The Rose Garden and White House happenings: the voters were listening

We're not dishwashers but we play them during campaigns.

Attacking the messenger is not a rebuttal. Could it be that people are so partisan and closed minded here, as to ignore video footage of Candy Crowley's own words contradicting her, and President Obama, during the last debate?

On Sunday, September 30 2012, CNN's Candy Crowley interviewed Senator John McCain on the September 11th Libya embassy attack, where Crowley stated:

"Friday [Sept 28th], we got the administration's sort of definitive statement that this now looks as though it was a pre-planned attack by a terrorist group, some of whom were at least sympathetic to Al Qaeda. Why do you think, and are you bothered, that it has taken them this long, from September 11th to now, to get to this conclusion?"

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e05_1350516739

And to the peanut gallery, this isn't an issue of parsing words, it's an issue of leadership and honesty. That Americans were attacked and killed by terrorists matters; the president attempted to explain away this terrorist attack by blaming it on a YouTube video. The New York Times explains further, confirming again that the Obama administration delayed calling this a terrorist attack until weeks later, in the interest of political gain:

Libya Envoy’s Killing Was a Terrorist Attack, the White House Says

By HELENE COOPER

September 20, 2012

WASHINGTON — The White House is now calling the assault on the American diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya, a “terrorist attack.”

“It is self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack,” the White House press secretary, Jay Carney, told reporters aboard Air Force One on Thursday. ” Our embassy was attacked violently and the result was four deaths of American officials.”

Until now, White House officials have not used that language in describing the assault. But with the election less than two months away and President Obama’s record on national security a campaign issue, they have come under criticism from Republican lawmakers who say the administration is playing down a threat for which it was unprepared.

Mr. Carney offered the new assessment in response to a question about remarks by Matthew G. Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, who told a Congressional committee Wednesday that J. Christopher Stevens, the United States ambassador to Libya, and three other Americans had died “in the course of a terrorist attack.”

In a highly charged political atmosphere, the mere use of the term “terrorist” is loaded, not least, as one administration official acknowledged privately, because the phrase conjures up an image of America under attack, something the White House wants to avoid.

A version of this article appeared in print on September 21, 2012, on page A8 of the New York edition with the headline:

U.S. Shifts Language On Assault In Benghazi.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/21/world/middleeast/assault-on-consulate-in-libya-a-terrorist-attack-white-house-says.html

Why should Crowley's and Cooper's statements trump the documentary evidence of Obama's September 12 speech? Other than that you want it to.

As I said above, the key word in Crowley's statement at the top is the last one. She's asking why it took so long to come to the CONCLUSION that it was a terrorist attack. That's an Intelligence (capital I) question.

I know you might not want to, but look at the president's explanation to the voter who asked the question at the last debate. He waited to call it terrorism because he wasn't sure if it was. Fair enough, but the administration said it was a movie on the what....Sept 12th? 14th? Then continued for a week or more. Guess he was sure about that, otherwise why would Rice blame the movie? And Carney. Obama only being definitive on terror on Sept 30th.

You've got to be blind, a partisan, or a blind partisan to give Obama a pass on this. Which is fine. No surprises there. Your vision would improve were it a Republican. You might even care.

Right. Because Conservatives are not blind to anything. Giving Mitt a pass on just about every position he's taken on every single topic and assuming they know which position he'll actually take when elected. Except different Republicans are certain that he will take different positions.

There are many reasons for delay when the terrorist attack takes place in a different country with a weak government that may itself contain elements with links to the terrorists. It takes time to sort out the facts. Decisions have to be made on who is a friend and who is not. These are the practicalities of leading a major power.

The Republicans' attempt to politicize the attack with lies and half-truths makes the United States seem weak and divided. In a less civilized age they would have been hanged as traitors.

"Right. Because Conservatives are not blind to anything. Giving Mitt a pass on just about every position he's taken on every single topic and assuming they know which position he'll actually take when elected."

Did you miss the primary, where conservatives voted against him (via Santorum) and eventually have fallen in line behind Romney knowing he is a deeply flawed, flip-flopping and basically weak candidate??? Do you even know any conservatives you can ask? Just because they're going to vote for him doesn't mean they don't know his faults, evasions and falsehoods.

