Remember when low-level functionaries operating outside the law were the direct responsibility of The President and the type of lawless culture he promoted? I mean, it’s not applicable now since 94% of the IRS employees union donates money to Obama and the post-Modern media is incapable of making the logical conclusion that there is a correlation between that number and the shared beliefs of the two.
And even less so, since buck passing has risen in popularity over the last several years:
In response to the outrages at Abu Ghraib, the Bush administration has repeatedly assured Americans that the president and his top officials did not say or do anything that could possibly be seen as approving the abuse or outright torture of prisoners.
Since the Abu Ghraib scandal broke into public view, the administration has contended that a few sadistic guards acted on their own to commit the crimes we’ve all seen in pictures and videos. At times, the White House has denied that any senior official was aware of the situation, as it did with Red Cross reports documenting a pattern of prisoner abuse in Iraq. In response to a rising pile of documents proving otherwise, the administration has mounted a ”Wizard of Oz” defense, urging Americans not to pay attention to inconvenient evidence.
Today, those purveyors of Ozian prevarications are called Jay Carney, Dan Pfeiffer and David Plouffe. By the current definition, Abu Ghraib would have only been possible if you were able to produce timestamped e-mails from George Bush to Lynndie England advising her on her patriotic duty to point at terrorists’ junk and building gay pyramids with them. Anything else is just “political hay” and “distractions”.
Lying Prick: Lying like the prickishly, pig-snouted sociopath he is. Prick.
After all, Bush should have refrained from “Wizard of Oz” defenses and gone straight for the “Duh, I found out when you guys did when I read the paper this morning” defense. Who wouldn’t be encouraged by the current President’s seemingly drunk driving while blindfolded, hands-off-the-wheel, pedal to the metal approach to governing? That stupid Bush didn’t read papers but he was the personal Torquemada of systemic torture at a makeshift prison on the other side of the world when not clearing out brush on his ranch of hate.
But we know that Obama is not a hands off person. He’s a control freak. And the only time that he of a million “I, I, I, I” speeches is nowhere near the Captain’s Quarters is when there is some blame needing be placed.
We do not know how high up in the chain of command the specific sanction for abusing prisoners was given, and we may never know, because the Army is investigating itself and the Pentagon is stonewalling the Senate Armed Services Committee. It may yet be necessary for Congress to form an investigative panel with subpoena powers to find the answers.
What we have seen, topped by that legalistic treatise on torture, shows clearly that Mr. Bush set the tone for this dreadful situation by pasting a false ”war on terrorism” label on the invasion of Iraq.
Ah, yes. “Tone setting”.
Surely, the New York Times is positing a similar thought this weekend in the wake of widespread, years long IRS persecution of ideologically and religiously litmus-tested groups in order to quell their patriotic dissent before an election. Surely, their flame of outrage would burn brightly out of consistency alone! To do so otherwise would be bare assed hypocrisy.
NEWS that employees at the Internal Revenue Service targeted groups with “Tea Party” or “patriot” in their name for special scrutiny has raised pious alarms among some lawmakers and editorial writers.
Yes, the I.R.S. may have been worse than clumsy in considering an (ed. – non-existent) avalanche of applications for nonprofit status under the tax code, and that deserves scrutiny whether or not the agency’s employees were spurred by partisan motives. After all, some of these “tea party” groups are most likely not innocent nonprofit organizations devoted to the cultural significance of hot beverages — or to other, more civic, virtues. Rather, they and others are groups that may be illegally spending a majority of their resources on political activity while manipulating the tax code to hide their donors and evade taxes (the unwritten rule being that no more than 49 percent of a group’s resources can be used for political purposes).
For the people who demand that you provide videotaped confessions, time stamped e-mails and caught-red-handed evidence that Obama had absolutely nothing to do with he political targeting of his enemies and of which he was the direct beneficiary of that persecution, they certainly have no problem proclaiming allegations of tax evasion of nefarious motives to the victims in this instance while excusing the IRS perpetrators as merely “clumsy” with zero evidence whatsoever.
Where was this caveat as to the inherent guilt of those Abu Ghraib prisoners? Were those prison guards not laboring under conditions worse than the cubicle dwelling paper miners at the IRS?
Congress has already announced hearings and investigations, and the service’s leadership will be grilled, as it should be. But it would be a travesty if the misdeeds here undermined the important work that must now be done to foster greater transparency, and to bolster confidence that the I.R.S. is in fact scrutinizing politically active groups across the board, regardless of their ideological bent.
Citizens need to rest assured that the integrity of our political system is intact.
As opposed to publishing inflammatory pictures and making unsubstantiated allegations in bad faith that sexual abuse of enemy combantants was demanded from on high in order to enflame Islamic fundamentalists to attack our service people because you wanted to lay blame for low-level military personnel’s behavior at the feet of the Commander-In-Chief with the non-preferred party letter after their name. In order to “assure the integrity of our political system”.
If it wasn’t for double standards, the New York Times would have no standards at all.
UPDATE: Even a stodgey old hack like Bob Schieffer finally had enough of the aforementioned Capital “P” Prick Dan Pfeiffer’s bald-faced obfuscations this morning. When the Wilford Brimley of the Obama’s old media water carriers starts telling you to you to your stupid oinking face that you are sounding like Nixon during Watergate, it might be time to reverse course on demanding that Republicans apologize for impugning the reputation of Susan Rice for lying to the American People on five morning talk shows in a row.
You know, Dan. Can I call you Dan? Gunga Dan. Your boss, Mr. Post-Racial, was at the race-based Morehouse College explaining to their graduating future welfare recipients that they are going to have to work “twice as hard” as white people just “to get by”. That means that they would have to lie twice as hard as you to be in your position. Hard to even imagine how that’s possible.
Exit question. Why can’t anyone call a lie a “lie” anymore? It’s dolled up in euphemisms like “you’re not telling the truth” or providing some golden bridge excuse for a lack of honesty. When you’re a liar, you’re a liar. Capital “L”, little “i”, little “a”, little “r”. Liar. Dan The Lying Prickface Pfeiffer. End of story.
But I do understand how in this economy of your boss’s making that a House Cracka gotta eat and if it means going on tv and mouthing a few of Master’s lies to let you back on the porch that Obama’s House Crackas gotta do what a cracka gotta do. You’re a better man than I, Gunga Dan.