November 15, 2012

"Obama steamed over Rice."

Item on ... no, not on a menu... on Politico's "most read" list.

37 comments:

Hagar said...

Well, we can hope!

Patrick said...

At the end of that article:

At the end of the 52-minute news conference, Obama made clear that his attempts at controlling the media won’t change much in a second term.

He quickly shut down Bloomberg reporter Hans Nichols, who shouted a question about the fiscal cliff as the president tried to leave the podium. This flouted what Obama likes to do, which is answer questions only from reporters on a list prepared by his aides.

“That was a great question,” Obama said, his annoyance surfacing again, “but it would be a horrible precedent for me to answer your question just because you yelled it out.”

He then turned, and left.


Not approved? Don't bother. Make things difficult for the President? You're not approved.

The Press should be embarrassed, but they are not.

John said...

The guy has followers who are nothing short of a cult. It does not matter what he does, his brain dead followers will excuse it.

As far as the media goes, yeah, they are going to shut up and do what they are told. As time goes on expect him to treat them with more and more contempt. It is human nature. When someone is as obsequious as the media is with Obama, the object of that obsequiousness cannot help but hold them in contempt.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

John

That is one mouthful of steamed Obama. Agreed.

Drago said...

“That was a great question,” Obama said, his annoyance surfacing again, “but it would be a horrible precedent for me to answer your question just because you yelled it out.”

Two words: Sam. Donaldson.

Scott said...

Obama steamed over Rice with a Side of Tempura Puppydog

mishu said...

John, don't say the C word. You might scare up Crack.

kcom said...

"John, don't say the C word. You might scare up Crack."

Did I mention that Mormons are the most trustworthy public servants that we have. I wish all our politicians were Mormons.

edutcher said...

I'm surprised they don't genuflect when he leaves.

Meade said...

Scott said...
"Obama steamed over Rice with a Side of Tempura Puppydog"

Rice - (crunchy)
Obama - (tough)
Puppydog - (tougher)

Meade said...

Wait, I had those reversed. It was snake meat that was tougher. Dog meat was tough.

Matthew Sablan said...

Hey, remember when journalists conspired to make sure they asked Romney embarrassing questions by all agreeing the first question would be X no matter who was called on?

I think they should do that again. Only this time, to the guy who actually makes decisions that leave people lying dead in New York and Benghazi.

Rob said...

This is just more war on women nonsense. The faux chivalry is to appeal to the single women. Why are McCain and Graham being so mean??? Wah.

We are a nation of children.

TosaGuy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
TosaGuy said...

People who voted for Obama are not interested in these questions for a variety of reasons.

All other people don't matter.

Pragmatist said...

Or it could be that she is perfectly qualified for the position and the Right's idiotic attempt to make a "scandal" over the Libyan incident is just more desperate duncery from the dim witted demagogues of Fox "news". So yes, it would steam the boilers. Stupidity usually does. And of course using the murder of Americans for poltical gain is kind of gross...but what else to expect from sore losers.

Scott said...

@Meade: I wouldn't know. I had a taste of puppy soup at an Oglala Lakota Sun Dance many moons ago. It was about all I could tolerate.

damikesc said...

Did I mention that Mormons are the most trustworthy public servants that we have.

With Reid being the exception that proves the rule.

Rocketeer said...

And of course using the murder of Americans for poltical gain is kind of gross...but what else to expect from sore losers.

Blind spot warning, Pragmatist. Check your six!

Paul said...

As soon as you see a name like "Pragmatist", "A Reasonable Man ", or "A Dose Of Sanity", etc. you can count on it being a full on left wing barking moonbat every time. Hilarious!

Sam L. said...

So he says. Suuuuuuuuuuuuuure he is, say I.

But, Meade, snake tastes like chicken!

Chip Ahoy said...

One time at the Fed the computer technicians installed a large red button with a handwritten note "panic button." Like a cartoon button right there by the door inside the check sorting room.

Two of my more playful employees wondered what would happen if they pushed the inviting playful giant red cartoon button, so they pushed it. It's a girl / boy thing, you get two together and they play around. I can see them doing it. Nobody told me anything about a button.

Operations stopped.

They came running to me and told me what happened.

I told my boss.

He told his boss

She told her boss

He was one of 4 branch VPs

In about one minute. So there we were. We all knew the truth immediately. Silly employees pushed giant red cartoon panic button.

Before the problem was solved. All the branches came down. Head office in Kansas City also down. All check sorting operation in 10th District FED down.

There wasn't a good "restore" in place yet. They were still working on that when a technician put up the red button with his own technician humorous sign assuming everyone there has his own good sense and his own solid sense of humor. That was the real problem, figuring out the whole system was down and how to restore it.

We had a meeting in the VP's office and the VP was so bummed out about the real story. So stupid, he'd be the laughingstock of the place. He decided the employees playing wasn't a good enough reason so he made up a lie. [Which I presently cannot recall, so trivial the lie was] We were all to agree on the lie. Our new story had nothing to do with a giant red button which was too ridiculous a reason to provide our head office. It never came to me having to lie but my respect for the whole line of authority went zoink zoink zoink. In fact, I changed positions after that to another position that was a lot more fun and stopped working there not too long after.


jr565 said...

“That was a great question,” Obama said, his annoyance surfacing again, “but it would be a horrible precedent for me to answer your question just because you yelled it out.”

Fuck you Obama.

jr565 said...

Kristen Powers:
Obama's defesnes of Rice was paternalistic.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/11/15/kirsten_powers_obama_defending_susan_rice_was_paternalistic.html

Ohh! The mean men went after the defenseless woman and were mean to her. She needs to be defended by strong Obama!
I bet this is an example of Inga's suggestion of a war on women to many. But really, she holds a position of power. Should the fact taht she's a woman mean that no one can be critical of her actions? Where is Obama cgetting off?
When Condi was in the White House she was confronted with plenty of questions, despite the fact that she was a woman.
I guess when repubs are in power, women are treated like equals deserving of criticism from the left and media, but when its a democrat, we can't say anything that might make the cry.

jr565 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jr565 said...

Pragmatist wrote:
And of course using the murder of Americans for poltical gain is kind of gross...but what else to expect from sore losers.


Who's accusing her of murder? Murders were committed. Are you aware of that? An embassy was overrun. Are you aware of that? And despite the attack lasting 7 hours no one was called to rescue them. Why not? There might be a reasonable reason for this lack of response, but don't the people who could have made it have to answer the question?

Seriously, pragmatist (and by the way, are you practicing irony with that name choice) if this were the Bush White House would you accept the non response that we got from Obama and his minions? Over the death of Americans and our ambassador (Which hasn't happened in ages)? Hypocrite.

Furhter, are they trying to say it was an attack based on a riot that just happened to form because if they acknowledge that it was in fact a planned attack they then have to answer the question as to why they ignored REPEATED requests for more security from the embassy? Are they not aware that this wasn't the first time that this embassy had been attacked recently and that the Brits and Red Cross had pulled out because of the increase of Al Qaeda attacks in the area? Again, why then was the request for REPEATED calls for increased security ignored.
To you and Obama, even asking the question is politicizing it for political gain and kind of gross.
Do you have an answer for us Pragmatist over this basic question? If not,then why aren't you the least bit curious? If you don't have an answer isn't it incumbent on people asking the administration the question, so as to get an answer?

Actually, I think your partisan lack of curiosity about the death of Americans and insinuation that Obama and his administration somehow can't even be questioned is gross. And shows that previous calls for speaking truth to power, were just political power grabs for political gain (i.e. playing politics with tragedy) which were indeed pretty gross.

You are pretty gross.

harrogate said...

Also, lol at John McCain.

jr565 said...

