Ken Berwitz

Lots and lots to choose from today.  But, since Watergate was mentioned in the previous blog, I think I'll go with Watergate titan Bob Woodward's comment about the Obama administration's prevaricating on Benghazi:

"You look at the whole Benghazi thing. You look at those talking points and the initial draft by the CIA very explicitly said we know that activists who have ties to Al-Qaeda were involved in the attack. Then you see what comes out a couple of days later and there is no reference to this. This is a business where you have to tell the truth and that did not happen here."

Great quote.  Just as damning about the Obama administration as it should be.  I only wish the first part of the final sentence were as true as the end of it.

But, in the great scheme of things, that, admittedly, is a minor carp.  Mr. Woodward calls Obama & Co, out as the liars they so clearly are, which more than makes up for his gossamer view of how journalism works these days.

Quote Of The Day honors are his.

Ken Berwitz

I know they're out there.  I can almost hear them. 

I can almost hear the Obama supporters reading my previous blog and saying things like "Who cares, Chris Wallace is just some right winger from Faux News", or words to that effect.

So, in the spirit of debunking the surfeit of BS being tossed out by Dan Pfeiffer and his fellow Obama flaks (this time about Benghazi, but it is far from the only one) let me also post the following verbatims from CBS's career political liberal Bob Schieffer's interview with Pfeiffer on this morning's Face The Nation show. 

First we have Pfeiffer pumping out the same talking points he used with Wallace.  Then we have Schieffer's first reaction (which I disagree with -- more on that further on). And, as the Pfeiffer BS continues to fly, Schieffer's increasingly exasperated subsequent responses:

DAN PFEIFFER, SENIOR WHITE HOUSE ADVISOR: The point that our Chief of Staff is making is that this is the Republican playbook here which is try, when they don't have a positive agenda, try to drag Washington into a swamp of partisan fishing expeditions, trumped up hearings and false allegations. We're not going to let that distract us and the President from actually doing the people's work and fighting for the middle class.

BOB SCHIEFFER, HOST: You know, I don’t want to compare this in any way to Watergate. I do not think this is Watergate by any stretch. But you weren't born then I would guess, but I have to tell you that is exactly the approach that the Nixon administration took. They said, “These are all second-rate things. We don't have time for this. We have to devote our time to the people's business.” You’re taking exactly the same line they did.

SCHIEFFER: But Mr. Pfeiffer, and I don't mean to be argumentative here, but the President is in charge of the executive branch of the government. It’s my, I'll just make this as an assertion: when the executive branch does things right, there doesn't seem to be any hesitancy of the White House to take credit for that. When Osama bin Laden was killed, the President didn't waste any time getting out there and telling people about it.

But with all of these things, when these things happen, you seem to send out officials many times who don't even seem to know what has happened. And I use as an example of that Susan Rice who had no connection whatsoever to the events that took place in Benghazi, and yet she was sent out, appeared on this broadcast, and other Sunday broadcasts, five days after it happens, and I'm not here to get in an argument with you about who changed which word in the talking points and all that. The bottom line is what she told the American people that day bore no resemblance to what had happened on the ground in an incident where four Americans were killed.

But what I'm saying to you is that was just PR. That was just a PR plan to send out somebody who didn't know anything about what had happened. Why did you do that? Why didn't the Secretary of State come and tell us what they knew and if he knew nothing say, “We don't know yet?” Why didn't the White House Chief of Staff come out? I mean I would, and I mean this as no disrespect to you, why are you here today? Why isn't the White House Chief of Staff here to tell us what happened?

When even a usually Democrat-friendly Bob Schieffer can't take it, the "it" being tossed out by Obama & Co. must be pretty lame.

My only disagreement with Mr. Schieffer is his comment that "I do not think this is Watergate by any stretch" - his meaning, apparently, being that it is not as significant as Watergate.  In point of fact, Benghazi is far more significant. 

-Watergate was an attempt at political espionage that blew up in the Nixon administration's faces, mostly because of the subsequent lies and cover-ups.  No one died in Watergate and it is a virtual certainty it did not affect the 1972 election outcome. 

-By contrast, in Benghazi we lost four of our people, including our Ambassador who was raped and tortured before being killed, and gave al-Qaeda and its associates a huge "victory" over the USA - PLUS the subsequent lies and cover-ups, which are still in progress.

