PDA

View Full Version : Obama Lefty Spinoff: F&F why did Team Obama do it?


Bewbies
07-03-2012, 12:58 AM
I want to explore something here that's not really being discussed in the other thread. Specifically I want to ask this question to those on the left, that call folks who think it was an assault on the 2nd Amendment crazy.

Why did Team Obama launch Fast and Furious?

He invoked EP, so he knew. Bush's (idiotic) WR ended in 2007. Obama's even dumber F&F started 2 years later.

The folks on the right have made it clear why they think he did it. Why do folks on the left think they proceeded with this mission?

Post your own thoughts, or copy/paste another left winger. I'm interested to know what the thought is on that side as to what Team Obama was hoping to accomplish here....

cosmo20002
07-03-2012, 01:37 AM
I want to explore something here that's not really being discussed in the other thread. Specifically I want to ask this question to those on the left, that call folks who think it was an assault on the 2nd Amendment crazy.

Why did Team Obama launch Fast and Furious?

He invoked EP, so he knew. Bush's (idiotic) WR ended in 2007. Obama's even dumber F&F started 2 years later.

The folks on the right have made it clear why they think he did it. Why do folks on the left think they proceeded with this mission?

Post your own thoughts, or copy/paste another left winger. I'm interested to know what the thought is on that side as to what Team Obama was hoping to accomplish here....

You start off on the faulty premise that invoking EP means he knew. There is a very reasonable possibilty that docs concerning the area of undercover law enforcement and security operations would have info that could compromise current or future activities. Did Obama know? I don't know. But there's no evidence of it and Boehner has admitted that.

Why do it--to track and control illegal gun and drug smuggling.
The notion that this was all to (eventually) incite a backlash against guns and the 2nd Am so he could usher in sweeping gun control laws is simply absurd.

This has never been a high-priority agenda item for Obama, and there's little chance of sweeping gun control laws passing, even if it was. If the right-wing fantasy was true it would mean that an overly-complicated, wide-ranging conspiracy was put in place to pursue a low-to-no prioroty agenda item with little chance of passing.

All that said, I'm open to info showing otherwise. I've never seen it and no high-ranking R is claiming there is evidence of it. Some did make the accusation a year ago, but have since walked it back.

Bewbies
07-03-2012, 03:52 AM
If the goal was to track this why didn't they track anything?

And if Obama didn't know I don't know how he could invoke EP...

Iz Zat Chew
07-03-2012, 07:34 AM
If the purpose was to track the guns, why is it that they don't know where they are/were?

What is the base reason this was attempted? I have no doubt that getting the 2nd amendment thrown out was on their minds, it's been something that the left has tried for years. Nothing new.

It was an ill concieved plan, run by incompetent personel, nothing more and nothing less.

Amnorix
07-03-2012, 08:27 AM
This has never been a high-priority agenda item for Obama, and there's little chance of sweeping gun control laws passing, even if it was. If the right-wing fantasy was true it would mean that an overly-complicated, wide-ranging conspiracy was put in place to pursue a low-to-no prioroty agenda item with little chance of passing.


Yeah, this.

The idea that it was a conspiracy to undercut the Second Amendment really makes no sense. The risk-reward profile is completely out of whack. VERY high risk of the whole thing backfiring to try to get a very long-shot at a reward. That's not how politicians operate.

Iz Zat Chew
07-03-2012, 08:53 AM
The idea that it was a conspiracy to undercut the Second Amendment really makes no sense. The risk-reward profile is completely out of whack. VERY high risk of the whole thing backfiring to try to get a very long-shot at a reward. That's not how politicians operate.

As a liberal I doubt that you would see the agenda. Right now there is more control over what you have and what you are buying regarding weapons. I currently don't own any weapons, if I were to move into a rural setting I'm sure I'd have something to protect my animals from preditors.

Why is it that you feel that democrats don't operate in the cloke of darkness, or cover which ever way you might want to describe it? The ACA was not fully vetted by anyone and more loss of personal freedoms are enacted by this Act than they were with the Patriot Act. Liberals fought against the Patriot Act tooth and nail, but at least they were able to have access to the Act before it was passed.

