Dan Pfeiffer’s Word of the Day: “Irrelevant” (Open Thread)

© Miri WTPOTUS May 19, 2013

The word of the day is irrelevant.   What’s relevant is that irrelevant is a word that Dan Pfeiffer, an Obama spokesperson and aide, used at least three times when speaking about Obama’s recent hat trick of scandals.  Like Susan Rice after Benghazi, Pfeiffer appeared on five Sunday shows this week, in an apparent attempt to spin, spin, spin away the blowback  from the scandals. 

With regard to the potential illegality of IRS agents specifically targeting certain groups because of their political views, Pfeiffer opined:

The law is irrelevant. The activity is outrageous and inexcusable.

That statement says much about the Obama administration’s attitude towards the law, as well as the Constitution.  Activity that is “outrageous” or “inexcusable”, in their opinion, is more relevant than what’s potentially criminal!   Why?  Because nobody goes to jail for being outrageous or inexcusable.  And we don’t need a “special prosecutor” if the activity is merely outrageous and inexcusable, but not criminal.

There’s no doubt that conservative groups were specifically and completely targeted (in other words, PROFILED) by the IRS under OBAMA.  Without exception every Tea Party, 9/12, or “patriot” group that applied for tax exempt status during the period in question, roughly 2009 through the 2012 election, was referred for special proctological treatment by politically oriented operatives in Obama’s IRS.  This is likely criminal, and unconstitutional to boot.

Next, Pfeiffer used the word irrelevant while discussing the whereabouts of the Commander in Chief as our ambassador and three other Americans were being slaughtered during a terrorist attack on the diplomatic “mission” in Benghazi, Libya:

I don’t remember what room he was in. It’s a largely irrelevant fact.

Irrelevant to whom?  The families of the murdered patriots?  The families want to know what their sons’ commander in chief was doing while they died.  In addition, we all need to learn exactly who gave the “stand down” order to prevent the military from at least attempting to save their lives.

Finally, Pfeiffer responded to a question about those 12 iterations of the Benghazi “talking points” and who exactly made those edits:

It’s an absolute tragedy what happened. The question isn’t ‘Who edited what talking points/’ That’s largely irrelevant.

I’d like to know what IS relevant to these people.  These three scandals have been rife with words of the day, such as “spontaneous” and “inappropriate“; now they add “outrageous” and “inexcusable”.  Here are some words I’d like to read with regard to these scandals:  impeachment, jail, frog marched.

It’s somewhat heartening to see that this time around the mainstream media aren’t as apt to parrot the Obama-supplied talking points, although there are exceptions.

One concept remains to be vanquished:  the foolish idea that “foolish mistakes were made” but now our sole job is to identify the problems, fix them, and “move on.”  (We heard this meme from Hillary Clinton after Benghazi: “What difference at this point does it make?”  The subtext being, let’s just “move on.”)

We’re told that we should never, ever politicize these particular scandals (because they plague a “progressive” administration).  Politicization is reserved for progressives like Obama.  Nixon never caught a break from the media, no matter how ignorant he was of what his minions were up to.

This administration NEVER wants to be held accountable for anything. This president is the most ignorant president in U.S. history.  Ignorant in the sense that he apparently knows NOTHING about anything that goes on in his own administration. Like us, he gets his news from the TV, when we do.  He says it with a straight face and expects us to believe it.

Obama’s not in the loop on ANYTHING, but especially not anything that might get him or his administration in hot water.

Dan Pfeiffer is well known to us because of the role he played in introducing Obama’s purported “long form birth certificate” to the world.  During that event, Obama was similarly and deliberately kept out of the loop.  Pfeiffer took pains to advise the media that Obama would NOT be “holding” the birth certificate, nor would the document even remain in the room with Obama:

Pfeiffer implies that what he holds is the actual certificate. But Obama will NOT hold it; will not avow it; will not recognize it; and Pfeiffer will take it with him before Obama arrives to speak. Why?

“Implausible deniability”.  There’s a phrase of the day for you!

#####

h/t Matt Drudge and Gateway Pundit