But, then again,  if lies and cover-ups are all Obama & Co. have, what else can they do?  It is eminently clear that they do not consider coming clean and telling the truth to be a viable option. 

That is why Benghazi is not going away.  And that is why even the folks who usually defer to Mr. Obama - like Bob Schieffer, for example - can't do it this time.

Ken Berwitz

In case you are wondering whether the Benghazi scandal has a chance of going away any time soon.....

...we have this morning's exchange between Fox Sunday Morning anchor Chris Wallace and Obama flak Dan Pfeiffer (I have put key parts in bold print):

WALLACE: Let's turn to benghazi. He had a meeting with panetta in the afternoon, heard about this on an unrelated subject, wanted them to deploy forces as soon as possible. The next time he shows up, hillary clinton says she spoke to him at around 10:00 that night after the attack at the consulate, not the annex, but the attack at the consulate had ended. Question:  what did the president do the rest of that night to pursue benghazi?

PFEIFFER:  The president was kept up to do throughout the entire night, from the moment it started till the end. This is a horrible tragedy, people that he sent abroad whose lives are in risk, people who work for him. I recognize that there's a series of conspiracy theories the republicans are spinning about this since the night it happened, but there's been an independent review of this, congress has held hearings, we provided 250,000 pages of -- 250,000 pages of documents up there. There's been 11 hearings, 20 staff briefings. Everyone has found the same thing. this is a tragedy. The question is not what happened that night. the question is what are we going to do to move forward and ensure it doesn't happen again? Congress should act on what the president called for earlier this week, to pass legislation to actually allow us to implement the recommendations of the accountability review board. When we send diplomats off into far-flung places, there's inherent risk. We need to mitigate that risk.

WALLACE: With all due respect, you didn't answer my question. What did the president do that night?

PFEIFFER:  Kept up to date with the events as they were happening.

WALLACE: He didn't talk to the secretary of state except for the one time when the first attack was over. He didn't talk to the secretary of defense, he didn't talk to chiefs, the chairman of the joint who was he talking to?

PFEIFFER:  His national security staff, his national security council.

WALLACE: Was he in the situation room?

PFEIFFER:  He was kept up to date throughout the day.

WALLACE: Do you know know whether he was in the situation room?

PFEIFFER:  I don't know what room he was in that night. That's a largely irrelevant fact.

WALLACE: Well --

PFEIFFER:  The premise of your question, somehow there was something that could have been done differently, okay, that would have changed the outcome here. The accountability roof board has looked at this, people have looked at this. It's a horrible tragedy, and we have to make sure it doesn't happen again.

WALLACE: Here's the point, though:  the ambassador goes missing.  The first ambassador in more than 30 years is killed. Four americans, including the ambassador, are killed. Dozens of americans are in jeopardy. The president at 4:00 in the afternoon says to the chairman of the joint chiefs to deploy forces. No forces are deployed. Where is he while all this is going on?

PFEIFFER:  This has been testified to by --

WALLACE: Well, no. no one knows where he is, who was involved, the --

PFEIFFER:  The suggestion of your question that somehow the president --

WALLACE:I just want to know the answer.

PFEIFFER: The assertions from republicans that the president didn't take action is offensive. It is absolutely offensive and there's no evidence to support it.

WALLACE: I'm simply asking a question. Where was he? What did he do? How did he respond?  Who told him you can't deploy force?  How did he respond?

PFEIFFER:  As I said, the president was in the white house that day, kept up to date by his national security team, spoke to the joint chiefs of staff earlier, secretary of state, and as events unfolded he was kept up to date.

Can you imagine what the press would have done if the President were George Bush and his "aide" was this intentionally vague, then this insulting, to an interviewer trying to get the answers to basic questions about the President's involvement during the Benghazi massacre?

Remember, it's not like this is an engaged President. His answer to just about everything is "I don't know, I wasn't involved, someone else was in charge, I heard about it the same way you did". The questions by Chris Wallace, therefore, were perfectly reasonable - and perfectly ducked by the ridiculous-sounding Dan Pfeiffer.

Could it be clearer that, after all the lies and all the deflections, this administration still is hiding the truth?

That is why the Benghazi scandal is not going away. 

Nor should it.

Ken Berwitz

You have to love this...no matter what you think of Barack Obama.

From Maureen Dowd's latest column in today's New York Times, in which she writes about the major scandals hanging over President Obama and his administration:

Democrats are not worried that the rumpuses will hurt Obama's personal appeal or reputation for integrity.

SAY WHAT???????????

Yep, Maureen, Democrats are completely unworried about Benghazi, the LIE-RS scandal and the fact that the Associated Press (among others) is outraged at the bugging of its reporters avenues of communication, both at the office and at home.

You sure can tell by the comments some of them have made.

But that isn't even the main event.  It's that "reputation for integrity" line that jumped out at me.  Because, unlike most of what Ms. Dowd writes about Barack Obama, in this case I completely agree with her.

See, I don't think Barack Obama has any reputation for integrity.  Maybe does to some people, but not me.  And his integrity level certainly is not improved by the rope-a-dope tactics he is using on every scandal:  

-first, denying it exists,

-then, telling us there was less there than we were being told,

-then, telling us he didn't know a thing about it;  he found out the same time we did,

-then, blaming it on everyone but himself and his fellow Democrats, 

-and then, sternly telling us he will do everything necessary to get to the bottom of the thing that didn't exist/was unimportant/he never knew about/was someone else's fault -- without actually doing anything at all.

This is why Ms. Dowd is 100% correct.  These "rumpuses" (is that what they call scandals in Dowdville?) cannot affect Barack Obama's reputation for integrity.  Because when a reputation for integrity is zero, the only thing that can affect it is something that brings it up, not down.

Can anyone tell me what Mr. Obama has said/what actions he has taken on these scandals, which would do that?  Personally, I can't come up with any. 

For this reason, I congratulate Ms. Dowd on her conclusion.  In my mind, four and a half years of Barack Obama's lies and inaction on scandal after scandal, have kept his reputation for integrity perfectly intact.

An insight that accurate has to be in the running for Line Of The Year.

Ken Berwitz

I post this not in anger but in amusement.

Suppose you are a pseudo-leftist hypocrite like bill maher or michael moore - i.e. someone who makes a fortune spouting hard left BS, while living like a 1%-er on the money you make spouting it.

Well, now you are faced with the Obama & Co. - probably the closest you will get to having an administration which buys into your BS - exploding with major scandal after major scandal - Benghazi, and LIE-RS, and bugging the communications of Associated Press reporters, among others.  What do you do now?

Well, you attack people to their right (which is just about everyone) for hating the USA, that's what.  Hey, why not?  The people you appeal to will fall for it hook, line and sinker. 

Can't believe this is their way of getting around the Obama scandals? Well, read these two quotes from maher's latest HBO "Real Time" show and see for yourself:

MAHER:  "What about trying to repealing [Obamacare] for the 37^th time? Is that a wise use of our resources and time? I mean, at some point obstruction becomes, I don't know, treason, you know? I mean they've also blocked Obama's head of the EPA. There's no head of the circuit court in D.C. You know, at some point it just becomes more about hating him than loving your country."

MOORE:  "No, they hate America.  That's really what it is. I think these conservatives and right-wingers for as much as they say they love this country, they hate it. They hate the government. They hate the people."

Ken Berwitz

Sarah Hall Ingram headed the tax-exempt division of the IRS during the time when it singled out groups most likely to be critical of President Obama. 

Since then, Ingram has been promoted, and now heads the IRS enforcement division in charge of ObamaCare.

Here is what President Obama had to say about the IRS scandal (or the LIE-RS scandal as I call it) on Thursday (bold print is mine):

Well, with respect to the IRS, I spoke to this yesterday.  My main concern is fixing a problem, and we began that process yesterday by asking and accepting the resignation of the Acting Director there.  We will be putting in new leadership that will be able to make sure that -- following up on the IG audit -- that we gather up all the facts, that we hold accountable those who have taken these outrageous actions.  As I said last night, it is just simply unacceptable for there to even be a hint of partisanship or ideology when it comes to the application of our tax laws...

