We’re In The Age Of No Consequences For Acting Badly

by Ben Hoffman

Yesterday, Obama claimed “the buck stops here” when intelligence agencies failed to prevent the latest terrorist attack that could have cost the lives of hundreds of people. There were plenty of obvious warnings, yet chances are, no one will suffer any consequences or lose their jobs. The bombers’s own father warned that his son was a serious danger, yet he wasn’t entered into the no fly list. The CIA realized there was a danger after the plane took off, but was going to wait until the plane landed before they took action. Had the bomber not been so incompetent, that would have been too late.

We’ve seen the lack of any consequences with the banking industry. Banks deemed “too big to fail” engaged in reckless behavior, which in effect was high stakes gambling, but it turned out, they were gambling with the house’s money! No problem. Here’s a few hundred billion to take care of your losses. And give yourselves a bonus while you’re at it.

Last week, there was the Blackwater murder case where the contractors gunned down innocent, unarmed Iraqi civilians in cold blood, but the case was thrown out of court. Iraqis understandably were outraged, but it looks like there will be no consequences. Not exactly the way to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.

With the Abu Ghraib scandal, only a few peons were punished. With the Bush administration, the buck stopped with the people who were just following orders. It never reached those who were in command, like Rumsfeld or Cheney.

And of course, there was the issue of the Bush administration lying us into a war. Nearly 4,000 American troops died, thousands of others were wounded, at a cost of a trillion dollars, not to mention all the Iraqi civilians who were killed. Rather than prosecute anyone, the Obama administration wants to look forward. Dick Cheney doesn’t realize what a gift he was given. He should be in prison, yet all he’s doing is running his mouth calling Obama “weak on terror.” No, the Bush administration was weak on terror. They allowed us to be attacked and then lost the war against al Qaeda by bankrupting our country and destroying our economy. That was bin Laden’s goal.

There were also the cases of Karl Rove and Harriet Meyers defying congressional subpoenas and nothing ever happened with that.

And then there was the Clinton administration… Oh, wait… Clinton was impeached for getting a blow job. Hmmmm… I guess there are just no consequences for Republicans acting badly. If only Clinton knew back then that you could just ignore Congressional subpoenas.

Advertisements

40 Comments to “We’re In The Age Of No Consequences For Acting Badly”

  1. “Clinton was impeached…”

    Not going to take the bait on that one, Ben! 🙂

  2. Ben – terrorism, war, bank failures etc? No sex. Clinton? Sex. Sex is really really bad.

    • Wow! Ol’ Ben knows the entire story about the Blackwater case. Just because you want something to be true, doesn’t make it true. I guess you know more about the case than the judge actually hearing it. You’re naive to think ANYONE is going to win the ‘hearts and minds’ of Muslims. Clinton was impeached not for getting a blow job … he was impeached for being a liar. ie; he lied to the grand jury. (hello felony)
      No need to state the facts of how Barney Frank and Chuck Schumer block every effort to regulate Fannie and Freddie; and then, along with the Clinton administration pressured them to make reckless and sure-to-fail loans to low income people who couldn’t pay. But I surely don’t want to confuse you with facts.

  3. Mr. Hoffman,

    First off, President Bush did not lie us in to a war. Second of all, isn’t this topic merely a smoke screen to take the pressure off of your hero President Obama. Your guy is really getting hammered right now, isn’t he?

    The underwear bomber fiasco is a good example of maybe it wasn’t such a great idea to come in to office and screw all of the FBI and CIA field agents, just to make political points with your liberal supporters.

    Then there is the easy one, the C-Span controversy. Usually Obama is careful to phrase his deceptions so as to give himself plausible deniability. Our President screwed up during the campaign and actually promised in plain English to :

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/05/c-span-challenges-congress-open-health-care-talks-tv-coverage/

    “”That’s what I will do in bringing all parties together, not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are,” Obama said at a debate against Hillary Clinton in Los Angeles on Jan. 31, 2008.”

    So Bush caused the C-Span problem, how ?

    Ms, Holland,

    “Clinton? Sex. Sex is really really bad.”

    Ask Monica, but don’t ask Hillary. She wouldn’t remember.

    • [First off, President Bush did not lie us in to a war.]

