Obama Needs More Television??

“Obama indicated that he did not see enough cable television to fully appreciate the anxiety after the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino.”

Sean Davis at The Federalist writes:

A story published by the New York Times late Thursday night caused some major media waves. The story, which was written by reporters Peter Baker and Gardiner Harris, included a remarkable admission by Obama about his response to the recent terror attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, California.

By Friday morning, however, the entire passage containing Obama’s admission had been erased from the story without any explanation from the New York Times. Here’s the passage that was included in the story when it was published Thursday night, courtesy of CNN’s Brian Stelter:

“In his meeting with the columnists, Mr. Obama indicated that he did not see enough cable television to fully appreciate the anxiety after the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, and made clear that he plans to step up his public arguments. Republicans were telling Americans that he is not doing anything when he is doing a lot, he said.”

The Times story (linked above) has removed the “offending” paragraph for an unexplained reason.

Back in ’92, the NYT ran a piece that lampooned President Bush for his apparent amazement at grocery store technology (thus indicating his being out of touch with common Americans). Although other media outlets picked up the story, it was subsequently debunked.

Perhaps this item will be debunked too, but if the now-deleted quotation is accurate, it demonstrates a president far more out of touch with his fellow countrymen than Bush Sr. ever exhibited. Obama needs more television in order to appreciate how Americans feel about terrorist attacks?? “Out of touch” doesn’t come close to describing what’s going on in his head; this is on-the-job malpractice. The end of his term cannot come soon enough. Maybe then he can go back to doing something he’s competent at.

Weekend Caption Contest™ Winners December 18, 2015
Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™
  • Brucehenry

    So you acknowledge that “maybe this will be debunked” but yet use it as red meat to throw out to the wolves in the Wizbang comment section?

    If you want to bitch about the NYT getting a story wrong, maybe you should look at this one:

    http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/12/18/new-york-times-san-bernardino-correction-margaret-sullivan-public-editor/?_r=0

    • jim_m

      So your position is that 0bama is not out of touch and knows exactly how the public feels about the important issues of the day?

      Yep. That’s why he sees everything as an opportunity to cram gun control and gun confiscation down everyone’s throats because the public overwhelmingly wants it and it is only through the efforts of the nefarious NRA that it has been thwarted.

      You’re a tool.

    • retired military

      If it were going to be debunked you would think the NY Times would have written a correction by now. They only take 6 months to do so when a republican is involved.

      • Scalia

        And they still haven’t offered a retraction for the original Bush story.

    • It could be debunked like you could pull your head out of the south end of your alimentary canal.

    • Walter_Cronanty

      The NYTs has already explained that it excised that portion of the article to save space. Of course, it was replaced with 2 paragraphs containing 50 more words, but …. what the hey, it’s the NYTs. What do you expect?

      By the way, David Ignatius of the WaPo wrote this: “In addition to detailing Obama’s thoughts on his ISIS strategy, Ignatius’ column alluded to the president’s remark about cable news: “Obama seems to have realized that he was slow to respond to public fear after the jihadist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, Calif.,” Ignatius wrote. “His low-decibel approach led the public to worry he wasn’t doing enough to keep the country safe. Obama, not a cable television fan, apparently didn’t realize the state of anxiety.”

      http://thefederalist.com/2015/12/18/the-new-york-times-just-memory-holed-this-devastating-obama-admission/

      • Brucehenry

        Kinda my point. Scalia calls this a “now-deleted quotation,” but it’s not a “quotation” at all, just reports of what anonymous sources say they thought Obama meant. The one he cites is one version, Ignatius’s is slightly different, and I bet whatever Obama actually, you know, SAID could be interpreted in several other slightly different ways as well.

        In any case hardly a reason to set one’s hair on fire. And yes, newspapers can and do edit “for space” and still print a longer article if what they insert gives a more accurate impression than what they delete.

        • Walter_Cronanty

          Both quotes say the same thing. You’re stretching. So, if Scalia had said “now-deleted report” it would have been fine with you?
          Nobody’s hair is on fire. It’s business as usual for both the Times and President Putz. Just interesting to note how the Times covers for its Chosen One.

          • jim_m

            Bruce is desperate, absolutely desperate, to protect the image of his lord and savior 0bama.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes my desperation is palpable. Why, if I don’t act, some of you guys might start to think badly of Obama!

          • jim_m

            Actually it is. You are stretching to call this claim a lie. It has not been retracted and has been reported from multiple sources.

            Why are you so intent on debunking this rather innocuous claim? The simplest answer is that you cannot bear to see the man you worship as a god criticized.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes I CAN’T BEAR IT!!! That’s why I never comment on or read Wizbang, because it is an Obama fan site.

          • I’d be glad to help you with that…

        • Scalia

          Yes, “quotation” is the wrong word, but there is no substantive difference between the two reports.

          This kind of blog exists to generate discussion. Nobody’s hair is on fire. I acknowledged the possibility that this report may be wrong and will gladly state so if the Times publishes a retraction. If, however, it is true, the president is and will be justly criticized for it.

          • Brucehenry

            Sure there is. The report you cite implies that Obama actually SAID something like “I don’t watch enough cable TV news to appreciate how scared everybody was.” The Ignatius cite implies that he (Ignatius) THINKS that’s the reason Obama is allegedly seemingly unaware of the level of fear.

            BTW I heard a short interview with Ignatius on NPR yesterday about this session. You should look it up and read it to see how hair-on-fire this piece sounds. Relative to the actual importance of the session, I mean.

          • Scalia

            Sure there isn’t. Ignatius sanitized it according to the ground rules of the meeting. If you read the entire lead link of my post, you’ll see that the “Ignatius” defense is directly addressed.

    • Scalia

      Yes, it’s nice to see the Times rush to retract a story that makes the Obama administration look bad, but to this day they’ve not retracted the false Bush report.

      • Brucehenry

        Yet the Zombie Lie that this proves “the vetting process is inadequate” will live on and on in Wingnutistan.

        • Scalia

          The vetting process is inadequate with respect to Syrian refugees for the reasons I and others stated in the other thread. You cannot properly vet somebody when the home country’s database is non-existent or nearly so.

          With respect to Malik, it shows why we should severely restrict or prohibit immigration from countries that are known hotbeds for terrorist activity. Our protection is paramount.

          • Brucehenry

            I actually don’t disagree with you about being very careful to vet Syrian refugees before allowing them entrance. My point is the NYT’s false story gave rise to the “certainty” that the government missed all the signs even though this Malik was supposedly all over social media with jihadist posts. She wasn’t.

            Also, she wasn’t a Syrian refugee. She’s a Pakistani national who was living in Saudi Arabia. Both of those countries are our purported “allies.”

          • jim_m

            She was enough if they had their shit together. 0bama is putting enormous pressure to admit muslims with minimal to no screening and to ignore the existence of terrorism. Admin officials have said repeatedly that they are not capable of giving the proper screening that 0bama claims is being done. 0bama believes in the magical idea that whatever he says is automatically made into reality. You believe that too.

          • Brucehenry

            Aaaand Jim proves my point

          • jim_m

            The point is that we are admitting muslim immigrants with little or no screening. You deny this despite the abundant evidence and testimony from high level government officials.

            You are too interested in supporting the affirmative action president and in trying to not appear to have any prejudice against muslims.

        • jim_m

          You really are a tool. For that to be a lie your definition of lie must be “anything that 0bama disagrees with”, more proof that you are a leftist a hole.

          • You keep dropping the leading s…

          • Brucehenry

            Thus spoiling your coprophiliac fantasies.

          • Speaking of stools…

          • Brucehenry

            Yes you keep speaking of shit. Why you reckon that is?

          • Whenever your handle appears before me I cannot help but exclaim:

            Shit!

            I invite those who have a similar response to upding this comment.

          • Brucehenry

            Ha! Ha!

          • Brucehenry

            Going back to edit your comment ex post facto, I see. Pathetic.

  • jim_m

    0bam is not only out of touch, he simply doesn’t care. He has such disdain for the US public that he believes that their opinions do not matter and ought to be ignored. This was yet another example of his disregard for the people he is supposed to serve but who he believes he has the right to rule over as he pleases.

    • retired military

      T.S. Eliot once said, “Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people
      who want to feel important. They don’t mean to do harm – but the harm does not
      interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are
      absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves.”

  • “The end of his term cannot come soon enough. Maybe then he can go back to doing something he’s competent at.”

    Just what is Obama competent at?

    • Scalia

      Reading a teleprompter?

      • Brucehenry

        I clicked on all the links in your piece. That there is some weak tea. One of the lamest gotchas I’ve seen in a while.

        But I do admit I didn’t know the ’92 Bush scanner thingie was so thoroughly debunked.

        • jim_m

          It’s less a gotcha on 0bama as it is on the NYT that quickly removed the offending language that the hypersensitive whiny ass baby in chief didn’t like. Why do they have the compulsion to edit history in order to make the affirmative action President look good?

          • Brucehenry

            Probably the same reason Judith Miller had the compulsion to make shit up to make the legacy-admission President look good, I guess.

          • jim_m

            You mean John Quincy Adams? Or are you calling the man who was Governor of one of the largest states elected as a legacy? You’re fucking pathetic. Name 1 thing 0bama did other than freeload off of his skin color.

            Only President of the Harvard Law Review to never publish
            Worst attendance record in the Illinois Senate.
            Most ‘present’ votes in the US senate during his brief stay.

            Everything he has gotten is due to his political patrons. Nothing was achieved through skill or ability. It was all on his race.

          • Brucehenry

            LOL you’re in rare form tonight. Had a belt or two have we?

          • jim_m

            Stone cold sober jackass. Now why not respond to substance you pussy?

