It has been interesting to listen to commentary about the interview during the Super Bowl pregame show of president Obama by Bill O'Reilly of Fox News. Depending on the commentary what we saw was either Obama misleading America with half and non truths in order to avoid dealing with the actual facts or O'Reilly disrespectfully harassing the president of the United States. The coverage is actually startling. To be clear, I am not surprised that many pundits discuss the interview in the context of their own political opinions. What surprises me is that essentially non of the coverage was "down the middle".
The truth (for me at least) is that the interview was much more intrusive for the president than almost any we have seen in the past. O'Reilly did not let Obama use his normal tactic of giving long answers that move almost immediately away from the subject of the question. O'Reilly forced the interview to stay somewhat on point, although Obama still avoided answering the majority of the questions. I can see where some folks would find that unsettling; after all, it is not often that a president is called out when he tries to avoid an answer. It is also true that Obama did not stick to the facts. The best example is Obama's claim that he called Benghazi a terrorist attack on the morning after the murder of the four Americans in our consulate. This time, Obama did not have Candy Crowley there to incorrectly say that this was a true statement. The reality is that there are multiple videos of Obama announcing for two weeks after the attack that it was due to the video or that we did not yet know if it was a terror attack. In his answer, Obama was just relying on the lack of interest by the mainstream media and much of the public in Benghazi. Another example is Obama saying that there was no corruption in the IRS, just "boneheaded" decisions. Huh? We already had the woman in the direct line of fire take the Fifth in order to avoid self-incrimination. Was she just worried about disclosing a boneheaded decision? I doubt it. We also know that the IRS illegally disclosed the confidential tax information of a number of conservative groups to, among others, the co-chair of the Obama campaign. That is a federal crime, not a boneheaded mistake.
It has been many years now that the president has given an interview before the Super Bowl. Let's see if we can somehow do away with that practice next year. I would rather watch a few extra commercials for beer and Doritos.
The truth (for me at least) is that the interview was much more intrusive for the president than almost any we have seen in the past. O'Reilly did not let Obama use his normal tactic of giving long answers that move almost immediately away from the subject of the question. O'Reilly forced the interview to stay somewhat on point, although Obama still avoided answering the majority of the questions. I can see where some folks would find that unsettling; after all, it is not often that a president is called out when he tries to avoid an answer. It is also true that Obama did not stick to the facts. The best example is Obama's claim that he called Benghazi a terrorist attack on the morning after the murder of the four Americans in our consulate. This time, Obama did not have Candy Crowley there to incorrectly say that this was a true statement. The reality is that there are multiple videos of Obama announcing for two weeks after the attack that it was due to the video or that we did not yet know if it was a terror attack. In his answer, Obama was just relying on the lack of interest by the mainstream media and much of the public in Benghazi. Another example is Obama saying that there was no corruption in the IRS, just "boneheaded" decisions. Huh? We already had the woman in the direct line of fire take the Fifth in order to avoid self-incrimination. Was she just worried about disclosing a boneheaded decision? I doubt it. We also know that the IRS illegally disclosed the confidential tax information of a number of conservative groups to, among others, the co-chair of the Obama campaign. That is a federal crime, not a boneheaded mistake.
It has been many years now that the president has given an interview before the Super Bowl. Let's see if we can somehow do away with that practice next year. I would rather watch a few extra commercials for beer and Doritos.
No comments:
Post a Comment