http://danvillesanramon.com/square/print/index.php?i=3&d=1&t=4439


Town Square

Serve AND Protect?

Original post made by Tom Cushing, Danville, on May 22, 2013

That popular slogan reflects what citizens expect from their government: protection from harm and service to the common good. It appears on crests and cop cars across the land. But what happens when those two bedrock policies collide? In the deadly serious scandal of a blather-filled week, the Department of Justice badly missed the mark in resolving that conflict. The damage they caused will endure for years.

This story contains 923 words.

If you are a paid subscriber, check to make sure you have logged in. Otherwise our system cannot recognize you as having full free access to our site.

If you are a paid print subscriber and haven't yet set up an online account, click here to get your online account activated.

Comments

Like this comment
Posted by Rick Pshaw
a resident of Danville
on May 23, 2013 at 9:32 am

You are going to come around yet, Tom.


Like this comment
Posted by spcwt
a resident of Danville
on May 23, 2013 at 10:22 am

Did Tom really write this article? Or is Allen Funt going to jump out and say, "Smile, you're on Candid Camera"?


Like this comment
Posted by Tom Cushing
a resident of Alamo
on May 23, 2013 at 10:27 am

Hey fellas, I calls like I sees 'em: Web Link


Like this comment
Posted by Darrin
a resident of Blackhawk
on May 23, 2013 at 11:29 am

Oh stop now, Tom....we all know it is Bush's fault and most likely a trap set by those rascally Republicans.


Like this comment
Posted by C. R. Mudgeon
a resident of Danville
on May 23, 2013 at 11:42 am

Having lived for 30 years in the Chicago area, the only surprise in this story is how long it took for people to start waking up to the reality that the President's core group of advisors have a long history of abusing political power. The "Chicago mob" of present and past advisors, chiefs of staff, etc. (including David Axelrod, Bill Dailey, Rahm Emmanuel, Valerie Jarrett) have always had an "end justifies the means" mentality, and that laws and legal limitations are for others, but not them. I wouldn't buy a car from any of them... Holder's not one of the Chicago core group, being more of a Clinton guy, originally. But he's of a similar mindset, and in any case he does what he's told.

I also find it a bit amusing that it took the AP "leak investigation" story to (finally) disabuse many reporters from their "Obama can do no wrong" love affair, whereas Benghazi and the IRS abuse were basically ignored and/or downplayed for quite a while. But once the AP story "broke the ice", reporters are starting to remember a few things about investigative journalism. Better late than never!


Like this comment
Posted by JT
a resident of Danville
on May 23, 2013 at 12:31 pm

You need to brush up on the facts of this case. Some Benedict Arnold Traitor leaked a story to the AP that daylighted one of the most valuable moles ever in the history of the United States. The mole was placed in the highest levels of Al Quaida in Yemen!!!!!!!!!

How did the DOJ respond. Look up the facts. After months of detective work that went nowhere, they finally took the next step of requesting phone records. Have you not followed the story close enough to know this. Maybe the reporter should voluntarily out their source. Or maybe the source of the leak should voluntarily turn themselves in. Why won't they, because they know what they did was wrong, and they would be branded as traitors!!!!

All you guys can do is focus on the AP side of this. Tough crappola, reporters should know that if they are dealing with traitorous ilk within the government, then they may suffer the consequences.

Have you ever considered that the leak inside the government might be someone that supports Al Qaeda? And this leak was the best way to keep them off their trail. And since it sounds like you are a blinded by the right Republican, did you ever consider that this leak might have come from your "foreign" born "Islamist" President, and perhaps this could be your trump card for impeachment. Losers, if this were Bush you would be singing his praises.


Like this comment
Posted by Conservator
a resident of Danville
on May 23, 2013 at 3:08 pm

@CRM,

While I typically align to the the thoughts and perspectives that you offer herein, I do believe you to be quite intuitive and astute. As you rattled off all of the President Obama's closest advisers, it brought back found memories of the late (and great) George Carlin. If you recall as I do, he was able to fill entire records with material taken directly from the adventures of one Attorney General Edwin Meese and sidekicks Poindexter & North. As I also recall, that is the era of Reaganism that coined the colloquial euphemism 'shredding parties'. Just a dozen years earlier then this, we had a true CA native in the White House assisting the IRS compile it audit list for a couple of years.

I think that one has to agree that we find 'good' in what we want and 'bad' in what we hope with every administration which brings us back to Carlin. In one of his truly great moments, he left us with

"The real reason that we can't have the Ten Commandments in a courthouse: You cannot post "Thou shalt not steal," "Thou shalt not commit adultery," and "Thou shalt not lie" in a building full of lawyers, judges, and politicians. It creates a hostile work environment." George Carlin (1937 - 2008).


Like this comment
Posted by Tom Cushing
a resident of Alamo
on May 23, 2013 at 4:56 pm

@ JT: "Â… you are a blinded-by-the-right RepublicanÂ…" New around here? Here's me, reading that passage for the first time: Web Link

@ CurM: I saw someone compliment you recently as 'not crazy' and I agree -- high praise on this forum. That said, those other two incidents do not belong in the same Hall of Infamy, at all. I think you can judge whether an 'occurrence' is a 'scandal' based on three factors: outcome, wrongdoing, and motivation of the pursuers.

In that matrix, the AP case scores high on all three: great, enduring damage; bafflingly poor judgment by DOJ; and when you're a Dem and you've got Floyd Abrams jumping down your throat, you're in trouble. 3/3. 6/3, if I could weight it.

Benghazi, OTOH, involved horrible loss-of-life consequences; serious mistakes without wrongdoing; and cynically political motives by The Persecution. 1-2/3. It doesn't qualify.

The IRS matter involved pretty trivial consequences – whether donor names (that ought to be revealed anyway) would not be, on the flimsy basis of purported 501c4 qualification. There was bureaucratic wrongdoing (I don't think even the most rabid 'hatters believe Mr. Obama was complicit); and the motivations can be couched as appropriate, so far at least (contrast Benghazi). Maybe a gentleman's 1.5/3?

I do not think they're in the same league.