New York Times Editorial, "Scandal Machine": It's All a Republican Conspiracy

Those blockheads from the editorial board of The New York Times are back with yet another inane defense of the One, entitled "Scandal Machine" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/17/opinion/the-republicans-scandal-machine.html?ref=opinion&_r=0), in which they blame the Republican Party for all three scandals currently plaguing the Obama administration. These hyper-partisan buffoons write:

"The Internal Revenue Service, according to an inspector general’s report, was not reacting to political pressure or ideology when it singled out conservative groups for special scrutiny in evaluating requests for tax exemptions. It acted inappropriately because employees couldn’t understand inadequate guidelines. The tragedy in Benghazi, Libya, never a scandal to begin with, has devolved into a turf-protection spat between government agencies, and the e-mail messages Republicans long demanded made clear that there was no White House cover-up.

The only example of true government overreach was the seizure of The Associated Press’s telephone records, the latest episode in the Obama administration’s Javert-like obsession with leakers in its midst.

. . . .

There are no 'things like this,' beyond a coincidence of bad timing. But they do have one thing in common: when bound together and loudly denounced on cable television and in hearings, they serve to obscure the real damage that Republicans continue to do to the economy and the workings of government."

The IRS targeted conservatives owing to "inadequate guidelines"? The IRS needs detailed guidelines to prevent it from engaging in politics? Heck, The New York Times has a comprehensive set of guidelines for ethical journalism, but they are completely ignored by its senior editors (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/03/sodom-and-gomorrah-plagiarism-and.html). Sorry, boys and girls, but we're not all on drugs.

Benghazi was never a scandal? I suppose the 12 drafts of the talking points were intended to provide Americans with a more accurate description of what happened in Libya. The editorial board of The Times also seems to forget that scathing op-ed  written by Maureen Dowd, a Republican among Republicans, denouncing the Obama administration for its Benghazi perfidy (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/05/maureen-dowd-when-myths-collide-in.html).

Thank goodness, The Times is willing to acknowledge that there was government overreach involving the AP fiasco.

These scandals were all just a "coincidence of bad timing"? Sorry, but the scandals were more than a coincidence, and derived from a combination of no leadership at the top, overzealousness of sycophantic idolaters, and a devotion to "spin" rather than to truth.

What Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan Was Not Asked at Yesterday's White House Press Conference

Yesterday, Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan and President Obama held a joint press conference at the White House. Inasmuch as the Obama administration is engulfed in scandal, Erdogan was pretty much ignored. A pity, however, that American journalists, so concerned with the AP horror, didn't ask why Turkey is considered the world's worst jailer of journalists by the Committee to Protect Journalists (http://cpj.org/2013/02/attacks-on-the-press-in-2012-turkey.php).

The White House press corps might also have asked why more than 30 million Kurds in the Middle East, some 55% percent of whom live in and are oppressed by Turkey, are not entitled to their own state.

But heck, Erdogan was once one of Obama's best friends (see: http://english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/world/2013/05/16/Erdogan-and-Obama-Best-friends-no-more.html), and we wouldn't want to embarrass this pompous potentate in the presence of the Sultan of Spin.

David Brooks, "When Governments Go Bad": What's Missing From His Op-ed? Win a Brand New . . .

Who would ever believe? Yet another JG Caesarea Challenge Round! Are you ready to test your erudition?

First, you need to read David Brooks's latest New York Times op-ed entitled "When Governments Go Bad" (http://wap.nytimes.com/2013/05/17/opinion/brooks-when-governments-go-bad.html), which ends on a highly philosophical note:

"People can only have faith in a government that self-restrains, and there’s little evidence of that now."

Fascinating . . . yawn. I used to tell my children that they need to "self-restrain," but a lot of good that did.

Who cares about children? How can I possibly compare children with government? Give it a little thought. In any event, back to the JG Caesarea Challenge Round! You've read the op-ed and you want to be a winner, so tell us what's missing. A hint: This time, it's two things.

Five, four, three, one . . . Time's over! (Not The New York Times, silly - Chapter 11 is still a little ways off.) Drop your pencils!

Sorry, what's that you say? What happened to "two"? Like the IRS and the Justice Department, I don't play fair. In addition, I already told you that "two" are missing.

The answers . . . a drum roll please . . .

First, Benghazi goes ignored by Brooks. We already know that Brooks is unhappy that everyone is picking on his friend Victoria Nuland (see: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/opinion/brooks-the-next-scapegoat.html?_r=0), but is that any reason to forget this Libyan brewhaha?

As observed today by Charles Krauthammer (yes, I know he's a neocon, but he's still pretty smart . . .) in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Redacted truth, subjunctive outrage" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-redacted-truth-subjunctive-outrage/2013/05/16/de28aee8-be64-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_story.html#):

"Just hours into the Benghazi assault, Hicks reports, by phone to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton herself, on the attack with absolutely no mention of any demonstration or video, later to become the essence of the Susan Rice talking points that left him 'stunned' and 'embarrassed.'

. . . .

But Hicks is then ordered not to meet with an investigative congressional delegation — the first time in his 22-year career he had been so ordered. And when he speaks with them nonetheless, he gets a furious call from Clinton’s top aide for not having a State Department lawyer (and informant) present.

. . . .

Within 24 hours, the CIA station chief in Libya cabled that it was a terrorist attack and not a spontaneous mob. On Day Two, the acting assistant secretary of state for the Near East wrote an e-mail saying the attack was carried out by an al-Qaeda affiliate, Ansar al-Sharia.

What were the American people fed? Four days and 12 drafts later, a fiction about a demonstration that never was, provoked by a video that no one saw (Hicks: “a non-event in Libya”), about a movie that was never made."

But heck, maybe it can be argued that Americans, hooked on the adventures of the Kardashian Family, no longer desire the truth, so let's quickly move on to the second "thing" that's missing:

Brooks never once mentions Obama.

Let's ignore Benghazi and just relate to the IRS and AP scandals. Does anyone really want to claim that Obama has no responsibility for what happened? If nothing else, Holder, every bit as dumb as Kerry and Hagel, is his appointee.

What's that you say? I'm not paying attention to Obama's excuse regarding the the IRS that "I first learned about it from the same news reports that I think most people learned about this"?

Hey, man, I thought you're the president, and you're supposed to know better than "most" people. But I suppose this is a variant of the time honored excuse "I didn't know," and we need to cut Obama some "executive privilege." "I didn't know" is sure to play better than "I am not a crook":

"I didn't know" also probably works better than "I didn't do it!"

I'll say this for Obama, this constitutional lawyer sure has pretty damn smart criminal lawyers working for him . . . but not in the Justice Department.

What's that? You got both answers right in this JG Caesarea Challenge Round? Sorry, with the passage of time during this second term of the Obama administration, everyone - right, left and center - is a loser.

And so, keep clicking on this website until the next Challenge Round, which sadly will not be long in coming.

[By the way, I suppose this is as good a time as any to inform He Whose Name Shall Not Be Spoken, I didn't do it . . .]

Gazans Dying from KFC: Israel Responsible

For many years the lie was spread that Gazans, shut off from the world by Israel, were dying from starvation. However, it was difficult to perpetuate this falsehood given the population explosion in the Strip from under 600,000 in June 1967 upon Israeli occupation after the Six Day War, to some 1.4 million in August 2005 when Israel evacuated Gaza, to the current 1.8 million.

Okay, Israel never starved Gazans to death, so what are those nefarious Jews actually doing? In fact, they are now responsible for killing Gazans with bad cholesterol. As reported by The Christian Science Monitor (http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2013/0515/KFC-smugglers-bring-buckets-of-chicken-through-Gaza-tunnels):

"For six years, Rafat Shororo longed for the taste of a KFC sandwich he had eaten in Egypt. This week, he got his finger lickin' fix at home in the Gaza Strip after a local delivery company managed to smuggle it from Egypt through underground tunnels.

'It has been a dream, and this company has made my dream come true,' says Mr. Shororo, an accountant, as he receives his order from the delivery guy.

The al-Yamama company advertises its unorthodox new fast-food smuggling service on Facebook. It gets tens of orders a week for KFC meals despite having to triple the price to 100 shekels ($30) to cover transportation and smuggling fees. The deliveries go from the fryers at the Al-Arish KFC joint 35 miles away to customers' doorsteps in about three hours.

The fact that the tunnels operate quickly and cheaply enough for the Colonel’s secret recipe to be enjoyed in the tightly controlled Gaza Strip shows just how much of a sieve the Egypt-Gaza border has become.

'All you need to have any KFC product is a short phone call and a few hours, then you can enjoy the great taste of fried chickens," says Shororo, checking over his chicken pieces, salads, and apple pies."

What nasty plot will those descendants of apes and pigs ever think up next?

Obama's Hell Week: Observe the Difference Between The New York Times and The Washington Post

Note the difference this morning between the responses of the columnists of The New York Times and those of The Washington Post to the Benghazi assault, the targeting of conservative groups by the IRS, and the Department of Justice’s secret monitoring of Associated Press journalists.

At The Times, I'm led to wonder if Gail Collins and Charles Blow are on psychotropics. Without delving into any substance whatsoever, Collins makes light of it all and informs us "this too shall pass" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/05/gail-collins-on-plus-side-is-she-on.html). Blow, on the other hand, would characterize Obama's headaches as "procedural" and "perceptual" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/05/charles-blow-scandalous-vs-scandal-lust.html).

On the other hand, at WaPo, an entirely different picture emerges from both left, right and middle-of-the-road. E.J. Dionne Jr. would have us know (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ej-dionne-the-false-god-of-narrative/2013/05/15/2837314a-bd92-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_story.html?hpid=z2):

"[W]hat spells trouble for our country is our apparent eagerness to avoid debate about discrete problems by sacrificing the particulars and the facts to the idol of political narrative. It’s a false god."

