Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama says one thing, his advisors say something else (370 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Start with talking points... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tbetz

    ...and work back from there.

    Unfortunately, the blogosphere doesn't work like a press release.

    •  I wrote the post myself. (0+ / 0-)

      I know that doesn't fit into your preconceived notions, but that's the way it is.

      You'd know that if you read my website regularly.

      Carolyn Kay
      MakeThemAccountable.com

      •  I'm sure it's your original work (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tbetz

        I kind of doubt the ideas are yours, though.  I've seen the same one-sided, tendentious stuff in all the usual places.

        •  So, I should discount anything YOU say ... (0+ / 0-)

          ... because of your beliefs?

          Where does that leave us?  You can't believe me and I can't believe you.

          When does the unity part start, anyway?

          Carolyn Kay
          MakeThemAccountable.com

          •  Carolyn, this is straightforward (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            tbetz

            Look, you're trying to draw conclusions from evidence that simply doesn't support it.

            To my knowledge, no one has vouched for the accuracy of the contents of that memo.  No one.

            Is it authentic?  Yep.  Accuracy is something else, however.

            Eyewitness reports are extremely unreliable, whether or not they're written down.  This isn't an Obama campaign memo -- it's a third-party recounting, after the fact, of a conversation.  Those involved in the conversation never had the chance to review it for accuracy.

            And because this has been pointed out many times, yet these ideas persist, then it most certainly does appear that we're not talking about reasoned deduction, here, but rather talking points.

            I would never discount your evidence because of your beliefs, though a history (or lack of same) of dishonesty would lead me to double check evidence produced by anyone.

            The problem here is that most here are already familiar with this story, and simply don't agree that the evidence supports the conclusions.

            •  The original report was most likely correct ... (0+ / 0-)

              ... that Obama advisor Goolsbee talked with the consulate and told them not to worry about Obama's rhetoric.  Why would anybody lie about that, either the person who leaked it to CTV or the CTV reporter?

              I think they tried to drag Hillary into it because they had egg all over their faces and could be accused of having an effect on our elections.  If they accused her too, they could look "bipartisan".

              But the fact that the last statement agrees with the first one makes me think that those two are the true story.

              Carolyn Kay
              MakeThemAccountable.com

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (160)
  • Community (76)
  • Elections (45)
  • Environment (44)
  • Bernie Sanders (43)
  • 2016 (41)
  • Spam (36)
  • Hillary Clinton (36)
  • Culture (35)
  • Republicans (34)
  • Climate Change (32)
  • Media (32)
  • Labor (28)
  • Civil Rights (28)
  • Congress (26)
  • Education (25)
  • Law (25)
  • Science (24)
  • Texas (23)
  • Barack Obama (22)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site