It's a quote from between 2:07 and 2:30 in the freeking morning, less than 4 3/4 hours after the plane has crashed, before cause has been established except via a news report less than 23 minutes earlier that he may or may not have been aware of before Reuters contacted him and you are going to ding him for saying "may be"??? That's harsh. The more you talk about this the more credit I give him for a measured response.

I'm on trial here.  You are questioning me.  I am insisting on a cross examination of my accuser, you.

You are refusing to allow a cross examination.  My question to you is clear.  Either answer or I'll consider this dismissed and move on.

Your turn.

What are you talking about?  There is no evidence that it had been officially announced and verified at the time of Obama's initial statement — as you have claimed — that the plane had been shot down. Now you try to claim I am twisting your words and intent? 

* 10.15 PM – (Malaysia time) Malaysia Airlines confirmed it received notification from Ukrainian ATC that it had lost contact with flight MH17 at 1415 (GMT) at 30km from Tamak waypoint, approximately 50km from the Russia-Ukraine border.

July 18 (Friday)

* 12.00 AM –(Malaysian) Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak tweets: “I am shocked by reports that an MH plane crashed. We are launching an immediate investigation”.

- Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk orders an investigation into the crash.

* 2.07 AM – Reuters reported quoting the Russian Emergencies Minister Vladimir Puchkov as saying that Russia has asked Kiev on Thursday for permission to help with rescue work in eastern Ukraine after a Malaysian passenger airliner was brought down there.

* 2.30 AM – Reuters reported quoting US President Barack Obama as saying on Thursday in Wilmington, Delaware, that the crash of a Malaysian jetliner on the border of Ukraine was a( "may be a" ) “terrible tragedy”

What part of brought down do you not comprehend ?  At the time of Obama's statement there was no doubt anywhere that the plane had either been shot down or blown up in midair by a bomb.  However, a bomb had been eliminated by the time Obama spoke.

Now you answer my question.  Surely you must at the very least, have some boiler plate at the ready

My intent and the substance of my assessment are well established.  You are trying to take my point in directions that I did not claim nor try to go.  You're just obfuscating the germane and nothing more.  Let's get to the point ... assuming I'm right (for the sake of this separate sidebar if nothing else), what is your point ?

Now answer my question. 

The first two statements you have boldfaced speak only in terms of a crash.  The third boldface is of a Reuters report  that a Russian  official had asked Kiev for permission to help rescue work of a plane " brought down."  It is unclear whether the use of this phrase was that of this media outlet or of Reuters or some other entity. The chronology puts the time at 2:07 am and says reuters reported at 2:30 am on Obama's initial statement. From this, you surmise that it was officialy announced and verified by 2 governments? Which 2 governments? 

I have seen seen nothing that establishes that at the time of Obama's initial statement that it had been officially announced and verified that the plane had been shot down. That you had to dug up this report from some outlet in India is testament to that — and your desperation .

 

* 10.15 PM – (Malaysia time) Malaysia Airlines confirmed it received notification from Ukrainian ATC that it had lost contact with flight MH17 at 1415 (GMT) at 30km from Tamak waypoint, approximately 50km from the Russia-Ukraine border.

July 18 (Friday)

* 12.00 AM –(Malaysian) Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak tweets: “I am shocked by reports that an MH plane crashed. We are launching an immediate investigation”.

- Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk orders an investigation into the crash.

* 2.07 AM – Reuters reported quoting the Russian Emergencies Minister Vladimir Puchkov as saying that Russia has asked Kiev on Thursday for permission to help with rescue work in eastern Ukraine after a Malaysian passenger airliner was brought down there.

* 2.30 AM – Reuters reported quoting US President Barack Obama as saying on Thursday in Wilmington, Delaware, that the crash of a Malaysian jetliner on the border of Ukraine was a( "may be a" ) “terrible tragedy”

What part of brought down do you not comprehend ?  At the time of Obama's statement there was no doubt anywhere that the plane had either been shot down or blown up in midair by a bomb.  However, a bomb had been eliminated by the time Obama spoke. 

Now you answer my question. 

Please answer my question. Where in the link you posted does it establish that it had been officially announced and verified that the the plane had been shot down — before the time Obama made his initial statement. the chronology in that link does not state that and the story  says only  that some foreign media were reporting it. 

You are kidding I hope.  The statements came from real governments.  Two separate governments.  That is the standard, eh ?

If not, what is your standard ?  

Please explain in simple terms for a simple lay person what standard you deem the minimum acceptable.

Where in there does it state that it had been officially  announced and verified that the plane had been shot down — before the time of Obama's initial statement?  I see statements of a plane having crashed.

I totally disagree with your assessment of the events.

As of at least two and a half hours before Obama made his initial remarks, the crash had been officially acknowledged by the governments of Ukraine and Malaysia.  Obama would not be breaking the news.  It was already official and verified.

See here. 

My main focus has been on Obama's initial reaction and remarks, shortly after the plane was shot down.  It was a take on his first impressions.  As we all know, first impressions matter, a lot.  I stand by my thoughts I have mentioned regarding his first comment.

Having said that, I did find the speech, of which I had only seen some edits until now.  It was a good speech.  It was an appropriate response to the event and the circumstances known at the time of the WH speech.  It was presidential, calm and even reassuring in the sense that he was projecting concern and involvement.  It has satisfied my need to see our POTUS stand up and speak appropriately.

Obama could have avoided a lot of blow back on his initial statement had it been worded and presented a little differently, imho.  He could have easily said that this is an unfolding tragedy (not it may be a terrible tragedy ) and asked for a moment of silence for the victims, before moving on to the rest of his speech that was prepared for the event he was speaking at.  Instead he made his shallow  remarks and kept on going to the rest of his speech without stopping to take a breath.  The blow back is legitimate, again, imo.  Where we go from here, who knows.  I've offered my thoughts on what's next.  I hope that I am wrong, but we'll see.

To rd.  

There are no buts in my words above.  Could someone filled with so much primal hate as you accuse me of made such statements freely and openly ?   I gave credit where credit is due.  Said that it was a good  Said that it satisfied my needs as a citizen of the US to see our President stand up and say the right things.  If Obama does change, I'll let him, in the areas where he does change and be happy for it.  On the areas where he refuses to change, such as the crisis on our border, the IRS and all the rest on the list, I will not hold back.

Lastly on the subject of hate.  What can be said of Obama and all of his supporters who after 6 years in office are still blaming Bush for all that is wrong and failed.  That is 14 years of hate to date.  To those pointing out the hate, while one finger points forward, there are 3 fingers pointing back at the accuser. 

Yes. He could have. But then he would have been the news rather than commenting on it. At the time, while it was clear what was going on, no official statements had been made. Officially, there was no plane crash. You see the difference? Until there was some verification and not just "reports," and until these reports were verified by someone in an official capacity (a Ukraine government official or an airline flack), it would be irresponsible to verify the downing of a plane. Because not only is it not his news to deliver, it would also tip our hand that we had some inside knowledge of the event. Please stop pretending you don't understand this.

Yes. He could have. But then he would have been the news rather than commenting on it. At the time, while it was clear what was going on, no official statements had been made. Officially, there was no plane crash. You see the difference? Until there was some verification and not just "reports," and until these reports were verified by someone in an official capacity (a Ukraine government official or an airline flack), it would be irresponsible to verify the downing of a plane. Because not only is it not his news to deliver, it would also tip our hand that we had some inside knowledge of the event. Please stop pretending you don't understand this.

Obama could have avoided a lot of blow back on his initial statement had it been worded and presented a little differently, imho.  He could have easily said that this is an unfolding tragedy (not it may be a terrible tragedy ) 

I just don't get it, Kurt.  Obama, "called the deaths of the 298 people aboard the plane "an outrage of unspeakable proportions." Are you saying that he didn't say this? That he doesn't believe this?

I just listened to the whole press conference from the day after the tragedy on the Washington Post website.  At no time did he say anything different or to make me suspect his motivation.  Furthermore he made it clear that Putin has influence and holds responsibility for the ability of the separatists to shoot down airplanes.  He clearly set out the actions that he considers necessary for the Russians, the separatists and the Ukrainian government to take. Furthermore he made it clear that the US position was that thus far the Russians have not taken necessary actions. He has talked directly to Putin and other leaders involved. My interpretation of his statements is that he is working to move the European governments toward taking a stronger stance with respect to the Russians and the Ukrainian situation (obviously there was some necessary diplomatic wording there).  He also said that it was still early and he didn't want to get out in front of the facts as they come out.

So yeah, he ticked off all the leadership and compassion boxes as far as I'm concerned.

BTW, do you know how long it was between when KAL was shot down and the Reagan speech you posted?

I just don't get it, Kurt.  Obama, "called the deaths of the 298 people aboard the plane "an outrage of unspeakable proportions." Are you saying that he didn't say this? That he doesn't believe this?

I just listened to the whole press conference from the day after the tragedy on the Washington Post website.  At no time did he say anything different or to make me suspect his motivation.  Furthermore he made it clear that Putin has influence and holds responsibility for the ability of the separatists to shoot down airplanes.  He clearly set out the actions that he considers necessary for the Russians, the separatists and the Ukrainian government to take. Furthermore he made it clear that the US position was that thus far the Russians have not taken necessary actions. He has talked directly to Putin and other leaders involved. My interpretation of his statements is that he is working to move the European governments toward taking a stronger stance with respect to the Russians and the Ukrainian situation (obviously there was some necessary diplomatic wording there).  He also said that it was still early and he didn't want to get out in front of the facts as they come out.

So yeah, he ticked off all the leadership and compassion boxes as far as I'm concerned.

BTW, do you know how long it was between when KAL was shot down and the Reagan speech you posted?

And what if Obama was POTUS during 9/11 and initially said that it "may be a terrible tragedy", instead of calling it a blatant atrocity ?

I guess the point I'm trying to make is the POTUS, whoever he or she is, is the defacto leader of the free world.  As POTUS and leader of the most powerful country on this planet comes the responsibility to react to major events one way or the other in clear terms.  I don't care who shot down the plane or if it was an accident or not, it is still an atrocity.  Firing a weapon of the kind used is in itself no accident.  How hard is it to call it an atrocity and what harm is done if he declares it so ?

As leader of the free world, he has an obligation to state the obvious and call this an atrocity.  Where that leads to isn't determined solely by such a statement, but at least he goes on record and appears confident and plugged in.  The world at large has taken Obama to task over his initial statement.  I am not the only one.

Obama appears to not want to be the leader of the free world in both word and deed.  Am I getting that wrong ? 

I'm not trying to debate whether or not the US should lead the world, but to deal with things the way they are.  I would say presently that the way I see things playing out, Ukraine will be to Obama what the Iran hostage crisis was to Carter.  Nothing will be done until we get a new POTUS, that is if something can still be done.  I agree with your options for Ukraine as there are really few to none.  Putin has the EU over a barrel cuz of oil and nat gas.  It won't stand up to Putin, especially with the winter heating season coming very quickly.  Putin owns Obama after Syria.  Putin ends up with Ukraine or at least the part that he wants.  Its only a matter of time.

Right or wrong, Obama has clearly reduced the role of the US to follower instead of leader.  He has created a power vacuum.  People are taking advantage of the projected weakness and uncertainty and unreliability of the US.  Down the road, Ukraine will be the least of all of our problems.  There are two years left till the 2016 election and two years of a weak lame duck presidency.  All the bad guys have the next two years to do as they please. Who is capable of stopping anyone ?  The way things stand right now, Putin is in charge for the next two years.  These are fascinating and dangerous times to be alive.  Also pretty predictable from here on in.  And I haven't even mentioned the loose cannon, Israel.  ... or China ...

 

Kurt, your primal hatred of the current occupant of the white house is quite beyond the pale.

it's really quite disturbing.