Much is being shouted in Scandal Land. But much has also been lost down the memory hole.
To refresh our memories while the Scandal Land Follies are being played out, and to bring some proportion to the hysteria that is being manufactured by the opposition, I'm posting the following (with links):
"The one dismal benefit of this particular NotSufficientlyTaxExemptGate pseudocrisis may be that, as with all screw ups or distortions or outright abuses of government power, it's only discovered to be Very Very Bad when a conservative somewhere finds themselves on the receiving end of it.
Under the last administration, protesting against the Iraq War got you put on an actual Pentagon list of possible terrorist threats, and nobody from the other side of the aisle gave a flying f--k. Quakers got put on that one. Effing Quakers.
The uncanny nature by which the Terror Alert Level got itself raised before important elections or other politically helpful dates didn't result in outrage even after one of the architects of the Rainbow of Terror admitted that yes, he was pressured to do exactly that.
And yes, as others have pointed out, one of the vanishingly few times the IRS ever investigated a church for possible violations of their nonpartisan, nonprofit status it was for an anti-war sermon, during the Bush administration, two days before the election that won Bush a second term. That wasn't a scandal either. During the same year the IRS launched an investigation of the NAACP for opposing Bush's reelection.
No Republicans were calling for Bush to resign over that particular outrage.
The Fast and Furious program, long been peddled by current Republicans as the worstest scandal to hit anything anywhere until the next worstest scandal, started under Bush.
Nobody gives a damn.
During the Bush administration, there were 13 terror attacks on U.S. diplomatic compounds (not including Iraq or Afghanistan), killing 98.
You couldn't find a Republican lawmaker then who could even tell you what the talking points for a particular bombing or rocket attack or armed assault were at the time, much less one who decided that the real scandal was whether administration officials classified the attack as a "terrorist attack" or an "act of terror" in the days afterwards, and what might that difference mean?
What's this? In trying to track down illegal leaks of classified information, the Department of Justice obtained reporter phone records? Yeah, that's nasty. And it's funny how that kept happening; under the Bush administration, the FBI did it to the New York Times. It was under the Bush administration, in fact, that we decided government could obtain all phone records, nationwide, and no longer even needed a reason for doing it, and if they had done it illegally—oops!—then we passed a damn law making it legal after-the-fact and immunizing all the people who did it.
That's how much of a non-scandal it turned out to be. We were so damn helpful that we passed laws allowing government to break laws.
What about the very Department of Justice itself being politicized—being intentionally populated with members of a single ideology while removing less stalwartly ideological members? That happened.
That was a damn fine example of, in McConnell's parlance, an administration using the powers of government to "squelch" their ideological opponents. It was almost a true scandal, even, given how overt it was and how close the architects were to the White House itself. Almost, anyway, but you'd be surprised at how quickly we can get over these things."
Down the memory hole!
Glad to be able to remind people who are apoplectic over these "scandals" what REALLY GOOD scandals look like.
And I'm glad to remind everyone of how this is more partisan than it is "scandal." More attempts at throwing more doo-doo at the president, hoping it will stick.
Instead of waiting for all the facts to come out, the rightwing noise machine had indicted and impeached the president.
This has never been about getting to the truth in the Benghazi tragedy, the IRS bungling, or the DoJ leak tracking.
This is and always has been about "getting Obumma."
19 comments:
The Patriot Act passed by a huge bipartisan majority -- if I recall correctly.
I know that some political conservatives were issuing warnings about the scope of the Patriot Act. But America as a whole tossed caution aside in the interests of national security and personal safety.
No Republicans were calling for Bush to resign...
Of course not! It is rare for members of the same political party to turn on each other.
Are any Democrats now calling for Obama's impeachment? Censure?
During the Bush administration, there were 13 terror attacks on U.S. diplomatic compounds (not including Iraq or Afghanistan), killing 98.
Yes, but no ambassadors killed. Furthermore, the blame wasn't cast onto someone who had nothing to do with the attacks (as far as I know, anyway).
Possibly of interest from CBS News and shouldn't get your hackles up even though the title is "Evidence emerges that Obama administration official knew of IRS targeting during 2012 campaign."
