Barry is so sunk in fantasy, so convinced that he won't be held accountable for what he says, that he feels perfectly free to lie about what's in an article in the *New York Times*:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > An article in HuffPost today (originally from > the New York Times) says that all of the talk > about Hillary being offered the position of > SoS in the first place was leaked to the press > by the *Clinton* people, not from the Obama > camp. The latter are quite distraught about > the leaks. > > http://tinyurl.com/5cd3c6 No, the Times DOES NOT SAY THAT. Not even the Hillary-hating HuffPo says that. Only BARRY says that. This is ALL the Times says about leaks: "In their public signals, the Clintons are trying to take the former president's activities off the table as an issue, in their view eliminating any excuses for Mr. Obama not to give Mrs. Clinton the job. Some in the Obama camp are bristling at what they see as strategic leaks by the Clintons aimed at boxing in the president-elect and forcing him to offer the post." First, this is in a paragraph about the vetting of Bill Clinton's activities, not about Hillary being offered SoS "in the first place." Nowhere in the Times article does it suggest the Clinton camp leaked the original story. Barry disgraces himself once again by making things up out of whole cloth. There's no question where the original leaks came from about her being under consideration for (not "being offered") SoS: from the Obama camp. It's a matter of record. The story was broken by NBC's Andrea Mitchell, who insists she was told by two Obama advisers. Mitchell is most decidedly not a Clinton fan, so she has no reason to lie about her sources to protect Hillary. Second, what the Times article is referring to here is leaks about Bill Clinton accepting the various conditions on his activities the Obama people are requiring. The "suspicions" in question are that the leaks about his willingness to cooperate are *strategic* leaks, not that there *have been* leaks--again, these leaks are a matter of record and are what the Times article reports. HuffPo's description of the Times article gets it wrong on this point, characterizing the leaks themselves as "suspected." No, the leaks about Bill Clinton are established fact. What is "suspected" is that these leaks have been made as a matter of strategy. It's no surprise that HuffPo would do its level best to slant its own story against Hillary by misrepresenting the Times article. But even HuffPo doesn't try to suggest, as Barry dishonestly declares, that the original leaks came from the Clintons. Since Mitchell broke the original story, the press has gone nuts trying to find out more but was unable to do so until quite recently, because both Hillary's people and Obama's people were keeping their mouths shut after the initial leak from Obama's team. The press *still* can't confirm that she's actually been offered the position; nobody is yet willing to say that for the record. > The article is quite clear in who is to blame > for any delays, and for all of the leaks. Absolutely, unequivocally UNTRUE. Knowingly untrue, as anybody who reads the Times article will find. Not even the HuffPo article *about* the Times article says that. The HuffPo article has now been updated with leaks *from two senior Obama aides* saying he will offer her the post, and that she's expected to accept. And the Times is now saying it's a done deal, but they still don't have confirmation from anybody on the record. Obama is said to be preparing to make the announcement right after Thanksgiving. The > Obama camp defines the problem, if there is > one, as the result of "strategic leaks by the > Clintons aimed at boxing in the president-elect > and forcing him to offer the post [to Clinton]." Actually the Times article says "some in the Obama camp." And again, it's referring to the leaks about Bill Clinton, not the original leak about Hillary being considered for the position. In fact, the leaks about the negotiations from the top people in the Obama camp have been that they're going well. What you've got, obviously, is a bunch of lower- level people trying to scotch the nomination. And the press, of course, is inventing all kinds of drama that doesn't actually exist, because that's what sells papers. <snip> > It would appear that he had nothing to do with > "letting the offer get out." She, or her people, > were responsible for all the leaks. Au contraire. As noted, it was Obama's people who originally leaked that she was under consideration. Matter of record. <snip> > Much less that, by allowing her people to leak things > that shouldn't have ever been leaked to the press in > the first place, she has basically disqualified her- > self for the position. If she can't control her staff > now, does anyone believe she'll be able to as Secretary > of State? In fact, leakage about possible cabinet appointments by an incoming administration is the rule, not the exception. Nobody thinks they're disqualifying. And one more time--the original "in the first place" leaks came from the Obama camp, not the Clinton camp. There has been *less* leakage about the possible Hillary appointment than most. That's why you've been seeing all the conflicting stories, because nobody had been able to obtain the facts. The leakage from the Clinton camp has been about (1) Bill Clinton's willingness to go along with the Obama camp's conditions about his activities; and (2) Hillary not being sure she'd accept if the position were offered. Nobody thinks those leaks are disqualifying either. And both sides have been leaking on these points. As the Times article says, "Both sides were engaged in a delicate public and private dance, maneuvering for position and reputation in case the deal falls through."