I disagree with your belief that the left has no plans on changing or eliminating the 2nd Amendment, things they've done up to now seems to indicate that's a direction they would take if given the open door.

Chiefshrink
07-03-2012, 09:14 AM
All that said, I'm open to info showing otherwise.

It's obvious your 'Usurping Marxist-in-Chief" is not.:rolleyes:

Amnorix
07-03-2012, 09:25 AM
I disagree with your belief that the left has no plans on changing or eliminating the 2nd Amendment, things they've done up to now seems to indicate that's a direction they would take if given the open door.


Perhaps, but most liberals learned long ago that the 2nd amendment isn't a sword worth dying on, and die they would.

The NRA is there to keep the door firmly shut either way.

Congratulations on making a coherent post. Keep it up.

vailpass
07-03-2012, 09:36 AM
Yeah, this.

The idea that it was a conspiracy to undercut the Second Amendment really makes no sense. The risk-reward profile is completely out of whack. VERY high risk of the whole thing backfiring to try to get a very long-shot at a reward. That's not how politicians operate.

Implementing a plan with no chance of success based on faulty reasoning? Sounds right up Holder's alley.

qabbaan
07-03-2012, 09:42 AM
I am as anti-Obama as it gets. I think the White House and the DOJ have been lying as fast as they can talk about this thing from the start. I think it's a major scandal across the spectrum of all modern presidential scandals.

That said, it's hard for me to believe that they would have funneled guns to these drug cartels intentionally to try to create danger to assault the 2nd. That seems hair-brained even by the standards of the pinheads who came up with Obamacare. If they wanted justification they'd need to look only to the killing fields of Chicago for something to politicize and mischaracterize. The idea that they would intentionally fund the bad guys in Mexico's civil war for political gain would rank right up there with "Bush attacked Iraq to help out his rich buddies." It's a special kind of evil and crazy, both, so much that you can't even see the truly evil or truly mad doing such a thing.

It is a case of breathtaking incompetence in the DOJ and really depressing dishonesty from the AG and the White House. But I don't really buy this angle.
Posted via Mobile Device

vailpass
07-03-2012, 10:00 AM
I am as anti-Obama as it gets. I think the White House and the DOJ have been lying as fast as they can talk about this thing from the start. I think it's a major scandal across the spectrum of all modern presidential scandals.

That said, it's hard for me to believe that they would have funneled guns to these drug cartels intentionally to try to create danger to assault the 2nd. That seems hair-brained even by the standards of the pinheads who came up with Obamacare. If they wanted justification they'd need to look only to the killing fields of Chicago for something to politicize and mischaracterize. The idea that they would intentionally fund the bad guys in Mexico's civil war for political gain would rank right up there with "Bush attacked Iraq to help out his rich buddies." It's a special kind of evil and crazy, both, so much that you can't even see the truly evil or truly mad doing such a thing.

It is a case of breathtaking incompetence in the DOJ and really depressing dishonesty from the AG and the White House. But I don't really buy this angle.
Posted via Mobile Device

Yep.

patteeu
07-03-2012, 10:08 AM
You start off on the faulty premise that invoking EP means he knew. There is a very reasonable possibilty that docs concerning the area of undercover law enforcement and security operations would have info that could compromise current or future activities. Did Obama know? I don't know. But there's no evidence of it and Boehner has admitted that.

That would be an improper use of EP. A better argument is that these documents represent deliberations about the program that involve the WH after the fact.

Why do it--to track and control illegal gun and drug smuggling.
The notion that this was all to (eventually) incite a backlash against guns and the 2nd Am so he could usher in sweeping gun control laws is simply absurd.

This has never been a high-priority agenda item for Obama, and there's little chance of sweeping gun control laws passing, even if it was. If the right-wing fantasy was true it would mean that an overly-complicated, wide-ranging conspiracy was put in place to pursue a low-to-no prioroty agenda item with little chance of passing.

I don't think it's such a low priority and I don't think it's completely absurd although I'm not fully buying into the most damning narrative just yet.

The reason I don't think it's completely absurd is because I think the democrats have been making some long plays under Obama. For example, I think Obamacare's complete lack of cost controls are intended to discredit private insurance further so that as premiums become less and less affordable, single payer can gain the support it needs to finally be implemented.

If the narrative that the administration was flooding these Mexican gangs with guns to increase gun violence and make gun control more popular is reality, it's not necessarily because they think they'll be able to fully realize their gun control ideal by the end of Obama's term.

Iz Zat Chew
07-03-2012, 10:14 AM
Perhaps, but most liberals learned long ago that the 2nd amendment isn't a sword worth dying on, and die they would.

The NRA is there to keep the door firmly shut either way.

Congratulations on making a coherent post. Keep it up.

I'll return the compliment once you make one.

The_Grand_Illusion
07-03-2012, 10:28 AM
This is Holder from 1995;

""really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way."

Just an interesting find on Holder in 1995 and some of his thoughts on "brainwashing" people in to looking at guns in a different way and how it might apply to what happened with this botched gun program. I agree, it doesn't make any sense to let the guns walk without letting the Mexican officials know and no reason to track them.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/GDCQTzBzl1A" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

FD
07-03-2012, 10:47 AM
You start off on the faulty premise that invoking EP means he knew. There is a very reasonable possibilty that docs concerning the area of undercover law enforcement and security operations would have info that could compromise current or future activities. Did Obama know? I don't know. But there's no evidence of it and Boehner has admitted that.

Except Congress is and should be privy to that sort of information. The use of executive privilege isn't about keeping information secret, Congressmen have top security clearances. Its about separation of powers and keeping the executive branch's deliberations private.

petegz28
07-03-2012, 12:31 PM
Man, the excuses are flying all over the place over this shit. We know shit like this goes on all the time without anyone knowing, usually. This time they got caught.

Bewbies
07-03-2012, 02:44 PM
Yeah, this.

The idea that it was a conspiracy to undercut the Second Amendment really makes no sense. The risk-reward profile is completely out of whack. VERY high risk of the whole thing backfiring to try to get a very long-shot at a reward. That's not how politicians operate.

So why did they do it? What were they hoping to gain?

Radar Chief
07-03-2012, 02:58 PM
Documents: ATF used "Fast and Furious" to make the case for gun regulations

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-57338546-10391695/documents-atf-used-fast-and-furious-to-make-the-case-for-gun-regulations/

Amnorix
07-03-2012, 03:11 PM
So why did they do it? What were they hoping to gain?


I don't know. I don't have nearly enough information to figure it out, but I could make a guesses.

But first let me say that the operation was a really stupid fucking idea. Keep that in mind -- I don't agree with any of the ideas I set forth below.

The operation could be designed to try to figure out how other weapons are getting into of the Mexican cartels, whether that is through corrupt Mexican police (which explains why the ATF didn't tell Mexican authorities about it) or gun distribution channels.

This 2009 FBI release suggests that Project Gunrunner did have some successes. I have no idea what PART of Project Gunrunner resulted in these arrests/convictions, as it seems to have been a large operation with more component parts to it than "let's give some really bad-ass weapons to the Mexican drug lords" idiocy.

Project Gunrunner:

Cooperation among federal, state and local law enforcement agencies and the government of Mexico is the foundation of Project Gunrunner, ATF’s national initiative to stem firearms trafficking to Mexico by organized criminal groups. Project Gunrunner has resulted in approximately 650 cases by ATF, in which more than 1,400 defendants were referred for prosecution in federal and state courts and more than 12,000 firearms were involved.

