"No Contact About His Replacement" Versus "No Contact" -- A Response to My Co-Blogger Jim:
In his post below, my co-blogger Jim Lindgren wonders if Barack Obama was telling the truth when he said he had had no contact with Blagojevich at that time. In fact, Jim notes, there was a picture taken of the two of them shaking hands around then. So they must have had some kind of contact. Jim offers a pretty harsh assessment of Obama:
You can watch the video here, and the question is asked at the 3:12 mark. Unfortunately you can't hear the question, as it was after the brief press statement was over and everyone was making noise getting up and leaving. Instead, you hear Obama calling back the crowd to order so he can respond to one question. He says: "Hold on, hold on a second guys, I'll just answer this one question." Assuming the question was whether he had had contact about Obama's replacement, the comment is much narrower than Jim suggests.
More importantly, this apparent limitation suggests that Obama's statement is not at all inconsistent with Obama's shaking hands with Blagojevich in public or seeing him at a meeting of the Governors. Presumably Obama wouldn't discuss the sensitive question of who he wants to replace him in the Senate while lots of other people are around.
I'll keep comments open, but I'll watch them closely: Uncivil comments will be deleted, and I'll close it up if things get too unruly.
UPDATE: In the comments thread, Jim claims that I "didn't bother to see what [his] argument really was," and that I have misunderstood him. According to Jim, he rejects the argument that Obama was dishonest, and he is explaining that he thinks Obama is telling the truth. I suspect most readers didn't read it that way, and I certainly didn't, but of course Jim is the last word on what he meant. Given that, I refer readers to his update below for more.
Apparently, “contact” does not include a private meeting with governors in Philadelphia, or a public shaking of hands in front of the cameras.I'm not sure, but I think Jim may be making a simple error here. If you follow Jim's links to the source for what Obama said, you end up back at this ABCNews post which puts the matter this way:
It is not really plausible that Obama was interested in who was replacing him in the Senate, and that Blagojevich was desperately interested in shaking down Obama for money or favors, and that Obama’s refusal to yield to Blagojevich’s bribery/extortion attempt was conveyed to Blagojevich — but somehow in over a month there was no contact between the Obama camp and the Governor’s team.
All this leads me to wonder if Obama is becoming like Clinton?
When Obama says that “I had no contact,” does he mean that I DID have contact, but it was indirect so I don't have to admit it to you? . . . As with Clinton, should we presume that Obama is saying something that is technically not a lie, but that the full truth is closer to the opposite of what he is trying to make us think?
I suppose "It depends on what the meaning of the word [‘contact’] is" and "what the meaning of the word [‘aware’] is."
Asked what contact he'd had with the governor's office about his replacement in the Senate, President-elect Obama today said "I had no contact with the governor or his office and so we were not, I was not aware of what was happening."Note the modifier: Obama wasn't just talking about whether he had contacts with Blagojevich generally. Rather, it seems that he was talking specifically about whether he had contacts with Blagojevich "about his [Obama's] replacement in the Senate."
You can watch the video here, and the question is asked at the 3:12 mark. Unfortunately you can't hear the question, as it was after the brief press statement was over and everyone was making noise getting up and leaving. Instead, you hear Obama calling back the crowd to order so he can respond to one question. He says: "Hold on, hold on a second guys, I'll just answer this one question." Assuming the question was whether he had had contact about Obama's replacement, the comment is much narrower than Jim suggests.
More importantly, this apparent limitation suggests that Obama's statement is not at all inconsistent with Obama's shaking hands with Blagojevich in public or seeing him at a meeting of the Governors. Presumably Obama wouldn't discuss the sensitive question of who he wants to replace him in the Senate while lots of other people are around.
I'll keep comments open, but I'll watch them closely: Uncivil comments will be deleted, and I'll close it up if things get too unruly.
UPDATE: In the comments thread, Jim claims that I "didn't bother to see what [his] argument really was," and that I have misunderstood him. According to Jim, he rejects the argument that Obama was dishonest, and he is explaining that he thinks Obama is telling the truth. I suspect most readers didn't read it that way, and I certainly didn't, but of course Jim is the last word on what he meant. Given that, I refer readers to his update below for more.
He responded: "I had no contact with the governor or his office and so we were not, I was not aware of what was happening."
So coming back and saying there was contact, but not about the Senate seat specifically, looks like a clear contradiction.
Obama did not try to explain what he meant by his original comment. And I don't see how Obama's statement isn't simply a statement that he hasn't talked to Blagojevich. No contact is no contact, and Obama certainly hasn't given us any clues as to what he knew about Blago before yesterdays events.
-----
Mr. Lindgren,
Regarding your post, which you have not enabled comments on, I thought I would take a moment to offer my opinion.
Do you believe that you should give someone the benefit of the doubt in interpreting them before accusing them of lying? Maybe you are not saying that Obama is a liar, but that he is just dishonest in parsing his words in a Bill Clintonesque manner. In either case, the accusation is a serious one that goes to a person's integrity.
I have not been following the facts of this case as closely as you have. I am just going off of what you have posted. But it seems to me if we apply the principle of charity to interpretation, your accusations of dishonesty are premature.
Obama could have simply meant he had no direct contact with the Governor regarding his choice for replacing Obama in the Senate. In the context of a scandal involving the replacement of a Senator, this is in fact a very plausible interpretation. And it has the advantage of not impugning Obama's integrity, which is in fact something that you should not be rushing to do, but instead only hesitantly do. It also has the advantage of not making the assumption that Obama is not only dishonest, but stupid as well in making an assertion that could so easily be shown to be incorrect. Do you think Barack Obama is not only dishonest, but stupid?
And here is my view, frankly stated. Those who do not apply the principled of charity in their interpretations risk making themselves look bad. Not to mention, it is far more civilized to give people, even those you disagree with on political matters, the benefit of the doubt. The bottom-line is that I would expect better from you and I am somewhat disappointed. I think you are lowering not raising the standard of discourse here.
Sincerely,
David Welker
Orin disagrees with my post, but I think he misunderstands what I am saying. I think he just fixated on my opening gambit and didn't bother to see what my argument really was.
After playfully showing the picture of Obama and Blagojevich shaking hands, I do not treat that trivial contact as dispositive on the issue of contact for the very reasons that Orin points to: It all depends on what the meaning of "contact" is, which, after all, is the title of my post.
That is merely the setup for the main point of the post, which is clearly stated:
If I thought that shaking hands were dispositive on contact, I wouldn't have to make this larger argument.
Further, I go on to make it explicit that I think it likely that Obama is not lying because probably only indirect contacts were made between Obama and Blagojevich on the Senate seat.
Also, I have twice recently posted that I don't believe that Obama talked directly with Blagojevich about the Senate seat, a position I still hold:
My post on the timeline, which is evolving into the conventional understanding of what happened when, points to many clues that indirect contacts were made between Obama and Blagojevich.
So I don't disagree with most of what Orin says except his misreading of what I'm arguing. I neither say, nor think, that meeting with governors indicates that Obama and Blagojevich talked directly about the Illinois Senate seat.
I can see how Orin might think that if he read only the first part of the post, but the second half makes clear that I do not consider the Philadelphia contact as disproving Obama's claim of no contact on the Senate seat.
I think that Obama was telling the truth about his own direct contacts with Blagojevich, but for reasons set out in my timeline post, the statement about awareness is hard to understand and probably depends on the meaning of the word "aware."
Please read my timeline post; whether you agree with me or not, at least you will know why I said what I said.
I'm really confused by what you're saying, but I'll let you be the authority on what argument you were making.
One point, though, to avoid future confusion. My sense is that when you offer a long analysis of whether someone who is generally thought to be honest is instead dishonest, and you ultimately conclude that you're not sure but that on balance they are not lying in a particular setting, most people will will generally read that as an effort to validate the seriousness of the argument that is ultimately seen as unpersuasive (rather than as an effort to say the person is not lying).
But your post said this:
It's hard to imagine how those words have any meaning or relevance, if not to sarcastically imply that Obama did indeed have "contact on the Senate seat," in the context of "a private meeting with governors in Philadelphia."
It seems inescapably clear that you think the "shaking hands" photo is a fair basis to suggest that Obama's "contact" statement is as dishonest as the statement Clinton made, to which you repeatedly allude. Trouble is, this comparison is atrocious, notwithstanding your claim that you were only making it "playfully."
You seem to be going to a lot of effort to say something while also maintaining deniability, i.e., being able to claim that you weren't really saying the thing that you were saying. Ironically, this is a lot like what you are accusing Obama of doing.
I'll take Obama at his word here, as I did when he pledged to take public campaign financing, withdraw from NAFTA, avoid reliance on "the same old folks", stand by Jeremiah Wright, debate McCain "anywhere, anytime", "support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies*", and quit smoking.
*A quote from one of his misspokesmen - I apologize if it's uncivilized to try to portray Obama as somehow responsible for statements made in his name by his employees.
1. People on his transition team clearly knew what the governor was up to. For this part of his statement to be true, you'd have to believe that no one on his staff told him about Blagojevich. To that I say: "Oh, come on!"
2. Obama is being very slippery - The most obvious interpretation of "I was not aware of what was happening" is that Obama didn't know that Blagojevich was seeking favors for the senate seat. Now, it can - and I suspect will - be argued that "I was not aware of what was happening" could mean Obama was talking about the investigation itself, the arrest of Blagojevich, the wiretaps, ect . . . But that is not the most readily apparent interpretation. When we start to get into semantics of "It depends on what 'what was happening' means" - then it's fair to invoke Clintonian language-finessing analogies.
3. Obama, in an attempt to distance himself from the scandal, misrepresented (another word for lied) about what he knew: When he said “I was not aware of what was happening” it wasn’t true that no one on his staff had told him about Blagojevich.
I think the answer is #3, but will be argued to be #2 - which I think is bad enough when Obama could have simply said: "I have not discussed the senate seat with the governor and I'm not going to discuss any conversations with my staff, by my staff or by anyone else related to this while this matter is still being investigated."
To think that Obama has not had contact with the Governor of his state since his winning the presidency simply does not pass the test of reasonableness. With his superior people skills, experience and knowledge of the political landscape in his home state leads one to expect he has been in contact with his home state's political machinery on many matters. The appointment of his replacement would be one.
Remember, Obama wants to hit the ground running. He needs all the senators he can get his hands on.
I am confused by Professor Lindgren’s explanation of his prior post. It is clear to me that the post attempts to raise questions about Obama’s honesty and forthrightness. Perhaps this is not what Professor Lindgren intended to do, but, if so, he should re-read his post and consider whether an objective reader can be faulted for reaching that conclusion.
That said, there is nothing wrong with questioning the truthfulness and accuracy of Obama’s statement under the circumstances presented. Obama chose to make what sounded like an extremely broad denial, which implied, essentially, that neither he nor his aides had any involvement in or knowledge about Blagojevich’s efforts to fill the vacant Senate seat. That is not what Obama literally said, but it is what most people would probably take away from his statement. And that implication is almost certainly not true.
Of course, what Obama said is also literally not true, since the photograph shows that he had some contact with the Governor. Assuming that the contact was limited to a handshake, however, I agree with Professor Kerr that it is more or less irrelevant to the truthfulness of Obama’s statement. Presumably Obama forgot about the handshake since he would have no reason to lie about it (particularly since it was caught on camera) and, in any event, it is not inconsistent with Obama’s intended meaning, which was either (1) that there was no contact regarding the Senate seat or (2) that there was no contact in which the Senate seat could have been discussed.
I suspect that what Professor Kerr and others found most problematic about Professor Lindgren’s post was the comparison with Bill Clinton, who has earned a reputation for serial dissembling and dishonesty. To make such a comparison based on a single off-the-cuff response to a question seems unfair.
In your update, you wrote:
And, in comments, we see:
That's an interesting cultural differentiator.
If Professor Lindgren were a Japanese person, I'd expect him to apologize profusely over this. But, of course, Professor Lindgren is not a Japanese person. And it's unreasonable to expect him to use a Japanese communication style.
His argument is very indirect, but in his update he blames you for misunderstanding him. He evades responsibility for the effects of his words on his readers.
An interesting communication complex.
If he was asked if he talked it over with them, and he answers with broader terms "no contract" you have to wonder if he was trying to say "no contact."
Let's see the whole presser, on video, and clear this up. But you guys are too quick to let him off the hook for a facially false statement. And let's remember he is a lawyer, he knows the importance of being precise.
What would be gained by his lying here?
I hold that nothing would be gained, so he is not lying; by "no contact" he meant "no contact about this issue," which is supportable by contact.
Looking at it from another angle: You're an underling, negotiating with someone on behalf of your boss. The other party makes you a ludicrous offer that there's no way you or your boss would accept. Do you even bother forwarding it to your boss before telling the other party to go away?
My guess is that his motive was distance. If Obama admitted he knew about the actions by Blagojevich - i.e. that someone on his staff told him - but didn't report it to authorities, then some people would think that doesn't reflect well on him. If he says, effectively, "I knew nothing about it" and that's believed, then there can be no criticism. My guess is that Obama was trying to give himself more distance from this than the facts will allow by saying "I was not aware of what was happening."
As to whether you make the President Elect aware of illegal demands a sitting governor is making in exchange for political favors: yYes, you do. The President Elect needs to have that information as soo as possible in order to make decisions like "Maybe I shouldn't have lunch with this guy who's asking to be bribed." It just may blow up into a scandal.
Everyone makes statements like this every day. Unfortuntely it takes common sense to understand it. It takes venality to suggest he is lieing.
Obama = Bush's third term, as performed by Bill Clinton in blackface.
I frequently find myself similarly misreading Lindgren's posts. Interesting how that happens. I guess I just need to read harder.
I don't see why this is implausible either in theory or practice.
Several sources have more or less reported that there's been very little contact of any kind with Blagojevich because he's been under a cloud for several months. THey also reported that Emmanuel is one of the few people in Obama's transition staff that still occassionaly does have contacts with Blagojevich.
Emmanuel would also most likely be the person who would be the point man for any political type request by Obama. Like for example conveying that Obama thinks Jarret would be a good candidate to replace him in the senate.
If emmanuel or a mutual friend conveyed this and Blagovich responded with something totally inappropriate or even inferred something inappropriate the answer would almost certainly be "F You." Then Emmanuel deliberately doesn't tell his boss about it because there's things the boss doesn't need to know about. Maybe or maybe not it was Emmanuel that made a tip to the police.
The conversations Blagojevich had clearly state that someone had implied Obama's recommendation was Jarret and that he wasn't willing to give anything for this. I doubt Blago got this impression from publically available sources.
So I'd submit that what Obama had in mind when answering the question was
1. Yes, I talked with one of my advisors about recommending Jarret, and I assume they probably talked to Blagojevich
2. I have heard nothing else about this particular fact, so I can safely say "I" know nothing.
3. I have not personally talked to Blagovich about this, so I can say "I" have not talked to him.
4. I am not personally aware of what Emmanuel or someone else knows about this, so I cannot really say absolutely that everyone here was not aware what was happening.
So you get a carefully worded, but otherwise completely true statement that "I have had no contact with Blogojevich [about my senate seat], and so
we were not[scratch that] I was not aware what was happening.If left unsaid that a particular advisor may have been aware.
But take a minute to imagine the alternate statement. Exactly what kind of a leader would say "I have reason to believe one of my advisors may have talked to him, and I don't know the content of that conversation, but I personally did not authorize anyone to promise anything about Blagojevich." It would basically be betraying your advisors and throwing them under the bus on suspicion of them talking to someone.
Still, a 3d Clinton term without Hillary in the White House -- an improvement, no?
I think there are too many contradictory signals here. I think it is pretty clear that obama is in coverup mode. now james taranto correctly points out that this doesn't necessarily mean he was engaged in wrongdoing, but it looks fishy.
At this point, i will classify the issue as "open."
Not only that, KHQA issued a
retraction.
The simple explanation is that a sloppy reporter published an incorrect fact that was little noticed at the time. A month later it melts under scrutiny.
The complicated tin-foil hat explanation is that KHQA, Obama, and the Blagojevich team are part of a conspiracy to hide the truth from the American people.
link
Atheist, as you should know by now the station has retracted those stories. Obviuosly, truth is not important to Newsbusters.
This again? Give me a break. Its standard practice to fire all/most attorneys at or near the beginning of a term.
The result:
Obama = Clinton = Regan.
So we really want Regan's 5th term?
Here's the most likely scenario: Obama aide suggests Jarret to Rod. Rod says "What will you give me in return?" Aide says "What? Nothing." Rod says he'll think about it. Rod goes back to his office and swears into a microphone.
This is a politics issue, not a legal issue. So why go through the gymnastics of parsing what "contact" means?
Actually, I think that the best way to define Presidents is like the way Pope's are named. Since it appears the Obama will follow the least popular practices of both Clinton and Bush 43, much like Popes John-Paul and John-Paul II, he should be known as President Bill-George Obama. That way he can both follow the Billesque practice of carefully chosen, parsing of his words and the Georgesque mangling of the language and creation of heretofore unknown words. That way, while it is essential to closely pay attention to what he says, and what he doesn't say, you'll still have no idea what was said.
Barack Obama just reiterated that he had not spoken to Blagojevich about the Senate seat and promised over the next few days to have his staff disclose any contacts between his camp and Blagojevich.
Though Obama didn't admit indirect contacts yet, he implied that there were some, so we might know in a few days whether my characterization was correct.
If the implications of Obama's statement today are borne out, then my characterization above will also be borne out. Right now, my characterization is looking pretty good.
BTW, Obama looks relaxed and in control — excellent affect.
I want to preemptively head off an argument. Someone is going to say that Bush is irrelevant to this discussion. To that, I say that you are absolutely right, but that references to Clinton are also irrelevant.
Or we could look at king naming methods, in which case we are about to go from George III to Barack I.
Somehow the third leader named "George" seems to be unlucky for our great republic....
Professor Kerr relies on this characterization when he writes:
But a close examination of a larger version of the image clearly reveals the awful truth!
Governor Blagojevich is a space mutant with two right hands!
Oh, noes! Oh, noes! We've been invaded by mutant space aliens and they're infiltrating into politics! The evidence is clear: The mutant space aliens have two right hands! And their arms have uneven lengths!
Let me tell you, publicly shaking the hand of a mutant space alien is serious business.
Follow my link to learn more.
There is clearly a cover up now, the only question is... of what?
Office of the President-Elect never spoke with Blago about any of this.
Someone from Blago conference call, could have called Office of the President-Elect and been an intermediary.
In that case, everything the President-Elect is saying can be true, but his office still may have been indirectly dealing with Blago.
Parsing words is fun.
The article you're indirectly citing doesn't say "there were pre-election contacts." It quotes Blago saying this:
The "we" is totally ambiguous. It could mean Blago had "discussions" with his staff.
Blago held a press conference on 11/5. Audio of that press conference is here. At 4:03 Blago says "I have not spoken to him [Obama]." Which means that Blago's statement in the 10/31 article was not a reference to "discussions" with Obama.
Keep trying.
You're making it sound like Obama needed to intervene with Blago to make sure that Blago didn't pick a Republican. Really?
Yes:
The situation was also explained by Foxnews:
The essence of what made Bush's behavior noticeable and problematic is summarized in that last sentence.
But despite these facts, I imagine we'll continue to hear lots of nonsense like the comment you addressed.
you are parsing... discussions is contacts. obama is full of it. he is covering up something. doesn't mean he is guilty of anything--martha stewart covered up, but we know she had nothing to really hide. but he is acting like he has something to hide, so we should ask: what is it?
Gee, who would have thought that electing a president with vitually no background check could blow up in our face?
Please don't use "Canuck" as abbreviation for "Canucklehead".
I found it disorienting that I might made the comment you quoted.
Oops, my mistake. I'm sorry. I won't do it again.
Discussions with who? If I discuss something with my wife. It doesn't mean I had contact with my neighbor. If Blag says he has discussed it with someone and then says he has not discussed it with Obama. There is no contact.
You seem to start with the conclusion and reason backwards. I tend to think jukeboxgrad is right, though: You're filling in a lot of unknowns with versions of events that seem to match what you want to hear.
I'm not saying "discussions" is different from "contacts." I'm simply pointing out that your article doesn't say that Blago had discussions with Obama. It only says that Blago had "discussions." With whom? It doesn't say. And then a few days later, Blago said "I have not spoken to him [Obama]." Which means your statement ("the Chicago Tribune says there were pre-election contacts") is pure baloney.
I just proved that the one who is "full of it" is you. Let us know when you can back your statement with proof that doesn't fall apart at the first glance.
It's funny, though, to see how desperate some of you are.
This may all blow up in Obama's face, or it may not. But at present, there is no evidence that Obama said anything inaccurate, misleading, or even Clintonesque (whatever that is) about his dealings with Blagojevich or the open Senate seat.
To me the interesting thing is that the reporter present when Obama answered the question(s) understood the context and put Obama's response within the context.
Amazing the level of disappointment that somehow Gov got the message that Obama wouldn't be paying. I would have thought that would have been sufficient cause for surprise or gratitude, (depending on your predisposition), to return to worrying about how to avoid the fate of the Titanic.
What I just love is all the folks who are suddenly calling for a pedantic, impossible standard of perfectly precise and unambiguous communications. In a post that is practically a clone of Lindgren's, Ed Morrisey just said this:
(Emphasis in the original.) Of course this is exactly the same gang which generally had no problem with outrageous whoppers like these:
- we found the weapons of mass destruction
- he wouldn't let them in
- a wiretap requires a court order
In those days, standards of "precision" were a bit different. IOKIYAR.
To me the most interesting comment was Anthro's on your "failure" to understand Lindgren's original post:
I remember reading Hall:The Hidden Dimension about ways different cultures interpret behavior differently.
It would be interesting to know how widespread the Japanese response and the Lindgren response are distributed within different cultures.
More like character assassination based on your reading of Obama's mind. Nothing will ever make that the truth, unless you give us all a demonstration of your amazing mind reading abilities: Please write out what I am thinking of you, right now.
"Effect" is the noun, "affect" is the verb.
No, that's not correct. Or do you not believe in the Objective Theory of Blogging (only outwardly expressed manifestations of intent, not secret and personal intent, may be used in judging what the intent of another was)?
Let's not forget "we do not torture."
Frankly, allowing Mr. Lindgren to be the "last word on what he [means]" renders you rebuttal moot.
Lindgren has, in the past two days, posted at least four long articles, all of which tacitly accuse the president-elect of being a liar.
By allowing him to say "no, of course I didn't mean that" gives him an out when the shaky ground he based his implicit conclusions on begins to fall away under scrutiny.
Besides, Lindgren is pretty transparently biased against Obama- a quick review of his previous articles shows that much.
I do not think he has earned the benefit of the doubt here.
I just wanted to make two quick comments:
1. I am truly baffled by the response this has generated; tape of corrupt governor saying President-elect won't 'play ball' -- isn't that a good thing? Now we have to parse his extemporaneous denials that confirm what we already know? If this is how others move in to attack before Obama even is sworn in, it's going to be an aggravating four/eight years.
2. As always, your calming tone is appreciated. You are an apologist for civility.
Kerr is simply being civil, and allowing Lindgren to discredit himself.
Doesn't this parallel Obama's approach to critics during the campaign, don't bother to get into unnecessary arguments trying to justify yourself.
For the claim that if the discussions is with his staff and not him, it is not contact, baloney on that. if I know the governor’s secretary, I would say I have “contacts” with him.
And really shouldn’t we be asking him to just be fully candid with us, without excepting these misleading half-truths. If people in his office had discussions, shouldn’t he just own up to it?
Orin
> You seem to start with the conclusion and reason backwards.
I could say the same about you. You are falling all over yourself to declare him innocent. I mean, my gosh, this whole post is about you inserting limitations into his broad wording that don’t exist on its face. Why should we assume that "no contact" means anything less than "no contact?"
I have said repeatedly that it was an open question with me until this latest article, from the tribune, closed it in favor of Obama’s mendaciousness.
