That's local Malaysian time.  It was in afternoon broad daylight in Ukraine and it was about  10 or 11 am here in EDT.  

I'm making some assumptions and saying so.  We no doubt have at least one bird parked over Ukraine and no doubt have pictures from the satellite in real time.  The pictures are good enough to read headlines on newspapers laying on the ground.  We have been monitoring Russian troop movements for months.  For me to assume anything less of the US is to be stupid and foolish.

I watched this unfold live for the hours before and leading to and watching Obama's initial statement live as it happened and to more for several hours afterwards.  I had seen video of the plane impacting well before Obama's speech.

If our government is incapable of figuring out simple things like this in short order, then great googidty moogidty we are in one heap of trouble.  I will assume that our government has the capability and did know exactly what happened within  a couple of hours.  We are watching this area 24/7.  I simply cannot believe that our government is incompetent at everything it does.  And if it turns out to be incompetence that kept our President from being properly informed, once again, then WTF ?   ...

I have reviewed tonight the Reuters accounts from that day. 

Your focus on Obama making a qualified statement seems misplaced. And it belies  your assertions made here that first day that we were talking about something unimportant in the scheme of things. Now you seem to find it to be of utmost importance what Obama said in his initial comments.

I have read a number of stories the last few days and watched and listened to Kerry's statements today .  I find the US to be pursuing the matter.

Do you doubt that the governments mentioned did issue statements at the times stated ?

I have no idea what you are talking about. You asked something about what standard should be applied to determining whether it was known at time of Obama's initial statement that the plane had been shot down and you said your standard was that 2 countries had officially announced and verified it. I pointed out what you stated was false.  

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 )