Posted on 01/22/2014 9:09:49 AM PST by kristinn
David Remnick, author of the new nearly 17,000 word profile of President Barack Obama in the New Yorker, revealed in a podcast interview this week that a dispirited Obama told him that he misread the “moment in political history” and was shocked he could not get gun control measures passed in the wake of the December 2012 Newtown, Ct., Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in which a lone gunman killed twenty children and six adults.
Remnick left this revelation out of his 18 page article which was based on numerous in depth interviews with Obama. Remnick did not devote anything of substance in the article to Obama’s gun control failure except to note he couldn’t get it done. This is curious because the way Remnick describes it, this was an enormous political failure that took a toll on Obama . Remnick should have explored this further and reported on it.
Remnick spoke about Obama’s reaction to his failure on gun control in a New Yorker podcast interview about the article with Executive Editor Dorothy Wickenden and Washington correspondent Ryan Lizza that was taped on Monday.
In describing Obama’s reaction, Remnick sounds just as shocked as he says Obama is about the failure to pass gun control after Newtown. Remnick made his comments while speaking about Obama’s ambitious second term agenda, including gun control, that he laid out in his Inaugural address one year ago this month.
Remnick: “Well look at gun control. You had the ruthless slaughter of school children played out in front of the American public in Connecticut. If ever there was a moment emotionally and politically that serious gun control would take hold of Congress it was then. Eighty-three percent of the public was for at least some minimal gun control. The NRA was a mockery in a lot of quarters and who won? The NRA and the right.
“I think this sh.., I know this shocked Obama. He said along this trip that I followed him on that one moment in political history where he really misread what would happen was on gun control. It was a terrible failure. And I think really dispiriting.”
Obama made an angry speech in the Rose Garden after he was defeated in the Senate last April. He called it a “shameful day for Washington.”
Given the impact he says this political miscalculation had on Obama, it is curious Remnick chose not to include it in his profile but instead buried it in a podcast.
Did it really happen?
My only suprise is that another orchestrated 'kiddy-shoot' hasn't been approved and planned at the highest levels, then executed by some anti-depressant chewing patsy.
“a dispirited Obama told him that he misread the “moment in political history”
Uh no, he misread the psyche of the American public. That and he apparently was never informed that he had been named gun salesman of the year.
Then it didn't work; as we're almost there — and the noose of tyranny is already well around our necks.
The Snady Hook / Adam Lanza incident was bizarre in its responses and aftermath:
“
Would this White House stage shootings to pass gun control if they thought they could get away with it? “
Would NBC rig a gas tank to explode? Would Bill Clinton wag the dog? Would hitler burn the Reichstag?
WH involvement is something I thought of long ago but didn’t say so.
Now, well it’s different.
What risk? With the Corporate Media in their corner FEDGOV can get away with anything.
Never forget Waco. The Clintons nerve gassed a bunch of kids and burned down a church on live TV. They got away with it scot-free.
“What risk?”
Well if that’s what you think, there’s no hope for you. You might as well just cower in your bunker in fear, because your enemies are omnipotent and can’t be stopped.
“The weapons used/found (on the body, in the trunk).”
What’s bizarre about this?
At first report the caliber of the weapons used were found in the trunk, but not on the body/at the scene; this changed two or three times in the news cycles.
Another was the style of weapon used: handguns vs. long-guns.
Another was the reports of which weapons were which; (e.g. Colt vs Winchester) which also changed several times.
Considering also that the number of rounds reported to be fired, and the number of casualties/hits, puts his accuracy as something like 90% — an amazing, and unrealistic, accuracy rate for a situation when people's fight or flight instinct is kicking to overdrive.
I can understand rushed reporting; and while there certainly was some of that, the lack of solidity on the basic details (e.g. which style of guns, which guns were used) is bizarre.
a rare occasion when emotion did not rule the day and rationality survived.
Such a clear example of the emotion the leftists rule by versus the cognitive.
The official statements from police were all consistent though, the only thing that changed were reports from the media. The media getting facts wrong about firearms is not bizarre, it’s par for the course. If they had actually reported accurately about the firearms used, THAT would be bizarre.
“Considering also that the number of rounds reported to be fired, and the number of casualties/hits, puts his accuracy as something like 90% — an amazing, and unrealistic, accuracy rate for a situation when people’s fight or flight instinct is kicking to overdrive.”
Really? He was shooting fish in a barrel, kids crammed into bathrooms and closets with nowhere to run. There’s nothing unrealistic about this at all.
Have you tried shooting fish in a barrel?
More seriously, the excess of 90% is very impressive; unrealistically so.
Trained soldiers rarely get that high an accuracy in combat; and if you're thinking that CQB is fish in a barrel, you've never heard how the military had to adopt new tactics for urban warfare. Yes, when no one's shooting back you have less to worry about than a soldier clearing a building; but the sheer number of people moving/hiding combined with the panic of flight or flight instincts makes a hit-rate of 90% pretty damn impressive.
Perhaps not enough to on its own be bizarre, but combined with the other facts of the incident (drill-protocols followed, the lack of mandatory hazmat-cleanup paperwork, and the school being bulldozed/rebuilt) makes it stand out all the more.
No need for me to cower in fear. The first step to overcoming an enemy is knowing your enemy and my eyes are wide open.
Urban warfare? You’ve got to be joking. These weren’t guerilla soldiers he was fighting, it was small children cowering in fear that he was executing. You’re really grasping for straws here to try and paint this as anything other than a tragic attack by a crazy person.
Well, if they are so powerful that they have nothing to fear from committing heinous crimes so easily exposed by random internet detectives, then you probably should be cowering.
That’s the thing. They aren’t all powerful. Their only real power derives from the terminal gullibility and chronic naivete of the public. I think that is changing. Are people waking up fast enough? That is the question.
What would you use to describe the sort of bust into a building and terrorize/nutralize occupants
action-family that this, military operations in Iraq/Afghanistan, and the police/no-knock-warrant belong to?
Only a fool would say that there's no correlation/similarity: the victims/occupants in all these cases are in a building and the actions are generally a surprise (certainly they work more effectively when an overall rapid-dominance strategy is being employed).
Rapid dominance is defined by its authors, Harlan K. Ullman and James P. Wade, as attempting "to affect the will, perception, and understanding of the adversary to fight or respond to our strategic policy ends through imposing a regime of Shock and Awe."
Further, rapid dominance will "impose this overwhelming level of Shock and Awe against an adversary on an immediate or sufficiently timely basis to paralyze its will to carry on . . . [to] seize control of the environment and paralyze or so overload an adversary's perceptions and understanding of events that the enemy would be incapable of resistance at the tactical and strategic levels."
These weren’t guerilla soldiers he was fighting, it was small children cowering in fear that he was executing.
Irrelevant - In a situation as described, the methodology is rapid-dominance.
Comparing those subjected to rapid-dominance to others subjected to the same is a valid analytic — again, the situation is simply not going to be static.
You’re really grasping for straws here to try and paint this as anything other than a tragic attack by a crazy person.
I didn't say it absolutely wasn't an attack by a crazy person; the government could certainly manipulate the mentally ill. (They've done it before [~12:00-13:00].)
The other situations, like the lack of emergency-protocol and the lack of legally mandated paperwork for blood cleanup (where's the blood?) and the school being demolished/rebuilt while requiring the construction crew to sign non-disclosure agreements though cause me to seriously doubt the "official story".
Yes, I may be a heartless cynic; I may be utterly and completely in not-job conspiracy-theory land. I admit these possibilities.
I'm a Christian, I believe that Jesus was God in human form who died and raised Himself from the dead to pay for my transgressions. I admit the possibility I could be wrong there, too — as did Paul.
To do otherwise would be irrational and intellectually dishonest; but to accept the official story in the face of these valid questions is lazy and shows a dangerous disregard for truth.
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.