Sorry, you didn’t say that.
But they didn’t apologize for what “the story” was, so that doesn’t make much sense.
Eh. You’re the one who can’t come up with a plausible reason why such an apology* was necessary. It makes no sense to apologize to a country for not doing something they didn’t want you to do in the first place.
*And it wasn’t really an apology, but admitting to having made a mistake. Diplomatically, you don’t admit to mistakes you didn’t make. That just makes you look foolish.
Whether an apology or admitting a mistake, it might be reasonable to assume that they made the statement for political reasons, and whether or not they actually believe that they made a mistake might be irrelevant. Do you seriously believe that no politician has never apologized or admitted a mistake that they don’t believe they actually made? Insincere apologies and admissions that “mistakes were made” seem like they’re a dime a dozen in American politics.
Yes, I believe there are lots of insencere apologies out there. But in this case, I see no reason for one. You keep saying “political reasons”, but what, specific, political reasons are there? This is the new “I won” Obama, who doesn’t have to worry about another election. What reason does he have to appease someone he doesn’t care about?
You’ve said that he might want to “end the story”, but this is such a thin story that it’s clearly going to end itself. And if he really want to end the story by apologizing, why apologize for something that isn’t “the story”. “The story” being his personal absence.
Let me elaborate. Had this happened in October of last year, one could say: Oh, he doesn’t want to rock the boat for Democrats in the upcoming elections. That would be a “specific political reason”. Or, if he was trying to get some critical foreign relations bill thru Congress, one might say: Oh, he wants to make sure the XYZ bill doesn’t get sidelined.
But right now, there is not a specific political reason that I can think of. And if you’re willing to dismiss this as “just political” because all politicians are ruled by politics, well… let’s see how you react the next time some Republican politician says something controversial and the defense is “oh, it’s doesn’t mean anything… it’s just political.” I suspect you will not accept that explanation at face value but will demand to know why, specifically, it’s “just political”.
The “liberal hypocrisy” card? You owe Bricker a nickel.
The controversy and the possibility that this admission reduces the controversy or criticism.
You’re just arguing that the political concerns might not be much of a concern. Maybe they weren’t. Or maybe the administration thought they were. It’s true that they haven’t been asked much about it since – maybe that was their goal.
You’re a liberal hypocrisy.
Nosir! I am a radical, liberals are allies I regard sometimes with bemused affection, other times with great gnashing of teeth and rending of garments.
Hypocrisy is a direct result of having a navel, anyone who thinks he is innocent of hypocrisy is kidding himself.
The lengths to which this administration goes to distort reality is amazing.
Now the WH claims that the Jews in the Jewish deli in Paris were not killed because they were Jews. Just because they happened to be there. A coincidence. Nothing else.
As in "“The adverb that the president chose was used to indicate that the individuals who were killed in that terrible, tragic incident were killed, not because of who they were, but because of where they randomly happened to be”.
Why is the White House finding it so difficult to admit that Jihadists want to and do kill Jews - because they are Jews? What could possibly be the reason for that difficulty?
I am kinda mystified at how this administration talks about terrorism. They were weird about the Fort Hood incident too, calling it “workplace violence” instead of terrorism. Except now they are finally giving out purple hearts.
It’s amazing how an administration so skilled at messaging makes GWB look articulate when it comes to talking about terrorism.
This isn’t that hard. The WH is right – the terrorist attacked a Jewish deli because he thought a bunch of Jews would be there. The people there were killed because they were at a Jewish supermarket – they weren’t wearing yellow stars to mark them as Jews so the killer could pick them out from the crowd. The killer definitely wanted to kill Jews, which is why he chose that supermarket. That’s all consistent with what Obama and the WH said.
Or he’s a secret Muslim who hates America and loves the terrorists.
Let’s see:
Karl: They weren’t killed because they were in a Jewish deli though? Because they were in a kosher deli?
Earnest: These individuals were not targeted by name.
Karl: Not by name, but by religion, were they not?
Earnest: Jon, there were people other than just Jews who were in that deli.
Karl: That deli was attacked because it was a kosher deli. It was just not any random deli. It was a kosher deli.
Earnest: No, Jon. No, Jon.
So - which part of “No, Jon. No, Jon.” is unclear to you, exactly?
The assumption that the “no, Jon” refers to the immediately preceding statement. Earnest tweeted the following (mentioned in your link): “Our view has not changed. Terror attack at Paris Kosher market was motivated by anti-Semitism. POTUS didn’t intend to suggest otherwise.”
So the WH believes the Kosher market was attacked due to anti-Semitism.
CYA after all the :eek: at his performance at the presser.
OMG – you mean the Press Secretary performed badly at a presser!? OMG! NOOOOOO!!! SAVE US, JEEBUS!!! SAVE US FROM POOR PERFORMANCES IN ANSWERING QUESTIONS!!!
And I heard that the administration’s messaging about a very complex and volatile issue suffered from some awkward phrasing and somewhat mixed messages. IMPEACH HIM OMG!!!
“randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli” =/ “shoot a bunch of folks in a random deli”
Unless information surfaces showing that individual people inside the French kosher deli were called out by name on some hit list, what Obama said is plainly accurate: they were randomly shot. Saying so does not amount to downplaying that the deli was kosher and presumably selected for that purpose.
This is more manufactured outrage by people dead-set on taking the most uncharitable reading possible toward every utterance made by the president.
In any case, the administration clarified its remarks. I’m satisfied, personally.
Karl: That deli was attacked because it was a kosher deli. It was just not any random deli. It was a kosher deli.
Earnest: No, Jon. No, Jon.
So, OK, already, go to the treyf deli, get a ham and cheese sandwich and a nice glass milk…