Administration Forces PJ Crowley Out Of The State Dept. After He Admits That Manning Is Being Mistreated
from the what-happened-to-dissent? dept
When President Obama was campaigning and elected, one of the things he frequently talked about was how he was influenced by Doris Kearns Goodwin's book, Team of Rivals, and how President Lincoln brought together may dissenting voices into his cabinet. There were, clearly, political reasons for doing so, but part of the benefit was that it allowed voices of dissent to be heard. However, in practice, it's appearing that President Obama has no real interest in allowing the same thing to occur in his administration, and that's really unfortunate.On Friday, we wrote about the quite surprising news that State Department spokesperson PJ Crowley had admitted that he felt Bradley Manning was being mistreated in prison. Crowley specifically called it "ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid," despite also saying he believed that Manning clearly belonged in jail, and that the leaks were harmful. When President Obama was asked about this later, he gave a very weak answer about how he had asked the Defense Department, and they assured him everything was fine:
"I have actually asked the Pentagon whether or not the procedures that have been taken in terms of his confinement are appropriate and are meeting our basic standards. They assured me that they are."Of course, that might just raise serious questions about what the DoD thinks is "appropriate" and what those basic standards are.
But, even more troubling is the report that Crowley has resigned from the State Department, with lots of folks saying this was due to direct pressure from the administration for him to fall on his sword.
Whether or not you believe that Manning's treatment is reasonable, this should trouble you. For a President who claimed he wanted to hear dissent from the people around him, to then force someone out for offering just that kind of dissent suggests someone focusing on remaining in their own bubble, rather than actually listening to concerns of people.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: barack obama, bradley manning, pj crowley, state department, treatment, wikileaks
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Well
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well
Chicago politicians ARE especially adept at saying one thing and doing another. Doubly so with regard to pretending to want multiple viewpoints.
And now Rahm Emanuel is going to be mayor. Sigh....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Well
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Well
Hmm, that's pretty tough, actually. I could endure constant latex glove checks if they fed me pizza during it....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well
The Patriots?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well
Welcome to Obama's administration. We're just as bad as Bush, but we feel bad about it. We'll also feel bad about lying to you. But it's for the greater good of getting reelected.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the difference
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the difference
Even if it is the wrong one?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: the difference
Oh yeah... never mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the difference
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Election That Wasn't
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Election That Wasn't
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Election That Wasn't
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Leave...
Wait, no, that does not sound right...
Leave manning in solitary confinement !
Mhhh, still missing something...
Leave obama's administration in solitary confinement !
There you go ! That will teach them to accept rampant lobbying and stupid IP protectionnism, Which is the closer you can get of "aiding the enemy" !
Oh and dont forget to put Obama on "suicide watch" the guy won't survive it otherwise...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There is a difference between what Crowley said and "badmouthing your boss". Only an integrity-challenged person would attempt to conflate the two.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[eg, since it would leave in doubt which "hare" (airport or fast-racing late-comer) is being referenced in the link]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Business As Usual
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I encourage any of my team to disagree with me on any decision that I have made, however, it is only appropriate to discuss that differing viewpoint in a closed door meeting. the last thing I need to do is create a conflict within the overall team. If anyone feels the need to call me to the carpet in front of others on my team, they had better prepare for the same.
Especially if it is one of my senior people, they have an obligation to the organization and to the team to present a consistent message even if they disagree. If they disagree at a substantial level, they are free to find another situation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"admits" is the problem. He didn't admit anything, he expressed his opinion. He stated his own opinion as fact, which is not the case.
I notice you also left out his opinion that Manning was "in the right place".
Mike, can you learn the difference between fact and opinion please?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"despite also saying he believed that Manning clearly belonged in jail, and that the leaks were harmful"
Yup. Can't find anything to criticize me about and just pretend I didn't say something. You amuse me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Like me, this AC questioned the use of "admit" rather than say "said". You didn't address that.
Now you did say that Crowley mentioned he should clearly be in jail, indirectly referencing the "in the right place" comment, and so the AC was wrong. But don't you think it would have been better to just point that out, rather being snide, and ignoring his legitimate complaint about "admit"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Mike reworded the guys statement, which in turn minimized it's impact. He said that Manning is "in the right place". Not only does that suggest he should be in jail, but that he should be in the jail and conditions he is being held under.
Mike just really doesn't seem to want to address this, I feel he doesn't want to accept that he once again shaded the truth for the benefit of making the story "better".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow, TAM, you really are twisting yourself into a knot this time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Since when is pointing out that someone's wrong 'only mocking' them? Plus, how is it that you call Mike out for being snide, when the original commenter asked Mike to learn the difference between fact and opinion; did you need the extra irony?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
He didn't answer the other issue either. Crowley expressed his opinion, he didn't "admit" to anything. Mike is trying to paint it like some sort of official statement, which it was not. Why can't Mike address that point? Oh, wait, then he would have to mock himself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You clearly live in an echo chamber of your own delusions. Why not stick to something like Fox News which will say exactly what you want to hear?
Also, since Crowley had previously stated that Bradley Manning's treatment was appropriate (an opinion) and is now stating otherwise (the opposite opinion), use of the word admit is correct if one assumes that the previous claim was false or not actually his opinion at the time the statement was made. But English can be a difficult language, so I'll forgive your inability to comprehend it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Where was that point in the post he replied to? All the original post said was that Mike left out his opinion, not that he didn't use the exact same wording.
I also notice that you haven't addressed either of my points: you've not explained how he was 'only mocking', but have provided evidence that he was actually making a point (even if you didn't agree with it); and you've not explained why you objected to him being snide despite the original comment being snide.
I guess we'll have to add another one: why do you require Mike to address every point in a post he replies to, but won't address one point in a post you reply to?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is such a shock.
Shocker!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Cuz you see, there's a mile of difference between a guy "admitting" something, "admitting" something implies there was a fact there, versus that guy stating his opinion about what a series of facts constitute.
"Admitting" is also Pejorative, and implies something was done wrong. Now that,, right there, is in dispute.
Cuz the facts here are not in dispute. The military is really pretty open about the exact treatment Manning has received, it's been reported on widely. What's in dispute is what that amounts to. Some people have called it "torture"(Hah!), to others it seems not all that different than normal military prison, which, btw, freaking sucks.
To me, eh, it looks a little unnecessarily heavy handed, but frankly the military tends to do that. (I got put on "restriction" once.....I might have preferred to sit in a jail cell.)
Point is, there's nothing to "admit", the facts are neither secret nor in dispute, but the interpretation of those facts is still in debate. By using the pejorative "admit" you saddle the issue with all these accusations--that there are secrets being kept and that military has done wrong--without actually having to say them.
It's a not so subtle slander attempt, and it really ruins the illusion of non-partisanship you try to convey.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wow. When did criticizing a liberal Democratic President make one a liberal? Curious.
Matt, you seem to have defined "liberal" as someone who disagrees with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And all sorts of default positions and attitudes have a political spectrum to them.....and two of the clearest is attitude for and against the military, and wikileaks.
There quite a few issues that pit Liberals against Obama....wikileaks is one of them.
As far as a "liberal" being someone who disagrees with me......it doesn't hurt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Know thyself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What did Crowley "admit"?
P.J. Crowley didn't "admit" anything. He stated his opinion about Manning's situation and nothing that he said in that story should lead anyone to believe that he has first hand knowledge of how Manning is housed/confined/tortured/etc...
I agree with you about how the current administration has not lived up to it's earlier promises concerning openness, transparency, diverse views, and so on, so please keep up the good reporting and analysis but don't screw it up with National Enquirer type headlines.
ps. Check out the latest Charlie Sheen story at the Enquirer. It's a hoot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What did Crowley "admit"?
The dictionary defines "admit" as allowing or conceding as valid, to acknowledge, to grant in argument. Sounds close enough to me, so I think quibbling over the post's title is maybe missing the big picture.
"He stated his opinion about Manning's situation and nothing that he said in that story should lead anyone to believe that he has first hand knowledge of how Manning is housed/confined/tortured/etc..."
Given his (former) position, we might well know exactly what Manning's conditions are, or he might've just read about it in the Washington Post like lots of other people. Does it really matter? Do you think "ridiculous and counter-productive and stupid" is an inaccurate description of Manning's treatment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What did Crowley "admit"?
Mike once again gets caught shading the truth, and doesn't want to address it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What did Crowley "admit"?
