Another Obama scandal: What's that smell?
The exit of the acting inspector general at the Department of Homeland Security, accused by whistleblowers of being anything but independent, more than suggests the cover-up mindset of the Obama administration.
Charles K. Edwards, responsible for checking into the many divisions of Homeland Security, became the target of a Senate probe amid allegations that he altered and/or delayed investigations to curry favor with the White House — perhaps to become the permanent IG. Edwards denies the claims.
Lo and behold, just days before Mr. Edwards' scheduled Senate testimony, he requested a transfer and stepped down. This, after the White House announcement last month that it had nominated someone else to permanently fill the IG job, The Washington Post reports.
The changes follow accusations that Edwards tried to alter findings in reports and defer investigations. Among these was his office's probe into Secret Service agents' reported escapades with prostitutes in Cartagena, Colombia, during an April 2012 presidential trip, according to The Post.
To no one's surprise, that Secret Service investigation found no widespread sexual misconduct.
So the Office of Inspector General, a supposed “check” on government, is accused of being in the tank for the Obama administration. And the key person in question simply shuffles off into obscurity.
If all this sounds more apropos of a banana republic, go to the head of the class.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Recasting the EPA: Devolving power to the states
- Another carbon credit scheme
- Rick Perry’s indictment: The real abuse
- School funding canard: Money isn’t the answer
- Tuesday essay: Sophie
- More foreign aid is no answer to border problem
- Sunday pops
- Islamic State threat: Lessons from 9/11
- Another LCB fumble: The status-quo stupor
- The Box
- Tuesday essay: Sophie