Author Topic: Obama's scandals: are we really to believe he didn't know?  (Read 592 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online rangerrebew

  • America defending Veteran
  • TBR Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 70,991
  • “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them
Obama's scandals: are we really to believe he didn't know?
« on: October 28, 2013, 03:24:41 PM »
If you search "Obama didn't know", you will get over 12 million hits.  Added to the ones listed here, he "didn't know about NSA spying, he "didn't know" about the poor computer setup for Obamacare.  If the CEO "didn't know about major potential, and real, scandals that could rock his company heads would be rolling like bowling balls.  Within a short time his job would be gone for gross negligence and incompetence.  On the positive side for Obama, however, he was fully aware of Trayvon Martin's case. :Odance:

Obama’s Scandals: Are We Really To Believe He Didn’t Know?

Obama spends a lot of time saying that he knew or he didn't know about various government activities that turn out badly.
◾The president knew nothing of the IRS misconduct until it was announced in the news
◾The president knew nothing of Holder's Fast and Furious sting operation
◾The president knew of Benghazi from the beginning and followed each development (per Jay Carney news conference, May 20, 2013).

At issue is whether to believe the presidential claims and also at issue is whether it is important.

It's important because if the president was involved in activities that turn out to be illegal, then his fitness for office is in question.

Let's look at each of the scandals mentioned above. 


In the IRS scandal Obama claims he knew nothing until the news was released in the press.  However, it now comes out that news of this audit was published in October 2012 on the IRS website, and we learn today that Obama's Chief of Staff was told in April but withheld the information from his boss.

Ironically, what matters in this case is not whether Obama knew, but whether he lied about knowing.  Since the IRS investigation is a matter of some political significance and it is unlikely that Obama influenced the investigation, why wouldn't he be told?

Beyond that, what are the odds of the Chief of Staff not telling the president anything?  If the Chief of Staff withheld information from the president, he would himself become the president at that point.  It's a situation that no CEO would tolerate and besides, how would the Chief of Staff know what to withhold?

In this case as well as in Benghazi, information is dribbled out, presumably in response to public reaction to previous information that had been dribbled.  That's not a practice that inspires confidence.


Eric Holder explains that the Fast and Furious operation was meant to track guns sold in the United States to their ultimate destination in Mexico so that arrests could be made.

Apparently Holder did not anticipate that Mexico would angrily announce that it had no knowledge of this operation.  He also didn't anticipate that a border patrol agent would be killed by one of his guns.


Beyond that, there is Holder's refusal to honor a congressional subpoena demanding release of all emails concerning this matter.  Why would that be? 

More likely than Holder's explanation, Obama and Holder, both champions of gun confiscation in the United States, met and planned Fast and Furious.  The idea was that these guns would be identified by serial number as being involved in drug crimes, the guns would be demonized, and confiscation efforts in the United States would be accelerated and bolstered by this new illustration of the evils of gun ownership.


At first there was no mention of Obama's involvement in Benghazi beyond Clinton's statement that she called the president and told him what had happened. 

Now it dibbles out weeks later in a Jay Carney news conference on May 20, 2013 that Obama knew from the very first and followed developments every step of the way.

Why the dribbling?  In all probability it was to keep open options depending on how the public reacted.  If the public seemed to hold Obama responsible, then he wasn't there, but if they were outraged that he didn't do anything, then he was there doing the best he could. 

The dribbling also may have been to downplay the significance of Benghazi (it wasn't important enough to worry about presidential involvement), as Susan Rice was apparently trying to do by claiming it was a reaction to an anti-Islamic movie, not an attack by Al Qaeda terrorists.  (This was odd since the CIA and her own talking points told her otherwise.)

Now that we know Obama was involved at every stage, the problem is why didn't he send rescue forces that were stationed in Tripoli? 

The most plausible answer is that he wanted to avoid open combat with Al Qaeda affiliates right after he had boasted that Al Qaeda was defeated.  This was, after all, just before the 2012 elections.

These claims of knowing or not knowing are at best questionable and it seems likely they are lies.  In two of the three cases, they involved American lives.

So then the question becomes: what do you do with a president who lies?

Read more:
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim tribute to patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness -- these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. . . . reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles."
George Washington

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
Benjamin Franklin

Offline happyg

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 11,822
Re: Obama's scandals: are we really to believe he didn't know?
« Reply #1 on: October 28, 2013, 04:29:28 PM »
If he didn't know, he is one stupid leader. And, if he did know, he is still just as stupid. The man is inept at everything he does. I imagine some day his IQ will come out, and all his followers will be shocked to find he isn't any smarter than they are.

Offline happyg

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 11,822
Re: Obama's scandals: are we really to believe he didn't know?
« Reply #2 on: October 28, 2013, 04:36:04 PM »
Barack Obama: The Most Uninformed President in History

I've always thought of Barack Obama as the "Chauncey Gardiner" of American politics. Like Peter Sellers' character in the classic film, "Being There," Obama is an embodiment of outsiders' hopes and dreams for who they think he is. Reality, like the film, shows there isn't really a lot of there, there.

This weekend, we learned that President Obama "didn't know about" NSA spying on world leaders, especially German Chancellor Angela Merkel. He also "didn't know about" the posthumously obvious problems with the rollout of the ObamaCare website exchanges. According to the New York Times, these problems were evident eight months ago. Yet, it seems, they never made it to the President's desk.

President Obama was also completely unaware that the IRS was subjecting conservative organizations to undue scrutiny on their tax-exempt applications. At the time of the alleged targeting, the IRS Commissioner visited the White House more than almost any other federal official, but, apparently, never disclosed his agency's targeting of political opponents of Obama.

President Obama also, presumably, was unaware of the Justice Department's program to allow Mexican drug gangs to purchase military-grade arms from the US. Those arms have been used to murder thousands of Mexicans and at least two US border patrol officers.

President Obama also, apparently, didn't know that his spy agencies were monitoring millions of phone calls and cataloguing billions of web visits and data transfers. He, it is reported, didn't know that these same agencies were also recording phone calls in foreign countries.

President Obama also didn't know that his diplomatic mission in Libya had requested more security and felt threatened by rising tension in the war-torn country. As someone who had helped launch the chaos in that country, one would have thought he would be more engaged in the aftermath.

He has advisors, right? He gets regular briefings, I assume. None of this ever comes up? Or worse, are we at the point now where agencies can embark on boundary-bending action without White House approval? Has the whole government "gone rogue."

Even accepting that Obama didn't know any of these things in advance, why has he taken no action to reverse them? Perhaps he is a bad manager, allowing these scandals to unfold on his watch. But, is he also completely ineffectual?

Comparing Barack Obama to Chauncey Gardiner is an insult to the iconic Peter Sellers character. At least he was honest about what he didn't know.

Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo