Edward Snowden

The Red Ranger:  By now I am sure you have heard of the NSA whistle blower Edward Snowden who has spilled the beans about the elaborate government spying operation that has been transpiring over the last few years.  I give him credit for doing what he did although I am unsure what it really means.

I am torn since I want the government to do what it can to protect us but I also fear the inevitable over reach of the government’s tentacles into everyone’s life.  If the government truly just collects the data and then uses it once they get a lead from another source than that is probably OK but if the government is randomly or even systemically listening to every phone call made by a Muslim who immigrated to the US from another country that is probably not too cool.

I disagree with Dick Cheney who labeled him a traitor.  Even though this program may have allowed some insight into allegedly terrorist activities that still doesn’t mean it was the right thing to do.  The government could stop all terrorist activities if they just totally controlled all aspects of everyone’s lives.  However, I am sure that even you would agree that is a less than enjoyable state of living.

If there was going to be one terrorist event every ten years but in the intervening years we were free from unnecessary government snooping that may not be a bad trade off.  Unless of course you were one of the victims of the terrorists activities.

Nattering Naybob: I too have mixed feelings about the whole thing, in part because the details are a little murky. The question of privacy vs. keeping people safe, will probably never be settled. If we lean towards the sanctity of privacy, and we God forbid are victims of a major terrorist plot, people will probably start saying the hell with privacy, we need to protect our citizens. If we put national security in the forefront and maybe “push the envelope” on privacy and surveillance protocols, then the privacy advocates and “Government stay out of my private life” advocates, are up in arms… until we have a terrorist attack.

What kind of agency or body could be trusted to monitor the checking of personal data and ensure a balance? No matter who or what is appointed to do this, people from both sides of the argument will claim that their interest (either privacy or security) is being short-changed.

I see where Sean Hannity has totally reversed the doctrine he espoused during the Bush administration — National security at all costs– and is now sounding like a card-carrying member of the ACLU by saying that Obama is violating the Constitution (of course Obama is violating the Constitution, that’s all he has done every single day of his Presidency, right Sean?) Well, I guess it’s a matter of Hannity being against the Fourth Amendment before he was for it.

The Red Ranger: I did not read the article you attached since I saw mediamatters in the URL so I knew it was a bogus story. If what you say about Hannity is true then shame on him.

The Big Three

The Red Ranger: So which of these three recent issues could be the most damaging to Obama:

1) Benghazi cover-up
2) IRS scrutiny on conservative organizations
3) AP search

Looks like these three issues are flaring up against Obama’s administration.  My thoughts on them.

1) Benghazi – Once again it seems like this is one of those instances where the coverup is worse than the crime.  Given the timing of this event right before the election I can see how the administration would want to avoid the dirty details of what happened in Benghazi.  If they would have admitted up from that it was a terroist attack that we were unprepared for I think people would have been disappointed in that this happened but would probably have understood that you cannot prevent these attacks from happening everywhere all the time.  Denying the facts is indefensible.

2) IRS scrutiny on conservative organizations.  If true, and it appears to be, this is just plain wrong.  Everyone hates the IRS and this is just another reason to hate them.  The administration should not be using the IRS to thwart their oppostion.  That being said if these groups were purely political then they should not be tax-exempt.  The IRS needs to remain neutral as to all applications for tax-exempt status.  Everyone should go through the same process regardless of what their name is.

I also read that one of Obama’s sleazy half-brothers got expedited approval for his tax-exempt Barack H. Obama Foundation.  If none of the other things that the IRS is being accused of had happened then I would be willing to let this expedited approval slide as there should be some benefits to being president.

3) DOJ search of AP records.  I really don’t know all of the details behind this but it seems like this should concern all citizens as it is in directly violation of our first ammendment rights and leads us down a slippery slope.

Given the number of scandals it is fun to watch Jay Carney squirm.  I don’t know how these people can do these jobs when they clearly lie pretty much on a daily basis.  It also seems that the MSM is covering these stories at least a little bit.  Where there is smoke there is fire.

Nattering Naybob: I will try to shed some light first on the third topic regarding the AP. Like you I do not know all the details but basically the Obama administration is claiming that a reporter from the AP leaked some sensitive information that was supposed to be off the record, and this leak had national security implications. So now they are reviewing the call records of the entire AP organization to see who may have leaked the information. The supposed danger of this is that they have access to other phone log data for the AP reporters who were not involved in the leak or were privvy to the sensitive information.

That the Obama administration is doing this– and has pushed the envelope on similar issues in the name of National Security– again underlines the foolishness of any Presidential candidate vowing “not to violate the civil rights or privacy of anyone in the name of a criminal or terrorism investigation”. Once you become President, the safety of the nation is in your hands. You have a lot more responsibility once you become President than when you are a candidate (or a member of Congress). Also, a President has access to top-secret information that very few other people have, and if that President knew the same information he or she knew while a candidate, they may not have been so fast to make that promise to protect civil liberties at all costs. I thjink this whole matter is more a question for the Courts rather than a full-blown scandal.

As for the other two issues:
1. The uproar over Benghazi is mainly a product of politics, pure and simple. There is no doubt that things went wrong during the attack, and it suggests the need for a change in security protocols among other things. Whether or not there was a cover-up still remains to be seen, so I do not think this can be classified as a scandal either.

2. The IRS was wrong to do what they did, period, end of story. Everyone knows that. There has been no evidence whatsoever that Obama or anyone in his administration ordered that this be done. However, as titular head of the government, Obama does bear overall responsibility for this, and I am sure he will fulfill that responsibility by firing whoever was involved. Again, no scandal there.

So there you have it, I have de-bunked all three issues and have provided ample proof that none of them can be categorized as a scandal. I have done my good deed for the day from an Obama supporter perspective.

The Red Ranger: The IRS scandals deepens if this story turns out to be true.

Just having the head of the IRS resign, something which he was going to do anyway, is not enough.  Saying that Obama did not know about this is insufficient.  Every time something happens he has no knowledge of it.  What is he doing as President if he never has any knowledge about what is going on.  I thought he was so brilliant that he knew how to do everyone’s job he appointed better than they did.  Now he appears to know nothing.

Nattering Naybob: I do not recall seeing any article or speech in which President Obama claimed he could do a better job at anything than the people he appointed to that job. That is a typical Red Rangerian interpretation.

The problem now is that every time a group that is in opposition to the incumbent Presidential party, has their tax-exempt application denied, or is audited, then everyone is going to say that it is a political hatchet job. The fact is that I agree that the IRS needs a thorough and fundamental overhaul, along with the tax code itself. Maybe this will be the impetus. Maybe as the new head of the IRS, Obama can score some political points and appoint John Boehner’s new son-in-law.

The Red Ranger: I know that you are getting older and that your memory ain’t what it used to be but there were numerous articles written in 2008 and 2009 that fawned over Obama’s supposed brilliance and how he could do any one of the jobs of his appointees better than they could.  I will try to find some.

Do you think Boehner’s daughter is marrying him to spite her father? Hey, if it is OK for the President to smoke pot or use other illegal drugs why not everyone else.

Nattering Naybob: Even if you find those articles, I don’t think Obama can be blamed for other people saying he is intelligent. I carry that burden with me every day of my life, so I know how tough that is.

I don’t think she is spiting Boehner. I actually think he is a decent guy and would accept him into the family without reservations about whether he has smoked pot or wears funny hats, but he would probably also kid around about with the guys at the club (Republicans always belong to some kind of “club”, have you noticed).