Would love to see any retorts or rebuttals from the Cult of Personality crowd. From Jonah Goldberg at NRO:
--------------
ANATOMY OF AN OBAMA FAILURE I did catch the news that the Army is going to prosecute Bowe Bergdahl for desertion. Given what we already knew, it's no surprise that Bergdahl was up to no good. But given the politics, the fact that the Army is prosecuting him suggests that the evidence is pretty overwhelming.
What I find interesting about the Bergdahl story is that it is the quintessential Obama fiasco. If you were compiling a checklist of all the things that drive conservatives crazy - and by conservatives I basically mean people who are (a) paying attention and (b) not enthralled in the Obama cult of personality - the Bergdahl story would achieve a near-perfect score. The Obama M.O. remains remarkably consistent.
He announces some initiative, policy, or presidential action. The public rationale for the move is always rhetorically grounded in some deep, universally shared principle, even if the real agenda is something far more ideological or partisan. The facts driving the decision are never as the White House presents them. Indeed, the more confident the White House appears to be about the facts, the more likely it is they're playing games with them. Sometimes the facts are simply made up. There are millions of "shovel ready jobs" right around the corner! "You can keep your doctor!" The Benghazi attack was "about a video!" "One in five women are raped!" "The Islamic State isn't Islamic!" "These exclamation points are totally necessary!"
At other times, the facts are selectively deployed. "Something something tax breaks for corporate jets mumble mumble poor Warren Buffet's secretary's tax bill blah blah Spain is winning the future with solar panels" and, course, "core al-Qaeda has been decimated" (in which "core al-Qaeda" is defined as "the bits of al-Qaeda that have been decimated"). The Obama response to all opposition is to either attack the motives of his critics or to dismiss the objections as mere politics or ideology.
When Obama met with congressional leaders back in 2009, Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan made substantive critiques of Obamacare, and Obama responded by waving away their objections as mere "talking points" - as if any facts written on a sheet of paper suddenly become untrue if you can call them "talking points." Republican 1: "It is unsafe to smoke cigarettes around the propane tank." Republican 2: "Mass collectivization of agriculture has not worked well in the past." Republican 3: "You should not feed salmon to grizzly bears using your lap as a plate." Obama: "Those are just talking points ..Ahhhhh! Get this bear off of me!"
When Senate Democrats, led by Bob Menendez (now conveniently under the Department of Justice's thumb), expressed concerns about Obama's overtures to Iran, Obama reportedly sympathized, saying he understood their plight, what with the pressure from "donors." The insinuation, obviously, is that Obama is doing the right thing, while those opposed were motivated by fear of nefarious unnamed "donors" cracking their whips (between servings of lox and bagels, no doubt). Only Obama's motivations are pure, noble, and fact-driven.
Only his opponents are ideologues incapable of "putting politics aside for the good of the American people," as he likes to say. There are other anatomical features of an Obama outrage. A few come to mind: He has a tendency to frame issues in such a way that America is the villain and America's enemies have a point. He has an outsized faith - fueled equally by ego and the media's eagerness to take his side - in his ability to persuade the public not to believe their lying eyes. Since Obama sees himself as the People's Tribune and the sole champion of what is right and good, he has little to no use for Congress or legal or constitutional requirements to work with it. And, of course, there's the incompetence factor - amplified by groupthink in the White House bunker.
They may think Obama is the smartest guy in the room, but they also all think they're geniuses who just happen to agree with each other. This creates a near total blindness to facts, data, and opinions that don't line up with their worldview. ENTER BERGDAHL Using the above criteria, the Bergdahl story is quintessential Obama. Invoking high-minded principle? Check! Really motivated by partisan and ideological agenda? Check! Made-up facts? Check! Critics denounced as partisan ideologues opposed to high-minded principle? Check! Group-think-driven White House's failure to anticipate the political downsides? Check! Flagrant contempt for Congress and its laws? Check! Václav Havel? Czech!
The high-minded-principle part is obvious. We leave no one behind. Who can disagree with that? But it was obvious long ago that Obama had other priorities in mind. "It could be a huge win if Obama could bring him home," a senior administration official told Rolling Stone in a 2012 piece on Bergdahl. "Especially in an election year, if it's handled properly." The other major priority was to use the marching band and fireworks celebration of Bergdahl's return to hasten the shuttering of Gitmo. Dump the worst of the worst anywhere you can and the political rationale for keeping the place open evaporates. So trading five hardened Taliban commanders for one deserter was a win-win. Then there's the thumbless grasp of political reality. Maybe the president didn't think going AWOL was that big a deal. Maybe he thought it was understandable. Maybe he assumed everyone shared his take on things. Maybe he thought he could just bluster through because the American people are idiots. Who knows? The fact remains they knew Bergdahl had been AWOL and yet still thought this would be a clear-cut "huge win," particularly in the context of winding down the War in Afghanistan.
They had no idea this fiasco would blow up in their faces, though I like to think some of the savvier political operatives on the Obama team had at least a moment of doubt when they saw Bergdahl's dad show up with his Johnny Taliban beard. When the elder Bergdahl started speaking Arabic and Pashto in the Rose Garden, I like to imagine that David Axelrod's bowels stewed just a little bit. (Every political pro I know who watched that announcement responded pretty much the same way you or I would if we saw a polar bear pooping a live hamster on a bus made of graham crackers; "What the Hell am I looking at?")
Caught off guard by their own incompetence and arrogance, they immediately responded by attacking the motives of the critics. This is a very human reaction. If you think you've thought through all of the legitimate responses to your actions, it's natural to assume the critical responses you didn't anticipate are illegitimate. On background they started claiming that Bergdahl was being "swiftboated."
This spin was a pas de deux of asininity since "swiftboating" itself is a b.s. term for telling embarrassing and inconvenient truths. Much like John Kerry's old comrades, it was members of Bergdahl's own unit who blew the whistle on him. Blindsided by this utterly predictable reaction, the White House doubled down by marrying arrogant invocation of principle to made-up facts, which is pretty much Susan Rice's métier. So they sent her out to the Sunday shows to insist that Bergdahl "served with honor and distinction" - words that actually have quite a bit of meaning to people who, you know, served with honor and distinction. On Twitter, Iowahawk had the pithiest summation of the Obama team's assault: "What kind of scum would slander this fine brave patriotic US soldier!" "His platoon mates." "And you actually believe those baby killers?"
#FAIL
--------------
ANATOMY OF AN OBAMA FAILURE I did catch the news that the Army is going to prosecute Bowe Bergdahl for desertion. Given what we already knew, it's no surprise that Bergdahl was up to no good. But given the politics, the fact that the Army is prosecuting him suggests that the evidence is pretty overwhelming.
What I find interesting about the Bergdahl story is that it is the quintessential Obama fiasco. If you were compiling a checklist of all the things that drive conservatives crazy - and by conservatives I basically mean people who are (a) paying attention and (b) not enthralled in the Obama cult of personality - the Bergdahl story would achieve a near-perfect score. The Obama M.O. remains remarkably consistent.
He announces some initiative, policy, or presidential action. The public rationale for the move is always rhetorically grounded in some deep, universally shared principle, even if the real agenda is something far more ideological or partisan. The facts driving the decision are never as the White House presents them. Indeed, the more confident the White House appears to be about the facts, the more likely it is they're playing games with them. Sometimes the facts are simply made up. There are millions of "shovel ready jobs" right around the corner! "You can keep your doctor!" The Benghazi attack was "about a video!" "One in five women are raped!" "The Islamic State isn't Islamic!" "These exclamation points are totally necessary!"
At other times, the facts are selectively deployed. "Something something tax breaks for corporate jets mumble mumble poor Warren Buffet's secretary's tax bill blah blah Spain is winning the future with solar panels" and, course, "core al-Qaeda has been decimated" (in which "core al-Qaeda" is defined as "the bits of al-Qaeda that have been decimated"). The Obama response to all opposition is to either attack the motives of his critics or to dismiss the objections as mere politics or ideology.
When Obama met with congressional leaders back in 2009, Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan made substantive critiques of Obamacare, and Obama responded by waving away their objections as mere "talking points" - as if any facts written on a sheet of paper suddenly become untrue if you can call them "talking points." Republican 1: "It is unsafe to smoke cigarettes around the propane tank." Republican 2: "Mass collectivization of agriculture has not worked well in the past." Republican 3: "You should not feed salmon to grizzly bears using your lap as a plate." Obama: "Those are just talking points ..Ahhhhh! Get this bear off of me!"
