"Obama Huddles With Human Rights Groups Before Security Speech"

ErinBerin84 posted a link to this in another thread....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8422214

But I thought the article could use a bit more of a prominent spot.... ;)

and wouldn't care if they liked it or not.

..... like the article claims the President did.

Should be another very interesting speech tomorrow from President Obama.

..... that make you want to call in sick to work. :)

this tonight?

Sigh. So many problems, so many critics.

opposite of what this article reports. More Obama=bush crap.

:shrug:

reported on other stuff that may have occurred during the meeting, not the opposite.

1) This WH doesn't have leaks period. This has to be considered an authorized leak and a heads up that tomorrow's speech isn't your normal speech.

2) The whole article is very interesting and these three paragraphs very interesting

As for the criticism of Senate Republicans, who suggest that moving terrorism suspects to America would be tantamount to releasing them on the streets, Massimino recalled Obama's remarks as being relatively brief. He dismissed it, she said, "as really an unfounded fear that is being fanned by people who are seeking political advantage."

While acknowledging that she did not have verbatim quotes from the president, Massimino nevertheless relayed some of the remarks he made on other key foreign policy topics. On the administration's decision to reverse course and oppose the release of photos depicting abuse of terrorist suspects, she said that Obama brought it up without being prompted. "He raised it," she said. "We didn't have to ask."

He said that he became convinced that the particular timing of what we were dealing with in Afghanistan right now made this a particularly bad time to release those photos," she explained. "And he said that we should not conclude from his decision right now that those photos will not end up getting released. There are many ways that might happen. The court might order it. Circumstances might change the balance of consideration that would weigh in favor of transparency, which he reiterated would be his default position."


On the photos it is primarily a timing issue and I think that he especially wants a chance to visit Egypt and make a presentation on Muslim/American relations without having more overlap from Bush/Cheney.

On our Senate's idiocy today "political advantage" is a polite way of labelling it.

... "dont post the whole article" DU rule.

I would STRONGLY urge everyone to read the whole article AND listen to what Isakoff is about to say (again) on Rachel and decide on your own.

But needless to say, I like this article better than I like Issakoff's lol

This poster and article seem to say otherwise:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3886686

BS---but believed by many none the less.

sucks. Who knows what is going on? I'll wait to hear directly from the President.

The other has no sources, it's all anonymous shit.

I wonder if the Newsweek/NYT sources were the same. Either way, I'm sure more accounts will come in the next fews days, even though it was supposed to be "off the record".

:kick:

I found this statement very striking

More broadly, Obama said he was determined to build a new structure for executive oversight that would last beyond his presidency, preempting the problems he currently confronts from happening again.

We talked a lot about the framework in which he is operating, and he talked about his strong desire to reestablish a system under which the executive is not exercising unfettered authority," said Elisa Massimino, CEO of Human Rights First and an attendee at the Wednesday affair. "One of the chief differences between him and his predecessor was that he didn't think he ought to be making these decisions in an ad-hoc, unaccountable way. And so he said that, in thinking through this, he was focused on how his successor might operate."

I think that's something we're forgetting. It's all well and good for Obama to go after the previous admin. because he's the good guy and they're the bad .... but if he sets a precedent ..... who's to stop the bad guys for coming after him?

It's a slippery slope and I think sometimes we over simplify the answers.

on these issues and not immediately jump to conclusions. I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt until he proves that he shouldn't get that consideration.

... remember the love fest on Sunday? It will be like that .... but quieter. ;)

what happens to all of the crap Bush set up after Obama leaves office. He knows he has to address the problems for the long term, not just short term solutions.

.... on Rachel's show. He started off by presenting this image of the a whiny President who blamed all of his problems on Bush. True, Barack will cite that he was handed a pile of poo poo with a bow on top on his first day in office, but the TONE in which Issakof described it "poor little me" didn't match the President Obama I've heard over and over and over.

It called the whole segment into question IMO.

I don't see that at all.

See I have to see the entire thing before I comment on Issikoff. Because right now I can say that the NYT article is crawling with holes.

.... pre-conceived notion of the whole thing. Which, to be fair, is what we all do, myself included.

It's just that the article you and I like has actual names listed giving it a bit more credability IMO. ;)

Was Issikoff's source also unnamed?! So Issikoff himself was not at the meeting but getting the facts from his source, who might also be the helpful source of the NYT article....unless of course the NYT article was his source? *paged to my preconcieved notion*

Exactly...there so many people jumping on this and yet...the Huffpost article is given no credence.

..... that his source was unnamed and off the record. "Because that's what journalism is" he said.

I dont have a problem with that, he's right, that's what journalism, sometimes is, but like I said in the first thread, we have to be careful treating such sources as the Gospel truth.

After her introduction of the segment with Issakof I couldn't listen to anymore.

I'm very disappointed in Rachel's show.