Obama 'seriously angry' about state dinner crashers

[babylonsister]

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/71987-obama-seriously-angry-about-party-crashers


Obama 'seriously angry' about state dinner crashers
By Eric Zimmermann - 12/13/09 07:00 PM ET


President Obama is "seriously angry" about the party crashers that made their way into a state dinner.

In an interview with 60 Minutes, Obama said the security breach was a "screw up" that won't happen again.

snip//

When CBS's Steve Kroft asked Obama whether he was "seriously angry," the president responded affirmatively.

"Yes," he said. "That's why it won't happen again."

But Obama also seemed to take a shot at the media for blowing the event out of proportion.

"I don't think that from a policy perspective, this was the most important thing or even the fifth or sixth most important thing that happened this week, although it got the most news."

[Inuca]

1. Just saw the 60 minutes interview

Very good. The party crashers came up at the very end, and were definitely NOT the high point of the interview.

[babylonsister]

3. Sounds like he was just as angry at the media who made mountains

out of molehills. They definitely blew this up way out of proportion, though it was a serious breach.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KansasVoter]

4. Obama is 100% correct that the MSM spent way to much time on the story!

[HipChick]

5. Media are fascinated by anything shiny on the outside,but empty within

Ballon Boy

Palin

comes to mind

[Arkana]

8. You forgot what goes on inside Tiger Woods' ballsack.

And no, I don't mean his golf bag.

[The Green Manalishi]

6. Well, things are different now.

JFK could never have gotten away with his peccadilloes these days, Billy Carter would have a youtube channel all his own and bloggers would have been all over Iran Contra an order of magnitude faster. How quickly would Watergate have unfolded these days (assuming that we were not so blase. I mean if the same revelations came to light now the response would probably be 'no shit?'. And the kleptocratic, genocidal depredations of Bush2 make even the sleaziest of Nixonian antics look tame; at least we tried to pretend we weren't in Laos,

Just like kids sexting and 'private' homemade sextape being propagated over the internet. In other words, I would bet that dozens, even of hundreds of people have crashed white house functions over the last 50 years; but either they got away with it or it was kept hush hush. If this had happened 25 or 50 years ago would we have heard of it?

I don''t blame the President for being PISSED, but I wonder how many times someone who was not supposed to got within hand shake distance of the President in the last few decades but we never knew.

[babylonsister]

9. We know now...

Secret Service: White House security breached 91 times in past 30 years

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/12/07/2009-12-07_secret_service_white_house_security_breached_91_times_in_past_30_years.html

[The Green Manalishi]

22. Whoa!

Love the handle (and your posts), but everytime I see you post the LVIMH (Little Voice In My Head) goes "You got to shake it baby....." and it gets stuck in my head :-)


Fascinating, thanks for the link!

[Ikonoklast]

11. You have a point there.

There just may have been White House party-crashers before this, but they didn't turn out to be phony wannabe 'celebrities' trying desperately to become famous in any way possible, and using the media for their own benefit in trying to do so.

[liberal N proud]

7. Well, The M$M media is the one that made it a big deal

It should have been dealt with behind the scenes and these people would not have had their 15 minutes.

[Diamonique]

10. It was discovered BECAUSE the crashers were posting about it...

... with pictures... on Facebook.... right after the event.

Since it came out that way, I don't see how it could have then been dealt with behind the scenes.

[harun]

23. M$M is going crazy about it, flat out nuts. Nobody else gives a hoot.

M$M will latch on to anything they can that allows them to avoid talking about substance.

[tularetom]

12. About time he got seriously angry about SOMETHING

Hopefully, he'll like how it feels and stay that way. There's enough fucked up that he needs to fix for him to stay pissed off for an entire 4 (hopefully 8) year term. Whatever they put in his Wheaties to get him riled up, they need to keep doing it.

[timeforpeace]

13. No shit. And an odd thing to get angry about, for a president.

[babylonsister]

15. Got your dig in, didn't ya. Kudos. Not. nt

[The Green Manalishi]

25. 'an odd thing to get angry about, for a president.'

Wasn't the first lady there? Speaking for myself I would react with several orders of magnitude more harshness at incompetence or malfeasance that potentially endangered my wife than merely something that allowed potential harm to come to me.

[TwilightGardener]

26. Let's not forget the Prime Minister of India and wife, plus Cabinet members and legislators--

lots of big fat targets in that one room.

[The Green Manalishi]

27. True,

Just mean that if someone threatens *me* I would react with much more restraint than if someone threatened my wife (not that they threatened her, but that the incompetence of the SS in this case exposed Mrs Obama to the potential for risk).
Face it, President is a risky job. There is a non zero probability of being killed in the course of your activities and a near certainty that whack jobs are trying to do so. "you knew the job was dangerous when you took it" as the old line goes. But letting someone close to the first lady? That deserves getting PISSED.

[HopeOverFear]

14. Actually, he was more angry about the wall street bonuses

he said that the gate crashers weren't even that important a story, although to watch the news, you wouldn't know that.

[CakeGrrl]

16. What a silly statement.

How do you presume to know what he's upset about? Anyone who pays attention knows that he has never betrayed his emotions, and Kroft even tried to get in a dig about that with the West Point speech, to which the President replied that that was one of his most emotional in terms of how he felt about it.

People just really need to have things spelled out in huge block letters and waved in front of them, apparently.

I, for one, don't need him bawling like Jimmy Swaggart to telegraph that something concerns him. Nor do I think that smiling when receiving people at a speech indicates that he's incapable of being angry or upset about something else. What linear thinking some must be doing to seemingly draw that kind of conclusion.

:eyes:

[Cha]

19. Oh, you think this is the only thing that's ever angered the President?

The arrogant shit one reads on the internet.

[boppers]

17. What does than mean in Obama terms?

Obama being "seriously angry" means... he looks coolly at the person who made the mistake, and advises them to find another position? I just can't imagine him shouting, or even raising his voice.

[HughMoran]

18. It's teh shiny thing

I'd be mad too.

[phoenixriz]

20. He doesn't yell or shout

President Obama was asked if he shouted during the 60 minute interview. The President said "no he has never shouted." (I am sure this is how he was raised by Toots) What he did say is he lowers his voice and talks very distinctly identifying what the problem is. He said it carried more weight.

I do remember when his committee came to him with their Afghanistan plan that he rejected it and told them to go back and bring a better one. I am sure that he made himself very clear without raising his voice. He knows as Truman did, "The buck stops here"

[Ysabela]

21. And I guess John Wilkes Booth getting into Ford's Theater was no big deal either...

[AspenRose]

24. We should expect this when CNN spends more time talking about Tiger

than E! does.