...So in addition to making sure that we've got a new acting director there, we're also going to make sure that we gather up the facts, and hold accountable and responsible anybody who was involved in this.  We're going to make sure that we identify any structural or management issues to prevent something like this from happening again.  We're going to make sure that we are accepting all of the recommendations that the IG has in the report.  

The "fact" is that the same person who was specifically in charge of "these outrageous actions" is currently in a position do do even more damage than she did while heading the tax-exempt division.

At what point, Mr. President, will Sarah Hall Ingram be held accountable?  Or is the only one you will "hold accountable" the acting Director, Steven Miller, whose resignation was absolutely meaningless since he was leaving in less than a month anyway?

Why does Sarah Hall Ingram still have her job?

Ken Berwitz

Today's quote comes to us from the execrable Sarah Hall Ingram, who, from 2009 into 2012, ran the IRS division responsible for granting or not granting tax-exempt status to the groups which applied for it:  this was the most notorious period in which groups with things like "Tea Party" and "Patriot" in their names were held up, literally for years while left wing groups had no such problems*.

Here is what Ingram had to say at a Georgetown University Law Center event in 2009:

"As a practical matter, we cannot subject every application for tax-exempt status to a painstaking, leave-no-rock-unturned review. Nor can we audit every organization's 990 every year. Nor would you want us to do so, right? To govern is to choose, and we must choose appropriately which applications or 990s to focus most attention on."

As is now crystal-clear, even to a good many Obamanite sycophants who have looked the other way at just about every other mess created by this administration (Chris Matthews and Piers Morgan being two of the most recent, and two of the most surprising) Igram's definition of choosing appropriately was to say no to the groups likely to criticize/work against her boss, while saying "yes" to the ones willing to play ball.

Keeping in mind that Quote Of The Day recipients do not have to say good things, or even honest things, only things that stand out regardless of how they might be thought of, Ingram gets her well-deserved recognition.

Now, why does this person still have a job at the IRS?  Didn't President Obama say he would rid us of the people responsible for this enormous scandal? 

Does his capacity for doing so begin and end at accepting the resignation of acting commissioner, Steven Miller, who was leaving the IRS within the month anyway?

=====================================================

*The far-left web site, dailykos.com, has laughably floated a piece claiming both sides were treated the same.  To make its case dailykos.com dredged up a total of 3 left wing groups.

Assuming the article's information is accurate:

-One of the groups had its tax-exempt request denied, with blogger Joan McCarter noting that none of the "Republican groups" (what basis has she for calling every one of them Republican?  None) got rejections -- which, is true, because none of them got any disposition at all.  For years.  Evidently, Ms. McCarter sees this as preferred treatment.

-One faced "the same lines of questionning" as the rightward groups...with no proof offered, nor any indication that the number of questions over the period of time for this one group was in any way comparable.

-One other "received IRS inquiries", which sounds like nothing with nothing.

This is supposed to cancel out 75 different groups being subjected to a years-long inquisition that would have done Torquemada proud, and a number of large donors to the Mitt Romney campaign whom the IRS suddenly decided to audit that year.

Now you know why I call it laughable.

Ken Berwitz

I have a feeling there will be a lot of posts like this one.

Here is the latest attempt to cover up one of the burgeoning Obama administration scandals - which are so big and so obvious that even his Accomplice Media, at least for the short run - have been forced to report on.

It comes in the form of a back-and-forth between Illinois Representative Aaron Schock, and acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller - the guy President Obama sternly told us he had accepted a resignation from, but who was, in actuality, leaving the IRS in a couple of weeks anyway because his temporary term was up (how does anyone believe a word that comes from Barack Obama's mouth?):

SCHOCK: "Mr. Chairman, I have with me a 150-page document given to me by the Thomas More Society detailing a number of pro-life organizations throughout the country which in application for 501(c)(3) status were given horrible instances of IRS abuse of power, political and religious bias, and a repression of their Constitutional rights.

"A letter from the IRS office of exempt organization specialist in El Monte, California, specifically the Pacific Coast Division - I would note this is not in the Cincinnati division - to the Christian Voices for Life of Fort Bend County in Sugarland, Texas dated March 31, 2011, that I have here with me today. They were asked specifically, again this is a pro-life group, 'In your educational program do you do education on both sides of the issues in your programs?' Mr. Miller, your knowledge of the 501(c)(3) application, is that an appropriate question to ask?"

MILLER: "Sir, I'm going to be honest and I'm not going to be able to speak to a specific development letter in a specific case I don't know that I can do that under 6103"

SCHOCK:  "Okay, let me ask you about another letter that was received by a pro-life group, this one in Iowa. Their question specifically asks from the IRS to the Coalition for Life of Iowa, 'Please detail the content of the members of your organization's prayers.' Would that be an appropriate question to a 501(c)(3) applicant? The content of one"s prayers?" 

MILLER:  "It pains me to say I can't speak to that one either. But that's an..."

SCHOCK:  "You don't know whether or not that would be an appropriate question to ask an applicant?"

MILLER:  "Speaking outside of this case, which I don't know anything about, it would surprise me that that question was asked".

SCHOCK:  "And finally during another applicant's conversation or back and forth they were asked specifically, 'Please detail certain signs that may or may not be held up outside of a Planned Parenthood facility.' Would that be an appropriate follow up to an applicant for 501(c)(3) application?"

MILLER:  "(It did not) sound like the usual question."

There you have it.  The "Gee, I don't know a thing about that" defense.  Learned, no doubt from the ongoing use of that same defense by Barack Obama, who, after over four years in the White House, is still claiming to whichever boobs still believe him that his Presidency is some kind of out-of-body experience.

If you believe this sorry bunch, you have to wonder if they ever showed up at their offices at all (hmmmm, though I meant that as a sarcasm,....in Mr. Obama's case, between the golf games, celebrity events he runs on the taxpayers' money and the fundraisers, it might be an actual issue).

More to come.  Count on it.

Ken Berwitz

Here's a question for you:  remember when President Obama pretended congress was in recess, so that he could make recess appointments?  I'm guessing that some do and some don't.

Here's another question:  Are you aware that two federal courts have nullified those appointments, because President Obama had no constitutional right to make them -- the second ruling issued just this past Thursday?  I'm betting very few know.

Why don't more citizens know about this overt abuse of power, and that it has been shot down, twice, by federal courts?  Because our wonderful "neutral" media have decided the public should not be aware of this...not while their lord and savior, Barack Obama, is busy fending off three other scandals.  Hey, it's not fair!

-In January, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals nullified four of President Obama's recess appointments - three of them to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) which Mr. Obama is determined to stack with pro-union hacks who are about as impartial as his White House staff.  You can click here to read the court's decision, which is none to diplomatic in its nullification.

-And now, the Third Court of Appeals has made the same ruling (If you're into legalese, click here to read it).

This is huge.  The President has been told, by two separate federal courts, that he has acted outside the constitution.  Is that a news story, or what?

Well, to ABC, CBS and NBC, the answer is..."or what".  Because - as noted by Ken Shepherd in his blog for newsbusters.org - not one of the three reported it on their national news shows Thursday night or on their Friday morning shows.  Not one word. 

In other words, the millions and millions of people who rely on these networks for news, don't even know these rulings exist, let alone what they say about how Barack Obama is running his presidency.

And then they wonder why people call them biased?  Unbelievable.

Ken Berwitz

As most people outside of Hollywood are aware, hugo chavez left Venezuela - an oil rich country which should be swimming in revenues - as a borderline economic basket case.

Bad enough that so many staples are in such short supply.  But toilet paper?  That's enough to wipe out the current government -- which probaby didn't win the post-chavez election anyway, since the margin was paper-thin and they were the ones in charge of the ballot boxes.

According to the Associated Press report (which probably means President Obama was chortling over the problem before we ever read about it), current President Nicholas Maduro is blaming the shortage on "anti-government forces".  Mr. Maduro did not make clear whether he was accusing those forces of hoarding toilet paper, or excessive wiping.

But not to worry.  Mr. Maduro has announced that the government will immediately import 760,000 tons of food, and 50 million rolls of toilet paper.

Great Scott, what a Charmin development this is - Maduro giving his constituents such Angel-Soft treatment.  Why, that man is on a roll.

Let me finish by offering my hope that, for the sake of Venezuelan tushies everywhere, the toilet paper arrives about the same time as the food.  I mean, there is something of a cause and effect issue here.