Anita Dunn Will Remain White House Consultant Until End Of Year; No Obama Interview Set On Fox
Outgoing Obama communications director Anita Dunn will remain a consultant to the White House until approximately the end of the year, a senior White House official confirms to me. The arrangement may draw some criticism from the right, but it was thoroughly vetted by the White House counsel’s office, the official says.
Separately, a report on Drudge that Obama has agreed to an interview with Fox News is not accurate, the official confirms.
Dunn has emerged as a flashpoint because she was perhaps the most aggressive antagonist of Fox News, and the specifics of her departure are likely to be closely scrutinized by conservatives. Now that she’s gone, conservatives will also be looking for Obama to appear on Fox as a sign that the White House war on the network has come to an end.
Here are the specifics of her departure: As of December 1st, she steps down as communications director, and becomes a “consultant to the White House,” the official confirms, in order to ease the transition of her departure. In the interim, Dunn will return to her gig as partner at the consulting firm Squier Knapp Dunn.
Dunn’s simultaneous role at her firm and at the White House may prompt criticism, but the senior White House official insists it was thorougly vetted by White House counsel Gregory Craig’s office. The official says Dunn has no clients right now and that she’s reached an agreement that any potential clients she may take while still consultant to the White House will be vetted in advance by White House lawyers for potential conflicts of interest.
Separately, Drudge’s report that Obama has agreed to an interview on Fox is “not accurate,” the official tells me. I couldn’t determine whether an interview is, in fact, in the works.
All in all, the specifics aside, the last-minute clarification of the specifics of Dunn’s departure — and the swirling rumors that an Obama interview on Fox is in the works — are another sign that the Fox-White House standoff story took on a life of its own and perhaps got a bit out of control.
This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
Looks to me like Fox is flopping in the wind.
First ya got Rupert Murdoch agreeing with Beck that Obama was a “racist” (look at the video, and it’s obvious that Murdock had no idea what Obama supposedly said, but he still said that Beck was right to call Obama a racist. Now of course his spokesperson is kinda walking it back by saying that Obama is not a racist, but implying that what he said was racist…so.
Now you have someone dropping a line to Drudge (probably someone from Fox, cause why would the adminstration gives 2 s(*& about Drudge) saying that Major Garret has secured an interview with President Obama, when no other news outlets have claimed the same. But the WH is saying, ah…nope not true.
Fox viewers may not like this President, but I’m guessing they still like to hear what he has to say, and if Fox ain’t getting interviews with the Prez, then the viewers have to watch the other networks to see it, or Fox has to pay the other networks to use the footage from theri interviews (right??)
The new arrangement was “thoroughly vetted.” Right, but her initial hire wasn’t.
“Dunn’s simultaneous role at her firm and at the White House may prompt criticism, but the senior White House official insists it was thorougly vetted by White House counsel Gregory Craig’s office.”
Well, so long as this was “vetted” by the “experts” there’s nothing to worry about! They have such an excellent track record.
Seriously, we already knew she was leaving – that’s precisely WHY she was chosen to attack FNC.
Just announced: Lewd Obbs (Lou Dobbs the slimebag) is leaving CNN!!!
LOL,
Sure, we know that Obama WH is a real stickler about conflicts and whatnot.
sbj, is that correct that she was leaving before she went after Fox?
I suspect that in quitting (like Palin), Lewd Obbs is going to “go rogue” (like Palin) and run for political office as a Teabagger.
The FOX thing was huge in the beltway and I’m just wrapping my head around this. It feels like most political reporters are starting to recognize that FOX and Drudge while still significant to them; don’t dictate to this administration. I don’t know if this is so big because everything that is written comes from the “How does it affect Obama?” perspective rather than a focus on the issue or policy…but something is hugely out of wack in the media right now.
It was weird during the election; but stuff seems to be reaching another level when Hitler and Dauchu are passe attacks.
We knew yesterday that she was staying on as a consultant. We also new when she took the job that it was temporary. Big deal.
Why should the president do an interview with Fox News? He doesn’t like them and they don’t like him so what’s the point? Clearly Fox viewers don’t want to see him they don’t even think he is a U.S. citizen.
Anita Dunn will be missed.
Anita Dunn had the courage and good sense to directly call out Murdoch’s Fox Republican Propaganda Channel for exactly what it is: NOT a news channel but literally an arm of the Republican Party.
Though these days it seems that the Republican Party is an arm of Murdoch’s Foxes: Glenn Beck says jump and Republicans and their right wing base asks “how high”.
It’s always been absurd to call Murdoch’s Fox Republican Channel “News”.
It was extra absurd to listen to right-wing enabling corporatists like Jake Tapper and Ruth Marcus try to pretend Fox was anything other than a right-wing propaganda outlet.
