How The White House Lost Message Control
Watching The Raid on Osama Bin Laden : White House Photo
Here’s what I think what happened on Sunday:
- Press conference scheduled at 10.30 pm eastern
- List drawn up of people who need to know before 10.30, so that they were not blindsided
- Timetable for contact developed, working backwards from 10.30 pm
All would have been well — the tweet that broke the story was timestamped 10.24 pm — if the President had kept to the 10.30 press conference time. But he didn’t; it slid an hour. Too many people had been told the news, and once it leaked, the rest felt it was OK to “confirm” (anonymously, of course).
And so, the White House lost control of the message.
Of course, it’s possible that they wanted the news leaked, but I can’t imagine the purpose.
Note that on Tuesday 3 May, the White House retracted the “woman/wife as a shield” and an armed Osama bin Laden from the official narrative. How could they have accidentally gotten this so wrong?
- Osama bin Laden was not armed
- He did not pull a woman in front of him as a shield
- A woman was shot but not killed during the attack
These are key discrepancies — and each of them fed the “carnival” or “sports theatre” emotional response that I witnessed on Twitter and Facebook and that millions witnessed as TV cameras showed partiers in NY and DC.
Makes you wonder, doesn’t it? What else in the narrative was fiction?
Related:
26 Responses to “How The White House Lost Message Control”
good point, osama is probably still live and holding obama’s kenyan birth certificate for randsom
Plain old assassination, eh.
Jessica Lynch, inspired by Pat Tillman, killed bin Laden with her bare hands.
I haven’t seen a thread on TMV that fits the following comment, so I’m gonna stuff it here:
Pres. Obama screwed up his press conference not by the facts of the case, but by his use of “I” instead of “we” or, even better, “they”. He gave more props to himself than he did the intelligence community or the SEALs. I was very disappointed, it sounded too much like political opportunism and back-patting. It would have showed dignity and humility for him to simply praise all the intelligence analysts and the folks who carried out the mission and left his own role out of it.
There was also all this 9/11 imagery, so often used in these past 9 years or so for political gain.
That’s the “message control” problem I see, not the timing. He should have been matter-of-fact, commended the folks who made it possible, and ended it, instead of turning it into a stump speech for his personal re-election.
[...] Aside: House the WH Lost Message Control [...]
Barky,
Yes, there were a lot of I’s, but also there was this:
Barky, good catch. In fairness to Obama, he and his party and ideological side of the scale or spectrum are defensive when it comes to national security and use of force, which puts him at odds with many of his fellows.
Barky and G.C.: Obama 2012 is already weeks old.
Let’s see what he does at ground zero.
Note that so many of us merely want the normal emphasized:
CLOSURE.
Barky, I agree. Obama could have shown more humility and deference but decided to hog the spotlight. He tends to use the phrases “at my direction”, “at my command”, “I instructed”, etc a lot during many of his speeches. He may be just trying to take responsibility as in “the buck stops here”, but it can come across as self-centered.
On losing the message, I understand a lot of details are going to get confused initially and can’t blame anyone for that. Where the Obama team erred was in not waiting until they had rock solid information before announcing it.
What speech did you people watch? It was, like, 5 minutes long (less?), the only thing he said about himself was that he had ordered it a priority, and he struck a very somber tone. God, you people really hate him so much that even when he does something that most of your side of the aisle thinks is the bestest ever, even when he gives and extremely fact-based, even-toned announcement (barely a “speech” at all), you guys whine about him bragging? Geezus, people.
Barky has O’s number. The Is have it as I have also said (patting my back). I also said this would have better done as a “disappear” operation, instead of the opera it is becoming.
Let’s get real, people.
The President’s address to the nation consisted of 1386 words.
Out of these, the first 453 words addressed the 9/11 tragedy and how America and Americans were affected by it; how Americans came together; and about the tireless work “over the last 10 years of our military and our counterterrorism professionals.”
There was one (1) “I” in these 453 words, in the opening sentence: “Good evening. Tonight, I can report to the American people and to the world that the United States has conducted an operation that killed Osama bin Laden…”
The final 374 words praised America and Americans; gave “thanks to the countless intelligence and counterterrorism professionals who’ve worked tirelessly to achieve this outcome;” gave thanks to “the men who carried out this operation, for they exemplify the professionalism, patriotism, and unparalleled courage of those who serve our country;”told the “families who lost loved ones on 9/11 that we have never forgotten [their] loss, nor wavered in our commitment to see that we do whatever it takes to prevent another attack on our shores;” praised America and its values; reminded us that we are “one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all; and concluded “Thank you. May God bless you. And may God bless the United States of America.”
Not a damn, single “I” here.
Now, with the 560 words in between the Commander in Chief described what he, as the President of the United States did to plan and execute this critical national security mission; how the operation was carried out; how America will continue to remain vigilant; and that he called the Pakistani president.
Period.
Now, folks, this is the extent of that graceless, ridiculous, arrogant, bragging, loud-mouth, syrupy, overdone, self-centered, unseemly, power-grabbing, political-credit-grabbing, desperation-to-claim-credit speech by the President.
You be the judge
I directed Leon Panetta,
I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden.
I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action,
Today, at my direction,
I’ve repeatedly made clear that we would take action within Pakistan if we knew where bin Laden was.
You are correct about the overall number of Is (not too many) Dorian, however the density of Is was in a few paragraphs, and this listener jumped to a conclusion.
He did 4 things, and said he did them. I mean, he practically fondled himself at the podium. What a gross display of self-love.
My guess: if he had failed to mention his part in it at all, that a similar group would be criticizing his unwillingness to take responsibility for the action.
@Barky gcotharn
I’ll try to find it … but I read a piece this morning where the author actually COUNTED “I” and “me” and “my” and then contrasted that with “we” (etc). Guess which one “won”? It wasn’t the singular pronoun.
Thanks for playing – but please think for yourself (or look at data) rather than regurgitate talking points.
HE, did a good thing: getting OBL, but HE was only part of it, not the IT. The deed should not be confused with the messy messages. I’m with Teddy R., on this: speak quietly and carry a big stick or you may find your foot in your mouth.
Well, dduck, thank goodness he didn’t pretend to be the IT. He took credit and responsibility for the parts he performed personally.
the parts he performed personally.
????????
I’m sorry, but what about that phrase could possibly be unclear? He said “I directed”, “I was briefed”, “I determined” etc. Things he heard, things he decided, things he directed. Personally. Listening to someone speak in the first person and interpreting that as meaning that person is talking about him- or herself shouldn’t be a new concept to you, dduck.
My comment was my own, Kathy. And I stand by what I said.
How many personal pronouns should he have used in his statement?? Maybe one. As in “I want to thank all the people who made this possible …”
Hey personalizing department, Roro said:
Personally. Listening to someone speak in the first person and interpreting that as meaning that person is talking about him- or herself shouldn’t be a new concept to you, dduck.
Pretty sure this is the piece you were searching for.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/johnson/2011/05/presidential_pronouns
I: 9
Me: 2
My: 3
And for good measure Bush announcing al-Zarqawi’s death in Iraq was
I: 5
Me: 1
My: 2
In my view either A. some people really really want to dislike the guy and will therefore jump on anything they can or B. Rush has noted this in the past as has much of the right wing noise machine so when righties hear a speech they note I, Me and My while ignoring other things which causes a confirmation bias. Maybe if they used the same math and watched old POTUS speeches they would notice that the people that run for POTUS tend to talk about themselves a great deal, like I remember Reagan AND Bush I doing so rather regularly but they are pols, I expect no less. If it went wrong they would be quick to note how little he pointed at himself but apparently he is only allowed to talk about himself when he has failed, which makes sense since this would save them campaign commercial money I suppose.
Bush’s famous “Mission Accomplished” speech aboard the aircraft carrier had 1816 words and 6 “I”s.
Was he at the time keelhauled for speaking too long, or for using too many “I”s?
No!
He was later heavily criticized for prematurely claiming mission accomplished.
Let’s get real (and fair) folks!
Bush’s “mission accomplished” was the biggest piece of flaming lunacy to hit a President since Hoover.
Obama’s bin Laden speech was definitely no “mission accomplished”, but it was definitely far more self serving than it should have been.
Barky-If it had failed do you think he should have taken credit? That door swings both ways you know.
Is it possible that what you see as self serving could be found in just about every POTUS’s speeches about something they had done, would do, or hoped would happen? I would note that he didnt go up and say how much Bush had failed to nab Bin Laden and if memory serves that was a slap that Bush’s man Rove made repeatedly on Clinton in an attempt to shift blame on 9/11 to him or no one…frankly anyone that didnt get the “Bin Laden to attack in US using planes” memo. I heard the self serving meme from Rush and then all over the internet yet if you add up the I’s Me’s and My’s that were supposed to be in huge numbers they are actually rather few. So is it confirmation bias? Is he not supposed to give good news? I am utterly confused what this line of argument is hoping to get instead of what he gave.
If he tells the nation is that self serving? Gcotharn seems to think he should be the POTUS that delivers one to two paragraph statements but that would of course make him the first POTUS to do so. So sorry but I see a special bar being created for Obama over and over again that no previous POTUS has come near and then he is judged harshly for his inability to best superman or spiderman in the comic book contest in fantasy land.
When you are the POTUS, you take the limelight.