That would be the difference between statement and implication, Denise.
No, Bob, Gibbs said that Brown implied that the administration had caused the leak, and he said it more than once.
No matter how many times Mr. Cavuto is going to replay that interview, an implication is not something that can be quoted. It is something that resides between the lines.
It doesn't matter how many times Mr. Gibbs said that Mr. Brown implied something. You cannot disprove the existence of an implication that way. You may pick up on an implication or you may miss an implication; it resides between the lines, like transcendence in a religious service. You can't point to the text and say, "There it is, let's replay that so everybody may take note."
Mr. Cavuto, by making the text of the interview available is doing nothing to prove his point. He gives the text of the service, but perforce must omit the transcendence. He may quote the text of the interview, but has to omit the implication because you either get it or you don't.
Ergo, by publishing the interview, he sends you on a snipe hunt. He sends you after something you cannot verify, and you cannot disprove. He does nobody any favors. He supplies a red herring. He makes fools of those who think he makes sense, because an implication is an abstraction that is not readily captured and which reasonable people may differ. He sends his viewers on a snipe hunt.
He may do this because he hasn't thought the thing through himself or because he expects his viewers not to think the thing through.
Perhaps he has some chain of reasoning that makes the whole thing eminently reasonable, and is not foolish at all. If so, I confess I cannot find it. It appears to me that he is trying to makes fools of his viewers and of those his viewers present his conclusions to, and I find feeling being treated that way galling. And I don't like the way he's trying to deal with my friends.
Perhaps he is kind to animals. Many people have that as a redeeming social value.
That is what the heck I am talking about.
I personally had a lot of trouble figuring out what Mr. Brown was talking about at all because his conversation seemed to do a fair amount of rambling, and I couldn't figure out if he blamed President Obama for allowing the Drilling to go forward or for not restraining it, or for not pushing for more of it.
Since BP clearly does not have the ability to provide reasonable safety for this sort of rig, I am at a loss to understand why Brown would have any useful criticism to make at all, unless he were to say that The President shouldn't have permitted any drilling at all. Considering that The Republicans and some foolish Democrats have been quite literally saying, "Drill, Baby, Drill" since the last Presidential election, I find it difficult to believe that he's anything but in favor of more drilling right now. Ecological and economic disasters are apparently not very important to the man or the party, otherwise we'd see some concrete plans for a fix and for legislation to prevent this sort of thing from happening again.
Perhaps I've missed this rush to make things right from The Radical Right in their haste to Blame the President.
I do, by the way.
I think he shouldn't have been quite such a pushover for the drilling to begin, but I do confess I'm unsure what he might have done to stop the push, the bipartisan push, from the right. Once again, I find myself drawn to quoting John Irving, whose wisdom seems more and more apt at times like this.