As part of the Recovery Act funding, ATF received $10 million for Project Gunrunner efforts, aimed at disrupting firearms trafficking between the U.S. and Mexico, to include hiring 25 new special agents, six industry operations investigators (IOIs), three intelligence research specialists and three investigative analysts. The funding will establish three permanent field offices, dedicated to firearms trafficking investigations, in McAllen, Texas; El Centro, Calif.; and Las Cruces, N.M (including a satellite office in Roswell, N.M.). Previously, approximately 148 special agents were dedicated to investigating firearms trafficking on a full-time basis and 59 IOIs were responsible for conducting regulatory inspections of federally licensed gun dealers, known as federal firearms licensees (FFLs) along the Southwest border.

As the sole federal agency that regulates FFLs, ATF’s cadre of IOIs work to identify and prioritize for inspection those FFLs with a history of noncompliance that represent a risk to public safety; who sell the weapons most commonly used by drug trafficking organizations in the region; and have numerous unsuccessful traces and a large volume of firearms recoveries in high-crime areas. Along the Southwest border, ATF inspected approximately 1,700 FFLs in FY 2007 and 1,900 in FY 2008.

http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fact-sheet-department-of-justice-efforts-to-combat-mexican-drug-cartels

vailpass
07-03-2012, 03:13 PM
I don't know. I don't have nearly enough information to figure it out, but I could make a guesses.

But first let me say that the operation was a really stupid ****ing idea. Keep that in mind -- I don't agree with any of the ideas I set forth below.

The operation could be designed to try to figure out how other weapons are getting into of the Mexican cartels, whether that is through corrupt Mexican police (which explains why the ATF didn't tell Mexican authorities about it) or gun distribution channels.

This 2009 FBI release suggests that Project Gunrunner did have some successes. I have no idea what PART of Project Gunrunner resulted in these arrests/convictions, as it seems to have been a large operation with more component parts to it than "let's give some really bad-ass weapons to the Mexican drug lords" idiocy.





I see nothing wrong with the premise. It's the abysmal failure of planning and execution that bothers me.

Amnorix
07-03-2012, 03:16 PM
I will note that like anyone else, people deeply embedded in an institution can get lost in the trees and lose sight of the forest. It's entirely possible that individuals at ATF had some hare-brained idea that they might be able to help solve (what they thought of as) a bigger problem by CREATING a smaller problem. I have no idea.

I really doubt even Holder, and definitely can't imagine Obama, being involved in that decision making process. The Justice Department is far more than ATF, and the executive branch is far more than Justice.

I'm sure Republicans will prefer to see the conspiracy theory behind it, but it strikes me as very, very unlikely.

Bewbies
07-03-2012, 03:19 PM
I will note that like anyone else, people deeply embedded in an institution can get lost in the trees and lose sight of the forest. It's entirely possible that individuals at ATF had some hare-brained idea that they might be able to help solve (what they thought of as) a bigger problem by CREATING a smaller problem. I have no idea.

I really doubt even Holder, and definitely can't imagine Obama, being involved in that decision making process. The Justice Department is far more than ATF, and the executive branch is far more than Justice.

I'm sure Republicans will prefer to see the conspiracy theory behind it, but it strikes me as very, very unlikely.

If it was stupid low level idiots in the ATF they would be burned at the stake. You wouldn't invoke EP over some $30k a year replaceable idiot that completely fucked up. That person would make perfect political cover, especially if it was all them and nobody above them.

Bewbies
07-03-2012, 03:19 PM
I don't know. I don't have nearly enough information to figure it out, but I could make a guesses.

But first let me say that the operation was a really stupid ****ing idea. Keep that in mind -- I don't agree with any of the ideas I set forth below.

The operation could be designed to try to figure out how other weapons are getting into of the Mexican cartels, whether that is through corrupt Mexican police (which explains why the ATF didn't tell Mexican authorities about it) or gun distribution channels.

This 2009 FBI release suggests that Project Gunrunner did have some successes. I have no idea what PART of Project Gunrunner resulted in these arrests/convictions, as it seems to have been a large operation with more component parts to it than "let's give some really bad-ass weapons to the Mexican drug lords" idiocy.



http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fact-sheet-department-of-justice-efforts-to-combat-mexican-drug-cartels

Except for that part where F&F made no attempt to track these guns, and made the feds stay out of the way I see where you're going here.

Amnorix
07-03-2012, 03:22 PM
Except Congress is and should be privy to that sort of information. The use of executive privilege isn't about keeping information secret, Congressmen have top security clearances. Its about separation of powers and keeping the executive branch's deliberations private.


Well, wait. All Congressmen do not automatically have top security clearances that lets them see anything they want anytime they want.

http://www.clearancejobs.com/cleared-news/650/do-members-of-congress-have-security-clearances

I agree that executive privilege shouldn't be used just to prevent Congress from performing its critical oversight role. The whole "executive branch's deliberations" thing is where things can easily get hung up. What is and isn't subject to privilege is often in the eye of the beholder, especially five months out from an election. Stalling, unfortunately, may be seen as politically expedient.

Just as digging as deep and as loudly as possible into a failed and terminated governmental program five months before an election may be seen as politically expedient.

Unfortunately, this bullshit is all the result of an increasingly partisan Washington DC atmosphere.

Bewbies
07-03-2012, 03:22 PM
By the way, I'm open to other ideas on this. As of yet, the only one that makes any kind of sense to me is this vast right wing conspiracy.

Radar Chief
07-03-2012, 03:26 PM
Unfortunately, this bullshit is all the result of an increasingly partisan Washington DC atmosphere.

I actually don’t have a problem with that. At least while they’re at each other’s throats they aren’t busy figuring out ways to fuck us taxpayers out of more of our money.

Amnorix
07-03-2012, 03:28 PM
Except for that part where F&F made no attempt to track these guns, and made the feds stay out of the way I see where you're going here.


errrummmmm, what? "made the feds stay out of the way"? This was a federal program. What feds made what feds stay out of the way, of what?

Second, no attempt to track the guns? I haven't seen that.

I admit I"m gettin gup to speed on this -- I haven't paid rigorously close attention to the issue or anything.

Finally, I note that Fortune magazine -- hardly a bastion of liberal thought -- seems to be on the ATFs side on this, broadly speaking. See latest article below (dated today):


http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/07/03/fast-and-furious-follow-up-the-atf-and-gun-stores/

More on the Fortune investigation that revealed that the ATF never intentionally allowed guns to fall into the hands of Mexican drug cartels.
By Katherine Eban, contributor

FORTUNE -- Since Fortune published "The Truth about the Fast and Furious Scandal" on June 27, thousands of comments have been posted on Fortune.com either praising or vilifying the article. Among the questions often raised by critics of the article (including Sen. Charles Grassley) concern assertions that the ATF encouraged gun dealers to sell weapons to known traffickers. If the ATF was encouraging such sales, the argument goes, it would be proof that the agency had a policy to allow weapons to fall into the hands of Mexican drug cartels, the core contention in what is known as the Fast and Furious scandal.

In the six months of investigations that led Fortune to conclude that the ATF had no policy to intentionally permit weapons to be trafficked, we examined 2,000 pages of ATF records, Congressional reports and testimony, and interviewed 39 people involved in or knowledgeable about the case. That body of evidence shows the ATF did not have a policy of encouraging gun dealers to sell to traffickers. Until now, the alleged encouragement of gun-dealers has not been a central focus of the Fast and Furious scandal. As a result, we did not address those points in the article. However, given the interest in this question, we thought it was worth taking readers through the evidence on this point.

It should be noted at the outset that the Congressional committee investigating Fast and Furious has never claimed the ATF had any official, written policy to encourage gun dealers to sell to traffickers. No documents, emails, or testimony mentioned in Congressional reports show signs of an agency-wide policy, or even a policy within Phoenix Group VII, the unit that worked on Fast and Furious.

What the allegations in the Congressional hearings and reports boil down to are two specific situations. In one, as we'll see, the allegations are true -- but misleading and incomplete -- and in the second, the evidence is contradictory. It's possible that the Congressional investigators have other evidence, but these two episodes are the only ones that have surfaced to date.

Claim No. 1

In August 2010, after a successful wiretap led Phoenix Group VII to seize 114 weapons in a single month, an employee at a gun dealership informed Group VII supervisor Dave Voth that one of their chief suspects was looking to purchase 20 "cop killer" 9 mm. pistols, which are able to penetrate body armor. Based on evidence it had gathered on the wiretap, the ATF had enough probable cause to immediately arrest the suspect if he purchased the weapons. So -- in the only such instance known to date -- Voth wrote back and asked the dealer to make this particular sale. Voth says he encouraged the sale so that the agents could arrest the suspect outside the gun dealership. In the end, however, the suspect did not make the purchase and the arrest did not take place. No evidence has emerged that Voth ever made such a statement to any other gun seller.

Claim No. 2

This allegation involves a gun store called Lone Wolf Trading Company and shifting assertions made by its owner, Andrew Howard. ATF records and Justice Department correspondence show that Voth and federal prosecutor Emory Hurley met with Howard soon after Voth arrived in Arizona. According to those records, Hurley advised Howard that, obviously, he could not make illegal sales (which he wasn't), and needed to use his judgment regarding legal sales, but that the government would appreciate any information about the purchasers and the sales to aid the investigation. Lone Wolf cooperated with the ATF, according to agency documents, regularly providing records of gun sales and permitting the ATF to install a surveillance camera in the store.

Lone Wolf was in a sensitive position. From 2006 to 2011, it was the No. 1 seller in Arizona of weapons that were later found at Mexican crime scenes, according to ATF data. The store, which had been prominently mentioned in a Washington Post article on indiscriminate firearms sales, also sold the weapons found at the murder scene of U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry. On Feb. 1, 2011, six weeks after Terry's death, Howard released a press statement that defended the ATF: "These federal agencies," it noted, "conduct themselves in a very professional and proper manner…. Senator Grassley's office contacted us regarding 'any' impropriety by ATF and we have stated that their [sic] exists no indication to that effect." Howard went on to conclude that people should "stop pointing blame at either Federal or state agencies attempting to do their job" and instead "give them the tools to accomplish this monumental problem confronting them."

However, as the scandal heated up and the ATF was deluged with criticism, Howard revised his account and directed the blame at the agency. In September 2011, he told the Los Angeles Times that he was directed by ATF to sell guns -- as many as possible, regardless of the legality, and that selling so many guns made him feel "horrible and sick." This contention is the second element that backs the claim that the ATF encouraged gun dealers to sell to traffickers.

Fortune visited Lone Wolf in January and requested an interview. The owner declined, but denounced the ATF, accused its agents of murder, and said answers would more likely be found on Constitution Avenue, the address of the Justice Department in Washington, D.C.

The totality of the evidence -- including the ATF and Justice Department documents that directly contradict Howard's revised position, and his own earlier defense of ATF -- undermines his subsequent claims. And neither the Lone Wolf case, nor the one episode in which Voth encouraged a gun sale in the hopes of making an arrest in the parking lot of the store right after the sale, support the assertion that the ATF had a policy to intentionally permit gun-trafficking to Mexico.

Amnorix
07-03-2012, 03:30 PM
I actually don’t have a problem with that. At least while they’re at each other’s throats they aren’t busy figuring out ways to fuck us taxpayers out of more of our money.


A less dysfunctional Washington doesn't mean a Washington united to fuck the voters either.

That, of course, is one of the core differences between "liberals" and "conservatives". Conservatives tend to think that government can do no right. Liberals can be accused of the opposite, of course.

Bewbies
07-03-2012, 03:31 PM
There's a lot of people that have called out the Fortune article as bull shit.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/06/27/fortune_magazine_tries_to_tell_the_truth_about_fast_and_furious_fails_miserably

Amnorix
07-03-2012, 03:31 PM
By the way, I'm open to other ideas on this. As of yet, the only one that makes any kind of sense to me is this vast right wing conspiracy.


Woudl your views change if I told you that Fortune magazine spent six months investigating and can't even confirm that ATF intentionally wanted guns to be sold into the hands of the Mexican cartels?

I've accepted that as the foundation stone of this discussion, but now I find that even that is in very substantial doubt. If that isn't true, then the whole conspiracy idea is out the window.

Radar Chief
07-03-2012, 03:32 PM
A less dysfunctional Washington doesn't mean a Washington united to **** the voters either.

That, of course, is one of the core differences between "liberals" and "conservatives". Conservatives tend to think that government can do no right. Liberals can be accused of the opposite, of course.

In theory at least. The practical application tends to indicate otherwise.

Bewbies
07-03-2012, 03:34 PM
Woudl your views change if I told you that Fortune magazine spent six months investigating and can't even confirm that ATF intentionally wanted guns to be sold into the hands of the Mexican cartels?

I've accepted that as the foundation stone of this discussion, but now I find that even that is in very substantial doubt. If that isn't true, then the whole conspiracy idea is out the window.

No, because the journalists that have spent years chasing down WTF happened have come out and called the Fortune article bullshit.

I wouldn't base your entire belief on that article. In fact, I wouldn't base an entire belief on anything on one article.

Amnorix
07-03-2012, 03:37 PM
There's a lot of people that have called out the Fortune article as bull shit.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/06/27/fortune_magazine_tries_to_tell_the_truth_about_fast_and_furious_fails_miserably


Yes. All with their political agendas, just as Fortune, or the writer of the Fortune article, may well have theirs. Penetrating the bullshit to find the truth is the challenge.

Look, I can't prove the conspiracy theory is wrong, but it just doesn't pass the smell test. It's not quite as fucked up as BushCo planned/executed 9/11, or FDR knew about Pearl Harbor in advance, but it's definitely leaning in that direction.

Amnorix
07-03-2012, 03:38 PM
No, because the journalists that have spent years chasing down WTF happened have come out and called the Fortune article bullshit.

I wouldn't base your entire belief on that article. In fact, I wouldn't base an entire belief on anything on one article.


Absolutely. On that, at leats, we can definitely agree.

stevieray
07-03-2012, 03:39 PM
It's not quite as ****ed up as BushCo planned/executed 9/11,

:spock:

Bewbies
07-03-2012, 03:46 PM
Yes. All with their political agendas, just as Fortune, or the writer of the Fortune article, may well have theirs. Penetrating the bullshit to find the truth is the challenge.

Look, I can't prove the conspiracy theory is wrong, but it just doesn't pass the smell test. It's not quite as ****ed up as BushCo planned/executed 9/11, or FDR knew about Pearl Harbor in advance, but it's definitely leaning in that direction.

Here's my problem with the whole thing. You have multiple quotes/visits/press conferences in Mexico with Obama/Hillary talking about the major problem American guns in Mexico are....

AND

You have Obama telling people they're working on gun control behind the scenes...

AND

You have this horrible F&F where we sent machine guns across an international border with no way to track them and no cooperation from Mexico.

If Brian Terry is never killed, and it's just a bunch of Mexicans in the border towns you have tons of crime and no care from Americans. But then the guns are used (and left behind) in the killing of a border control agent and people here perk their heads up.

Sadly, it fits.

Then you can add lies to congress by Holder, refusal to cooperate, whistle blowers inside justice funneling info to Issa and ultimately EP invoked.

This is horrible, a huge freaking scandal. Justice could have admitted fault, shut it down, turned shit over to Congress and been done with it years ago.

But they didn't.....why?

patteeu
07-03-2012, 04:28 PM
This isn't complicated. Whatever the truth behind this F&F thing, the only way to be sure these types of bizarre episodes of malfeasance won't happen again is to vote for Mitt Romney this fall.

cosmo20002
07-03-2012, 07:17 PM
That would be an improper use of EP. A better argument is that these documents represent deliberations about the program that involve the WH after the fact.


I don't know why you are always so stubborn on this point. You're completely wrong, by the way. The only justification that has held up in court is that the info could damage national security. "Deliberations" have never been protected and they usual about the pres being able to get advice is more based on tradition and is a reason given by the executive branch. It might be reasonable in a practical sense, but it has never recognized by a court as a valid reason.

patteeu
07-03-2012, 08:25 PM
I don't know why you are always so stubborn on this point. You're completely wrong, by the way. The only justification that has held up in court is that the info could damage national security. "Deliberations" have never been protected and they usual about the pres being able to get advice is more based on tradition and is a reason given by the executive branch. It might be reasonable in a practical sense, but it has never recognized by a court as a valid reason.

You've misread the case law.

Dave Lane
07-03-2012, 09:47 PM
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/CzRZIrfnkQU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

notorious
07-03-2012, 10:05 PM
I guess it all depends on which bullshit to believe.

The_Grand_Illusion
07-04-2012, 10:34 AM
http://macsmind.com/wordpress/2012/06/fortunes-horribly-bad-reporting-on-fast-and-furious/

Fortune’s Horribly Bad Reporting on Fast and Furious

This is perhaps the worst case of agenda driven reporting I’ve seen. Fortune’s Katherine Eban, a leftwing shrill for Obama who writes for several leftwing rags such as Variety, published this “blockbuster investigative report” that she claims shows that Fast and Furious never happened.

The problem is that the report is a hack job of the first order and flies in the face of numerous other reports to the contrary. A spokesman for Issa’s committee nails it.

“Fortune’s story is a fantasy made up almost entirely from the accounts of individuals involved in the reckless tactics that took place in Operation Fast and Furious. It contains factual errors — including the false statement that Chairman Issa has called for Attorney General Holder’s resignation — and multiple distortions. It also hides critical information from readers — including a report in the Wall Street Journal — indicating that its primary sources may be facing criminal charges.

Congressional staff gave Fortune Magazine numerous examples of false statements made by the story’s primary source and the magazine did not dispute this information. It did not, however, explain this material to its readers. The one point of agreement the Committee has with this story is its emphasis on the role Justice Department prosecutors, not just ATF agents, played in guns being transferred to drug cartels in Mexico. The allegations made in the story have been examined and rejected by congressional Republicans, Democrats, and the Justice Department.”

Not enough? How about this analysis.

“For starters, several ATF officers, including Dodson, have come forward saying that they were told to let guns go when they could have interdicted them. (Fortune presents this as the result of grudges among ATF staff.) Also, while the Justice Department denied in February of last year that “gunwalking” had happened in Fast and Furious, it retracted the claim in December — it’s hard to imagine why they’d concede something like this if it isn’t true, especially when the administration is expending so much effort to fight the congressional Fast and Furious investigation in other ways. (Fortune says the administration is trying to avoid a fight over guns in the run-up to an election.) Further, there is an e-mail exchange between Justice officials about Fast and Furious containing the lines “It’s a tricky case given the number of guns that have walked” and “It’s not going to be any big surprise that a bunch of US guns are being used in MX, so I’m not sure how much grief we get for ‘guns walking.’” While the wiretap applications from Fast and Furious are not public, those involved in the congressional investigation say that they, too, discuss “reckless tactics.”

And gun dealers who cooperated with the ATF report a shift in policy that coincided with Fast and Furious — from stopping sales and questioning customers, to telling store owners to just go ahead and sell the guns. While Fortune reports that the ATF had no chance to interdict the guns that might have killed Border Patrol agent Brian Terry — the shop that sold the guns informed the ATF that the transaction was suspicious, but it was a holiday weekend and the fax wasn’t seen for days — the gun store’s owner has said he was told in advance to go ahead and sell guns to people he normally wouldn’t. The entire Fortune piece seems to neglect the distinctions between probable cause for an arrest, the act of at least questioning people who are trying to buy guns illegally, and the ATF’s advice to store owners that they refuse to make any sale that they “doubt” is legal. A big part of Fast and Furious is that store owners were told to make illegal sales when the ATF couldn’t follow up on them or chose not to.

Eban was a member of the infamous “journal-list” that helped Barack Obama get elected in 2008 and the entirety of her article is written from the perspective of wishful Obama love, not journalistic integrity.