Obama "scandals", my take

[homersapien 12,329]

First, I am following these stories only casually. I don’t have the time or inclination to jump "into the weeds" and argue a partisan position based on this article - or that claim, from the internet. I am content to simply watch and see how things play out. Regardless, here’s my (casual) take on them. As actual facts emerge, I reserve the right to change my mind.

Rated from least to greatest significance:

1. IRS "audits" of the Tea Party groups

Wow. So a bunch of “Tea Party” political groups spring up and someone in the IRS thinks they deserve an extra look. The tax laws governing this area being what they are, as a taxpayer, I have no problem with them getting a little scrutiny.

After all, the very term “Tea Party” relates to a famous demonstration based on the theme of refusing to pay your taxes. And the rhetoric emanating from these groups is clearly revolutionary in nature. If anyone deserves a little extra scrutiny, they do. And I would feel the same way about liberal groups based on the same sentiment and using the same rhetoric.

Clearly (to me) this is not something that emanated from the White House. If it had, I hardly think Obama would have come out with such a strong statement. Obviously, he feels comfortable doing that.

The top guy in the IRS has already been “sacrificed” over something that is no worse than has occurred with any other administration. I suspect he was innocent as well, but a political scapegoat is required.

Significance: Nill for Obama or the country.

2. Benghazi

Someone screwed up royally. Clearly, at least in hindsight, the security was inadequate.

My understanding was that an Ass't Sec.of State lost his job. I suppose it’s possible that some responsibility could have reached higher (Sec. of State Clinton), but there is no reason to assume that it did. IMO, approving security details for every Dept. of State outpost is not something that she would be expected to routinely deal with.

Hillary Clinton has been an exceptional Sec. of State and has worked very hard for this country. There is no doubt in my mind that she feels as bad about this as anyone.

It is obvious the Republicans are going after her because they expect her to run for POTUS which is their right and not unexpected. In fact you could argue it is their responsibility.

But as far as I am concerned, any direct responsibility she had in this matter simply adds to her experience and would make her an even better president. It would be hard to argue that she is generally careless or incompetent.

As far as the way it was handled by the White House, yes, I suspect there was a little "spin" put on it. Nothing unusual about that regardless of whose administration you are talking about. It certainly doesn’t approach criminality or an impeachable offense.

The minority party has every right to attempt to blow this up out of proportion for political reasons. Nothing unusual about that either. Frankly, I think it may ultimately backfire on them if they overplay their hand.

Significance: Significant in terms of lessons learned, insignificant in the greater political scheme.

3. Justice Dept. Investigation of the Associated Press

This is important. (Funny how it’s not getting as much political play as the first two.)

Few of the details have yet emerged. Holder can undoubtedly make a strong argument regarding national security (safety) but depending on what was done and how it was handled the “cure” could have consequences that are even worse than the original problem.

To be fair, this has been a recurring and constant tension in this country, and the dilemma is likely to grow with the evolution of communications technology.

At risk is the very ability of the free press to keep check on government actions. If conditions are established that prevent informers from risking contact with the press, we will have lost that check on the government.

Significance: Huge, both politically and for the country. This is one that really deserves our attention.

[Wrights_Mill_Road 2]

lol

[rexbo 104]

Right, the IRS being used as a tool to silence a political opinion other than the one espoused by the Administration is of no significance.

It's actually at least, if not more significant than the Justice Department going after the AP. Both are huge violations of the First Amendment, and if ignored, will be the downfall of the USA.

[AURaptor 1,137]

I think you have this narrative 180 degrees in the wrong direction.

The IRS issue is huge. A massive blow to the IRS, at the very least, and depending on what is uncovered, could be Obama's Watergate. They didn't just do 'due diligence in looking into the TEA Party groups, it was far, FAR more reaching than that. They TARGETED them, and an array of other conservative groups / individuals, for the primary purpose of intimidating them during 2 election cycles.

I don't know where you're getting your info, but I strongly suggest you be LESS casual in following these stories.

