In Obama Administration there is only political motivation.

If the IRS audits didn't result from political motives, what other possible explanation could there be for them? We are told that extra scrutiny was triggered by names that included phrases like "Tea Party," but that this scrutiny didn't have a political motivation. How can this be? We have entered the age of Orwellian newspeak. As Charles Krauthammer recently wrote:

And yet two IRS chiefs (Steven Miller and Douglas Shulman) insisted that the singling-out of groups according to politics was in no way politically motivated. More hilarity. It’s definitional: If you discriminate according to politics, your discrimination is political. It’s a tautology, for God’s sake.

As for Benghazi, one understands how there can be chaos during the fog of battle. But, that's not what we are talking about. What we are talking about is the fact that the President, Secretary of State, and the Ambassador to the UN continued to insist on a narrative (stupid video precipitates spontaneous "demonstration" that spins out of control) that was patently implausible from the very start and that was completely inconsistent with even the earliest eyewitness reports about events on the ground. It's not that they removed references to Ansar al Sharia because they were unsure that Ansar al Sharia was involved, but that they did not remove references to the stupid video. The problem is that Obama trotted out Susan Rice on 5 Sunday morning talk shows to insist with brazen obstinacy that the attack was caused by this stupid video when it was obvious to everyone (even me sitting in my easy chair watching the Sunday morning talk shows) that this simply could not be the case.

And again, we are told that there was no political motivation. One needs simply to consider Victoria Nuland's words that information in earlier versions of the talking points “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned …” What is this if not a government official suggesting that information be removed from a report for political considerations? In addition, Nuland says: “These changes [in a later revision] don’t resolve all of my issues or those of my building's leadership.” To whom does the word "leadership" refer? Did Nuland have conversations with particular people? Who were those people? Was one of them Hillary Clinton? Were political motives discussed? If such conversations did take place, why have they not been reported by Hillary before?

In the Obama Administration political motivation is the only kind of motivation there ever is.