Also before and during the fact. Huffington Post solicited questions from Iranians, and Obama apparently thought that was a good idea, and supported it. In what way was he not upfront about it?

The bottom line guys is that much of our mainstream press is a well oiled machine. The other side of the coin is Huffington Post and Rush, who can pretty much get away with saying anything they want and others pick it up as news. Which it is not.

Bullshit.

It is true that he did not address Iraq or Afghanisistan in his opening remarks.

But refused to take questions on the subject?..uhhh NO.....none were asked.

I have already answered that - repeatedly. In fact, that was covered in the original post. You disagree, fine.

Attempts were made toward the end of the conference. They were not answered nor acknowledged.

I dont see how it is any different than knowing in advance that the major networks will get a question....or at least one minority media and at least one foreign media.

Bullshit....unless it was after the alloted time when questions are always shouted out by those not called on

I love how you jsut make this shit up. Cite it with a vid. The full press conference is available.

You've done nothing of the sort. You're acting like some skullduggery has been uncovered, when he announced at the time exactly what he was doing.

I ask again, where was the deceit? What was implied, what was the reality, and what was the difference.

Just. Wow.

Much ado...

Well, the last time I asked, he said:And this time, he said:That's actually a common tactic from press conferences- fail to answer a question and then refer followups to your previous response.

Now that you mention it , he did fail to answer the question in question as well.

If you don't start impeachment proceedings right away, classic, I fear for our very lives. It's obvious he's more corrupt and evil than any leader the world has ever known. Now, we're not quite sure why, but we're sure of it. I demand action now. I won't stand for it.

I am, in all seriousness, not just doing this to needle you, classicman. I seriously cannot figure out what aspect of this you are concerned about. That's why I broke it down to the specific "What was implied, what was the reality, and what was the difference?" formulation. I thought that was a good way to convert the innuendo into specifics, but when I asked, you faux-surrendered, and then went back to innuendo.

No, I just realized that it was useless to discuss it with you, Rerun and S123. So in order to not get shitty about it, I let it go.

Basically, the questioner and the question were discussed beforehand, of that there is no doubt. That is very uncommon from our press conferences as it removes credibility to anyone actually paying attention both here and around the world.

As I said before. I do not believe having prepared, previously discussed or softball questions is right. That is all.