Patterico's Pontifications

9/17/2014

Loyal Jay Carney

Filed under: General — Dana @ 5:52 pm



[guest post by Dana]

So Jay Carney is now working as a commentator at CNN. In an interview this week, he made no effort to hide his loyalties.

Q: So you’re not positioning yourself as nonpartisan?

A: I am who I am. I deeply believed in what I did and what he has done as president. And I don’t walk away from that at all. There is no nirvana, but CNN’s mission is news-focused. They are not actively pursuing a niche in one political camp or the other. I believe in the president, believe in the rightness of his policies. I’m also my own person, and I’m going to express my views. But it would be disingenuous to suddenly pretend that I wasn’t loyal to [the president].

On the heels of that, came this:

Q: Why did you choose CNN?

A: They’re down the middle. They’re not partisan. And I think that’s good. You don’t have that dynamic where people are choosing what they want to hear based on their own personal politics.

–Dana

Added: Apparently there was an exchange between Carney and Bill Kristol on CNN in which Carney admitted there would indeed be boots on the ground in Iraq fighting Isis:

“You can’t imagine the fight against ISIS going in such a way that we would say, you know what, this thing is on the cusp and we need to send in 3,000 or 5,000 U.S. combat ground troops to win this thing?” Kristol asked Carney.

Carney replied, “Well, again, that would be saying specifically only 5,000, not 5,005–”

“No it wouldn’t,” said Kristol. “It would be leaving the option open, which is what a serious commander in chief does.”

“I think the shorthand that a lot of people use about no boots on the ground is semantically problematic because obviously there will be American military personnel with their boots on the ground,” Carney claimed.

Best part had to be when host Jake Tapper reminded Carney:“Jay, you don’t work for the White House anymore. You can be frank.”

23 Responses to “Loyal Jay Carney”

  1. Hello.

    Dana (4dbf62)

  2. Logical consistency isn’t exactly a liberal hallmark.

    Crabtree (2491b8)

  3. Scumbag Jay.

    mg (31009b)

  4. He is a lousy liar.

    JD (fe9d30)

  5. Why did he choose CNN? Because CNN offered him a job. I doubt that Fox made him an offer…

    Steven Den Beste (99cfa1)

  6. Hey guys, he is who he is. He’s just a guy who loves to have Soviet propaganda posters in his kitchen for decoration. Just a guy that believes in the virtue of NOT reading legislation before it is passed. Just a guy that believes that people in power should have more power. Just a guy that wants to limit speech of the people he lords over.

    Really, he’s just like most Americans.

    DejectedHead (9b0c64)

  7. What DejectedHead said. In Spades!

    Hoagie (4dfb34)

  8. well he’ll be in good company:

    http://minx.cc:1080/?post=351853

    narciso (ee1f88)

  9. Clueless News Network and he fits right in.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  10. I just added another Carney tidbit to the post.

    Dana (4dbf62)

  11. When he says that CNN is non partisan, that may be true if “non partisan” means nobody is watching.

    But in the customary sense of the word, only a guy whose head is so far up his backside that he’s munching on his esophagus could say that CNN wsa “non partisan” or “straight down the middle”.

    Skeptical Voter (12e67d)

  12. I find it hard to fault a man for his loyalty.

    ThOR (130453)

  13. Contains Nothing Newsworthy is the perfect place for a lying scumbag like that POS.

    birds of a feather, and all that.

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  14. I find it hard to fault a man for his loyalty.

    It’s interesting that you can readily find ordinary reporters willing to be skeezy spin doctors for Democratic politicos. Supposedly there have been about two dozen or so employed in the BO Administration, and a mess of first-degree relations of reporters have been officials as well. There’s a reason this Administration has been so ineptly covered: the media is covering their family and friends.

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  15. Why are they convinced he doesn’t work for the White House anymore? So many reporters do.

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  16. “I think the shorthand that a lot of people use about no boots on the ground is semantically problematic because obviously there will be American military personnel with their boots on the ground,” Carney claimed.

    So he admits that their no boots on the ground claims are dishonest.

    JD (b77384)

  17. JD (b77384) — 9/19/2014 @ 8:16 am

    So he admits that their no boots on the ground claims are dishonest.

    There are no such claims being made by the Obama Admisnitration. It’s an hallucination that Obama or anyone else in his administration said “no boots on the ground.”

    Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Josh Earnest en route Atlanta, Georgia, 9/16/14 Gaggle? What’s that?

    Anyway:

    En Route Atlanta, Georgia

    1:26 P.M. EDT …..

    Q So under no circumstances would there be boots on the ground?

    MR. EARNEST: Well, precision is important here. And what the President has been very clear about is the role of American forces in Iraq. The President has deployed American servicemen and women — a limited number of them — to serve in an advise-and-assist capacity, to staff joint operation centers, to defend the embassy in Baghdad and the consulate in Erbil. So there are American service personnel in Iraq.

    There are also, obviously, American servicemen and women who are engaged in some of the air combat operations, right? There are more than 150 strikes, I believe, that have been announced by Central Command that have taken place at the direction of the President.

    But what he’s been very specific and precise about is that he will not deploy ground troops in a combat role into Iraq or Syria.

    Remember, it is NOT:

    A) No U.S. ground troops

    Nor is it:

    B) No U.S. combat troops

    But it is:

    C) No U.S. combat troops on the ground.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  18. Maybe they need so many words because if they make it perfectly clear from the start, it sounds idiotic.

    But the intention presumably is that no U.S. troops be put into a position where they may be captured or killed, and no combat troops on the groiund seems to be a nice bright line.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  19. Jay Carney in June:

    And former White House press secretary Jay Carney gave a similar answer around the same time as Psaki.

    “We’re not contemplating boots on the ground,” he said, adding, “We’re not considering boots on the ground.”

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  20. 19.

    Jay Carney in June:

    “We’re not contemplating boots on the ground,” he said, adding, “We’re not considering boots on the ground.”

    Daleyrocks, you are right. Partially. That was the former position. They haven’t said that recently

    But they did say that two days after ISIS has captured Mosul. Before Obama decided to send advisory troops and special forces 3 or 4 days later. I think in between Iraq had to agree to a status of forces agreement.

    June 12, 2014:

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/06/12/press-briefing-press-secretary-jay-carney-6122014

    April.

    Q Jay, as the President is assessing this indirect help in Iraq, what are the guarantees that there won’t be some boots going back over there to help out?

    MR. CARNEY: Again, we’re not contemplating boots on the ground, April. We’re looking at options that we can take, including in the assistance that we provide, military assistance and other assistance that we can provide to the Iraqi security forces, to the Iraqi government. We’re evaluating requests of other actions that we might take. The President was referring, in answer to the question in the Oval Office earlier today, to specifically the question about whether he would consider direct action, U.S. airstrikes. But we’re not considering boots on the ground.

    Q But as things happen — and they’re not expected and anticipated, and may escalate — what are the guarantees that —

    MR. CARNEY: Again, we’re just not considering that, April.

    I think it was later pointed out, that there actually were some U.S. troops there all the time, by the embassy, ad there wer trainers, not part of the Defense Department, though, or even the U.S. government maybe.

    After the weekend:

    http://nypost.com/2014/06/16/president-obama-is-deploying-275-troops-to-iraq/

    President Obama authorized sending 275 troops to Iraq Monday to provide “support and security” for US personnel — and may add up to 100 special forces — as insurgents captured another key city in the war-ravaged nation.

    Sammy Finkelman (cb098f)

  21. No “boots on the ground”.
    In light of the sensitivity desired by the DoD command structure towards native customs, all US military personnel in Iraq and environs will be directed to wear sandals.

    Problem Solved!

    askeptic (efcf22)

  22. Sammy – Yes, the U.S. ground combat troops now being sent to Iraq will either a) be floating six inches above the ground so that their boots do not touch the ground; b) not independently engage in offensive combat operations but will defend themselves and U.S. personnel if required, which is, like, totes different than combat, and c) actually be based on the doubles secret John P. Murtha invisible military staging base on Okinawa.

    I have no idea why this stuff is so far above everybody’s heads.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3021 secs.