BHO pledges transparency yet has 'secret aides'??? WTF?!?!

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 9:31 am

and SECRET RE-SWEARING-INS???? wtf?

what's with all the secrets?

slider....can you comment?

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/23/obama-spokesmans-debut-marked-by-discord/

Obama press aide gets bashed in debut

The White House press operation got off to a fumbling and stumbling start Thursday, with the day's opening briefers insisting on being identified only as "senior administration officials," followed swiftly by the new president's spokesman accidently outing one of the secret aides less than two minutes into his first White House briefing.

Although President Obama swept into office pledging transparency and a new air of openness, the press hammered spokesman Robert Gibbs for nearly an hour over a slate of perceived secretive slights that have piled up quickly for the new administration. It wasn't pretty.

"Why did the administration believe it was important for the American people not to know the name of the two senior administration officials who briefed us this morning on Guantanamo?" one reporter asked in the packed and steaming hot briefing room just off the White House West Wing.

"I hope that you all found the exercise that we did this morning helpful," Mr. Gibbs offered helpfully.

"Do you know," the reporter followed, "that you've used ... one of those senior officials' first names several times in this briefing?" A very long pause ensued.

"I do," the spokesman said, his cornflower-colored tie suddenly looking a bit too tight. "Are we allowed to repeat that name?" Mr. Gibbs answered by citing as precedent of Brazilian soccer stars being known only by a single name - sure to one day be a classic White House non-answer.

Then it got uglier.

"How is it transparent," another reporter asked, "when you control the only image of the re-swearing - there's nobody in there but four print reporters, there's no stills, there's no television? And the only recording that comes out, as I understand it, is one that a reporter made, not one that the White House supplied."

"Let me take your questions separately there," Mr. Gibbs began. "Well, we'd have had to get a big room," he finally posited with a smile.

"You could have had more than four in the pool," one reporter said. "Could have had a pool!" shouted another. "The whole pool!" spat a third. "We have a tradition here of covering the president!" yelled a fourth.

And so it went at the first official White House briefing of the new Obama administration - a fiery back and forth dispelling the notion that journalists would go easy on the guy that many reports show it went easy on during the marathon primary and general election campaigns.

Halfway through the interrogation, a reporter asked succinctly: "Is the honeymoon over already?"

A smiling Mr. Gibbs answered with sublime brevity: "I should ask you that."

The warmish winter day began with heated objections from the White House press corps. Before a "background briefing" to help reporters understand Mr. Obama's complex executive order on the detention of enemy combatants in Guantanamo Bay, junior press aide Josh Earnest said "for your stories, they should be attributed to 'senior administration officials.' "

When an objection came from Jennifer Loven of the Associated Press, president of the White House Correspondents' Association, Mr. Earnest said earnestly: "It's not necessarily a precedent-setting decision, but it's a decision that we think will work best."

That set the mood for Mr. Gibbs' debut. After a session over the secret briefers, reporters moved to the debacle of the second swearing-in ceremony Mr. Obama undertook in the Oval Office on Wednesday evening. During a barrage of questions, the press secretary said eight times that the second oath of office was decided upon only out of "an abundance of caution," leaving the phrase alone only after reporters cackled at its last utterance.

Still, throughout the day's session, Mr. Gibbs was in control - affable, smiling often, answering questions in a slow, measured, slightly Southern drawl, joking with reporters who had covered Mr. Obama on the campaign trail. But he made clear who he works for: Over and over, he began his answers with "the president believes" and at least once said, "I just want to reiterate what the president said throughout the campaign and the transition."

On the creation of a new White House panel to recommend action on Guantanamo, he said: "I don't want to get ahead of the recommendations." In answer to one specific question, he said: "I don't have anything specifically." Asked the bottom line on another topic, he said it's "an ongoing discussion, ongoing planning process." When a reporter used the word "if" in a question, the new spokesman dismissed the query as "hypothetical," just as all four Bush spokesman had done before him.

And like many of his predecessors, he had his oddly unintelligible moments. Asked whether Mr. Obama should "lead by example," Mr. Gibbs said: "We'll check on that."

On more pointed questions, such as whether Osama bin Laden would be aggressively interrogated if captured, Mr. Gibbs dodged altogether: "Let me get some guidance from [White House Counsel] Greg [Craig] and members of the [National Security Council]."

"Is it fair for me then to conclude that it is an open question?" the reporter asked.

"No, it's fair for you to conclude that I want to make sure I don't make a mistake," Mr. Gibbs said to laughter.

With that, he was off. But he had a parting idea for the heaving throng of reporters. "We should sell tickets and have the money go to the deficit or something," he said before heading for the door, shouting over his shoulder, "See you tomorrow."

slideman67 · Post by **slideman67** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 9:35 am

First of all, anything that comes out of the Washington Times is not to be trusted. The paper is run by Rev. Moon's organization, and they are so right wing, they make the RNC Propaganda Channel, Fox "News", look liberal. Anything coming from there should be taken with a serious grain of salt. Fumbling and stumbling start my ass! Maybe in their world, but those of us in the real world thought he had a good first day.

One of the things I will enjoy about the next 4 years is seeing the right wing noise machine, like the Times, Flush Limbaugh, and Fox "News" froth and bloviate themselves in irrelevancy. The only audience they will have left are those 20% of the country that thought Bush was a good President.

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 9:37 am

so

First of all, anything that comes out of the Washington Times is not to be trusted. The paper is run by Rev. Moon's organization, and they are so right wing, they make the RNC Propaganda Channel, Fox "News", look liberal.

so it never happened? oh -- ok...thanks.

