Now I hope the the Jets go 0 and 16

Rex Ryan takes shot at Tim Tebow with false Eric Decker stat

As for Rex’s phony stat — that seems like it was more about taking a shot at Tebow than it was pumping up Decker. That just goes to show you how much Ryan enjoyed his time with the Florida Gators legend.

Benghazi: The Past is prologue

An old item takes on new significance:

The Politics of Incompetence

On December 26, two days after Nigerian Omar Abdulmutallab allegedly attempted to use underwear packed with plastic explosives to blow up the Amsterdam-to-Detroit flight he was on, and as it became clear internally that the Administration had suffered perhaps its most embarrassing failure in the area of national security, senior Obama White House aides, including chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod and new White House counsel Robert Bauer, ordered staff to begin researching similar breakdowns -- if any -- from the Bush Administration.

"The idea was that we'd show that the Bush Administration had had far worse missteps than we ever could," says a staffer in the counsel's office. "We were told that classified material involving anything related to al Qaeda operating in Yemen or Nigeria was fair game and that we'd declassify it if necessary."

That last statement is astounding: "We were told that classified material involving anything related to al Qaeda operating in Yemen or Nigeria was fair game and that we'd declassify it if necessary."

We see here the same game plan as the Benghazi cover-up. The White House-- staffed to the gills with veterans of Obama's 2008 campaign-- went into attack mode when they faced a potentially embarrassing event. Winning the news cycle was their paramount concern; telling truth to the nation was a decidedly secondary consideration.

When we look at Benghazi, the crotch bomber, and the Boston Marathon bombing, another pattern becomes clear. The White House and other senior officials immediately denied that the event had any connection to terrorist groups. Those denials were later shown to be mistaken.

Mass Murder: What can be done?

Obviously, one thing that could help is for the MSM to stop giving the killers the attention and celebrity they crave .



This article by police trainer Ron Borsch suggests one other route to lessen the carnage.

Ohio trainer makes the case for single-officer entry against active killers

Among his findings that have helped shape his tactical thinking:

• 98% of active killers act alone.

• 80% have long guns, 75% have multiple weapons (about 3 per incident), and they sometimes bring hundreds of extra rounds of ammunition to the shooting site.

• Despite such heavy armaments and an obsession with murder at close range, they have an average hit rate of less than 50%.

• They strike “stunned, defenseless innocents via surprise ambush. On a level playing field, the typical active killer would be a no-contest against anyone reasonably capable of defending themselves.”

• “They absolutely control life and death until they stop at their leisure or are stopped.” They do not take hostages, do not negotiate.

• They generally try to avoid police, do not hide or lie in wait for officers and “typically fold quickly upon armed confrontation.”

• 90% commit suicide on-site. “Surrender or escape attempts are unlikely.”

Two points deserve emphasis for out purposes:

They strike “stunned, defenseless innocents via surprise ambush. On a level playing field, the typical active killer would be a no-contest against anyone reasonably capable of defending themselves.”

They generally try to avoid police, do not hide or lie in wait for officers and “typically fold quickly upon armed confrontation.”

Simply put, the slaughter stops when a good guy (or woman) shows up with a gun.


So why aren't we talking about improving the odds that said good guy will be on the scene or get there quickly?

The latest murder spree supports Borsch's findings.

Isla Vista Shooter Intentionally Chose A “Gun Free Zone”

The 141-page manifesto of the Santa Barbara spree killer shows that he spent more than a year planning his attack, and that part of his planning involved choosing a time and place where he felt the odds were lowest that he would encounter armed resistance quickly. He calculated his odds, conducted surveillance, did pre-mission planning, and intentionally sought out a gun free zone.

Rodger spent over a year and a half meticulously planning his attack.

His 141-page “manifesto” makes it clear that he feared someone with a gun could stop him before he was able to kill a lot of people.

Mass murder and how to prevent it

From last year

What Mass Killers Want—And How to Stop Them

Rampage shooters crave the spotlight, and we should do everything possible to deprive them of it

How might journalists and police change their practices to discourage mass shootings? First, they need to do more to deprive the killer of an audience:

Never publish a shooter's propaganda. Aside from the act itself, there is no greater aim for the mass killer than to see his own grievances broadcast far and wide. Many shooters directly cite the words of prior killers as inspiration. In 2007, the forensic psychiatrist Michael Welner told "Good Morning America" that the Virginia Tech shooter's self-photos and videotaped ramblings were a "PR tape" that was a "social catastrophe" for NBC News to have aired.

