“If anyone gets any kind of idea in their head that taking away from Karine or her work, that’s really regrettable. And I’m very sorry that that’s any impression that anyone would have.”
—-National Security Council Coordinator for Strategic Communications Spokesperson John Kirby, a retired Navy rear admiral, responding to a bold reporter who asked what his role was at the White House, since “almost everywhere I go, I have Black people telling me that the reason you’re at the White House is to undermine the first female Black [press] secretary. So can you clarify that?”
John Kirby, the deft and articulate Pentagon spokesperson who was brought to the White House to stand in for Karine Jean-Pierre whenever possible since she is incompetent but can’t be fired, issued the above tersely, showing why he was called upon for the half-rescue mission.
I am simply working at the National Security Council, on national security communications. And with her good graces I’m able to come up here every now and then to talk to you about national security issue. That’s my portfolio. That’s where I’m limited. That’s where I’ll stay. And I do it at her invitation and with her approval to come up here. That’s the focus. I’m happy to answer national security questions and that’s about it.
Great answer! Diplomatic, elusive, pretending to deny the truth without doing so…he regrets that anyone gets the impression that he’s covering for Karine’s ineptitude (which is what “undermining” really means in this context), and he’s sorry that anyone has figured it out (though it is obvious to anyone who has heard Jean-Pierre babble and noticed the stark contrast with Kirby’s clarity and skill. Kirby proved what his role is while ducking the question and preserving Karine’s dignity, such as it is.
Meanwhile, here was the White House paid liar lying about the recent Martha’s Vineyard debacle (for hypocritical illegal immigration fans):
“These vulnerable migrants were reportedly misled about where they were headed, told they would be headed to Boston, misled about what they would be provided when they arrived, promised shelter, refuge, benefits and more. These are the kinds of tactics we see from smugglers in places like Mexico and Guatemala. And for what? A photo-op? Because these Governors care about creating political theater than creating actual solutions to help folks who are fleeing communism, to help children, to help families. Instead, they want to do political stunts.”
- “Reportedly” means “I’m making it up.” The transported illegals were not misled.
- Since they were sent to a progressive enclave that has proclaimed its support for illegal immigrants, if there were any promised broken, it was by the residents of the island and the hypocrites in the Massachusetts government.
- They have no right to any “benefits.” They are lawbreakers.
- Smugglers are paid by the illegal immigrants to help them break U.S. laws. The transportation of the illegal immigrants to places that ostentatiously claim that they will be welcome costs taxpayers. There is no valid analogy at all.
- If the “migrants” (a deceitful cover word) are “vulnerable” in this country, it was their choice to be vulnerable. If they were vulnerable in their own country, that is not our problem.
- For what? To demonstrate vividly the complete hypocrisy of the supposedly big-hearted progressives who passionately support illegal immigrants as long as they stay far, far away. And to provoke Democratic mayors like D.C.’s Muriel Bowser to expose their dishonesty and cluelessness with statements like this one, which the Mayor made yesterday after two buses of about 100 illegals were dropped off last week outside Vice President Kamala Harris’s residence in northwest Washington:
“For mayors like me that are dealing with a crisis – not of our making. And we’re not a border town – we don’t have an infrastructure to handle this level of immigration to our city. But we will create a new normal here in our infrastructure and have a humane welcome for people and an efficient service provision. But we don’t have the ability – we’re not Texas.”
Finally, here are the compassionate people of the Vineyard, cheering the removal of those “vulnerable migrants”:
Pointer Mark M.
9 thoughts on “Ethics Quote Of The Week: Back-Up White House Spokesman John Kirby”
Him filling in for her under the guise of “just answering national security issues” is a perfect segue into using him full time as every issue will become a “national security” issue.
It’s so great when the administration thinks that the American people are either idiots or such hacks that they will go along with anything the administration says. But they’d rather that than be stuck with Trump.
Kirby said: “I have Black people telling me that the reason you’re at the White House is to undermine the first female Black [press] secretary”. Actually, there’s no need because Karine undermines herself every time she takes the podium and opens her mouth. For her, it’s a daily occurrence.
Besides, she has stellar qualifications: black, female, immigrant, lesbian. The only qualifications that matter to the leftists, so how can they get rid of her?
Finally, Kirby’s there, only because someone in this administration brought him in, so this question is being directed at the wrong person.
Re: No. 1; Yeshiva and The Gays.
I dunno. Yeshiva might win this one because, unethical as it may be, the university is disavowing all student groups, not just the gay-affiliates. Therefore, there is no discrimination.
As for the Nazis, why would they march in Skokie?
There’s no question that they’ll win if the have no student groups at all. But I doubt they’ll stick to that.
I don’t know about that… We’re taking about a group that has refused to eat delicious, delicious bacon for 30 centuries. They have a history of sticking to their guns.
Nicely done. This is not about gay and lesbian student groups. This is about bending a private religious university to the political will of the Left. Frankly, I hope SCOTUS rules in Yeshiva’s favor. Someone needs to push back hard on the Left.
I have watched various segments of Congressional committees’ interviews of potential candidates for judicial and other executive appointees. I am dismayed by the abundance of deflection used by the nominees instead of directly answering the questions posed. Ms. Jean- Pierre is but an example of government speak that makes no sense to those who are endowed with common sense.
Regarding, the illegal immigrants (not migrants) relocation. I believe what the governors of border states are doing is right and just and needs to be applauded and emulated. Those who declare themselves sanctuary states or cities in defiance of federal law need to walk the walk not just talk.
“If anyone gets any kind of idea in their head that [I am? my presence here is?] taking away from Karine or her work, that’s really regrettable. And I’m very sorry that that’s any impression that anyone would have.”
Anyone? Beuhler? Isn’t there a subject missing from that objective clause?