why did we skip the paris march?

[Anonymous]

Hell, this administration sent more representatives to the funeral of Michael Brown. Guess it shows their priorities.

[Anonymous]

Because France has long restricted freedom of speech on important issues of immigration, history, and culture.

[Anonymous]

Call me stupid but when cnn's homepage is this I am not sure how to defend it. But of course any news organization will drum up hype to get viewers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hell, this administration sent more representatives to the funeral of Michael Brown. Guess it shows their priorities.

Bingo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hell, this administration sent more representatives to the funeral of Michael Brown. Guess it shows their priorities.

Bingo.

I don't know why no US representative was there. But seriously? Months of rioting is NBD to you? Should have been ignored by the president? Or are you just critical of anything Obama does or does not do?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hell, this administration sent more representatives to the funeral of Michael Brown. Guess it shows their priorities.

Bingo.

Wrong.

[Anonymous]

It's a fair question, I wondered it yesterday as I watched the photos of all those world leaders, arms locked, start appearing on my Twitter stream.

[Anonymous]

Hey, no one cares, it wasn't about us you precious snowflakes.

Plus - WE are the one who knocks - not those posturing fools.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:The US Ambassador to France, Jane Hartley, represented the US. Kerry is in India. Holder could have gone, but he doesn't have the best history of respecting freedom of the press.

Not to mention that Holder is the most politically tone-deaf member of the Cabinet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hell, this administration sent more representatives to the funeral of Michael Brown. Guess it shows their priorities.

Bingo.

I don't know why no US representative was there. But seriously? Months of rioting is NBD to you? Should have been ignored by the president? Or are you just critical of anything Obama does or does not do?

The poster didn't say no representatives should have been sent to Michael Brown's funeral, but it is interesting that, in comparison, the Paris gathering was pretty much ignored by the Obama administration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From Greta:

Here is the video! A statement to the world -- President Obama should have been there. His absence is glaring.

"You-know-who" was not one of the world leaders marching against terror in Paris. He also did not send VP Biden and now reports are that lame duck (he resigned) Attorney General Eric Holder left before the March began. On top of it all -- it was France's then President Chirac who was the first world leader to show up at the White House after 9/11 (assuming my memory is correct.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ernPdr6C3jA&feature=youtu.be

The French also showed up to help us in the revolutionary war. This is incredible to me. Pres.Obama speaks at the Berlin wall but can't go to this? Is he in Hawaii or something?

Not Hawaii, he's gearing up to come to Waterloo, IA this week so he can talk about broadband access and get his picture taken with. Gov For Life Branstad.

[Anonymous]

Josh Earnest just admitted that the administration should have sent someone with a “higher profile” than the ambassador to France.
Good to know that they are hearing the disapproval of many Americans.
He also said that “if circumstances had been different, the president himself would have like to have been there.”
He then backpedaled and said it was because of security challenges and the difficulty of overcoming those challenges.

[Anonymous]

At this point, I could give less than a good damn why Ted Cruz and others who were just mentioned at the press conference are pissed. Redirect your anger to Boko Haram. Geez! :serious eyeroll:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Josh Earnest just admitted that the administration should have sent someone with a “higher profile” than the ambassador to France.
Good to know that they are hearing the disapproval of many Americans.
He also said that “if circumstances had been different, the president himself would have like to have been there.”
He then backpedaled and said it was because of security challenges and the difficulty of overcoming those challenges.

+1 "Security Challenges?" Other countries didn't seem to have this problem/excuse. Foreign policy fail...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Josh Earnest just admitted that the administration should have sent someone with a “higher profile” than the ambassador to France.
Good to know that they are hearing the disapproval of many Americans.
He also said that “if circumstances had been different, the president himself would have like to have been there.”
He then backpedaled and said it was because of security challenges and the difficulty of overcoming those challenges.

+1 "Security Challenges?" Other countries didn't seem to have this problem/excuse. Foreign policy fail...

Well, Germany and the UK are right next door to France. They're not flying the Concorde anymore, it take at least a little bit of planning to go from here to there. I posted upthread that I don't know why there was no US representative there. Maybe it was due to logistics.