Robert Gibbs: Grilling, defusing, rolling

Gibbs was floundering trying to explain the change in policy, while being grilled by reporters. The cell phone fiasco detracted from his answers, but he may have welcomed a distraction. I hope that the focus remains on the content of the briefing, and not the cell phone circus.

When Obama ran the word was CHANGE(openness)-
Now OPENNESS is fading, same as CHANGE

So why is this so negative towards Gibbs? He was trying to make light of an annoying situation, Lay off our president's press secretary.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

"Anonymous comments will not be posted. Inky is not anonymous. Everyone knows Inky."

When Obama ran the word was CHANGE(openness)-
Now OPENNESS is fading, same as CHANGE

Posted by: Inky | May 13, 2009 3:18 PM
****************

Here's some openness for you, InkyClown.

We're going to invade Iraq because they have WMD's......wait a minute.....uh.....hmm.....that was the guy (Bush) you voted for......nevermind.

Mark,

Let me get this straight...the story here is, instead of Obama doing a complete 180 on the release of supposed torture photos, the laugh-riot antics of Robert "Peter Griffin" Gibbs?

Comeon Mark! Obama completely reverses himself on the release of these alleged torture pictures, and you write this nonsense?!?

Did anyone ask Gibbs the obvious questions as to why Obama would back-pedal so quickly?

Were there any adults at the press conference?

Note to Obama - look before you leap and make yourself look even more like an incompetent fool.

Obamas' phoniness and issue switching depending on the audience was there from the beginning of his campaign but the media chose not to highlight it. Now that the audience is more encompassing, it can't be hidden.

Or perhaps the sobering reality of the decisions to be made and information held has simply tempered a new Administration's noble but naive promise for openness.

There really ARE some things the public should not know because they frankly would not know how to interpret piecemeal releases of data outside of the entire picture, particularly when it comes to intelligence and security matters. And God-forbid the freedom of informationset gets their hands on the entire picture . . .

Or perhaps the sobering reality of the decisions to be made and information held has simply tempered a new Administration's noble but naive promise for openness.

There really ARE some things the public should not know because they frankly would not know how to interpret piecemeal releases of data outside of the entire picture, particularly when it comes to intelligence and security matters. And God-forbid the freedom of information set gets their hands on the entire picture . . .

We know there was torture. We do not need to see more pictures especially if there could be retaliation to our service people.

Ginnny

Obama completely reverses himself on the release of these alleged torture pictures, and you write this nonsense?!?Did anyone ask Gibbs the obvious questions as to why Obama would back-pedal so quickly?
Posted by: Chris | May 13, 2009 4:02 PM
.

Chrissy,
Isn't it great that we finally have a president who can think on his feet?

It's a wise decision not to release anymore of the torture photographs because we already know the depths at which Bush and Cheney committed war crimes in our name. Releasing the photographs would only make things worse by reminding the rest of the world how much they hate us because of BushCo's actions.

Chris: Whether Obama's reversal is strategy or mistake, it sure has Darth Chaney all deffensive. The only fools in this topic are the pugs (bushco) that ordered the torture done in the first place. The releasing of pictures of the pug torture would never be talked about if the pugs did not do it in the first place.

Finally someone who has the guts to do something about people allowing their cell phones to ring regardless of their surroundings.

Put it on vibrate if you must have it on! UGH!

Nice diversion. Way to get off the subject. I never agreed with releasing the photos but this shows the lack of experience Obama has on foriegn policy because he likes the sound bites and tough talk with out any plan to acomplish any of the things he says he is going to do. Gitmo is the same thing. Eventually he will shove them down some state's throat or he will have to backslide and keep Gitmo open.

President Obama would be smart to do away with Robert Gibbs. Making the President look like a fool during these times is not in the Press Secretary's job description.

This comes from neither side of the political spectrum; just a professional observation from a PR guy: Robert Gibbs has the worst press-briefing skills of any Presidential press secy I've seen since at least Ron Ziegler during the Nixon Administration. The guy is barely articulate.

Good for Gibbs! Honest to god, haven't these people ever heard of VIBRATE?? What a bunch of morons.

