[kenberg]

 Flem72, on 2013-May-16, 09:47, said:

So, just politics. I take it you don't care to attempt to place this in the continuum of situations from just politics to something more? Anything from 'geez, we can't let Libya look bad, it's our baby' to high crimes and misdemeanors?

I'm not saying I know, I'm just curious that there is so little interest, in the general public, in answering the question: If this is a conscious effort to (shall we say) distort the facts for political ends, and if that effort motivated or delayed beyond effectiveness the decision to forego deployment of available support forces, how do we characterize those actions?

I will content myself with a small point. I didn't say "just politics". I think a fair reading of my comments would be that I think it likely and regrettable that politics played a role in the initial presentation to the public, and I think it is likely and regrettable that politics is playing a role in the current confrontations. Obama presented an opportunity for political attack by making political decisions about how to present the facts. And, for that matter, the non-facts.

I do not claim that it is "just politics", but I greatly regret that so much of it is politics.

I recall at a bridge table where one partner had, I suppose it is true, made an error. Her partner went on and on and on. Eventually she announced that she would agree to kill herself tomorrow, but now she wanted to go on to the next hand. That's pretty much my view here. Dedicated Obama supporters will claim that he was perfect, here as elsewhere, but I don't think all that highly of him, here or elsewhere. But after everyone has his/her say about what a rat he is, I want us to move on. As I get it, talking about the YouTube video was crummy judgment unjustified by any evidence, motivated solely by politics. That's really crummy. Next hand.

[billw55]

 Flem72, on 2013-May-16, 13:31, said:

I may have forgotten, but I believe the evidence was that Haldeman and Erlichman ordered it, but Nixon went down for orchestrating the coverup.

That part was also criminal

But anyway, I don't absolve him of the order either. He was their boss, ordered the "investigation" if not the specific act, and failed to give them the proper constraints. More likely, he told them to do whatever was necessary.

[Flem72]

 billw55, on 2013-May-16, 14:05, said:

That part was also criminal

But anyway, I don't absolve him of the order either. He was their boss, ordered the "investigation" if not the specific act, and failed to give them the proper constraints. More likely, he told them to do whatever was necessary.

I trust you would apply the same standard to Hilary or BHO?

[kenberg]

These historical analogies have some use I suppose, but I think not all that much. During the Nixon years his supporters frequently spoke. although usually vaguely, of much worse things done by Lyndon Johson. Probably they had a point, for example the Tonkin Gulf Resolution did not give an exactly accurate description of events. And Nixon's Veep, the former governor of Maryland, had to resign after reciving brown bags full of money. He explained, as I recall, that he was not nearly as crooked as other Maryland politicians. A later governor, Marvin Mandel, went to jail for a while so Spiro may have had a point also.

Me, I think each case is sufficiently different from others to be judged on its own merits. or lack thereof.

[PassedOut]

Actually, I was surprised to see a poll about Benghazi, a non-issue, instead of about the IRS audits or about the AP snooping, both of which are real issues.

[kenberg]

I think that David Ignatius agrees with you. From his column today:

Quote

The principal activity of the federal government these days is investigating itself. No panel is bipartisan and independent enough to escape the charge that it is covering something up. This accusation has been leveled against the review panel on Benghazi headed by Tom Pickering, former undersecretary of state, and Adm. Mike Mullen, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Good grief, if these two are part of a conspiracy, I’m moving to Moscow.

[billw55]

 Flem72, on 2013-May-16, 14:14, said:

I trust you would apply the same standard to Hilary or BHO?

Certainly.

By the way, not 100% sure what BHO means, from context it seems to mean Barack Hussein Obama, but I have been wrong about such things before.

[ArtK78]

Clearly, the IRS scandal is the President's fault. After all, he spends part of his day every day at the Covington, Kentucky office of the IRS where tax exempt applications are submitted and processed. I wouldn't be surprised if he personally reviewed each and every one of these applications looking for indications of right-wing organizations seeking to gain an advantage in fundraising by avoiding federal income tax for their organizations. I know, in my practice, I submit applications for tax-exempt status for non profits. Not a day goes by when I don't get a call from the President personally asking questions about these submissions.

And, of course, the President spends part of his day looking through e-mails and listening in on phone conversations to find out how the Bengazi information leaked out to the public.

It is surprising that he has any time left to push for gun control legislation, immigration reform and other programs he is trying to get through Congress.

Really, does anyone believe that the President was responsible for either of these issues? Obviously, I am being facetious when I suggest that he would do any of these things personally, but the idea that he would spend 5 seconds of his time worrying about either politically active tax exempt organizations or reporters performing their craft just boggles my mind. He has a lot of bigger fish to fry.

[y66]

 ArtK78, on 2013-May-17, 06:44, said:

It is surprising that he has any time left to push for gun control legislation, immigration reform and other programs he is trying to get through Congress.

This is the point of course. The only thing that surprises me is how effective these tactics are at grabbing media attention out of proportion to their importance. We should start calling these guys Nero-cons.

[hrothgar]

In highly amusing development, it turns out that the versions of the emails that were leaked last week had been selectively edited by the Republicans...

[PassedOut]

 ArtK78, on 2013-May-17, 06:44, said:

Clearly, the IRS scandal is the President's fault. After all, he spends part of his day every day at the Covington, Kentucky office of the IRS where tax exempt applications are submitted and processed. I wouldn't be surprised if he personally reviewed each and every one of these applications looking for indications of right-wing organizations seeking to gain an advantage in fundraising by avoiding federal income tax for their organizations. I know, in my practice, I submit applications for tax-exempt status for non profits. Not a day goes by when I don't get a call from the President personally asking questions about these submissions.

