And here's James Taranto on the subject:[QUOTE]Suppose the IRS's abuses were not ordered or explicitly encouraged by the White House. That would mean, as Commentary's Jonathan Tobin puts it, that the agency "has so thoroughly absorbed the views of its political masters that it doesn't even recognize when it has crossed the line into illegal activity."In other words, if this is the case, the left's hateful and slanderous campaign against its political foes, especially the Tea Party--the demagoguery of Obama, his fellow Democrats and their supporters in the media, led by the New York Times editorial page--was sufficient to prompt the IRS agents to cast aside their professional obligations and embark on a campaign of political abuse whose effect was to ease Obama's re-election.[END QUOTE]

The most transparent administration in history--transparently sleazy.

Thank you, Lord Vader. I just read the WSJ piece. Great job by Kim. I was waiting for someone to call the president out on this.

That's one form of conservatism I cannot get behind.

Brutally accurate.

This is an action, rather than a statement, but it's definitely crazy and nuts.  It occurred when I was living in the neighborhood, years ago.  Highly amusing to see liberals targeting other liberals because they were deemed insufficiently liberal.

Addendum: Here is the PDF of the ticket that was placed on SUV windshields.  I had forgotten what really ticked me off about it:  This was merely weeks after 9/11/01, and the "penalty" listed on the "ticket" for a fourth "violation" was "BLOW YOURSELF UP (PLEASE)".  Disgusting.

Good lord.

First of all, Doug, it is my fervent hope that your investment of blood, sweat, tears, and capital will result in the financial success of your business.

The story about your HOA illustrates why I will never again subject myself to onerous restrictions on the use of my property.  I had bad experiences in NYC with an apartment and a townhouse. 

With regard to the former, an overzealous co-op board rejected the prospective buyer who had offered me more money, because the arrogant chairman deemed him "financially insecure"--even though this buyer had a higher salary that I did, and had a higher salary than the person who ultimately did buy the apartment from me, at a lower price! 

With regard to the latter, a liberal neighbor ratted me out to the overzealous Landmarks Preservation Commission, which served me notice that the windows installed by the previous owner were the wrong kind--because they were flat on top, rather than curved.  I kept stringing them along until I sold the property, and the only reason I was able to do so was that the LPC made a bureaucratic error as to the address.

Bastids.

It's not the cost that bothers me as much as the segregation itself.  Sure, kids will self-segregate in social situations, but official school events should not be exclusive.  Gay graduation ceremonies and black proms are a sad commentary on our "melting pot" which has become (in Adam Carolla's words) more of a "fruit salad" (no pun intended), wherein there is proximity of diverse elements but no blending.  The symbolism of the "rainbow" is a joke when the reality is that the rainbow is fractured.

From yesterday's WSJ Best of the Web Today column by James Taranto:

John Yoo, widely vilified for his work in the Bush Justice Department, weighs in at Ricochet.com:

I deplore the Obama administration's assault on freedom of the press. But [...] [i]f the AP's editors and reporters and their colleagues at other newspapers had been more adversarial toward this President, as they were with President Bush, they would [have] been treated with far more respect.

Perhaps the sudden deluge of scandal, and especially the invasion of the AP's operations, will change the press's attitude toward Obama. But it's going to be a slow and painful process. Just ask National Journal's Ron Fournier, who as an AP executive during the Bush years championed what he called "accountability journalism": "Events of the past week likely will lead to one or more long-running scandals," he writes, "which would be unfortunate for anybody, including me, who wants Obama to succeed."

That yearning for Obama's success has cost the press dearly. Yoo is right to think the press's abject treatment of Obama has encouraged his administration's disrespectful treatment of it.

My liberal friends on Facebook seem to think otherwise, as their constant posting of Stewart video clips attests.

It's like saying Marilyn Monroe did not attempt to tittilate.

The Daily Show is a satirical program whose left-leaning host reports news stories of the day and comments on them for the dual purposes of comedic effect and political persuasion, and whose audience members are entertained, informed, and--if weak-minded--persuaded by his efforts.

Glad I could clear that up.

The show is most certainly a partisan source of news, humor, and opinion.  In order to see how it is not merely a "comedy show", consider The Tonight Show during the days of Johnny Carson (for those old enough to remember).  Carson was truly "only a comedian"--an equal-opportunity humorist--and a political slant was never discernable.  He just poked fun at whomever was in power.  Needless to say, this is not the model Stewart follows.

Many people today, particularly the young, get their news from The Daily Show (left viewpoint), Twitter (left and right), Red Eye (right), and even The Onion (center-left).  It's simply a fact. 

This will in all likelihood be less damaging to the Obama presidency than Iran-Contra was to Reagan's, and certainly no more damaging.  For goodness sake, a Democrat can even survive a scandal featuring sex with an intern in the Oval Office!

I do believe, though, that this will attain real scandal status, whatever that's worth; I guess it will mean that the families of those who died may get the answers they deserve.

The MSM has turned against the White House, big time, now that they've realized they were played for fools.  On Friday, NBC Nightly News sounded far more harsh than Fox News.

There are still "Obama Bobs", such as Jon Stewart and NPR.  I heard an NPR news roundup that assured listeners by repeating the far-left/Stewart talking points that (a) GOP focus on Benghazi is politically-motivated, and (b) there were numerous attacks on diplomatic facilities, with fatalities, during the Bush administration.

Regarding (a): "No duh."  This is Washington.  Regarding (b), that is the rhetorical equivalent of "Look, a squirrel!"  Furthermore, did the Bush administration ever cover up that an ambassador was killed by terrorists--on a 9/11 anniversary, no less?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsKDg7Y28D8

"What, the curtains?"

"'Uuuuuge...tracts of land."

"You...stay 'ere...and make sure...'e...doosn't leave."

They were just stylistic changes.  At this point, what difference does it make?  It was a long time ago.  And death is just a part of life.

Mollie, when I saw the title of your post, I almost dropped my iPhone. The same thought occurred to me earlier today, and I planned to write a post about it. What really set me off was Jon Stewart's repetition of far-left website talking points about attacks on diplomatic facilities while Bush was president. The idea that these attacks were equivalent to the Benghazi attack and scandal, with its dereliction of duty, disinformation campaign, and coverup, is absurd. The media are as supportive of Obama as the Venezuelan media were of Chavez--and Obama doesn't have to strong arm anyone to assure slavering coverage!

As DocJay wrote elsewhere on this site, at this point, Obama could eat a baby on camera and get away with it. I can imagine Jon Stewart's reaction:  "Let's put this in perspective. George W. Bush was responsible for thousands of babies dead in Iraq..."

Benghazi seems to be touching a nerve. Jon Stewart, the host of a partisan comedy program, repeated talking points from far-left websites the other night, complaining that there were numerous attacks on diplomatic installations during the Bush years which garnered scant attention from Congress and Fox News. Bill O'Reilly addressed Stewart's remarks by saying that most of those attacks occurred in Iraq during the war. I would go further and ask Stewart the following:

- How many ambassadors were killed in those attacks?
- How many of those attacks were followed by the UN Ambassador (a suspicious choice) appearing on five Sunday talk shows to repeat untruths?
- Would you be so forgiving of untruths stated by the Bush administration?
- How many of those attacks came after pleas for more security?
- How many went on without any attempt at providing reinforcements and rescue?
- How many were followed by SecState shrieking in a hearing, "What difference, at this point, does it make?" and by the White House spokesman intoning that the attack "was a long time ago"?
- Why are other news organizations besides Fox News reporting the story if it is no more significant than previous attacks?