Spoiling for gun control, never too early

After news broke about the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, White House spokesman Jay Carney said that renewing the federal assault weapons ban “does remain a commitment of” the president’s. However, he continued, “What I said is that today is not the day to, I believe, as a father a day to engage in the usual Washington policy debates. I think that that day will come, but today is not that day.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57559281/obama-briefed-on-connecticut-shooting-statement-at-3-15-p.m/

 

Gun Control Advocates Predict Tougher Response to Shootings

By JONATHAN WEISMAN — NYT’s blog

Official Washington’s response to the Connecticut school massacre Friday came along predictable lines, with Republicans and many moderate Democrats expressing their condolences and horror while silent on a legislative response to gun violence, and liberal Democrats saying it is time to move forward with serious gun legislation.

But advocates of gun control say the shootings at an elementary school in Newtown might be different for two reasons: the victims were children, eliciting a gut-wrenching response across the country, and the National Rifle Association proved to be a political paper tiger in the 2012 election.

“The political atmosphere has clearly changed because now we have solid evidence that the N.R.A. just was not effective in the last election cycle,” said Kristen Rand, legislative director for the Violence Policy Center, a gun-control advocacy group. “This just has a feel that they won’t get away with doing nothing this time.”

[…/]

More at: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/14/gun-control-advocates-predict-tougher-response-to-shootings/

 

Obama’s statements: (emotional speech as its been called)

We’ve endured too many of these tragedies in the past few years. And each time I learn the news I react not as a President, but as anybody else would–as a parent.
/…
As a country, we have been through this too many times. Whether it’s an elementary school in Newtown, or a shopping mall in Oregon, or a temple in Wisconsin, or a movie theater in Aurora, or a street corner in Chicago–these neighborhoods are our neighborhoods, and these children are our children.

And we’re going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics.

 

By 8 o’clock in the evening Ed Schultz was asking if this was the event that would usher in real change — meaning gun control. Asking “is this is a game-changer?” … saying we are “hiding behind the second amendment”. Congressman Nadler says the “NRA is the enabler of mass murder”. Rep. Keith Ellison called others “2nd amendment extremists”.
 

Mayor Bloomberg rushes to offer statements and support for gun control.

“President Obama rightly sent his heartfelt condolences to the families in Newtown. But the country needs him to send a bill to Congress to fix this problem … Calling for ‘meaningful action’ is not enough. We need immediate action. We have heard all the rhetoric before. What we have not seen is leadership—not from the White House and not from Congress.”

“With all the carnage from gun violence in our country, it’s still almost impossible to believe that a mass shooting in a kindergarten class could happen. It has come to that. Not even kindergarteners learning their ABC’s are safe. We heard after Columbine that it was too soon to talk about gun laws. We heard it after Virginia Tech. After Tucson and Aurora and Oak Creek. And now we are hearing it again. For every day we wait, 34 more people are murdered with guns. Today, many of them were five-year olds. President Obama rightly sent his heartfelt condolences to the families in Newtown. But the country needs him to send a bill to Congress to fix this problem. Calling for ‘meaningful action’ is not enough. We need immediate action. We have heard all the rhetoric before. What we have not seen is leadership – not from the White House and not from Congress. That must end today. This is a national tragedy and it demands a national response. My deepest sympathies are with the families of all those affected, and my determination to stop this madness is stronger than ever.”

That’s right, the same man who said police should stand down from protecting the public untill they pass gun control. Let’s presume if they did such a thing, the police might never have responded to this scene. Ridiculous or what?

And all that by the 12 hour mark. So its never too early to call for gun control.
But they thought “fast and furious” was a “manufactured scandal” by Republicans.

What they said… about Benghazi

I’m not so sure if this is a case of “what did they know and when did they know it” or more of a what the administration said and why they said it. We already know pretty much about what they knew – or should have known.


Since Obama says he stated September 12th this was an act of terrorism, then why did all the talk about videos and protests follow?

And why did Art Carney say in his official briefing, September 12 — White House spokesman Jay Carney– in response to questions about whether the attack was planned:

“It’s too early for us to make that judgment. I think — I know that this is being investigated, and we’re working with the Libyan government to investigate the incident. So I would not want to speculate on that at this time.”

Judgment? But apparently not to early to assume there was a protest which led to the events.

Then came Susan Rice’s defiant statements 5 days later. And now a month later they want to hop into the wayback machine to point out she mentioned the boilerplate “investigation” in it. Duh, so what? Rice’s statements to media:

ABC News:
RICE: Well, Jake, first of all, it’s important to know that there’s an FBI investigation that has begun and will take some time to be completed. … But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.

We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to — or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo. And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons, weapons that as you know in — in the wake of the revolution in Libya are — are quite common and accessible. And it then evolved from there.
We’ll wait to see exactly what the investigation finally confirms, but that’s the best information we have at present. — ( This Week with George Stephanopoulos, 9/16/12)

Apparently “present” is a state in the nation of denial.

Face the Nation
RICE: Bob, let me tell you what we understand to be the assessment at present. First of all, very importantly, as you discussed with the President, there is an investigation that the United States government will launch led by the FBI, that has begun and –
SCHIEFFER: But they are not there.
RICE: They are not on the ground yet, but they have already begun looking at all sorts of evidence of — of various sorts already available to them and to us. And they will get on the ground and continue the investigation. So we’ll want to see the results of that investigation to draw any definitive conclusions.[yada, yada] But based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy–
SCHIEFFER: Mm-Hm.
RICE: — sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that — in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.
SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?
RICE: We do not — we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.
SCHIEFFER: Do you agree or disagree with him that al Qaeda had some part in this?
SUSAN RICE: Well, we’ll have to find out that out. I mean I think it’s clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence. Whether they were al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al Qaeda itself I think is one of the things we’ll have to determine. — (CBS, Face the Nation, 9/16/12)

On her blame tour, Rice also told Fox:
“But I do think it’s important for the American people to know our best current assessment.”

And this all was after Obama claimed he said it was terrorism. Instead of arguing with Romney, why isn’t he arguing with Rice and others? Why wasn’t he setting everyone in his administration straight?

Then at the debate he said he was “offended”. And now I assume he is claiming to be the victim.

UN + Obama = UNObama

 
A little rebuke of Obama’s speech, and part rant. He gave his speech to the beloved UN. Well, la di da! But it could be boiled down to this: he mentioned the movie how many times and mentioned terrorism how many times?

It only shows he is about as disconnected from reality as anyone can be. It was another lecture like the many others before it – shallow and pretty meaningless. If one has to give an apologetic defense of freedom of speech, which he has been doing, then he pretty much has missed the point.

When it comes to exercising free speech, he was not only a sleep at the switch, he was turning it off. The same can be said for religious freedom here. He is actively working to undermine them with the all-powerful state. State power and control is always a great substitute for freedom. Now he tells other regimes to suck it up.

Trying to invoke Gandhi, he said “intolerance itself is a form of violence”. Great rhetoric which must mean that Obama is the most violent regime we’ve had, since he is overwhelmingly intolerant of our freedom. Intolerant of anything or anyone who opposes him.

The real point is that he mentioned terrorists once(i.e. “terrorist groups”), and he mentioned the movie (video) 7 times. I guess that expresses his tolerance for terrorism vs. his intolerance for the movie. The latter is protected free speech, the former is not.

I guess that word terrorist is rejected by the teleprompter. He should have that looked at. But it is completely compatible with newspeak. Ingsoc can continue on with his help.

The always entertaining Art Carney had forecasted about his UN speech:

Carney said Obama would address the recent protests that left four Americans dead and once again criticize the U.S.-made anti-Islam video blamed for inflaming tensions, while rejecting the violent response. The president, Carney said, is also expected to warn that the United States will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. – The Hill

So he addressed it, but protests did not leave 4 Americans dead. And he managed to do it without using the word terrorism. Considering that even Carney had repeatedly said it was “self-evident” that it was “terrorism”. I’d say he put ramped up disdain for the video ahead of our security and interests. He calls them killers rather than terrorists. That contrasts with the reality of what they did.

Once again, he repeated his assertions against containment of Iran, and saying he would not allow Iran to have nuclear weapons. But this would be to believe he has not been the guy who allowed it this far, or the one who stood in the way of action, or what his top general already telegraphed. So Barry is reaching out for the UNObama. That one seems too busy with campaigning, fundraising, and reelection to pay it much concern. The UNObama will rattle off a speech or a few tough talking points here and there, hoping that suffices. Besides, he can talk a lot better about it if he should lose.

So believing anything he says should require the willing suspension of disbelief. And he refuses to meet with leaders like Netanyahu, for fear of hurting his reelection chances.