WORLD LEADERS LEARN: OBAMA CANNOT BE TRUSTED/update
Just hours after President Bush and President-elect Obama met in the Oval Office of the White House, details of their confidential conversation began leaking out to the press, igniting anger from the president, sources claim.
"Senator Obama would be wise to keep close counsel," a top Bush source warned.
"BUSH AND OBAMA AT ODDS OVER AID FOR AUTO INDUSTRY," splashed the NEW YORK TIMES in an exclusive Monday evening, quoting"people familiar with the discussion."
The two met at the White House in private, without staff.
"Bush indicated at the meeting that he might support some aid and a broader economic stimulus package if Obama and congressional Democrats dropped their opposition to a free-trade agreement with Colombia," claimed the TIMES. . . .
The ASSOCIATED PRESS quickly followed with details of the conversation, citing"aides who described the discussion on grounds of anonymity, citing the private nature of the meeting."
Bush advisers view the leaks as an effort to undermine the president's remaining days in office.
"Senator Obama may not be familiar with a long-standing tradition of presidents holding their private conversations, private," a senior adviser explained to the DRUDGE REPORT.
Bush adviser was being kind. To make meeting between leaders worth while, they must be able to trust each other. The major part of that trust is built on the assumption that their discussion will remain confidential. Barack Obama has just informed world leaders that he cannot be trusted with confidential information. So much for Obama personal diplomacy as a cure all for America's international problems.
UPDATE: White House, Obama team deny quid pro quo and playdown tensions with Bush. In other words, he not only leaked but leaked inaccurately.
In a similar vein:
And Obama envoys are having secret meetings with Hamas. Revelations of contact with Hamas was the reason Malley was supposedly fired.
comments powered by Disqus
Elliott Aron Green - 11/13/2008
Politicians are poseurs by nature. They habitually make promises that they can't or don't want to keep. But Obama carried fakery to great excess. His campaign in the primaries was based, inter alia, on the claim to be the New, the Clean, the Young, the Fresh, the Innocent untainted by Washington corruption, the last mentioned claim curiously made by jimmy carter during the 1976 election campaign. Yet Obama was always well-connected in the background with Zbig Brzezinski and other veterans of the wrong foreign policies of earlier presidents, like jimmy. Despite Obama's explicit accusation that Bush and McCain's policies were tailored to fit the "billionaires" [Obama's word], he himself was backed by billionaires such as George Soros and Warren Buffett. This is demagoguery of an ugly kind. So it's no wonder that Obama sent emissaries to Damascus and Gaza. Recall that Obama sent zbig brzzzski to Damascus in February to meet the bloodthirsty dictator there. Assad Syria, like Hizbullah and Iran, disseminate Nazi-like Judeophobia over their broadcasting media, press, mosque preaching, etc. So negotiating with them is like negotiating with Nazis.
Why should Prof. Klinghoffer be excoriated for bringing up negative info about Obama?
Lorraine Paul - 11/13/2008
Thank goodness reputable historians are standing up to this bully!
Ralph E. Luker - 11/12/2008
Dr. Klinghoffer, Your claim doesn't prove *anything*, except for your contempt for evidence.
Jonathan Dresner - 11/11/2008
Bush administration officials have denied war crimes, crimes against humanity, violations of the US Constitution, infractions of Federal election and records laws, and any number of misdemeanors and moments of bad taste. By your logic, their denials are clear evidence of guilt.
It helps, in their case, that the facts support the charges. In your case, though, you're just making stuff up as you go along.
Judith Apter Klinghoffer - 11/11/2008
Well, the defensive posture since taken by the Obama camp confirms that he was the information source and that his report was inaccurate. My conclusion are accurate.
Jonathan Dresner - 11/11/2008
For "an award-winning journalist", Ms. Knopf, you seem oddly ignorant of the nature of the report you are criticizing: blogs are not "edited" and this blog in particular is written by a noted loose cannon of great hostility towards Obama and all Democrats. Dr. Klinghoffer does not represent GMU, nor CHNM, nor even HNN; she only represents herself, and that poorly.
Susan Lewis Knopf - 11/11/2008
When i got this story on the net, I was dumbfounded to trace the link back to a respected institution like George Mason University. This is an inauspicious beginning. Reprinting slander does not inoculate the editor. Bush aides say what??
As an award winning journalist I would like to remind everyone, facts should always be checked with two sources. In this case the facts are seriously in doubt. We have one camp known for being tight lipped about details and plans: Obama. And we have another camp that leaked classified information identifying a CIA spy innocuously embedded for years within our diplomatic corps. Hmmm Who do we think is leaking what?
Oh, and Obama aides allegedly leaked information to diminish the status of the Bush administration. Hmmm. Bush has the lowest approval rating of any President in 70 years. i doubt the Obama camp would waste one minute trying to kill that dead duck.
Gossip is garbage. Drudge can say anything he wants. The world applauded the election of Obama. We have not seen the like in modern times. I doubt seriously any international leader is giving this story any consideration.
- Historian James Harris says Russian archives show we’ve misunderstood Stalin
- The Invisible Labor of Women’s Studies
- Lincoln University historian mourns decision to abolish the history major
- Hamilton College conservative historian questions diversity requirement
- Historians on Donald Trump: A Huge Hit on Facebook