Seriously, even huge Obama sycophant Elijah Cummings ( among other Democrats ) are talking up this IRS scandal. For you to try to paint it as a 'nil' for Obama or the country, is a clear sign of just how blinded you are by The One.

[AUcivE09 582]

Thumbs down on this one buddy. Too much Kool-Aid. The guy who took the fall for the IRS was months from retiring anyway - he was the easy out. Benghazi just befuddles me how they let that happen while lying to America that it was over a video. DOJ trampled the first amendment in an effort to cover this admins rears.

Not to mention you rate the one that is absolutely irrefutable as the least important. Come on man - the IRS thing should be the least important as it was more harrassment than anything else.

[homersapien 12,329]

lol

I appreciate your brevity, but can you expand a little? Maybe rephrasing your point?

[homersapien 12,329]

Right, the IRS being used as a tool to silence a political opinion other than the one espoused by the Administration is of no significance.

Well it certainly isn't of any significance until you have proven it actually happened! :-\

If that happens I will change my opinion.

It's actually at least, if not more significant than the Justice Department going after the AP. Both are huge violations of the First Amendment, and if ignored, will be the downfall of the USA.

Well, like I said, I don't wish to delve into the details of why I think you are wrong on that, so we'll just agree to disagree.

But let's be sure to revisit this later.

[cptau 169]

1. Obama "sacrificing" the IRS temporary commissioner (Steven Miller) who is leaving in 2 weeks anyway and was not there when these tax reviews took place, is a joke. It is like firing an interim football coach for NCAA violations made by a coach that had already resigned months ago.

TEA party groups were not the only groups reviewed. Religious and other conservative groups were reviewed. IRS people will be resigning and going to jail. They may rat out who directed or paid them to do what they did.

A special prosecutor is needed

2. There hasn't be a decent Sec of State since Kissinger. Foriegn police is a White House thing now. Clinton did nothing that was noteworthy except travel and make speeches. The job did keep her away from Obama's domestic policy which she does not want to be associated with in any manner, otherwise she would have stayed in the Senate.

The sec of state is responsible for security of US embassies, benghazi is major failure that she either is responsible for or directed the coverup of the failure.

If I could ask 3 questions about Benghazi of Obama and Clinton that had to be answered, they would be:

1. Where were you and what did you direct be done doing the attack?

2. Who (person) told you it was a video on youtube that caused this attack?

3. Who ordered the military to stand down the rescue missions?

3. You are correct, but Holder must resign now and a special prosecutor is needed to look into what the DoJ did .

[homersapien 12,329]

I think you have this narrative 180 degrees in the wrong direction.

The IRS issue is huge. A massive blow to the IRS, at the very least, and depending on what is uncovered, could be Obama's Watergate. They didn't just do 'due diligence in looking into the TEA Party groups, it was far, FAR more reaching than that. They TARGETED them, and an array of other conservative groups / individuals, for the primary purpose of intimidating them during 2 election cycles.

I don't know where you're getting your info, but I strongly suggest you be LESS casual in following these stories.

Seriously, even huge Obama sycophant Elijah Cummings ( among other Democrats ) are talking up this IRS scandal. For you to try to paint it as a 'nil' for Obama or the country, is a clear sign of just how blinded you are by The One.

Time will tell. I am betting that this will fizzle once the actual facts are known and the political hysteria dies down. I could be wrong.

Meanwhile, I am not interested in trying to dissect hyperbolic rhetoric which is basically all I am hearing.

[homersapien 12,329]

Thumbs down on this one buddy. Too much Kool-Aid. 1) The guy who took the fall for the IRS was months from retiring anyway - he was the easy out. Benghazi just befuddles me how they let that happen while lying to America that it was over a video. 2) DOJ trampled the first amendment in an effort to cover this admins rears.

3) Not to mention you rate the one that is absolutely irrefutable as the least important. Come on man - the IRS thing should be the least important as it was more harrassment than anything else.

