Well, you made a point that could be regarded as valid, but then, as usual, you wrapped it up in silly hyperbole as though it was the only possible answer.
If one wishes to pretend, (or is so historically ignorant that one believes) that the IRS has only the Nixon incident in its past, one might come to your conclusion. I doubt that Ms. Noonan is quite so unaware of history. While Nixon was notorious for having ordered the IRS to target several of his “enemies,” the IRS has acted on behalf of the FBI on numerous occasions. A study done in the late 90s demonstrated, statistically, that the IRS tended to behave more harshly toward people in states that were hostile to the administration or key members of Congress (regardless of party) while cutting slack for people in states that were more friendly to the administration or those same congresscritters over the course of several years. In other words, it appears that the IRS had an internal habit of simply choosing its targets in a way that would avoid riling up anyone in power. That probably qualifies as “elites vs elites,” but it does not indicate any specific connection to the presidency.
That is Power Guys Using the IRS, not the IRS using the IRS.
T&D and HA have a problem. ‘Power Guys Using the IRS’ Noonan wrote. That’s a clear Nixon comparison.
I object: I know The IRS has had plenty of scandals. In fact the link I posted described a whole list of them. If I wished to pretend Nixon drove the only IRS scandal I would have linked to a report on Nixon only. No need to. Come on T&D.
Does she have a case/evidence for that? She wrote that after the Cummings revelation.
Recall the definition of scandal. Some one has to do the nefarious deed.
Noonan calls her unproven baseless speculation that there is a more dangerous IRS abuse than Nixon’s, by power guys / nameless higher ups / and she calls it a scandal. There is no separation clarification from Noonan between the management level of the original acknowledged mistake that she can justify by definition call a scandal, and this top level Power Guy abuse that she has no justification in my mind to call it a scandal.
I think it is naive to believe that Noonan is not underhandedly blurring the line between fact and speculation to prolong the drip drip of negative news about Obama pretty much knowing that the whole issue most likely is limited to the Republican who has admitted doing it.
My point is that we as observers of this controversy should call dishonesty out where it exists and Noonan is dishonest to blur her speculation and hyperbole about danger to the people by elites high up with the scandal that has been recognized with apology.
And by all means investigate to one’s hearts content, but don’t lie/distort and churn up ‘elite vs the people’ crap when you know and have nothing under the cover if politics as usual.
So, the latest on CNN is that the scandal basically revolved around the IRS taking short cuts in the system. Several managers have been let go.
So, not a false flag CT involving hidden mole Tea Party members to implicate the Administration. No political motivation by the Administration targeting conservative groups either. Much more prosaic…as pretty much everyone in this thread who wasn’t the OP figured. A scandal that revolved around the IRS, and particularly only a small part of it.
Good thing there was that investigation thingy so we could see what ACTUALLY was happening, instead of jumping to the conclusion that it must be stealthy, rogue like Tea Party spies doing that false flag stuff to implicate Obama et al…while be too stupid to actually drum up the data that WOULD implicate him and the Administration.
So the reference to “power guys using the agency against other power guys” is sub-text. And HA needs us to disconnect Noonan’s dots to and from ‘power guys’ that ‘used the agency’ so we can all be led to believe that HA has the only valid interpretation pegged that Noonan meant the managers of the IRS are the Power Guys. Of course one dot that HA cannot remove is that IRS top agency power guys of the past did not use the agency to target other power guys, so HA’s interpretation is one that cannot be connected to Noonan’s choice of words or any other kind of rational thought.
Its that HA knows best and facts or a direct intelligent reading of Noonan’s writing can’t change it.
And still my point is a stretch. HA’s disconnected dots would lead the bass of Humanity to hear Noonan and conclude its impossible that Obama could be a power guy elite using the awesome power of the IRS agsinst the common ordinary people.
They must conclude what HA and T&D conclude, Noonan spoke of nameless faceless elitist managers of the IRS agency, like the Bush appointee who ran the agency at the time of the mistake.
Yep that’s it, nothing to do with Obama at all. Noonan would never suggest such s thing.
Here’s Noonan’s exact words, and I’m supposed to be the one with language problems.
I know you don’t get this, but it’s simply YOUR interpretation of what she is saying there. To me, it’s ambiguous as to whether she meant the elites to be the IRS or the power elites as you seem tenaciously to be clinging too. But really, who gives a flying fuck what she meant? Why is it important to you? Why argue about different interpretations as to what she did or didn’t mean, when it’s clear that she isn’t being clear?? How does it effect your original hypothesis about this being a ‘False Flag attack by a coule of IRS employes to lead to mainstream Tax Revolt’? How does it preclude this being a scandal?
No, the sub-text is that she’s referring to the President. Sub-text isn’t what’s written, that’s just text. Sub-text is the underlying or implicit meaning. That’s what you’re talking about, that by “power guys” and referencing previous IRS scandals, at least one of which involved a President, Noonan is saying that Obama is involved in this. That’s sub-text.
Wow, that takes some gall, considering that about 95% of your posts on this board have been claims that you have the only valid interpretation of various historical events.
So? She wrote “power guys”, not “IRS power guys”. In the past that included J. Edgar Hoover and Nixon, now it might mean Lois Lerner or other managers, in Washington or elsewhere.
Note to self: invent the Bass of Humanity, rock the world.
You have no idea what sub-text means, do you? Your hypothetical above, that Noonan’s meaning is that it’s impossible for Obama to be involved, is interpreting sub-text (moronically, in that case).
Nameless? She called out Lois Lerner by name. Try reading the article.
She might suggest it sub-textually, which is what I wrote, but she hasn’t written it.
Ok, now show me the line where she says Obama is involved. Oh, wait, that doesn’t exist, does it?
It’s possible his bass line assumption is skewed and that he’s chumming the wrong waters in search of Die Forelle, though perhaps he’s angling for something else…
Cite one time where I have claimed I have the only valid interpretation of historical events.
Key word is ‘interpretation’.
I cite things like Iraq was in violation of international law in October 2002 but was not in violation in March 2003. You know factual stuff. i argue interpretations of that stuff like everyone else.
