Which Scandal is the worse for the President & Country

[VectorVictor]

Hmmm...let me take a crack at this:

 

 

1. Libya: This one is probably the worst for the president and country; the President has to go on dealing with a Congress that helped to indirectly kill U.S. citizens (and his friends) in Benghazi by slashing their security budget (which led to the inadequacies experienced in securing the embassy). It's bad for the country because we have a bunch of self-aggrandizing morons who keep using their corpses, in a Weekend at Bernie's style manner, to stage a nauseating political circle-jerk, and a vocal minority think this is okay and worthwhile...all while completely ignoring the incompetence in the House that truly caused this problem in the first place.

 

2. IRS targeting conservative groups and individuals: This is the second worst headache for Obama, easily. Because the President has to explain to his Republican counterparts that there's a facet of government that did their jobs correctly and (perhaps too) well--something that the teabaggers can't comprehend. It's like trying explain to a 50 year old football fanatic that, no matter how great a job he does on the body paint, he's still going to look like a twit on Saturday because he's a 50 year old man that's shirtless at a football game. But he'll never understand your criticism because he is a fanatic, and being a fanatic supposedly gives him carte blanche do to whatever he feels is necessary to support his team.

 

Then again, if the groups that the IRS had been investigating did their job as effectively and correctly as the IRS did, then the 'baggers wouldn't have brought up this self-righteous butthurt in the first place. :-|

 

3. ObamaCare: This probably should tie with #2, because again, the President has to explain basic and intermediate math concepts to a bunch of people that reject math concepts out of hand based on their core 'belief systems'. This could easily be #1 if Obama has to explain the falling deficit projections for the next decade and the significant slowing of medical cost inflation in the marketplace since Obamacare was implemented to these same mathematically-challenged folks.

 

4. Justice Dept wire tapping of AP reporters' phones--considering it was a national security problem, used rules and exemptions drafted and approved during a Republican administration, was supposedly done out of concern for national security, and we've seen very little in terms of Republican butthurt over this. Likely a non-issue (like most of this list in the first place). Still don't think we know enough about this one, though.

 

 

 

 

Whew...these were some toughies, TGHusker. Thanks for putting this list together.

[StPaulHusker]

May not have been as much of a security threat as it was made out to be.

 

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/15/18280953-bomb-plot-briefing-may-undercut-dojs-case-for-ap-records-seizure?lite

 

[JJ Husker]

I think many of you are struggling with partisan issues and how people react to them. I have not claimed to be totally non-partisan or unbiased. And I can accept that others have their bias' as well. It is quite logical for a person like me, who leans to the right, to be more critical of the left/dems/liberals. I really don't have a problem understanding that or accepting that others may be more critical of the right/repubs/conservatives. That's how people are and that's how things work. However, the problem begins when people start defending their side and criticizing the other side for the exact same behavior or getting all up in arms when a conservative has not been critical enough of repubs. It may not be fair and in some cases it may be inconsistent but, it is not hypocritical to pick and choose what issues or events to complain about or ignore. To my knowledge, I have not defended republicans for similar offenses I have criticized the dems for. Also, I do not believe it is not an excuse for anything that has recently occurred under the Obama administration to say, "yeah but what about what Bush did". Anyway, that's how I look at it.

[StPaulHusker]

Hmmm...let me take a crack at this:

 

 

1. Libya: This one is probably the worst for the president and country; the President has to go on dealing with a Congress that helped to indirectly kill U.S. citizens (and his friends) in Benghazi by slashing their security budget (which led to the inadequacies experienced in securing the embassy). It's bad for the country because we have a bunch of self-aggrandizing morons who keep using their corpses, in a Weekend at Bernie's style manner, to stage a nauseating political circle-jerk, and a vocal minority think this is okay and worthwhile...all while completely ignoring the incompetence in the House that truly caused this problem in the first place.

 

2. IRS targeting conservative groups and individuals: This is the second worst headache for Obama, easily. Because the President has to explain to his Republican counterparts that there's a facet of government that did their jobs correctly and (perhaps too) well--something that the teabaggers can't comprehend. It's like trying explain to a 50 year old football fanatic that, no matter how great a job he does on the body paint, he's still going to look like a twit on Saturday because he's a 50 year old man that's shirtless at a football game. But he'll never understand your criticism because he is a fanatic, and being a fanatic supposedly gives him carte blanche do to whatever he feels is necessary to support his team.

 

Then again, if the groups that the IRS had been investigating did their job as effectively and correctly as the IRS did, then the 'baggers wouldn't have brought up this self-righteous butthurt in the first place. :-|

 

3. ObamaCare: This probably should tie with #2, because again, the President has to explain basic and intermediate math concepts to a bunch of people that reject math concepts out of hand based on their core 'belief systems'. This could easily be #1 if Obama has to explain the falling deficit projections for the next decade and the significant slowing of medical cost inflation in the marketplace since Obamacare was implemented to these same mathematically-challenged folks.

 

4. Justice Dept wire tapping of AP reporters' phones--considering it was a national security problem, used rules and exemptions drafted and approved during a Republican administration, was supposedly done out of concern for national security, and we've seen very little in terms of Republican butthurt over this. Likely a non-issue (like most of this list in the first place). Still don't think we know enough about this one, though.

 

 

 

 

Whew...these were some toughies, TGHusker. Thanks for putting this list together.

Just an FYI, we had to go back and re-state that it was not a wire tap but a seizure of phone records

[Junior]

I think many of you are struggling with partisan issues and how people react to them. I have not claimed to be totally non-partisan or unbiased. And I can accept that others have their bias' as well. It is quite logical for a person like me, who leans to the right, to be more critical of the left/dems/liberals. I really don't have a problem understanding that or accepting that others may be more critical of the right/repubs/conservatives. That's how people are and that's how things work. However, the problem begins when people start defending their side and criticizing the other side for the exact same behavior or getting all up in arms when a conservative has not been critical enough of repubs. It may not be fair and in some cases it may be inconsistent but, it is not hypocritical to pick and choose what issues or events to complain about or ignore. To my knowledge, I have not defended republicans for similar offenses I have criticized the dems for. Also, I do not believe it is not an excuse for anything that has recently occurred under the Obama administration to say, "yeah but what about what Bush did". Anyway, that's how I look at it.

 

No one says it is an excuse. But it's ridiculous for anyone to whine about the AP phone records when they didn't give a crap about Bush's wiretapping. I, for one, think both actions suck. Or for people who piss and moan about Benghazi, when there were 54 embassy attacks during Bush's presidency, and no one cared at all about them. I understand that it is human nature to be more critical of the other side of the aisle, that doesn't mean it is right or you should ignore your party's problems.

[NUance]

Worst to, er, least worst:

 

IRS targeting: This reeks of abuse of power. Heads should roll. But they probably won't.

Justice Dept wire tapping AP phones: I'm guessing this "scandal" is a bit overblown.

Libya: Just gov't incompetence. So what's new?

ObamaCare overruns: Scandal? I'd have a heart attack if this didn't happen. And for lack of treatment, I'd die.

[Someone]

May not have been as much of a security threat as it was made out to be.

 

http://openchannel.n...ds-seizure?lite

What was not a security threat the bomb or the bomb maker - who is believed to be the ultimate objective to the operation that the leak allowed the AP to blow?

 

The AP had the story and refused to not run it. They agreed to wait until the agent and the agent's family could be moved to a save location, which was 2 days.

 

Once the story broke, it was important to explain that the new underwear bomber was a double agent so there was little risk that his custom undies wear going to explode on a US plane.

 

British, Saudi and US intelligence were involved on the operation. Not only did the mission get terminated early but outside agencies might be less willing to risk their assets if the CIA can't keep the details out of the AP reporters hands.

[Someone]

"This was exactly the point of my post. What the hell does it matter what a ranking Republican has done?"

 

The DOJ was told to investigate and find the source of the leak regardless of the political cost. Dems asked for the same thing.

 

Bi-partisian support for finding the leaks.

 

DOJ is doing what the people have asked them to do. Period.

 

If you are going to get all worked up about the AP / DOJ issue, at least understand who told the DOJ to do it.

[StPaulHusker]

May not have been as much of a security threat as it was made out to be.

 

http://openchannel.n...ds-seizure?lite

What was not a security threat the bomb or the bomb maker - who is believed to be the ultimate objective to the operation that the leak allowed the AP to blow?

