In fairness, Jon Karl asked the question about foreign policy of President Obama’s latest SpokesWeasel, Josh Earnest. As a side note, we find the SpokesWeasel’s name – Earnest – to be an oxymoron of the first order. Just listen to this, it’s classic.
There are a variety of things to note in this question, and in the preface to Earnest’s full answer, which answered nothing. The first point is Earnest’s contention that the Wall Street Journal is “not exactly an impartial source.” In fact, Karl’s question references a front page article in the WSJ.
As it happens, the WSJ is somewhat of a bi-polar newspaper. Their editorial page is right of center. Their front page, and their new reporting in general, according to the UCLA school of journalism, is decidedly left of center. As a matter of fact, UCLA finds them to be even to the left of the New York Times.
Are we shocked that President Obama’s SpokesWeasel would try to spin a front page story from a lefty source as being “not impartial”? No, we’re not. We’re not even shocked that the SpokesWeasel apparently doesn’t even know that one of the most prominent newspapers in the world has a lefty bent.
If he was all that bright, or all that well informed, he wouldn’t be working for Barack Obama.
Let’s look at a couple of specifics from Karl’s question that SpokesWeasel Earnest didn’t address.
Karl began by quoting Attorney General Eric Holder, who told ABC’s This Week the flow of Westerners into Syria is “more frightening than anything I think I’ve seen as attorney general.”
We wonder if Earnest considers Holder to be an impartial source? He didn’t address it.
“I think — you know, you see a wide range of people looking at a — you know,
- basically an all-out war, what’s looking like an all-out war in Israel, in the Palestinian territories.
- You see the situation with a terrorist group taking over vast territory in Iraq and in Syria.
- You see Russian aggression in Ukraine.
- You see just –concerns about Chinese aggression in the South China Sea.
It doesn’t seem like a time to be touting tranquility on the international scene.”
Earnest’s response is a complete FAIL!
Earnest dodged the questions and instead said that, in each situation, the president will consider “at the core the consequences it has for American national security.”
How incredibly pathetic. We, as Josh’s parents, we’d call him home for a sound beating. As a matter of fact, another thing we’re insulted by is his name. Our first born is Josh, the difference, our Josh is an honorable man.
At any rate, SpokesWeasel never did get around to answering any of the specifics, or relating just how President Obama’s foreign policy – or lack thereof – had any impact on any of the specifics of Karl’s excellent question. The best he could do was blather something about Assad’s chemical weapons, without any reference to Obama’s embarrassing Red Line(s).
Or the fact that Obama and his policies had nothing to do with corralling those weapons – assuming they’re corralled – it was Vlad Putin who got them off the table in a rather embarrassing moment for the President. Not to mention the fact that Syria is even more destabilized as a result of the Russian intervention and that is causing huge problems in Iraq.
Oh well, it’s what we’ve come to expect from President Obama and his flacks. Failure followed by dissembling.