Answer: When it is issued by Øbama or one of his acolytes.
If you don’t rely on the mainstream media, you are probably aware that Charles Krauthammer (hereafter: KH), commenting on Romney’s European tour, noted the following:
…On the contrary. Obama started his presidency by returning to the British Embassy the bust of Winston Churchill that had graced the Oval Office. Then came the State Department official who denied the very existence of a U.S.-British special relationship, saying: ‘There’s nothing special about Britain. You’re just the same as the other 190 countries in the world.’
One Dan Pfeiffer, the Øbama White House Communications Director, took great umbrage at this assertion, calling it “patently false”, “ridiculous” and an “urban legend” among other things. He even offered “photographic evidence in support of his blog post. Overall, he slammed KH.
Not so fast, Dan! Krauthammer promptly issued evidence that it was Pfeiffer that was wrong. () KH quickly dissected Pfeiffer and his “facts” and demanded an apology.
Pfeiffer eventually had to offer an “apology” a few days later (not as rapid as the couple of hours it took him to post his attack on the honesty of KH) as follows:
I take your criticism seriously and you are correct that you are owed an apology. There was clearly an internal confusion about the two busts and there was no intention to deceive. I clearly overshot the runway in my post. The point I was trying to make – under the belief that the Bust in the residence was the one previously in the Oval Office– was that this oft repeated talking point about the bust being a symbol of President Obama’s failure to appreciate the special relationship is false. The bust that was returned was returned as a matter of course with all the other artwork that had been loaned to President Bush for display in his Oval Office and not something that President Obama or his Administration chose to do. I still think this is an important point and one I wish I had communicated better.
A better understanding of the facts on my part and a couple of deep breaths at the outset would have prevented this situation. Having said all that, barring a miracle comeback from the Phillies I would like to see the Nats win a world series even if it comes after my apology
Note that he says “you are owed an apology”, but does not proceed to issue one. Saying you are owed an apology is very different from saying that you apologize. The rest of his explanation about this not being an affront to the British is belied by the latter part of the first quote in this post, namely that ‘There’s nothing special about Britain. You’re just the same as the other 190 countries in the world.’ I don’t recall that statement ever being retracted or the official that issued it being called on the carpet.
But, as Paul Harvey used to say, “and now, the rest of the story”.
The NYTimes Andrew Rosenthal wrote in the “Taking Note” blog what was pretty much a gussied up version of Pfeiffer’s blog post (dare I say, lipstick on a pig?). Naturally, with the issuance of the pseudo apology by Pfeiffer, Rosenthal had to recant. But here is the most interesting part: Rosenthal blames his fault because “he made the mistake of relying on a White House blog post by the communications director Dan Pfeiffer…”
Needless to say, Rosenthal’s admission reveals what the NYTimes and other left wing media outlets use as “news”: anything that comes out of the White House, including talking points.
Clearly, Rosenthal was pretty peeved though, describing Pfeiffer’s follow-up comment as “weaselly” (sic) and “making no sense”, “failing to acknowledge that his post the previous day was false.”
So what did we learn, students?
1) The White House and its staff will almost reflexively lie in order to protect their man;
2) The left wing media takes its marching orders from the White House and the DNC with no fact checking; and
3) The Øbamaroids will never apologize for #1.
As I have said previously, being a Democrat means never having to (really) say you are sorry.