We seem to be awash in political scandal. To be a bit more accurate, the administration seems to be awash in political scandal. Which, of course, means we who watch the news and read the news will be subjected to a constant drumbeat of facts and non-facts, players and non-players, and pundits pontificating on what it all means.
Let me list the current scandals:
1. The Benghazi attack of 9-11-2012
2. The Seizure of phone records for a number of journalists and staffers at AP (associated Press) plus a few at Foxnews.
3. IRS targeting conservative groups applying for 501(c) status, making unnecessary demands and delaying approval up to two years or more.
How important are these scandals? Very important... if you are directly impacted, and very important if you think the Constitution is the law of the land.
The administration is saying this is all political fluff foisted on the country by the GOP.
Really? If these things had not happened there would be no scandals and the GOP could not foist them on anyone.
Yesterday, the president wanted to take credit for revising rules on drone strikes. Admirable... until you realize that only the president can authorize these strikes that he wants to revise the rules for. In other words, he wants people to appreciate that he is creating new rules to restrain himself. To me, that's quite a bit of chutzpah. He kills some Americans on foreign soil, gets criticized for it, and then creates some possibly non-binding rules which he promises to follow in the future.
At the same time, he is maintaining he knew nothing about the Benghazi attacks and had no hand in massaging facts or editing the talking points Susan Rice repeated on 5 Sunday political-oriented talk shows. He is also maintaining he knew nothing about the other political scandals and only learned about them when he saw them in the newspapers.
Where does that buck stop? Was Truman completely wrong about it?
2 comments:
I certainly agree that the three scandals you bring up are bad, but I believe Obama is forging a reasonable path on the drones. They are a formidable if dangerous weapon, and need to be used judiciously, and as with any new technology rules have to be created and then adjusted as we go along.
I know you're no fan of Obama (just for the record, I like him, although as you've pointed out, and unlike many of his followers, I do not think he's perfect). But, remember, Douglas, he's a golfer, so he can't be all bad!
Which brings me to my question: As an expert (a man who shot five birdies in one round ... that's an expert in my book!), what did you make of Sergio Garcia's "Fried chicken" remark about Tiger Woods?
Tom, you do realize it was Obama who created the "kill list" and began targeting individuals, don't you? Prior to that, the targets were physical locations. So, basically, Obama is saying "What I have been doing is bad and I am instituting rules to restrain my own behavior." Essentially expecting praise for finding a way of stopping his own offensive acts.
Many presidents have been golfers. So was Bush. Good? Bad? Irrelevant?
As for Sergio, I can only say "Open mouth, insert one foot and then another." Some people do not know when to refrain from comment.
Post a Comment