      Yeah, that’s the ticket… And “we had no domestic attacks under Bush,” said Rudy Giuliani. And “the Bush administration kept us safe for eight years,” said Dick Cheney.

      You right-wingers live in a fantasy land where you think you can just make stuff up and it will become fact.

      That reminds me… Rove and Meyers ignored Congressional subpoenas and there were no consequences. I’ll have to add that to my post.

      • Ben,

        Where do you start, and where does it end? Our Miss __ Americas can be exposed doing drugs and still be allowed to keep their crown as (arguably) a role model for teenage girls. We had the whole Waco incident. We have Bush & Cheney dodging the 9/11 Commission (which was a joke anyways, but still…) Add Timothy Geithner and his tax cheating as well. Has anybody lost their job over Madoff yet?

        Examples abound on both sides that shows there is no accountability in politics anymore. It’s a joke.

      • [Add Timothy Geithner and his tax cheating as well. Has anybody lost their job over Madoff yet?]

        Good points. Geithner’s done a lot worse than cheat on his taxes; he advised AIG to lie and hide information. He’ll be testifying in front of the oversight committee later this month.

        As far as Madoff, incompetence by the SEC isn’t a crime.

      • [As far as Madoff, incompetence by the SEC isn’t a crime.]

        It’s certainly grounds for dismissal.

      • True, but I don’t think they’ve been able to blame it on any one person.

      • On Moyers’ last night I learned that Geithner’s chief of staff is a former Goldman lobbyist. Choke on that. Damn them.

  4. Mr. Hoffman,

    “That reminds me… Rove and Meyers ignored Congressional subpoenas and there were no consequences. I’ll have to add that to my post.”

    Interesting point. The word for today is hypocrite. As in your guy Obama is one. That is a person who says one thing and does another. Now I have already pointed out the hypocrisy of Obama promising C-Span coverage of the back room deals on health care and then not following through.

    Please tell me what the difference was when a certain Senator Obama, I hope you remember him, called President Bush’s use of executive privilege to keep his SENIOR advisers from testifying to Congress, “completely misguided “. Now a different Obama, President Obama is asserting separation of powers to keep his Social Secretary Desiree Rogers from appearing before a committee concerning the party crashers at the White House.

    Now either your hero is a big skinny hypocrite, or a White House Social Secretary out ranks a President’s senior advisers.

    I await with baited breath on how you will rationalize this.

    • I haven’t heard about him keeping his Social Secretary from testifying, but crashing a party and politicizing the justice department are just slightly different in their importance.

    • [President Obama is asserting separation of powers to keep his Social Secretary Desiree Rogers from appearing before a committee concerning the party crashers at the White House.]

      Desiree Rogers was not under subpoena. Rove and Myers were. Rodgers declined an invitation. Rove/Myers defied a legal order.

      Sorry Alan, not even close.

  5. Mr. Hoffman,

    “I haven’t heard about him keeping his Social Secretary from testifying, but crashing a party and politicizing the justice department are just slightly different in their importance.”

    Wow, instead of your usual rationalizing, you ignored it. Both Presidents asserted their rights to keep Congress away from their staff. My point was, Bush had more of a case because his people were senior, whereas Obama’s person was a lower level aid. Also again Obama made a big deal of what President Bush deal. Then is a lesser case, he does it himself.

    Why do you always give him a pass?

    Ms. Holland,

    “Desiree Rogers was not under subpoena. Rove and Myers were. Rodgers declined an invitation. Rove/Myers defied a legal order.

    Sorry Alan, not even close.”

    You are not by chance a hair dresser? You really do split hairs wonderfully.

    • [My point was, Bush had more of a case because his people were senior, whereas Obama’s person was a lower level aid.]

      Bush politicized our justice department. That goes against everything this country stands for.

      How exactly did a party crasher harm our country, other than putting the president at risk? You would think Congress has better things to do than investigate this matter but all Republicans are interested in is bringing down the Obama presidency, just like with Clinton. They don’t give a damn about our country. The only thing that matters to them is getting their party back in power.

  6. Sorry about the grammatical errors.

  7. Mr. Hoffman,

    I stand on Principle. For the umpteenth time. The issue is hypocrisy, period. The issue is not whether Congress has the authority to ask for Presidential personnel to testify. The issue is not whether they have a valid reason to ask Presidential personnel to testify.

    When Obama was in the legislative branch, he wanted that branch to be able to force the Executive branch to do what it did not want to do. Now that he has gained power in the Executive branch, his views are the opposite.

    Now an honest man, when faced with this conflict, would simply say that his previous views were wrong, and he has changed his mind.

    If our President was an honest man, he would say that almost everything he said while campaigning had been wrong. The world loves a repentant sinner. Except you guys wouldn’t love him.

  8. [The world loves a repentant sinner.] I agree. Like Ted Kennedy.

  9. Mr. Hoffman,

    “F*ck you and your little school girl principles”

    I should put that one away and use it the next time you dare to question Republican ethics.

    “It’s funny how your “principles” only apply to Democrats.”

    I deny, deny, deny. I don’t recall defending the disgraced R. Senator from Alaska and his bridge to nowhere. I don’t recall defending the R. who propositioned the officer in the airport bathroom stall.

    Ms Holland,

    “[The world loves a repentant sinner.] I agree. Like Ted Kennedy.”

    🙂

    One of the conditions of forgiving the repentant sinner is to go forth and sin no more, or at least give it the old college try.

    In Church the Minister gives us absolution, though he knows we will go right out and sin again. Church is for the sinners. You perfect souls have no need for it.

    From what I’ve read Senator Teddy did not give up his heavy drinking or whoring until pretty late in life. I am no prude. I don’t condemn a young single guy for that stuff, but in an old married Senator it is a walking embarrassment to his family and his office.

    • [I don’t recall defending the disgraced R. Senator from Alaska and his bridge to nowhere. I don’t recall defending the R. who propositioned the officer in the airport bathroom stall.]

      No, those people broke the law.

      But you have to ask yourself, why is Congress asking Rogers to testify? Is it for the good of the country or just for political purposes? It seems like Congress has a lot better things they could be doing with their time.

    • Two things about Kennedy: when he turned his life around, he became the definition of redemption. To a Christian, that should count for a lot.

      From 1967 on, he assumed and fulfilled the role of patriarch to a huge extended family, staying active in their lives and walkiing almost all his nieces down the aisle. That is the definition of responsibility.

      From his first days in the Senate, he took on the cause of the least among us and was relentless in his efforts to improve their lives. That is the definition of public contribution.

      Sinner or not, Ted Kennedy was a good and decent man, who made a positive difference in the lives of his family and in the world.

  10. Mr. Hoffman,

    “But you have to ask yourself, why is Congress asking Rogers to testify? Is it for the good of the country or just for political purposes? It seems like Congress has a lot better things they could be doing with their time.”

    With all of the witch hunting that your kind folks did, and you can type such things. As they said, I believe in the Pink Panther movie, “amazsing”.

    You know, you know, it is very very easy for me to make the case that Rogers testimony is for the good of the country. Obviously none of us want our President killed. You for what he will do to the country and me because, one I don’t want him to be a martyr, two being a Christian I am against murder. You have to admit somebody’s head should roll for the security breach.

    Ms. Holland,

    “From his first days in the Senate, he took on the cause of the least among us and was relentless in his efforts to improve their lives. That is the definition of public contribution.”

    Putting generations of people on welfare so that they become permanent Democratic voters is not improving their lives.

    “Sinner or not, Ted Kennedy was a good and decent man, who made a positive difference in the lives of his family and in the world.”

    He was not so good and decent to the conservatives whose characters he assassinated when they were in front of his committees.

  11. Mr. Hoffman,

    “What witch hunting was that? There was a lot of evidence of crimes, yet there were never any serious investigations.”

    It is a big topic and does not just deal with testifying before Congress. How about we bring up a blast from the past because it has some relevance today. Trent Lott was witch hunted from the Senate Leadership for his remarks about Strom Thurmnod. Now Republicans are witch hunting Harry Reid.

    I do not think that Republicans are right now, as Democrats were wrong in 2002. This whole brand your enemy as racist schtick, is ridiculous. And trotting out the Justice brothers, Sharpton and Jackson, every time someone isn’t politically correct, is giving these guys too much power.

    • That’s was the big witch hunt? Something Lott said on TV that was obviously a racist comment? That’s a witch hunt.

      Read up on what right-wingers are saying about Erroll Southers. Now that’s a witch hunt.
      http://mediamatters.org/research/201001110048

    • [Trent Lott was witch hunted from the Senate Leadership for his remarks about Strom Thurmnod. Now Republicans are witch hunting Harry Reid.]

      Long ago and far away – but . .. Trent Lott was pushed out of the Senate when his own party refused to support him after he said the US would be a better place if we had elected a segregationist as president in 1948. Bush wanted him out even before he opened his mouth with that astonishing statement. Bush wanted Frist as leader; Frist was onboard with Bush’s agenda- Lott wasn’t.

  12. Ms. Holland,

    “Long ago and far away – but . .. Trent Lott was pushed out of the Senate when his own party refused to support him after he said the US would be a better place if we had elected a segregationist as president in 1948.”

    There is no denying the segregationist part of the Dixiecrats platform. It was more than that, if you care to check. In 1948 the Southern Democrats were not just fed up with Harry Truman over the civil rights issue. They were mad about the whole big government New Deal and the trampling of states rights.

    As I am willing to give Harry Reid the benefit of the doubt on his remarks, there certainly is leeway to take Senator Lott’s comments honoring a very old friend as meaning the defending of rights against an all powerful Federal power. Lott never said that he meant the segregation part of Thurmond’s platform. You Liberals just read that in because it was what you needed to smear Senator Lott.

    Now as to why Republicans failed to support Lott, well there you have to give credit to Democrats. Republicans throw their friends under the bus at any hint of scandal. Democrats are loyal until the jail cell lock clicks. Remember Jefferson Democrat, Louisiana, with the money in the freezer. You guys circled the wagons around him even after the money was thawed out. Republicans would have gotten rid of the guy sooner.

    • [Remember Jefferson Democrat, Louisiana, with the money in the freezer. You guys circled the wagons around him even after the money was thawed out.]

      You just made that up. I don’t recall many people offering their support.

    • [There is no denying the segregationist part of the Dixiecrats platform. It was more than that, if you care to check. In 1948 the Southern Democrats were not just fed up with Harry Truman over the civil rights issue. They were mad about the whole big government New Deal and the trampling of states rights]

      They were indeed which is why they began the mass migration to the Republican party – that little business finished in ’65 after the Civil Rights Bill passed the Congress. Lyndon Johnson said “we just lost the South for 25 years” He was right; they lost the South, but it was for much longer than 25 years. It goes on today. Dixie is still mostly Republican.

      The Republicans nudged ole Trent out cuz they wanted him out – the Thurmond thing was an excuse.

  13. Mr. Hoffman,

    “You just made that up. I don’t recall many people offering their support.”

    I don’t recall any Hypicrats call for him to resign either. Wait, wait he was a Democrat and he could not be a racist because he is black. You got to be a Republican racist for a Democrat to call for your resignation from anything.

  14. Ms. Holland,

    “The Republicans nudged ole Trent out cuz they wanted him out – the Thurmond thing was an excuse.”

    That worked out really well for us, didn’t it?

  15. Ms. Holland,

    ” Care to tell me what racism has to do with $100,000 cash in the freezer? ”

    I think it was only $90,000. My point was that frozen money does not get a resignation request from the Liberals. You have to be accused of racism. Since Jefferson was Black and a Democrat it is against the laws of the Cosmos that he would be thought a racist and is therefore immune to forced resignation.

    $90,000 is actually chump change in Washington.

    • Oh you got that wrong. Jefferson embarassed the Democrats going and doing such a Republican thing. Believe me, he got no love from his fellows in the caucus or from the ‘liberal’ press. Remember it however you like, but he was persona non grata from that moment on.

  16. Ms. Holland,

    ” Believe me, he got no love from his fellows in the caucus or from the ‘liberal’ press. Remember it however you like, but he was persona non grata from that moment on. ”

    Oooo,, that must have been tough on him, while he still cashed his Congressional paychecks. A Republican would have been hounded out of office.

    I believe that Jefferson was first in trouble in 2005 after being video taped taking money that was later found in his freezer. The man stayed in office another 3 and a half years and he was found guilty of a whole lot more than that.

    Now we have Republican Stevens of Alaska who was indicted for lying about how much money his home repairs cost from a contractor. He was gone from office in about 2 years from when trouble first appeared and his conviction was even over turned.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: