Benghazi isn’t a scandal. It’s what the character named Detective Bobby Simone, of TV’s Law & Order, would have called “a situation.” [Simone once said, ” Everything’s a situation.” What he meant, of course, was that you can’t apply one-size-fits-all rules to everything that happens. And shit does, indeed, happen.] Such is the case with the attack on the American consulate [not embassy–there’s a big difference, people] in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012. Although Congressional Republicans–and let’s not forget the unfortunate Mitt Romney, who stepped into a huge puddle of oops over Benghazi during the Presidential debates–continue to rail, rant, stomp their feet, hold interminable hearings, throw tantrums, raise money off it,  and try to turn it into either an impeachable scandal or a future campaign talking point against Hilary Clinton–there’s no there there–and they know it.

Editorial cartoonists know it, too. Here are a few of their visual commentaries on the Benghazi brouhaha:

The post Benghazi: Political cartoonists have their say appeared first on Occasional Planet.

How many times have we heard the phrase, “this is too important to be left to politics?” Yes, when we’re discussing foreign policy or redistribution of wealth or basic human rights, we don’t want politics to interfere. However, that stated desire is rarely followed. Just look at how obstinate the Republican-controlled House of Representatives has been in the 113^th Congress. Whether the issue is health care, gun control, or something as simple as raising the federal debt limit, the Republicans tend to think politics first. Their brains seem to freeze most particularly when faced with nuance. The Democrats have a long and checkered history of playing politics as well, but rarely so intensely when basic human and economic rights are involved.

Right now, the Obama Administration is mired in at least three difficult quagmires. They all have political components to them, but two of the three raise serious questions about the conduct of the Administration. The third one, the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya last September 11, cannot be analyzed with logic because while some facts are clear, far too many are not. Despite the sniping of Republican Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, the incident is not a scandal. Instead it falls into the “shit-happens bucket.” It is extremely sad that four Americans were killed, not only because they lost their lives but also because they most likely were the only people who really knew what happened on the ground that night. But that’s what happened, and we’ll have to settle for an imperfect understanding the events of that evening.

The two quagmires about which serious concern is  warranted are (a) the I.R.S. singling out for special scrutiny certain right wing organizations that are applying for tax-exempt status under the new 501(c)4 designation, and (b) the Justice Department listening in on the conversations of over two hundred reporters working for the Associated Press who had information on terrorist attacks in the planning stage against the United States.

The IRS issue is one in which no party involved in the dispute is pure in motive and actions. Of the transgressions that have occurred, it’s clear that some were motivated to gain a political advantage and others were in order to ensure better working of our government. The key to proceeding from here is for each side to admit its mistakes, apologize to those whom they have violated, and propose realistic solutions that do not provide a political advantage to either side.

It’s clear that with the current rules for achieving a 501©4 tax-exempt status, the I.R.S. was way out of line in singling out conservative organizations for more intense scrutiny. However, a fair-minded individual who has the best interests of strengthening American democracy at heart may have seen the actions of the I.R.S. as being at least somewhat justified.

First, the conservative organizations that were applying for 501©4 status were driving Mack trucks through the gaping hole that the Supreme Court left with its 2010 ruling on the Citizens United case. That decision essentially allowed unlimited contributions to political campaigns. And if the donations were made through a 501©4 organization, the donors could remain as anonymous, thus side-stepping transparency regulations long ago established by the Federal Elections Commission.

It’s a very difficult line to draw when a 501©4 organization claims that it is advocating policy and lobbying for it, but not supporting or opposing a specific candidate. Because this line is so unclear, and because advocacy groups on both the conservative and liberals wings of the political spectrum have blatantly trashed opponent candidates, the IRS is justified in examining their 501©4 status. It also is justified in giving special scrutiny to new applications from organizations seeking 501©4 status.

The evidence that we have now is that the IRS has focused on right-wing organization with names that include such search terms as “Tea Party,” “Patriot,” or “Constitutional.” Is there any justifiable reason to focus on the right-wing applicants? With trepidation, one could argue that right-wing organizations pose more of a threat to our political system. These are the organizations and people who oppose reasonable gun control legislation, support specious wars, and blatantly support expanding the rights and privileges of the wealthy rather than the disenfranchised. Were they to gain control of the government, they could well impose policies that would be very harmful to the vast preponderance of American citizens, as well as the citizens of other countries.

There may have been a time in the 1960s and 1970s when the left posed more of a threat of civil unrest and violence than the right did. However, since right-wing acts of violence in the 1990s such as Oklahoma City, Waco, and Ruby Ridge and their concurrent stridency about guns, the right has come to pose far more of a threat. For that reason, it could be argued that the IRS had reason to scrutinize them more closely than the left. While this does not excuse the discriminatory action on the part of the IRS, it may in part provide an explanation.

This is not the time for us to retract the powers of the IRS to thoroughly investigate the conduct of 501©4 organizations and others seeking to receive 501©4 status. They are doing more to corrupt politics with excessive and untraceable money than any other organizations or individuals. They must be tightly regulated.

The Republicans in the 113^th Congress have clearly exhibited that they have no interest in operating in a fact-based and fair manner. They have also shown no interest in governing; they oppose virtually everything that Democrats propose, including funding for entitlements, for social welfare, even for defense. They also stymie efforts to appoint judges and cabinet officials. Essentially, they have no interest in governing. For that reason, they have forfeited the right to be involved in investigating how our government works and what reforms are needed. If they want in on the process, they have to take interest in and action regarding the real governance of the country, not just the politics. We cannot let them have the leadership role in investigating the IRS. Yes, there are some Democrats who are no more logical than Republicans. But within the ranks of the Democrats, there is a clear majority who provide the necessary reason to clean up this mess. As progressives, our role is not to further demonize the Republicans; rather it is to act as honest servants of the people and reform what has gone wrong. Republicans are always welcome to join the cause when they accept a few basic fundamentals of governance as they have until recent history. Regrettably, the Republicans currently control the House and have filibuster powers in the Senate. It’s up to the American people of reason to seek reason in the solution to these current problems.

The post So-called scandals are too nuanced to be investigated by Republicans appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The contrast could not have been more apparent. On Monday, February 18, 2013, MSNBC aired a program, Hubris, about how the Bush Administration used dishonesty and deceit to lead the United States into a useless and fruitless nine-year war against Iraq. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has persistently stood by the supposed wisdom of the policy, to the point that he has relentlessly berated former friend and colleague, Defense Secretary-Nominee Chuck Hagel, for expressing reservations about the wisdom of the war.

Earlier in the day, McCain was once again criticizing the Obama Administration for what he calls a cover-up of the facts with regard to the September 11, 2012 attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

There’s a fundamental problem with McCain criticizing Benghazi while standing by Iraq. The facts are simply less clear with regard to Benghazi than Iraq. What happened on a dark evening in the desert of Western Libya is difficult to piece together, particularly when the four individuals who most likely would have best known what happened were the unfortunate victims of the violence and lost their lives.

As Hubris so clearly points out, the plans to invade actually began on the afternoon of the September 11, 2001 Al Qaeda attacks on the World Trade Center and  the Pentagon. The planning carried late into 2002, when Congress overwhelmingly voted to give carte blanche powers to the Bush Administration to proceed into Iraq. It continued until the actual invasion of Iraq. That’s eighteen months in which public officials, the media, and the public could engage in critical thinking about the proposed war.

John McCain has chosen to call the Benghazi situation a cover-up, when we probably never will know with much certainty what happened that night. The most significant item that we know is that McCain and has fellow Republicans refused to provide the State Department with necessary funds to protect the consulate in Benghazi, as well as dozens of other American outposts in foreign countries.

While many other American leaders including Senators Hillary Clinton and John Kerry joined McCain in offering the blank check to President Bush in 2002, they have largely acknowledged their mistakes and proffered that they will never again be hoodwinked, as they were by the Bush Administration. No such words from Senator McCain.

Much to Senator McCain’s credit, he has a remarkable war record, which includes over five years of being held as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam during the Vietnam conflict. His bravery in protecting himself as well as his fellow prisoners is renowned. The pain and suffering that he endured is unimaginable to most people. It is for this reason that so many people are willing to cut John McCain slack in whatever he does, because of the enormous price he has paid on behalf of his country.

It takes us back to a fundamental tenet of conflict resolutions: “Be hard on the problem and soft on the person.” As nasty towards others as John McCain can be, it is frequently difficult for progressives to respond with their own nastiness because (a) progressives are simply nicer and more civil, and (b) they empathize with John McCain. The key is to be tough on the particular problems or issues; not on Senator McCain or anyone else, if possible.

For a variety of reasons, it’s very painful to hear John McCain pontificate. Maybe he should follow the steps of the current pontiff and retire early. He deserves the break, and quite frankly, we could deserve a break from the frustration that we experience in trying to figure out what’s really going on with John McCain.

The post It’s hard to criticize John McCain, but… appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Go figure. Republicans have made a bogus issue out of the September 11, 2012 incident at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.  They sabotaged the nomination of Susan Rice to become Secretary of State even though she is eminently qualified.  As tragic as it was, the number of Americans killed in Benghazi was four.

On December 14, 2012, a gunman entered Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut and killed close to thirty people, including his mother as well as eighteen to twenty children.

He didn’t do it with a knife; he didn’t do it with his fists; he didn’t do it with illegal biological or chemical weapons. He did it with a gun. Yet, what do we do?  John Boehner tweeted that flags at the U.S. Capitol will be lowered. I’m sure that will prevent further gun carnage.

Even Democrats, including President Barack Obama, have been reluctant to take on the gun lobby. During the administration of President Bill Clinton, eleven kinds of assault weapons were banned. The law was allowed to expire, and assault weapons are back on the streets. Now we have Sandy Hook to add to the lists of Aurora, Columbine, Tucson, and others.

Is there something wrong with this picture? Boehner and others can’t let go of Benghazi. No public figure pontificating on it had his or her “feet on the ground” there. They don’t know what really happened. At the same time, we have hundreds of witnesses to the shooting massacres within the U.S.

Our priorities are way out of whack, even for Democrats. Let’s grow some cajones and at least ban assault weapons.

The post Benghazi and Newtown appeared first on Occasional Planet.