And even after saying he is lying about the contacts, I am careful to say that this doesn’t necessarily mean he did anything wrong. But there is clearly now a coverup.
Jukie
> I just proved that the one who is "full of it" is you.
Way to keep things civil.
> What I just love is all the folks who are suddenly calling for a pedantic, impossible standard of perfectly precise and unambiguous communications.
Well, you can either talk substance or technicalities. So if you want to say “well, sure he said contacts but technically...” then you have to fight on that ground, and in fact you lose.
But if you want to talk substantively, well then shouldn’t he have talked about the discussions that did occur, even if they were with his staff and not him?
For the bush lies, sigh, you guys have been trying this for 8 years and have failed. Are you ever going to give up?
We found the WMDS… um, he believed we did at that time. false report. Eventually, btw, we did find the WMDs, but not as many as we thought he had.
He wouldn’t let them in. that was true.
court order. A lie... to protect national security. Presidents are allowed to do that. but not just to protect their behinds.
I suppose next you will get angry at Franklin Roosevelt for lying to the public about where D-Day would be.
I think this discussion simply reflects the difficulties inherent in language itself, particularly a language that is burdened with certain fundamental assumptions that impair effective communication. Jim misconstrued Obama's original statement, condemning its indirectness and raising the specter (at the very least) of dishonesty in his answer. In truth, indirectness can be a means of negotiation that helps to build consensus. Deborah Tannen, You Just Don't Understand 45 (1991). Perhaps we shouldn't be so willing to condemn it.
Orin then went on to draw reasonable inferences from Jim's statement. Jim, after condemning indirectness, responded angrily to the suggestion that he himself was using obtuse language. We would be best served, however, to take a step back, understand that language is an inherently complicated and frustrating tool, and indirectness and opaqueness in language can be useful.
As to #2, would it be better to say "example of civility", or "practitioner of civility" rather than apologist?
Except the Tribune artcle does no contradict Obama. So I don't think you know what being "open" means or you are being less than truthful about being "open."
Your tone is way off for this blog: You write with an unfortunate sense of anger and frustration towards people who disagree with your conclusions. I'm a Republican, and I voted for McCain, but I'm just treating Obama in the same civil way that all people should be treated. This may seem foreign to you, but if you can't adjust, you will not be permitted to comment here.
Actually, einhverfr, it seems to have been much more unlucky for George III - defeat in the colonies and going insane.
You do make a fair point that Lindgren and Obama are both speaking like girls here, but the above exchange and Obama's original statements only illustrate the necessity of avoiding such communication styles.
Lakoff (1975) observed that, in certain contexts, women use question tags more frequently than men do. She defines the tag-question as "a declarative statement without the assumption that the statement is to be believed by the addressee: one has an out, as with questions. The tag gives the addressee leeway, not forcing him to go along with the views of the speaker." (Lakoff 1975:16)
Such tag-questions reveal that the speaker is expressing uncertainty, insecurity and the wish to be accepted.
This is the case both with Lindgren's vague allusions that perhaps Obama is acintg like Clinton, maybe, don't you think? as well as with Obama's own carefully chosen words, which avoid literal untruths while allowing him to still bask in the praise of his admirers, whose acceptance his ego craves. Such a style of communication is clearly undesirable in the executive position, however, for obvious reasons.
The "apologist for civility" comment was just an old joke*. I think I may owe Prof. Kerr a beer.
*Perhaps I should hav written that Orin Kerr is a leading apologist for civility.
Both of you are wrong. The idea that women use more "hedge" language has been widely disproven. Indeed, that theory itself a product of sexist thinking, traceable all the way back to Jespersen. Dubois &Crouch found that men actually use more of the "fudging" language, while more recent studies have found equal use between men and women. That might explain why there's a decided lack of clarity on this blog: too much testosterone leads to fuzzy arguments.
Orin, this is a great paragraph. It strikes to the heart of what's wrong with Lindgren's posts on Obama.
How Starchamber.
I do think there is good reason to wonder at the broadness of his statement, but he's since implied the existence of contacts between his office and the governor's office, and I think there is also good reason to believe his office was especially circumspect with Blagojevich as they knew him to be under investigation. It's reasonable that they had fewer contacts than you might expect given that. I also agree with the assessment, offered upthread, that Emmanuel probably had some contact with Blagojevich's crew in which he bluntly refused to engage in wrongdoing. It's possible either that he received an untoward offer, or made a blanket statement in anticipation of receiving such an offer -- and spoke first to avoud hearing what he didn't want to hear.
It's even possible that Rahm Emmanuel tipped the investigators off; there was a report, since denied and apparently unsubstantiated, saying as much.
I'd close by noting that while I absolutely do not intend to accept lies from Obama, honestly, my sympathies are with him. Apparently he engaged in no wrongdoing, but for various reasons, has to finesse this situation regardless so as not to seem either complicit with Blagojevich or uncooperative with the investigation, all without saying more than might be prudent at this point in a criminal investigation. I do think it betrays a certain ungenerosity toward Obama's position to say that any finesse this situation might require makes him like Clinton. Clinton made his own messes and lied about them with obvious motive. This isn't Obama's mess and nobody has supposed a reasonable motive for him to deceive.
I recommend looking through your last post.
You acknowledge that based on all the evidence, Obama not only did nothing wrong, he, in fact, did something laudable (refusing even the usual horse-trading in politics).
Then, you attempt to parse through a brief, extemporaneous, unprepared statement offered at the end of a press conference (and which we are unsure as to which question he was answering) to find evidence of a coverup.
Then you write, "But first, he is clearly guilty of a cover up, which is not criminal but it is dishonest. And the coverup creates suspicion where otherwise none exist."
Hey, Blago the Blimpaler is six degrees of evil and corrupt. I hope he goes away for a long time, and that they throughly investigate him AND all of his ties and bring down all the people who shared in his corruption.
But to make these baseless accusations (not prematurely declare anyone innocent???) puts you in a category with 9/11 Truthers, Birth Certificaters, Bush Martial Lawers, and don't light fireplace because Santa is coming down-ers.
Excuse me: Isn't it a presumption of innocence rather than guilt?
"Third, that radio station had not one but two reports stating that Obama had discussions about this. Yeah, they took it back, but are we seeing a pattern here?"
I think if you look, the pattern is Governor makes statements, press assumes they are correct, didn't check to see whether event actually happened.
"Obama said he had "no contacts." Taken literally that is a clear lie".
In my vocabulary, a lie is a deliberately false statement. You might say it was untrue without it having been a lie.
Moreover, if you put Obama's statement within the context of at least one person present (the ABC reporter) who may have actually heard the question or questions Obama was responding to, they understood the answer to refer to contacts by Obama about the senate replacement.
Most of what people have been relying on are statements made by the Gov, either publicly or on wire tap. I would have thought his speech should be treated with great caution as to veracity. (He boasted that all his speech was lawful; he mused that appointing himself to Senate would set himself up for a 2016 presidential run)
I hope, Jim, that the comments in these threads show that even if you didn't intend to suggest impropriety on the part of BHO, certain of your loyal readers received a different impression.
I also hope you see that perhaps the greatest danger of such careless speech is not that people may be offended by your errant suggestions, but that some will think you agree with their baseless and opportunistic finger-pointing (see the comments of "Real American" and "Federal Dog" in the related posts). Lending heat to the air they're blowing diminishes the credibility of this blog and of its authors.
"They are political buddies"
More accurately, past tense. It seems as if many have been keeping the Gov. at arm's length for quite some time.
I believe it was on CNN, the Lisa Madigan, the Ill A-G said she had spoken to the Gov once in the year.
You have it backwards. I am applying the ordinary meaning of his words. “no contact” means no contact.
It is everyone else who is trying to introduce qualifiers which aren’t there. And in doing so, they are committing the parsing, not me. I am simply holding him to the ordinary meaning of his words.
And why should we assume he would narrow himself to the question, which, by the way, we have never heard? You have never heard a person answer more broadly on purpose?
Maybe you trust him enough to assume away this evidence of wrongdoing, but I feel like I have been here before. He had no idea William Ayers was an unrepentant terrorist. He had no idea that his preacher was an anti-American, anti-white racist. He had no idea Rezco was a crook. Oh, and now he had no idea that the Governor he worked to elect was a crook. Mmm-hmm, maybe that is plausible to you, but to me, not so much.