Fox was designed from the beginning to be a Republican propaganda outlet.
Fox is literally run by Republican Nixon’s tv producer, Roger Ailes. The same Roger Ailes that was the media strategist behind Republican Reagan second Presidential run AND Republican Bush 1’s Presidential run.
Roger Ailes was also behind putting right wing extremist Rush Limbaugh on television.
“Fair and Balanced” Fox has been a fraudulent right wing farce from day one.
I wonder how much weight is given to this opinion?
“The U.S. ambassador in Kabul sent two classified cables to Washington in the last week expressing deep concerns about sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan until Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s government demonstrates that it is willing to tackle the corruption and mismanagement that has fueled the Taliban’s rise, said senior U.S. officials.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/11/AR2009111118432.html
BREAKING:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33864508/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/
Let the GOP backlash begin.
Andy, in answer to that question the AP is reporting (found out via Maddow) that Obama is not happy with any of the options on the table and is asking for a complete revision of what is being offered him, specifically calling for an explicit timeline of when to hand over power to the Afghans. Riveting stuff, if true.
@qb: “sbj, is that correct that she was leaving before she went after Fox?”
Yes, fairly cynical ploy.
“But there’s another reason she was picked for the Fox News fight — she’s only an interim communications director, filling in until the end of the year. If this whole skirmish backfires on Obama, she’ll be gone in two months and the administration will have time to distance itself. In other words, the communication team’s toughest member is also their sacrificial lamb.
Read more: Why the White House Picked Anita Dunn to Wage War With Fox — Daily Intel http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2009/10/why_the_white_house_picked_ani.html#ixzz0Wbi5uKaL
DAMN YOU ANDY! Answering your own question and beating me to the punch by seconds.
So, sbj, are you saying that folks will just wave away the “war” between the WH and FOX as something Dunn came up with instead of at the request of the President? I don’t think people are stupid enough to not see past that sort of thing, which makes the likelihood of that being the plan look pretty unlikely.
Maybe now everyone will get it… it’s not how many troops we send it’s about having a plan to get them out!
“Administration officials said Wednesday that Obama wants to make clear that the U.S. commitment in Afghanistan is not open-ended.”
Andy
It’s getting more difficult, for me at least, to ignore the futility of sending more troops over there. I’m glad I don’t have to make that kind of decision. The President was at Arlington today visiting the graves of soldiers who fought there and in Iraq. I think the decision is weighing heavily on him.
I went out to Riverside National today, to visit my parents graves and there were so many people there, more than I remember over the last few years anyway. It’s really moving to think of all the sacrifices made on our country’s behalf.
“Maybe now everyone will get it… it’s not how many troops we send it’s about having a plan to get them out!”
Obama announced his new Af-Pak strategy almost 7 months ago…
sbj,
I believe, but I could be wrong, that the President announced 7 months ago our goal to disrupt, dismantle and destroy al queda and anyone who helps them etc. At that time he authorized additional troops for security purposes. He said then that his team would work on a new strategy to meet our goal. That strategy was delivered in September. What I believe is being reported tonight is the President rejecting that strategy. IMO he’s rejecting the strategy because his team has not articulated an exit strategy.
lmsinca
I think you right about the decision weighing heavily on the President. I trust he will make the right decision and the one that is best for the country.
To summarize Andy’s post, the president doesn’t agree with the strategy that his strategy called for.. Okay.
But speaking of the original strategy, why wasn’t catching Bin Laden ever made part of the strategy? McCain had a plan to capture Bin Laden that should have at least been considered.
If this was purposely leaked it’s pretty genius, it sucks all of the air out of the “give the generals the troops they asked for!” screaming by reframing the question towards “what are those troops going to be doing, and how do we get them out?”
Kudos to the Prez not falling for the war mongering pentagon group think on Afghanistan.
Expect the wingnuts here and everywhere start whining immediately.
Goal-setting ideally involves establishing specific, measurable, attainable, realistic and time-targeted objectives.
A strategy is a plan of action designed to achieve a particular goal.
@andy: Sorry, andy, but no. When obama took office he immediately dispatched more troops, and he setup three different groups to analyze af-pak and develop a new strategy he announced that new strategy end of march.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/27/AR2009032700836.html
It has been said that the admin thought they were implementing a counter-terrorist strategy when, in fact, they were implementing a counter-insurgency strategy. McKiernan was in charge but he, it is said, badly undersourced that counter-insurgency strategy. He was soon replaced with mcchrystal. mcchrystal undertook a recent review and determined that he needed more troops to effect that initial strategy.