 

The AP had the story and refused to not run it. They agreed to wait until the agent and the agent's family could be moved to a save location, which was 2 days.

 

Once the story broke, it was important to explain that the new underwear bomber was a double agent so there was little risk that his custom undies wear going to explode on a US plane.

 

British, Saudi and US intelligence were involved on the operation. Not only did the mission get terminated early but outside agencies might be less willing to risk their assets if the CIA can't keep the details out of the AP reporters hands.

Threat to American security

[StPaulHusker]

"This was exactly the point of my post. What the hell does it matter what a ranking Republican has done?"

 

The DOJ was told to investigate and find the source of the leak regardless of the political cost. Dems asked for the same thing.

 

Bi-partisian support for finding the leaks.

 

DOJ is doing what the people have asked them to do. Period.

 

If you are going to get all worked up about the AP / DOJ issue, at least understand who told the DOJ to do it.

Was there bi-partisan support at the time to secretly obtain a subpoena to get the phone records? Or does it just go without saying that if they are asked to investigate that it is a blanket approval of potentially violating a persons 1st amendment rights?

[Saunders]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal

[Someone]

"This was exactly the point of my post. What the hell does it matter what a ranking Republican has done?"

 

The DOJ was told to investigate and find the source of the leak regardless of the political cost. Dems asked for the same thing.

 

Bi-partisian support for finding the leaks.

 

DOJ is doing what the people have asked them to do. Period.

 

If you are going to get all worked up about the AP / DOJ issue, at least understand who told the DOJ to do it.

Was there bi-partisan support at the time to secretly obtain a subpoena to get the phone records? Or does it just go without saying that if they are asked to investigate that it is a blanket approval of potentially violating a persons 1st amendment rights?

1. There is no violation of 1st Amendment Right. The courts have long noted that keeping your sources a secret isn't protected by the first ammendment.

 

2. A subpoena is the required LEGAL channel that the DOJ has to access this information.

 

3. We've go over all this before here.

 

4. All the details below are from May 17, 2012--a full 51 weeks before the news of the subpoena.

 

" members of Congress called on C.I.A. officials and other federal officials to investigate the source of the leak. At the time, Representative Peter T. King, a New York Republican who is the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said that the leak was particularly troubling because the plot was “one of the most tightly held operations I’ve seen in my years in the House.”

 

“Regardless of political consequences, I hope that you get to the bottom of it,” said Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa"

 

"The investigation continues an unprecedented focus by the Obama administration on targeting the sources of unauthorized disclosures of classified information to the news media. The administration has prosecuted six such cases, compared with a total of three under all previous presidents.

 

The prosecutions have had strong bipartisan support from Congress "

 

"American intelligence officials were angry about the disclosure of the Qaeda plot, first reported Monday by The Associated Press, which had held the story for several days at the request of the C.I.A. They feared the leak would discourage foreign intelligence services from cooperating with the United States on risky missions in the future, said Representative Peter T. King, a New York Republican and chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee."

[Someone]

May not have been as much of a security threat as it was made out to be.

 

http://openchannel.n...ds-seizure?lite

Threat to American security

 

So the leak to the AP interupted a CIA + British + Saudi operation to get to a guy described on the day after the AP story broke as "Al-Qaeda bombmaker represents CIA’s worst fears"

 

“Asiri is an evil genius,” said Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee.

 

"one of the most significant threats to the American homeland."

 

It seems that some have a odd way of assessing threats.

[JJ Husker]

"This was exactly the point of my post. What the hell does it matter what a ranking Republican has done?"

 

The DOJ was told to investigate and find the source of the leak regardless of the political cost. Dems asked for the same thing.

 

Bi-partisian support for finding the leaks.

 

DOJ is doing what the people have asked them to do. Period.

 

If you are going to get all worked up about the AP / DOJ issue, at least understand who told the DOJ to do it.

 

Well, see, that's just the thing, I'm not all worked up about the AP/DOJ issue. Go review my posts in that thread (really- it will only take you a few minutes) and you'll see I'm not throwing a hissy fit over it. I have a much bigger problem with the Benghazi deal. The AP/DOJ thing is just a minor thing to help make the overall list look worse than it really is.

[The Dude]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/obama-supporter-has-perfectly-improbable-explanati,32462/?utm_source=05-17-13&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=daily_dispatch