"Don't tell me anything that might outrage me."
We hear from the White House spokesman that "[N]obody's been more outraged by the reported conduct here than the president of the United States" about the IRS Scandal.
Now we hear this:
Senior White House officials, including President Obama's chief of staff, Denis McDonough, were told last month — earlier than previously thought — that the Internal Revenue Service was under investigation for targeting conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status, but White House counsel decided not to tell Obama about it.
When asked if Obama was angry his top aides left him in the dark about potential political scandal, White House press secretary Jay Carney said the president viewed such actions as "entirely appropriate" and that "some matters are not appropriate to convey to him, and this is one of them."
So in effect, we should conclude that a policy exists which considers outrageous matters not appropriate to relate to the President. Which doesn't make any sense. A better conclusion is that the premise that Obama is outraged is untrue.
Problem: Obama would still find out about those outraging things through the press.
ReplyDeleteSolution: intimidate the press to inhibit their reporting of the bad news.
Problem solved!
P.S. I think I'd ask those who were audited whether they might be more outraged than Obama was.
"So in effect, we should conclude that a policy exists which considers outrageous matters not appropriate to relate to the President. Which doesn't make any sense."
ReplyDeleteI disagree: if Obama doesn't know about it, he's not culpable. If it's true, we have a formal policy of plausible deniability where every apparatus of government acts to punish the President's enemies while he explicitly turns a blind eye.
The same plausible deniability as used by Henry II: the King identifies an enemy, and the knights set out to please the King.
ReplyDeleteI'm not holding my breath for Obama to take the lashes, tho.