|
Post by rustyshackleford on May 17, 2013 12:41:00 GMT -5
Read the thread before you reveal you're a partisan apologist who doesn't care about facts or about government abuses as long as its aimed at the right groups. Um, OK.... Get back to me when you follow a post I've made with something that makes sense. Ezra Klein weighs in. The scandals are falling apart Ezra Klein said they're falling apart! Never mind. Game over. He spends 3 paragraphs trying to diminish the IRS scandal without noting a single new report or piece of news since the IG report (and then claims the trendlines indicate that it isn't a scandal). That's evidence for you? Just from the reports that have came out (and that I cited above) in the last week it's clear the IG report is incomplete, flawed and flat out false and that there are issues ranging from leaks from the IRS of confidential information to a longer than 2 year period where senior officials didn't stop the targeting and knew about the issues yet didn't go public about it coming out. It seems like unless Klein doesn't see a direct link to President Obama (which some groups are stupidly overreaching on and trying to make w/sufficient evidence yet) he doesn't care - probably because he doesn't care who's being targeted because they're on the 'other' side. In the mean time he offers no substantive information except to accept the IG report at face value and say that whatever actions have been taken by a government that's clearly at least been incompetent are sufficient. The funny thing is that this means that Klein is even less inquisitive than notable Obama haters like Max Baucus, Elizabeth Warren and Jeanne Shaheen who have all called for an 'audit' of the IRS and notable conservative bastions in the house like Markey and McGovern who have said people need to be fired over this. You still also haven't addressed a single thing from my post above (the 8th post in response to bmartin which responded to the same claim you came here to make) which completely refuted the nonsensical ornstein talking points that you came to parrot blindly. LA DA Patrick Frey had a fairly good response to the main argument three posters have made in this thread about this not being a real scandal: the IRS itself has apologized and said that their targeting of conservatives was inappropriate. How much of a hack do you have to be to defend them after they admitted what they did was wrong? I'll give you partisans a hint (and this applies to conservatives who lets be honest - don't really give a Edited about for example the AP records that were demanded but still want to make hay of it) - read things by the 'other' side. I've read the Hiltzik and New Yorker pieces. Do yourself a favor and look over the rejoinders and reports from others sources and don't fall into the MSNBC/FOXNews trap.
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,392
|
Post by hoyainspirit on May 17, 2013 14:21:13 GMT -5
Benghazi is not BS, though I will concede that what they are focusing on in this current investigation is mostly BS.This is the sentiment I attempted to convey in my one sentence post. Benghazi was a very massive failure on many fronts and deserves a much more thorough investigation than what was performed by that review board who didn't even interview the Secretary of State. What is most troubling about Benghazi is how unprepared the government was for a potential attack in what is widely known as a terrorist and al Qaeda breeding ground. More than a decade after 9/11 and no one either (A) saw the danger or (B) listened to those who DID see the danger? For the most part, I agree. Mistakes? Yes. In keeping with the tenor of Ed's original post - Scandal? Not even close. Officials on Benghazi: "We made mistakes, but without malice"
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,392
|
Post by hoyainspirit on May 18, 2013 14:04:21 GMT -5
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on May 18, 2013 19:17:41 GMT -5
The administration repeatedly put out information it knew to be false about what triggered the attack in Benghazi. A lawyer in the crowd might say the president said immediately it was a terrorist act. True. But, for the next many days he and his spokespersons kept accenting the film as the cause, even personally at the UN. The administration was pulling out all stops to foster his reelection, even if it involved telling lies to the American people and the world, pulling illegal acts (like using the IRS) and violating the freedom of the press (see AP). I fail to see how any rational person does not see the totality of this as anything but a scandal.
More specifically on Benghazi, I can at least partially excuse providing better security beforehand and not providing military help during or immediately following the attack, but I cannot excuse the cover-up of the post-attack that continues to this day. For starters, how about the administration telling us precisely who made the decision not to enhance security at Benghazi; who specifically made the decision not to send military in to the battle; who was the decision-maker in striking terrorism references in the talking paper. Were the President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Homeland Security, Secretary of Defense and other top level persons involved in these decisions, even in a peripheral way? Not until we have names assigned to these will the cover-up start to disappear.
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on May 18, 2013 20:27:09 GMT -5
The administration repeatedly put out information it knew to be false about what triggered the attack in Benghazi. A lawyer in the crowd might say the president said immediately it was a terrorist act. True. But, for the next many days he and his spokespersons kept accenting the film as the cause, even personally at the UN. The administration was pulling out all stops to foster his reelection, even if it involved telling lies to the American people and the world, pulling illegal acts (like using the IRS) and violating the freedom of the press (see AP). I fail to see how any rational person does not see the totality of this as anything but a scandal. More specifically on Benghazi, I can at least partially excuse providing better security beforehand and not providing military help during or immediately following the attack, but I cannot excuse the cover-up of the post-attack that continues to this day. For starters, how about the administration telling us precisely who made the decision not to enhance security at Benghazi; who specifically made the decision not to send military in to the battle; who was the decision-maker in striking terrorism references in the talking paper. Were the President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Homeland Security, Secretary of Defense and other top level persons involved in these decisions, even in a peripheral way? Not until we have names assigned to these will the cover-up start to disappear. How did the AP investigation help his reelection campaign? By design, no one knew it was happening.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on May 19, 2013 12:19:42 GMT -5
Wow, this thread got pretty aggressive in some areas. IRS Scandal - If people within the IRS were breaking laws, they should be punished. I have yet to see why this is a huge scandal very different than the kinds of things that seem to go on in all levels in all parties. AP Wiretapping - I have a HUGE problem with this. I know these kinds of things have been going on more and more, and I would like the people involved to be held accountable to set a precedent that no president or party can continue to erode away at the constitution in this manner. Biggest potential problem out of these three that I see. Benghazi - Horrible incident. Still wondering why the talking points changing to some extent as the investigation develops is a huge deal. Did the confusion lead to a war? Did it lead to more attacks? Remember not too long ago we actually went to a war based on false information? Why am I supposed to be so up in arms about the talking points again? And there's the thing that I think a lot of conservatives don't get about the general 'eh' feeling of many Americans towards these scandals. It isn't a blame Bush attitude or a two wrongs don't make a right - it's the fact that these specific scandals are not as large or consequential as many scandals we've dealt with over the last 15 years that were pretty much just blown off by the right. If Benghazi is supposed to be this big a deal, the cognitive dissonance actually hurts my brain watching some of these people grandstand compared to the things they tried to minimize in the past. I don't like Obama because of many things he's done, but after all that's gone on in the last 15 years in America, I think like myself, a lot of people are having trouble seeing the outrage and scandal in some of these situations. Not to say they aren't wrong, but generally more par for the course. Doesn't make it okay, but let's not pretend like all of a sudden Republicans and Conservatives really give a crap about these things. That is what has people scratching their heads about this. Not saying it isn't wrong or it shouldn't be investigated and punished if need be, but that this is really what has you guys all outraged now? It's selective outrage, it's PURELY politically motivated, and hiding behind 'well wrong is wrong!' may be technically accurate, but doesn't really fit into the reality of what our political system has become. www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/02/dark-money-2012-election-400-million_n_2065689.html
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,392
|
Post by hoyainspirit on May 19, 2013 16:37:51 GMT -5
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on May 20, 2013 8:10:41 GMT -5
Awwww. I feel sorry for them already. Good job running cover by the Times, though.
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,392
|
Post by hoyainspirit on May 20, 2013 8:38:38 GMT -5
While clearly issues exist, most commentary I have heard or read indicates that this does not rise to the level of "scandal", at least as posited by the OP.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on May 20, 2013 19:07:29 GMT -5
While clearly issues exist, most commentary I have heard or read indicates that this does not rise to the level of "scandal", at least as posited by the OP. So.... * senior IRS officials knew about the IG investigation * the White House chief of staff knew about the IG investigation * the White House counsel knew about the IG investigation * apparently, the guy who runs the West Wing bagel cart knew about the investigation ...but no one bothered to brief the President about it, even once, and he "found out about it on the news." Ummm...the words "willful suspension of disbelief" come to mind. Some of you may not think this rises to the level of "scandal." But damn if the administration isn't doing their utmost to turn it into one.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Scandals
May 22, 2013 4:34:16 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Elvado on May 22, 2013 4:34:16 GMT -5
Lois Lerner is about to invoke the Fifth Amendment. That qualifies for me.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Scandals
May 22, 2013 4:34:38 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Elvado on May 22, 2013 4:34:38 GMT -5
Lois Lerner is about to invoke the Fifth Amendment. That qualifies for me.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on May 22, 2013 10:10:43 GMT -5
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,440
|
Post by TC on May 22, 2013 11:17:23 GMT -5
Let me see if I have this right - no one is mad that they subpoenad Rosen's emails. They are mad about the reasoning behind the subpoena, even though there are valid reasons to subpoena Rosen's records (evidence against Kim) and even though Rosen has not been charged with anything.
I don't know much about the AP story, but this seems like a lot of outrage over hypothetical threats to a free press (a reporter actually being charged as a co-conspirator) rather than an actual threat.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on May 22, 2013 12:24:45 GMT -5
Maybe Justice should also charge VP Biden as a co-conspirator (or worse) for disclosing Seal Team Six was the unit that got Ben Laden.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,440
|
Post by TC on May 22, 2013 12:58:11 GMT -5
Maybe Justice should also charge VP Biden as a co-conspirator (or worse) for disclosing Seal Team Six was the unit that got Ben Laden. I think that would be a burn if it made any sense whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by rustyshackleford on May 22, 2013 13:57:48 GMT -5
Wow, this thread got pretty aggressive in some areas. IRS Scandal - If people within the IRS were breaking laws, they should be punished. I have yet to see why this is a huge scandal very different than the kinds of things that seem to go on in all levels in all parties. AP Wiretapping - I have a HUGE problem with this. I know these kinds of things have been going on more and more, and I would like the people involved to be held accountable to set a precedent that no president or party can continue to erode away at the constitution in this manner. Biggest potential problem out of these three that I see. Benghazi - Horrible incident. Still wondering why the talking points changing to some extent as the investigation develops is a huge deal. Did the confusion lead to a war? Did it lead to more attacks? Remember not too long ago we actually went to a war based on false information? Why am I supposed to be so up in arms about the talking points again? And there's the thing that I think a lot of conservatives don't get about the general 'eh' feeling of many Americans towards these scandals. It isn't a blame Bush attitude or a two wrongs don't make a right - it's the fact that these specific scandals are not as large or consequential as many scandals we've dealt with over the last 15 years that were pretty much just blown off by the right. If Benghazi is supposed to be this big a deal, the cognitive dissonance actually hurts my brain watching some of these people grandstand compared to the things they tried to minimize in the past. I don't like Obama because of many things he's done, but after all that's gone on in the last 15 years in America, I think like myself, a lot of people are having trouble seeing the outrage and scandal in some of these situations. Not to say they aren't wrong, but generally more par for the course. Doesn't make it okay, but let's not pretend like all of a sudden Republicans and Conservatives really give a crap about these things. That is what has people scratching their heads about this. Not saying it isn't wrong or it shouldn't be investigated and punished if need be, but that this is really what has you guys all outraged now? It's selective outrage, it's PURELY politically motivated, and hiding behind 'well wrong is wrong!' may be technically accurate, but doesn't really fit into the reality of what our political system has become. www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/02/dark-money-2012-election-400-million_n_2065689.htmlI actually think the wiretapping is the least worrisome of all of these though I haven't read the Rosen stuff (I think Benghazi is stalled unless there are more whistleblowers who emerge to charge that the state dept was ignoring facts on the ground/recommendations in favor of a narrative/philosophy they preferred - which isn't a scandal as much as awful awful leadership that should punished) but civil libertarians and the press are understandably upset about the overreach. It doesn't seem like there is debate that the investigation of the leak is legitimate as much as how broad the leak was. That said the facts behind the leak are pretty complicated and I can see some justification for such broad investigations - Jeralyn Merritt does a great job laying it out here: AP leak investigation (Merritt is a criminal defense attorney who is naturally inclined to oppose the govt in these cases but does a fair job on the description before her opinion). I think this 'but Bush did it'/'you're being hypocrites' is the new party line argument that is getting trotted out. First it was that these scandals aren't scandals or President Obama's opinion numbers haven't gone down - now after a meeting with the president even ardent defenders like Klein/Marshall (who are likely taking orders from the President like Savage etc did with Bush Klein, Marshall etc meeting with the white house) are calling for the heads of people who are decidedly not 'low level employees': Klein going from 'scandals are falling apart' to 'heads should roll' and 'She has to go' by MarshallThe IRS isn't providing documents that congress has requested, it turns out the white house counsel knew about this since last spring and at this point the white house has changed its story enough times that it's impossible to dismiss this as not a scandal at this point. White House Consel Informed The extent of how far up it reached is the issue. And we still have no idea who leaked information on some of these groups to folks like ProPublica - acts that are clearly illegal and politically motivated. That by itself should make everybody concerned about it. Attacking the consistency of those who are pursuing it most fervently is a deflection that is clearly just another political ploy. Of course conservatives didn't attack Bush as much during his scandals. At the same time liberals were up in arms over the guy w/impeachment/worst president ever narratives springing up everywhere. Congratulations - both political parties are filled with hypocrites who lack integrity (with some notable exceptions - people like glenn greenwald or orin kerr have displayed admirable integrity) and tend to best check the power of the other party - but leveling the charge of hypocrite now when there is likely an important scandal doesn't make one any better than those hypocrites and is not a valid defense to finding a scandal disturbing. In any event, wasn't President Obama's administration supposed to be better than Bush? Didn't Bush deservedly end up with approval ratings in the 30's partially because his administration/policy had so many issues? Considering this administration's defenders have offered a host of narratives that have been knocked down and that have been clearly the types of arguments that demonstrated a total disregard over the extent of IRS scandal at the expense of protecting their political allies it's hard to take in good faith from those people that 'these scandals are not as bad' when it's more likely they don't give a damn about the extent of the scandals. Considering that the administration can't get its story www.nationaljournal.com/politics/why-you-can-t-trust-the-white-house-even-if-nobody-s-lying-20130521 even the most ardent partisans should set aside their political tendencies and stop reflexively defending. Either way - I'm done for a little while until there are more new and significant stories out on these issues.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,440
|
Post by TC on May 22, 2013 14:11:09 GMT -5
Let me get this straight - Ezra Klein and Josh Marshall are taking orders from the President, and those orders are to demand a pound of flesh from the IRS? Did EasyEd sign up another account? I'm also not sure how Marshall or Klein's takes have changed whatsoever. Klein's "Scandals Are Falling Apart" part about the IRS was about how the Determinations Unit started giving Tea Party groups extra scrutiny, were told to knock it off, and then started doing it again, and there but absolutely no evidence that the West Wing was involved. How's that in any way different from what he wrote in "Heads Should Roll", other than a different title is used? And Marshall has been pretty consistent in his coverage of the IRS thing, and has been the most interested of anyone I've read in the planted question angle. Arguing that their reporting focus has changed based on titles of articles is like arguing that Bon Jovi has gone more towards metal as they aged because "Crush and Bounce" is more of an edgy title than "Bon Jovi" or "New Jersey".
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on May 22, 2013 15:02:00 GMT -5
TC, just when I thought I couldn't hold you in any more contempt than I already do (what with your theories about ketchup and all), you had to go and bring Bon Jovi into the discussion.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,440
|
Post by TC on May 22, 2013 15:53:11 GMT -5
Point taken. Better comparison : It's like saying that Game of Thrones has become more family friendly because the last episode was "Second Sons".
|
|