neo-neocon on Little Tommy Vietor:
Obama’s foreign policy advisors: the parade of the puerile Best and BrightestFirst we have Ben Rhodes, fiction writer morphed into Obama’s deputy National Security Advisor while barely in his mid-thirties, with nary a bit of foreign policy experience under his belt except what he learned on the job. But he has a way with words, and that’s what we want, don’t we?
Next meet Tommy Vietor, the 33-year-old former press van driver and Tweeter extraordinaire who became spokesman for the National Security Council under Obama. He newly distinguished himself the other day for—well, I’ll let him tell it himself:
I don’t usually quote YouTube video comments, because they’re not known for their high level of discourse. But looking at some of them right now, they seem pretty spot on:
This condescending little prick works for us, the people of the United States.
Not being completely morally bankrupt, I think I’d remember the events surrounding everything I did in conjunction with the deaths of 4 human beings. There is no moral compass in this Administration. We shouldn’t think for a moment that we who are in opposition to this Administration can expect an ounce of sympathy and human decency from this bunch if and when the bottom falls out of this country. If this clown is an example of the ‘quality’ of human being this Administration seeks to represent them, we are all in trouble. Zero integrity. Zero empathy. Zero humanity. Zero respect. Zero conscience. Zero tolerance. Zero spiritual awareness. Zero moral values. Zero appreciation for the truth. Zero compassion. Shall I go on, Dude??
Yeah dude who remembers things from two years ago anyway?
How old were you two years ago? That’s like, ancient history man.
Say what you want about this kid but, you really should pay very close attention to him. He is a portrait of what this nation has become and the character of its future leadership.
Another comment at YouTube refers to a “White House full of frat boys.” Bingo. I would amend that to “frat boys with power.”
The Vieter interview encapsulates and personifies the fundamental unseriousness of so much of the crew surrounding Obama and hand-picked by the President. They are play-acting at adulthood and responsibility, with a vast storehouse of arrogant snark underneath (I could say the same thing about Obama, except I think he’s a lot more serious—a lot). Is there any behavior that would disgrace these people, other than a clandestine tape showing them using a racist or homophobic epithet? Or have they lost that notion along with the idea of dignity?
[ADDENDUM: In a post about Ben Rhodes from about a year ago, I wrote:
Obama prefers to be surrounded by politically astute sycophants who are in way over their heads and don’t realize it. That way he is less likely to be threatened or challenged.
So it occurs to me that maybe the simplest way to describe what happened in Benghazi is that, from start to finish, nearly everyone in charge and everyone who was a close and trusted advisor to those in charge was a political operative. Everyone. This of course includes Obama and Hillary Clinton, and all the supposed national security advisors such as Rhodes.
So they are a bunch of rank amateurs who literally have no idea what they were doing except in the political sense. And then when things went bad, they lied about it—using their words to try to get out of a jam, with the help of their friends in the MSM. It’s worked for them in the past, and might well work again.
But perhaps that was a little too kind.]
http://neoneocon.com/2014/05/03/obamas-foreign-policy-advisors-the-parade-of-the-puerile-best-and-brightest/
......
Eric Says:
May 3rd, 2014 at 7:33 pm
Matt_SE: “they were all chosen as political hacks first and foremost.”
Yes. This is the best explanation, backed by simple observation and insider statements about Obama’s foreign policy.
Their 1st consideration of an international problem is how it might calculate into the domestic GOP/Right vs Dems/Left partisan contest. The President and the Dems’ chief competitive focus is not on America’s competitors in the global arena, but always on the GOP/Right in the domestic arena.
M J R: “Does this all mean you morons and SOBs should have stopped blaming Bush for everything *three* years ago?”
No, because their priority is always on the GOP/Right. It’s not about truth, principle, or integrity. It’s always about the domestic partisan competition for them.
When I explain Bush’s Iraq policy, I explain it as the Clinton-Bush Iraq policy, because Bush’s decisions on Iraq, as well as, related, his anti-terror decisions after 9/11, were rooted in the policies on both issues inherited from the Clinton administration. Both related problems had matured over the course of the Clinton administration.
Point being, the Dems know that Bush’s Iraq and anti-terror decisions were justified because during the entire tenure of the Clinton administration, Democrat leaders were fixated on dealing with the escalation of those issues.
Bush didn’t innovate his Iraq and anti-terror policies. Rather, he extended and followed through on Clinton’s Iraq and anti-terror policies. Yet, knowing this, the Democrats in the best position to defend Bush’s decisions made the sociopathic choice to exploit for partisan gain Bush’s faithfulness to Clinton in his conduct of America’s most important foreign affairs after 9/11.
.............
Eric Says:
May 3rd, 2014 at 8:01 pm
Neo: “Obama prefers to be surrounded by politically astute sycophants who are in way over their heads and don’t realize it. That way he is less likely to be threatened or challenged….So they are a bunch of rank amateurs who literally have no idea what they were doing except in the political sense….But perhaps that was a little too kind.”
Yes, you were too kind.
President Obama didn’t hire his subordinates despite having “no idea what they were doing except in the political sense” but because of that. Their job description may say foreign affairs, but their real job is foreign affairs in terms of effect on the domestic partisan contest. Obama isn’t threatened or challenged less because they’re incompetent at IR than because their priorities and focus are the same.
........
But Dude, if you think about it…
…Tommy Vietor was only re-stating the oft-repeated message of the Obama administration about the Benghazi emails.
I yield to none in my contempt for Vietor and in my rage that someone so callow and disrespectful was allowed anywhere near the American presidency. But his actual message—that the right is focusing on behavior both trivial and past the statute of limitations when it criticizes the White House’s lies and politically manipulative messaging to the American people on Benghazi—is actually more pernicious than his lack of style. What’s more, although other Democrats and White House spokespeople haven’t yet gone so far as to say “Dude” when they talk about it, their message is his message and his message is their message. It’s a regular Vulcan mind-meld.
That message is a bigger outrage than “Dude,” or the smirk on Vietor’s face. Theirs is an implicit smirk, a thumbing of the nose, a big middle finger to the American people and to the four men killed that evening in Benghazi.
Transparency? Accountability? That’s for suckers, not for Obama and his people. |
