Thursday, May 23, 2013

WHO DO YOU TRUST?


Knowing what is going on is sort of what administrators, leaders and people in charge are supposed to do. It is their job to see that the rank-and-file “underlings” are fulfilling the objectives, goals and action plans of the entity they serve.

President BO (the amateur president)’s job is to be Administrator In Chief. That’s what presidents do…or at least they are supposed to.

When push comes to shove, though, the President’s strategy seems to be to deny having any idea what is going on under his leadership.

Benghazi…I didn't know. I thought it was a video.

IRS…I didn't know. I thought the IRS was treating people equally.

AP news…I didn't know. I thought we were supporting freedom of the press.

Fast and Furious…I didn't know. We thought DOJ was acting in our interests.

ObamaCare…I didn't know. I thought it was a fee/penalty before I argued that it was a tax.

One thing is clear from this pattern: President BO (the amateur president) either does not know or cannot be trusted with the basics of governance: national security (Benghazi and Fast and Furious); taxation (IRS scandals and ObamaCare) and/or law enforcement (surveillance of reporters at AP News).

Notice that he does not tell us what should have been done to prevent Benghazi/Fast and Furious, nor did he admit any wrongdoing. He didn't apologize either. He just said that he will find out for us what happened and see that is doesn't happen again.

So, if he can figure out how to keep it from happening again, why didn't he keep it from happening in the first place. He’s the Commander in Chief. He should have known what was going on and should have provided preventive action.

Then, Hillary Clinton (U.S. Secretary of State...remember?), testifying under oath before Congress said, "...as I have said many times since September 11th, I take responsibility, and nobody is more committed to getting this right. I am determined to leave the State Department and our country safer, stronger, and more secure." What in the world did she have to do with September 11th, anyway? How does that even relate to her job with regard to Benghazi?

Yet she took no responsibility at all. She just said the words. If she had taken responsibility there would have been a price to pay. She paid none.

With regard to the IRS and ObamaCare, he does not tell us what should have been done to prevent IRS from focusing on a particular politically oriented group or groups. (And now the woman in charge of the IRS Department of Tax Exempt Organizations refused to testify in front of the House Oversight Committee). He didn't tell us that he was going to fight to get ObamaCare's fee for non-compliance declared a tax after telling us it was a fee/penalty. Nor did he admit any wrongdoing. He didn't apologize for misleading us, either.

As far as the unlawful, unconstitutional surveillance of AP News reporters and sources, he does not tell us what should have been done to prevent it, nor did he admit any wrongdoing. He didn't apologize either. He just said that he will find out for us what happened and see that is doesn't happen again.

Did you not elect him to know what’s going on and to execute the office of President with great leadership and skill? Did you just vote for him because he would be the historical “first black president?” If so, you are a racist.

At the close of every workday I have to file a review of my day and 4 reports to my superiors. They, in turn, file reports to their superiors who report to the head office. It’s a simple process and takes me about three or four minutes.

Why can’t President BO (the amateur president) use a similar (albeit somewhat more extensive) process to finish his day? Can’t there be a chain of oversight in the government that would let him know what’s going on? Aren't Cabinet members able, based on their extensive, successful experience, to anticipate what might go wrong in a given situation and take steps to prevent it through effective communication and oversight? Isn't that what his Cabinet is supposed to be a part of?

Are we supposed to trust the administration in other areas (such as immigration and the economy) when we can’t trust it in these areas?

Why?

15 comments:

Ducky's here said...

It's off topic but I ... thought you might find this interesting, Joe.

God loves the atheists best.

Joe said...

Ducky: This is but one of the many "gospel of works" heresies of the Roman Catholic church.

Joe said...

Ducky: I really didn't expect you to stay on topic on this one, since it is irrefutable.

Ducky's here said...

Benghazi…I didn't know. I thought it was a video.

Benghazi is a tempest in a teapot.

IRS…I didn't know. I thought the IRS was treating people equally.

I see no reason Bagger groups shouldn't have their non profit status reviewed like anyone else applying for the status

AP news…I didn't know. I thought we were supporting freedom of the press.

This concerns me as well as the fact that the Republican Congress is making excuses for it.

Fast and Furious…I didn't know. We thought DOJ was acting in our interests.

A poorly understood issue started by Bush. A lot has been debunked, study up.

ObamaCare…I didn't know. I thought it was a fee/penalty before I argued that it was a tax.

I would prefer single payer.

sue hanes said...


Joe - Although 'nothing' is not his fault - I don't think everything is his fault. The president is only a man - and cannot account for every mistake that is made. I don't care who he is.

Joe said...

sh: Did that go for Bush, too? So we should love him after all?

TheRealTrollStomper said...

Radio Talk-show host Mark Levin is very skeptical of the idea that Obama had absolutely no idea about the IRS targeting the Tea party before the story broke in the news mere weeks ago. Levin declared adamantly that it is a “FLAT-OUT, BALD-FACED LIE” that Obama didn’t know beforehand, saying prior reports by a few conservative news outlets picking up on the news well before the 2012 presidential election. Levin said, “I don’t believe for two seconds that Obama wasn’t aware of this.”
And I agree!! Ím just sick and tired of hearing people saying crap like we have to give 0bama the benefit of the doubt. Are you kidding me, how many times have things like this happened before? Are we going to give him the “benefit of the doubt” forever? Are we NOT going to “Jump to conclusions” on everything that he does that’s ILLEGAL? 0bama is a Chicago thug and it’s high time that EVERYONE including those Deaf and Dumb Progressives opens their blind eyes to it. But then again of course it is possible that the Liar in Chief was so busy not knowing anything about, throwing Hop Hop parties, and going on vacations, and playing Golf with is buddy Tiger Woods or giving another award to his biggest campaign donor Beyonce, and so occupied with worrying about Benghazi and so occupied with worrying about the need to know nothing about the FBI trying to frame FOX News that the poor guy just didn't have time to bother with not knowing about the IRS targeting conservatives!
So lets put it this way, the only way that Obama could be innocent is if he was SO utterly incompetent. You decide, he’s either a Liar or an Incompetent poor excuse for a President, you make the call.

sue hanes said...


Joe - Yes - that goes for Bush too.
We should love him if he is in our party. It all depends on which side you take.

Don't' you think?

Shaw Kenawe said...

"Billed as the key witness in the Iran-contra trial of his former national security adviser, retired Rear Adm. John Poindexter, Reagan said he did not authorize Poindexter to mislead Congress, contradicting Poindexter's argument that Reagan knew of and authorized his activities.

But aside from that recollection, the former president professed an ignorance of the events and personalities in the affair.

The words ``I don't remember'' or their equivalents occurred at least 124 times in his eight hours of testimony. The lapses in memory ranged from the identity of Rep. Lee Hamilton, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee during several of the key years of Reagan's presidency, to the central conclusions of the Tower Commission, which Reagan appointed to investigate the Iran-contra affair.

Reagan, now 79, also didn't remember that Robert McFarlane, who served as his national security adviser, had pleaded guilty to a charge of withholding information from Congress.

Reagan's memory lapses, however, never occurred on answers that bolstered his longstanding position that he, himself, had done nothing wrong. Repeatedly, he emphasized that while he might not be able to recall the names of the subordinates he gave instructions to - even at Cabinet rank - he recalled clearly the content of the instructions: ``Stay within the law.''

If the former president often could not remember key events, he came well-armed with statistics to explain why things were hard to remember. He had accumulated some 50 million papers, he said several times, and he had met with 400 foreign leaders while in office."


I'm pretty confident that when Reagan didn't know or couldn't remember, people like Mark Levin believed for two seconds that he was telling the truth.

But let's not talk about the Iran-Contra Scandal and how Saint Ronnie didn't know anything about it.

That's so 1980s and it doesn't count. It's too uncomfortable to face such hypocrisy, isn't it, Joe?

The Debonair Dudes World said...

Shaw Kenawe said...”such hypocrisy, isn't it, Joe?”

When a person continues to BLAME Two President from the past such as Reagan and Bush EVERY TIME THEIR Dear Leader gets into another Scandal, or tells ANOTHER LIE, and never admits it, that is hypocrisy! Or Idiocy!
And when they scream Alah Ahkbar....you can be pretty sure!
And this is a perfect example.

Shaw Kenawe said...

The D.D. can't reason.

Too bad.

If he could, he'd understand that quoting history and the behavior of past presidents and administrations is NOT blaming.

He has never understood this simple, very simple, concept.

But I suspect his reaction is the only way he can face this sort of dissonance: It is so much easier to dissemble, divert, and ignore than it is to face the historical truth.

The Debonair Dudes World said...


The one thing about these blogging boards that most baffles me
is in a post about Trusting OBAMA
and then someone brings in talk about the "Iran-Contra Scandal and Saint Ronnie"
And then has the Gaul to say that they weren't passing any "Blame", displays either sheer hypocritical idiocy or is totally moronic
I don't even understand why this is even debatable.

Joe said...

SK: What RR did or what JC did or what BC did or what GB did is not relevant to this case...period.

What BO did IS relevant to THIS case. More correctly, what he did not do is relevant.

In every case listed in this post, BO claimed he did not know what was happening. Either he is lying, or he is an incompetent administrator. I suspect the former, but admit is could be the latter.

And if what GB, JC, BC, RR and others did was wrong...then it was wrong. That does not excuse BO.

Radical Redneck said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Joe said...

TDDW: It is because they can't think their way out of a wet paper sack. They think they can, but they cannot.