StormX
Banned
Before we recount the lengthy list of things the president says he didn't know about, it's important to note two inescapable conclusions:
• The president truly has been oblivious.
• Or, the president is not leveling with us.
The first alternative is discomforting, at the least. For about a century, the man in the White House has been the most powerful person on the planet. And this one doesn't know what's happening on his watch?
How accountable can the bureaucrats and technocrats of the largest governmental apparatus in history be if the elected person to whom they answer is in the dark about what they do?
Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto may have raised the first red flag in May, writing about the possibility that the Internal Revenue Service acted without White House direction and “went rogue” to support the party in power by singling out conservative nonprofit groups seeking tax-exempt status. The president said he learned about this egregious targeting from news accounts, same as the rest of us who aren't president.
If so, that would constitute, “a cancer on the federal government,” Taranto suggested, which would be worse than if a rogue president were pulling the strings. Maybe.
More troubling may be the second possibility posed by Obama's avowed lack of knowledge about the activities of his tax agents, health care officials, spies and other federal apparatchiks. What if the president knew, despite his statements to the contrary? What's that mean for a nation of laws, not of men?
At some point it transcends the question of whether the man is qualified to lead, which is what claims of ignorance suggest. Rather, it is a more fundamental issue of integrity.
For my money, nearly all politicians are untrustworthy. As a class, they reflexively compromise integrity to “get things done.” Again, for my part, I elect politicians to not get things done, and hope they will undo things already done.
It's bad enough when it's a matter of incompetence, and politicians mean well, but just don't have a clue. How many times shall Americans accept more grand assurances when not only are the promises broken, but the man making the promise didn't see the obvious outcome looming ahead?
How many broken promises and “I was unaware” excuses does it take before Americans doubt the promise-maker's truthfulness? We might be more likely to give the ignorant guy the benefit of the doubt. But once his track record and excuses strain credulity, it's hard not to conclude you're dealing with a person who doesn't tell the truth.
Lack of integrity in the man at the top sets a tone mimicked at lower levels. The Big Lie becomes the talking point baseline. That helps explain the behavior of Obama's latest minion under the spotlight – Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
Her chair before a congressional committee wasn't even warm before she insisted the Obamacare website “never crashed.” At that very moment, healthcare.gov crashed – again – all around the country. As Groucho Marx might have asked, “Who you gonna believe? Her or your lying eyes?”
The Obama administration reflects Obama. Both either lack a grasp of the relevant facts, or are duplicitous.
It doesn't end there. Lies beget lies, which beget holes too deep to climb out of. Nixon succumbed. Clinton was more fortunate. But prevaricators eventually run up against the liars' dilemma. At what point does a proven liar become completely untrustworthy? When can you believe that a liar isn't lying?
Fervent ideology sometimes trumps reason. But the president is pushing the envelope even among his fan club. Wrote the Obama-friendly New York Times regarding, “[T]he botched rollout of his signature health care program and for the secret spying on allied heads of state. In both instances, his explanation roughly boils down to this: I didn't know.”
The president also is losing luster among the rank and file. His approval numbers hit a record low 42 percent, says a NBC-Wall Street Journal poll, and 51 percent disapproved, a record high. Pollsters didn't ask whether people think Obama is oblivious or untruthful.
You decide.
Here's a partial list of things the president claims to have been unaware of before they occurred: The NSA spying scandal, domestic and foreign; multiple warnings about the Obamacare website disaster prior to its launch; IRS targeting his political opponents; millions who will lose their health plans and doctors despite his promise otherwise; Department of Justice spying on journalists; the flawed security at Benghazi; ATF running guns to Mexico. Finally, and perhaps the one destined to generate the most backlash, that Obamacare will result in tens of millions of insured Americans losing their current plans and being forced to replace them with policies costing exorbitantly more.
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/president-536054-obama-things.html
• The president truly has been oblivious.
• Or, the president is not leveling with us.
The first alternative is discomforting, at the least. For about a century, the man in the White House has been the most powerful person on the planet. And this one doesn't know what's happening on his watch?
How accountable can the bureaucrats and technocrats of the largest governmental apparatus in history be if the elected person to whom they answer is in the dark about what they do?
Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto may have raised the first red flag in May, writing about the possibility that the Internal Revenue Service acted without White House direction and “went rogue” to support the party in power by singling out conservative nonprofit groups seeking tax-exempt status. The president said he learned about this egregious targeting from news accounts, same as the rest of us who aren't president.
If so, that would constitute, “a cancer on the federal government,” Taranto suggested, which would be worse than if a rogue president were pulling the strings. Maybe.
More troubling may be the second possibility posed by Obama's avowed lack of knowledge about the activities of his tax agents, health care officials, spies and other federal apparatchiks. What if the president knew, despite his statements to the contrary? What's that mean for a nation of laws, not of men?
At some point it transcends the question of whether the man is qualified to lead, which is what claims of ignorance suggest. Rather, it is a more fundamental issue of integrity.
For my money, nearly all politicians are untrustworthy. As a class, they reflexively compromise integrity to “get things done.” Again, for my part, I elect politicians to not get things done, and hope they will undo things already done.
It's bad enough when it's a matter of incompetence, and politicians mean well, but just don't have a clue. How many times shall Americans accept more grand assurances when not only are the promises broken, but the man making the promise didn't see the obvious outcome looming ahead?
How many broken promises and “I was unaware” excuses does it take before Americans doubt the promise-maker's truthfulness? We might be more likely to give the ignorant guy the benefit of the doubt. But once his track record and excuses strain credulity, it's hard not to conclude you're dealing with a person who doesn't tell the truth.
Lack of integrity in the man at the top sets a tone mimicked at lower levels. The Big Lie becomes the talking point baseline. That helps explain the behavior of Obama's latest minion under the spotlight – Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
Her chair before a congressional committee wasn't even warm before she insisted the Obamacare website “never crashed.” At that very moment, healthcare.gov crashed – again – all around the country. As Groucho Marx might have asked, “Who you gonna believe? Her or your lying eyes?”
The Obama administration reflects Obama. Both either lack a grasp of the relevant facts, or are duplicitous.
It doesn't end there. Lies beget lies, which beget holes too deep to climb out of. Nixon succumbed. Clinton was more fortunate. But prevaricators eventually run up against the liars' dilemma. At what point does a proven liar become completely untrustworthy? When can you believe that a liar isn't lying?
Fervent ideology sometimes trumps reason. But the president is pushing the envelope even among his fan club. Wrote the Obama-friendly New York Times regarding, “[T]he botched rollout of his signature health care program and for the secret spying on allied heads of state. In both instances, his explanation roughly boils down to this: I didn't know.”
The president also is losing luster among the rank and file. His approval numbers hit a record low 42 percent, says a NBC-Wall Street Journal poll, and 51 percent disapproved, a record high. Pollsters didn't ask whether people think Obama is oblivious or untruthful.
You decide.
Here's a partial list of things the president claims to have been unaware of before they occurred: The NSA spying scandal, domestic and foreign; multiple warnings about the Obamacare website disaster prior to its launch; IRS targeting his political opponents; millions who will lose their health plans and doctors despite his promise otherwise; Department of Justice spying on journalists; the flawed security at Benghazi; ATF running guns to Mexico. Finally, and perhaps the one destined to generate the most backlash, that Obamacare will result in tens of millions of insured Americans losing their current plans and being forced to replace them with policies costing exorbitantly more.
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/president-536054-obama-things.html