HT: Michael Bane

Related:

The media's vile calculus: If it bleeds, it leads and leads to more blood

When Charles Whitman went up the tower at the University of Texas., he carried more than just guns and ammunition. He also took along a radio. He listened to the news coverage of te carnage he created. That was important to him.

"How many people do I have to kill before I get my name in the paper or some national attention?"

Hey, you heard it first!

Politico today:

John Boehner’s friends plot tea party crackdown

They’ve given John Boehner constant headaches during his three years as speaker.

Now, Boehner’s friends are trying to make sure that a small pocket of tea-party-aligned Republicans won’t have a chance to derail his speakership next year. And if they try, they could be punished.

This humble blog on 2 April:

Who’s afraid of a Republican landslide?

Sometimes I wonder if Boehner and his allies in the House think about that. Have they decided that modest gains which leave them in control of the House are better than a landslide that might topple the current leadership?

I also sometimes wonder about the lack of movement on the IRS scandal.

Who benefits from throttling Tea Party?

The truth will out

But don't count on the MSM to help.

Remembering the young men killed in UCSB rampage
These men’s lives were just as valuable as the women’s lives.

Instapundit understands the purpose behind the narrative.

Disengaged? Or disingenuous?

During the reign of Louis XIV, when the common people complained of some oppressive government policy, they would say, ‘If only the king knew . . . .’ Occasionally people will make similar statements about Barack Obama, blaming the policies they don’t like on his lieutenants.
But Barack Obama, like Louis XIV before him, knows exactly what is going on.

Here:

Czars, Kings, and Presidents

MacArthur reconsidered

A quite good and long-overdue reappraisal of Gen. Douglas MacArthur

Rethinking Douglas MacArthur
Fifty years after his death, it’s time America’s most misunderstood military genius got his due.

Great lives, fully lived, cast long shadows. Fifty years after his death, it’s not unusual to hear people rank Douglas MacArthur among America’s worst generals—alongside Benedict Arnold and William Westmoreland. His critics say he was insubordinate and arrogant, callous in dealing with dissent, his Korean War command studded with mistakes. “MacArthur could never see another sun, or even a moon for that matter, in the heavens, as long as he was the sun,” once said President Eisenhower, who had served under MacArthur in the Pacific. Some of what the critics say is undoubtedly true, but much of what they say is wrong. And all this noise seems to have drowned out the general’s tremendous accomplishments. What about his near flawless command during World War II, his trailblazing understanding of modern warfare, his grooming of some of the best commanders this country has ever seen? What about the fact that he is—as much as any other general in the war—responsible for the allied victory? It’s time to give “Dugout Doug” credit for these merits and not just cut him down for his mistakes—real and imagined. It’s time to reconsider Douglas MacArthur.

Field Marshall Sir Alan Brooke, Chief of the Imperial General Staff, did not share the American disdain for MacArthur and his abilities. He considered him "the greatest strategist of the war and his campaign in the Southwest Pacific as a masterpiece"

I have often wondered since the war how different matters might have been if I had had MacArthur instead of Marshall to deal with. From everything I saw of him I put him down as the greatest general of the last war. He certainly showed a far greater strategic grasp than Marshall.
Arthur Bryant, The Turn of the Tide (1957)

Worth noting MacArthur's willingness to adapt in the Southwest Pacific in contrast to a more highly esteemed general's performance in Europe:

Bradley, who had no experience with amphibious landings, did not take advice from officers who had seen service in the Pacific. Moreover, he disliked the Navy and was uninterested in their work on fire support and ship to shore movements under enemy fire. At Tarawa the Marines learned that amphibian tractors were worth their weight in gold. Bradley left 300 amtracs in England. Nor did Bradley see the value in the specialized engineering vehicles developed by Gen. Sir Percy Hobart to overcome the extraordinary challenges presented by the German beach defenses.

They still want to kick around Dick Nixon

The Atlantic and Elizabeth Drew find it scandalous that RN refused to stay mired in Watergate

Project Wizard: Dick Nixon’s Brazen Plan for Post-Watergate Redemption

The disgraced president's plan to remake himself as a statesman shows how disconnected he was from reality—but also how resilient and effective he could still be.

Nixon's brazenenss can't hold a candle to the Kennedy family. Did Nixon laugh at Watergate jokes as Teddy K. did at Chappaquiddick jokes?

Nixon's refusal to admit defeat is character flaw. For Clintons and Kennedys, it is something to be admired.

Once you understand that logic, you are read to join the MSM guild.

