Posted on 05/11/2013 11:26:56 AM PDT by DanMiller
Nor did the White House even suggest that any changes be made. Indeed, the White House never even read any talking points. Suggestions to the contrary by the partisan Republican obstructionists are damaging our very nation.
I just watched a YouTube video of Press Secretary Carney's highly incendiary illuminating one hour long press briefing of May 10th. Instead of repeating himself interminably, shifting, dodging, dancing around -- and in many cases stepping into -- traps maliciously attempted to be laid by the faux media, he should have responded to all questions about White House involvement as follows:
I want to make it absolutely clear at the outset that the White House in no way, shape or form had any input whatever in preparing any talking points memo authored by the Intelligence Community. Nor did the White House demand, request or even suggest any changes. The White House had no ability to do anything of the kind, as should be obvious even to the most visually and cognitively challenged partisan Republican. The White House is a building.However, the White House is not merely a building. Nor is it just one of the many important and beautiful buildings in Washington. It is also of greatest historical importance to the nation, dating back to the days when our very first President, Walter Washington -- the great grandson of an American slave -- resided there. When sequesters and other outrageous Republican partisan efforts do not interfere, it is frequently visited by our dear little children so that they can learn American history first hand and perhaps get a fleeting glance at our heroically transparent President and his charming First Lady. Attempts to deprive our children of perhaps their only opportunity to learn American history first hand is disgraceful. If it continues, our next generation will be greatly damaged by obstructionist Republican efforts to prevent our children from learning about our rich national culture and history as you and I were privileged to do.
By claiming, for gross partisan political purposes, that the White House did something bad in connection with our efforts to provide accurate information on what happened in Benghazi a very long time ago, the disloyal opposition gravely damages our nation, and not only domestically. They also cast her in an unfavorable light internationally -- a situation that President Obama has from the first days of his presidency sought to rectify.
Thank you for being here and for representing the very best of the legitimate news media.
This concludes the press briefing unless there are important questions about what President Obama had for dinner last night.
Hearing none, thank you and have a pleasant day.
It has been reported by the Daily Pest Beast that
It was a scary day at the White House on Saturday—for about five minutes. Reports of smoke emanating from the West Wing, including the press area, led to a brief evacuation.
There is as yet no clearly established causal relationship between the smoke emanating "from the West Wing, including the press area" and yesterday's press briefing by Mr. Carney. Nor has any clear connection yet been established with the unfortunate recent conflagration at a fertilizer plant in the small town of West Texas. However, a full investigation by the FBI is underway to provide clear responses to all potentially damaging troublesome questions.
Post script: After watching the House Oversight Committee hearings and reading yesterday's media reports which likely brought about Press Secretary Carney's briefing, I wrote a serious article about the Benghazi kerfuffle here. It seems likely that the press briefing did nothing to limit the damage to President Obama and former Secretary Clinton and that it may well have exacerbated it.
Of course any questioning of the glorious one is damaging to the nation. It’s traitorous, and completely unzombie-like.
This brings to mind the twelve revisions to the Gettysburg Address before it was written, of the twelve revisions to FDR’s declaration of war on Japan twenty-four hours after the Pearl Harbor attack, and of the twelve revisions to Washington’s first speech after taking office. //sarcasm off
Sadly, I think from this point on....no one much is going to truly believe anything they say...asking them if this was a draft statement, version six, or the final.
Lies about Fast and Furious an refusing to provide Congress with requested documents.
Lies about Benghazi and refusing to provide Congress with requested papers.
Lies about Syria and Obama’s connection with the Muslim Brotherhood
He goes to Mexico and lies about guns
Lies about our Health care Bill.
Lies , Lies, and more Lies.
What does it take to get Congress to act?
Bribery seems to work rather well.
I understand some of the changes happened when a stray parrot flew through the briefing room.
The White House couldn’t possibly change the talking points, all of the print cartridges were dry due to the Sequester.
Benghazi?
Only the POTUS could have given/denied Cross Border Authorization.
Try to spin that.
Carney is the Goebbels of our time.
