This is hugely embarrassing.
Obviously spokespeople are rarely clued into the deeper machinations of organisations in order to more believably push the required narrative, but in this case you'd have to believe that she didn't know NED's:
- Origins
- Founders
- History
- Policies
- Practices
- Or any activity, up to and including major events this decade, last year, and even current activities.
What's more is that you can tell that she's simply never really had to work with an organization that isn't entirely in the pocket of US interests. It's clear that usually all she has to say is 'jump' and mainstream media asks 'how high? '.
When asked for clarifications she can't provide them. When confronted with evidence of financially supporting violent groups she just says they don't support them (apparently financing them doesn't count as support?). And when she gets nowhere the authoritarian streak comes out:
- Democracy is when a minority can overturn an elected government, but not in the US or if we like them.
- Who do you work for? China, Belarus?
- We support democracy and journalism because we've continued to allow you to exist (while actively working against you).
This roughly jives with my understanding of most people in or adjascent to the US State Department:
-
True believers. They really think they're the good guys and the (inconsistent) western chauvinist understanding of what counts as democracy.
-
Disturbingly ignorant. They get by through supporting the machine not by having a meaningful understanding of geopolitics. They do what the "experts" tell them and they acquire "experts" from other "experts", legislators, and literal deep state types, including the 25-year CIA guy that doesn't tell you he "used to be" CIA.
-
Are pretty bad at lying and coast on the norms with which they're surrounded. Don't get me wrong, they (including this person) lie easily and readily, but they are (mostly) the lies of a disturbingly ignorant true believer trying to justify themselves and how very real and good their work is and how bad their enemies are. They'll just make stuff up on the spot and try to appeal to semantics and such without really knowing it (we saw a lot of that in the call). Truly childish behavior, they have almost never been challenged by an informed opponent and don't know what to do other than exude condescension and try to get in snide remarks.
Basically... they are rarely a cynical enactor of realpolitik. That was more common among their grandparents. These are the kids who grew up believing their grandparents' propaganda and found cushy jobs through the path worn for them by the cynics. They are still ghouls that don't care that they are hypocrites or that by "democracy" they mean "pro-west" (they confuse themselves with the equivocation). They are incurious cogs carrying out their tasks like good lanyards.
I have met and interacted with too many of them, as PMC types are often connected to them (that is their pipeline, especially in certain professional focuses).
That said, some are still ghouls that are fully informed, know exactly what they're doing, and use media training and strategy to handle external communication (obviously that doesn't characterize this person lol). They are the types that get on the phone with people like Rubio on the regular, like the leadership of USAID.
-
