When in doubt...

As I'm sure you're aware, there have been some scandals going on in our country.  IRS targeting conservative groups, the DoJ targeting AP and Fox News journalists, the NSA apparently collecting massive amounts of information on innocent American citizens, and my personal favorite: the attacks in Benghazi.  Just to remind you, all of these scandals involving all of these different agencies have one thing (and one thing only) in common: The President, Barack Obama.

And when one criticizes this current President, the liberals come out swinging to defend him.  They don't particularly like to debate the issues though; they would much rather change the subject and deflect the criticism in another direction once their argument quickly runs out of gas.  If you try and debate one of these scandals with a liberal, there's a few signs to look out for to know when you've backed them into a corner and won the argument.  When in doubt, they will call you a racist, blame the (conservative) victim or blame George W. Bush.  I'm not here to talk about the race card today, because that is the flimsiest of the defenses, and I've previously covered their victim blaming.  I am currently more concerned with the current administration's (and its' defenders') continuing tactic of blaming Bush for everything that went wrong here recently.

Three of the four major scandals going on right now fall under this tactic to some degree.  The outlier is Benghazi  but we won't cover that today because everyone knows questioning the events in Benghazi means you're racist (against Obama), sexist (against Clinton), or on a partisan witch hunt.  Before diving into these scandals, I'd like to remind everyone that every single thing that went wrong for 8 years under George W. Bush was directly Bush's fault according to liberals.  9/11?  Housing market collapse?  Economic recession? Abu Gharib prisoner abuse?  Patriot Act?  Missing WMDs in Iraq?  Guantanamo Bay?  Hurricane Katrina? You name it and it was Bush's fault according to liberals, because it happened under his watch.  If a Democrat got a hang-nail while Bush was in office, it was Bush's fault.  To quote the movie Rules of Engagement, "Even if you thought it wasn't your fault, it went wrong, and you were there".

That's fine if you want to apply that logic, because accountability needs to start at the top.  The problem is that this logic is 100% ignored in reference to the current administration.  Benghazi attacks?  Boston bombing? Jobs disappearing?  IRS targeting political enemies?  NSA tracking innocent Americans?  DoJ suppressing freedom of press?  Guantanamo Bay still open?  Hurricane Sandy?  Obama wasn't there, wasn't involved, didn't know anything about it, and isn't accountable for any of it.  Yet somehow, Bush is still responsible.  It hurts my head.

When it came out that the IRS was targeting conservative groups, IRS chairman Doug Shulman resigned but refused to take any responsibility for his department's actions.  This man, a known donor to the Democratic party, was appointed by Bush in 2007.  That is the best defense the Democrats have.  George Bush tries to extend an olive branch to the other side, tries to appoint a Democrat specifically citing that we need someone impartial in this spot, and Shulman immediately turns his back on conservatives.  This man served one year under Bush, and four under Obama, but somehow this is still all Bush's fault.  Their defense is essentially "Yeah, he's one of us.  Yeah, he did all of these horrible things.  Yeah, he spent four times longer under Obama than Bush.  But its still your fault for hiring him!  Its your fault for trusting us!"  Let's not hold anyone accountable who was involved in these recent actions, rather let's blame the man who hired him six years ago.  How could it possibly be a partisan attack against conservatives if a conservative hired this man?  Disregard all of the actual evidence against him and his IRS.

To quickly mention the other two scandals, they also continue to blame Bush.  The DoJ is targeting journalists, and the NSA is engaged in surveillance against innocent citizens.  Liberals quickly make some vague connection to the Patriot Act and then take the next step of blaming Bush.  Nevermind that Obama has massively expanded Patriot Act activities; Bush is the one that invented it.  Nevermind that the DoJ and Eric Holder fall directly under the Executive Branch, and are thus accountable to the President.  Nevermind that the NSA is part of the DoD, which directly falls under leadership of our Commander-in-Chief.  Patriot Act, George Bush, blah blah blah.

The biggest difference between Bush and Obama is accountability.  When something controversial happened under Bush, his administration stepped up and took responsibility.  Enhanced interrogations?  Yep, we waterboarded the hell out of them.  Patriot Act?  Yep, the NSA is expanding surveillance for your protection.  Deal with it.  Secret CIA prisons?  You bet.  Under the most transparent administration in history with Obama, everything is done in t
he shadows.  Their story morphs from "the White House didn't know anything about that" to "Everyone in the White House knew about it except the President".  For some reason no Democrats have a problem with that.  The biggest difference between Bush and Obama, is that I don't like being lied to.  Bush pushed the Patriot Act into existence and was quite public about it, so I may not like it but I have no problem how it came about.  Obama demonized the Patriot Act and championed civil liberties, and then expanded the Patriot Act.  He stabbed every American citizen in the back over and over with empty promises and complete lies to get elected, and that is why I have such a problem with his administration.  I may disagree with most of what a man does, but I can deal with it.  Just don't lie to me.  Is that too much to ask?

Outrageous: Fort Hood Shooter Nidal Hassan Still Paid Military Salary

Yet another scandal broke today, this time courtesy of the Fun Percent’s local NBC affiliate.  Apparently since Major Nadal Hasan killed 13 people and injured 32 more at Fort Hood November 5, 2009 he has been paid $278,000.  I wish I was joking.  The Department of Defense has continued to pay Hasan in the three and half years since the attack because, under the Military Code of Justice, his pay cannot be suspended until he has been proven guilty.  Now that’s a pretty sweet deal.  If I murdered someone, I don’t think my employer would continue to pay me while incarcerated.

Meanwhile, the Fort Hood Shooting victims are fighting to get combat injury benefits.  Initially at least one of the victims’ injuries were classified as combat related by an Army review board, but that decision was later overturned by higher-ups in the Army.  Classifying the injuries of the victims of the Fort Hood shooting as “combat related” would make them eligible for Purple Heart retirement and medical benefits.  These are the same benefits given to soldiers wounded during the September 11, 2001 attacks on the Pentagon.  So, why aren’t Fort Hood shooting victims being afforded the same benefits?  I’ll tell you why; because the Fort Hood shooting has been classified as “workplace violence” as opposed to a terrorist attack.  Yes, you read that correctly.  Nadal Hasan spent months communicating via e-mail with Anwar al Awlaki who, before he died, was a senior talent recruiter and motivator and was involved in planning terrorist operations for al-Qaeda.  Hasan reportedly asked al Awlaki when jihad is appropriate, if it’s permissible for innocents to be killed or injured in suicide attacks, and how to transfer funds abroad without coming to the attention of the authorities.  Allegedly their e-mail communication was consistent with Hasan’s research about Muslims in the armed forces and evidently did not raise any red flags within the DoD or FBI even though al Awlaki was a major influence on English speaking jihadis.  Right before Hasan opened fire at the Fort Hood Solider Readiness Processing Center he shouted “Allahu Akbar” which is a phrase often used by Islamic terrorists ("extremists" as our President would call them), including the 9/11 hijackers, before carrying out attacks. 

Several victims have estimated that over the past three and half years they have lost more than $70,000 in benefits because they haven’t been classified as having “combat related” injuries.  The DoD, the Obama administration and the country as a whole should be embarrassed that we are allowing a murderer (and terrorist, but shhh, we don’t call him that) to make way more a year than the average American while his victims are struggling to pay for their medical bills, pay rent or even buy groceries.    

So, why hasn’t the Fort Hood shooting been classified as a terrorist attack?  Well, as we all know Obama has a history of kowtowing to the Muslim world, especially in regards to Islamic extremists.  We wouldn’t want to offend anyone by calling someone who communicated for months with a known member of al-Qaeda and shouted “Allahu Akbar” before going on to kill 13 people a terrorist.  That might make them upset.  It could even spark protests in Muslim countries, just like that offensive YouTube video was the reason behind the attack on the US embassy in Benghazi.  Oh wait, Muslim extremists don’t need a reason to attack Americans.  Plus, if the shooting is classified as a terrorist attack, then the DoD, the FBI and the Obama administration would be on the hook for not taking Hasan’s communications with al Awlaki seriously.  So, let’s just call it workplace violence and sweep it under the wrong.  Problem solved.  Then again, it’s been a few weeks since Obama’s been on vacation, maybe he’ll instruct the DoD to classify the shooting as a terrorist attack so he can go on another apology world tour, I hear the Middle East is nice this time of year.   

The Word of the Day: Irrelevant

Remember when Obama's biggest criticism was that he took too many vacations?  Remember when his biggest problem was that people thought he played too much golf?  Remember when the biggest outrage was that he spent too much time hanging out with celebrities at the White House?  Do you think he would like to rewind back a few months to that time?

Remember when Democrats and the liberal media told us these things were non-issues?  Remember when they asserted that there was so few flaws in Obama's administration that Republicans were stretching to find anything to be upset about?

Well, in case you haven't seen the news lately, we are in the middle of three major scandals that happened under his watch.  Is he directly to blame for the Benghazi cover up  the IRS targeting of conservative groups, or the DoJ secretly going after AP and Fox News reporters?  Time will tell.  But now that there are legitimate scandals of massive proportions going down under his watch, Democrats will surely come around and join in on the outrage right?  When Republicans were complaining that he was taking too many vacations, they were the ones who basically yawned and said "Let us know when you find something real to complain about".  Well now we have something to complain about, and what is their reaction?  The exact same thing as before.

Apparently a terrorist attack on a US diplomatic mission in Benghazi and subsequent cover up is a non-issue.  An IRS scandal targeting individuals based on political ideology which could have influenced the outcome of the Presidential election is a non-issue.  The DoJ suppressing freedom of speech and press is a non-issue.  These things are "irrelevant" according to Whitehouse spokesperson Dan Pfeiffer.  These topics are unjust criticism.  These investigations are nothing more than right-wing partisan witch hunts.  In fact, you're probably a racist for even questioning the current administration.

There is proof in the released Benghazi emails that talking points were changed and the American people were lied to for some reason.  The DoJ has admitted it seized phone records of AP reporters and targeted a Fox News journalist in what is inappropriate at best; more likely criminal and unconstitutional.  The IRS has admitted it illegally targeted conservative groups for audits and delayed tax-exempt approval for them as well leading up to the election.  There have literally been laws broken, and somehow nobody is being held accountable, all while Dan Pfeiffer literally said the following words in response to a question of the legality of the IRS actions: "THE LAW IS IRRELEVANT".

Yes, you read that right.  In the eyes of the Obama administration, the law is irrelevant.  They do as they please, and will be shielded by plausible deniability and their pals in the liberal media.  Not only are these scandals, which all implicate top Democratic leadership, being disregarded as non-issues, but Democrats are somehow turning these things back onto Republicans.  Nancy Pelosi said these conservative groups targeted by the IRS "must make their goal social welfare and not politics".  Nevermind there's plenty of liberal groups who quickly and efficiently qualified for 501(c)(4) status.  Their political stances are irrelevant.  It only matters if you're conservative.  Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass) said "Even with the egregious actions that have been acknowledged by the IRS, there's still an underlying problem here, and that's 501(c)(4) being engaged in politics".

In other words, they were asking for it.  If you didn't want to be audited, then you shouldn't have been a Romney donor.  If you didn't want your tax-exempt status scrutinized and delayed, then you shouldn't have been a conservative group.  This is victim blaming at its best.  If that girl didn't want to get raped, she shouldn't have been dressed like that.  Let's make it law that women should dress in burqas, and then men won't be tempted to rape them.  Democrats are essentially saying disregard any crimes committed and laws broken in this situation which benefits ourselves; instead let's focus on making sure this doesn't happen again.  The victims in this case brought it upon themselves, so rather than hold anyone accountable for these crimes, let's make sure these corrupt individuals aren't tempted in the future to commit further crimes.

To take a step back, this brings up more questions in my mind.  Republicans were attacking the President over non-issues like playing golf with Tiger, attending concerts, and taking too many vacations.  What exactly was going on behind closed doors while the Obama was spending his time as a full-time celebrity President? None of these mounting scandals concerned him while he was on the golf course?  He thought all of these issues were irrelevant while he was vacationing in Hawaii?  What the hell were his priorities for the last six months?  Where was his concern for terrorist attacks, freedom of speech, and freedom of press?  Has the President really has his head buried in sand this whole time?  My guess is that if anyone bothers to ask what the President was doing for the last six months, you'll probably get the same answer as Dan Pfeiffer gave us Sunday:  That's irrelevant.

What did the President know, and when did he know it? Apparently he never knew to begin with.

Today has been a day with yet another scandal breaking at the federal level; that the DOJ unlawfully targeted the AP's phone records in an investigation.  That is after Monday's scandal broke regarding the IRS targeting conservative groups.  And the Benghazi scandal in recent weeks.  However, I'm not here today to discuss any scandal in particular.  I'm here to discuss a pattern which seems to be developing in the White House.

The Obama administration, and everyone's favorite spokesman Jay Carney, seem resigned to the tactic of ignorance on all of these scandals.  Day after day, Carney speaks for the President, and occasionally the President himself speaks on his own behalf.  While initially on Benghazi they all pointed in the wrong direction regarding the events which transpired (and the cause and aftermath), since then it has pretty much been a mixture of the following excuses: We don't know.  We didn't know.

I'm not sure exactly how they expect us to believe this.  You didn't know what was going on in Benghazi leading up to the attacks.  You didn't know what was going on during the attacks.  You didn't know what was going on after the attacks.  You didn't know at the time that you were blaming the wrong factors.  You didn't know the IRS was targeting conservative groups with audits leading up to the elections.  You didn't know the DoJ was illegally obtaining phone records from the AP.  Your Attorney General didn't know anything about it.  Also you don't know what he knew, because Carney said today that the President has not spoken to the Attorney General about this matter.  Basically anytime a scandal breaks out in this administration, the administration doesn't know anything about it until they see it in the news like you or me.

Here is today's question: What exactly does the President see every day in his daily briefings?  Literally every morning a report is delivered to the President with the main activities, concerns and issues of the day to keep an eye on.  We are now supposed to believe the President never read anything in his daily briefings about Benghazi in the months leading up to the attacks.  His briefings never mentioned violence escalating or request for security.  It never mentioned terrorist activities behind the attack.  It never mentioned any link to Al Qaeda.  It never mentioned anything about the IRS audits targeting conservative groups, even though this information has been lurking around for the last two years.  It never mentioned anything about his hand-selected Attorney General heading up a Department of Justice which was illegally using AP phone records.  We have literally been told they didn't know about this story until they saw it on the news.  The President of the United States has the full resources of the most powerful intelligence gathering machines ever assembled in human history, yet he seems ignorant of these major scandals.  And nobody seems to blame him for anything that happens under his watch.

Let me rewind a few years.  Does anyone remember a man named George W. Bush?  He was President for about 8 years.  Does anyone remember how often Bush was blamed for activities under his administration?  Liberals basically blamed him for anything that happened for the entire 8 years of his presidency.  9/11?  Bush.  War in Iraq?  Bush.  Missing WMDs?  Bush.  Struggling economy?  Bush.  Prisoner abuse at Abu Gharib?  Bush.  Real estate bubble collapse?  Bush.  Hurricane Katrina?  Bush.   The Democrats and liberal media somehow managed to blame a natural disaster and act of God on George W. Bush.  It hit New Orleans and they weren't prepared, therefore George Bush doesn't care about black people.  Seems legit.  For eight long years, you could pretty much pick a bad headline out of any major newspaper, and you'd have Jon Stewart or Bill Maher informing us of how this somehow fell at the feet of George W. Bush.  Love him or hate him, George Bush took way more flak than maybe any President in history for things he wasn't even involved in.  For some reason, our current President doesn't take flak for anything even if it falls directly at his feet.  Heavy lies the crown Mr. President.  If you enjoy your position of power, it is time to accept the responsibility which comes with it.

So back to the President's daily briefings.  Remember that memo during the Bush administration entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US"?  Democrats absolutely hammered Bush and his cabinet for ignoring these warnings.  Remember those memos requesting more security at Benghazi leading up to the terrorist attack which were ignored?  Democrats declare such a question a witch hunt and political sideshow.  It sure must be nice to have your cake and eat it too.

That leaves us with two possibilities.  Either the President and his staff are lying to us when they continue to plead ignorance and tell us they never knew anything all of these scandals currently mounting.  Or the President is completely asleep at the wheel, ignoring the intelligence provided to him, and caring more about partying with Jay-Z and golfing with Tiger Woods than reading his daily briefings.  Either way, I imagine things probably wouldn't be too much worse if you replaced the daily briefings with a booklet of Mad-Libs.  Of course, that is assuming we are dealing with ignorance, not lies.  Pay attention these next few weeks.  I'm guessing today won't be the last time the administration tells us "we don't know".