Here ya go. The “hell giving” (if that’s hell, I’m off to the whorehouse on Sunday) starts at 4:45, though he spends more time mocking the march itself for its hypocrisy (good on him !) - mostly he lambasts Eric Holder for not having gone despite being in Paris at the time.
But we French have by and large no idea who Eric Holder is, so it’s not like we noticed or resented his absence.
Not surprisingly, your definition of “hell” differs from mine.
“This video only plays in the United States.”
The US had to send somebody. Sending the Ambassador is better than sending some other bloke, because the Ambassador of a given country represents the President, when the President can’t be there. That’s his job.
I don’t really blame you for having difficulty with the concept, foreign as it is to you and so many others on your side of the aisle, but I can and do, once every blue moon, disagree with the opinion of someone I see talking on my TV screen or listen to on my car radio.
Just pointing out that this isn’t exactly just right-wingers opportunistically going after the President. Many of you guys will defend the guy no matter what he does, or fails, to do.
Extreme right wing journalist Susan Page from the extreme right wing paper USA Today compared the President skipping the event to Bush’s flyover after Katrina:
I don’t know if anyone here does, but you pretty much attack the guy no matter what he does or fails to do. And you’ve even admitted your extreme personal bias against him.
What a stupid comparison. In fact, it’s cringe-worthy comparing a natural disaster to an act of terrorism. And said natural disaster happened within the geographical area that Bush was responsible for and should have been doing something about. I guess Obama could send some FEMA trailers to Paris, though, so there’s that!
Which shows I have a little bit of self awareness. But note that I also don’t think this is a scandal. I actually do have a sense of proportion. Presidents make mistakes. The good ones can admit that and not blame a staff member. It was incredibly stupid for his administration to say that, because even if it was a staff member, the President is responsible, something the President himself says a lot of, before immediately trying to avoid responsibility again.
You know, I can’t help but be reminded of the outrage when GWB didn’t go to London after the 7/7 bombings, or to Madrid after the 11-M bombings. That is to say, I can’t help but be reminded that there wasn’t any.
Were there marches involving 40 world leaders? This attack was different in nature too, it went after a specific, fundamental Western freedom. But we already know how highly the President prioritizes the 1st amendment:
This wasn’t an oversight. He just doesn’t think this is all that important.
Was there a mass rally held in London that included a bunch of world leaders marching arm-in-arm after that?
Your use of the modifier “incredibly” doesn’t seem to fit here. I can’t help but wonder if you’re trying to blow this out of proportion, despite your claims not to.
But those were more simply terroristic attacks on the particular societies, right? As has been explained at some length in other threads here, this was a more profound incident, an attack on a principle that the United States holds as dear as anyone does, more than most. Right? Not just an attack on France. (Those other world leaders also did not go to London and Madrid.)
That seems awfully specific – there were vigils and marches and memorials, with international representation, from my memory, even if they were different in character and scale from the Paris aftermath.
You’re conflating two different points he’s trying to make. On the issue of not attending the rally, not a scandal. On the issue of YET AGAIN claiming it was someone else’s decision and not Obama’s… that does sound “incredibly stupid”.
Well, refresh us with specifics about those vigils and marches and attendees then, and maybe we can make up our minds if the comparison is a good one or not. I don’t remember them.
Where was the march for the 2,000 killed in Nigeria? So every time a nation decides to hold a pity fest the US president is obligated to go? Where were the Canadian and Mexican heads of state? Or for that matter, ANY from the Americas?
If Obama HAD gone, the Reichwingers would be whining about the cost of the trip for a photo op. More importantly, if he had gone, the group would have been that much more inviting for a terror attack. Sure, the French security was tight, but why tempt fate by putting so many world leaders in one spot?
My memory doesn’t go beyond “there were vigils and marches and memorials” and “I think there was international representation”. Google supports the first, but I can’t find anything for the second, though I don’t care enough to do more than a cursory search.
Emphasis added. Yeah, neither do I. Anyway, there’s a good amount of knee-jerking going on this thread (what a surprise!), and it’s probably best to just give it a rest. The next scandal will be along soon enough…