So it was with White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer, who got hammered again and again on the Sunday shows. Where was the president the night of Benghazi? Not relevant. What about actual lawbreaking at the IRS? Not relevant. (He later tweeted a clarification — never a good sign — that targeting conservatives was still wrong. But of course if it is illegal, then much more serious action, including civil and criminal liability, is at issue.)
This line of argument is untenable and, frankly, embarrassing. If the Obama flacks don’t have answers or won’t give them, then they should not send Pfeiffer out to instruct newspeople on what is and isn’t relevant. And if you want to talk about relevance it’s probably a good idea to stop throwing out red herrings (e.g. George W. Bush, Mitt Romney, Republicans). There was something especially childish and ham-handed in the sort of defense Pfeiffer mounted when the question of the day is whether the president is either malicious or totally out to lunch. His defense personifies the very arrogance that leads the White House to overreach in the first place.
When your excuse is that POTUS doesn't know what's going on, you know it is bad. Also, they're lying. #Scandalpalooza— RB (@RBPundit) May 20, 2013
Looks like Chuck Todd was right this morning: White house sticking with the "we're idiots" defense.— John Nolte(@NolteNC) May 20, 2013
Think about this: Jay Carney was sent out today to explain that Obama is the most clueless president in modern history. #Scandalpalooza— RB (@RBPundit) May 20, 2013
Shorter Carney: It's COMMUNITY organizer, people -- not FEDERAL GOVERNMENT organizer. Don't act like you didn't know that beforehand.— John Nolte(@NolteNC) May 20, 2013
◼ White House Spins Obama’s Role in Benghazi: From Competence to Irrelevance (VIDEO) - Heritage