That's not my point of entry here. It's that SHS saying it's "categorically false" means less than nothing.Originally Posted by Hawk
That's not my point of entry here. It's that SHS saying it's "categorically false" means less than nothing.
Could you name one "unnamed sources" piece with respect to Trump that has been corroborated?
I can't think of one.
Because she's a member of Trump administration?
A lot of nit-picking and arguing from an abstract pretense going on here.
She's a spin doctor. When a spin doctor issues a categorical denial ... that's usually a sign.
I guess where I end up here is: Who denying this story would you believe?
Well, that's a fair point, because I don't think that it would serve Mattis's interests for him to publicly diverge from the party line, even if he did so in private. So, point taken. But what that suggests is that someone inside the administration is lying. Who, why, and to what end?
Ugh.
Jeez, just start with the many, many stories about departures from the WH.
I'm just saying.
When you paint yourself into such a rigid corner, you leave yourself pretty exposed.
There are about a hundred different ways that question could be handled without accepting real culpability.
This response is not one of them.
I honestly don't have any idea what you are referring to.
In a statement on Wednesday, Pentagon spokesperson Dana White called the Times' story "blatantly false."
Pretty much all of the manifold stories about high-profile departures from the WH were preceded by anonymously sourced stories to that effect. Pick one: Tillerson, McMaster, Porter, etc. ad nauseam.
So the relationship to Trump is tangential. I was hoping for one of the stories that related to him specifically.
And, fwiw, NYT stands by their story.
The story at issue doesn't relate specifically to Trump.
That's not how I'm seeing it reported.
The lede:
WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Jim Mattis urged President Trump to get congressional approval before the United States launched airstrikes against Syria last week, but was overruled by Mr. Trump, who wanted a rapid and dramatic response, military and administration officials said.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/17/u...ia-attack.html
Buuuut ... why is that less about Trump than him canning a senior member of his administration? I don't understand the parameters here.
So Mattis, to a greater or lesser degree, was off the reservation, and it was leaked, but no one wants to go on the record confirming it. Why is this anything other than business as usual?
I guess we just wait for Mattis's book tour.
You don't see that story framed as a direct, personal disagreement between Trump and Mattis?
Omarosa or Porter or McMaster leaving the White House isn't really in the same league.
I asked for an example of a single story that had been corroborated, specifically relating to Trump and his behavior.
Like "****hole countries" or whatever else.
I honestly lost track of how many unverified reports have been touted as foregone conclusions, simply because they support a narrative. Then people forget, and also often forget that they were never supported by actual fact-based reporting in the first place.
The idea that Mattis, who is on the Congressional record late last year explicitly supporting renewal of the AUMF, went "off the reservation" here is just kind of silly, frankly.
I don't think it that far fetched - this isn't the first time a President, any President, didn't take the advise of DOD.
Lincoln ...
the original story you felt needed rapid response was he took the advise of his Cohen lawyers over DOD.
Which isn't that far fetched either
Looking at Trump quotes over the past couple years " I know more than the Generals " etc etc etc
DOD talked Trump down after his "fire and fury" bluffs/rants/chest pounds
How many other stories of temper tantrums. The latest aimed at Nicki Haley --- you sound like Sturg wanting to have "what propaganda" packaged and tied in a neat little bow
you brought up Mattis. We don't even know if Mattis was in the room or in N Korea with Pompeo or Saudi Arabia cleaning up Jarad's mess.
Which brings us back to Stormy.
How many denials from the White House ?
I lost count
Last edited by 57Brave; 04-18-2018 at 06:58 PM.
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote