Harry Reid is a walking, talking, brightly glowing example of muddled and utterly non sequitur thinking. Every time he opens his mouth he commits felonious assault on logic and reason, snatching conclusions out of the static.
During one his most recent fulminations, Reid rhetorically asked, “Where was (Republican) outrage when groups from the other side were under attack?” He specifically mentioned IRS probes during the Bush administration of the NAACP, Greenpeace and the All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, Calif. “What the IRS did was inexcusable but this is not the first time we have seen this,” Reid was quoted as saying.
All three of those probes were initiated by complaints filed with the IRS that the groups were violating their tax-exempt status by engaging in partisan politics or, in the case of Greenpeace, money laundering. After several years, far too long admittedly, all three were cleared. Should the IRS have simply ignored those complaints in Harry’s universe?
Harry Reid on Tuesday. (AP Photo)
It was the IRS that initiated its overly exhaustive questioning of conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status while green lighting liberal groups.
The same IRS leaked confidential IRS applications — including the names of donors — to the liberal ProPublica so it could write exposés on how those groups were misleading the IRS about their political activities.
But it is all the same to Harry.
He also reached the bizarre conclusion that if was the fault of Republicans who blocked passage of the DISCLOSE Act, which would have required private groups to disclose their donors. So, Congress refuses to pass a law Harry wants, that makes it OK for the IRS to do the disclosing? That’s like it is OK for Obama to issue an executive order banning the deportation of illegal immigrants who were brought into the country at a young age because Congress refused to pass the DREAM Act. (In April, a judge ruled Homeland Security “does not have discretion to refuse to initiate removal proceedings” of certain illegal immigrants, but — as with the rulings about the illegal Gulf drilling moratorium, the illegal “non-recess” appointments, the illegal ObamaCare and No Child Left Behind waivers — that’s being ignored by Obama, the press and Harry.)
Reid was quoted as saying “there are shadowy political groups masquerading as social welfare organizations in order to solicit anonymous donations,” which under the laws passed by Congress is legal, but the IRS apparently writes its own laws.
Then Reid said of the questions raised about the lies and cavalier attitude about protecting Americans in Benghazi: “This is about smear politics and nothing else.”
And when Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the ambassador to the U.N. were lying about the attack being a demonstation over a video that got out of hand, that was just politics to assure the president’s re-election in spite of his claiming to have al Qaida on the run. That’s OK by Harry. Nor should there be any concern about why a rescue attempt was never made during a seven-hour attack.
Reid also criticized the Department of Justice for grabbing phone records of Associated Press reporters during an investigation of a national security leak involving a foiled plot to bomb a U.S.-bound airliner. “It is inexcusable and there is no way to justify it,” he said of Justice taking the records. (I can’t help but wonder if the real reason for the probe is that it was not the CIA that foiled the plot but MI6, and the leak endangered an MI6 operative.)
This is the same Harry Reid who has been paying lip service to a reporters shield law for years but has somehow has been able to even bring it up for a vote. In 2008 the New York Times quoted a Reid spokesperson as saying: “It is on our to-do list, and we hope to get to it as soon as we can.”
Watch Harry babble on here.
But this might be the dim bulb moment of the week:
Harry should do more walking and less talking.