This is great. Jake Tapper grills White House propagandist Jay Carney. He wants to know what Obama is doing to create jobs.

The Huffington Post is reporting that a major rift now exists between civilian policymakers at The White House and military brass at The Pentagon over Libya. The DOD is pissed off about the stalemate in Libya and warned the president ahead of time that this would likely be the outcome.

Obama told The Pentagon he felt a “limited” intervention was necessary but any kind of American boots on the ground was off the table. He wanted the military to give him a “low cost” regime change plan for Libya that did not require US infantry. The military told him that such a thing is not possible and no such plan would be forthcoming. White House officials accused The Pentagon of “disrespecting” the president by refusing to give him the plan he wanted.

The Pentagon in turn accused The White House of failing to understand what is and is not possible in military campaigns.

So the military and civilian leadership remain at loggerheads over the way forward in Libya. Military officials say this half-hearted intervention has made America look weak and created a terrible mess.

“It’s a mess,” lamented a senior U.S. official. Washington took the bold step of committing military force, but not enough to win. The administration waited to apply very limited military force until it was almost too late, and now, the official says, it has painted the U.S. “into a corner.” In the resulting stalemate, Libyan rebels and civilians are being ruthlessly pursued and killed while the United States, in effect, stands helplessly by.

Personally, I’m of two minds on the situation in Libya. On the one hand I think if we’re going to use force we should do so decisively and overwhelmingly. One thing we do better than anyone is attack from the air. We should have decimated the Libyan military in 48 hours to the point that any remaining soldiers simply surrendered.

On the other hand, I don’t think we should be getting into another war. But even if I did, Libya would not be the place to do it. I don’t really care about Libya.  The so-called “rebels” we’re protecting do not tug on my heart strings. I think most of them are simply putting their hatred for us on hold while they go after Gaddafi. They’re saying all the right things about wanting “democracy” and “human rights” so long as NATO is providing air cover. These folks are not our friends and anyone who believes they are is dangerously naive.

I’m glad President Obama took ground troops off the table. The Libyan people are not worth a single American soldier or Marine’s life. Moreover, it’s about time other NATO members starting pulling their weight. France was the most vocal about going into Libya so they should take the lead. They have a great military they never use.

Britain announced this week that they’re sending is special forces (SAS) to train the rebels on the ground. They waited around to see if we would cave and send in our people. When we didn’t they finally sent in their people. Good. If this is so important to Europe then they should be willing to send their boys to die there. I’m speaking mostly of France, because Britain has steadfastly stuck with us in Afghanistan. As always, the Brits have fought bravely and honorably with us and paid a heavy price in blood and treasure. But the French, Germans, and Italians like to squawk an awful lot until it’s time to do some dying. Then they look to America and the UK. F*ck that.

But again, since we did intervene in Libya we should stop bullshitting and kick some ass (from the air only). It’s beyond pathetic that a broke down third world regime like Gaddafi’s is still hanging on weeks after NATO intervened. This thing should have been wrapped up in a week tops.

This is too much. As others have pointed out, it’s reminiscent of Hillary using high ranking military personnel to carry her luggage.

From The Daily Caller:

During an exclusive dinner hosted Monday by the Alfalfa Club…Jarrett was seated at the head table along with several other big-name politicians and a handful of high-ranking military officials. As an officer sporting several stars walked past Jarrett, she signaled for his attention and said, “I’d like another glass of wine.”

White House economic adviser Austan Goolsbee, who was seated next to Jarret, began “cracking up nervously,” our tipster said, but no one pointed out to Jarrett that the man sporting a chestful of medals was not her waiter.

“The guy dutifully went up and got her a glass of wine, and then came back and gave it to her and took a seat at the table,” our tipster said. “Everyone is in tuxedos and gowns at this thing, but the military people are in full dress uniform.”

Wow.

From the AP:

Rahm Emanuel will resign as White House chief of staff on Friday and will begin his campaign for Chicago mayor by meeting with voters in the city on Monday, two sources familiar with Emanuel’s plans said.

The two people, who spoke Thursday on condition of anonymity because they did not want to pre-empt Emanuel’s announcement, said he will return to Chicago over the weekend and begin touring neighborhoods Monday.

"He intends to run for mayor," one of the people told The Associated Press.

I wonder who the new chief of staff is going to be? Valerie Jarrett possibly?

According to Fishbowl DC, Mediaite, and Hot Air, The White House and Fox News have agreed to end their public feud and call a “truce”.

I’m not sure how Fox News can agree to a truce when all they were guilty of doing was reporting on this White House.

Here’s the real kicker:

One drawback, which even Obama aides concede, is that Fox is using the quarrel with the White House as a public-relations tool to stir up its own support among conservatives and to boost ratings. “They’re still at it,” says a senior Obama aide, who adds that White House officials don’t expect to fire another shot in the battle unless Fox strikes first.

I take that to mean The WH won’t fire another shot unless Fox starts telling the public what’s really going on again. Somehow I don’t think Glenn Beck is in on this truce. I don’t think he’s going to shy away from informing the public when he uncovers yet another Mao-loving Marxist in this administration.

What The White House wants is for Fox News to get in line with the rest of the Obama media and keep quiet. I don’t see that happening and I don’t see this so-called “truce” lasting very long either. This administration can’t handle criticism of any kind. The only way they can pass their destructive legislation is in the dark of night without anyone knowing the details.

This is hilarious. After the unprecedented White House attacks on Fox News, Glenn Beck is taking action. He says he’s having Fox News install a red phone in his studio with a direct line to White House Communications Director Anita Dumb Dunn. According to Beck, she’ll be the only one with the number and she can call anytime she has a problem. He says The White House should have a direct line to its enemies.

(hat tip Breitbart TV)

President Obama honest to God has this hanging in The White House. Does it get any better than that?

(hat tip NRO)

This via Big Government:

Newly discovered evidence shows the radical advocacy group ACORN has a man in the Obama White House.This power behind the throne is longtime ACORN operative Patrick Gaspard. He holds the title of White House political affairs director, the same title Karl Rove held in President Bush’s White House.

Evidence shows that years before he joined the Obama administration, Gaspard was ACORN boss Bertha Lewis’s political director in New York.

And the plot thickens…

Here’s what Trent Duffy says about Scott McClellan and his ridiculous book. Duffy worked for McClellan as Deputy Press Secretary.

· Was it the truth or a lie when you told me, during a series of personal discussions in your West Wing office in late 2005 and early 2006 (at the apex of what you now call your period of “disillusionment” and “dismay”), that you were happy in your job and proud to serve President Bush and that you had no intention of leaving soon? What about in April 2006, when rumors swirled about a change at the podium, and you again told me you wanted to stay?

· Was it the truth or a lie when you told me around Christmas that the excerpts released by your publisher were being “taken out of context” and that your book wasn’t going to be a hatchet job?

· Was it the truth or a lie when you assured your former deputies that you wanted our “full participation” in the book?

· Was it the truth or a lie when, after countless briefings, you complained that the White House press corps was too tough, unfair, over the top and didn’t get it? ….

When the first “teaser” excerpts of your book hit the press in December, my phone lighted up with calls from reporters. Before responding, I called you; you said the publisher had taken liberties, you didn’t mean to attack the president and to point reporters to your 2006 interview with Larry King as your genuine take on things. You told me that your book was still about the poisonous partisan atmosphere in Washington and didn’t breathe a hint about Iraq or Hurricane Katrina. This was long after you were outside the White House bubble, amigo.

You also assured me, when we’ve talked the past two years, that you wanted your deputies to review the book and share our thoughts. Thinking you actually meant what you said, I reached out to you two months ago to take you up on your offer. Radio silence. Why didn’t you keep your promise to me and the other professionals who gave years of their lives working for you?

It certainly looks like Scott McClellan’s version of events during his time at the White House are completely different everyone else’s.

It’s so painfully obvious that Scott and his publisher sexed up his book by adding every single liberal talking point ever uttered by a Bush-hating blogger.