'If four Americans get killed, it's not OPTIMAL': Obama's extraordinary response to Comedy Centr

Originally posted by 3chainz
reply to post by MsAphrodite

 

Um, Obama said it is NOT optimal if Americans get killed. I don't understand what you are complaining about.

not optimal = bad

edit on 19-10-2012 by 3chainz because: (no reason given)

Wrong and uneducated.

Oh and WB The_professional

Anyhow.

Not optimal = Not the best

Used in sentence:

I went to buy the new car, but the deal was not optimal. It was a good deal, just not optimal.

Buh bye Barry.

reply to post by morethanyou


He actually used Stewart's own words to present a touch of indignant irony to what he was trying to point out, which was that Stewart's criticism of State's lack of effective (optimal) communication between departments wasn't the real issue - that the real issue - for Obama, anyway - was the fact that 4 Americans had been killed. It's not easy for intelligent people to cut through the ignorant blather that passes for conservative punditry with a nuanced point, since most Republican voters wouldn't recognize nuance if it moved in and took over the back bedroom of their 14 wide and drank all the beer in the fridge.

Obama was talking with a smart, erudite professional man, and he forgot, at that moment, that the slack-jawed "merricuns" and their trainers were also listening. If Romney wins this election as a result of that attempt to pin Stewart's ears back over losing sight of what was important about that Benghazi attack failure, then the US deserves what it gets with Romney.

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
My son is not very optimal - he is very dead': Mother of diplomat killed in Benghazi attack slams Obama's comment on raid

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...< br />

The mother of an American diplomat killed during a terrorist raid on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi has hit out at Barack Obama for describing the attack as 'not optimal', saying: 'My son is not very optimal - he is also very dead.'

During an interview shown on Comedy Central, Obama responded to a question about his administration's confused communication after the assault by saying: 'If four Americans get killed, it’s not optimal.'

Speaking exclusively to MailOnline today, Pat Smith, whose son Sean died in the raid, said: 'It was a disrespectful thing to say and I don't think it's right.

'How can you say somebody being killed is not very optimal? I don't think the President has the right idea of the English language.'

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...< br /> Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Well obviously this poor women was not happy and I guess she has more right than any of us to,
have,
an,
opinion,
on the matter.

Speaking from her home in San Diego, Mrs Smith, 72, continued: 'It's insensitive to say my son is not very optimal - he is also very dead. I've not been "optimal" since he died and the past few weeks have been pure hell.

'I am still waiting for the truth to come out and I still want to know the truth. I'm finally starting to get some answers but I won't give up.

'There's a lot of stupid things that have been said about my son and what happened and this is another one of them.'

www.politico.com...

Poor woman. I guess she, too, misunderstood the context of the use of the word? The use of the word and what happened over there are two different matters. The use of the word as an issue is nonsensical, as he was repeating a choice of words Stewart made, to describe the WH's response.

But we do need to know how what happened, happened.

Originally posted by HostileApostle
reply to post by MsAphrodite

 

Oh just give it up.

The Right's crying and whining and continuing to try to politicize Americans death is starting to border on flat out mental illness.

No shame at all in using the deaths of Americans as political pawns and objects to push agendas.

Fake outrage and lies.

Excuse me, but what you wrote is a complete lie. It was the Obama Administration that politicized the matter. In fact, the whole incident was about politics. You see, it took two weeks for Obama's press secretary to admit that the president says it is indeed a terrorist attack, and not a demonstration about some video as was made up and tried to sell to the American people on all the news shows. The logic behind it.....we have an election coming up and how would it look if Al Qaeda struck again after the whole 'Bin Laden's dead and everyone's safe' pitch? Now that, is a mental illness.

Originally posted by AwakeANDreaming

Originally posted by Vitruvian this ignoramus goes onto a comedy show to make fun of the entire matter. He is exhibiting the behavior of a sociopath..........!!!

If you watched the show you would see at no point were the attacks made light of, or joked about. BUT.. let us pretend a reality exists where the president decided NOT to go on the daily show. In that reality the headlines would have been

Current Commander in Chief afraid to confront Jon Stewart. Why is he hiding from a comedian? Just saying!

The right would then say how cowardly it was of him to duck the daily show. WHAT A COWARD! lol

I think you've underestimated the Republicans.

We'd be facing; "DailyShowGate!" and they'd start an investigation (see; TravelGate) to find out what did he know and when did he know it. This would be more proof that Obama was dodging the public, and that he was hiding his inability to walk in sunlight without bursting into flame, and that he was in fact, in cahoots with the Libyan bombers because he needed an attack to justify his war plans.

The fact that none of that makes sense, would only be more evidence.

I'm an Obama disliker, to put it mildly.

But these guys have to talk and perform 18 hours a day, and occassionally, they say the wrong word or phrase.

I'm not too alarmed by this. He's tired. He's on camera all of the time. He's apt to say the wrong word or not phrase something right.

Big deal.

I'm sure it isn't easy to be president and have anyone killed under your watch.

Even if you're Obama.

Dont understand what all the fuss is about. Its not like he said hes glad they died or its what he wanted.. He said its NOT optimal.
Just like if i get in a accident on my way home it wont be optimal or if i get robbed tonight it wouldnt be optimal. If it was my son or brother or father who died and he said the same thing I still wouldnt give a flying f bomb. Its just words.. sure they werent the best to use but no need to get panties in a bunch about it.

Originally posted by MRuss
I'm an Obama disliker, to put it mildly.

But these guys have to talk and perform 18 hours a day, and occassionally, they say the wrong word or phrase.

I'm not too alarmed by this. He's tired. He's on camera all of the time. He's apt to say the wrong word or not phrase something right.