Off the subject, but had to share this:
Soak the rich. Play the game and see the effect of soaking the rich will have on our debt.

http://soaktherich.us

Note this is simply soaking the rich to deal with the 2011 deficit of 1.3 trillion, not the actual deficit of 16 trillion. And note, when we soak the rich in this game we are REALLY soaking them not just raising the taxes to levels under Clinton.
Keep your eye on the line. Ideally, the line should turn green as our soaking the rich effects our debt. Yet, I tried it a bunch of times (for convenience sake theres a button you can click to soak them all at once) and there is far more red than green.

Now look at the jobs in each of these industries. How many will be lost when we try to soak the rich for what appears to be no gain whatsoever.

Comanche Voter said...

Well let's just say that after being sent out to lie, Susan Rice's reputation is now chop suey.

McTriumph said...

They weren't chanting, "Death to the video maker" in Cairo. They were chanting, "Death to Obama, we are all Osama". Although Morsi did mention the video the day after the riots started, while he was waiting for cash from Obama. So was it the video or the democrats dancing on the carcass of Osama bin Ladin at the convention?

Roberto said...

2002 U.S. Embassy Karachi, Pakistan: 10 killed, 51 injured
2004 U.S. Embassy bombed in Uzbekistan: 2 killed, several injured
2004 U.S. Consulate Saudi Arabia: 8 killed
2006 U.S. Embassy Syria: 1 killed, several injured
2007 U.S. Embassy in Athens: bombed with an anti-tank grenade; fortunately it was unoccupied
2008 U.S. Embassy in Serbia: set on fire; 1 dead
2008 U.S. Embassy in Yemen: bombed; 10 killed

kcom said...

A couple of questions:

- Which one of those embassy attacks were lied about repeatedly in order to protect a political campaign?

- Which of those embassies came under a sustained attack that lasted for 7 hours when an intervention would have changed things?

- Do you have a point?

EMD said...

2002 U.S. Embassy Karachi, Pakistan: 10 killed, 51 injured
2004 U.S. Embassy bombed in Uzbekistan: 2 killed, several injured
2004 U.S. Consulate Saudi Arabia: 8 killed
2006 U.S. Embassy Syria: 1 killed, several injured
2007 U.S. Embassy in Athens: bombed with an anti-tank grenade; fortunately it was unoccupied
2008 U.S. Embassy in Serbia: set on fire; 1 dead
2008 U.S. Embassy in Yemen: bombed; 10 killed


That Nakouly guy has a LOT to answer for!

jr565 said...

Back to the election, it looks like libertarians acting like retards was a big reason that the presidential election went the way it did. My apologies to evangelicals.


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/15/1162077/-Libertarians-provided-the-margin-for-Democrats-in-at-least-nine-elections#

Whatever we might say about Inga, at least she votes for her interests.


These libertarians remind me of Brick in Anchorman. When the various news teams are about to scuffle, there's brick standing with Wes Mantooth, and has to be told to get back over to his side. Brick, is laughing because Wes said "hiney".

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1Zro4CfP9wY

Dumb assholes.



jr565 said...

Wow, as per Peter ki g, the intelligence community said right off the bat that there was Al Qaeda group involved with the attack and mentioned that in their talking points. But someone removed that inference and instead went with the video meme.
How did that happen, and ho made that change? Was it the White House? the state dept?
Again, there might be some reasonable reason for the initial suggestion that the attack was an al Qaeda related attack became a riot that went out of control, but isn't it incumbent on Obama to explain that discrepency?
Media, there is no reason to go after McCain. He is demanding answers. That's your job? Why don't you do it?

DEEBEE said...

Has the SS(*) given you a visit?

* Secfet Service

kentuckyliz said...

Speaking of which: Petraeus is up at bat today.

The truth will out. Today or someday. The truth will out.

You don't want this to be the lingering, festering wound on the Blowbama Presidency?

Blowbama = media fellation