Why political thrillers usually suck

Great piece by James Bowman on Hollywood's moral universe.

AMONG THE SUPREMELY PC

Politics for them is not politics as it has been traditionally understood. For them, politics is a movie, as well as the occasion for proclaiming a tribal loyalty.

You can tell this by watching, if you can bear it, the always unreal movies and TV shows whose subject is politics—House of Cards is a good recent example—produced by the American entertainment industry. Hollywood sees politics as moviemakers and other conspiracy theorists do. Or as a communist does, which may be one reason why communism was once so much more popular there than it was in the rest of the country. For such people, democratic politics is no more than a disguise for the politicians’ corruption and violence, and their common cause with exploiters and oppressors of the people.

Wrongful conviction

Two heinous murders.

A trial filled with lurid testimony about family dysfunction and incest.

A killer sent to Death Row only to be released on appeal due to legal "technicalities."

A story made for Nancy Grace or Bill O'Baxter.

For over twenty years Dale Johnston lived under a cloud. Most people in southeastern Ohio believed he got away with murder. His family was destroyed. Some one burned down his home.

And then, the real killer was caught, convicted and sent to prison.

So, it turns out, the "legal technicalities" kept Ohio from executing an innocent man.

As is often the case, the press failed in its watchdog role. Instead, it was complicit in the injustice as it amplified the prosecutions charges and ignored the manifest weaknesses of the case against Dale Johnston.

Is it wrong to connect these dots?

The Unknown in the Boston Bombings

The House Homeland Security Committee released a report summarizing its investigation into the April 15, 2013, terrorist attack at the Boston Marathon. Among the report’s key findings: Nearly one year after twin backpack bombs killed three people and wounded more than 260 others, U.S. officials are still unsure about the extent of the terrorists’ foreign ties.

Jay Carney spins ‘laughable’ yarn about Obama’s focus on bringing Benghazi killers to justice

Google Glass wearer interrogated, removed from Easton movie theater

A Hilliard man’s trip to the movies on Saturday night was cut short because of his eyewear: Google Glass.

The 35-year-old Glass wearer said he was yanked out of a showing of Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit at the AMC Theater at Easton Town Center by two Homeland Security agents who thought he might be making a bootleg copy.

Authorities raid flea markets

LAWRENCE — Police, joined by agents from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, arrested 40 people for selling counterfeit items at two flea markets yesterday.

Throw in the IRS targeting of conservatives and the and the aggressive leak investigations aimed at the AP and James Rosen, and a disturbing picture emerges. The government has plenty of resources and can move with alacrity when it chooses to. The priorities, however, seem screwed up.

Lots of good sense here

5 Aggravating Ways Grassroots Conservatives Screw Themselves

Let's face it: most of you would much rather read a clever column from me making fun of liberals than a column telling you what WE need to do differently. Instead of taking a hard look at ourselves, we have a tendency to drop into cliches. "We need to stick to our principles." "Stop listening to RINOS!" "Be more like Reagan!"

This is priceless:

Most of the people critiquing grassroots conservatives are left-wingers or faux righties like Joe Scarborough, Jennifer Rubin, and David Frum who make a living by telling liberals what they want to hear about conservatives. Nobody respects what they have to say because everyone knows they don't have our best interests at heart. Listening to those mediocrities would be like Apple taking advice from Microsoft.

What lies behind the Benghazi lies?

Speculative but fascinating:

The Day Obama’s Presidency Died

So let me insert a guess into the field. Suppose Benghazi was the night when the administration’s secret policy fell apart. In one devastating attack Obama — and Hillary — realized they had been double crossed and their whole theory had been a dream. In an instant it was plain they could not control the jihad from the inside.

That setback, by itself, was not necessarily a bad thing. Commanders in Chief can make mistakes so why couldn’t Hillary and Obama just admit they had this theory but it didn’t work in practice and just learn from it?

Because they had pursued the policy secretly and possibly illegally. Because of 2012. Because like Hirohito, Obama could do no wrong, so there was nothing but to protect the Throne of Heaven from the accusation of fallibility and the guilt of cover-up. So they lied.

The Iran-contra affair was propelled, in part, by Robert MvFarlane's desire to 'pull a Kissinger' and re-open relations with Iran. Was someone in the White House seduced by a similar mirage WRT the Muslim Brotherhood and Sunni fundamentalism?

Hubris makes people do stupid things. And prideful people often lie when they are embarrassed.