Only one "shading the truth" is you, buddy. But you do it so poorly no one's buying it, other than the few others here who are so desperate to attack me. Fun to watch, but amusing to see how everyone else knows its bunk.
My post was accurate and I stand by it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What did Crowley "admit"?
You don't want to admit you made a couple of good errors on this one?
I am not "desperate to attack you", it's damn easy to spot when you decide to move the line a little, shade the truth, or downright try to put words in other people's mouths.
I mean, if you can't accept that the guy expressed his personal opinion (no different from yours), instead of "admitting" something, it's pretty hard to see how anyone can take you seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What did Crowley "admit"?
Irony alert!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What did Crowley "admit"?
It bothers me a bit that many writers these days use all sorts of "shocking" headlines to get people to read their articles. I wish that Mike wouldn't do that. I agree with his analysis about 75% of the time but I sometimes have to fight my way past some kind of tabloid headline to get the gist of the article.
Concerning Mr. Crowley's knowledge of Manning's situation, I seriously doubt that he's been to the military brig and observed the suspect himself. If he had actual first person eyewitness knowledge, I would have thought that he would have stated that in the interview.
Since I have not been to the brig either, I have no way of knowing if Manning's treatment is "ridiculous and counter-productive and stupid" and I would also be very surprised if anyone who has posted comments to this blog has been there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What did Crowley "admit"?
Including Mike.
That is why "admitted" is a reach here. It distracts from the reality of the whole deal:
This guy, who has a significant official capacity, expressed his opinion in public, and his opinion is the opposite of the "official line" as part of his job. He didn't admit anything, but he did an amazingly good job of undermining his own credibility and as a result, no longer has that job in that official capacity.
Mike (and many of the other Manning apologists) have been trying to play this as some official statement from the administration, which it is not. There is no "admission", just opinion.
I do wish Mike would be man enough to admit his error (without attacking me personally to avoid it).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What did Crowley "admit"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What did Crowley "admit"?
It pretty much sums up your work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What did Crowley "admit"?
Are you capable of reading your own writing? You've begun to sound like a series of YouTube comments; childish, incomprehensible, devoid of any rational thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What did Crowley "admit"?
I have yet to see you ever admit (no quotes) that you might have shown an inappropriate bias. Just own up to your mistakes, you arrogant bastard, it's not that big a deal, but refusing to either realize it or "admit" it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What did Crowley "admit"?
How about you admit you having serious emotional issues if something like this gets you so worked up you resort to this sort of vile insult. Seriously man, act like an adult or go away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What did Crowley "admit"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What did Crowley "admit"?
What is funny is you typed it and didn't even understand it.
The fact is admitted. But it isn't fact, it's his opinion. He admits nothing (because he has no facts to admit), he only has an opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What did Crowley "admit"?
Your whole bitchy argument rests on that word and you don't seem to know its many meanings. It isn't an opinion that Bradley Manning is being mistreated; it is a fact. Your lack of objectivity in the matter makes your assertion opinion, whereas, the statements of multiple doctors who have visited him and military personnel who have overseen past prisoners in similar circumstances can be considered an objective fact.
By your reasoning, there can be no facts except those which you decide based on your own experiences.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What did Crowley "admit"?
I argue that (1) it wasn't funny, (2) I do understand it just fine, and (3) your opinion of what is fact vs. what is opinion is, in fact, incorrect or at the very least pure opinion, not fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What did Crowley "admit"?
Then you must be easily distracted because I didn't have that problem and neither did most of the other commenters.
"Concerning Mr. Crowley's knowledge of Manning's situation, I seriously doubt that he's been to the military brig and observed the suspect himself."
So? Do you think if he had any doubts about the reports of Manning's conditions that he would've stated his "opinion" so vehemently? He's in a much better position than you or I to know the truth. He wasn't pressured to resign because he got the story wrong, it was because he got it right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Disappointing
It seems that I may have gotten the wrong impression. I only wish there were a candidate who wouldn't send us down a vortex of mendacity that could provide a viable alternative. I've never heard a Republican candidate for anything who wouldn't have subjected Manning to the same treatment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obama..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What are you missing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Generally it's a safe bet with Obama...
If Candidate Obama said he was going to do do something, it's a safe bet that President Obama will do the opposite.
We traded a President who promised he would do terrible things, and then did them, to a President who said he would do good things and then did terrible things anyway. I guess that's progress?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]