1) I don't really see how this is relevant. Should he have not resigned because he was a short timer? Was that a reason for not firing him?

2) Can you be specific? What exactly did the DOJ do that was illegal or unconstitutional?

3) I don't think you fully understand what happened here and how it represents a genuine threat to our freedom whereas the IRS thing is a faux-threat. Let's just wait and see how it plays out.

And just because I am trying to avoid the temptation of trying to refute partisan political rhetoric doesn't mean I am "drinking the Kool-Aid. Just the opposite. I would rather wait for the facts to out before forming a final opinion on anything. And I haven't heard much in the way of facts.

[autigeremt 7,260]

Overall narrative? The Obama presidency has been like this from day one. He takes no responsibility for anything and goes out of his way to remain detached from any and all decisions. His best line...."I didn't know anything about this until I heard it on the news"

He's the perfect leader for his party.

[AURaptor 1,137]

Time will tell. I am betting that this will fizzle once the actual facts are known and the political hysteria dies down. I could be wrong.

Meanwhile, I am not interested in trying to dissect hyperbolic rhetoric which is basically all I am hearing.

Second IRS official resigns after scandal

Still want to play the part of the 'bitter clinger', and claim this is much ado about nothing ?

[DKW 86 7,948]

Okay, i'll play.

The Bogus IRS "Investigation of the Conservative Movements" is just too many holes to cover.

1) The harassment was one sided on a something like 500/a few dozen scale.

2) The harassment started in Spring of 2010 folks. There wasnt even a reason to be harassing the Tea Party at that point UNLESS YOU TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE VERY EMBARRASSING ELECTION OF SCOTT BROWN January 19, 2010. Then it starts to make more sense.

3) The Woman in charge of the IRS at the time is still employed there and is leading the ACA Tax Wing of the IRS.

4) The harassment started back in the Spring of 2010. The IRS leadership knew about it sometime in 2011.

They allowed the harrasment to go on thru 2012. For something in reality approaching two years they knew about it and let it go on during the 2010 and the run up to the 2012 Election Cycle.

5) They did nothing worthy of merit in stopping this for well over a year that they knew about.

6) They blamed 2 people in the Cincy Office when in reality it turned out to be the DC Branch and two branches in CA and many people. So it covered from coast to coast. This Admin cannot bring itself to tell the truth.

I am just scratching the surface...

[TexasTiger 14,528]

First, I am following these stories only casually. I don’t have the time or inclination to jump "into the weeds" and argue a partisan position based on this article - or that claim, from the internet. I am content to simply watch and see how things play out. Regardless, here’s my (casual) take on them. As actual facts emerge, I reserve the right to change my mind.

Rated from least to greatest significance:

1. IRS "audits" of the Tea Party groups

Wow. So a bunch of “Tea Party” political groups spring up and someone in the IRS thinks they deserve an extra look. The tax laws governing this area being what they are, as a taxpayer, I have no problem with them getting a little scrutiny.

After all, the very term “Tea Party” relates to a famous demonstration based on the theme of refusing to pay your taxes. And the rhetoric emanating from these groups is clearly revolutionary in nature. If anyone deserves a little extra scrutiny, they do. And I would feel the same way about liberal groups based on the same sentiment and using the same rhetoric.

Clearly (to me) this is not something that emanated from the White House. If it had, I hardly think Obama would have come out with such a strong statement. Obviously, he feels comfortable doing that.

The top guy in the IRS has already been “sacrificed” over something that is no worse than has occurred with any other administration. I suspect he was innocent as well, but a political scapegoat is required.

Significance: Nill for Obama or the country.

2. Benghazi

Someone screwed up royally. Clearly, at least in hindsight, the security was inadequate.

My understanding was that an Ass't Sec.of State lost his job. I suppose it’s possible that some responsibility could have reached higher (Sec. of State Clinton), but there is no reason to assume that it did. IMO, approving security details for every Dept. of State outpost is not something that she would be expected to routinely deal with.

