Obama Angry at His Subordinates – for the Scandals
The series of scandals that fell upon Barack Obama’s administration do not bode well for his second term. Will the president be able to realize the ambitious goals that he has set himself?
On Wednesday, Obama announced that he had demanded the resignation of the head of the IRS, Steven Miller, and that when it was tendered he immediately accepted it. It has been known for a few days now that during the last tax year, the IRS meticulously scrutinized tax returns and allowances of conservative organizations, including the tea party, a radical wing of the Republican Party.
This is particularly explosive news if we take into account that last year there were both presidential and congressional elections. Consequently, the IRS examined Obama’s most relentless enemies.
“Americans are right to be angry about it, and I'm angry about it,” Obama said. He didn’t just say it; he seemed furious. “I will not tolerate this kind of behavior in any agency — but especially in the IRS, given the power that it has and the reach that it has into all of our lives.”
Secretary of the Treasury Jack Lew also asked the president to dismiss Miller — in order “to restore public trust and confidence in the IRS.” This is only the beginning of the purge in the IRS. A special commission has been formed that will examine the case and determine the culprits.
It so happens, unluckily, that this is yet another scandal in Washington. It was revealed a few days ago that the Department of Justice obtained phone records of over 20 phones, including mobile phones, belonging to journalists from the Associated Press news agency.
This was probably related to an internal investigation concerning the case of an attack on a plane planned by terrorists from Yemen — an attack thwarted by the CIA. The AP reported on this case a year ago.
The journalists whose call history was checked a few months ago were not notified of it. It was not revealed why their phone records were examined. Perhaps investigators from the department wanted to determine the source of the leak that supposedly threatened the success of the CIA’s operation — the AP delayed the publication of the article by a few days after being asked to do so by the government.
“There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters. These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources … and disclose information about AP's activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know,” wrote Gary Pruitt, president of the Associated Press, in a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, who is also in charge of the Department of Justice.
The National Assessment Agency declared the affair a shocking breach of freedom of speech, which is guaranteed by the Constitution.
In addition to the two recent scandals, there is also the Benghazi crisis, which has been in the news since last fall. On Sept. 11, 2012 the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans died there in an attack on the consulate and a CIA building.
Right-wing media accused the Obama administration of not having done enough to save them and trivializing the tragedy. Various members of the administration, including Susan Rice, United States ambassador to the United Nations, claimed that the consulate was spontaneously attacked by a crowd of people gathered for an anti-American demonstration. We now know that Muslim radicals took advantage of the demonstration to carry out the attack.
An investigation revealed that the Department of Justice, run then by Hillary Clinton, did indeed disregard requests from American diplomats in Libya to increase security. But on that ill-fated night, there was probably nothing more that could have been done.
Last week, the deputy ambassador to Libya told Congress that he had asked for fighter jets to be sent to Benghazi to fly over CIA headquarters and scare away the attackers. The closest American air base in the Italian town of Aviano refused; the jets were not ready and would not have reached Benghazi in time. And even if they could have, they might have just infuriated the crowd, argued one of the generals.
Obama either did not know about all these affairs (in the case of the AP phone records and the IRS), or could not do anything about them (in the case of Benghazi), or he was outraged by them. In a way, then, he is justified. But the valid question that arises is whether Obama is the leader of America or only a passive witness to events and decisions taken by various branches of his administration.
The Republicans have long accused the president of being too passive, claiming that he does not take initiative in many crucial issues. Such was the case during the negotiations on the budget and the national debt, which he left to the Democratic and Republican congressmen.
The impression of presidential helplessness was strengthened by the recent triumph of the National Rifle Association, the lobby of gun owners and sellers. After the shooting at the school in Newtown, Connecticut, where a madman killed 20 children and six teachers in December, Obama wanted to limit the freedom to buy guns and forbid certain rifles. His propositions were not passed by the Senate.
Yesterday’s public and angry dismissal of Miller, ordered by the White House, was meant to counter the impression of the president’s passivity and helplessness. But it did not silence the critics. Dana Milbank from the Washington Post mocked General Attorney Holder for claiming ignorance and nearly boasting about it, as if he were trying to avoid any responsibility.
Doubts arise over whether Obama will be able to fulfill his more ambitious goals — such as solving the issue of illegal immigration and lowering the national debt — when he cannot even handle issues that are much less crucial.
Commentators more favorable to the president note that during his first term there were practically no scandals, so, now that they have appeared his administration is completely unprepared for them.
The representatives and officials of Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush dealt with problems much better; scandals were their bread and butter.
On Wednesday, Obama announced that he had demanded the resignation of the head of the IRS, Steven Miller, and that when it was tendered he immediately accepted it. It has been known for a few days now that during the last tax year, the IRS meticulously scrutinized tax returns and allowances of conservative organizations, including the tea party, a radical wing of the Republican Party.
This is particularly explosive news if we take into account that last year there were both presidential and congressional elections. Consequently, the IRS examined Obama’s most relentless enemies.
“Americans are right to be angry about it, and I'm angry about it,” Obama said. He didn’t just say it; he seemed furious. “I will not tolerate this kind of behavior in any agency — but especially in the IRS, given the power that it has and the reach that it has into all of our lives.”
Secretary of the Treasury Jack Lew also asked the president to dismiss Miller — in order “to restore public trust and confidence in the IRS.” This is only the beginning of the purge in the IRS. A special commission has been formed that will examine the case and determine the culprits.
It so happens, unluckily, that this is yet another scandal in Washington. It was revealed a few days ago that the Department of Justice obtained phone records of over 20 phones, including mobile phones, belonging to journalists from the Associated Press news agency.
This was probably related to an internal investigation concerning the case of an attack on a plane planned by terrorists from Yemen — an attack thwarted by the CIA. The AP reported on this case a year ago.
The journalists whose call history was checked a few months ago were not notified of it. It was not revealed why their phone records were examined. Perhaps investigators from the department wanted to determine the source of the leak that supposedly threatened the success of the CIA’s operation — the AP delayed the publication of the article by a few days after being asked to do so by the government.
“There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters. These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources … and disclose information about AP's activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know,” wrote Gary Pruitt, president of the Associated Press, in a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, who is also in charge of the Department of Justice.
The National Assessment Agency declared the affair a shocking breach of freedom of speech, which is guaranteed by the Constitution.
In addition to the two recent scandals, there is also the Benghazi crisis, which has been in the news since last fall. On Sept. 11, 2012 the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans died there in an attack on the consulate and a CIA building.
Right-wing media accused the Obama administration of not having done enough to save them and trivializing the tragedy. Various members of the administration, including Susan Rice, United States ambassador to the United Nations, claimed that the consulate was spontaneously attacked by a crowd of people gathered for an anti-American demonstration. We now know that Muslim radicals took advantage of the demonstration to carry out the attack.
An investigation revealed that the Department of Justice, run then by Hillary Clinton, did indeed disregard requests from American diplomats in Libya to increase security. But on that ill-fated night, there was probably nothing more that could have been done.
Last week, the deputy ambassador to Libya told Congress that he had asked for fighter jets to be sent to Benghazi to fly over CIA headquarters and scare away the attackers. The closest American air base in the Italian town of Aviano refused; the jets were not ready and would not have reached Benghazi in time. And even if they could have, they might have just infuriated the crowd, argued one of the generals.
Obama either did not know about all these affairs (in the case of the AP phone records and the IRS), or could not do anything about them (in the case of Benghazi), or he was outraged by them. In a way, then, he is justified. But the valid question that arises is whether Obama is the leader of America or only a passive witness to events and decisions taken by various branches of his administration.
The Republicans have long accused the president of being too passive, claiming that he does not take initiative in many crucial issues. Such was the case during the negotiations on the budget and the national debt, which he left to the Democratic and Republican congressmen.
The impression of presidential helplessness was strengthened by the recent triumph of the National Rifle Association, the lobby of gun owners and sellers. After the shooting at the school in Newtown, Connecticut, where a madman killed 20 children and six teachers in December, Obama wanted to limit the freedom to buy guns and forbid certain rifles. His propositions were not passed by the Senate.
Yesterday’s public and angry dismissal of Miller, ordered by the White House, was meant to counter the impression of the president’s passivity and helplessness. But it did not silence the critics. Dana Milbank from the Washington Post mocked General Attorney Holder for claiming ignorance and nearly boasting about it, as if he were trying to avoid any responsibility.
Doubts arise over whether Obama will be able to fulfill his more ambitious goals — such as solving the issue of illegal immigration and lowering the national debt — when he cannot even handle issues that are much less crucial.
Commentators more favorable to the president note that during his first term there were practically no scandals, so, now that they have appeared his administration is completely unprepared for them.
The representatives and officials of Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush dealt with problems much better; scandals were their bread and butter.
Next article![]( "The West Helpless between the Fronts")
