanding of the problem.
Conversely, no European country has close to taking actions against terrorists as has the Obama admin, as the drone strikes and CIA actions show. You should be looking at conduct, not inflammatory public statements.
That said, I agree that not sending at least the VP was a major public relations failure
indicates we are NOT at war with the religion but a small fraction of it. Only a fkin 3rd grader wouldn't be able to make that obvious distinction.
Appeasement with these fkin nuts is not working or haven't you noticed?
This leftist notion of "inflammatory language" is PC taken to an extraordinary level. That along with your "proportional response" nonsense only puts Americans in harms way.
The fact we didn't send a high ranking official coupled with the fact that we sugar coat what to call the enemy make us look like pussies and frightened of what happened in Paris.
Not leaving a residual force in Iraq was just icing on the cake to reconstitute Al Qaida and have it spawn its younger, nuttier brethren in ISIS.
There is a reason Obama is in the 30's in foreign policy approval. Look in the mirror to find someone who defends his absurd policies overseas which only makes matters worse.
-- Modified on 1/12/2015 12:21:43 AM
-- Modified on 1/12/2015 12:26:39 AM
OK, here's the complete sentence you two are failing to diagram:
"They've all been dodging the 'war with radical Islam' question and they don't want to associate with those that are starting to embrace it."
Shall we diagram the sentence together? Oh heck, let's just jump straight away to the end point in question. The DIRECT OBJECT of the first part of the sentence is QUESTION, not 'war with radical Islam'. The phrase 'war with radical Islam' is a modifier of the noun "QUESTION". I realize that 'war with radical Islam' is not your typical adjective, but that's why I put it in quotes.
Yes it was a tough sentence to diagram so maybe I was a little to hard on inicky earlier, but you mari; you should have picked up on it, especially after having seen AG Holder portray one of the main characters in Obama's drama this morning. You saw first hand how AG Holder danced AROUND the "question". Now, I must admit that your take away from the interview was quite different than mine and quite different than 90% of other people I have read and listened to throughout the day, but I would expect nothing less from you.
BTW, by the looks of things, inicky may very well end up getting this branch closed as well.
-- Modified on 1/11/2015 11:50:43 PM
Put in quotes or not, call it a "question" or not, the clear import of your sentence is that the Administration has been doing nothing (but dodge, I guess) with Islamic extremists. It isn't true. You can contort yourself into a pretzel all you want.
-- Modified on 1/12/2015 8:59:58 AM
if your post is not "incoherent," who exactly on the Board did understand it?
I don't think Strunk or White have been posting lately. I certainly understood that you were talking about the inflammatory phrase, and I think he did as well.
As to Mr. Holder, GS directly asked him -are we at war with radical Islam, and he gave the answer I mentioned in my post. Not sure that anyone outside of Fox News could have a problem understanding that.
Mari, are you really telling me, after re-reading my sentence at the center of confusion, that you do not now see the correct direct object of the verb "dodging"?
Here it is again:
"They've all been dodging the 'war with radical Islam' question and they don't want to associate with those that are starting to embrace it."
If I had instead written:
"They've all been dodging the question regarding the 'war with radical Islam' and they don't want to associate with those that are starting to embrace it (the question)."
things might have turned a different corner.
I grant that the second is more understandable but both are grammatically correct.
BTW, no one I know misunderstood AG Holder. He was quite clear. His clarity of speech is not the issue but we obviously disagree on some of the present policy.
-- Modified on 1/12/2015 7:53:23 PM
And I acknowledged that in the first post. I disagreed that they were dodging the question bc of Mr. Holder’s clear response to the direct question. You nonetheless said that I “missed it.” So I still don’t understand what I “missed.”
Think of why Mr. Holder did not answer “yes” or “no” to the question, which apparently is what you consider a dodge." If he had said “no,” then Fox News would have gone into 24/7 hysteria that “Obama says we are not at war with radical Islam.” The nuance underlying Mr. Holder’s actual words would have been lost.
So he can’t answer yes or no – he instead effectively answers “no” by explaining we are at war with the terrorists, not the religion.
To call this a “dodge” is to misunderstand the essence of statecraft in the current and indeed any century. Don't you think that is better to answer truthfully this way than say "no, we don't torture" per Mr. Bush and Chaney. They didn't "dodge the question", that's for sure. They just lied
The major confusion of "ibefuddled" was that he thought I was accusing Obama of dodging the "war", which of course is ludicrous. No amount of explanation could lead Mr. ibefuddled back to the truth. Oh well, I let my frustration show and then you came along and in your title you ostensibly agreed with him by stating the following:
Oh well, back to things that matter (assuming you're being honest now).