I always thought of him as Chip Diller, the Omega frat pledge played by Kevin Bacon in "Animal House." ("ALL IS WELL1 ALL IS WELL!!!")
| I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America and I will obey the orders of those appointed over me. I represent the fighting spirit of the Navy and those who have gone before me to defend freedom and democracy around the world. I proudly serve my country's Navy combat team with Honor, Courage and Commitment. I am committed to excellence and the fair treatment of all. After Obama's Benghazi Disaster a new recruitment ad for TV?- The Sailors' Creed was modified in 1993 under President Bill "Shut The Door" Clinton, who, for the first time in U.S. history, allowed homosexuals in the military by signing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." The current version of the creed, a slight modification of the 1993 version, was published in 1997. Prior to 1993, the Sailors' Creed (once) said: I have chosen to serve in the United States Navy. America depends on my performance for her survival, and I accept the challenge to set my standards high, placing my country's well-being above self-interest. I will be loyal to my country, its Constitution and laws, and to my shipmates. I will be honest in my personal and professional life and encourage my shipmates to do the same. I will, to the best of my ability, do the right thing for its own sake, and I am prepared to face pain or death in defense of my country. I will be a professional, wearing my uniform with pride and accepting responsibility for my actions. I will set excellence as my standard and always strive for ways to make me a better sailor and my crew a better crew. The newest text appears to give the orders of superiors the same weight as the U.S. Constitution and eliminates references to "responsibility" and doing "the right thing." Adding a reference to obedience to superiors, the second line now reads: I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America and I will obey the orders of those appointed over me. In its entirely, it says now: I am a United States Sailor. I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America and I will obey the orders of those appointed over me. I represent the fighting spirit of the Navy and those who have gone before me to defend freedom and democracy around the world. I proudly serve my country's Navy combat team with Honor, Courage and Commitment. I am committed to excellence and the fair treatment of all. Fearing the the new policy on homosexuals will erode religious liberty, the chaplains alliance worked with other groups to draft a preventative measure in the National Defense Authorization Act for the Fiscal Year 2013. The measure allows chaplains to practice their faith as they have since the nation's founding. Section 533 of the bill reads: No member of the Armed Forces may (1) require a chaplain to perform any rite, ritual, or ceremony that is contrary to the conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs of the chaplain; or (2) discriminate or take any adverse personnel action against a chaplain, including denial of promotion, schooling, training, or assignment, on the basis of the refusal by the chaplain to comply with a requirement prohibited by paragraph. Crews and his allies pleaded that all members of the armed forces should be extended religious freedoms. "We had asked for language that included all service members, not just chaplains," Crews explained. When President Obama signed the bill in January, however, he issued a signing statement that rejected the conscience provision, calling it "unnecessary and ill-advised." While the president doesn't have the power to veto particular sections of a bill, "signing statements" indicate how the administration interprets its duty to enforce the measure. More than a decade before Clinton opened the door for homosexuals to enlist, the U.S. Department of Defense policy stated that homosexual behavior in the military poses a threat to the proper functioning of the armed forces and, therefore, national security. "Homosexuality is incompatible with military service," the DOD stated in a regulation issued in 1981. "The presence in the military environment of persons who engage in homosexual conduct or who, by their statements, demonstrate a propensity to engage in homosexual conduct, seriously impairs the accomplishment of the military mission." The 1981 regulation said the presence of homosexuals "adversely affects the ability of the armed forces to maintain discipline, good order, and morale; to foster mutual trust and confidence among service members; to ensure the integrity of the system of rank and command; to facilitate assignment and worldwide deployment of service members who frequently must live and work in close conditions affording minimal privacy; to recruit and retain members of the armed forces; to maintain the public acceptability of military service; and to prevent breaches of security." Crews contends that the motivation behind the abrupt change in policy gave little thought to maintaining national security. "The American armed forces exist to defend our nation, not as social experiment lab in which our troops serve as human subjects," Crews commented in a statement last September, one year after the DADT repeal. "While many will ignore the negative impacts, or pretend that they don't exist, threats to our troops' freedom are mounting." And where will orders demanding adherence to military policy on homosexual behavior lead? "Zero tolerance," said Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness. "If you don't agree, you can end your military career." Donnelly pointed out that the failure to carry out directives pertaining to homosexuals has dire consequences. "A [member of the] Coast Guard initially lost his job for merely inquiring about privacy," Donnelly said. "Military LGBT law works to stifle and end careers of those who disagree." Is the military culture of obedience to orders being abused to forward a political agenda? |
Maybe we should start calling him Chip Carney.
Despite being a despicable person, Joseph Goebbels was vastly more intelligent then that vacuous dweeb, Carney.
Carney couldn't carry Goebbels' briefcase.
Regards,
GtG
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.