Still, that one sentence needs to be noted: It's the first evidence that someone within the Obama administration knew about the practice during the presidential campaign.
Who is that someone or those somebodies?
Obama's biggest fans abandoning ship?
Now, I don't put much trust into that particular web site. However, I have verified some of the stories reported in that essay.
Before I piss you off, Shaw, let me explain something about myself....
I've been down a particular road too many times. That road is rushing to the defense of somebody that I believed in -- usually a political somebody, that is-- only to discover that these people were actually weasels (all along and I didn't see it, or became weasels once in power) or incompetents.
In fact, I've been down that same road with colleagues, too -- most recently last week. I got burned. Again! I'm looking for a rock to live under -- I'm that frustrated. Wiser, though. I suppose.
I try to believe in people. I really do. I've always done so. However, I'm learning that people have flaws. ALL people! I should have known that before now, but I guess that I was wearing rose-colored glasses.
So, Shaw, I understand why you defend Obama. You voted for him. You defend him now. That's fine, and, unlike others, I'm not angry at you for doing so. But remember that disillusionment can happen -- and, sadly, usually does.
Τhanks for finаllу writing about > "SOME THINGS THAT NEED TO BE REPORTED" < Loved it!
my homepage hеrbаl
highs forum
The Right is outraged. Why now? What's different about the guy in the White House this time?
Many liberals were warning us about Obama when as senator when he approved of Bush's FISA Amendment allowing warrantless surveillance of Americans. I was one of them.
Many liberals are angry at the Justice Dept for its violations against the free press.
Not enough liberals, mind you. Partisanship is blinding on both sides.
However...contrast this with the utter lack of concern from the Right when Bush/Cheney committed their assaults on the Bill of Rights.
This is the difference between the left and right. Republicans crow loudly about "principles" but they're nowhere to be seen when they are in power.
The rule is, and forever shall be, "It's OK if you're a Republican".
AOW, I do understand what you've said.
It is difficult to see the warts on those whom we have put our trust in.
But let me ask a question. You certainly know of Reagan's Iran-Contra scandal, but, if I believe that did not shake your trust or admiration for Mr. Reagan.
And the Iran-Contra scandal is certainly on the list of large presidential scandals:
"Reagan, Vice President Bush, and William J. Casey (former director of the CIA, who died in May, 1987), were implicated in some testimony, but the extent of their involvement remained unclear. North said he believed Reagan was largely aware of the secret arrangement, and the independent prosecutor's report (1994) said that Reagan and Bush had some knowledge of the affair or its coverup. Reagan and Bush both claimed to have been uninformed about the details of the affair, and no evidence was found to link them to any crime. A presidential commission was critical of the NSC, while congressional hearings uncovered a web of official deception, mismanagement, and illegality.
A number of criminal convictions resulted, including those of McFarlane, North, and Poindexter, but North's and Poindexter's were vacated on appeal because of immunity agreements with the Senate concerning their testimony. Former State Dept. and CIA officials pleaded guilty in 1991 to withholding information about the contra aid from Congress, and Caspar Weinberger, defense secretary under Reagan, was charged (1992) with the same offense. In 1992 then-president Bush pardoned Weinberger and other officials who had been indicted or convicted for withholding information on or obstructing investigation of the affair. The Iran-contra affair raised serious questions about the nature and scope of congressional oversight of foreign affairs and the limits of the executive branch."
SOURCE
According to Reagan's own testimony on the Iran-Contra scandal, he didn't know what was going on.
When Mr. Obama said he didn't learn of what the IRS did, people called that either naive or incompetent.
What do you call what Reagan said (that he was unaware of it) when he learned about Iran-Contra?
I have a feeling your admiration for Mr. Reagan is not diminished.
In fact, for many Republicans, he's a nostalgic hero, Iran-Contra, the killing of 240+ marines in Lebanon, and all.
We still don't know all the facts in the IRS case. From what I've read, the actions appear to have come about because of bureaucratic incompetence and overreaching.
I still don't believe the president gave the order to do what has been reported.
Shaw,
At the time of Reagan's Iran-Contra scandal, I wasn't much interested in politics. My interest in politics arose on 9/11.
