Rep. McDermott: GOP won't give guidelines for 501(c)(4) tax exemption

Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) nailed it.  And the truth obviously hurt because he forced Rep. Paul Ryan to deviate from his prepared accusations, er, statement about the IRS "tempest in a tea party":

The mistake here was that the staff organizing the organizations used the names of the organizations rather than the work they do and asked improper questions to figure that out.

It’s clearly wrong. It was inept, stupid, and a whole lot of other things.

Let’s not forget, this happened under an IRS commissioner appointed by George Bush and was investigated by a Republican inspector general.

I haven’t heard a single word here about what questions you think we ought to be able to ask you about your tax-exempt request. Anything else, like the circus that’s happening in the Oversight Committee or here, is simply political theater.

EXACTLY!  Why isn't anybody else in Congress thinking about how to prevent such mistakes in the future, by coming up with clear and rational guidelines for the IRS to follow when evaluating whether an applicant for tax-exempt status really is a non-political "social welfare organization?"

I'll tell you why not.  Because Republicans want a big scandal.  (Good luck.)  And because they want to intimidate IRS staff so thoroughly that they'll completely stop checking conservative political groups altogether, no matter how obviously they are engaging in politics.  

As I've said before, this whole 501(c)(4) "social welfare" designation is total bullshit and only political hacks pretend it's real.  The GOP is positively giddy about acting all upset at the IRS, like a bunch of teenage boys booing the "bad guys" at a pro wrestling match when they know the whole thing's fake.

Paul Ryan Blasts Dem Rep. For Claiming IRS Investigation Just ‘Political Theater’

By Noah Rothman 

June 4, 2013 | Mediaite

URL: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/paul-ryan-blasts-dem-rep-for-claiming-irs-investigation-just-political-theater/

Letter to Uncle T. on BENGHAZI!

Uncle T.,
How can a lawyer say that incompetence (not negligence) is a crime?  Mind you, I'm not accusing anybody of incompetence.  Hindsight is 20/20.

Another good test of whether it's a kooky conspiracy theory or a real scandal is try to avoid using the pronoun "they."  Can you do that when you explain Benghazi?  

The GOP Congress slashed the State Department's diplomatic security budget by $500 million, i.e. Congress appropriated less money than Obama asked for. Hillary warned Boehner back in 2011 that such cuts would hurt national security.  If you want to find fault, start there.

Regarding threats -- duh!  There's a reason DOS personnel in Libya get danger pay... because it's dangerous!  U.S. personnel were in a conflict zone where al Qaeda affiliates were known to operate.  Then again, why did Congress cut DOS's budget?  We also got threats before 9/11 that Rice and Bush apparently ignored. Criminal incompetence... or nothing concrete enough to act on?  Be fair.

Next, the military commanders on the ground -- you know, those guys that politicians are never supposed to question -- decided not to scramble jets or send in FAST commandos from Spain during those 2 days. Was that the right decision? I don't know. But it was their decision. It wasn't a political decision.  Are you saying that SecDef Panetta, General Ham and General Dempsey at AFRICOM should be held accountable for "criminal" incompetence?  Remember Panetta's words: "the basic principle here… is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on; without having some real-time information about what's taking place."  They didn't know so they didn't send in commandos.  

Here's the Benghazi timeline sent by Panetta to the House Armed Services Committee.

Next, what happened after.  Talking points for a Sunday talk show one week after. OMG, that's important.  I mean, that's like testifying under oath.  And that was when we still didn't know who carried out the attack.  We STILL DON'T KNOW.  Yet it was terribly important for the Right to call it a "terrorist" attack by al-Qaeda.  Why?  I don't know.  What difference does it make?  Apparently it makes all the difference, even though those people will still be dead.  (By the way, how many times did Cheney and Rice go on Sunday talk shows saying Saddam had WMD, ignoring all the evidence that he didn't have any? No crime, no incompetence there? Remind yourself here.)  

Next, there was no cover-up about security. The State Dept. did its own investigation.  Congress has read the partly classified report and has not disputed its findings.  The report did not say the video was the cause of the attack; they said most likely some planning had gone into it, but it was an opportunistic strike.  No cover-up there.

Next, this deputy mission chief Hicks says he is being mistreated for "blowing the whistle," although he still has a job at the same level of pay.  The State Dept. is not allowed to comment on his employment status since it's a personal matter.  So the lawyer in you should wonder what the other side of the story is.  By law, we cannot hear it.  

So, in all the above, tell me who did what wrong and how it rises to the level of a cover-up or even a criminal act. Be specific, counselor!

Here is a liberal take on what the State Dept. & White House did wrong.  

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ I have cleaned up Uncle T's spelling and grammar a bit. - J ] 

My how you play word games. Since when is it not a cover up if only incompetence is involved and not a crime. (The little Democratic soldier marches on, with blinders always in place, no matter what the facts are).

The facts are that there was a specific warning given to the State Dept. (and possibly Secy. of State Hillary Clinton) of increased activity indicating the real possibility of a planned terrorist attack. The State Dept./ Clinton's response was to ignore the warning.

The Benghazi embassy then specifically requested increased security due to the known warnings and known increased terrorist activity.  The State Dept./ Clinton's response was to deny same.

It is overwhelming evidence that you NEVER let the facts get in the way of your opinion when you declare the you "don't get it" because the State Dept. sure "got it " and realized that it's incompetence costs American lives. The Dept's response was to  just plain lie and declare that the attack was an isolated unplanned uprising due to a video. That's a cover up by anyone's but your definition.

Obama sure "got it" as he tried to protect Clinton and his administration and continued the unplanned isolated uprising lie.

Lying about the warning and lying about the denial of requested additional security and then making up non-existent facts in an attempt to deny culpability are facts for which you should be outraged.


UPDATE (05.16.2013): McClatchy is doing some tough reporting on Benghazi that gives the lie to the GOP's insistence on some kind of scandal or cover-up.  Check out these two articles:  "Benghazi emails show CIA deputy did most of editing on talking points," and "Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers for more security, U.S. officials say."  

BENGHAZI!! Sorry, I'm still yawning

All of you outraged by Benghazi! should read this post by Professor Andrew Sabl. Here's the key part:

Look, I’m not a Benghazi expert. I’m willing to entertain the possibility that there’s something here that the media aren’t telling me. But before I evaluate the case, I need to see some concrete charges. My challenge to conservatives is to tell me, very simply, the following:

(1) What, in your view, was the crime? Who did what and which law did it break? No crime, no cover-up (in the usual sense).

But the idea seems to be that what was “covered up” was not crime but incompetence. (That stretches the former meaning of “cover-up,” but never mind.) So:

(2) Who failed competently to perform his or her job, in which concrete ways? Which decisions are we talking about, by whom, at what time, and on what grounds should we believe that a competent person in the job in question would have had to make a different decision? Again, failure to devote unlimited resources to guarding every consulate at all times does not constitute an incompetent decision but rather precisely a competent one. And a judgment (apparently held by the diplomats on the ground at the time) that there was a tradeoff between high security and diplomatic effectiveness is also, absent conclusive arguments to the contrary, quite defensible. We need more.

(3) What information was covered up, and how? What facts do we (a) now know to be the case that (b) were previously concealed from view by (c) illegitimate threats or undue influence (as opposed to agency politics as usual, whereby those higher up would rather sweep mistakes under the rug but grudgingly tolerate subordinates who air them)?

Unless all three of these elements in (3) are  present, there was no cover-up—at most a halfhearted attempt at a cover-up, or an honest difference of opinion about facts. And unless number (1) or (2) is present, there was nothing to cover up.

My standing challenge to my Republican friends is to tell me in your own words who did what wrong, and be specific.  Then ask yourself if this rises to the level of a scandal, crime or coverup.  Keep Sabl's words in mind when you do.

Actually Stephen Colbert does a pretty good job of showing there is no "there" there in this conspiracy theory:

On Benghazi—An honest plea for specific charges

By Andrew Sabl

May 9, 2013 | The Reality-Based Community

URL: http://www.samefacts.com/2013/05/secrecy-in-government/on-benghazi-an-honest-plea-for-specific-charges/