And, of course, the President spends part of his day looking through e-mails and listening in on phone conversations to find out how the Bengazi information leaked out to the public.

It is surprising that he has any time left to push for gun control legislation, immigration reform and other programs he is trying to get through Congress.

Really, does anyone believe that the President was responsible for either of these issues? Obviously, I am being facetious when I suggest that he would do any of these things personally, but the idea that he would spend 5 seconds of his time worrying about either politically active tax exempt organizations or reporters performing their craft just boggles my mind. He has a lot of bigger fish to fry.

Wrong-doing by the government is an issue even when the president is not personally involved. The purpose of the GAO is to unmask situations that would otherwise go unnoticed by the president and his administration. When such situations are unmasked, the president does have the responsibility to correct them and to see that those who've acted illegally face prosecution.

[PassedOut]

 hrothgar, on 2013-May-17, 07:31, said:

In highly amusing development, it turns out that the versions of the emails that were leaked last week had been selectively edited by the Republicans...

Yes, they were "revised" to make them appear damaging.

[ArtK78]

 PassedOut, on 2013-May-17, 07:37, said:

Wrong-doing by the government is an issue even when the president is not personally involved. The purpose of the GAO is to unmask situations that would otherwise go unnoticed by the president and his administration. When such situations are unmasked, the president does have the responsibility to correct them and to see that those who've acted illegally face prosecution.

No doubt. But that is not what you hear from the loyal opposition. If you listen to the rantings of the Republicans and their proxies at Fox News, you would believe that each of these scandals has the President's fingerprints all over them.

And it is clear that the President is addressing the issues, as is his responsibility. But I am sure that anything short of resignation would not satisfy the right (well, maybe a beheading or two would go a long way).

By the way, I like your comment "Wrong-doing by the government is an issue even when the president is not personally involved." Has it come to the point where only the President can commit a wrongful act under the guise of governmental authority? Of course not. Government is quite large, and there are an uncountable number of actions taken by government workers from the mailroom assistant in the Podunk office of the Farm Credit Bureau up to and including the President. Sometimes, someone gets an idea that they should do something, no matter how minor, that is just wrong. And such decisions can affect the lives of citizens. That doesn't make it an impeachable offense. But an offense it is.

I deal with IRS agents and other governmental officials (federal, state, county, local) all the time. There are times when some of them take unreasonable positions. This, in an of itself, is not actionable. But there are times when the actions of a government employee can cross a line between unreasonable and unlawful. That is what is being discussed in the IRS probe.

And, quite frankly, I don't find it unreasonable to scrutinize the tax-exempt applications of political groups more closely than the usual tax-exempt applications from private foundations for cancer research and the like. But such scrutiny crosses the line when the applications from only one side of the political arena are subject to added scrutiny.

[Flem72]

 PassedOut, on 2013-May-17, 07:40, said:

Yes, they were "revised" to make them appear damaging.

Searched, but can't find. Can you provide sourcing?

[hrothgar]

 Flem72, on 2013-May-17, 09:12, said:

Searched, but can't find. Can you provide sourcing?

http://talkingpoints...c.php?ref=fpblg

Talking Points Memo, quoting CBS News

[Winstonm]

 hrothgar, on 2013-May-17, 09:15, said:

http://talkingpoints...c.php?ref=fpblg

Talking Points Memo, quoting CBS News

Fair and balanced as one might expect.

[Flem72]

Quote

In highly amusing development, it turns out that the versions of the emails that were leaked last week had been selectively edited by the Republicans...

 PassedOut, on 2013-May-17, 07:40, said:

Yes, they were "revised" to make them appear damaging.

In a highly amusing development, it turns out that -- once again -- the assertions do not match the facts:

http://www.politico....ted-163979.html

Guys (not gender-specific): Can we be a bit more circumspect with the conclusions?

Seque to: my favorite news rant. In the 50s and 60s, Douglas Edwards and the early Cronkite would say something like "Reports have reached CBS news today that an unidentified senator has screwed the pooch. More information when it becomes available." Today, the same source info would be rendered: "Sen. So-and-so, WHO SOURCES SAY IS A REPUBLICAN FROM SOME SOUTHERN, BIGOTED STATE, has committed bestiality, the dog has died horribly, and Speaker Boehner, discussing THE BIGOTED REPUBLICAN AGENDA FOR LESS SPENDING AND MORE TAX CUTS, apparently enthusiastically endorses this behavior, saying: "Americans cannot stand by and walk the dog on this issue."

Please?

[PassedOut]

 Flem72, on 2013-May-17, 09:14, said:

Searched, but can't find. Can you provide sourcing?

Surprised you didn't find it. Here's what I saw:

WH Benghazi emails have different quotes than earlier reported

Quote

Republicans on Capitol Hill claimed they found proof in White House emails that they leaked to reporters last week. It turns out some of the quotes were wrong.

Summaries are summaries. Quotes are quotes. If you can't make your case, leak a forgery. Ah, politics...

[Flem72]

 PassedOut, on 2013-May-17, 10:03, said:

Surprised you didn't find it. Here's what I saw:

WH Benghazi emails have different quotes than earlier reported


Summaries are summaries. Quotes are quotes. If you can't make your case, leak a forgery. Ah, politics...

Summaries are summaries. Quotes are quotes. If you can't make your case, call a summary a quote.

[PassedOut]

WH Benghazi emails have different quotes than earlier reported

Quote

On Friday, Republicans leaked what they said was a quote from Rhodes: "We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don't want to undermine the FBI investigation."

But it turns out that in the actual email, Rhodes did not mention the State Department.

It read: "We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation."

Honest people use quotes to convey that they are providing the exact wording of a statement. Summaries are not so presented. And summaries are not, by definition, longer than the original.