That's disappointing. Not the phone stuff, but the reversal. Engage the public, release the pictures. He said he would make government more transparent, and this is a contradiction of that promise. I voted for him because I wanted him to stop these practices.

From the standpoint that the reporters don't turn off their cell phones during the presidential briefing, that is wrong and frankly obnoxious. From the standpoint that Mark Silva didn't cover the Obama badministration's 180-degree turnaround, well the Obune doesn't write critically of the Obama badministration, or of Democrats.
There has been very little Swamp coverage or Tribune coverage about all the different positions Nancy Pelooni has taken regarding what she's known about enhanced interrogations. Has there been something about Democratic Majority Leader Steny Hoyer saying there should be some sort of investigation about what Pelooni knew.

Chris,

There's not much story there. Obama promised during his campaign to do everything the opposite of Bush and company. Gullible people bought it, and elected him, so I guess it worked. Now that he has actual responsibility for the first time in his life, he's finding out that it's not quite that simple, and that Bush ( who I never voted for either, so don't waste your time on that flame ) wasn't always wrong.

Can you just imagine the uproar if during the Bush administration a reporter's cell phone was confisicated?

There would have been cries of "it's freedom of speech" and the ACLU would have stepped in.

Now it's just the press getting tweaked and a press secretary not being "tranparent."

Oh c'mon. Who is surprised that a president can't do everything he promised in the campaign. Remember when Clinton beat up the Sr. Bush about letting Cuban refugees into the country? What happened when he got in office and got the straight scoop and had to make the real decision? What happened when W promised to stop abortions? He got in office and quickly learned that even swinging at that pitch wouldn’t work. Same thing here ... when the details were explained to Obama he made a more informed decision. That isn't waffling or back-peddling, that's governing. We make different decisions based on new information in the business world every day ... it's how the world works, kids.

When Obama ran the word was CHANGE(openness)-
Now OPENNESS is fading, same as CHANGE

Posted by: Inky | May 13, 2009 3:18 PM
****************

Here's some openness for you, InkyClown.

We're going to invade Iraq because they have WMD's......wait a minute.....uh.....hmm.....that was the guy (Bush) you voted for......nevermind.

Posted by: B!!nky

So you are saying that if Obama is right then Bush must also be right?

Or is this another double standard?

Blinky,

"We're going to invade Iraq because they have WMD's......wait a minute.....uh.....hmm.....that was the guy (Bush) you voted for......nevermind."

And remember all of the Demos in the Senate read the intel and voted for the war as well. And contrary to what the Messiah says, he never voted against the war because he wasn't a senator when the vote was taken.. nevermind!!!!

well time will tell and we will all see the presidents programs that will no nothing escept tax us to death in the end. You Obahma supporters should read his plans in print and then maybe you will see the light that we are headed for a rude awakening of tax after tax that will be eating up over 60% of your check. I won`t have to say oi told you so just read and watch!!!!!

well time will tell and we will all see the presidents programs that will no nothing escept tax us to death in the end. You Obahma supporters should read his plans in print and then maybe you will see the light that we are headed for a rude awakening of tax after tax that will be eating up over 60% of your check. I won`t have to say oi told you so just read and watch!!!!!

"Same thing here ... when the details were explained to Obama he made a more informed decision. That isn't waffling or back-peddling, that's governing."

Uh, making a decision WITHOUT ALL OF THE FACTS isn't a problem? Isn't that what all of you liberals whined about when no WMDs were found? Apparently Obama can match Bush when it comes to making "uninformed decisions."

And remember all of the Demos in the Senate read the intel and voted for the war as well. And contrary to what the Messiah says, he never voted against the war because he wasn't a senator when the vote was taken.. nevermind!!!!

Posted by: rich | May 13, 2009 5:14 PM
***************

Yes Richy,
All of the Dems were fooled by Bush and Cheney's phony intel...and we're still paying for it in blood and treasure.

Mission Accomplished, Wingnuts!