You may believe Holder's description of their policy. I don't. The lies that have been coming out of their mouths for years now have been extremely frustrating; both lies of words and deeds. His most recent description Sunday was actually the most forthright description this administration has ever made. I heard a description today that summarizes what I've been thinking. The mindset of President regarding the "war on terrorists" and dealing with radical Islam is exactly the same as Al Jazeera's. e.g. there's nothing wrong with Muslim extremists as long as they are not presently killing anyone and if they are then it's at least equally important (or maybe more so) to understand why. He obviously can't come out and say it. I am NOT saying Obama is a Muslim and has a prayer rug in the White House but if these are not his motives then I wish he would clearly state them. Much of it comes down to the fact that you trust him and I don't. I fully understand the whole argument and philosophy of soft power vs. hard power. If there's way more going on than he's said, then he needs to find a way to describe at least a little more of it, but all we get are lies. Lies as recently as this non-trip to France. The White House has done nothing but lie about. Yes, they eventually admitted it was a mistake to not send someone but their reason for not doing were lies. It was too much trouble given the time frame, yet Holder was ALREADY IN Paris. They didn't invite us. RIGHT, like that would stop him. They did not go because they did not want to go. These are tiny points in the scheme of global radical Islamic relations but they are just examples. I don't think Obama is some great negotiator that will eventually put things on a path to peace. I think he's a stubborn ideologue that is putting things on a path to global war. If he REALLY does have a plan then share it, at least a piece of it.
-- Modified on 1/13/2015 8:32:18 PM
When people don't have facts, they argue over words. Just not very well.
Oh, and your final point was the entire reason I posted the first article. Then the clowns arrived from the left and right and hijacked the thread. As usual.
You know damn well POTUS does not go anywhere without pre arranging the visit with an advance secret service combing every damn thing under the sun. Same goes for SoS. There are protocols, in some cases POTUS or SoS being present in a parade like the one in Paris does more harm than goaded it also puts the host country under tremendous unnecessary pressure.
Truth be told, the French are happy they didn’t show up and they didn’t have to make any special arrangements. Abbas and Netanwho, have political reasons to attend, so does Merkel.
US AG attended the so called rally?
On another note, what the fuck did this rally solve or is going to solve? Netanwho need to stop killing Palestinians and the West needs to stop going to unnecessary wars in the middle east and destroy their country and stop pouring gasoline on raging fire.
I clearly stated I didn't think Obama had to attend and that several substitutes would have been acceptable. As for security, do you really think the US needs more security than the French, Germans and all the other countries who were there?
Finally, Kerry's belated visit simply proves my point. He knows we fucked up.
And, no, the US AG did NOT attend the rally even though he was in Paris.
It's clear you should be our Chief of Protocol since you are as tone deaf as the rest of them.
Do you know what it takes to arrange POTUS visit.
You do but just decided to follow the dumb media shrill
He specifically said it DIDNT have to be Obama, and listed several high ranking officials,in his stead.
I agree while it may have been more complicated to send the POTUS, he still could of managed it much the same way Tony Blair came to U.S. in wake of 9/11.
But I thought sending Kerry, Biden, etc would have been sufficient.
Read the whole posts before you jump in and look foolish.
Why do you think he wins back-to-back SPOTY awards? Go, funny!
-- Modified on 1/12/2015 10:09:16 AM
Just this afternoon the WH spokesman said it had been a mistake not to have a higher-ranking spokesman there.
Could you be any dumber. Sadly, the answer is probably yes.
So it was the President mistake but no disgrace either.
We all know they could have sent a higher official too.
If you want to keep crying about this fine.
Also I stand by my earlier comments.
The issues in this country should be dealt with first and Europe will still call if there are future problems.
It just makes you sound more and more like a bitch!
-- Modified on 1/12/2015 11:33:27 PM
Yes, of course the article said more but the bottom line is they made a mistake. Then they tried to weasel out of it. You really need to phrase your words better because, as someone said, "It just makes you sound like more of a bitch," biggay.
So I guess you forgot my previous comments both ways.
I am only into woman period.
You are still in question Nicky.
Also I agree with the headline and it was a mistake not a disgrace.
The more you cry like a bitch it only proves my points!! Lol
-- Modified on 1/13/2015 10:28:02 AM
And miss greeting the Spurs at the White House