Mixed Messages on Pres. O's meeting with Human Rights Advocates

[vaberella]

There are several different stories running around. You have Isikoff on Rachel's show, I believe. You have the NYT article and you have Huffingtonpost article.

Now the NYT article is on the "LBN" section and I have to say...I'm extremely, extremely, extremely hard pressed to believe it because it has two unnamed sources making statements on a closed cabinet meeting.

It really makes me wonder what the hell is going on. If you're interested here is the link (you can see the damn drama unfolding in droves with hysterical statements which you can read yourself---because I have no intention of putting anyone on the spot).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3886686

Here is the second article from Huffpost which actually has named sources of Human Rights officials who commented on the Presidents position and what he is dealing with. NOTE: NAMED SOURCES!!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8422336

So who would I find more credible?! NYT or Huffpost, in this instance...take a guess. While there are people running around looney tunes about O's position, I of course wait for the Pres to comment, which I believe he will do tomorrow or later today. But also I'd sooner take Huffpost than the NYT, any day of the week.

The NYT is also harping on maybes, hypotheticals and possibilities on what the Pres will do without giving me anything realistic. Not to mention, dated quotes. It's like a made up story filled with cut and paste to "make a story." While the Huffpost article is giving me some sort of substance and words coming out of people we can check up on.

So I'm calling NYT a shit stirrer.

[Uzybone]

1. The NYT sources are "dismayed"

because President Obama is looking for a way to detain terror suspects within the law. That makes no sense.

As a rule I go with named over unnamed 7 days a week.

[vaberella]

2. Exactly. I don't get it. But did you see the posts?!

It makes no sense to me. I think people love BS!!

[Uzybone]

3. Unfortunately too many people still see this as a game

We are still playing politics with very serious matters. That is why Congress is acting like they are, "left wing" groups are being intentionally myopic and the media is playing gotcha games.

[MarjorieG]

10. Good comment.

[rpannier]

9. The thing that I'd watch for is how the phrase "within the law" becomes defined

Does it mean the law as it has been applied for the last 5 years?
How the law has been applied prior to DUH-bya and Elmer?
or What?

I see these phrases and terms and they're never clarified, but that's our press for you.

When I watch ABC-TV (Asia-Pacific) out of Australia when phrases like that are used the reporters 90% of the time ask for a clarification.

I'm not totally dismayed by many things that have been said (or rumored to have been said) by the Obama Admin.
The fact is, no President is going top automatically cede anything until they've done full research on the issue.
To do otherwise would be suicidal

[masuki bance]

4. People at the meeting who are critical of Obama may not

want to take that public by putting their name on it. You may find yourself quickly uninvited from any further meetings.

[vaberella]

8. Then say nothing.

First off, did you read the first article?! Note, as I mentioned in my OP, there are a lot of re-hashed quotes from the past. There is nothing current, except from two anonymous posters. The other note is that the woman for Huffpost didn't speak in glowing commemoration of the president. She stated things as she saw it and the difficulty he's faced with in facing the rule of law and dealing with shit going on. The other group was straight out critical and it was all MAYBEs. There was nothing set in stone, or set as fact. And yet it's taken in as though it's true. You'll note the reaction of the posters on that thread and how many started exclaiming when there was no proof to support the claims in the article. There's nothing to say it's not true...but how do we take anonymity with maybes versus actual input and plans.

[Clio the Leo]

5. What amazes me if that if people are shocked at what they're reading...

.... and if an article causes them to question "who" we've elected .... then why are they not questioning the source?

Unless, of course, they were confused to begin with. I'm glad for any vote he got, but some folks were either confused or uninformed.

On the other hand, he has yet to surprise me on ANYTHING. ... and that's a compliment.

There's two books folks. And even if you only read "Audacity" chapter 1, it's ALL laid out for you. His political philosphy by it's very nature will alternate between pissing off the left and the right. Those who are expecting partisan loyality are going to be very frustrated for the next 8 years.

From the day he was born, he was a little of this and a little of that and some of everything. He's not going to be pigeon-holed now.

[vaberella]

7. Exactly. And really as we all our. Some more of this than that. ^_^

I'm just appalled by the jumping to conclusions. I sincerely believe there are people here who just don't like Obama and will use anything to crucify him (bad choice of words but I'm short on eloquence tonight). Not to mention it's the usual suspects.

[firedupdem]

6. I am not buying the unnamed sources. I'll wait to hear from the President. n/t

[vaberella]

13. I think today, O will be addressing a lot of the shit we've been hearing.

Whenever he gives a speech it is never just one sided, there's a lot ot read from them.

[LooseWilly]

11. I find myself struck by the tension of differences in detail...

I didn't read the NYT link, but I did see Isikoff on Maddow... and I did read the Huffington Post link... and I find it interesting that Isikoff seemed to have more information, though from unnamed sources, than the named source in the Huffington Post article seemed comfortable in giving.

That said, I find my inclination to be to believe the info from the named source of the Huffington Post article... but to suspect that that was not, by any stretch of the imagination, a conclusive summation of the meeting. Rather, I find myself inclined to take the further information that Isikoff presented (details like Obama being confronted with opinions that his policies amounted to little more than an extension of Bush policies at this point, on a number of issues... and the displeasure with which Obama greeted this opinion... frustration on both sides... and continued unease and distrust of Obama's likely policies going forward) as possible truths to be kept under advisement and consideration, when listening to his speech tomorrow.

I understand that many are enthusiastic about Obama, and are less prone to cynical devaluations of hope/promise/faith in the face of 4 months worth of evidence than I am, but personally... rather than dismiss any criticism that is not firmly founded in well-established fact... I prefer to half-accept the un-sourced criticisms, and keep them handy in the back of my mind, pending the actual proving/disproving of said criticisms. Half-accepted criticisms I treat as credible suspicions, not yet proven. They are like evidence that is not beyond a shadow of a doubt, if they fit into place with other evidence, then they may take on some real weight, in the meantime, they are too shadowy to be truly convincing.

My point in posting this response is simply this. I think summary dismissal of the stories in the NYT and from Isikoff on Maddow is a partisan exercise that might make you feel good... and help quell unease... but I think it is currently too early to dismiss these sources entirely. If nothing surfaces in the next week or two to substantiate them, then I will feel comfortable dismissing them, in the meantime, I think it is prudent to treat them as "half-finished theories/criticisms/accounts".

Which would make them not "shit stirrers", but foundations of investigations that may or may not lead to real and stable conclusions.

[vaberella]

12. No, you're statement is extremely reasonable.

I just noticed, if you followed the link to the DU thread on the NYT article that people are far from as reasonable as you are. They just jumped on the unnamed sources and believed every word in regards to thoughts that may have been brought up during the talk.

However, my point was not to dismiss Isikoff as I had not seen him on Maddow, I was mainly looking at the NYT article and the Huffpost article and compared the two of them. The NYT makes mention of many things that just seemed hypothetical than factual while the huffpost article is something else entirely.

[EFerrari]

14. Newsweek, too?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3887400&mesg_id=3887400

No love lost on NYTs or Newsweek here but they both reported it.