Hillary Clinton has been an exceptional Sec. of State and has worked very hard for this country. There is no doubt in my mind that she feels as bad about this as anyone.

It is obvious the Republicans are going after her because they expect her to run for POTUS which is their right and not unexpected. In fact you could argue it is their responsibility.

But as far as I am concerned, any direct responsibility she had in this matter simply adds to her experience and would make her an even better president. It would be hard to argue that she is generally careless or incompetent.

As far as the way it was handled by the White House, yes, I suspect there was a little "spin" put on it. Nothing unusual about that regardless of whose administration you are talking about. It certainly doesn’t approach criminality or an impeachable offense.

The minority party has every right to attempt to blow this up out of proportion for political reasons. Nothing unusual about that either. Frankly, I think it may ultimately backfire on them if they overplay their hand.

Significance: Significant in terms of lessons learned, insignificant in the greater political scheme.

3. Justice Dept. Investigation of the Associated Press

This is important. (Funny how it’s not getting as much political play as the first two.)

Few of the details have yet emerged. Holder can undoubtedly make a strong argument regarding national security (safety) but depending on what was done and how it was handled the “cure” could have consequences that are even worse than the original problem.

To be fair, this has been a recurring and constant tension in this country, and the dilemma is likely to grow with the evolution of communications technology.

At risk is the very ability of the free press to keep check on government actions. If conditions are established that prevent informers from risking contact with the press, we will have lost that check on the government.

Significance: Huge, both politically and for the country. This is one that really deserves our attention.

Pretty reasonable assessment-- which explains the response it's getting here.

[cptau 169]

oops......

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/irs-official-in-charge-during-tea-party-targeting-now-runs-health-care-office/

The Internal Revenue Service official in charge of the tax-exempt organizations at the time when the unit targeted tea party groups now runs the IRS office responsible for the health care legislation.

Sarah Hall Ingram served as commissioner of the office responsible for tax-exempt organizations between 2009 and 2012. But Ingram has since left that part of the IRS and is now the director of the IRS’ Affordable Care Act office, the IRS confirmed to ABC News today.

Her successor, Joseph Grant, is taking the fall for misdeeds at the scandal-plagued unit between 2010 and 2012. During at least part of that time, Grant served as deputy commissioner of the tax-exempt unit.

Grant announced today that he would retire June 3, despite being appointed as commissioner of the tax-exempt office May 8, a week ago.

[cptau 169]

More oops from the Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/some-question-whether-ap-leak-on-al-qaeda-plot-put-us-at-risk/2013/05/15/47003ed4-bd77-11e2-89c9-3be8095fe767_story.html

For five days, reporters at the Associated Press had been sitting on a big scoop about a foiled al-Qaeda plot at the request of CIA officials. Then, in a hastily scheduled Monday morning meeting, the journalists were asked by agency officials to hold off on publishing the story for just one more day.

The CIA officials, who had initially cited national security concerns in an attempt to delay publication, no longer had those worries, according to individuals familiar with the exchange. Instead, the Obama administration was planning to announce the successful counterterrorism operation that Tuesday.

AP balked and proceeded to publish that Monday afternoon. Its May 2012 report is now at the center of a controversial and broad seizure of phone records of AP reporters’ home, office and cellphone lines. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said the unauthorized disclosure about an intelligence operation to stop al-Qaeda from detonating explosives aboard a U.S. airliner was among the most serious leaks he could remember, and justified secretly obtaining records from a handful of reporters and editors over a span of two months.

Now, some members of Congress and media advocates are questioning why the administration viewed the leak that led to the May 7 AP story as so grave.

The president’s top counterterrorism adviser at the time, John O. Brennan, had appeared on “Good Morning America” the following day to trumpet the successful operation. He said that because of the work of U.S. intelligence, the plot did not pose an active threat to the American public.

Holder said this week that the unauthorized disclosure “put the American people at risk.”