A pattern of lies

Jeffrey Lord:

TIM GEITHNER’S TRUE LIES

But Geithner’s book revealing a deliberate attempt to mislead on financial matters, released as it is in the wake of the Rhodes memo — and with a look back at the White House handling of health care untruths, not to mention his nod to Cutter — plays a remarkable role here in the Benghazi hearings soon to come.

Worth noting that the flack who pushed the Big Lie-- "If you like your plan..."- was ex-journalist Linda Douglas.

Makes you wonder if "journalistic ethics" is the world's biggest oxymoron.

Joe Biden, Donald Sterling, and Justine Sacco

Question: Why does Joe Biden get a pass?

The MSM has become the Righteous Avengers of Offensive Speech and the Relentless Hunters of Thought Crimes. One thoughtless tweet can end a career if the MSM decides to turn their sights on the tweeter.

But how do they decide who becomes this week's Emmanuel Goldstein?

Why must Justine Sacco be destroyed but Joe Biden is given a pass?

Is Joe Biden a psychopath or is this evidence of advancing senility?

The "crazy Benghazi Truthers" meme

Tremendous article by Stephen F. Hayes

Who’s Crazy?

Benghazi, crazy. That’s the association the White House and its allies want to encourage as a House Select Committee begins what should be the most thorough investigation of the Benghazi attacks to date. The White House wants to delegitimize the process before it begins and preemptively discredit the findings. So last week senior White House adviser David Plouffe claimed that “a very loud, delusional minority” is driving the Republicans on Benghazi, and former representative Jane Harman compared questions about Benghazi to conspiracy theories about Vince Foster and aliens.

This point is right on target:

There’s no small irony here. The Obama administration sold a false narrative concealing the nature of a terrorist attack six weeks before the 2012 presidential election, and the coverage at the time reflected widespread journalistic skepticism about any possible political motive. But as Republicans move to investigate those false claims six months before midterm elections, their motives are self-evidently political.

I discussed the political utility of the crazy meme here:

Benghazi spin machine was using the standard playbook

CNN's Reliable Sources and the case of the compromised critic

So Brian Stelter wanted to talk about Monica Lewinski. So of course he had Jeffrey Toobin on.

Monica and the media

An interesting choice to be sure. Toobin is a married man with a well documented zipper problem.

Jeffrey Toobin: Class act, or mendacious moral midget?

That makes it hard to tell if his defense of Clinton is rooted in principle and the law, or simply on expedience and self-preservation.

Of course, Brian Stelter never approached THAT issue.

Interesting point though. At the time Toobin was writing his book on the Clinton impeachment, he was involved in an affair with a much younger woman.

Lara Logan (UPDATED)

You could write a book on all the problems with this morally abhorrent article on Lara Logan:

Benghazi and the Bombshell
Is Lara Logan too toxic to return to 60 Minutes?

The most disgusting part was Joe Hagan’s insinuation that Logan was asking for it when she was sexually assaulted in Cairo’s Tahrir Square during the uprising that toppled Mubarak.

First Hagan tells us that “Logan often flouted traditional Islamic dress codes”. And then there is this:

“She was told 15 different ways: ‘Do not leave the hotel after curfew,’ and she did,”

Normally, reporters are lauded for their bravery when they try get close to the events while covering a story. Logan, however, is not to be lauded so the writer has to imply that she was arrogant and reckless. (As if most reporters are humble as church mice.)

The article tips its hand as it builds its case against Logan. What really sticks in the craw of Hagan and the backstabbers at CBS is that Logan left the MSM reservation. I suspect for most people, that is to her credit.

For instance, she is condemned for expressing her political opinions in a speech in October 2012:

Then, at a Chicago luncheon for the Better Government Association in October 2012, she gave a speech claiming the government was propagating a “major lie” about the strength of the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. “You’re not listening to what the people who are fighting you say about this fight,” she said. “In your arrogance, you think you write the script.” The speech came on the heels of her report “The Longest War,” about General John Allen’s struggles in Afghanistanand with his superiors in the Obama administration.

Among her colleagues at 60 Minutes, there was shock that Logan’s expression of her political opinions in public was met with no blowback from management. But it was her CBS bosses who had helped arrange the speech. While Logan spoke without notes, David Rhodes, the president of CBS News, was sitting in the audience listening.

Logan’s quoted remarks are political in only one sense: they were critical of a government headed by Barak Obama. When Bush was president, such these sort of remarks were both common and widely praised. Logan said exactly the sort of thing that David Halberstam said during the Vietnam War. Halberstam is an icon for journalists yet Logan is becoming a pariah?

