There’s been a lot of debate lately about scandals, with different sides proclaiming or denying said scandals exist.
I’ve been thinking about it and I’ve come to the realization that it all depends on your definition of scandal.
If you think there has to be actual wrongdoing before there is a scandal, then you may be in the minority. The way the word keeps getting used, it seems most people consider anything they don’t like to be a “scandal.”
Take Benghazi. There is no evidence that there was any wrongdoing, even though there may have been mistakes and bad decisions made. I don’t consider that a scandal.
Or the IRS. Apparently the people who made the decision to investigate groups that are against taxes to make sure they really are non-profit were conservative Republican Bush appointees. Has there been any evidence to show that this was done for political reasons? None whatsoever, and the people involved have said as much. Were there any laws broken? Doesn’t seem so. Does it look bad? Oh, absolutely. Does that make it a scandal?
Then there’s the NSA phone and email situation. It appears that this is all allowed under the Patriot Act, has been approved by Congress many times, and has been in existence since the Bush administration. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence any laws were broken. If there is a scandal, it’s that Obama broke his promise to stop doing this.
For that matter, it appears that the seizing of AP phone records was done properly under law, too.
So I’m having difficulty finding “scandal.” I certainly don’t like the situation with the NSA and the AP and am against these kinds of intrusions on privacy and freedom of the press, but the solution is to change the laws so that this is not allowed and to hold Obama responsible for doing these things in the first place.
But that doesn’t make them scandals.
I am open to evidence, however. If you have proof that laws were broken or actual wrongdoing took place, let me know. I am certainly willing to acknowledge it when it happens.