Robert Gibbs Clashes With Indian Security Over Coverage of Obama-Singh Meeting

This really reveals what is important to Obama and Gibbs. Not issues, just good photo ops. "Never mind what we're supposed to talk about! Get them cameras in here!"

We are talking about an agreement made with the administration of the President of the United States of America. India agreed to 8 American pool reporters. You don't alter an agreement with us unilaterally. We are the United States, and you are not. Besides, it is rude. It was a power play by their Security, and we won't stand for that. Who do they think they are? Pool Reporters are chosen by the reporters. The Government has nothing to do with that choice. Yes, the Press Secretary CAN pull the President out of a meeting. You choose someone you trust for Press Secretary. He probably would whisper "they are pulling a power play on us", and the Secret Service would walk him out. Nobody pulls that on our President. I don't care if it is Bush or Obama, nobody does that to us.

I can actually see both sides of this argument having valid points. Gibbs standing hard fast because there was an agreement in place and The Indian's were changing things. I also see where it seems like such a trivial matter to argue over excluding a couple reporters, when two nations are meeting for something very important. What I would have liked to have seen, is if they had called Gibb's hand and took Singh out of the building and told everyone to leave because of Gibbs threat! Would Obama had gone along with that? How would Obama had reacted? Would Gibbs still have a job? What would all the reporters have said? Includeding the 6 that were already in the meeting?

I actually watched a live feed online on this situation. AOL's writer is blantly throwing gas on the fire. The remarks were not heated and what happened isn't at all unusual when you have a little confusion before moving a large press contingency from various groups into an important meeting. Some of the 8 photographers are in all probability actually Presidential body guards and assigned to the Secret Service. Part of the confusion was that several of the Indians did not understand English too well.

I hope somebody is keping tabs of the thumbs down for Gibbs/Obama and the thumbs up for the opposite view. (typical of all articles for a long time). This was reflected in the recent elections and will be reflected again in 2012.

For what it's worth no one posting here was there. So the nuances and other factors aren't known. This isn't a deal breaker. It's much ado about something about nothing.

I can not say a positive thing about Robert Gibbs.

I.m sorry. Am I missing something? We are talking about the press, right? I just don't think it is a real big deal how many REPORTERS are allowed in to a meeting. I know "Photo Ops" are a BIG deal to some, but this is THEIR country. How would we react if the tables were turned and some Indian official was being loud and rude about wanting their own way!

Oh what a wonderful example of expressing US support. Joke. Call me a cynic but I'm more convinced that Mr. Gibbs was concerned that his 'personal choice of reporters' was an issue not so much just 'US reporters'.

Indian security may have been unfair to the US press reporters, but the Obama administration must have a totally different structure if the Press Secetary Robert Gibbs can pull the President out of a meeting. I wouldn't think Obama would give him that much athurity in forming Foreign Policy. If that is the case it doesn't say much for the US or our current Administration. Who is in charge?