Why?

LBJ vs. BHO.

That’s just how journolisters roll.

The most often voiced criticism of Logan is that she respects the military and does patriotic stories.

“She was part of the military culture, taking some of the same risks, imbibing its worldview.”

“Her proximity to the top brass and her devotion to military interests”

“The number of segments Logan did for 60 Minutes ramped up under Fager. Almost all of them focused on military figures and assorted heroics: “Staff Sgt. Giunta’s Medal of Honor”; “A Relentless Enemy”; “Combat in Afghanistan”; “The Silver Star”; “Kidnapped in Basra”; “Ambush in Afghanistan.””

“Enmeshed in the social world of former and current military personnel.”

This is what made Logan a pariah at CBS and within the MSM.

Two telling insights into the worldview of reporters:

First Robert D. Kaplan from 1996:

Fort Leavenworth and the Eclipse of Nationhood

"The military," Major Kellett-Forsyth told me, "is in the nation-state world. The media represents the postmodern, or transnational world. Overseas, [U.S. soldiers] sit down with each other. The American media sits down with foreign journalists: that's its socialization group."

David Gelernter from 1998:

Between lawmen and reporters on the whole it is impossible, however, not to notice this difference: Most lawmen seem to hate criminals, and most reporters couldn't care less.

As Hagan makes clear, the old guard at “60 Minutes” and CBS News hated Logan and the sort of stories she did. In the MSM, this criticism is seen as fatal for Logan’s reputation. For the nation as a whole, however, it may be a badge of honor.

After all, no one can accuse Mike Wallace of being too patriotic:

“Don’t you have a higher duty as an American citizen to do all you can to save the lives of soldiers rather than this journalistic ethic of reporting fact?” Ogletree asked. Without hesitating Wallace responded: “No, you don’t have higher duty...You’re a reporter.” This persuaded Jennings, who changed his view: “I think he’s right, too. I chickened out.”

UPDATE:

Joe COncha is a stand up guy.

Joe Concha to Howard Kurtz: Lara Logan ‘Deserves Better’ from CBS News

Brian Stelter, on the other hand, continues to play the fool.

CBS’ Benghazi Problem

Benghazi spin machine was using the standard playbook

I think Ann Althouse is on to something.

Jane Harman recited not the talking points, but the opposite of talking points on Benghazi.

Look, I realize I can be accused of "conspiracy" thinking to suspect something and to speak as if I know what they're saying behind our back... but here's the kind of thing Harman's Area-51-Vince-Foster remark made me feel they are saying in private:

We need people to hear the word "Benghazi" as a buzzword of nuts. Somebody says "Benghazi" and the reflex reaction is "Oh, no, here we go again with the conspiracy theories." It should be like when somebody brings up Area 51 or Vince Foster was murdered. A normal person is like "Ugh! Leave me alone." That's the way "Benghazi" should feel. Somebody says "Benghazi" and all anybody thinks is "conspiracy nutcase." Nobody who wants to be considered mainstream in this election should be able to say "Benghazi" anymore. Case closed, and you've built in the respect for Hillary saying "What difference at this point does it make?" Everybody decent — if we get this idea across — will react to Benghazi with a Hillary-esque exasperated "What difference does it make?" If it makes a difference to you, you're crazy. This is a circus. You're a clown. A scary clown. Boo! Aliens! Benghazi! Vince Foster!

I do not think her speculations are outlandish in the least. The scenario she lays out fits perfectly with the Rahmbo/Axelrod strategy that ha been in play since Obama was elected in 2008.

The central problem the newly empowered leftist faced was that the nation voted for "Change" but remained stubbornly center-right. Any astute strategist knew that much of the Obama agenda would die if it was debated on its merits; the public support was not there for a hard left-turn.

The brilliant but cynical response was to foreclose debate. Partly, this depended on the goodwill all new presidents have. In addition, the window of opportunity afforded by the economic meltdown was exploited. ("Never let a crisis go to waste"). Raw political power could be wielded ("You have to pass the bill to know what's in it")"

Those advantages were certain to evaporate with time. So the long-term strategy was simple: make conservatives and Republicans toxic in the public's mind so that centrists and low-information voters did not listen to the counter-arguments and did not want to be associated with anything conservative or Republican. That's the reason the White House focused so much attention on Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. It is no coincidence that the Tea Party was branded as racist from the first. It is the reason that Democrats and the White House treat all conservatives as "birthers".

The central problem with all ambitious education plans

Ace:

I do not support the lofty and ambitious goal of having teachers teach children "how to think" because I do not believe that low-ranking civil servants, as a group, are particularly good at it themselves.

Presidents can't vote present

Critical point made by Andrew McCarthy:

The AWOL Commander-in-Chief

The executive branch is designed to make the president singularly accountable. That is why he is the sole official in whom the Constitution vests all executive power — AFRICOM moves, or doesn’t move, based on his orders because it is his authority that the armed forces exercise. The chief executive, James Madison asserted, would be wholly “responsible for [the] conduct” of his subordinate officials. Therefore, it would “subject [the president] to impeachment himself, if he suffers them to perpetrate with impunity high crimes or misdemeanors against the United States, or neglects to superintend their conduct, so as to check their excesses.” When AFRICOM abstains from battle, or Lois Lerner obstructs an investigation, or Eric Holder misleads Congress, or Michael Morell doctors talking points, or Susan Rice serially lies on national television, Barack Obama is responsible. It is his bidding that they do, and by failing to fire or discipline them he implicitly endorses their malfeasance.

RTWT

Tommy Vietor is (sadly) emblematic of the New Washington

From May 2013

Benghazi: The high price of rampant knowingness

The distinctive feature of coercive “experts” like Joe Biden or Joe Salazar is that they are credentialed, not proficient. They assume the right to make decisions for others, but that assumption is based on “media consensus” and insider back-scratching. It is not, demonstrably in the case of Biden and Salazar, based on proven expertise or knowledge.

Ours is an age of Knowingness Rampant.

I suspect that this is one of the reasons for the Benghazi disaster.

The Clinton team perfected modern scandal management: Stonewall as long as you can, then, dismiss the inconvenient truth as '"old news".

Or, as Tommy Vietor mights say, "Dude, that was like two years ago."

Of course, this can only work with a lazy and complicit press. Mitt Romney's prep school days were long ago but, somehow, they were not "old news."

Similarly, during Watergate, lies by the White House goaded the MSM to dig deeper. Up until now, Anita Dunn's little lapdogs have been happy to swallow the lies, wipe their chin, and ask for more.

What remains to be seen is if David Halberstam's analysis still holds true.

A story like Vietnam or Watergate has a balance of forces of its own. At first the charges are deniable, the existing structure holds, powerful men with powerful positions can keep their troops in line. All the weight is on one side, and reporters like Woodward and Bernstein are a tiny minority, seeming puny by comparison. But there is the momentum, The denials slowly weaken, events undermine the denials so there have to be more denials, and each denial is a little weaker than the previous one. … Slowly the people who are issuing denials lose credibility, and the reporters begin to gain credibility.

Andrew McCarthy connects the dots on Benghazi

Absolute must read:

Obama’s ‘Blame the Video’ Fraud Started in Cairo, Not Benghazi

The Obama administration’s “Blame the Video” story was a fraudulent explanation for the September 11, 2012, rioting in Cairo every bit as much as it was a fraudulent explanation for the massacre in Benghazi several hours later.

We’ll come back to that because, once you grasp this well-hidden fact, the Obama administration’s derelictions of duty in connection with Benghazi become much easier to see.

Related:

Susan Rice and Benghazi

From this we learn three critical facts: 1. Susan Rice is a diplomat who had no qualms about considering domestic politics when making diplomatic decisions. 2. She is an Obama loyalist who was an early passenger of the Hope and Change Express. 3. Her loyalty to Obama made her quite willing to kneecap her old patrons the Clintons.

So, are we to believe that the White House ignored all that when they chose Susan Rice to go on the Sunday shows to deflect blame after the disaster at Benghazi?

Worse than Watergate (con't)

Federal Election Commission Lawyer: Politicking for Obama on Taxpayer Time

A lawyer for the Federal Election Commission has resigned after being found to have engaged in prohibited political activity to help President Obama’s reelection on government time. The Federal Election Commission is the agency charged with regulating campaign finance for the presidential campaigns and serving as a purportedly neutral federal agency.

From last December:

Finally, most of the illegal and immoral actions at the heart of Watergate were carried out the Nixon campaign: i. e. private citizens with no legal power nor any special protections.

With the IRS scandals we have something far, far worse. Here are government employees breaking the law and wielding their enormous power on behalf of one political party. Further, we have the incontrovertible fact that the party which benefited from this abuse of power has obstructed any and all attempts to ascertain the scope of the abuse and to punish those who did wrong, covered for the wrong-doers, or were negligent in preventing the wrong-doing.