Comments about ‘Letters: VA real scandal’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, May 31 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

While we're piling on the Obama administration, here's another scandal that has gone unmentioned in most of the press: HSBC the British banking giant, has been laundering money for the Mexican drug cartels, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. Not one single HSBC exec is going to face prison time for this crime.

A poor kid selling marijuana on the street will certainly get jail time for his low dollar crime, but launder hundreds of millions of dollars and simply pay a fine that is meaningless in terms of your overall wealth. Just one more example of how standards of law and justice apply differently to the rich than they do to you and me.

Oh and I agree, there not much there with Benghazi and the IRS "scandal".

george of the jungle
goshen, UT

In the 60 and 70's It was a lot worse. If I was to compare then and now would be like night and day. They are like every place else, doing the best they can with what they've got. I believe that there is honor in in the VA. I respect them.

high school fan
Huntington, UT

How confused this guy really is. The VA might be dealing with people badly which is wrong but to believe the other two items mentioned are nothing is wrong.
In Bengazi, we ignored calls for help and we left people to fend for themselves without doing or trying anything and then we lie about it. Sorry but that is something.
The IRS targeting groups is not wrong? Are you crazy? And by the way many have not been helped yet.
It just might help if somebody was actually in charge of the federal government, we need a leader not a campaigner.

one old man
Ogden, UT

Good points. And the VA problems span far more than just one presidency.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

No harm, no foul? Who is sitting in the White House today? Would he have been re-elected if he had not covered up Benghazi until after the election? Would he have been re-elected if he had not used the power of the I.R.S. against those who opposed him? Would he have been re-elected if he had not thrown the 1st Amendment protections of a free press under the bus?

Not only was there a foul but now this nation will have to endure yet another president being impeached for lying and for using the power of his office against his political "enemies".

The scandal grows everyday. Just yesterday we learned that the head of the I.R.S. visited Obama 118 times, or virtually everyday that Obama was not on vacation, on some expensive outing at taxpayers' expense or on the golf-course.

The dots are being connected, one by one. Obama will be known as the most corrupt president to ever hold that office before this is over.

No harm? He can never repay the damage that he has done to America.

micawber
Centerville, UT

Mike,

I think we learned yesterday that the head of the IRS visited the White House 118 times, not the President. Many people work in the house. There were bi-weekly meetings of staff about the implementation of the Affordable Care Act which the head of the IRS often attended.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

Eric – one of our more eloquent BO apologists.

So glibly dismisses being lied to by the BO misadministration. So what if BO lied, he asks. Eric does not care that people were misinformed.

The lies were intended to divert attention from this misadministration’s complete mishandling of the situation before and during its occurrence.

I am disappointed, but not surprised, that they were able to distract Eric from the real scandal.

He also calmly dismisses IRS abuses.

“So what” he asks, “if a few groups (opposed to BO and his cabal) were subjected to additional scrutiny? They got their status in the end.”

He does not care that the abuses cost them additional time and money, after all, they likely opposed BO. He appears unaware that there are timing issues that impact the goals and designs of almost any group. The status is less valuable if the timing is delayed.

It’s akin to being charged a premium for concert tickets, but not receiving them until the show is over. But according to Eric, that’s OK, because they got the tickets.

Roland,
Thank you for pointing out BO's additional scandal

Makid
Kearns, UT

We also know that Republicans sat on the IRS information for more than 9 months before they brought it forward. Why didn't they bring it up last year during the election?

That question should be asked more than any other question in the entire IRS "Scandal" debacle. What are or were the Republicans trying to hide. If it was as they are saying now to protect the American people, why not bring it out when they first learned about it last July?

That is what people should be focusing on, what were they covering up?

Sal
Provo, UT

Makid, Republicans were howling to the administration about IRS abuses. Their complaints were ignored.

I have relatives who serve the government overseas. It is frightening to know that under attack they would not be helped or rescued if it would make this administration look bad during a political campaign.

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

Amen.

I am very surprised with the problems at the VA. I thought when General Shinseki was appointed, the VA would be in good hands.

As for the IRS:
The scandal is they are severly understaffed, particularly in the area of scrutinizing exempt applications.

Over 80 percent of applications submitted for tax-exempt status were from conservative organizations.

The only organization to have its tax-exempt status revoked was one run by Democratic women to try and encourage more women to run for office.

There is no requirement that any 501(c)(4) organization apply for approval of their tax-exempt status. If they do not apply, there is a risk of audit and disqualification down the road, but they are not required to apply to be a 501(c)(4) entity.

There was no limitation imposed by the IRS on these groups' ability to influence the 2012 election.

Many of the IRS requests for information came about because of activities observed by agents in real time.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

It's true. The recent 'scandals' are not as serious as those screaming about them want them to be.

