Obama redefines confidential
The Bush administration is furious … the Obama camp has egg on its face. Yesterday’s private face to face between the current President and the President elect was supposed to be personal and confidential. President Bush kept his end of the bargain, Obama did not and is backing off. Video below the fold.
At least we know the Democrats will continue to keep secrets as well as they always have. The rush to occupy the White House will have to wait until January. It would be nice if they respected the office a little more until then.
7 Comments
The website's content and articles were migrated to a new framework in October 2023. You may see [shortcodes in brackets] that do not make any sense. Please ignore that stuff. We may fix it at some point, but we do not have the time now.
You'll also note comments migrated over may have misplaced question marks and missing spaces. All comments were migrated, but trackbacks may not show.
The site is not broken.
"It would be nice if they respected the office a little more until then."
That statement makes it sound like they respected the office at all. Ever. This isn't surprising, in my opinion. The treatment of this President has been absolutely embarrassing all across the board and it looks like it's going to continue right up until the day he moves out. Sad.
So, they leaked and they're lying? "…a result of reports which I think were not accurate, I think we've cleared up."
It's OK to blast the MSM when it's convenient, hmm? They only report falsely when it's about Palin, it appears.
And then when it's cleared up, the Obama transition team is lying to cover the mistake. But Palin wasn't lying when she set the record straight. Got it… I think.
I guess I missed whatever Brian saw in this story. "Somebody" leaked information about the Bush/Obama meeting, and the liberal media dutifully reported it, apparently without checking on the veracity of the report. Likewise the story with Palin. In both cases, it was apparent that the initial reports were designed to hurt the conservative subject of the story.
Fox was reporting on the "reporting" (repeating) of the leaks by WaPo and the NYTimes, the usual leftwing cheerleader culprits in leaks that generally do not seem to be in the best interests of the U.S.
I don't think comparing the absurd coverage of Palin with this story, or any involving Obama, really help your position, Brian.
@Dims My point is that, once the MSM has totally misreported the story, we're supposed to believe Palin when she corrects the record, but not Obama's transition team. Follow?
I have a prediction – when Bush leaves office there will be no press at Andrews (remember the press showing the Clinton send off including the speech). The next day the press will either not mention Bush or the will imply that he slinked out of town.
Also, remember the outrage on Bush rescinding executive orders (can I have more arsenic please). Not one commnt will be made about the one rescinding any of the Bush orders.
Once again we are the following the rules and honoring themselves by being men of thier word. But Obama is not trustworthy and I am concerned with his talk to Hammas and other world leaders are not going to trust him when they tell him something important. Do you think Israel is going to tell him anything? No way
Brian: "My point is that, once the MSM has totally misreported the story, we’re supposed to believe Palin when she corrects the record, but not Obama’s transition team. Follow?"
Too bad the two situations aren't comparable, Brian.
For starters, the Palin story, iirc, came from a spoof/fake web-blog of someone pretending to be a McCain aide, i.e. a hoax.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jiO_hn-5SfG9hd…
The Obama transition team leaks, on the other hand, would appear to originate with the Obama campaign.
Keep trying — sooner or later something will stick.