After reading countless post pitting the lefties vs. the righties I come away with the same feeling every time: Instead of talking about the accomplishes (good or bad) of the Obama admin all the "lefties" do is talk about Bush! Get over it, Bush is gone, let's move on! How long will the left and the Obama clan cling to blamming everything on Bush? I guess until the press calls them on it.

Rich -- you conveniently forget that the "intel" provided to the Senate was worked up -- falsified -- to push the agenda of invading Iraq. That has been proven over and over. Minor detail that you seem to gloss over.

We are at war. Obama will not release the photos. It is the right decision. Suppose some punk reporter got the photo's and released them. Suppose a relative of mine was killed in the war by a fanatic enraged by the photos. Would it be improper for me to find and abuse the reporter?

Yes Richy,
All of the Dems were fooled by Bush and Cheney's phony intel...and we're still paying for it in blood and treasure.

Mission Accomplished, Wingnuts!

Posted by: Jimi Jagger

They sure are easy to fool, like 5 year olds believe in Santa. Bad, bad example

That isn't waffling or back-peddling, that's governing. We make different decisions based on new information in the business world every day ... it's how the world works, kids.

Posted by: Eric | May 13, 2009 5:11 PM
---
Eric- your claiming that this is governing... so what was "governing" about the plans to release the photos, the CIA memos, or the threats to the attorneys offering opnions about policy?
--
Obama 's own words called him on the lie that the detainee abuses "created" terrorists ... if this were true wouldn't re- hashing the whole thing create more terrorists?
--

Obama was busted- plain and simple... he wanted to release all of this info for no other reason than for politcal advantage- Cheney called him on this- Obama backed down.
--
BTW- this also may relieve him of the pressure to release the other CIA memos detailing the planned attacks that the interrogation techniques prevented...

--

Obama is an extremely talented politician- governing is a foreign concept to him.

What difference does it make that Obama reversed course on his previous pledge to release the photos. The important thing is that he is making the right decision today, based on the information that he has today.

Do any of you Bushco supporters disagree with Obama's final decision not to release the photos - or are you just seeking something to complain about.

Of course he shouldn't show the photos! Everyone knows this except for the moon-bat liberals.

The press failed to do their job by not holding Obama's feet to the fire. It was Obama who wanted to release the photos a month ago. We know this. It is Obama who is now back-pedaling on this.

What the American citizenry deserves to know is: WHY? It is the press corps' job to ask: WHY?

What the press needs to do is make the Obama administration answer this all important question. The citizenry should know Obama's reasoning behind the reversal.

Is it because disclosing the photos may endanger American troops? - Probably so, but former Bush administration officials told him this would be the case.

Does his reversal somehow validate Bush administration policy towards terror suspects? - Maybe, but until someone in the press asks these questions, we won't know.

Did Obama consider any or all of these possibilities before he originally proposed releasing the photos? - Maybe the press should do their job and get back to us.

Are all of Obama's decisions going to be based on some kind of "let's do the opposite of GWB, because he was stoopid" mentality?

The sun rose in the East yet again today. Need we any clearer proof that Obama is incompetent?

The childish comments here and elsewhere continually show that today's Republicans...oh, sorry, "independents," are far and away the most pathetic group around. No matter what the subject, you try to turn it around to a gripe about Obama. You lost, losers. You may predominate on this Board, but in the real world you're bunch of inconsequential whiners.

If Obama released the photos, yes, it would probably serve as a catalyst for more terrorist activity. They should, however, be used to charge and prosecute those who authorized this criminal behavior, which would hopefully diffuse the incentive for revenge. I'm fine with the photos not being released to the public if justice is served.

realist wrote: . . . Get over it, Bush is gone, let's move on! How long will the left and the Obama clan cling to blamming everything on Bush? . . .

*********************

Let's equate this with something a little more "real world." Let's say your son, "little Johnny" goes around the house with a baseball bat and smashes all the breakables -- lamps, windows, etc. Then he goes in the kitchen and empties all the food on the floor. On top of that, he takes all the cash out of mom's & dad's wallets and throws it in the fireplace. Mom comes home and sees the mess, but little Johnny is not around. She undertakes the huge task of cleaning up the mess left behind by little Johnny. In your view, mom should just "move on" and deal with the mess left behind and not put any blame on little Johnny. After all, it's in the past, right?