Obama might soon be implementing a new new strategy. I’m afraid that, imo, Obama’s mgmt of the afghan theater has been…questionable so far. I hope he gets it right this time.
Mr. Sargent:
“All in all, the specifics aside, the last-minute clarification of the specifics of Dunn’s departure — and the swirling rumors that an Obama interview on Fox is in the works — are another sign that the Fox-White House standoff story took on a life of its own and perhaps got a bit out of control.”
Hahahahaha! Oh, indubitably! It just “got out of control”, huh?
How do you think THAT happenned?
Hahahahahaha! Silly little moonbats did backflips for joy and spent weeks flinging poo and howling at “Faux News”, all while being egged on with a nudge and a wink from the hobbits like Ms. Dunn who live under the Alleged Hawaiian’s desk in the Oval Office.
You’re a very funny man, Mr. Sargent.
Right wing cons like “American Delight” would be hilarious if the nonsense they were spewing weren’t deadly stupid.
After the REPUBLICANS FAILED for over seven years to correctly deal with Afghanistan and REPUBLICANS FAILED TO CAPTURE OR KILL OSAMA BIN LADEN and Republican Bush even said he didn’t care about Osama any more, now it’s someone else’s fault.
But despite that we were supposed to buy into Republican John “Doesn’t Know Sunni From Shia” McCain’s SECRET PLAN to get Osama.
Gee, if McCain were a real patriot he would have shared his SECRET PLAN to get Osama with either President Bush OR President Obama already.
But Republican McCain is and always was a fraud who never had a clue about military strategy or international diplomacy.
Republican McCain didn’t even know who the Supreme Leader of Iran was and thought he was a citizen of the Republic of Georgia.
It’s bad enough that Republican McCain celebrated his own ignorance but he really showed who he was when he picked the vapid, uninformed George Bush LITE Sarah Palin for America’s Vice President.
Other than that, it’s great to have you around, “American Delight”, it’s important to remind people how dangerously stupid right wingers are.
sbj,
Obama in March:
“So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future. That’s the goal that must be achieved. That is a cause that could not be more just.”
“Going forward, we will not blindly stay the course. Instead, we will set clear metrics to measure progress and hold ourselves accountable. And we will review whether we are using the right tools and tactics to make progress towards accomplishing our goals.”
MAY – Wash. Post
“Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates announced yesterday that he had requested the resignation of the top American general in Afghanistan, Gen. David D. McKiernan, making a rare decision to remove a wartime commander at a time when the Obama administration has voiced increasing alarm about the country’s downward spiral.
Gates, saying he seeks “fresh thinking” and “fresh eyes” on Afghanistan, recommended that President Obama replace McKiernan with a veteran Special Operations commander, Lt. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal.”
I stand by my earlier statement and statements I have made on several previous posts. It’s never been about the troop levels, like the media and politicians are focused on. The president is challenging both the military and the diplomats to come up with a plan with an exit strategy.
Andy:
“Maybe now everyone will get it… it’s not how many troops we send it’s about having a plan to get them out!”
There’s two ways you “get them out”.
One is called “defeat”, and the other is called “victory”.
Which would you prefer?
I hate to be the one to break this to you, but we are going to be in the Middle East, to greater or lesser extent for decades to come.
I would also note that we still have troops sationed in Guam and Cuba,(Spanish American War), Germany, Japan and Italy, (World War II), and South Korea…where’s the “exit strategy timetable” there?
About the only place we DON’T have troops still stationed is Viet Nam.
“Goal-setting ideally involves establishing specific, measurable, attainable, realistic and time-targeted objectives.
A strategy is a plan of action designed to achieve a particular goal.”
Goal-setting is politics. Strategy is Art, and Tactics is Science.
It has taken Obama 10 months to set his goals?
His hand-picked commander, General McChrystal, has told him what he needs to attain those goals, and so now, in true Liberal fashion, the Alleged Hawaiian wants to move the goalposts.
Pathetic and sad.
I would hope someone would mention Nixon’s Incursion into Cambodia to him. If he wants to reprise a Viet Nam war, then an incursion into the Pakistani Tribal Areas would knock the Al-Qaeda and the Taliban back a spell.
“News Reference”: it was never a “SECRET” plan, and I never said it was. The plan was to re-establish an agency like the WWII-era Office of Strategic Services to go hunt down high-value individuals abroad. McCain published the idea in Foreign Affairs during the presidential campaign, and is available to anybody who wants to read it.
For somebody who loves calling everybody else ignorant, you don’t seem very to be very informed on this subject.
@andy: “I stand by my earlier statement and statements I have made on several previous posts.”
You can stand anywhere you want, but it’s a FACT that Obama announced a new af-pak strategy back at the end of March.
