But he didn’t lie, did he?
Big Obama supporter here.
I understand why folks are making a big deal out of this. Not saying I think it is a big deal, just saying I understand why folks are acting as tho it is.
Seems like there are 2 reasons folks can be upset. First, they think it a horrible thing that the US President might actually commit this action - bow to a fellow head of state. Second, they feel the President owes some explanation after the fact, and to the extent his aides have spoken, their explanations seem disingenuous.
Personally, I have no problem with the bow itself. Strikes me as little other than a sign of respect. Social politeness. If an outward sign such as that results in more favorable policy behind closed doors, then bow away I say! And I never quite understood the meme that everyone else - including our allies - should happily relegate themselved to a subordinate position to the almighty US. Seems to me that that sort of attitude contributes to ill-will against the US.
So he clearly did bow. And some folks - mostly on the right? - took issue with it. Is the president obligated to directly respond to everyting his detractors complain about? I’m not entirely sure about that. On one hand, his avowed policy of openness might merit some response. He could either say:
-I didn’t bow;
-I bowed and it was a mistake;
-I bowed and it was worth the concessions it achieved; or
-I bowed and it was no big deal.
Or he could choose to simply not respond - treating this as small potatoes. I’m not sure which response I - or the complainers - would be happier with. I suspect many of the loudest detractors would not be satisfied with any of the responses.
I do agree, however, that he ought not have his aides directly provide a blatantly unrealistic explanation - such as “He did not bow.” If that was an official statement, it should be addressed - and I hope retracted. Or whatever aide said that could indicate that that was his personal opinion.
In the worst event - if Obama’s administration is choosing to blatantly lie about something, I guess I could live with lying about something like this compared to our past several administrations!
No one is making an issue of it except for you.
Quite frankly, I’m a bit tired of the Republicans trying to turn every perceived foible or mistep into a major issue or spinning any success into a failure in hopes of undermining and discrediting the President. If you want to have an intelligent debate on his policies or specific programs, there is plenty to discuss. But this pedantic nitpicking makes the Republican party look petty and childish and is only going to convince right wing types who have already made up their minds anyway.
I’ll be coming over tonight to punch your wife in the mouth and fuck your daughter. 
I was one of the lone voices in this place against the Paulson bailout last year. I am against the Geithner bailout because it is the same thing in new clothes. I do not care about whether he bowed or not. That is petty and irrelevant.
(oops!)
No, just his personally appointed spokesman. This is a significant difference to you? Do you think that Bush is exempt from the fumbling absurdly obvious lies of A. Gonzales?
This is patently untrue, in this very thread.
Man, the Obama groupies are going to be just as bad as the Bushie prostrators, it seems.
Oh, and the next person to come in here and say they don’t care if he bowed or not gets the “Doesn’t Care Enough to Bother to Get the Point” award. This is the 4th time I’ve said I don’t much care if he bowed.
And I am not being whipped up by “right wing radio and tv”. I never watch tv news, and the one talk radio show I listen to sometimes never talks about this. I’m just so much wishing for our president to be scrupulously honest for once. And I realize that it might actually be the first time, but I (kinda jokingly) blame the Obama fanboys/girls who acted like he was going be some sort of political messiah.
So, when some of you subconsciously think you can attack Hannity or Limbaugh or O’Reilly through me, be aware that I’m near the front of the crowd with pitchforks and torches at their gates, too.
"This is one of the oldest and most effective tricks in politics. Every hack in the business has used it in times of trouble, and it has been elevated to the level of political mythology in a story about one of Lyndon Johnson’s early campaigns in Texas. The race was close and Johnson was getting worried. Finally he told his campaign manager to start a massive rumor campaign about [Kaus]'s life-long habit of enjoying carnal knowledge of his own barnyard [billys].
'Christ, we can’t get away with calling him a [goat]-fucker, the campaign manager protested. ‘Nobody’s going to believe a thing like that.’
‘I know,’ Johnson replied. ‘But let’s make the sonofabitch deny it.’"
Hunter Thompson, from “Fear and Loathing: on the Campaign Trail '72”
This impresses me as a tad disingenuous.
You say you personally don’t care if he bowed. So why is/was any explanation necessary?
Apparently someone cared. Do you think that objector was someone viewing things objectively, and expressing worthwhile concerns?
IMO, the relative merit of the original accusation is relavent to the appropriateness of the response - if any. Seems a little inconsistent to profess to not care about the original event or the original accusation, but then to act as tho any response - even a disingenuous one - is something worth caring about.
If the original event was small potatoes in your mind, I’m not sure how the response becomes something more. Makes me more convinced he should have simply ignored it. And would be happy if whatever aide said anything, the admin now issued an official response saying that was not an official response and there would not be any official response, as they had more important matters to address.
