# That Scum Bag Juan Williams!



## tiredretired

What the hell!  Watched that bird brain liberal cry baby scum defending Obama and Holder on the Five and on Hannity yesterday over Fast & Furious.  He has a right to his opinion, certainly, but he blew off Brian Terry's death as just another casualty of war.  That's when I lost it. *WRONG!* Went on & on about how this is nothing more than a witch hunt.  A hero trying to protect our freedoms was killed with illegal weapons supplied from our government. That's a fact!  Is this how these liberals treat human life?  That is not what we heard from the media during the hottest times of the Iraq war!  We had a body count every night just because it made them feel better to remind us.

I despise liberals, but I like you JoeC.


----------



## muleman RIP

Saw that and it is hard to believe folks like him and Pelosi are saying what they are. They lack a grasp of real life.


----------



## joec

I wonder how many law enforcement sting operations go wrong resulting in death of officers of various offices. Just asking about this as I'm sure don't want the question taken the wrong way.


----------



## squerly

TiredRetired said:


> What the hell! Watched that bird brain liberal cry baby scum defending Obama and Holder on the Five and on Hannity yesterday over Fast & Furious.


I honestly don't believe that Juan and Bob (I said fuck on tv and survived) Beckel really believe what they are saying. I bet they take the liberal side (devil's advocate if you will) for the sake of the show. After all, it wouldn't be a good show without something to piss you off and drag you back the next day. And really, who could believe that stuff for real? Has to be for show.


----------



## tiredretired

> Originally Posted by* JoeC*
> I wonder how many law enforcement sting operations go wrong resulting  in death of officers of various offices. Just asking about this as I'm  sure don't want the question taken the wrong way.





squerly said:


> I honestly don't believe that Juan and Bob (I said fuck on tv and survived) Beckel really believe what they are saying. I bet they take the liberal side (devil's advocate if you will) for the sake of the show. After all, it wouldn't be a good show without something to piss you off and drag you back the next day. And really, who could believe that stuff for real? Has to be for show.



Well maybe you guys are right, but seeing Brian Terry's life dismissed so easily and then seeing his grieving parents on TV really tore me up.  Contrary to popular opinion, I really do have a soft side.


----------



## Danang Sailor

TiredRetired said:


> Well maybe you guys are right, but seeing Brian Terry's life dismissed so easily and then seeing his grieving parents on TV really tore me up.  Contrary to popular opinion, I really do have a soft side.



The BS Queen Nancy regurgitated yesterday was ludicrous, but when I heard Agent Terry's death being trivialized it made
me want to start shooting at media pundits.  The bastards need to have little chevrons cut in their backs with a pen knife
and then liberally rubbed down with rock salt and raw capsaicin; preferably from a Scotch Bonnet!

Friggin' bastards!!


----------



## joec

Danang Sailor said:


> The BS Queen Nancy regurgitated yesterday was ludicrous, but when I heard Agent Terry's death being trivialized it made
> me want to start shooting at media pundits.  The bastards need to have little chevrons cut in their backs with a pen knife
> and then liberally rubbed down with rock salt and raw capsaicin; preferably from a Scotch Bonnet!
> 
> Friggin' bastards!!



I tend to agree on all pundits as well as all members of Congress when they get in front of a camera. That is regardless of party or network.


----------



## Kane

joec said:


> I wonder how many law enforcement sting operations go wrong resulting in death of officers of various offices. Just asking about this as I'm sure don't want the question taken the wrong way.


This has much more to do than the tragic death of one of our Border Patrol.  It has to do with the usurping of the Rule of Law to promote a back-door assault on *YOUR* 2A rights, joec.

So many times you discount the acts of this administration because, as you say, it does not affect you directly.  You and Juan Williams. Well, my friend, it is because of so many folks like you that the politicians get away with it.  Apathy.  Fast & Furious, if it had been successful as intended   -  by Holder, Obama and even Hillary Clinton  -   it would have eroded your rights to freely purchase and perhaps even possess certain firearms.

Be alert.  Take part. Because it *DOES affect you*.  Thank God that throughout America's history there were people that cared.  Patriots that cared.  For if not for *THEM*, just where would *YOU* be?
.


----------



## pirate_girl

-Holder lied under oath.
-Obama's *fast and furious* executive order.

