Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
IRS official apologizes for targeting conservative groups
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/irs-official-im-not-good-at-math/
Today has been a tough day for IRS official Lois Lerner. In addition to touching off a political firestorm by admitting some conservative groups with the names ?tea party? or ?patriots? were singled out by her agency, she also admitted that she?s not a math whiz.
?That would be a quarter of the 300 then, so we?re talking 75 or so?? asked Tom Costello of NBC news, in an attempt to clarify how many groups had been affected.
?That?s correct. Is that a quarter?? Lerner asked hesitantly. ?I?m not good at math.?
?You?re with the IRS,? Costello noted.
I have to say----if Benghazi hearings and IRS had happened under Bush, the media talking point would be "worse than Watergate, a combination of Watergate and Iran-Contra." There's no doubt in my mind. They would parrot that line like they did "gravitas" and all the rest.
Re: IRS official apologizes for targeting conservative groups
have to say----if Benghazi hearings and IRS had happened under Bush, the media talking point would be "worse than Watergate, a combination of Watergate and Iran-Contra." There's no doubt in my mind. They would parrot that line like they did "gravitas" and all the rest.
These events sure make watergate look tame. It is hard to believe Nixon was forced to resign and now things much worse just produce yawns in the media and population.
I could have sworn I read that it WAS a Bush appointee who started this. I'll have to google later when I get the chance to verify. It might be inaccurate.
Also, lol at these events making Watergate look tame. Apples to oranges, people. Some folks around here just loooove to compare things that are not even similar in nature.
ETA: the whole situation is awful and horrifying. It's the same "blame Obama" attitude that conservatives have towards Benghazi that is eye roll worthy. How about we punish those who are actually responsible?
I totally agree, those responsible for Benghazi should be punished. And maybe if the current administration would be honest about the information they had and when they had it....we might just be able to find those responsible.
But, it really looks like winning elections was more important than 4 american lives. I think that's shameful.
well duh!
Thanks for helping me win my bet. I knew that there'd be some knee-jerk apologist.
They were inept liars, and the coverup of what really happened because there was an election in the offiing is SHAMEFUL. The way they tried to claim that some bullshi- video led to the death of those people is SHAMEFUL AND WRONG. If we're not going to blame the liars in the administration for lying and trying to fool people into believing that it was just some isolated incident based on a video, who are we to blame?
How about we punish those who are actually impossible? Honey, THAT question could've been asked about those in the administration who were not telling what really happened, but instead were perpetuating some fake story about a video, which had nothing to do with it.
By the way, seems obvious that one can deplore the evildoers who killed the people and still think the administration should be held to account for their ineptitude and coverup. They're not mutually exclusive.
I love that the people who are so furious and outraged over this are all "meh" over a fraudulent and pointless war that cost thousands of American lives and trillions in taxpayer money.
It's so clear to me that Republicans don't really give a damn about Ambassador Stevens or diplomatic security (what specifically have they done to improve diplomatic security since the Benghazi attack, exactly?) and are only interested in scoring political points. I really can't believe anyone would be naive enough to honestly believe otherwise.
And I can't believe all the people like you who can do nothing except keep parroting the party line over and over no matter what.
And you forgot to blame Bush for that hurricane too.
And really, are you saying that if YOU believe a past president lied to you that excuses all present and future presidents from the burden of telling the truth?
The above was just sick...................
CnonLOL no, you're not parroting the party line at all...
I blame the Democrats for a. voting for the Iraq war in the first place and b. failing to push for ANY sort of accounting or responsibility for what happened. It was HUGE. Going to war on false pretenses (or at best, massive incompetence) cost the taxpayers trillions, cost thousands of Americans their lives, destroyed the lives of thousands more, and that's not even getting into the destruction of an entire nation and the hundreds of thousands of people killed or injured there. It is not some thing that should be brushed off with "eh, well, it's over now so whatever." It should be a massive, massive scandal, with people marching in the streets. But Americans are so apathetic and distractable that we don't even give a damn about something as horrific as this.
And nobody ever blamed Bush for the hurricane. They blamed him for the mind-boggling incompetence in response to the hurricane, which cost many people their lives. But LOL whatever, who cares about that?
No, I don't. But I think it makes you an incredible hypocrite if you are screaming and shouting about impeachment over lies about an incident that, while wrong, had zero outcome over whether those people survived the attack, yet you completely ignore or brush off the huge lies and false pretenses that we went to ****ing war over. Ten years. Trillions of dollars. Hundreds of thousands of lives. And you don't care. Whatever, it's over now, so what difference does it make? But OMG Obama!!!! WE DEMAND ANSWERS NOW!!!!!
Impeachment??? Where did I say Obama should be impeached?
As you or someone else said in reference to something else, you are comparing apples and oranges when you compare this to the war that was as you admit fully supported by Dems and Reps alike.
I'm talking about people like this:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/56304185-90/obama-chaffetz-impeachment-attack.html.csp
I don't care who supported what. My point is that you have a huge, massive scandal that cost trillions of dollars and thousands of lives, and nobody seems to care about that. But then you have this relatively minor incident in which four people lost their lives, and it appears the administration bungled the PR for it, and OMG STOP THE PRESSES WE MUST HAVE ANSWERS RIGHT THIS MINUTE!!!
Tell me: why do you demand answers on Benghazi but not on Iraq?
Some liberals want to damn conservatives for their outrage over the Benghazi attacks, contrasting it to their unconcern about waging war in Iraq.
There is no comparison. The argument, for sake of entertainment, is that Republican hawks took the US to war against Iraq under false pretenses, where thousands of Americans died. They never came clean about the motives for war, and even lied to American people to justify the invasion.
But the Obama administration has mislead to a degree far more dangerous than most in the media are willing to admit.
Those same liberals say that President Obama and members of his administration didn?t lie about the events in Benghazi last September 11; rather, they simply didn?t not have information about why the attacks on the American consulate compound had been launched. They revealed the truth as they learned it. There is no more to discuss.
Conservative anger over the Benghazi affair, they maintain, is feigned. If they were so nonchalant about war in 2003 and onward, and didn?t see any deception, then their indignation over Benghazi is manufactured for political theater.
But several things make the latter affair a huge scandal. For the sake of argument, suppose that all the reasons expressed for launching Operation Iraqi Freedom were based on deception. Then the Clinton administration and a majority of both houses of Congress were in on it, including former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her successor, John Kerry.
In Iraq, a quasi-state of war was in effect ever since 1991, since it had repeatedly violated terms of the cease fire after Desert Storm. In 2002, the UN affirmed that military action was possible. The distinction means everything.
In Benghazi, a state of normal diplomatic relations was in force when para-military forces attacked our diplomats and murdered the US Ambassador, Chris Stevens. The administration immediately told a story of the attack that controverted what they knew. In common parlance, that?s a lie.
Even if the war was unjustified, nobody lied. Nobody covered anything up. Quite the opposite ? the Iraq war was debated for many months in Congress, in the media, and in international bodies. Liberals would prefer to ignore the fact that Congress voted 77 ? 23 in the Senate and 297 ? 133 in the House. Even after the invasion commenced, the Left continued the debate. Who can forget, Joe Wilson, who made the rounds ad nauseum trying to convince Americans that the war was based on falsehoods.
After the murders in Libya, the administration acted hastily to establish a storyline. It is not as if a junior diplomat simply gave her best guess to queries about the cause of the attack in Libya. To the contrary, UN Ambassador Susan Rice went on a whirlwind tour of five talk shows in one day to sell the story and prematurely cut off any questions about the attack.
It was a highly choreographed and well planned public relations mission that she executed like a pro.
As members of the media, the opposition party, and the public began asking questions, the Obama administration shut down all debate. No Joe Wilson would make rounds trying to expose the truth. No extended congressional debate would be forthcoming.
The bottom line in Iraq was, ?we went to war for reasons x, y, and z. We believed the totality of the evidence supported our decision.?
In Libya it has been ?our diplomats were killed, and the details surrounding those murders are inconvenient for us. Now stop asking questions.?
If the left-wing media showed even a fraction of the curiosity to this that they have displayed regarding supposed lies by Republicans, we?d get to the bottom of the Benghazi affair quickly.
In the meantime, the failure of the Obama administration represents misdeeds far worse than anything related to the Iraq War. Susan Rice, it appears, knowingly told as many people as she could something that simply wasn?t true. Hillary Clinton tried to dismiss any questions because, after the Ambassador was killed, it didn?t make any difference to her. And the president himself seems painfully unaware and unconcerned about basic breakdowns in communication and protocol in the Defense and State Departments.
If all this is possible during normal, peaceful relations with a country, then what might happen during war?
So those liberals who still harbor resentment about Iraq over a decade ago, how about a little curiosity about the terrible events of last fall?
Read more: http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/general-factotum/2013/may/10/why-benghazi-cover-worse-iraq-war/#ixzz2TIEdQST7
Follow us: @wtcommunities on Twitter
As more information surfaces, it appears that this information came to light much earlier than thought and to more people than originally revealed. It's getting very frustrating that the answer to all of these scandals is always "I didn't know". Fast and Furious, Solyndra, Benghazi,the lavish GSA conferences, the IRS, etc. Fine, maybe not but does that make the leadership incompetent? At some point the buck stops with the leadership and that's going to be Holder or Clinton or even Obama. At some point you have to come forward and say "my bad!" and explain how you are handling it. That is so much more respectable than the continual passing of the buck.I mean at one point Obama even pointed his finger back at Bush for the failure of Solyndra. Seriously?!
A good leader cannot have their hand in every single bite of every pie, but they should be able to handpick the people to handle them and choose people that will come and inform them hat-n-hand when something goes south so that it can be dealt with. A good leader doesn't just wait for the sh!t to hit the fan but they actually pro-actively deal with the situation. If there truly is a situation of complete ignorance up there at the White House, State Department and Department of Justice one has to wonder is it policy not to bring unwelcome information or it is so often ignored that no one bothers? You don't just get to claim credit for the good work of your underlings, you have to take their lumps too and "Oh well, I didn't know so let's move on.." does not cut it.
I feel like the talking points on this are getting the story completely wrong. The big story is abuse of non-profit status by political groups. The IRS screwed up by targeting little fish and not big fish like Crossroads GPS.
Seriously though, if your groups mission statement is "we don't like paying taxes", if I was the IRS I would be damn sure to go through your application with a fine-toothed comb. Lawmakers also need to pass legislation that clarifies things and closes this loophole some clearly political groups are trying to exploit.
Very well written. Excellent.
*Chrome thumbs up*
I'm pretty sure that the majority of the country doesn't LIKE paying taxes. To say that they went after anti-tax groups is an oversimplification. The latest information has about 500 groups that were targeted. Some of the buzzwords that were specifically searched for were things like "patriot" and "constitution" and "tea party". From their own statement it went even further than that to "Government spending, Government debt, or taxes; Education of the public via advocacy/lobbying to ?make America a better place to live;? and Statements in the case file (that) criticize how the country is being run.? We're not even talking about them getting audited but not even being allowed status in the first place. There are groups STILL waiting over two years later (and a year after this came to the attention of the powers that be) for their status. Since when is dissension such a bad thing in this country? Strange but I haven't heard anything come to light about groups p!ssed off about tax dollars being used to pay for the Iraq war being denied anything. If your group is "no more of my tax dollars for war" should you have to send all of your facebook information, copies of books you are reading, all of the information handed out at your meeting and a list of everyone who gave you even a dollar towards getting the word out just to apply for status as a tax exempt group?
Based on the admissions that have come out, I can't imagine you wouldn't feel a bit hinky about giving out the personal information of your friends and family and thus might abandon your grassroots cause. It's about intimidation. Also if you are a small grassroots organization how can you afford the cost of fighting the IRS behemoth?
A pro-Israel group (nothing to do with taxes) was specifically told in writing that their application was being delayed because their mission was contrary to the policies of the current administration.
In 2012 the head of the IRS was specifically asked about this issue as the lawsuits began to mount and the volume of cases were building and he categorically denied it despite the fact that the leadership of the IRS had been made aware of what was going on.
Private applications and tax information was released contrary to law. The IRS was made aware of it over a year ago and no information has come out that anyone was fired nor any criminal actions taken. The liberal group that published some of it was made plainly aware by the IRS after a time that they were not entitled to the information but it was published by them anyway with no recriminations. There was media scrutiny as to how this information became public at the time and instead of someone from the IRS standing up and saying "sorry we screwed up" they denied that they released it and the liberal group kept their mouth shut too. It is only in the course of the rest of this story breaking that the group revealed its source. That stinks to high heaven.
In 2010 Obama's former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers revealed confidential tax information about the Koch brothers. When questioned how he got that information the Obama administration specifically said it was public information. When proven to be untrue they later backpedaled and said they meant that he "guessed" that information. The IRS promised a full investigation but nothing ever came of it.
During the campaign a gay rights group revealed a specific contribution from Romney to a specific Traditional Marriage group. The man who revealed this information resigned his post in the gay rights group the next day and became Obama's Campaign Chairman.
I'm not making any specific link to the White House in terms of ordering this type of thing done at all, but I'm certainly questioning the process of choosing department heads who will competently supervise and yes, discipline, when it is appropriate.
I don't even know where to start with an article that claims the invasion of Iraq and subsequent war basically wasn't really a war so, nothing to discuss.
Also, the main point of that article seems to be "well, Democrats voted for the war too, so therefore, liberals have nothing to be upset about!" That's the kind of mindless partisanship that has destroyed this country. I'm @#$*# furious at EVERYONE who voted for that war without being COMPLETELY sure that it was the right thing to do. I don't care if they're Republicans or Democrats. Just because I'm a Democrat doesn't mean I can't hold Democrats accountable and be angry when they do things that are horribly wrong. And just because *you're* a Republican should not mean that you don't care about it when Republicans do things that are egregiously wrong.
The Iraq war is something that EVERY citizen of this nation ought to be furious about. We should ALL demand answers, whatever side of the aisle you're on. And the fact that so many conservatives don't seem to give a s-h-it about it because "well, it's over now, whatever" but are OUTRAGED! over Benghazi makes me so incredibly frustrated. Especially since I haven't exactly heard the conservatives calling for huge bumps in funding for embassy and consulate security in the wake of Benghazi, which makes it all the more transparent that they don't really give a s-h-it about the lives of diplomats and care solely about making Obama look bad.
Exactly! Well said.
Yep! +1
I believe you are missing the point of the article. It isn't so much about GOING to war, it is about the whole Weapons of Mass Destruction claim. This wasn't Bush alone who spoke those words, it was echoed by Hillary Clinton and John Kerry.
Joe Wilson (yes an Ambassador and not a member of Congress) was very outspoken against the Iraq War and he was appointed by Bush.
I did not (and still don't) support the war in Iraq, I always thought the whole Weapons of Mass destruction was sketchy at best.
I can't believe you have the balls to say I ( as a conservative) don't give a $hit about the lives of my fellow Americans. I throw a big Barbara Streisand flag on that. And this is not a matter of funding, this is a matter of 4 American lives, men who gave their life in service of this country and who were left hanging.
I don't see the harm in an inquiry, I want to know why these men were denied the extra security they requested time and time again. I want to know why the special forces in the area who were at the ready to assist these men during the attack at the consulate were told to stand down. And I want to know why the administration (who claimed to be the most transparent administration in history) decided to mislead the American people and blame a stupid video instead of telling us what really happened.
And for the record, I don't give a rats azz what political affiliation the President is...someone dropped the ball on this and it need not be swept under the rug.
I think Geraldo's point is:why are people "demanding answers" on the non-scandal that is Benghazi but not demanding answers on the Iraq War? The Benghazi issue involves communication errors and a tragic loss of four lives but it is far from a scandal. I have a high-ranking govt official family member who is probably the most conservative republican you'll ever meet and even he admits that Benghazi is not a scandal.
The loss of thousands upon thousands of lives in the Iraq War, not to mention the lives disrupted and forever changed and the trillions of dollars spent, based on misinformation and deceit, is the real scandal.
Sidenote: This is off topic but it really bothers me when reporters report on the loss of American life only...loss of life is tragic, regardless of the victim's citizenship. Are we supposed to care more if an American life is lost? Reminds me of the line from that Chris Rock movie: "God Bless America...and no place else!" So sad.
This part totally baffled me. As I understand they didn't stand down, they eventually got going. It's so sad and if I was a parent of one of the fallen soldiers I would want someone to pay for it.
The deputy of slain U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens has told congressional investigators that a team of Special Forces prepared to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi during the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks was forbidden from doing so by U.S. Special Operations Command Africa.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57583014/diplomat-u.s-special-forces-told-you-cant-go-to-benghazi-during-attacks/
Yes, that's how I also understood Geraldo's point. It seems like people are being deliberately obtuse.
I'll just restate it in case that aides in understanding: The real question is if the Benghazi inquiry is not simply an attempt to score political points, why isn't the same outrage being shown to the Iraq War? You would think the same politicians doggedly searching for answers in Benghazi would be doing the same regarding the Iraq War. You would think they would not rest until heads rolled and those responsible for allowing the faulty intelligence to be deemed credible were punished. Someone wasn't doing their job. You could even go farther and ask why they don't seem to care about the 9-11 Commission Report.
The concern is just so disingenuous. There is no other way to put it. To most people other than the faithful it seems like it's all about political points. Like, how can they really be so incredibly concerned with the loss of American life if they show no concern for situations where the loss is even greater? If it is genuine concern then that makes no sense. Is Christopher Stevens more important than the men and women who have died fighting an unnecessary war?