The difference being, of course, that nobody made anything up for him to deny. He bowed. His spokesman claimed he didn’t. He is allowing that statement to stand uncontested, ergo, he appears content to let a lie be the official White House statement on the matter.
What’s that one, that he lied about planning to get the dog from a shelter instead of from Ted Kennedy?
Still, this is excellent news for the McCain campaign…
No, no! It’s a EUROPEAN dog! A PORTUGUESE water dog! Why couldn’t the Obamas choose some hardworking American dog for this, huh?
No, what should kill the “issue” is common sense and realizing that a real “issue” is figuring out how to steer the economy back on track. Or how to deal with the downward spiral of GM. Or how to handle Iran and Korea and al Qaida. Or what to do with the growing presence of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Or how to put an end to Somali piracy.
Even farting in the general direction of this “issue” would be exerting too much effort on it for the president. If his press secretary says something incorrect on something that matters, he should correct it. If his press secretary says something incorrect on something that is as inconsequential as this, why should the president give a flying shit, when he has bigger fish to fry right now?
If Gibb, in a press conference, misspoke and said that the president’s new dog was a female, should the president make a special to-do and correct it? I mean, according to your logic, a statement from Gibb is as good as coming from the president, and a misstatement from Gibb is as good as a lie from the president. Right?
But come on, this is all bullshit, and you know it. The longer we dwell on this misstatement by Gibb, the longer we get distracted from shit that really matters.
But I suppose if you want to damn Obama because his press secretary said something stupid in response to something stupid, by all means be my guest. I imagine anyone whose knickers are in a bunch over this just couldn’t wait to get their knickers in a bunch over something the Obama administration did anyway. So enjoy it.
Maybe if you’re lucky, Obama will lie to Congress, the American people and the UN at some point in the next four years, and then you won’t look so ridiculous when you get your knickers in a bunch. Keep your fingers crossed!
A small hypothetical. Suppose I’m working in an office. I set out some cookies to share with people. I come back a bit later and they’ve been eaten. For whatever reason, I know who ate them. I casually say to that person “hey, did you have any of hose cookies?” That person, perhaps because he thinks maybe he wasn’t supposed to, responds “Uhhh, nope, didn’t take any.”
Now, that person did not do anything wrong by eating those cookies. However, by lying about it, my opinion of him will be lowered slightly. If he’s willing to lie about trivial bullshit, why should I trust him when it comes to something important?
Obama bowing is trivial bullshit. I don’t really care. His people should have just ignored complaints. But coming out with a disingenuous response just makes me shake my head a bit. Politics as usual.
What appears to be a bow on a video followed by Robert Gibb’s denial of the bow isn’t what I consider a reasonable measure of the President’s character or his presidency. The idea that this situation demands an apology from the President and proves he is a deplorable politician is an extreme reaction. It’s not like he imprisoned, tortured and denied the civil rights of an American citizen.
I watched the video and it did look like a bow, but what is perceived isn’t always real. I would like to see the greeting from a different angle before I decide. If the President bowed, he will not be the first or last U.S. president to make an embarrassing protocol mistake.
Frankly, I feel sorry for President Obama. The U.S. has unprecedented and serious problems that have to be managed while the President is undermined with a daily dose of political sabotage by members of a corrupt political system, to include media. He probably doesn’t want to run for reelection.
Fair enough. But having your people lie about trivial bullshit doesn’t make you a bad politician. It might make you a politician. But I don’t think anyone in here didn’t think Obama wasn’t a politician, or above “politics as usual.”
Gibb saying what he said doesn’t make Obama a bad president, or even a bad person, or even a liar. It just creates an opportunity for people that don’t even like Obama, and admittedly didn’t vote for him, to turn this into an “issue.” It’s not. Politics as usual. Whoop-de-do. This is just more “Where’s your Messiah now?” bullshit from the right.
The press secretary involved should state who raised the ridiculous query in the first place, and say he was going to say “What does it fucking matter whether he bowed or not? Get your head out of your ass, you dickwad!”, but instead decided to be less aggressive and say “He didn’t bow.”, just to see where the clown asking the question took it, and straightaway the Republican’s jumped on the bait.
Yeah, why not a Rottweiler? Or a Doberman?
Also an Obama supporter.
I get why it bothers people that the press secretary lied about Obama’s clear, unambiguous bow. Is it a trivial issue? YES. Which is all the more reason NOT to lie about it. Look, if we can’t trust Obama (or his personnel, if you prefer) not to tell the truth about something so inconsequential, then we can’t trust them to tell the truth about things that really are important.
Seriously, why bother lying about something so dumb? Those small transgressions against public trust chip away at our general willingness to trust on the big things.