Now and only within the past two years, I do happen to know who engineered the Iran-Contra deal. See THIS.
Google search "john carbaugh + iran contra" -- without the quotation marks. Few even know the name "John Carbaugh," but he was a big player for quite a period of time. Various of Mr. Carbaugh's obituaries also have information about his influence that so few of us "commoners" ever knew about. Robert Novak also wrote extensively about John Carbaugh.
So, now you know what I say that politics is full of snakiness. I suspect that such has always been the case, and that we the electorate don't know what we don't know.
Shaw,
Now it is my turn to ask you a question....
See THIS, specifically this portion:
“If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re going to punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,’ if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it’s going to be harder and that’s why I think it’s so important that people focus on voting on November 2.”
Do you approve of such partisan "warfare"?
AOW, that quote is what politics is about. And it has been as rough as that, even rougher, since John Adams' presidency. Worse, then, I think.
To "punish" one's "enemies" in politics is to vote him or her out of office. To "reward our friends" in politics is to for vote him or her. Politics is awash in war metaphors. Politicians always promise to "fight" for his/her constituents' best interests.
Certainly the opposition engages in this sort of political talk and even action. George Bush, remember, had his Karl Rove, who was a master at dirty tricks, as was Lee Atwater in GHWB's administration. Dirty tricks also set tone. And IMO, that is worse than promising to "punish our enemies" by not voting for one's political opponents.
Isn't that the kind of culture that gave us this IRS debacl?
Shaw,
Politics is awash in war metaphors.
Indeed.
And the overall effect has been less unity in our nation, too.
There is something Kafkaesque about the FBI putting Quakers on
a Watch List, while the NRA assures the rights of known terrorists to purchase firearms.
BB,
"while the NRA assures the rights of known terrorists to purchase firearms." What?
Shaw you always divert matters away from the current office holder to someone in the past that happens to be a republican. Doesn't it bother you at all that the incompetents appointments know nothing. The attorney general knows nothing about what is going on, the former Sec State knew nothing about what was going on and the leader finds out about an IRS scandal from the news. He is a great campaigner but has proven to have no leadership skills.
Like joe biden said, the presidency is not for OJT. First and only thing JB said that was correct.
Chick-fil-A continues to be the fast-food of choice for gay marriage haters.
The latest indication: An advertisement in a Dayton, Ohio newspaper offering $25 Chick-fil-A gift cards to every married, heterosexual couple that attended a May 19 event honoring "biblical marriage."
But their not anti gay, KP.
skudrunner,
Were you as outraged when Ronald Reagan told the American people HE didn't know what was going on in the Iran-Contra scandal? Please let me know.
Also, you must be the most naive person in the country if you actually think the POTUS has first-hand knowledge of what bureaucrats in some obscure IRS office in Ohio are doing.
He doesn't. No president does.
Out of the 700 targeted organizations on the IRS watch list, 30 were Tea Party organizations. And many were Democratic organizations.
You conveniently ignore this.
We should all be outraged at ANY snooping by the IRS under ANY president.
And don't kid yourself.
Snooping and intimidation was done during Republican administrations.
So far, there is no proof that Mr. Obama initiated any of this.
skudrunner, it's not diverting to what happened in the past; it's showing how hypocritical the right is when it comes to promoting scandals.
Reagan's Iran-Contra scandals were horrendous, and yet many, many Republicans and Independents still worship his memory. Oh, and did I mention the 240 dead marines in Lebanon and Reagan's PROMISE to not leave, and then he left 6 weeks later?
But people still love and admire the guy!
Shaw,
Off topic, but I wanted you to see this because we had a discussion about climate change not long ago.
"Also, you must be the most naive person in the country if you actually think the POTUS has first-hand knowledge of what bureaucrats in some obscure IRS office in Ohio are doing."
No, BHO having firsthand knowledge of anything would shock me. BTW, it is not defined by some small office in Ohio but seems to be stretching back to DC.
I guess in your world his admit to nothing, blame others and attack while doing nothing is fine. Oh well at least the MSM is behind you all the way.
Post a Comment