Posted on 08/04/2010 7:21:13 AM PDT by kristinn
SNIP
Interviews with White House and Agriculture Department officials reveal a greater level of White House involvement in the incident than officials initially let on, with staff making calls to Capitol Hill and civil rights groups, and senior administration officials speaking to Vilsack. Most notably, White House staff expressed concerns early on that Sherrod's remarks about race in an edited video clip may have been taken out of context.
Despite the concerns, a White House official said no one in the West Wing asked the Agriculture Department to hold off in seeking Sherrod's resignation until a full tape or transcript of her remarks could be found. The official said the White House didn't want to get involved in what it considered to be a USDA personnel matter.
The official insisted on speaking anonymously in order to reconstruct what happened in the 36-hour period between Sherrod's resignation and the Agriculture Department's decision to reconsider and offer her a new job.
A week before the controversy reached Washington, Sherrod started receiving e-mails from people who saw a clip of her remarks posted on two websites, HotAir.com and USActionNews.com. The heavily edited video showed Sherrod speaking about an incident that took place more than two decades ago in which, she said, she didn't help a white farmer as much as she could have.
Sherrod tried to alert Vilsack and Deputy Secretary Kathleen Merrigan, but the e-mail addresses she used were either outdated or rarely checked, a USDA official said, also speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss the timeline of events. Another e-mail went to a midlevel staffer who didn't alert senior officials until the controversy peaked the following week.
SNIP
(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...
Curiouser and curiouser. The Sherrod flap sure died quickly — so fast, in fact, that you would think some Big Guy killed it.
“a White House official said no one in the West Wing asked the Agriculture Department to hold off in seeking Sherrod’s resignation until a full tape or transcript of her remarks could be found. The official said the White House didn’t want to get involved in what it considered to be a USDA personnel matter.”
The first sentence gives tacit approval of the firing!
Folks were beginning to talk about her $13,000,000 law suit, her husband's racist comments and accusations of child labor violations.
It was excerpted not edited!
Not to shoot the messenger, but... “We’re through the looking glass”, anybody? The simplest explanation is most likely the correct one. Whatever the White House staffers’ retroactive “concern” about “context”—and I’m sure they were REALLY concerned—they shiv’d Sherrod for the crime of not suiting their grand purpose at the moment. Vilsack, Cheryl Cook, Rahm, who cares—where does the buck stop? Sorry but this AP “report” is USDA Grade A baloney
The D.C. beat is another respectable way to become “a megaphone for the convenience of fraud” (Russell Baker)
Technically she was not fired, she resigned.
I wrote this almost 2 weeks ago:
“Why are we discussing racism?
Monday, July 26, 2010 2:48:06 AM · 3 of 23
ynotjjr to Nachum
Shirley stated in her very first interview (CNN) that she first heard that this story was coming on Friday July 16th. No follow up question as to who it was that told her. That was three days before Breitbart posted the story. I’d like to know who it was. Was it the guy that gave Breitbart the tape? Was it a set up? Can we find out or even raise the question?
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies “
Seriously, Andrew Breitbart was the third to post this video? Why is not a story ANYWHERE on TV today?
I viewed the full 43 min video in its entirety. Here are my observations:
- Sherrod admitted that she viewed in her professional capacity and ability to help or not help an individual based on his race.
- Sherrod then admitted that it was more important to look at things in terms of those who “who don’t have money” versus those “who have money”. That this was ultimately what made her change her views that the man’s race was “not important”.
- Sherrod took time to reflect throughout her presentation how she and her family were subjected to the anguish of having her father killed by a white man.
- Sherrod, IMHO, has always, and continues to see things based on “race” or the color of people’s skin. There appears to be an inherent obsession of looking at everything in a racial way. Consequently, when you run into difficulties or problems to be resolved - it has to be about “race” (and usually it’s the ‘other’ person’s issue)
Point
If Shirley sues Breitbart, this will all come out in court...
BRING IT ON
This must explain why Sherrod was attempting to provide Vilsack with the head's up email FOUR DAYS before Breitbart aired his excerpt on Big Government.
Gratuitous opinion will be added to these Sherrod threads from now on: SHIRLEY SHERROD IS A RACIST.
Then either she lied or Vilsack did in his press conference, as he said she attempted to email him THURSDAY, FOUR DAYS before Breitbart aired his excerpt on Big Government.
The fact that she continues to use the term “their own” in reference to whites is more than enough to call her a racist today, not a couple of years ago, not a decade or so back when she supposedly has “a turning moment.”
She should have not been offered her job back. She made, or was made to, make a decision in haste. Yes, the administration was wrong to make her quit, but if she believed in her convictions she would have never resigned, regardless of the pressure.
Sweet and well-deserved.
LMAO!!!
More leftist media carrying water for the anointed comrade 0zero...
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.