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 9:39 am

i was going to say - pledging transparency and then controlling the re-swearing in and the secrets of the guantanamo stuff and secret aides and all...i'm glad that that didn't happen.

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 9:51 am

pleadging transparency was pretty bold imo...bold coming from a guy who controlled what press covered him during his campaign trail.

nonetheless, when he pledged it (change we can all believe in), i applauded him...that certainly is change i guess...but now THIS??!? lmMFao

BHO showing us all how illinois styled politics rolls.

slideman67 · Post by **slideman67** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 9:53 am

I don't know if this happened or not. All I am pointing out is that if it comes from the Times, the source is suspect.

IHateUGAlyDawgs · Post by **IHateUGAlyDawgs** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 9:55 am

Yep. They made it up, slider. Just to piss you off.

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 9:56 am

^lol

c'mon slider...we're your friends...we aint jerkoff douchebags you meet in the street....talk to us bro.

give us something different than the standard response homey.

slideman67 · Post by **slideman67** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 9:59 am

I honestly don't know. I would have to look into this. I have not seen any reprots on this on any news sources or blogs that I trust.

I guess I am too used to fighting these battles. I was recently in a long protracted e-mail exchange with a good friend of mine over politics. I didn't start it as I knew we had political differences. But it got a little too heated. When the name calling and shouting happens for so long, you get used to fighting that way.

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 10:04 am

^ i respect that harvey...if you do have the time, i'd love to hear your view on the transparency/not so transparent thing that's going on.

slideman67 · Post by **slideman67** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 10:05 am

Will do - I have to get to that later as I have some meetings to prepare for.

DocZaius · Post by **DocZaius** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 10:12 am

This was on the morning talk radio show here in DC today.

Yes, it really happened the way the Times has reported it. No, it isn't a big deal.

A bunch of reporters are just pissed off that they weren't invited. It wasn't a very wise move on Obama's part, which speaks to his inexperience, but he's going to learn from this, no doubt. EVERYTHING is political in Washington and you want the press on your side.

Obama invited 4 print journalists, so it's not like it was a secret. There is at least one still photo of the swearing-in and an audio recording of the ceremony.

As for the secret aides, I think it's just another gaffe. I'm willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt on this.

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 10:18 am

so too will i. that's why i haven't labeled him a two-faced hypocrite

the media got him to where he is...just don't understand why he's 'about facing' on them...i too believe gibbs' will get his job right...on the job training right? i just think the gaffes and the fumbling are part of the process early on...i don't like the whole claiming-to-be-an-open-book-then-being-selective-as-to-who-views part. the swearing in of a president is the constitution...it should be broadcast and it shouldn't be given access to just a select few.

Tipmoose · Post by **Tipmoose** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 10:22 am

There was a story from the Chicago Sun Times a week or so ago that detailed PE Obama's (back when he was PE) penchant for choosing who he calls on during his press conferences before the conference starts. The pre-selected reporters know he will choose them. It got to the point where other reporters wouldn't even raise their hands to ask questions.

If this pattern keeps up, things could get very interesting...very quickly.

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 10:25 am

^ not FUCKING true tip and YOU KNOW IT!!!!

it's not true because BHO has vowed transparency...if he's being transparent, he would've told the press to report this practice....NOT TRUE!!!!!!!!!!!!

IHateUGAlyDawgs · Post by **IHateUGAlyDawgs** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 10:25 am

I thought it wasn't true because it was reported by the Washington Times?

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 10:39 am

both!

IHateUGAlyDawgs · Post by **IHateUGAlyDawgs** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 11:18 am

There was a story from the Chicago Sun Times a week or so ago that detailed PE Obama's (back when he was PE) penchant for choosing who he calls on during his press conferences before the conference starts. The pre-selected reporters know he will choose them. It got to the point where other reporters wouldn't even raise their hands to ask questions.

If this pattern keeps up, things could get very interesting...very quickly.

Here you go, one from today:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/obamas_just_not_that_into_you.html

G8rMom7 · Post by **G8rMom7** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 11:25 am

I just heard that this secret swearing in thing didn't include a Bible to swear on...not sure if one was needed but more "swearing in" has historically included one. Just wonderin'.

IHateUGAlyDawgs · Post by **IHateUGAlyDawgs** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 11:26 am

meh. A bible is for traditional purposes. The re-swearing in was strictly for constitutional ones. Bible not necessary.

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 11:46 am

new guy trying to change the way things are done.

G8rMom7 · Post by **G8rMom7** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:06 pm

meh. A bible is for traditional purposes. The re-swearing in was strictly for constitutional ones. Bible not necessary.

so what was he swearing on? the life of his wife and kids? doubtful. Without something to swear on what is the "swear" worth?

IHateUGAlyDawgs · Post by **IHateUGAlyDawgs** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:55 pm

meh. A bible is for traditional purposes. The re-swearing in was strictly for constitutional ones. Bible not necessary.
so what was he swearing on? the life of his wife and kids? doubtful. Without something to swear on what is the "swear" worth?

what about me? I'm not religious...what would I swear on?

In court every single day we have people being sworn with no Bible, Torrah, or Koran. He was sworn in on a bible with all the pomp and circumstance. Out of an abundance of caution for some constitutional question (which isn't likely to really be a question), he took the oath again. IMO, Bible unnecessary - the words and intent of the oath are. Do you really think that just because there is a book there that he's more or less likely to fulfill the oath? I don't.

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:07 pm

^ a religious man like BHO would...not you obviously.

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:07 pm

have we ever had an atheist POTUS or VP?