“Dunn has emerged as a flashpoint because she was perhaps the most aggressive antagonist of Fox News, and the specifics of her departure are likely to be closely scrutinized by conservatives.”
Hey, I have an idea. Let’s talk about Anita Dunn and her controversial nature without mentioning that she named the greatest mass-murderer in world history as one of her favorite philosophers.
Up next: A piece on David Duke that fails to mention the Klan.
PS Did you guys read about Ben Nelson’s filibuster threat? Glad to have you onboard, Ben.
“I believe, but I could be wrong, that the President announced 7 months ago our goal to disrupt, dismantle and destroy al queda and anyone who helps them etc.”
No, he announced his new af-pak strategy. There was even a white paper.
“He said then that his team would work on a new strategy to meet our goal.”
No, he said that the strategy would be re-evaluated later.
“That strategy was delivered in September.”
No, McChrystal delivered troop recommendations to meet the initial strategy outlined in the white paper.
“What I believe is being reported tonight is the President rejecting that strategy.”
No, he is rejecting options presented to him. He is still set to present a new new strategy.
“IMO he’s rejecting the strategy because his team has not articulated an exit strategy.”
Obama set the strategy back in end of March – he should be criticized for not establishing an exit strategy back then. The buck stops at the top.
So Republican McCain’s SECRET plan was to recreate the predecessor of the CIA?
Gee, if only we had a more sophisticated and updated version of the antiquated World War II era Office of Strategic Services to have used to hunt down Osama bin Laden… Oh, wait…
Republican John McCain’s Bridge to the 20th Century apparently included 1940’s era intelligence techniques…
Brilliant.
And here’s the WALL STREET JOURNAL’S headline from January 2008:
“McCain’s Secret Plan to Capture Bin Laden.”
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/01/27/mccains-secret-plan-to-capture-bin-laden/
Keep spinning, “American Delight.”
Though if you are saying that Wall Street Journal isn’t “informed”, who am I to disagree….
“Republican McCain didn’t even know who the Supreme Leader of Iran was and thought he was a citizen of the Republic of Georgia”
What’s worse? Not knowing the Supreme Leader of Iran, or refusing to condemn, for over a week, the slaughter of Iranian protesters following that country’s contested election?
OR
Not knowing who the Supreme Leader of Iran is or thinking the US has 57 states?
PS Hey NEWS REFERENCE, maybe you should stick to your idiotic arguments about how Jesus would approve of abortion instead of discussing foreign policy.
Love the mindless whiny blabbering from the wingnut trolls, especially sbj’s living in the past.
mccain’s “secret plan”. roflmao. What a dino !
Remember when the Independent corporatist from the state of Aetna Insurance, Joe Lieberman buddied up with right wing extremist John Hagee who literally claimed that God sent Hitler to hunt down the Jews.
Why does Joe Lieberman hate Jews?
http://www.google.com/search?q=John+Hagee+Hitler
Remember the time Republican leader Newt Gingrich approvingly cited Communist Dictator Mao.
“Gingrich even quoted a political leader not previously known to be one of his influences. “War is politics with blood; politics is war without blood,” said the Speaker, citing the late Chinese Communist leader Mao Tse-tung.
Roll Call, 5/29/95
via http://mediamatters.org/blog/200910160010
Right wingers have such short, convenient memories.
Lots of people cite that aphorism of Mao. Dunn described Mao’s bloody Long March and conquest of China to a group of high school students as a model of courage and determination. She held him up as a role model.
That might make perfect sense to liberal Democrats but is astonishingly dense and reflective of poor judgment to normal people.
sbj,
Yep, I read the white paper and the speech the President gave in March. I pasted some of the President’s speech above.
Here is another section of the President’s March speech. In this section he mentions the exit strategy.
“At the same time, we will shift the emphasis of our mission to training and increasing the size of Afghan security forces, so that they can eventually take the lead in securing their country. That’s how we will prepare Afghans to take responsibility for their security, and how we will ultimately be able to bring our own troops home.”
Morning roundup posted, all:
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/political-media/the-morning-plum-10/
Right winger “quarterback” thinks it’s fine that Republican Newt Gingrich refers approvingly of Communist Chairman Mao’s discussion about blood, war, and politics.
So by right wing logic: Right winger “quarterback” approves of Communist Chairman Mao.
Good to know where you are coming from, nickleback.
Do you also approve of the Communist Chinese torture techniques your right wing allies used on prisoners?
Literally, Republican Bush authorized Communist Chinese torture techniques used on prisoners.
http://www.google.com/search?q=Bush+Chinese+torture
And now Republican Bush’s torture apologist John Yoo is teaching at Berkley.
Small world. For war criminals.