Dana Milbank tells us (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-eric-holders-abdication/2013/05/15/61a42d12-bdaf-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_story.html?hpid=z2):

"As the nation’s top law enforcement official, Eric Holder is privy to all kinds of sensitive information. But he seems to be proud of how little he knows.

. . . .

But when the Justice Department undermines the Constitution, recusal is no excuse."

Michael Gerson says (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/michael-gerson-governments-heavy-hand-felt-in-irs-ap-scandals/2013/05/15/408446c8-bda3-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_story.html?hpid=z2):

"Now comes the added blow of scandal. In each recent case, government used power in ways that were insular, highly politicized and intimidating. And however individual responsibility is eventually assigned, these attributes are not aberrations in the Obama era. The administration tends to view its actions as above scrutiny and its opponents as beneath contempt."

David Ignatius states (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-in-irs-and-ap-scandals-a-dysfunctional-government/2013/05/15/137ba9de-bd92-11e2-9b09-1638acc3942e_story.html?hpid=z3):

"The crippling problem in Washington these days isn’t any organized conspiracy against conservatives, journalists or anyone else. Rather, it’s a federal establishment that’s increasingly paralyzed because of poor management and political second-guessing.

What should frighten the public is not the federal government’s monstrous power but its impotence."

Tell me, is it remotely possible that the columnists of The Times and The Washington Post are writing about the same set of facts?

Gail Collins, "On the Plus Side ...": Is She on Antidepressants?

"The president could demand that Congress pick an official national rock," writes Gail Collins in her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "On the Plus Side ..." (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/opinion/collins-on-the-plus-side.html), as Obama gets rocked by revelations concerning the Benghazi assault, the targeting of conservative groups by the IRS, and the Department of Justice’s secret monitoring of Associated Press journalists. Does Gail examine even a particle of substance involving any of these scandals? Heck no! Instead, a perpetually cheery Gail, who has again dragged up her hoary dog-on-the-roof witticism, would have us know:

"People, this too shall pass. We’re in a moment, not a map for the entire Obama second term."

She's right: it will pass . . . in another year, or two, or three.

Meanwhile, as the economy remains stalled, unemployment remains at sky-high levels, almost 50 million Americans are on food stamps, and the US faces monumental challenges from rogue regimes in North Korea and Iran, the Obama administration will remain dysfunctional with a procrastinator at its head, who "likes to watch," and with a group of aged incompetents (e.g., Hagel, Kerry and Holder) and sycophantic youngsters managing the store.

This too shall pass, as does life itself.

As long as Gail can drag up "dog-on-the-roof," allow me to repeat that stagnant adage, "Nothing is certain but death and taxes."

I'm waiting for my audit.

Charles Blow, "Scandalous vs. Scandal Lust": Welcome to Blow's Alternative Universe

The credibility of the Obama administration is crumbling as the result of three still emerging scandals, yet Charles Blow, in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Scandalous vs. Scandal Lust" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/opinion/blow-scandalous-vs-scandal-lust.html?_r=0), takes the position that they are all "about flaws of procedures — some possibly illegal, all very disturbing — and problems of perception" and that "they are neither fatal nor unfixable." Blow claims "Americans appear to be tiring of all that chasing of smoke and little finding of fire," yet President Obama has now been forced to dismiss the acting commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, Steven T. Miller. Procedural and perceptual problems? Smoke and little finding of fire? Yeah, right.

How do you argue with someone who is detached from reality? You don't.

Nevertheless, there is one claim made by Blow that deserves mention. Blow writes:

"Benghazi, the targeting of conservative groups by the I.R.S. and the Department of Justice’s monitoring of Associated Press journalists — appear to be completely unrelated, try as politicians and pundits may to connect them."

Blow is wrong. The three scandals are all marked by the absence of leadership, management and good judgment, characteristic of the Obama administration. Obama never even managed a neighborhood grocery store, and his appointees, rather than consisting of the best and the brightest, include some of the worst and the dumbest, e.g., Hagel, Holder and Kerry. Then, too, there are the young sycophants, who worship the ground on which he treads, and who are so well-versed in "spin," that they believe that the facts on the ground can be ignored, as best evidenced by the evolution and dissemination of the Benghazi talking points, when seeking to serve the anointed one.

Blow concludes:

"People can be punished, or fired or even jailed, if Speaker John Boehner has his way, but at this early stage signs are not pointing to any of those people being in the White House.

Even if I had hair, I wouldn’t be setting it on fire, not yet anyway."

Punished or jailed? Perhaps not. Fired? I know of several people in the West Wing who will need to resign.

Obama himself? He is a procrastinator who "likes to watch," and although a talented orator, he is a failed administrator.

He was primed for campaigning, but he was never prepared to take on the duties of the presidency.