When Senate Democrats, led by Bob Menendez (now conveniently under the Department of Justice's thumb), expressed concerns about Obama's overtures to Iran, Obama reportedly sympathized, saying he understood their plight, what with the pressure from "donors." The insinuation, obviously, is that Obama is doing the right thing, while those opposed were motivated by fear of nefarious unnamed "donors" cracking their whips (between servings of lox and bagels, no doubt). Only Obama's motivations are pure, noble, and fact-driven.
Only his opponents are ideologues incapable of "putting politics aside for the good of the American people," as he likes to say. There are other anatomical features of an Obama outrage. A few come to mind: He has a tendency to frame issues in such a way that America is the villain and America's enemies have a point. He has an outsized faith - fueled equally by ego and the media's eagerness to take his side - in his ability to persuade the public not to believe their lying eyes. Since Obama sees himself as the People's Tribune and the sole champion of what is right and good, he has little to no use for Congress or legal or constitutional requirements to work with it. And, of course, there's the incompetence factor - amplified by groupthink in the White House bunker.
They may think Obama is the smartest guy in the room, but they also all think they're geniuses who just happen to agree with each other. This creates a near total blindness to facts, data, and opinions that don't line up with their worldview. ENTER BERGDAHL Using the above criteria, the Bergdahl story is quintessential Obama. Invoking high-minded principle? Check! Really motivated by partisan and ideological agenda? Check! Made-up facts? Check! Critics denounced as partisan ideologues opposed to high-minded principle? Check! Group-think-driven White House's failure to anticipate the political downsides? Check! Flagrant contempt for Congress and its laws? Check! Václav Havel? Czech!
The high-minded-principle part is obvious. We leave no one behind. Who can disagree with that? But it was obvious long ago that Obama had other priorities in mind. "It could be a huge win if Obama could bring him home," a senior administration official told Rolling Stone in a 2012 piece on Bergdahl. "Especially in an election year, if it's handled properly." The other major priority was to use the marching band and fireworks celebration of Bergdahl's return to hasten the shuttering of Gitmo. Dump the worst of the worst anywhere you can and the political rationale for keeping the place open evaporates. So trading five hardened Taliban commanders for one deserter was a win-win. Then there's the thumbless grasp of political reality. Maybe the president didn't think going AWOL was that big a deal. Maybe he thought it was understandable. Maybe he assumed everyone shared his take on things. Maybe he thought he could just bluster through because the American people are idiots. Who knows? The fact remains they knew Bergdahl had been AWOL and yet still thought this would be a clear-cut "huge win," particularly in the context of winding down the War in Afghanistan.
They had no idea this fiasco would blow up in their faces, though I like to think some of the savvier political operatives on the Obama team had at least a moment of doubt when they saw Bergdahl's dad show up with his Johnny Taliban beard. When the elder Bergdahl started speaking Arabic and Pashto in the Rose Garden, I like to imagine that David Axelrod's bowels stewed just a little bit. (Every political pro I know who watched that announcement responded pretty much the same way you or I would if we saw a polar bear pooping a live hamster on a bus made of graham crackers; "What the Hell am I looking at?")
Caught off guard by their own incompetence and arrogance, they immediately responded by attacking the motives of the critics. This is a very human reaction. If you think you've thought through all of the legitimate responses to your actions, it's natural to assume the critical responses you didn't anticipate are illegitimate. On background they started claiming that Bergdahl was being "swiftboated."
This spin was a pas de deux of asininity since "swiftboating" itself is a b.s. term for telling embarrassing and inconvenient truths. Much like John Kerry's old comrades, it was members of Bergdahl's own unit who blew the whistle on him. Blindsided by this utterly predictable reaction, the White House doubled down by marrying arrogant invocation of principle to made-up facts, which is pretty much Susan Rice's métier. So they sent her out to the Sunday shows to insist that Bergdahl "served with honor and distinction" - words that actually have quite a bit of meaning to people who, you know, served with honor and distinction. On Twitter, Iowahawk had the pithiest summation of the Obama team's assault: "What kind of scum would slander this fine brave patriotic US soldier!" "His platoon mates." "And you actually believe those baby killers?"
#FAIL
