The old adage is that a broken clock is right twice a day. Apparently, it's Glenn Greenwald's time. Writing for the UK's Guardian (the same paper that hired, and then fired, RedState Great Old One and Co-Founder Joshua Trevino, he takes Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to task for her complete ignorance of Obama's "Kill List" that she displayed after this last debate. Greenwald writes:
But Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Democratic Congresswoman from Florida and the Chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, does not know about any of this. She has never heard of any of it. She has managed to remain completely ignorant about the fact that President Obama has asserted and exercised the power to secretly place human beings, including US citizens, on his "kill list" and then order the CIA to extinguish their lives.
Just marvel at this stunning, completely inexcusable two-minute display of wholesale ignorance by this elected official and DNC chair. Here she is after the second presidential debate being asked by Luke Rudkowski of We Are Change about the "kill list" and whether Romney should be trusted with this power. She doesn't defend the "kill list". She doesn't criticize it. She makes clear that she has never heard of it and then contemptuously treats Rudkowski like he is some sort of frivolous joke for thinking that it is real...
He then links to this video:
Now, I have to admit that I wasn't expecting a dismantling of this magnitude from Glenn Greenwald, but as I said, a broken clock is still right twice a day. Regardless, the fact of the matter is that a person in charge of the Democratic National Committee ought to be better versed on such a major issue as this. It's responses like this that make DWS look like nothing but a Liberal hack, which is probably not entirely unfounded (this might be the understatement of the year).
But when you're there solely to spin the debate performance for your guy Obama, I suppose it shouldn't be terribly surprising that your talking points for that night didn't include a "Kill List", but it's not like this is some minor story. Minor problems don't get 6,000 word stories in the New York Times.
But still, a deer in headlights look? And that supplemented by a contemptuous, dismissive tone over something like this?
As Greenwald says it:
One expects corrupt partisan loyalty from people like Wasserman Schultz, eager to excuse anything and everything a Democratic president does. That's a total abdication of her duty as a member of Congress, but that's par for the course. But one does not expect this level of ignorance, the ability to stay entirely unaware of one of the most extremist powers a president has claimed in US history, trumpeted on the front-page of the New York Times and virtually everywhere else.
It's a good thing that she won't be returning as DNC chair next year.