          • Brucehenry

            Oh well then you have no excuse.

            So OK I’ll explain the “joke.” Since you call Obama the “affirmative action” president (one would assume based on his admissions to prestigious schools), I implied Bush was a “legacy admission” president for the same reason.

            See, some of these are jokes, and none of this thread (including the piece it’s a part of, or the article that piece is riffed off of) can fairly be called “substance.”

            Especially not your furious-for-no-reason spittlefests.

          • jim_m

            Once again when you are caught in unsupportable BS you claim it is a joke. F you Bruce, the game is getting old. I placed several reasons why 0bama is reasonably considered an affirmative action choice.

          • Brucehenry

            Yeah sure MY game is getting old lol.

          • The joke here is brucehemorrhoid.

            Ha, Ha!

          • Jwb10001

            And if Bush was a legacy president would that also make a president Hillary a legacy president?

          • Brucehenry

            Sure that’s fair.

          • Ha! Ha!

          • The AA [P]resident.

          • Ha, Ha!

        • Ha, ha!

          • Commander_Chico

            What a ‘tard.

          • When was the last time you had net up-dings here?

          • Commander_Chico

            If you think that has value, you’re even more pathetic.

            I get my approval professionally and romantically.

          • jim_m

            The latter being paid for by your own repeated admission.

          • I don’t discus either online.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            What, she gives you a discount?

          • Commander_Chico

            That is beneath you.

          • jim_m

            LOL. Not hardly. But We do see through your crap and remember your admissions. Funny that you see yourself adopting the affectations of our islamic enemies.

          • Commander_Chico

            Yah the Muslims have some things right, like harems.

            Men are in charge amongst the Arabs, too.

          • jim_m

            Yes, it does not surprise any of us that you view women as property

          • Commander_Chico

            As I said, you have internalized feminist doctrine.

            Yes, I am an asshole.

            http://m.quickmeme.com/img/70/704a19955797a0bd31c0450699e36c95187ef0871b9c56c3977c1e4fe197bbcb.jpg

          • jim_m

            No. Believing that women are human beings and not property is called not being a sociopath who should be forcibly removed from society.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Beneath, on top, it doesn’t matter.
            Sorry, Chico, I couldn’t resist.

          • Jwb10001

            Dude when a hooker says you’re great in bed that’s code for please give me a big tip. She really doesn’t mean it.

  • Commander_Chico

    Yeah, because cable news is the fountain of truth.

    • jim_m

      Really? You pathetic dumbass! Can you not read? Or do you honestly think that the NYT is a cable outlet? When was the last time you watch cable on a broadsheet?

      • Commander_Chico

        I was referring to Obama’s remark about not watching cable news.

        That is a good thing, cable news is bullshit and hysteria.

        • Jwb10001

          Yes except that most the time when something happens (IRS scandal etc) Obama claims the first he heard of it was on TV. Can’t have it both ways. Oh and btw, cable news is much better source than conspiracy daily which it seems is your main source of information.

          • Commander_Chico

            Yet you are the rest say the global warming theory is a big conspiracy.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            No, science says CAGW is a conspiracy.

          • Commander_Chico

            They fooled GW Bush, Admiral Mullen, every govt that showed up in Paris.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            It’s a way to get the various governments, including the UN, more money. They weren’t fooled, it’s a conspiracy. How many government grants have you heard of for the study of natural warming? What’s the optimum temperature for humans? When did we reach that temperature? What caused the temperature to change? Is warming good or bad for humans?

          • jim_m

            It doesn’t have to be a conspiracy when you have vast amounts of money channeled into warmist policy initiatives. Politicians are just following the money.

            And the truth is that none f your questions can be answered and no warmist can even begin to answer them.

          • jim_m

            Educated people are not fooled by the science but most who believe in AGW are believing in the politics of it and not the science.

            You believe in the politics of it. You point out the graft and payoffs that are available because of it. The science means nothing to you. The claims are only a means to an end and it doesn’t matter that the science fails to back them up.

          • Jwb10001

            Nice pivot there. I don’t recall ever saying the AGW crowd non sense was a conspiracy but that never stops you does it.

        • retired military

          But that is where Obama claims he hears about 90% of the stuff that is going on in the world.

          • Commander_Chico

            These neocons just want “boots on the ground.” That is what the article and cable news is about.

            War is good for CNNFOXMSNBC ratings.

  • JWH

    Back in ’92, the NYT ran a piece that lampooned President Bush for his apparent amazement at grocery store technology (thus indicating his being out of touch with common Americans).

    President Bush did not understand the full power of the fully operational laser checkout system. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL528026B4F7B34094

    • Scalia

      I stand corrected. I never knew the prez went by “Chad.” 🙂

  • Vagabond661

    Of course the real reason it was scrubbed was to give the press plausible deniability it ever happened 2 years from now. If they never reported on it, it never happened.

    Heard that song too many times.