Posted on 07/26/2010 5:41:16 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
So there was Robert Gibbs on the White House lawn, defending to Mika Brzezinski the letter from the Obama administration saying it favored a compassionate release of the Lockerbie bomber over a prisoner transfer. Oh, wait. That wasn't the White House press secretary—it was Chuck Todd. Sorry about that. But when you view the video I think you might forgive my error. Todd certainly came across like a paid administration flack . . .
In the course of his conversation with Mika on today's Morning Joe, Todd labelled "outlandish" the depiction by the Sunday Times of London of the US position as "double-talk." As Mika continued to press the case, suggesting the US could simply have expressed its implacable opposition to any form of release, Todd complained that it was "easy to back-seat drive" the Obama admin's handling of the matter. Perhaps most laughably, Todd defended the Obama admin's "delicate" diplomacy by raised the what-if of another country trying to tell our government what to do. You mean, like Pres. Obama's moves to close Gitmo and take other measures weakening US national security because other countries have complained about them?
View video here.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Chuck T Plays D For White House on Megrahi Release Letter
Anyone want to let us non-viewers know how this story is being covered on tv networks?
Amusing. They are back seat driving the previous administration FROM THE DRIVER’S SEAT. Not that is change.
Get a TV.
You’ve got to watch the enemy just for intel.
Excellent catch Mark. I just watched it on the DVR.
Your Gibbs/Todd comparison is spot on.
Todd may be audtioning for Gibb’s job and me thinks he has the inside track. Gibbs cannot last much longer in his position.
Never!!!
Getting UNABLE TO CONNECT message on Newsbusters.
Drat!!!
Here is my transcript:
MIKA BRZEZINSKI: I have to say just personally it seems strange this confetti celebration of him walking off the plane, and it just felt like on this side of the pond, the reaction [by the Obama admin] seemed—it’s just my characterization—a little muted.
MARK HALPERIN: Let’s get the whole letter and see, but I think the White House’s position is pretty compelling.
BRZEZINSKI: My understanding from this letter—and we’ll get it, we’ll look at it—is that the United States preferred compassionate release as opposed to a prison transfer. And that indicates that they preferred one type of release versus another, instead of [claps hands hard in emphasis] just keeping this guy in prison.
CHUCK TODD: . . . Let’s take a step back here. Imagine another foreign government was telling our Justice Department what to do. So the fact is, I think this was a very delicate diplomatic dance that this administration, and any administration, would have been doing, which was to do this stuff as best you can, back channel, you do this. And then you say, OK, we don’t want him released, but if you release him, don’t send him back to Libya. So again, I think this is a—the way the story was written was pretty outlandish.
BRZEZINSKI: We’ll get the letter. But doesn’t it seem to you that perhaps there could have been a letter that says: do not release this guy? We prefer nothing. He stays where he is, and we condemn him getting anything he wants.
TODD: It seems to be in there. But then I’ll say this. Let me play devil’s advocate. If that is what you wanted, and he gets released anyway, then do you not want every effort made that he’s not sent back to Libya. You’ve got to sit there and play through all the scenarios of what could have happened. It’s easy to back-seat drive this.
BRZEZINSKI: . . . The bottom line is, this is important because 200 hundred American families were destroyed by this.
TODD: Mika, what’s more important is if the British government will release all of the correspondence that BP had, because that’s something they are apparently refusing to do.
Then go to websites, the story is all over the place.
One fault of rednecks - they are proud of being ignorant.
BRZEZINSKI: . . . The bottom line is, this is important because 200 hundred American families were destroyed by this.
TODD: Mika, what’s more important is if the British government will release all of the correspondence that BP had, because that’s something they are apparently refusing to do.
Yes BP is more important than the DEAD 200 AMERICANS, what a disgrace!!!
Did you just call me an ignorant redneck? That would be not only ignorant but rude, so I want to make sure before I wish you a nice day, which is as rude as I get on what I consider a friendly forum.
FYI, I do not use our tv because there’s a young person here who should not be exposed to the filth that would come in over the airwaves within 5 minutes of tuning in.
It’s almost as bad as public education.
Hallelujah!
A true believer.
I learned long ago this can be a very unfriendly web site.
Just get a helmet, life is tuff.
Your contribution is noted.
Just get a helmet, life is tuff.
Thanks but I got a life and helmuts are tuff.
Have a NICE day. ;)
Americans can always count on NBC to take the side
of America’s enemies. Always.
When Chuck Todd lies for Obama as his servant nightly,
his philtrum sweats.
I saw this this morning and even MIKA was arguing against him...I even called in the boss to show her!
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.