Big deal.

I'm sure it isn't easy to be president and have anyone killed under your watch.

Even if you're Obama.

edit on 19-10-2012 by MRuss because: (no reason given)

Yeah and his policies are not hard to criticize. He has four years of presidential decisions to critique there's no reason to focus on such trivial rhetoric.

Using angles like this only subtracts from other, more legitimate arguments against him. His detractors are not helping themselves by focusing on things like this

Hello! In the sense that these deaths are tragedies, they are so on a personal level. You don't expect the president and the whole nation to take the deaths themselves as a personal tragedy? What would be the use of that?

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
reply to post by MsAphrodite

 

sodomized and tortured?

I didn't read that (or i cant remember)

not saying your wrong but can you back that up ?

I don't believe the people doing the looting were innocent of the deaths, but i didn't think they sodomized and tortured.

I like the comment above

... if Obama breathes people use it as a reason to hate him. How on earth Bush got away with what he did, yet Obama gets singled out I will never understand.

Bush got way worse treatment than this for things he said and did, taken out of context and motives brought into extream question.

But yea where are they getting to sodomy report? I have even heard he was sodomized and then shot. Also heard he was dead from smoke and was pulled out later not sodomized.

Surprising that all of you Obama apologists are so quick to play this down.

You obviously must have a better understanding of it all than the mother of one of the slain diplomats, Sean Smith.

"Pat Smith, whose son Sean died in the raid, said: 'It was a disrespectful thing to say and I don't think it's right.'How can you say somebody being killed is not very optimal?"

It's insensitive to say my son is not very optimal - he is also very dead. I've not been "optimal" since he died and the past few weeks have been pure hell.

'I am still waiting for the truth to come out and I still want to know the truth. I'm finally starting to get some answers but I won't give up.

'There's a lot of stupid things that have been said about my son and what happened and this is another one of them.'


It was a horrible choice of words for Obama. How anyone can not see this is beyond me. Obviously he was trying to be clever in how he worded it but it obviously backfired and makes him come off as insensitive to the deaths, which he of course is.

I agree, a republican disagrees with a democrat over...., well whatever was said. You go girl!

reply to post by DoubleDNH


Reports were all over the news, blogs and talk radio. As of now this is still unconfirmed. The original source was a Libyan news source, Tayyar.org.

UPDATE 3:35 AM EST. - The Lebanon report on the murdered U.S. ambassador, Christopher Stevens, in Libya remains unconfirmed by the AFP.

According to the Lebanese news organization Tayyar.org, citing AFP news sources, U.S. ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens, who was killed by gunmen that stormed the U.S. consulate in Benghazi on Tuesday, was reportedly raped before being murdered. Read more: PICKET: UPDATE - AFP not behind report of purported rape of murdered U.S. ambassador to Libya - Washington Times www.washingtontimes.com... Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

link


snopes has the same result:

snopes link

from youtube.com

Okay, I am prepared to ask the ultimate question.

Since you all are experts on being "sensitive", "not offending anyone in a minor way" and "using the right wording", what is it that Obama should have said?

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
Okay, I am prepared to ask the ultimate question.

Since you all are experts on being "sensitive", "not offending anyone in a minor way" and "using the right wording", what is it that Obama should have said?

edit on 19-10-2012 by TsukiLunar because: (no reason given)

LOL, now THIS should be good.

reply to post by TsukiLunar


He should have said he was SORRY

He should of asked for forgiveness that he never ordered extra security.

He should say he will never allow this type of thing to happen again.


Man Oman,what type of religious kookball, runs around sodomizing diplomats?

Would it be a religious person who did that?

WTF?

Originally posted by morethanyou
Man Oman,what type of religious kookball, runs around sodomizing diplomats?

Would it be a religious person who did that?

WTF?

edit on 19-10-2012 by morethanyou because: I got kooky

I would hazard a guess that it would take a psychotic or otherwise mentally affected religious person.

But you DO realize that your source for the sodomizing information is not exactly reliable, right?

Originally posted by morethanyou
reply to post by TsukiLunar

 

He should have said he was SORRY

He should of asked for forgiveness that he never allowed extra security.

He should say he will never allow this type of thing to happen again.


Man Oman,what type of religious kookball, runs around sodomizing diplomats?

Would it be a religious person who did that?

WTF?

Listen, the first part of your post contradicts the second.

The first part holds Obama responsible for not only preventing the attacks, but apologizing for them.

The second is opposite of that.

It questions what type of person would not only kill and sodomize someone, but also if the person was insane. As if they were responsible

Until you get your thoughts together, then I cant really respond to the issue you have. Do we hold the president responsible as if he was an omnipotent being that can see the future? Or do we hold the perpetrators responsible for their cruelty and insanity?


(On an aside here: Obama has said the deaths were a failure and has apologized, not in those exact words, but he has expressed such sentiments.)

(almost forgot: Sodomizing? Source?)

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by morethanyou
Man Oman,what type of religious kookball, runs around sodomizing diplomats?

Would it be a religious person who did that?

WTF?

edit on 19-10-2012 by morethanyou because: I got kooky

I would hazard a guess that it would take a psychotic or otherwise mentally affected religious person.

But you DO realize that your source for the sodomizing information is not exactly reliable, right?

I realize that yes. But it does sound like it could/would be something that could have happened. Isn't that sort of SODOMIZING going on in Syria as well? Sodomy that is.

I think that the administration would keep this hush hush and not let this be shot out there as public knowledge. Can you imagine how a family would feel if they learnt that their loved one was raped in this fashion?

Sickening.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


It is officially unconfirmed. That does not mean it is unreliable. At this time they are not releasing any information.