The common defense of the Obama administration to
unfolding scandals, led by the serial bewilderment of Obama himself when asked
about developments, is that he was unaware of the (fill-in-the-blank) event
until he was informed of it through the news media (even though, despite his
declared ignorance, he labels them all as "phony"). Administration spokesmen even go so far as to
remain ignorant of details by their knee-jerk response of referring reporters
to the appropriate federal agency or department because they haven't the time
or interest to actually be informed themselves.
Yet Obama took a moment from his perpetual fundraising tour last night at the first of his two dinners of the evening (the second for
$25,000 a plate), at an "Italianate mansion" that overlooks Lake
Washington and the Seattle skyline, to respond to a question about media
contribution to what Obama called an impending sense of cynicism in the
upcoming election.
Whatever they're reporting about, usually I know.
Where do I start? Professed ignorance about the IRS targeting of conservative groups and the subsequent slow-roll cover-up, NSA's massive collection and use of communications of Americans and foreign leaders, the failure of the launch of his signal accomplishment – ObamaCare, the Veterans Administration scandal (despite having made it a campaign issue), the crisis in the Ukraine, the rise of ISIS and steady collapse of the Iraqi government, Fast and Furious, and so on – he hadn't a clue until told so by the press? Or he already knew? Which is it?
After all, we mustn't be cynical.
He's an inveterate liar. He has proved it often enough. I'm surprised anyone still believes anything he says.
ReplyDelete