"I think it’s natural for someone like Robert [Gibbs] to want to step back for a second to reflect, retool..."

Said President Obama, about the departure of his press secretary.

"... Gibbs had his foot lodged in the door to the meeting as Indian security officials pushed hard to shut it."

"In an angry shouting match, Gibbs asked the officials if they were going to break his foot as he repeated his threat to pull Obama [out of his meeting with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh]."

The imagery coming out of the Indian trip isn't as pretty as I thought they'd make it. 

I was in a fisking mood over the weekend.

I had to go after:

1. Robert Gibbs defending Obama's stance on Don't Ask Don't Tell.

2. Maureen Dowd attempting to portray Sharron Angle as a "mean girl."

3. Bill Maher trashing white men who love women like Sarah Palin.

4. Bill Maher portraying Christine O'Donnell as an irritating screwball.

5. Emily Bazelon tarring Christian fundamentalists with homophobia.

Let's look closely at what White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said today on "Meet the Press" about Don't Ask Don't Tell.

David Gregory did a halfway decent job with the interview, but he moved on before he really nailed down what Gibbs was really saying. Let's read the transcript:

MR. GREGORY: [I]f the president wants the law to go away, if he wants the ban to go away, why is he still supporting the law in the courts?

MR. GIBBS: Well, let's be clear, the president believes the law is discriminatory, unjust and, quite frankly, you have men and women who are willing to lay down their life for this country. They--those people ought to be able to serve. 

Gibbs doesn't say whether Obama thinks the law is unconstitutional.

The law that was struck down that the president opposes, we, we've got a process. One, the House has passed repeal, and we hope the Senate takes up that repeal quickly. They didn't.

Yes, there's a process for repealing statutes, and there's also a process for challenging statutes in court. If the statute is unconstitutional, the courts should declare it a nullity. If the President think the process is repeal by Congress, then he must think the act is constitutional. Right?

MR. GREGORY: ... Is there faith in the Senate that's misplaced? What does the president do if the Senate doesn't act?

MR. GIBBS: Well, we have a process...

a process...

... in place right now to work with the Pentagon for an orderly and disciplined transition from the law that we have now to an era that "don't ask, don't tell" doesn't exist. And I will say this, David, "don't ask, don't tell" will end under this president. The courts have decided, the legislature has, has--is beginning to decide, and the president is firmly in the place of removing "don't ask, don't tell."

MR. GREGORY: But does he believe it's unconstitutional?

Yes! Gregory asks my question!

MR. GIBBS: You know, David, he thinks it's discriminatory and it's unjust and most of all it harms our national security. It's...

In other words: NO, he does not. Say it!

MR. GREGORY: We know his position, though. But if you keep defending...

MR. GIBBS: ...it's time for the law...

MR. GREGORY: ...it in the courts, how does it end? You can pronounce it dead, but how does it end if you keep backing it in the courts?

MR. GIBBS: Yeah, well, it ends with a vote in Congress. 

What?! So, then you mean the court is wrong and that justifies appealing, right?

It's a law, and the most durable solution is to repeal that law. 

Durable? Rights enforced in courts are not sufficiently durable? Is that your position? Or is it that there is no right at all? Maybe the President is being pragmatic and political about rights, and the point is that when courts find rights that Congress isn't ready for, those rights don't hold up too well and therefore it's better to pretend those rights don't exist at all. Or maybe that's all rights are in the President's eyes — whatever the majority — as manifested by Congress — is willing to respect as it goes along doing everything else it wants to do. Come on, Gibbs! Tell us whether the President thinks there are any rights here!

That's what the president asked the House to do and they did, that's what the president--I think there's enough votes to do it in the Senate. 

Oh, really? What makes you think that?

But, again, we have to get through Republican filibuster.

Which is why you obviously don't have the votes. How do you propose to "get through" the filibuster? Clearly, the judicial case is the easy way to end DADT. Why doesn't the President stop fighting against the rights the court found?

It harms our national security. It's discriminatory, it's time for it to end. 

Then stop fighting for it!

And I will say this, David, again, this president will end "don't ask, don't tell," and I think the courts--you're seeing from the courts that their deciding that "don't ask, don't tell," quite frankly, is--has--it's time for it to end, and that time is coming very soon.

Empty, stammering assertions! Exasperating evasions!

David Gregory never forced Gibbs to say whether the President thinks the act is unconstitutional and never forced him to justify fighting for DADT in court. Unlike his predecessor Tim Russert, Gregory lets the guest filibuster until it's time to move on to the next topic. Gregory is sharp, but he's too nice. Too empathetic. He doesn't push on and on with the questions until the obfuscation is painfully embarrassing.

"My gut feeling here is that Sestak is holding this alleged proffer of a job over the White House's head to try and make sure that the West Wing does everything it can to support his candidacy."

"That's bothersome, because it means that someone believes they can use an allegation to divert the attention and resources of the seat of government. I also think the White House, and Rahm, have plausible legal-political-practical defenses. Moreover, Sestak might have decided to overstate the terms of the proffer -- maybe Rahm just floated the idea -- to puff up the drama to the story. The admiral was known for being a savvy political player when he was on active duty."

A nasty mess.

ADDED: Blackfive quotes Sestak's pathetic stonewalling on "Meet the Press" and says:

[T]he fact that Joe Sestak -- even after being called a liar by Robert Gibbs -- has not come forward and made a statement to the authorities about felony corruption he claims to have witnessed says something about Joe Sestak.  And what it says is this:  Joe Sestak is either a coward, a liar, a political sycophant or -- and this is where I'd put my money -- all three of these things.  

(Via Fen, in the comments here.)

"Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton are coalescing around a proposal to send 30,000 or more additional American troops to Afghanistan..."

... but Obama hasn't coalesced with them yet, supposedly....

... President Obama remains unsatisfied with answers he has gotten about how vigorously the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan would help execute a new strategy, administration officials said Tuesday.

Mr. Obama is to consider four final options in a meeting with his national security team on Wednesday, his press secretary, Robert Gibbs, told reporters. The options outline different troop levels, other officials said, but they also assume different goals — including how much of Afghanistan the troops would seek to control — and different time frames and expectations for the training of Afghan security forces.

He must go through his famous thoughtfulness routine....

Helen Thomas wants Robert Gibbs's conscience to bother him.

"Has the president given up on the public option?"



"Wow! Giggly giggle giggle," says Gibbs.