Grover
Salt Lake City, UT

Every time I read a Mike Richards post I end up asking myself why I do so. Most, like todays is nothing but a rehash of the sludge promulgated by right wing web sites. Reality in that view, is nothing but a black and white universe where all things "right" are right and all things "left" are wrong... or course left wing sites are as guilty only in reverse. Would that life were that simple. Impeach? Yah, that really worked with President Clinton didn't it. They couldn't muster but a handful of votes in the Senate even though they controlled the chamber. Now Clinton is getting close to a 70% approval rating in the polls. Nice work, guys. Want to try again on President Obama? Go for it, but don't be surprised if the backlash ushers Hillary Clinton into the oval office.

Eric Samuelsen
Provo, UT

>Lost in DC
You claim to be familiar with my work. So you are aware that I have recently and publicly called for President Obama's impeachment, right?
What I care about is evidence. And there is no evidence, none, that the Obama administration lied to the American people in regards to Benghazi. None. Zero. Zippo. Bupkus.
What the evidence does clearly show is that in the midst of a very chaotic situation, lots of conflicting information was being processed, and in an attempt to communicate the best conclusion reached through all of it, the talking points got the story a little wrong. And I do mean a little wrong. The talking points did say that we had been attacked by terrorists. Just got the motivation a little wrong. This had no effect on the election. Give it up.

Joan Watson
TWIN FALLS, ID

A little government wrong here, a little government wrong there. How many 'winked' at little wrongs a corruption make?

Star Bright
Salt Lake City, Ut

Of course one of the "real scandal" is how our servicemen/woman are treted by this government!
Interesting - only harm in Benghazi was people were "slightly less informed for a few days."
So help could've arrived before the last 2 brave men were murdered. When notified about the Amb - they were asked to list him as "John Doe." Are you kidding me? Who gave the order to stand down? Where was the president? Why only one phone call? Obama didn't know about the Amb death until the next morning!
This administration lied!
"None one denied..." So those people/organizations who have waited 3 years and are still waiting should be consoled? Was it OK to intimidate these groups and even ask them what was said in their prayers? Romney supporter in Idaho had to spend nearly $100,000 to defend from IRS & he did nothing wrong. Then they went after the top supporters. Remember it could be you next time. BTW, ask Gibson Guitars about it.
Sorry Mike, Shulman visited over 157 times. No one denies it was with Pres 0bama! There are charts that show his visits against all others. Amazing!

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

If Obama's apologists spent half as much time defending the indefensible and spent twice as much time reading BOTH sides, they might finally see that Obama's actions are a scourge on America. No less an "expert" than Bob Woodward, the journalist who helped bring down the Nixon Presidency, has aimed his scorn at Obama, not because Woodward is some kind of "right wing" extremist, but because Woodward, unlike Obama's apologists, does not believe a word that Obama says or that Obama's friends say about Obama.

When a top-flight democrat and a top-notch journalist can punch holes in Obama's tall-tales, maybe Obama's apologists need to take note. Watching Obama steer the Ship-of-State into an iceberg should be more than even Obama's apologists can stomach.

Eric Samuelsen
Provo, UT

Star Bright,
Inform yourself. "Help could have arrived?" I know that's a favorite right wing talking point, but it's nonsense. No less an expert than Bob Gates, former Defense Secretary and a Republican has made clear--the US military does not fly troops into hostile environments without any planning, specific clear and relevant intelligence or support. That's why troops boarding helicopters were told to stand down.
As for 501 (c) (4) applications, remember that political groups are specifically prohibited from receiving tax exempt status. Lots of groups that should have been denied that status got it anyway do to all the noise about it. And don't talk to liberals about IRS targeting--during the Bush years, liberal groups were routinely harassed. I'm not saying the IRS was right; I am saying, once again, no actual harm was done.

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

How can you guys live in a country that persecutes innocent republicans, watches its ambassadors killed on tv while eating popcorn, personally oversee's the IRS's attack on conservatives and patriots, forces religions to change there teachings and has invited the antichrist to the white house for dinner as soon as he done taking 26 two week vacations this year.
oh yeah he's a marxist, communist, socialist, dictator, king, ...never mind the conflicting definitions, the fox listeners don't know the difference, and aren't going to look it up anyway.

Maybe it's because you truly want to hate Obama and you somehow need to legitimize this hatred thru these fantasy conspiracy therories, which have little merit outside the faux family entertainers.

The VA is just another extension of health care that the do nothing, didn't serve, warhawks see as freeloaders, you know the 47%.

HaHaHaHa
Othello, WA

This letter demonstrates the kind of fog you live in, when your a full on BHO brown noser. While were at it, I don't recall anyone being damaged by the watergate scandal during the Nixon administration. Nobody killed or murdered, nobody hurt financially or physically....sounds like a lot of to do about nothing!!

Star Bright
Salt Lake City, Ut

"the US military does not fly troops into hostile environments without any planning, specific clear and relevant intelligence or support. That's why troops boarding helicopters were told to stand down." And I ask again, who told them to stand down? Apparently only the president can do that?

So Samuelson if an embassy/consulate/safe house is attacked many, many times don't you think there should've been planning? You don't think the state dept shouldn't have had additional protection for our citizens? Valerie jarrett in the WH has far more security then our Amb.

BTW, if we don't send troops into hostile environments what in the heck are they doing in Afghanistan?

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments