Size does matter

It is ironic that the many IRS higher-ups claim they "did not (or do not) know" and the Department of Justice has overreached, but the State Department (and White House) suggests what happened in Benghazi could not have been avoided for lack of adequate resources.  Who knew what, when they knew, and how they came to know is not nearly as important, or as revealing, as a government so vast that it cannot be adequately managed or, in the case of Benghazi, that the government is not big enough.  That the President of the United States, the chief executive of the nation, could possibly not have known - or would not have been told - suggests ineptitude, remarkable arrogance as if above the petty details, disdain for the job itself, or all the above.

Now an upper-level "manager" of IRS is under subpoena to testify before the Congress and has made it clear through her attorney that though she is innocent of any wrong-doing, she will nevertheless invoke the 5th Amendment to protect herself from "self-incrimination".  Or is it that she will be seeking to protect other, more higher-ups than she?  The implications boggle the mind especially if it can be honestly stated that she really does not know as much as the Congress needs to find out.  But to be in her position and refuse to answer questions is not her "right"; it is her contempt for those who have every "right" to know what happened, how it came to happen, and who ultimately made it happen.

It is as easy as it is careless and irresponsible for anyone to suggest the president or his staff is corrupt without solid evidence.  This corruption is going to be very hard to prove not because evidence cannot be gleaned but because the only evidence in abundance at this point is sheer neglect, mismanagement, or downright incompetence - by the president himself (sorry, Mr. President, but it all begins and ends with you whether you like it or not).  I do not suggest corruption may not eventually be uncovered; I only suggest at this point that the government has simply gotten too big to adequately manage or even control; and its sheer size makes "hiding places" too easy.  So when the magnitude of such scandals involves departments of the government that affect our daily living in substantial ways by so many who "do not know", we are in very big trouble - especially when the White House clams up - OR - blames anyone else with nothing more than political innuendo.

Benghazi suggests sheer neglect (or total naiveté) of necessary duties by then-secretary Hillary Clinton and President Obama.  Both have demonstrated remarkable contempt for the military in the past and so perhaps failed to address and seek appropriate advice and guidance on what was clearly a security - and military - situation: a direct threat on the sovereignty of the United States, our embassy.  Resources were available but were either told to stand down or were not called upon.  This alone is a chargeable offense against the commander-in-chief of the armed forces! 

The IRS mess and Justice's overreach with AP, Fox, and now CBS suggests a government so vast that it cannot be controlled; thus allowing missteps, mismanagement, and yes, corruption on nearly every level.  Even a few "rogue" agents is no excuse for a situation that is at least two years in the making, possibly longer, without someone in charge stepping up and making necessary corrections AND advising the chief executive of a potential political land mine.  This is much more than a handful of low-level "rogue" agents; this involves a "rogue" White House staff and a "rogue" president who would voluntarily surrender his duties and responsibilities to those who are not accountable to the people of the United States.

No matter how we slice it, this government is out of hand and we've no one to blame but ourselves by demanding more from government than we are willing to give.  From top to bottom, we expect by "rights" that to which we are not entitled.  Yes, the president is ultimately responsible, and this cannot be glossed over.  For the people to suggest we are not complicit on some level, however regretfully, is to be as naive, as complacent, or as neglectful as we accuse the president of being.