I don’t want him to have been guilty of anything. I mean Jesus, you think I WANT there to be a President Biden? But facts are facts, and right now he is behaving like he has something to hide. Like I said, that might not even be criminal guilt or even moral culpability. But he should be investigated, now. Starting with the lapdog press.
> Isn't it a presumption of innocence rather than guilt?
We are not in a criminal court, my friend.
> I think if you look, the pattern is Governor makes statements, press assumes they are correct, didn't check to see whether event actually happened.
And you don’t find the governor stating that he had this meeting to at least be some evidence that the meeting occurred?
Besides, I have not seen anything to suggest that the reports are purely based on the word of the governor.
> In my vocabulary, a lie is a deliberately false statement.
Well, if you want to say he forgot he shook his hand, go for it… But if you shake a man’s hand and then later say you had no contact the ordinary interpretation is you lied.
> Moreover, if you put Obama's statement within the context of at least one person present (the ABC reporter) who may have actually heard the question or questions Obama was responding to, they understood the answer to refer to contacts by Obama about the senate replacement.
Again, why are we assuming that he answered in more broad terms by accident? I will remind the people here that he is a lawyer. he is supposed to know that it is important to be precise.
> More accurately, past tense. It seems as if many have been keeping the Gov. at arm's length for quite some time.
I haven’t heard anything suggesting that. got evidence?
I gotta say that I take some schadenfreude-like comfort in knowing that this is gonna be a long 8 years for the folks who can't answer that question honestly.
S: "So, Obama, you talked to Blago about your senate seat?"
O: "No, Sarcastro, I've had no contact with the guy."
S: "But Obama I totally saw a picture of the two of you on the internets!"
O: "Wow, Sarcastro, you sure are clever! I totally meant 'no contact' not in context, but to mean 'never saw the guy!' Now I'm gonna get impeached as a scallywag! Waaaa!"
S: "Aw, Obama, it's okay. Also, Muslimsaywhat?"
O: "What? Wait! NOooooo I'm melllting"
That makes no sense, even lawyers don't talk that precisely, when not in court. They could never communicate with anyone, if they did.
What did you say was an appropriate response?
"Q: Have you ever spoken to [Illinois] Gov. [Rod R.] Blagojevich about the Senate seat?
Obama: I have not discussed the Senate seat with the governor at any time. My strong belief is that it needed to be filled by somebody who is going to represent the people of Illinois and fight for them. And beyond that, I was focused on the transition.
Q: And that was before and after the election?
Obama: Yes.
Q: Are you aware of any conversations between Blagojevich or [chief of staff] John Harris and any of your top aides, including Rahm [Emanuel]?
Obama: Let me stop you there because . . . it's an ongoing.... investigation. I think it would be inappropriate for me to, you know, remark on the situation beyond the facts that I know. And that's the fact that I didn't discuss this issue with the governor at all."
So Obama, on the 9th, was not categorically denying any and all contact. Does this mean he's equivocating, or that his statement at the presser ought to be interpreted in light of what he said, quite clearly, here.
THe first rule of politics is: Every politician is a liar. Off the top of my head, I can't think of one exception. Hence I think Obama is guilty of lying simply by running or election. Lying is not a crime unless done under oath, and we put up with a lot of it from our politicians (evidently most think it is only a problem when politicians they don't like lie).
Having said this, the question becomes whether this specific statement was a lie, and a lot of this depends on what was meant. I think it is reasonable to scope an answer as a response to a specific question and discussion. If you ask me if I am going to Seattle this weekend and my response is "I am not going to take an airplane, but yes" it is not reasonable to take this as a promise that I will never take an airplane anywhere ever. Hence Orin is entirely correct about the scope of the statement.
I do think Obama (being smart) is making a distinction between what he knows and what his staff might know for the simple reason that his staff may know things he doesn't. This is just prudent. Once again, this is entirely appropriate and this does not imply a cover up.
His "buddy" cleared him of "involvement" and said "[expletive] him"
That's the problem here. It's one thing to wonder at all the implications of Obama statement, and assume that any vagueness means he's trying to obscure some aspect of the communications. But to not give him the presumption of innocence in the Blagojevich affair because he's a politician from Chicago, even though Blagojevich's own words go to Obama's innocence? Really?
It comes down to you denying the presumption of innocence on account of Obama coming from Chicago. That's simply no more credible than the people who denied that Bush had the country's best interest at heart on account of him being a Texas oil man. Like I said -- perhaps on another thread -- the tone toward Obama on this matter seems informed, largely, by a flat-out disbelief that Obama couldn't *not* be crooked, since he's from Chicago. He knew Ayers! And Rezko! And Blagojevich! Board-sitting! Financial transactions! Campaign endorsements! Obama's hands must be dirty, and a presumption that his hands aren't dirty, in light of the city he's from, represents a bias in his favor.
That's simply not the case. It is similar to the hoary clams that because Bush's family wealth was tied to Saudi oil operations, his response to 9/11 had to be dictated by a desire to protect those relationships. He was presumably guilty -- because of where he came from!
But according to that Oct. 30 Chicago Tribune article, as well as some other retracted articles, Obama did have a discussion in late October with Blago.
Thus, even if Obama is not involved in selling his senate seat, he was dissembling when he said "no contact." Not a legal question, so no presumption of innocence and hearsay is A-OK.
I still don't buy it.
Taking Blago at his word (!), he and Obama had a discussion 2 months ago about the process of choosing his successor. It still means Obama was not involved in the current bruhaha, which is what contact means to an ordinary person in context.]
And you don’t find the governor stating that he had this meeting to at least be some evidence that the meeting occurred?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the pre election Tribune quote is "we" have had meeting- doesn't say who we is- and the post election press conference, the gov says he hasn't met with Obama yet- referring to the post election meeting the press stated was scheduled to occur.
So, I'd say no credible evidence; need some confirmation
And that means when one of his buddies is busted, you have to ask the question of whether he was involved. sorry, that is life.
And this is what was asked of Fitzgerald, who said no involvement.
Those are not casual qualifiers accidentally thrown in there. It looks, just from those statements, like Obama is waiting to find out what the feds know before he finalizes his story. That doesn't inspire confidence.
A.W.'s October 30th, Chicago Tribune story by Monique Garcia and Rick Pearson just doesn't say what A.W. claims it says. That simple.
It takes more than just a strained reading to repeat A.W.'s claim. It verges on willful misrepresentation.
The does not say that Blago discussed anything with Obama:
"Gov. Rod Blagojevich on Thursday cited the potential for bad “karma” and avoided discussing potential Senate successors to Barack Obama should the Democratic nominee win the White House, but acknowledged he has a process in mind for making the most important appointment of his career.
“I just don’t want to jinx him and I don’t like the karma of me thinking that far ahead,” Blagojevich said of Obama’s prospects in Tuesday’s election. The governor added, “We have had some discussions about a process which we’ll share … if all goes well.”
Sources close to Blagojevich, who asked not to be named because they were not authorized to speak for him, said one issue would be to consider who could most help the governor politically.
“What helps me in my quest for the future, whether it’s re-election or legacy?” one Blagojevich confidant said of the selection process being eyed by the Democratic governor, who has seen his job approval rating fall to staggering levels. “It’s a big milestone.” . . .
You're kidding, right? You are really saying that it is suspicious that Obama would want to actually know what he was talking about before he started talking about it?
Look. The only matters of which Obama can have personal knowledge are the things that he himself did. He cannot have personal knowledge of what every member of his staff did. So to able to discuss what every member of his staff did, he will have to "gather all the facts" first.
I know that liberals often like to mock conservatives as not being part of the "reality-based community," but it is pretty rare when I see conservatives actually admit that they find something wrong with gathering all the facts.
I have never been impressed by the world-weary "they all do it" argument. If this is true, then we have no right to complain about any who do, because we are then setting them to a higher standard than everybody else. But it's not true. In fact, they don't all do it, and we do have a right to expect that a particular politician be truthful. In the case of OB, I am willing to give him credit for truthfulness until the evidence shows the contrary.
WE ARE DOOMED!
You don't have 4 sources. You have 4 reports. Who is a source other than Blago?
I don't even think we need to give Obama special credit for honesty. I think at this point it's enough to give him credit for being at least semi-intelligent.
Regarding his statement that he didn't have any contact with Blago about the Senate seat, I think Obama is smart enough to realize that if he lies about this, it will come out. I think he's also smart enough to realize that the press will treat it as a big deal if he gets caught lying about this.
So, if we just give Obama credit for being calculating and semi-intelligent, then it is highly unlikely that he is lying about having no contact with Blago over the Senate seat.
Note that Obama also said that he is "absolutely certain" that his staff was not involved in any dealmaking schemes. That's a riskier statement for him to make.
Do you have an argument that "Ah, the latest hallucinated meaning of words. Gotcha" is a civil comment? Or is the idea that you are not bound by civility rules? I don't know how many times you need to be warned until you have proven that you are incapable of complying with the comment policy.
Unless, like Queen Victoria, "We are not amused", or someone not overly concerned by his choice of words, or not unwilling to convey a misleading impression.
You are putting a lot of faith in Gov.'s reliability for your assertion that it is evidence that Obama had discussions (plural).
The subsequent part of Gov's statement:discussions which we'll share... if all goes well. Who is he going to share with? I suggest it more probably means what "we" Gov and his staff have devised will be shared with the Obama team after Nov 4 if Obama successful.
If Gov and Obama had already had multiple discussions before the election, they probalby wounldn't need to after the election; but if Gov has developed a proposal ("process") with his staff that still needs to be communicated after the election there would still need to be a meeting. Gov anticipates it will be high on Obama's agenda (because Gov thinks it important)but then the meeting doesn't happen.
No doubt we'll eventually know.
(Emphasis added.)
If this hadn't been discussed here so very recently, an innocent misreading of the Oct 30 statement might be more plausible.
I'm inclined to count the first retracted story as a second report: Gov says meeting to occur. meeting doesn't. both stories removed but statement says "KHQA has no knowledge that any meeting ever took place". (They don't say that the report that a meeting was to take place was imagined out of the blue by the first reporter.)
The only matters of which Obama can have personal knowledge are the things that he himself did. He cannot have personal knowledge of what every member of his staff did.
I totally agree. Now lets look at Obama's statement again:
That is about as careful construction of weasel words as I have ever heard. Especially about a contacts that only happened a few short weeks ago with an important personage.
Wow, the cover up and weasel words continue! Boy, that Axlerod sure is dumb!
I'm much less interested in all of the who said or knew what when than I am in the basic fact that Obama and his administration were apparently not willing to make a deal to get the appointment they preferred.
That comforts me too, especially since the response was no, not "lets negotiate". But the bar needs to be set a little higher. If Emanuel or Jarret, or other staffers became aware of a solicitation of a bribe, and did not report it then they have to go. Obama, of course is in the clear, if he became aware of solicitation of a bribe to his staff, then of course he should have encouraged/ordered them report it, but that is a little two second hand to do more than tarnish his image as an agent of change.
Why are they weasel words? Imagine, goodness, you were in a position of importance with a large staff. A scandal comes up and a criminal invesitgation commences. You need to give a press conference. You want to assure people that you, personally, had nothing to do with it and were not aware of it (which is the truth).
I was aware of no wrongdoing. That, I know for certain.
Weasel words, or honest appraisal?
It's going to be a long four/eight years.
One hypothetical, though: Assume Obama and his staff are totally and completely and undisputably innocent -- no conversations with Blago at all after the election, and no conversation ever that included the word "senate".
Assume further that Obama had not yet had time to confirm him with his staff that they had had no conversations with Blago, no references to the Senate, etc.
What could Obama say in that situation that you would not consider to be weasel words?
"Credit The Fifty/50 (2047 W. Division St.) Chicago, for coming up with its "Dirty Governor" cocktail, now available at the Wicker Park hangout. The Dirty Governor is a dirty (contains olive juice) vodka martini, but the bartender is instructed to "steal the olives, leave the pimentos" (a play on "leave the gun, take the cannoli," a line from "The Godfather"). The brand of vodka? Effen, of course."
I did not speak to the governor about these issues, that I know for certain.
Instead of as,
I did not speak to the governor about these issues. That, I know for certain.
Role tape.
My argument is actually that we all need to be more consistent about honesty standards. All too often we see:
1) Every politician (that I don't like) is a liar. (If the politician I like is a liar, that is excusable because the other guys lie too.)
or
2) Limited government! (only when we are out of power).
Standards should be consistent and we shouldn't just fault the other guys.
However, if we presume that OB is lying at least some of the time, the question is whether he is lying about this right now. I don't see any evidence of that, assuming we appropriately scope his replies.
"I didn't speak to Blago about my seat"
"one or more persons on my staff/transition team may have spoken to Blago or his staff,"
"we will tell you more about these conversations in the next few days" (which I read to mean: we are trying to come up with a comprehensive list of these contacts, and make sure we are correct, before disclosing them, so that others will not later claim we lied or covered up if we left out some contacts from our list)
"no one on my staff discussed a deal with Blago about the seat" (as someone pointed out, this is risky for Obama, because he must trust that his staff is telling him the truth, and/or won't be contradicted).
Now, AW and Lindgren see these statements as examples of "Bill Clintonian" mendacity because of two retracted articles, a photo and one Tribune story where Blago says "we" and he could have meant "obama and I" but that story is contradicted/clarified by a later Trib story where Blago says he hasn't discussed anything about a successor yet with Obama. I frankly don't get it, at least not so far.
No, as JBG explained, and as I believe Orin agreed, the natural reading in the context of Blago's statement a few days later that he hadn't spoken with Obama is that "We" meant Blago and his staff. And by "his staff" I (and I assume JBG and maybe Orin) mean Blago's staff, not Obama's staff.
I agree heartily:
I have received the following kind note from A.W., which I post to explain why he will not be commenting any longer:
Good point. It belongs on the list. Bush has declared, via the State Dept, that sleep deprivation and using water to asphyxiate are both forms of torture. (His State Dept made those declarations in the context of condemning certain other countries for using those techniques.) At the same time, there is ample reason to believe that we have used those methods on our captives. So this is yet another example of Bush lying.
"If the discussions is with his staff and not him" then that is indeed "not contact" with "him." And that's what Obama said: there was no contact with "him."
Except that the words you are citing ("we have had some discussions") are not an instance of "the governor stating that he had this meeting." In fact, Blago stated the exact opposite: "I have not spoken to him [Obama]."
One more time. You cited Blago saying this:
You're making unwarranted assumptions about the meaning of "we." You're assuming it means 'Obama' and/or 'Obama's staff.' Trouble is, you don't know that. It could very well mean 'Blago's staff.' In particular, you don't know for sure what Blago said just prior to that statement. The article simply doesn't tell us in an unambiguous way. Therefore we don't know the antecedent for the pronoun "we."
Also, you're completely ignoring the fact that Blago explicitly said "I have not spoken to him [Obama]."
What you're saying Blago meant couldn't possibly be what Blago meant, because a few days later he said "I have not spoken to him [Obama]."
It's not just that "you are referring to a thing previously mentioned." More specifically, you're referring to the thing that was just mentioned. Proximity is key. And since all we have is an edited version of what Blago said, we don't really know for sure what was just mentioned. In the absence of a complete, unedited statement, guesswork is required. And that's what you're doing: guessing. Which is fine, as long as it's labeled as such.
You're pretending that the article you cited is proof of discussions between Blago and "his [Obama's] staff." Trouble is, that's not what the article says.
And by the way, where did you get "right before the election?"
You are also unreasonably assuming that everything Blago says should be treated as the gospel truth.
You are also unreasonably expecting Obama to give us an instant report on any and all possible contacts that may have taken place, anywhere among his large staff. He said he has asked his "team to gather the facts of any contacts with the governor's office about this vacant seat, so that we can share them with you over the next few days." Why is that not good enough for you?
That's because he doesn't have instant, perfect knowledge of every possible conversation his staff may have had. So he wants a "few days … to gather the facts of any contacts with the governor's office about this vacant seat." But you're unreasonable, so you expect an instant, perfect answer.
Wrong. "What he actually said" is this:
The "by Obama" part was not a "modifier" added by "some other people in this thread." It's "what he actually said."
The second report was apparently based on the first report. Therefore it's silly to treat them as independent reports, as if they referenced separate sources. The two articles referenced this many sources for the key statement: zero.
And please note that the first article didn't say there had been a meeting. It only said a meeting was planned. The person who wrote the second article said there was a meeting, but apparently this statement was based on nothing other than the first article.
Anyway, it seems that you're having a hard time grasping this simple concept: sometimes news articles contain errors. Really!
By the way, KHQA is a TV station, not a radio station.
I hope you'll tell us what "reports" you're talking about. Because what you've presented so far adds up to this: nothing. And the KHQA articles did not claim to be "based on the word of the governor." They referenced no source whatsoever. Not him, not his office, no one.
I hope you'll list what you call 'four' sources. The local outlet (KHQA) that published two stories, and then retracted them both, hardly counts as two sources. It counts as zero sources.
Obama did not allow Blago to address the convention, and did not invite Blago to the Grant Park event. Those are very noticeable decisions.
And in what way is "the Chicago machine" different from the GOP, in this regard? Because inside the GOP we find "a whole lot of crooks." Therefore "we EXPECT a politician" from the GOP "to know a whole lot of crooks."
Anyway, you seem to be saying that a candidate is presumptively corrupt if they come from a state that's famous for corruption. Really? That doesn't bode well for Palin and Jindal.
I realize that in your world, "impeccable credentials for reform" is a euphemism for 'trying to get my ex-brother in law fired, and then lying about it.'
Let's put aside the fact that a team of experts had already determined that the trailers were not mobile bio-weapons labs. (One ISG analyst said "within the first four hours ... it was clear to everyone that these were not biological labs." Another one said "it would be easier to start all over with just a bucket.") Let's put aside the fact that Bush, nevertheless, declared that we had found mobile bio-weapons labs. Here's the problem that still remains: by saying "we found the weapons of mass destruction," Bush was clearly suggesting we found more than a BW lab. He was suggesting that the BW lab contained some quantity of actual BW. Here's the quantity of actual BW found on the trailers: none. This is documented explicitly in the CIA report that made the false claim (that we had found mobile bio-weapons labs), which proves that Bush knew this. In other words, he lied. He said we found WMD when in fact even the bogus CIA report admitted that no WMD had been found.
By the way, Bush was not content to say 'we have found WMD.' He said we found the WMD. In a sound-bite world, which Bush understands, this creates the impression we found more than some WMD. It conveys the impression that we suddenly found all the WMD we were looking for. Obviously this was very, very far from the truth, but I bet that more than a trivial number of people reached that conclusion upon hearing his words on the evening news.
Please note that this isn't a question of a president failing to honestly describe what he had for lunch. This isn't even a question of a president failing to honestly describe his sex life, or failing (allegedly) to accurately describe his 'contacts' with a corrupt governor. This is a question of a president conveying deeply important information during a time of war. He said something highly misleading, and he neglected to get back to us to set us straight. This is more than enough to conclude that he knew exactly what he was doing.
I guess you're determined to prove that you're roughly as honest as Bush. We found a small number of old shells. They were lost, forgotten, and degraded to the point of being relatively harmless. Pay attention to what David Kay said about those shells (pdf):
(Emphasis added.) Anyway, it's hysterically funny that you're making a fuss about this, since your implied premise is that Saddam should be expected to have accounting systems that are better than ours. Saddam lost track of some shells. We lost track of hundreds of tons of cash, totaling billions of dollars (pdf). Explaining the former is a lot easier than explaining the latter.
Wrong. Blix said this (1/27/03):
Saddam did indeed "let them in."
Let's recall a remark I heard recently:
It's interesting to notice how you object to a "natural reading" of these various statements made by Bush.
You can try to argue that Bush needed to break the law in order "to protect national security," but there was no need to lie to us. He could have simply avoided making the statement. Making the false statement did nothing to "protect national security."
Show us the quote.
But I'm not saying that "Obama is justified in lying," for that reason, or for any reason (and I am also still waiting to see evidence that Obama lied). I'm simply pointing that the hypocrisy of people like Morrisey who are suddenly making a fuss about "precision."
Except that Bush stonewalled efforts to investigate (see here and here). And you were quite upset about that stonewalling, right?
You said that even after you were told this. One of your charming qualities is that you simply ignore evidence that doesn't suit you.
The person in this thread who first made a statement about someone being "full of it" was you.
I agree with you, but I would also point out that his current tone is mild compared to what it used to be. FWIW.
But now I see he resumed his old tone in his email to you. Oh well.
It's not clear what the source was. No source was mentioned. But I think we should avoid creating the impression that Blago claimed there was a meeting. On the contrary. He explicitly said "I have not spoken to him [Obama]."
When Blago said, at the 11/5 press conference, "I have not spoken to him [Obama]," I don't think Blago made any statement suggesting that a meeting was planned. So I don't think Blago made any reference to "the post election meeting the press stated was scheduled to occur." That meeting was supposed to happen on 11/5. And "the press" amounted to one source which later retracted the claim.
You are implying that Blago was the source for the two articles which were retracted. But that seems to be a very unwarranted assumption.
And aside from that, I don't understand the basis for saying "you have 4 reports." I realize aw is claiming to have "4 reports," but I don't see where he has told us how he arrived at the number 4.
You're suggesting that the retracted article(s) cited "the Governor/his office" as a source. But they didn't. They can be seen here. They cited no source at all.
No. That's not what the article says.
No. Blago explicitly said "I have not spoken to him [Obama]." So "we" (in "we have had some discussions") definitely doesn't mean "Obama."
The problem is that we're not getting a clear and complete picture of what Blago said. That is, the kind of picture provided by a complete, single quoted passage. Or a complete transcript. Or a videotape or audiotape. Instead, we're getting separate snippets edited by the reporter. Therefore we don't really know what preceded the "we." (As Wiser wisely pointed out: "It [the article] doesn't even say those two sentences were spoken at the same time.")
In contrast, we have complete, unambiguous audio from a few days later, where Blago clearly says "I have not spoken to him [Obama]." Therefore we know that "we" did not mean "Obama."
I've already cited a link to the audio. And newsreader cited an article repeating the same statement.
Except that there is no "documentation of contacts between Obama and Blagojevich." Unless you think shaking someone's hand in a receiving line amounts to "contacts."
Actually, it looks like he wants to find out "the facts of any contacts [by his staff] with the governor's office about this vacant seat." And he doesn't want to say he has complete knowledge about that until he does. Which is perfectly reasonable.
And he also doesn't want to make any statements about that which could interfere with Fitz's goals. Which is also perfectly reasonable.
I agree with what pluribus said on this point. I think your standards are too low. (Although I agree with your later remark about the need "to be more consistent about honesty standards;" I think I have been trying to make that point.)
""If the discussions is with his staff and not him" then that is indeed "not contact" with "him." And that's what Obama said: there was no contact with "him."
Bush declared via his staff, but Obama had no contact via his staff?
Straw-man alert: no one has said "Obama had no contact via his staff."
Was there not a press release from gov office somewhere during this period?
Yes (although I don't think it's been mentioned yet in this thread, at least not directly). It's one of the various bits of 'evidence' that is causing arousal among the usual suspects. Trouble is, they're pretending it says something it doesn't say. Which is just what they're doing with various other bits of 'evidence.'
That press release was discussed thoroughly in another thread. See here.
1. Disables comments for a provacative post.
2. Edits in text for his post, without clear track changes.
3. Quotes Obama's response to a question, but not the question. Said question, which would at least open the issue as to whether Obama's response is limited by terms of the question.
4. When under fire, comes back and tries to say he was not accusing Obama of lying by equivocation...but he was. Oh...and he still is. If information comes out to support this view he touts it.
------------------------
Orin, I love stirring things up, but even if I didn't, you need to pitch this guy. He's not intellectually honest. Heck, I'm concerned that he's not smart the way the rest of you Volokhs are. Truth is truth. I am super right wing, but take the view that we need to look truth in the eye...not just tout things that we like or that can be twisted to suppport views that we like. Let's be analytical and objective. Have the heart of a scientist.
What I like about this blog is that the owners seem to feel the same way. I mean heck, let's say we go into Iraq thinking there is WMD and then we find we were wrong, we man up and look the fact in the face and admit it. We don't try to change the subject and run away. And we don't lurch out for Bekaa Valley conspiracies or the like as drowning men grasping for any thing to hang out to.
PITCH LINDGEN
Just to clarify for the sake of latecomers who might be confused. You're talking about Lindgren's post here. That post currently has comments attached to it (and it's this fact which might cause a latecomer to be confused). However, the comments feature was disabled at the time the post first appeared (and you can see someone make that observation here).
After certain complaints were raised, Lindgren edited his post (in a non-trackable manner), added an update, and enabled the comments feature.
Note that Lindgren's post appeared at 12:10 am, but the first comment didn't appear until 2:57 am. In other words, it appears that it took Lindgren about 3 hours to decide that disabling comments wasn't a good idea.
Shenanigans like this obviously promote confusion. Likewise for the other problem you mentioned: that he edited his original post in a non-trackable manner.
Speaking of disabling comments, it seems that Lindgren has also adopted a practice of shutting down threads when challenging information appears. On five separate occasions (example) I have called attention to a false statement he cited, and requested a correction (to no avail). Each time, he closed the thread shortly after I posted the reminder. (Ironically, in the most recent instance, he closed the thread shortly after I called attention to his practice of closing the thread.)
He has never acknowledged the false statement, or taken responsibility for citing it. In my opinion, this in itself is sufficient proof of his egregious hackitude.
Anyway, I use my own (unofficial) methodology to rank the posters and the time I spend on their posts:
1/2: Orin Kerr &Eugene Volokh. Both generally fair in political areas, and it helps give me an idea of what people who might, in good faith, think differently than I do believe about a given situation. Also, both do excellent work on the First and the Fourth (although I tend to have normative differences of opinion with OK about the 4th, I can think of nobody who can better provide a description of what the law currently is.)
3: Ilya Somin: Reminds me of an incredibly bright fanboy. So wrapped up in the brilliance of his ideas that he fails to undersand their application in the real world. Still working on his theory that stronger Fifth Amendment rights would have protected the Rebel Alliance.
4: Dale Carpenter: A single-issue blogger, but he covers the issue very well. Considering some of the comments that appear in his threads, he as a very thick skin.
Everyone Else.
James Lindgren: Aspires to the height of mediocrity, but then like a bulldog with a chewtoy will seize upon an issue of marginal relevance and make sure that no aspersion remains uncast.
DB: Wow. Sometimes I will view his threads, in the same way that people slow down when they see massive traffic collisions. Truly attracts the crazies. Noise > Signal.
Anyway, that's entirely personal. I know that others enjoy the free-for-all that is a DB post, and I am sure that there are people looking forward to the next chance to view a Lindgren expose.
On a personal note, I have noticed an interesting phenomenon: I call it the
GUNS, GAYS, god hypothesis.
Which is to say, in order, the longer a thread continues on Volokh, no matter what the original topic, the more likely it is to eventually turn to one of those issues. Guns (2d Am. rights), Gays (gay marriage, gay rights), or (although less likely) God (freedom of religion) will end up being debated.
Intresting. When Bush staff speaks that's just like Bush speaking. When Obama staff contacts, it's a strawman. Are these the ones the world has been wiating for? Which ones? Which world?
It won't be easy, but I'll try to make this so simple that it can be grasped even by those who are habitually obtuse.
"When Bush staff speaks," in their official capacity, and Bush stands by with his hands folded and smiles approvingly (that is, he doesn't lift a finger to disavow what they said), that is indeed "just like Bush speaking."
And the same principle applies to Obama. Let's say, for example, that tomorrow Axelrod issues an official statement (on behalf of the Obama team) congratulating Blago for his work in bringing ethics to government. And let's say that Obama stands by with his hands folded and smiles approvingly (that is, he doesn't lift a finger to disavow what Axelrod said). It would then indeed be appropriate to say that Axelrod's statement was 'just like Obama speaking.'
With regard to the torture example I cited, Bush's State Dept said what they said, and Bush has not lifted a finger to disavow what they said (even though he's had years to do so). Therefore it's fair to claim that their statement is "just like Bush speaking." Which means that Bush is not just a torturer but a hypocritical torturer.
With regard to the Blago situation, no one (so far) has said there have been no "Obama staff contacts." Therefore your remark ("Bush declared via his staff, but Obama had no contact via his staff?") is a pure straw man. Why? Because no one has claimed that "Obama had no contact via his staff."
Obama might ultimately make that claim. But he has not yet done so.
If it turns out that there was indeed "contact via his staff," and if it also turns out that there was something inappropriate about that contact, and if it also turns out that Obama does nothing to disavow that inappropriate behavior, even after he becomes aware of it, then it does indeed become his responsibility, and it does indeed become appropriate to treat the "contact via his staff" as 'just like Obama speaking.'
In other words, your comparison is relevant only on a planet where a lot of things happen that haven't actually happened (at least not yet) on planet Earth.
Good question. Let us know when you're ready to discuss events on this planet, as compared with events that happened only in the world of your imagination.
Also an article in WaPo on Obama's efforts to distance himself from the governor. For those who think Obama and Blago were close: Blago didn't endorse Obama in 2004; Blago was about the only elected person Obamba did not invite to speak at the 2008 Convention. "The two men have not talked for more than a year, colleagues said, save for a requisite handshake at a funeral or public event."
Sorry, I don't know procedure to link article.
I once tried to explain it (here).
Is that the planet where the waters are receding and the planet has begun to heal itself?
If this report is true, does it mean Obama had contact with the governor? Will we have to revisit the meaning of the word "contact?" If Obama denies it, does that mean Obama didn't have contact? Emmanuel didn't have contact? Larry Craig didn't have contact? Is David Kendall still practicing? Has Fitzgerald ever expressed interest in the Court of Saint James?
Elliot123,
You also are on the verge of willful misrepresentation.
From the Tues, 9 Dec 2008 interview (edited version):
(Emphasis added.)
From the Thu, 11 Dec 2008 press conference:
(Emphasis added.)
Earlier in this very thread, the President-elect's careful statement —limited to his own personal knowledge— was condemned by another commentator as “weasel words”.
Now you're stripping away the context around a single word in a blatant attempt to create an impression of dishonesty.
Well, you're succeeding at creating an appearance of dishonesty: You yourself appear dishonest here.
Harsh, very harsh.
But, just for fun, let's add another news story from December 11 to the Obama files.
Rahm Emmanuel Reportedly spoke with Blagojevich about senate seat.
To be fair, I think you're (understandably) mistaking what Elliot's doing. He's not really mis-representing anything. He's just adding obfuscation to his already impressive credentials in non-sequitur and evasion.
Your chacterization of my response is again highly misleading.
I suggested the way in which Obama is not lying (he had no direct conversations with Blagojevich) and the way in which he was less than candid.
Come on, Orin, you can do better.
BTW, my analysis is looking better every day. Obama is already strongly hinting that I'm right on the contact issue.
My analysis may have seemed harsh to you, but it's turning out that I was right.
Jim Lindgren
Here's what you said the main point of your post was:
In your update you added this:
I think he looks relaxed because it never occurred to him that anyone who's seen the complaint could suggest, as I think you're doing, that Obama would deny, explicitly or otherwise, that there was at least indirect and maybe possibly direct contact between his staff and Blago or Blago's staff.
ie. not only before Blegs nov 10th rant could be communicated to Obama, but before Bleg ranted.
http://essence.typepad.com
/news/2008/12/the-back-stor-1.html
You've made several remarks like that, so I figure it might be interesting to look at the passage you apparently find so fascinating:
Which kind of reminds me of this:
And this:
And this:
And this:
Could you do the country a favor? Please convince the rest of the GOP to be just as cynical as you. Because cynicism is exactly what the country is looking for right now, right? I think you might be holding the key to the reanimation of the GOP. I hope you don't keep it to yourself.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.