Arguing with you is fun, Pokey, but occasionally has a banging-your-head-against-the-wall feel to it. We find ourselves in two different camps these days. I used to think I was slightly left and you were slightly right so our arguments were hashing out some important middle ground. Alas, today it seems like there is a universe between us. Bridging that widening gap is possible, we just need to find a way to…oh, wait, I’m being told Congress has blocked funding for any Gaps or any bridges…uh, yeah, we’re screwed.  

Point 1: The government spends tax money on activities that may well conflict with one’s conscience:

This first point is its own debate. I hope to coordinate with you soon about this. Suffice to say, you’re wrong. So for now everyone kindly allocate one point to me and let’s move on.org.

Point 2: The IRS Targeted Republican Groups: (All Pokey quotes snatched from his last post, here)

Pokey: You flippantly justified IRS agents targeting conservative groups by writing, “Its group wanted to shut down the agency that I work for and they were looking for a tax break to do it, ‘Uh, oops what happened to that application?” The same thing probably happened to those emails. This statement of yours, Zano, shows your argument’s flaw and the essential the flaw in your evaluation of the Obama administration.

Zano: Um, no.  I have said all along this is a very real scandal….for the IRS. I am dismissive of this as an Obama scandal, because last time I checked the IRS is not part of the Obama Administration. I have no problem holding these people accountable, or my quote:

“Am I excusing the IRS’s behavior? Certainly not—heads should roll and will,” 5/13

My hypothetical IRS worker self should be fired, but keep in mind most people despise the tea party. The extreme right will find an uphill battle for all of their battles, because they’re starting in an ideological valley, which is more of a pit dug out from under an outhouse.  

[Patrioturd comment flushed by the editor]

I kid out of love. 

I think it will be a tough conviction even for the IRS, because the law is too vague. Again, that’s not to say Congress won’t endlessly try for some convictions—what else do they have to do?—but the law itself allowed for these shenanigans.  This is no small point. It’s probably another unwritten fringe benefit to holding the presidency. Obama tried to tighten that law. On that note, I have a rare retraction. Whereas I predicted Obama would tighten this law, he only proposed to, but republicans blocked it in Congress.

Shock poll: no one shocked by this.

Whereas Fox News is always wrong and doesn’t bother with retractions, I do retractions even when I guess something wrong. Spoof is King!

The GOP doesn’t want to stop this practice; they don’t want to govern. They’re only interested in making political hay from this political horseshit. They are solely motivated to impeach Barack Obama for reasons they can’t quite articulate. Besides, Obama will not be linked to this scandal, because:

A.) There really is no direct or even indirect connection to The White House or:

B.) Obama is smarter than anyone trying to catch him (Meep, meep).

Calling it a scandal before proving any wrongdoing is:

Fox News: Fair Balanced and Unafraid Fairly Unbalanced and Making You Afraid

Pokey: The Tea Party didn’t just want to shut down the IRS, it wanted to shut down the Obama Presidency as a whole. So by your very “reasoning” (quotes added to incite annoyance), you would look the other way (which you are obviously doing). There is real wrongdoing if the Obama Administration gave the signal to its thugs to target his political adversaries.

Zano: Okay, so even if Obama had a *good motive* (asterisk added to give the illusion of grammatical prowess), it doesn’t imply guilt. Again, when we discuss presidential scandals the operative word is “presidential*.

(Hey, I think I’m getting the hang of this!)

So I ask again, why did Bush do this? Why is solid evidence surfacing that this practice has gone on for decades, here? Republicans refuse to discuss anything meaningful, because they are too busy blocking any real reform. Besides, their propaganda business is percolating. I realize covering only the truth would be a tough transition for Fox News, I mean, what would they do with the other 23 hours?  Back in the day, when I covered Bush scandals, I didn’t have to guesstrapolate with Sean Insanity. I don’t remember Keith Olbermann going, “Where was Monica Lewinsky during the Bush years? Hmmm. Our president is a male, so he had the motive….oh, there’s no evidence? Well, just add this to Bush’s scandal list anyway. I’m sure W was blowing some Dick in the Oval Office.”

[Cheney joke omitted by the editor]

Point 3: Let’s Placate the Terrorists:

Pokey: My point was not to complain about Obama’s refusal to call a “terrorist” a “terrorist”. I complained that by blaming the terrorist attack on a video, the administration emboldened our enemies, which we have obviously been doing throughout the Obama Presidency.

Zano: So terrorists weren’t emboldened when they flew planes into our buildings, but they’re emboldened now because of a successful strike against an outpost in Libya during a power vacuum? Okay.

I don’t think a drone landing on a terrorists’ head and then exploding is within the spirit and meaning of the word placate. I assume you prefer the Cheney model for battling terror, aka, attack the wrong country for the purpose of shady contract kickbacks (trickle-drone economics?).

Pokey: The Obama Administration was directed to blame the attack on the video rather than the people who did the attacking. The video was “hateful and offensive” (Susan Rice), “reprehensible and disgusting” (Jay Carney), “disgusting and reprehensible” (Hillary Clinton, who should have used a thesaurus), and “two thumbs down” (Siskel and Ebert). And these are just the responses to your last post, Zano (ba dum bump).

Zano: Okay, there is mounting evidence the person who organized the attacks cited the video as a reason to move up the attack date. But, hey, let’s ignore what the guy who planned the attack said and, instead, focus on republican theories (hint: those who dated the apocalypse as occurring pre-2014, have a better record at prognosticating).

Pokey: The administration should never have mentioned the video as being a fault in the attack. That’s making an excuse. What was the cause of the Benghazi attack? Plain and simple, it was Islamic fascists. I don’t care how they justify their violence.

Zano: The master planner of the embassy attack is in custody. A republican president would have let the guy slip away and then invaded Jordan. You are mistaking couth with weakness. We used to talk all the time about how the Bush/Cheney—and now Netanyahu—model only foments hatred, violence and terror. Obama’s approach is being touted by moderate Muslim and Middle East experts as the way to go.  He is trying to win the long game, not each bullshit news cycle.  This is an incoherent approach to republicans, which is your first clue it’s the best course of action.

Pokey: I have speculated that the Obama Administration has embraced the “reprehensible movie” narrative for its own self-serving reasons. I realize that this is just speculation, but it makes the most sense to me. Leading up to the 2012 elections, President Obama was promoting his “we’ve greatly weakened terrorism throughout the world” theme as a prime selling point for his upcoming election. A terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11 didn’t fit his PR campaign so he got everybody on board to blame the attack on the video rather than the terrorists. That’s the point Zano, and you’re refusal to accept this point makes you a “denier.”

Zano: I strongly deny that allegation! You are absolutely right, in that Obama didn’t come out and say how this attack epitomizes his failed foreign policy, because it’s:

A. Ridiculous.

B. No politician ever puts things into the worst possible light, ever (see: politicians).

Remember, Bush won the Iraq War in 2003, which is a bit more of a stretch. Frankly, this is semantics. Look, if only four people died on any given day during the Bush Administration, they would have thrown a party. Obama is simply doing what I suggested years ago, utilizing a different and a more targeted approach, which includes cooperating with other governments and using only limited military interventions as a last resort. Capture or kill our enemies without inciting unnecessary violence and recruitment. Is any of this coming back to you? Ultimately the Middle East will be decided by people who live in the Middle East. Nation building and large military campaigns are a joke, not unlike every other solution the GOP supports…uh, on any given topic.

Okay, I usually try to end with a joke…umm, I got nothing. Wait, here’s one, Pokey’s full feature.

I kid out of love…really.