I love it. The same crowd who supported W and his horrific run as president, with his bumbled speech, bad policy, deference to Darth Vader Cheney and approval of TORTURE now complains that Obama doesn't want to release pictures of things that W approved???? So that's his fault? How about this...how about NOT APPROVING (or rationalizing) TORTURE, so there would be no memos or photos to release in the first place? How about putting 150,000 troops in Afghanistan where, you know, the folks who attacked us on 9/11 live, instead of going to Iraq? How about listening when Iran and N.Korea say HEY! We want nukes! Instead of ignoring them for Saddam - the guy we whipped in 3 days during the first Gulf War. Puh-leez.

This is funny, the Republicant whiners still can't believe that they don't hold the keys to the kingdom anymore. The cried about releasing the photos and now cry even louder when the President decides that AT THIS TIME, releasing the photos will not be in our nation's best interest. You can't have it both ways! I know, I know...after eight years of doing it that way, it's a hard habit to break. Kind of like Oxycontin...

It's only been three months of the Obama presidency and the Republican minions on here are already crying like the petulant children that we always knew that they were

Shouldn't you little Wingnut clowns be out Teabagging instead wasting your time on the computer today?!
.
http://brendancalling.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/teabag-me.jpg

Who cares about cell phones in some press briefing????

Blinky - On July 5, 2008 550 tons of yellowcake uranium arrived in Montreal. It is now being used in Canada's nuclear energy program. The cache was found in 2003 by American troops north of Baghdad near Al-Tuwaitha (you should google it - interesting stuff there) and (for obvious reasons) the discovery was kept secret for 5 years until it was moved.

More than one million one hundred thousand pounds of yellowcake uranium - sounds like WMD to me.

Source - msnbc.com July 5, 2008.

Blinky - On July 5, 2008 550 tons of yellowcake uranium arrived in Montreal. It is now being used in Canada's nuclear energy program. The cache was found in 2003 by American troops north of Baghdad near Al-Tuwaitha (you should google it
Posted by: Terry | May 13, 2009 10:43 PM
********************

Teabagger,

If that was actually the case don't you think W and Cheney would have been dancing in the streets with their "evidence" BEFORE their approval numbers dropped into the low 20's and the Republican party completely tanked? This isn't 1980 clown boy, thanks to modern technology your teams BS Republican talking points now get debunked and mocked as soon as you get them from Fixed News and Druggy Rush.

Of all the deadenders on the rightwing lunatic fringe you are dumbest, hands down.

Terry,
You do know that this "yellowcake" was declared by Saddam and known by the US and monitored by the UN, and had nothing to do with the ridiculous claims regarding hidden WMD stockpiles and nuclear capability claimed by Bush and Friends as they rammed this war up your patriotic and quivering butt?

Try again....

Obama made a political decision not to release the photos because he did not want the Muslin world up in flames during his "messianic" speech to them in Egypt. Clearly he could see millions demonstrating against him (America was a secondary consideration and the danger to our troops was good political cover for the MSM) during his next apology trip. That is the "meat" of this decision. Mark, nice of you to downplay his reversal with this cell phone fluff. How about an article on continuing military tribunals now called "national security courts". Just take off the uniforms and give them a new obfuscating name.

Of all the press secretaries since WW2, Gibbs is probably the least eloquent. He stutters, stammers, pauses, and struggles to find words. He reflects poorly on the Obama administration. May God give Gibbs and Obama just one term - please! The USA cannot handle any more than 4 years of this 'change'.

If I were the abused person(s), I would not appreciate circulation of photos featuring my humiliation.

President Obama is not denying abuse, only moving to prevent unnecessary damage to the U.S., while allowing the abused to maintain what little dignity they may have left.

Publicity of the photos is absolutely not necessary to take appropriate action against the abuser(s).

President Obama would be smart to do away with Robert Gibbs. Making the President look like a fool during these times is not in the Press Secretary's job description.