Fact-free insults for all!

Tom McNeil of Healdton hates President Obama-- he's told us before. So it's not surprise that he'd write yet another anti-Obama screed filled with easily-debunked right wing talking points about him. And because he wrote an anti-Obama screed filled with easily-debunked right wing talking points, it's no surprise that the Oklahoman would run his letter. It begins:

The law, along with public opinion, differentiates between accidental and intentional deeds. Is the Obama administration just inept, or is there malice aforethought in making so many blunders? There is some of both.

Oh, really? "So many blunders"? Obviously no administration is blunder-free-- so how is Mr McNeil quantifying them here to suggest that Obama's are more than George Bush or Ronald Reagan? He doesn't say.

First, we elected as president a man with no experience in running an organization of any kind.

Not this again. It's a tired line, and not really even true. Granted, doing things like setting up job training and education programs for the poor, or running the country's most prestigious law journal isn't the same as setting up an oil exploration company with the help of Daddy's friends, but whatever. You can't say he as "no experience" when, in fact, he does. Well, unless you're an idiot and some newspaper is just a propaganda piece, and then you can say whatever you want.

He had no military experience, no foreign policy knowledge and no managerial skills. That accounts for the inept part such as the VA scandal.

Jesus. There's a lot to decompress from this. Military experience? I guess being assigned to the First Motion Picture Unit in Culver City, CA during WWII counts as "military experience" as does defending Texas and Alabama skies during 'Nam. Clinton didn't serve in the military at all, while George H. W. Bush actually, you know, saw combat in WWII. Given these disparate levels of "military experience" and understanding the various blunders all these administrations had, it's hard to correlate in any way the idea that military experience is truly a factor in limiting blunders of any kind. And give me a break on "foreign policy knowledge" please. I'm pretty sure this guy voted for a presidential ticket that included Sarah Palin. So just stop.

In any case, all of this leads Mr McNeil to conclude that somehow, Obama's "lack" of certain experiences is directly responsible for the VA blunder. Obviously, the VA issue is supremely complex-- we're talking about an organization that's quite large and when you see things like, "An audit from the Secretary of Veterans Affairs said that 'some front-line, middle, and senior managers felt compelled to manipulate' records to meet performance goals," you realize how deep the problem runs. But that also makes one wonder how any of that would have changed had Obama been a five-star general, a past CEO of General Electric, and former governor of California. Obama probably isn't going over the numbers of some VA middle man in Phoenix, AZ and thinking hmmmmm my military experience and organizational skills are telling me that something isn't right here.

Interestingly, when actual experts weighed in, they noted among other things that "the VA poorly designed its performance management system." Now, we all know that Obama didn't go in and radically alter things at the VA once in office. The VA has a long history, and was elevated to cabinet-status under the saint guy who was stationed in Culver City, CA during WWII.

To engage in a bit of rhetoric that I truly loathe: Is the VA scandal a shame? Yes. Should the government have been doing much more for much longer to help people coming back from war? Yes. Were these failures somehow related in any way to Obama's military or organizational experience? Give me a fucking break.

But wait! There's More! Read on:

The intentional efforts are in the decisions that Barack Obama makes in fulfilling his promise to basically change America.

I'm not even sure what this means. Is Mr McNeil imagining that Obama blundered "intentionally" by fulfilling campaign promises? Don't all presidential candidates promise to improve things? What president is like "If elected, I'll just keep things the same!"??? So then, what's a blunder here? Oh-- is he talking healthcare? If Mr McNeil thinks that's a blunder, he's an ill-informed idiot. 'Cause no. So what else? Dow is at historic highs. Inflation is low. It's unclear where the "intentional" blunders are here.

The IRS scandal was an effort to thwart the vote of conservative groups.

Oh, that. Well, if Mr McNeil bothered to pay attention to anything other than Fox News and this shitty newspaper, he'd know that this is a myth. This isn't to say that there was no wrong-doing; there certainly was. But the reality is that A) There were and are "Tea Party" groups who sought non-profit status even though they were engaging in overt political activity, and B) This activity wasn't something that was directed from Obama as some sort of political action. And no, Mr McNeil, no votes of "conservative groups" were thwarted (whatever that means).

The most far reaching, and the most damaging to America, however, are the foreign policy debacles. They’re based upon his worldview that the U.S. should be more equal in power with the other countries of the world.

Oooh! I'd love to have this explained in more detail. Like, where is this actually stated by the administration? Not something like "we should stop being unilateral dicks all the time" but seriously "we should be more equal in power" with, like, China and Brazil. Of course, this doesn't exist. I mean, it's hard to imagine that when he says stuff like this:

BARACK OBAMA: You see, American influence is always stronger when we lead by example. We cannot exempt ourselves from the rules that apply to everyone else. We can’t call on others to make commitments to combat climate change if so many of our political leaders deny that it is taking place. It’s a lot harder to call on China to resolve its maritime disputes under the Law of the Sea Convention when the United States Senate has refused to ratify it – despite the repeated insistence of our top military leaders that the treaty advances our national security. That’s not leadership; that’s retreat. That’s not strength; that’s weakness. And it would be utterly foreign to leaders like Roosevelt and Truman; Eisenhower and Kennedy. 

I believe in American exceptionalism with every fiber of my being. But what makes us exceptional is not our ability to flout international norms and the rule of law; it’s our willingness to affirm them through our actions.

Got that? This is a perfectly rational, sound, and reasoned approach to anything. It's not "more equal in power" it's "let's not be dicks all the time"-- which is probably a good thing.

Anyhow, Mr. McNiel goes on:

His worldview was formed over a lifetime of association with his primary mentors. 

These include Saul Alinsky, author of Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals, Bill Ayres, an unrepentant terrorist, and Jeremiah Wright, a black supremacist preacher.

Jesus Christ. It's hard to imagine how any of these people related to the previous statement about the US being more equal in power with other countries.

It's also clear that these guys weren't really "primary mentors" in any sense. A real newspaper would have seen all these red flags and tossed this letter. But the Oklahoman sees OBAMA AND BILL AYRES! and thinks FUCKING RUN THIS LETTER! It's pathetic.

More pathetic is this conclusion:

Uninformed voters fell for 'Hope and Change' speeches without even looking at the applicant’s resume. The manager of the local McDonald’s pays more attention to the qualifications in hiring a burger cook.

WOW. So, "uninformed voters" just "fell for" a political slogan and somehow didn't know about Obama's background?!? The assertion is preposterous and no reasonable person could imagine that Obama's "resume" wasn't a constant source of scrutiny for both his campaigns. And please: to dismiss a majority of voters (Obama did win a majority of votes) as paying less attention to the person they are voting in to the office of President as a fast food manager does to a hire is so insulting that it's hard to imagine that any newspaper would run it. Fortunately, the Oklahoman isn't an actual newspaper and so here we are.