I know plenty of real conservatives, yes. I live in a much more politically diverse area than you.

And I guess you missed all the time Liberals here have excoriated Obama for some of his policies. You have this impression of Liberals that is far removed from reality. You think all liberals are OWS, communist, eco-terrorists. You're no different from ktc, who thinks all Conservatives hate the poor, love the rich, and are deluded, racists who constantly vote against their own financial interests except the rich, of course).

"You think all liberals are OWS, communist, eco-terrorists. You're no different from ktc, who thinks all Conservatives hate the poor, love the rich, and are deluded, racists who constantly vote against their own financial interests except the rich, of course)."

Really? We've been here before, rastro. You know all about what I think, huh? What am I thinking now?


You're as stereotypical as what you accuse ktc of being.

So how long did a republican controlled government have to get Bin Laden?

They didn't get him? Then STFU on defense!

And MJH, you can take out the sore and you will be more accurate.

I'm not going to waste my time reading through this thread where I assume people (let me guess without even looking: JLD?) are trying to replace reality with what they really really want reality to be... but this is what Obama said in the Rose garden Sept 12th:

"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."

ridski said:

drummerboy said:

glock23 said:

Just like giving the Queen of England an I-pod or the wrong formatted DVD's to Gordon Brown. Oh can't forget the plastic Marine One Helicopter to Browns children.

I will be offering a free analogy workshop to the analogy impaired.

Can you start by letting glock know that HRH Elizabeth II is Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as well as Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda and Saint Kitts and Nevis. "Queen of England" is not inaccurate, but not truly accurate at the same time.

What have you got against Canada, Australia and New Zealand?

eliz said:

ridski said:

drummerboy said:

glock23 said:

Just like giving the Queen of England an I-pod or the wrong formatted DVD's to Gordon Brown. Oh can't forget the plastic Marine One Helicopter to Browns children.

I will be offering a free analogy workshop to the analogy impaired.

Can you start by letting glock know that HRH Elizabeth II is Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as well as Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda and Saint Kitts and Nevis. "Queen of England" is not inaccurate, but not truly accurate at the same time.

What have you got against Canada, Australia and New Zealand?

I ran out of memory.

In the very same video Romney talks about the 47% he also talks about hoping for and taking advantage of an Iranian hostage type of situation. He really is quite the dirtbag.

cjc said:

"You think all liberals are OWS, communist, eco-terrorists. You're no different from ktc, who thinks all Conservatives hate the poor, love the rich, and are deluded, racists who constantly vote against their own financial interests except the rich, of course)."

Really? We've been here before, rastro. You know all about what I think, huh? What am I thinking now?


You're as stereotypical as what you accuse ktc of being.

So I can't read your mind, but you can read mine. OK. Got it Mr. Geller.

You have no idea at all what I think, who I support, or why. But I disagree with your assessment of others, so you think you know.

I go by what you say here. What do you base your judgements on, since it certainly isn't what I post.

rastro said:

I know plenty of real conservatives, yes. I live in a much more politically diverse area than you.

And I guess you missed all the time Liberals here have excoriated Obama for some of his policies. You have this impression of Liberals that is far removed from reality. You think all liberals are OWS, communist, eco-terrorists. You're no different from ktc, who thinks all Conservatives hate the poor, love the rich, and are deluded, racists who constantly vote against their own financial interests except the rich, of course).

Not Conservatives. Republicans. Although I kind of feel bad for Conservatives because most of them haven't yet accepted that the Republicans have left them.

"So I can't read your mind, but you can read mine. OK. Got it Mr. Geller."

I didn't do any mind reading, and never said I could read yours. Go back to your cliched, 'diverse' world and the 'real conservatives' you think you know. Just because I live here I'm not exposed to diverse political opinion? What a stupid thing to say. Another informed cliche you're operating on there I guess.

cjc said:

"So I can't read your mind, but you can read mine. OK. Got it Mr. Geller."

I didn't do any mind reading, and never said I could read yours. Go back to your cliched, 'diverse' world and the 'real conservatives' you think you know. Just because I live here I'm not exposed to diverse political opinion? What a stupid thing to say. Another informed cliche you're operating on there I guess.

