"If four Americans get killed, it’s not optimal."

[chance1]

The story is not Fox covering it

The story is the Presidents words

Seen live by many and more on video

Fox as the boogeyman is oh so tired

 

[BostonPirate]

The words of the president are direct and to the point. To twist them for personal gain is entirely ENTIRELY a republican strategy that the electorate is not going to fall for in the end.

Obama still leads Rimmnie by double digits in polls on who Americans trust more to handle Foreign affairs. Lies and Kangaroo courts can't change that.

When you have Rep Issa and FOX championing something? Americans now know to dismiss it as propagandizing an arm of the Government and treat it with contempt.

 

[chance1]

Take a poll on what Americans think of his words here

Betcha .... $10k ? What the results are

That's what we're talking about

 

[Kulindahr]

^^^

He was making derogatory comments about one the of dead men's mother to make a point. I don't think that is appropriate.

You must have a rich fantasy life. Objective observations are neither derogatory nor complimentary -- they just are.

 

[Kulindahr]

Don't hold your breath AnyHardy

jackaroe is big on demanding apologies and retractions. However, he never offers them himself when it is pointed out to him that he has carried misinformation, and defended incorrect statements.

Just let it go and understand that apparently he feels as though he is above them.

Politely stated and with restraint.

 

[Kulindahr]

anyone hear about the drones that stood by while the attack happened ?

Were their operators checking out their binders full of women?

 

[Kulindahr]

I don't get it.

Here's a thread based on a misunderstanding of the English language, an issue without much substance, rather a bit inane, in fact. Then the OP does a great job of hijacking his own thread.

Are things that slow here?

 

[andysayshi]

Chance, do you truly believe that Obama has a callous disregard for the 4 Americans killed in Benghazi? Do you really believe he used the word "optimal" because he doesn't really care about them?

 

[chance1]

Chance, do you truly believe that Obama has a callous disregard for the 4 Americans killed in Benghazi? Do you really believe he used the word "optimal" because he doesn't really care about them?

no way

I think in general he is a detached man ......... and articles and books written about him back that up

I think he made an error referring to this as "not optimal" - in retrospect, he'd never say it

I waded in here because somehow people were defending this where this is no defense

and that strikes me as symptomatic of a larger problem of blind following

 

[Benvolio]

I think his first and only though was, how will this affect my election? This makes it look like I have not defeated the al Quaeda. Ihave ads runnimg with Morgan Freeman saying "our nemies have been defeated". And now this. I will blame it on the American who made a film on u tube about Islam. Iwill claim there was a spontaneous demonstration against the film. I wiil blame the film before the UN. I will send Rice around the Sunday talk shows to blame the film. I will use the arrival of the bodies as a opportunity to make a political speech. I will pretend to care about the four, of course and that can help me.

 

[Jack Springer]

You must have a rich fantasy life. Objective observations are neither derogatory nor complimentary -- they just are.

Sean Smith was a State Department employee and was killed in this terrorist attack. His mother is none too pleased with the president's insensitive comments. She summed it up this way.

'My son is not very optimal - he is also very dead."

http://www.inquisitr.com/369212/moth...s-not-optimal/

Sad that you cite someone who plainly can't comprehend the English language.​

I've highlighted you response in bold and red. Your response was rude and uncalled for -- the lady's son was murdered and you made fun of grief.

You'd make a great democrat party operator.

Any apology is in order.

 

[JayHawk]

Okay this probably deserves it's own thread BUT Rep Darrell Issa firmly believes he should be tried for releasing sensitive us documents. He recently did so with 166 documents that did not receive the normal security review prior to release. He did so simply to try and make political points prior to a debate. According to Issa's own logic he should now be tried because that is exactly how he laid out the case against Assange and Wiki leaks.

Now if I remember correctly Jackoroe you firmly have stated over and over again releasing sensitive documents without permission is a crime. So I guess I can now stand with you to demand that Rep Issa see criminal prosecution.

 

[LuvFindsAndyHardy]

Take a poll on what Americans think of his words here

Before or after they were "told" what to think by right wing talking heads who took the words out of context (Ben "there are gays under my bed trying to make my children think they're normal" Shapiro certainly didn't bother to include Stewart's initial question) and lied about what he was referring to?

So...approximately 47% of the electorate currently favors Obama and so 47% of the electorate is misled, stupid, or one of the pejoratives you used to be so fond of slinging, but take a poll on THIS and the results mean that, if the majority feels a certain way then they must be correct?

I'll ask the question again. It's a simple question, really, and I would love for you or any of the other "gays for Romney" on here to answer it. To what is the pronoun "it" referring in the president's response? Why skirt the issue and play coy? Do you honestly believe that he is referring to the deaths of Americans as "not optimal?" If so, own it. If not, admit that this is bullshit.

 

[chance1]

Before or after they were "told" what to think by right wing talking heads who took the words out of context (Ben "there are gays under my bed trying to make my children think they're normal" Shapiro certainly didn't bother to include Stewart's initial question) and lied about what he was referring to?

So...approximately 47% of the electorate currently favors Obama and so 47% of the electorate is misled, stupid, or one of the pejoratives you used to be so fond of slinging, but take a poll on THIS and the results mean that, if the majority feels a certain way then they must be correct?

I'll ask the question again. It's a simple question, really, and I would love for you or any of the other "gays for Romney" on here to answer it. To what is the pronoun "it" referring in the president's response? Why skirt the issue and play coy? Do you honestly believe that he is referring to the deaths of Americans as "not optimal?" If so, own it. If not, admit that this is bullshit.

i'd trust them to know the difference luv

not sure why u don't

u somehow thing "right wing talking heads" have all this power

and your "gays for romney" thing ........... you need to stop it

it's not even worthy of a response

my guess is what he meant is the middle east is a shit show

but i don't know what he meant

i just know that he didn't say it very well

not sure why you're so frankly obnoxious about this ........ in style and substance

i've explained myself thoughout this thread and have not given you shit personally

and you're not affording me the same courtesy

 

[Benvolio]

Luvfindsandy, go bac k to my 105. The question was whether the "response" was optimal. But Obama did not seem to be talking about the response being optimal. He seems to be talking about the situation not being optimal or generally being not good or not desireable.

 

[opinterph]

Obama was merely repeating back to Stewart exactly what he asked in his question which is a fairly common technique when speaking.

To be fair, please note that the President mentioned “optimal” first. Maybe Mr. Stewart was using the same fairly common technique.

… there are times where there are bad folks somewhere on the other side of the world, and you’ve got to make a call, and it’s not optimal.

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/10/2...ppearance-on-the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart/

 

[ReadyWithReadyWit]

no way

I think in general he is a detached man ......... and articles and books written about him back that up

I think he made an error referring to this as "not optimal" - in retrospect, he'd never say it

I waded in here because somehow people were defending this where this is no defense

and that strikes me as symptomatic of a larger problem of blind following

It's astonishing a thread like this has been allowed to stay open when the comments were taken out of context, used in a baiting fashion and don't stand up to the standards of evidence.

He never said that Americans dying isn't optimal. Goodness me... we really need to push education (particularly reading comprehension) in this election.

And TA-DA... I think this thread has reached its rightful conclusion... after much unnecessary vitriol over semantics... I think anyone reasonable would agree that the president does indeed wish he had not chosen to phrase things that way... given it could be taken entirely out of context and politicized in a way that is not indicative in the slightest over how he feels about the troops... and I suspect he will be more careful with his phrasing in the future.

Case closed. Thread closed. Perhaps we can return to talking about the actual substantive issues regarding Libya now... there is plenty of debate to be had there without resorting to silly word games.

 

[Jack Springer]

Yes, please don't post anymore comments by Obama that are awkward and that make Obama supporters uncomfortable

 

[HenryReardon]

Chance, do you truly believe that Obama has a callous disregard for the 4 Americans killed in Benghazi? Do you really believe he used the word "optimal" because he doesn't really care about them?

I've no idea what Chance does or does not believe, but it is self-evidently obvious that Obama doesn't care about anything but Obama and his re-election.

He is about as detached from reality as any president I've ever seen.

When he speaks, he looks down on people, but that's how he sees people: as pawns to do his bidding. And the dumb masses and Kool-aid drinkers lap it up.

 

[jackoroe]

Wow and as I look back in time not a word sideways against the real liar n chief... just defense... so if your liar has the blood of thousands of Americans that is a lie worth defending right Jack? Sickening people who would allow partisan bickering determine whether or not American blood is worthy... For Jack four thousand was fine for Bush's lie but four is excruciatingly too much for the not proven to be a lie statements by the Obama white house. So by your definition Jack you are bathed in the blood of dead american while you stand by a liar and chief.

News flash for you. Bush isn't president. I know the present is an uncomfortable place for Obama supporters to be in right now, but it's reality. He's lied repeatedly about spontaneous protests and anger over a film. The State Department spent $70,000 of our tax dollars on a commercial condemning a film that had nothing to do with the attack. The film maker has since been jailed, a coincidence I'm sure. No one has offered a shred of support for these lies, just support for the liar.

The American public is forgiving of people who make mistakes. Not people who willfully mislead. If Obama were to simply admit we were wrong, there were no spontaneous protests, the movie played no role. We were attacked by terrorists on the anniversary of 9/11. People would have respect. The lie is always worse than the crime. Politicians never learn because their hubris won't allow it.