The White House and CIA declined to comment for this article. But former White House national security spokesman Tommy Vietor, recalling the discussion in the administration last year, said officials were simply realistic in their response to AP’s story. They knew that if it were published, the White House would have to address it with an official, detailed statement.

“There was not some press conference planned to take credit for this,” Vietor said in an interview. “There was certainly an understanding [that] we’d have to mitigate and triage this and offer context for other reporters.”

AP’s story about the foiled plot was at odds with the calming message the White House had been conveying on the eve of the first anniversary of the killing of Osama bin Laden. On April 30, the Department of Homeland Security issued a statement saying that there was “no indication of any specific, credible threats or plots against the US tied to the one-year anniversary of Bin Laden’s death.”

AP reporters had learned in the spring of 2012 that the CIA had infiltrated the al-Qaeda branch behind the plot, according to the individuals familiar with the story, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak for the record. The plot centered on an attempt to get a bomb into an assailant’s underwear, like the bomb that failed to detonate on a Christmas Day 2009 flight to Detroit.

The news service was prepared to publish its scoop on May 2, 2012. But in discussions with government officials, the CIA stressed to AP that publishing anything about the operation to obtain the bomb and thwart the plot would create grave national security dangers and compromise a “sensitive intelligence operation.”

Michael J. Morell, the CIA’s deputy director, gave AP reporters some additional background information to persuade them to hold off, Vietor said. The agency needed several days more to protect what it had in the works.

Then, in a meeting on Monday, May 7, CIA officials reported that the national security concerns were “no longer an issue,” according to the individuals familiar with the discussion.

When the journalists rejected a plea to hold off longer, the CIA then offered a compromise. Would they wait a day if AP could have the story exclusively for an hour, with no government officials confirming it for that time?

The reporters left the meeting to discuss the idea with their editors. Within an hour, an administration official was on the line to AP’s offices.

The White House had quashed the one-hour offer as impossible. AP could have the story exclusively for five minutes before the White House made its own announcement. AP then rejected the request to postpone publication any longer.

An AP spokeswoman declined to discuss details of the meeting, AP discussions with government sources or the agencies to which the reporters spoke.

“As we told Reuters a year ago, at no point did AP offer or propose a deal in relation to this story,” said spokeswoman Erin Madigan White. “We did not publish anything until we were assured by high-ranking officials with direct knowledge of the situation, in more than one part of the government, that the national security risk was over and no one was in danger. The only deal was to hold the story until any security risk was resolved.”

Vietor said that it would be a mistake to dismiss the unauthorized disclosure because al-Qaeda failed to carry out its plot.

“We shouldn’t pretend that this leak of an unbelievably sensitive dangerous piece of information is okay because nobody died,” he said.

[AURaptor 1,137]

oops......

http://abcnews.go.co...th-care-office/

The Internal Revenue Service official in charge of the tax-exempt organizations at the time when the unit targeted tea party groups now runs the IRS office responsible for the health care legislation.

Sarah Hall Ingram served as commissioner of the office responsible for tax-exempt organizations between 2009 and 2012. But Ingram has since left that part of the IRS and is now the director of the IRS’ Affordable Care Act office, the IRS confirmed to ABC News today.

Her successor, Joseph Grant, is taking the fall for misdeeds at the scandal-plagued unit between 2010 and 2012. During at least part of that time, Grant served as deputy commissioner of the tax-exempt unit.

Grant announced todaythat he would retire June 3, despite being appointed as commissioner of the tax-exempt office May 8, a week ago.

Much ado about nothing.... Tea Party folks can't STAND Obama, because he's black.

Yep. White folks must rule! Or so say Chris Matthews.

" Admitted racist ", claims Julian Bond.

Yep...that's all this stuff is about... Barry being colored, and nothing else.

( And btw - " Ms Ingram " ? Dude looks like a lady )

[AURaptor 1,137]

Pretty reasonable assessment-- which explains the response it's getting here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8i5i0jxIWYw

[homersapien 12,329]

Overall narrative? The Obama presidency has been like this from day one. He takes no responsibility for anything and goes out of his way to remain detached from any and all decisions. His best line...."I didn't know anything about this until I heard it on the news"

He's the perfect leader for his party.

There was a discussion about this today on the PBS News Hour.

No matter what you do as POTUS, there will be scandals in the government. It simply comes with the territory, The best you can do is get all the information you can out there asap. But at the same time, you can't make statements or take actions before you know the facts.

In no way has the Obama presidency been extraordinary "prolific" in terms of scandals compared to previous presidents, In fact, just the opposite.

[homersapien 12,329]

Time will tell. I am betting that this will fizzle once the actual facts are known and the political hysteria dies down. I could be wrong.

Meanwhile, I am not interested in trying to dissect hyperbolic rhetoric which is basically all I am hearing.

Second IRS official resigns after scandal

Still want to play the part of the 'bitter clinger', and claim this is much ado about nothing ?

First, I never said it was much ado about "nothing". I said we don't yet have the facts of what happened.

For all I - and you - know, this guy was another sacrificial lamb offered up on the alter of politics. Like I said, the law in this area is very "fuzzy". That naturally creates a situation where officials may overstep the line, partly because they may not know where the line is.

Again, my point is that I know very little about the critical facts of what happened. The resignation of this guy may be indicative of something, but his resignation per se', is not a critical fact.

And that's a fact.

[homersapien 12,329]

Okay, i'll play.

The Bogus IRS "Investigation of the Conservative Movements" is just too many holes to cover.

1) The harassment was one sided on a something like 500/a few dozen scale.

What was the ratio of new "Conservative" applications to new "Liberal" applications?

2) The harassment started in Spring of 2010 folks. There wasnt even a reason to be harassing the Tea Party at that point UNLESS YOU TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE VERY EMBARRASSING ELECTION OF SCOTT BROWN January 19, 2010. Then it starts to make more sense.

Can you give me an explicit example of what you are describing as "harrassment"?

The rest is pure speculation (aka "invention")

3) The Woman in charge of the IRS at the time is still employed there and is leading the ACA Tax Wing of the IRS.

What's your point?

4) The harassment started back in the Spring of 2010. The IRS leadership knew about it sometime in 2011.

They allowed the harrasment to go on thru 2012. For something in reality approaching two years they knew about it and let it go on during the 2010 and the run up to the 2012 Election Cycle.

See above.

1) Please provide an example of this "harrasment".

2) Who exactly is "they" who knew about it.....

5) They did nothing worthy of merit in stopping this for well over a year that they knew about.

Again. Who exactly is "they"?

6) They blamed 2 people in the Cincy Office when in reality it turned out to be the DC Branch and two branches in CA and many people. So it covered from coast to coast. This Admin cannot bring itself to tell the truth.

Again. Who exactly is "they"?

I am just scratching the surface...

Not very effectively. :-\

[homersapien 12,329]

oops......

Care to explain the relevance of this to the discussion?

You folks are a hoot.

[homersapien 12,329]

Much ado about nothing.... Tea Party folks can't STAND Obama, because he's black.

Yep. White folks must rule! Or so say Chris Matthews.

" Admitted racist ", claims Julian Bond.

Yep...that's all this stuff is about... Barry being colored, and nothing else.

( And btw - " Ms Ingram " ? Dude looks like a lady )

Is that what passes for an argument in your world?

[homersapien 12,329]

Pretty reasonable assessment-- which explains the response it's getting here.

Geez. An emoticon passes for an argument in your world?

[AURaptor 1,137]

Much ado about nothing.... Tea Party folks can't STAND Obama, because he's black.

Yep. White folks must rule! Or so say Chris Matthews.

" Admitted racist ", claims Julian Bond.

Yep...that's all this stuff is about... Barry being colored, and nothing else.

( And btw - " Ms Ingram " ? Dude looks like a lady )

Is that what passes for an argument in your world?

This condition you have... of only seeing what you WANT to see... were you born that way, or did you develop this at some time in your life ?