You called my stereotypical. Given what I've posted here, what am I stereotypical of?

Sounds like you think you can read my mind.

As I said, I based my comments on what you put out on this board. You can't honestly say the same.

And I never said that you're not exposed to diverse political thought. That would be a stupid thing to say. Good thing I didn't.

But the Cons that I know down here don't live in a reactionary mode where they have to be as extreme as the most extreme liberal they interact with. That seems to be your M.O. It's ok. I know it must be tough as a political minority, with all those mean liberals making fun of your position. One you know is superior to theirs.

It must be frustrating to know your vote means nothing (for now) on the national stage.

johnlockedema said:

Face it, he spoke about terror attacks in the Rose Garden speech in general terms, not about Benghazi. .

In the NEXT sentence he talks about the four Americans lost in Benghazi. He is talking about terroristic attacks in Benghazi. Obama was talking about the terroristic act in Benghazi sui generis!!! Obama would not have gone to the Rose Garden, a place from which many important announcements have been made by Presidents in the past regarding international events and concerns, and made this statement, if not for the attack. It motivated the statement, informed it and was the focus of it for J's sake!!!!

dave said:

In the very same video Romney talks about the 47% he also talks about hoping for and taking advantage of an Iranian hostage type of situation. He really is quite the dirtbag.

Quite

cjc said:

You've got to be blind, a partisan, or a blind partisan to give Obama a pass on this. Which is fine. No surprises there. Your vision would improve were it a Republican. You might even care.

I think their mistake was trying to give an explanation too soon.

That said, I don't understand the conservative position that he absolutely must mention terrorism the next day. Then when it's pointed out that he had mentioned terrorism, you guys insist he was alluding to something--anything--besides Benghazi.

And the notion that Obama would not have gotten the same level of attacks from the right had it turned out to be a "mob" is silly.

That's willful, surreal partisanship. (As is the fact that this event caused 20x the agita in conservatives' stomachs than the 4000+ American deaths in Iraq.)

dave said:

In the very same video Romney talks about the 47% he also talks about hoping for and taking advantage of an Iranian hostage type of situation. He really is quite the dirtbag.

The amount of cynicism in Romney's heart is bottomless.

windy said:

johnlockedema said:

Face it, he spoke about terror attacks in the Rose Garden speech in general terms, not about Benghazi. .

In the NEXT sentence he talks about the four Americans lost in Benghazi. He is talking about terroristic attacks in Benghazi. Obama was talking about the terroristic act in Benghazi sui generis!!! Obama would not have gone to the Rose Garden, a place from which many important announcements have been made by Presidents in the past regarding international events and concerns, and made this statement, if not for the attack. It motivated the statement, informed it and was the focus of it for J's sake!!!!

Why didn't the president or Jay Carney or a any member of the president's campaign immediately point to the Rose Garden comments after the controversy erupted? It took them a month to remember?

One gets the feeling that the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. Is the bubble too tight around the president? Are his advisors shielding him to the point he really can't see the forest for the trees?

mtierney said:

Why didn't the president or Jay Carney or a any member of the president's campaign immediately point to the Rose Garden comments after the controversy erupted? It took them a month to remember?

Why is this important?

Obviously, because it would have derailed the subsequent brouhaha!

mtierney said:

Obviously, because it would have derailed the subsequent brouhaha!

So it's just political.

mtierney said:

Why didn't the president or Jay Carney or a any member of the president's campaign immediately point to the Rose Garden comments after the controversy erupted? It took them a month to remember?

Cause it's been way more fun watching the Republicans tie themselves into knots over nothing.

mtierney said:

Obviously, because it would have derailed the subsequent brouhaha!

So, it's the President's fault that Romney said once, twice, thrice in the last debate that the President never called it an act of terror?

Romney doesn't have people looking at transcripts?

As Jon Stewart pointed out, as Romney was using his talking point, the President said, "Please continue" - and that should have been a clue that what Mitt thought was a great talking point, maybe wasn't so great after all.

Loved the "Please continue". Romney, the inveterate moron, walked right into it. At least he didn't finish his point with a cringe-worthy rendition of Who Let the Dogs Out.