Published: Tuesday, May 21 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT
And it has. Obama got rid of the head of the IRS. Bengazhi is nothing more than
a make believe witch hunt. Nothing to investigate there. we were attacked.
attacks happen in the ME. And the AP thing is under investigation.Now how about conservatives hold their folks accountable for Iran Contra, tax
cuts for the rich which merely exploded the deficit and didnt create jobs, 2
failed nation building projects which have killed thousands and cost over $2
trillion, lies about WMDs, patriot act, Medicare part D, releasing the name of a
CIA agent (we all know scooter Libby to the fall for dick Cheney), the worst
attack on america soil since pearl harbor, and the worst economic crash since
the Great Depression. When will these folks be held accountable? The
buck stopped on Reagan's and Bush's desk too, right?Instead of Bush dedicating libraries he should be on trial answering questions
about his own presidency. If he had been held to the same standard you folks are
trying to hold Obama to, he would have been impeached right after 9/11.Lets stop with the lame attacks, and focus on our country, PLEASE.
As maverick pointed out, the buck is stopping. Fortunately, our administration
isn't letting a teacup bound tempest hold it hostage.
Of course Truman's motto of "The Buck Stops Here" refers to his
responsibility. For Obama the motto reads "The Buck Stops With Bush",
meaning it is all Bush's fault.
'The buck stops here’========= Which is
precisely why we blame GW Bush for; 5,000 dead American soldiers, 75,000 wounded, $2 Trlllion of unfunded debt, the complete wipe
out of America's Middle Class, WallStreet and Bank Bail-outs, the Great Recession, and the Patriot Act.And I agree, Pres.
Obama is making his own list of failures, but at least Benghazi did not
cost me my entire life's savings, my children's college
education funding, and my future retirement in 10-15 years.
The Real MaverickOrem, UT======= Sorry Mav, I shot my post before reading what was already posted.But
it's good to see we're on the same page...
In other words, according to the everyday cadre of DN leftists posters, Bush who
didn't do anything illegal, let alone half of what he is accused of = BAD,
and obama is overseeing an administration that is rotten with illegal activities
= good! At the very least, they get a pass!
To "The Real Maverick" you and your liberal apologists make me laugh.
Do you read what has gone on with all of the scandals surrounding Obama? He has
yet to even touch one of the scandals. Benghazi, he was caught lying, yet
insists that he wasn't. He never knew anything about the AP wire taps,
Fast and Furious, or the IRS.If he is going to hold people
accountable, why isn't he pushing more investigations on Hilary and how she
dropped the ball on Benghazi? Why isn't he flogging the Treasury Secretary
for not knowing anything about the IRS?Obama has shown that he lives
in a "Blame Free Zone" and will never take responsibility.
Obama doesn't now the meaning of responsibility. Ask Hilary Clinton. Ask
Susan Rice. Ask Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.
Ask Brian Terry. For that matter, ask Reverend Wright.Ask anyone
who had the misfortune to be in Obama's way when he was climbing over them
to get to safety. The cry used to be "Protect the women and the
children". Obama has changed all that. What does he care for the women who
worked in his administration and America's sons and daughters who serve in
the military? What does he care about the rights of the citizens to not be
targets of the I.R.S.? What does he care about the press and its guaranteed
freedom from his interference? Truman understood his duty and he did
it. Obama doesn't have a clue - and America is paying the price.
Truman was vilified from day one by the Right Wing, which blocked him on
virtually everything he tried to do. With Truman we would already have
single-payer health insurance instead of te mess we have today. Medicare
would've come 20 years earlier. When he fired crazy MacArthur, who wanted
to pour radiation on China, the calls for impeachment were loud and long.GOP
loved the phrase "To err is Truman." It's refreshing now to hear
RightWingers pay tribute to Truman, a real hero in my book.
"The Buck Stops Here" is extremely lazy and shuns personal
responsibility. Republicans point fingers of blame at President Obama even
though facts show that questionable decisions being made much further down the
chain of command. The Republicans aren't interested in personal
responsibility; they aren't interested in correcting the problem where the
problem occured. Their only interest is to keep "the base" excited and
upset in the hopes of making political gain.
Mr. Obama has plausible ignorance of the scandals in Benghazi, phone tapping the
AP/James Rosen of Fox and targeting by the IRS. However if that is true, just
who is running the White House and making important decisions, Valery Jarrett,
Michelle Obama, Jay Carney perhaps? The president reminds us that he won the
election which implies that he is in control of White House policy. I
didn't know until I read it in the newspaper, I have no knowledge of that,
Bush is to blame, the Republicans stopped me, it was the tsunami, the Arab
Spring is the cause, sequestration caused it, there's no there there, ad
The funny thing is the revisionist history repubs have of the White House and
IRS. They ask, "who is running the IRS? Why wasn't Obama in the know?
Why isn't he congntrollig the IRS?"They forget, emnity was
placed between the White House and the IRS after repub president, Richard Nixon,
abused his powers and controlled the IRS to attack his opponents.Obama didnt know what the IRS was doing because he shouldn't. Otherwise,
repubs would be crying that he was using it for political advantage.Funny, how repubs claim that he is using the IRS yet "forget" the
emnity placed because of an actually impeached repub president. It's ironic
that they cry for obama's impeachment now.... Well... Since he was elected
The executive branch has an accountability issue. But Repubs trying to blow
this up into the mother of all scandals have a short memory. For
just one example, let's look at the Godfather of modern conservatism,
Ronald Reagan. His administration was caught selling anti-tank and
anti-aircraft weapons to anti-American Iranian thugs holding Americans hostage,
and using the profits to fund right-wing guerilla thugs in a Central American
civil war in explicit violation of an act of Congress. The affair violated
domestic and international laws left and right.Unlike Obama, who has
at least tried to get out in front of his crises, Reagan was absolutely silent
on Iran-Contra for 3 months. Then he admitted that his administration had lied
in previous statements, and he assumed accountability for acts committed without
his knowledge. The investigating commission concluded that Reagan had no
knowledge of the scandal, but that he'd lost control of his national
security team.To this day, conservatives hail Oliver North, the main
culprit, as an American hero. This man shredded national security documents,
committed perjury, and obstructed a Congressional investigation. Don't get
on your high horses about accountability.
To "Unreconstructed Reb" are you talking about the same Obama who wants
to "Lead from behind". How can somebody who doesn't lead be out
there in front of the crises? He claims to not have known about the problems
until the news was one. Plus, since he is apologizing for what was done, that
indicates that he is behind on the crises.How many "teams"
has Obama lost control of? So far we have the State Department getting out from
under him, the Treasury Department, the Attorney General, and Homeland Security.
Doesn't it bother you that Obama can't control nearly 25% of his
cabinet? This raises the question, how many other parts of the executive branch
are out of control?If Reagan was so bad for losing control of his
national security team, what does that say about Obama who loses control of
national security, law enforcement, treasury, and foreign affairs?
Redshirt, 1) I'm saying that at least Obama is trying to
address the issue, firing the head of the IRS as an example, as opposed to
refusing to answer questions about it like Reagan did for 3 months. He's
attempting to be as proactive as he can. The effectiveness of his efforts I
leave to the partisan opinion of the reader. 2) To my knowledge,
none of the executive branches you're listing have done anything as
remotely "rogue" as selling weapons to Iranians and giving the money to
Nicaraguan death squads. This is the NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL out of control
during the COLD WAR when the nukes are ready to blow the world 10x over!
Destroying documents, breaking the law, arming terrorists, and doing all of it
without the knowledge of the C-in-C while obstructing Congress! (Alternatively,
depending on who you ask, Reagan's either a liar who had North fall on his
sword or beginning his slide into senility - neither of those is particularly
defensible either.). 3) Can you defend Iran-Contra? If you are
going to try to defend Reagan, you have no business whipping yourself into a
lather over anything Obama's done.
I see that at least some of you Obama supporters are comparing Iran/Contra/
Watergate type scandle with what is currently going on. You're on the
right track. Just don't put your head in the sand like the Real Maverick
and others do and pretend there is nothing here. Let Obama try to sell us that
there is "no there there". In the meantime go ahead, bring up all the
past Republican scandle you want. It happened and Congress dealt with it like
they should have. Now Congress has to deal with the scandle of the current
President. What's wrong with that? Other than his Party affiliation of
course. If he were Republican, you guys would be waving pom poms.
m.g. scott, If you read carefully, you'll note that most of us
are bringing up Iran-Contra and Watergate and specifically noting that
there's no evidence at this point that any of Obama's clear missteps
are on par with those events, and many conservatives asserting otherwise have
forgotten the gravity of those scandals by drawing the comparison.Party has nothing to do with it. I thought the Clinton scandal was an
embarrassment, and supported Bush when he was getting raked over the coals by
the 9/11 Commission.I, for one, welcome investigations into the
recent string of scandals in the hopes that they can shed actual light on what
has happened, as opposed to accusations coming from the Right Wing's
default assumption that Obama's every action is motivated by the darkest of
Unreconstructed Reb:While I can see where you're coming from your
making an argument that carries little meaning to the present issues facing
Obama. Bringing up the Iran contra affair is just the "you did it so we
should be able to do it" mentality. Two wrongs don't make a right. Iran
contra was indeed wrong, but that doesn't excuse the president or his
administration from the current issues he's facing.
Cougsndawgs,No, I am not using a 'tu quoque' defense to
excuse the Obama administration. I'm simply pointing out that 1) Reagan
remains a conservative icon yet Iran-Contra is arguably a far dirtier scandal
than anything that's been proven about Obama (that Oliver North has also
become a conservative darling and even tried running for office is even more
atrocious); and 2) after the consistent tarring of Obama as the most venal and
corrupt president ever by For News, Limbaugh, Beck, and the commenters here on a
daily basis, I think that the Right could use a memory check for what a real
scandal by out of control underlings looks like. The buck stops here indeed,
Mr. Reagan.Again, I welcome inquiry into the matters so that we can
establish facts instead of leaping to conclusions based on what party we're
registered for and what our source of news happens to be.4th
comment, so I'm out....
To "Unreconstructed Reb" Obama has not fired anybody. The person that
resigned was planning on doing so last year.You are excusing Obama
by saying that Reagan did worse things.Tell us, why is the
Iran-Contra scandal worse than the scandals that have gone directly against the
US constitution and security of the US?If I remember things
correctly, Reagan still had to answer for what happened. Will Obama answer for
anything that has happened on his watch?Tell us, why gun running
under Reagan was so bad, yet the gun running to Mexico under Obama is not as
bad? The guns that Obama allowed into the hands of Mexican drug cartels have
been used for murders in Mexico and have been used against US agents.Your partisan ship or blinders are evident by the fact that you don't
think that there is so much corruption and illegal activities going on under
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments