The Obama Era of Unresolved Scandals and Outrages
We're in the era of "The Unresolved." Remember Fast and Furious? It was the first of many embarrassing scandals, one that put American guns in the hands of drug cartels. These guns were used to kill a U.S. border patrol agent and numerous innocent people -- 211 deaths and injuries in Mexico. Was there ever any sign that anyone in the administration or our government as a whole learned anything, or went about their jobs any differently, from that? Probably not. "The Committees and the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General found that ATF employees in Phoenix and Washington bore responsibility for the conduct of Operation Fast and Furious and that the Justice Department failed to adequately supervise ATF's conduct of the case. It remains unclear, however, whether and to what extent additional disciplinary actions were taken," wrote Senator Chuck Grassley and Representative Jason Chaffetz to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, in a letter in April of this year. Brian Terry was killed in December 2010. It's been four and a half years, and the U.S. Senate still doesn't know who was punished and how. Remember Healthcare.gov? The president goes out, tells the American public the site is working at the precise moment it is thoroughly dysfunctional. The Inspector General later confirms the obvious: the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services "did not perform thorough reviews of contractor past performance when awarding two key contracts." The contractor, of course, was CGI Federal. Here's CGI Federal, getting a ten-year, multi-billion dollar contract from the General Services Administration in July 2014. Here's CGI Federal, getting half of a $2.5 billion contract from the U.S. Navy in January of this year. Remember the Syrian red line? It's broken again. International inspectors have found traces of sarin and VX nerve agent at a military research site in Syria that had not been declared to the global chemical weapons watchdog, diplomatic sources said on Friday. Samples taken by experts from the Organisation for the Prohibition and Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in December and January tested positive for chemical precursors needed to make the toxic agents, the sources told Reuters on the condition of anonymity because the information is confidential. "This is a pretty strong indication they have been lying about what they did with sarin," one diplomatic source said. "They have so far been unable to give a satisfactory explanation about this finding."  Remember the VA scandal? Remember how outraged everyone was, and how adamant President Obama and the new VA Secretary were to get to the bottom of it and hold everyone accountable? Well, now we know: Then in February, the new secretary, Robert A. McDonald, asserted in a nationally televised interview that the department had fired 60 people involved in manipulating wait times to make it appear that veterans were receiving care faster than they were. In fact, the department quickly clarified after that interview, only 14 people had been removed from their jobs, while about 60 others had received lesser punishments. Now, new internal documents show that the real number of people removed from their jobs is much smaller still: at most, three. The documents given this month to the House Committee on Veterans Affairs, which provided them to The New York Times, show that the department punished a total of eight of its 280,000 employees for involvement in the scandal. One was fired, one retired in lieu of termination, one's termination is pending, and five were reprimanded or suspended for up to two months. Remember Benghazi? No one at the State Department was ever fired for making the decision to turn down Ambassador Chris Stevens's requests for additional security. Because four employees were put on paid leave, as Darrell Issa put it, the administration's review "ends in a game of musical chairs where no one misses a single day on the State Department payroll." One perpetrator of the Benghazi attack has been caught and is facing trial. There were reportedly 150 armed attackers involved. We don't get resolutions anymore. Really terrible things happen, people get outraged -- often entirely justifiably -- pledges of full investigations are made, partisan defenses get deployed, it gets chewed over for a news cycle or two . . . and then it gets replaced by some other outrage. If the axe ever falls, it falls on those darned rogue low-level employees in Cincinnati. Obama's Formula to Restore Hope to Inner Cities: More Spending! What went through President Obama's mind when he watched or heard reports about the Baltimore riots? Did any part of him feel a sense of regret for the fact that that nearly six and a half years into his presidency, so many African Americans in inner cities feel no progress? There was the predictable "we didn't spend enough money" response, of course. "What portion of our collective wealth and budget are we willing to invest in those things that allow a poor kid — whether in a rural town, or in Appalachia, or in the inner city — to access what they need both in terms of mentors and social networks, as well as decent books and computers and so forth, in order for them to succeed?" Obama asked. "We don't make those same common investments that we used to, and it's had an impact." "And we shouldn't pretend that somehow we have been making those same investments," he added. "We haven't been, and there's been a very specific ideological push not to make those investments." Baltimore received $1.8 billion under the stimulus. The population of Baltimore city is about 622,000. That's almost $2,900 per person. For perspective, the city budget this year is $2.5 billion. Baltimore schools spend more per student than wealthy-and-thriving Fairfax County, Va. Many Baltimore residents may be poor, but their city government isn't. I wonder if there is more despair in inner-city African-American communities now than before the Obama presidency, because individuals there are reaching the depressing conclusion that the problems in inner cities won't be solved by an African-American president. Maybe these problems are beyond the ability of a president, a Congress, or a federal government to solve. Obama Attacks His Opponents' Motives—Even When They're Democrats. I hope we look back upon the coverage and views of Obama from 2004 to 2008 -- and particularly during the presidential campaign -- as a type of mass hysteria. For example, here's the New York Times, back in 2008: At the core of Senator Barack Obama's presidential campaign is a promise that he can transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars and build a new governing majority. To achieve the change the country wants, he says, "we need a leader who can finally move beyond the divisive politics of Washington and bring Democrats, independents and Republicans together to get things done." I mention this because Senate Democrats just shot down the trade deal Obama wanted, and the president brought his patented charm and understanding to Democrats who disagree with him, such as Elizabeth Warren: "The truth of the matter is that Elizabeth is, you know, a politician like everybody else," Obama told Yahoo, "And you know, she's got a voice that she wants to get out there. And I understand that. And on most issues, she and I deeply agree. On this one, though, her arguments don't stand the test of fact and scrutiny." Once again, Obama thinks he pursues his agenda out of cool rationality and common sense; everyone who disagrees with him does so out of "political" motivations, and does so free from "fact and scrutiny." You may recall him making this argument about motives on the Iran deal, much to the ire of Senator Bob Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey: Obama said that as a former senator himself, he understood how outside forces -- like special interests and donors -- can influence senators to act, one of the senators recounted. That's when Menendez stood up to challenge the President, telling Obama he took "personal offense" to his assertions, the New York Times reported, arguing that he has worked to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions for many years and was not motivated by political considerations. In 2008, Obama and his supporters assured us he had sufficient empathy and understanding to see issues from his opponents' point of view, and sooth partisan divisions. Seven years later, we see he can't even see an issue from the perspective of a Democrat who opposes his view -- nor credit him for having a principled, instead of political, motive. ADDENDA: Over on the home page, a look at how Ben Carson doesn't yet have a formal policy team on his campaign . . . and how he could probably use one ASAP. I already see the "if you know the Constitution, you don't need a bunch of policy wonks" argument in the comments. Okay, what's the clear constitutional position on ethanol mandates, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, or federal Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program? The decision of whether to protect the Yazidis? The proper level of legal immigration? How much defense spending is enough? What kind of entitlement reform preserves the long-term financial viability of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and disability while not excessively changing the rules for people who already paid in and are dependent upon the program? The Constitution is a framework and a system for dividing and limiting government powers -- probably the best one ever made! -- but it's not an instruction manual for every issue that comes down the pike. . . . I won't be writing a Morning Jolt Friday. | 
Comments
Post a Comment