Transparency that never was.. cover your ass... all the way.
Makes Nixon and Watergate look like a game of checkers.
The sob needs to be impeached BEFORE November.


----------



## joec

Kane said:


> This has much more to do than the tragic death of one of our Border Patrol.  It has to do with the usurping of the Rule of Law to promote a back-door assault on *YOUR* 2A rights, joec.
> 
> So many times you discount the acts of this administration because, as you say, it does not affect you directly.  You and Juan Williams. Well, my friend, it is because of so many folks like you that the politicians get away with it.  Apathy.  Fast & Furious, if it had been successful as intended   -  by Holder, Obama and even Hillary Clinton  -   it would have eroded your rights to freely purchase and perhaps even possess certain firearms.
> 
> Be alert.  Take part. Because it *DOES affect you*.  Thank God that throughout America's history there were people that cared.  Patriots that cared.  For if not for *THEM*, just where would *YOU* be?
> .



At this point though it all might be true it hasn't been proven in fact.

Now the point is other than the Brady Act provisions that Reagan Passed and was also backed by Clinton and the pair of Bush's it is gone now. Other than that the last laws restricting gun ownership was in the 30's at the federal level. Now the states laws are what really restricts gun ownership but not to deviate for the original OP here.

So back on point, some things that jump out at me about this whole thing which already pointed out but people don't want to accept because the have their minds made up.

Lastly something that just came to light on the death of this border agent which is really not a big thing to me however they found 2 guns of many at the scene that got in their hands as a result of F&F however I find it strange no one has bother to establish if either of those guns match the bullets that killed the officer. Also the fact they have not gone back to the beginning to find out how it started, what was the real purpose behind it nor brought in many people to testify. Fast and Furious came after similar operations for Gun Walker and was a single action under Project Gun Runner.

Now I'm sure not defending it regardless however we are no closer to the facts now than we was a year ago. I doubt we will ever know either as I have little faith in a Congressional Committee finding any thing factual regardless of party in power. I also think that the popular view point is just that a view point with not based on facts but group think.


----------



## Cowboy

Simply explained as only Bill Whittle can do, IMO. 

Follow the Ideology.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UFIpoL3jrfo


----------



## Melensdad

joec said:


> ? . .
> 
> Lastly something that just came to light on the death of this border agent which is really not a big thing to me however they found 2 guns of many at the scene that got in their hands as a result of F&F however I find it strange no one has bother to establish if either of those guns match the bullets that killed the officer. Also the fact they have not gone back to the beginning to find out how it started, what was the real purpose behind it nor brought in many people to testify. Fast and Furious came after similar operations for Gun Walker and was a single action under Project Gun Runner. . .



Joe you have not been following very closely.  Agent Terry was confirmed to have been killed by one of those 2 guns (reported a year+ ago).

Further, Congress has been TRYING to go back to the beginning but has been stopped by lack of DOJ cooperation.

Further, F&F, is different then other gun operations because, at it's core, it relied on the deaths of innocent Mexicans to build a case for more gun control in the US.  No other gun tracking scheme was designed to actually murder civilians, as reported by CBS News.  Oddly enough, only CBS and FOX have followed the story, NbC/MSNBC and ABC refuse to cover it, with CNN actually distorting it.  

Watch this video (also posted above by Cowboy).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UFIpoL3jrfo


----------



## joec

Melensdad said:


> Joe you have not been following very closely.   Agent Terry was confirmed to have been killed by one of those 2 guns  (reported a year+ ago).
> 
> Further, Congress has been TRYING to go back to the beginning but has been stopped by lack of DOJ cooperation.
> 
> Further, F&F, is different then other gun operations because, at  it's core, it relied on the deaths of innocent Mexicans to build a case  for more gun control in the US.  No other gun tracking scheme was  designed to actually murder civilians, as reported by CBS News.  Oddly  enough, only CBS and FOX have followed the story, NbC/MSNBC and ABC  refuse to cover it, with CNN actually distorting it.
> 
> Watch this video (also posted above by Cowboy).
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UFIpoL3jrfo




I've only followed on CSPAN and the sub committees hearings when available. I think you are incorrect on the fact they know which gun killed the agent but as I said it really makes no difference. I'm sorry however I pay no attention to cable news any longer as all to me are a joke with little on real news carried but the tend to follow the shiny objects more.

As for the video posted by Cowboy why bother as regardless just another pundit spotting off to me. As for contempt of congress they should charge 90% of the American public unless you think they are doing a great job which I don't. As for this being the worse scandal in history, I doubt this even rises to the top 10 list. Until all the facts are laid out on the table and not opinion I'm with holding judgement as a plot by the current Administration masterminding some grand scam to go after the second amendment. Now that is my opinion and mine only so be it. So at this point I won't bother beating this dead horse any longer.


----------



## Melensdad

Joe you can think I'm wrong but that does not make you right!

The whole reason this is even being discussed is because CBS News broke the story about the gun that killed agent Terry.


----------



## joec

Melensdad said:


> Joe you can think I'm wrong but that does not make you right!
> 
> The whole reason this is even being discussed is because CBS News broke the story about the gun that killed agent Terry.



I didn't say I was right I posted my opinion which may or may not be correct any more than your opinion is. I just read an article posted by one of those involved in the hearings that no ballistics where done on the guns at the scene. Because CBS reported it still doesn't make it true or factual.


----------



## Melensdad

The difference Joe, is that it is NOT my OPINION that agent Terry was killed with one of those two F&F guns.  It is reported FACT that he was killed with one of those guns.  CBS reported it, the DoJ and Border Patrol confirmed it.


----------



## joec

Melensdad said:


> The difference Joe, is that it is NOT my OPINION that agent Terry was killed with one of those two F&F guns.  It is reported FACT that he was killed with one of those guns.  CBS reported it, the DoJ and Border Patrol confirmed it.



Well if that is the case so be it. I've never agreed with stings like this but then one can't have it both ways either. I want all the facts including the testimony by the head of the various officials that held office from the beginning of Gun Walker to now, not a specially picked group by the chairman of a given committee to make his side look good and the other look bad. Now this in my opinion was to get to all the facts, not just to make the current administration look bad. Facts are this was a sub operation by the Phoenix field office by the ATF with no proven facts that the DOJ at the upper levels knew anything about it in advance. Now those are the facts and until they are proven then as I said I'm with holding my opinion regardless at who is to blame. That happens to be the principles our form of government and law are based on, nothing more nothing less.

Again as I said regardless of the gun the killed the agent it makes little difference just the fact he died in the line of duty. What matters to me is thousands of others have and often due to bad planing or execution of on all parts of the government and how it can be fixed so it doesn't continue to happen in the future.


----------



## joec

Here from the head of the committee today as if they have proof or not the orders came from the top or if there is a real cover up.

http://www.windstream.net/news/read.php?rip_id=%3CD9VJI0BO1%40news.ap.org%3E&ps=1011


----------



## squerly

joec said:


> I want all the facts including the testimony by the head of the various officials that held office from the beginning of Gun Walker to now, not a specially picked group by the chairman of a given committee to make his side look good and the other look bad.


 I don't have a dog in this fight but I just wanted to point out that what you want is all that we want too Joe.  But for some reason, Holder and Co.  don't want to give it up.


----------



## joec

squerly said:


> I don't have a dog in this fight but I just wanted to point out that what you want is all that we want too Joe.  But for some reason, Holder and Co.  don't want to give it up.



I agree squerly I want the same things you do. However I don't know what is in those documents any more than you or anyone else for that matter. Now they actually might be blocked because they list undercover sources or sensitive proof of a longer on going investigation that might if leaked cause not being able to bring people to criminal charges. Now this is the first time in going on 4 years this president has choose to use executive privileged and all the facts we have as the general public is what has been stated by the press. Now you all seem to take the press as fact when it agrees with your pre conceived notions however disagree when it goes against them. I'm simply stating either you believe the press or don't, facts or opinion before any one makes up their mind. 

I also don't have a dog in this fight, but do hate it when people jump to conclusions based on what others tell them to think. I personally don't go there myself nor should any person in this country, but too bad so many do.


----------



## Cowboy

joec said:


> Here from the head of the committee today as if they have proof or not the orders came from the top or if there is a real cover up.
> 
> http://www.windstream.net/news/read.php?rip_id=%3CD9VJI0BO1%40news.ap.org%3E&ps=1011


The coverup is the fact they have been withholding the friggen documents for over a year. If there is nothing to hide they would have released them far before today. 

You can make all kinds of excuses for them as the media and most other Liberals but that hardly will make this go away. Further more unless you are willing and ready to turn over all of your toys voluntarily, how in the hell can you say you have no dog in this fight.


----------



## squerly

Just for the record (and you probably know this already) but me saying I don't have a dog in this fight was restricted to this debate.  We all have a dog in the fight as  far as F&F goes.


----------



## Kane

The real shocker will come, joec, when your clever president and Secretary of State unilaterally agree to nifty UN and global weapons agreements without Congressional debate.  Agreements intended to supercede the American Constitution.

A hunt, by the way, your dog is already in.  Be alert.  Be involved.

Now, more than ever, it’s imperative to stick by our guns in demanding  that all Constitutional rights be preserved. If not, we will surely lose  both.

.


----------



## joec

Cowboy said:


> The coverup is the fact they have been withholding the friggen documents for over a year. If there is nothing to hide they would have released them far before today.
> 
> You can make all kinds of excuses for them as the media and most other Liberals but that hardly will make this go away. Further more unless you are willing and ready to turn over all of your toys voluntarily, how in the hell can you say you have no dog in this fight.



I don't have a dog in this fight since what I think will have no bearing on any part of this case or for that matter 100% of the other stuff posted on this site. All of you are convinced that to be liberal is communistic and conservative is to be right. Well I have no control nor want any control over what you believe. After the election this will go away in my opinion as so far it has been nothing more than an exercise in going after this administration nothing more nothing less, just strictly a political exercise. My prediction is all kinds of accusations will be made by both side which are just that accusations and with no facts which which neither side want it will run its course and die like many other congressional investigations by the "sub committees". All of the members of congress just can't wait to shoot off their mouths in front of the camera to make the other side look bad. Meanwhile they spend millions and do nothing more to actually fix our growing problems. So basically what I'm saying is this is a shame as many others in the past and strictly political BS period. Until I see fact to back up the accusations they  are just that nothing more. As for making excuses it seems if any one doesn't agree with your assessments they must be making excuses. If the any part of the white house involvement is proven I will be the first to say there heads should roll. Now is that clear to you?


----------



## Kane

*  *


*         6/07/2011 @ 2:04PM             |970,249 views     *

*U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms*




                     kenholly                 Chilling! How long until the Bill of Rights is just another piece of paper?




   Image by Getty Images via @daylife

  It may not come as surprising news to many of you that the United  Nations doesn’t approve of our Second Amendment. Not one bit. And they  very much hope to do something about it with help from some powerful  American friends. Under the guise of a proposed global “Small Arms  Treaty” premised to fight “terrorism”, “insurgency” and “international  crime syndicates” you can be quite certain that an even more insidious  threat is being targeted – our Constitutional right for law-abiding  citizens to own and bear arms.
  What, exactly, does the intended agreement entail?
  While the terms have yet to be made public, if passed by the U.N. and  ratified by our Senate, it will almost certainly force the U.S. to:


Enact tougher licensing requirements, creating additional bureaucratic red tape for legal firearms ownership.
Confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government of course).
Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic  weapons (any that have magazines even though they still operate in the  same one trigger pull – one single “bang” manner as revolvers, a simple  fact the ant-gun media never seem to grasp).
Create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.
In short, overriding our national sovereignty, and in the process,  providing license for the federal government to assert preemptive powers  over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in  addition to our Second Amendment rights.
 
                                                 Page                                           1 2 3 « Previous Page                          Next Page »


----------



## Cowboy

joec said:


> I don't have a dog in this fight since what I think will have no bearing on any part of this case or for that matter 100% of the other stuff posted on this site. All of you are convinced that to be liberal is communistic and conservative is to be right. Well I have no control nor want any control over what you believe. After the election this will go away in my opinion as so far it has been nothing more than an exercise in going after this administration nothing more nothing less, just strictly a political exercise. My prediction is all kinds of accusations will be made by both side which are just that accusations and with no facts which which neither side want it will run its course and die like many other congressional investigations by the "sub committees". All of the members of congress just can't wait to shoot off their mouths in front of the camera to make the other side look bad. Meanwhile they spend millions and do nothing more to actually fix our growing problems. So basically what I'm saying is this is a shame as many others in the past and strictly political BS period. Until I see fact to back up the accusations they are just that nothing more. As for making excuses it seems if any one doesn't agree with your assessments they must be making excuses. If the any part of the white house involvement is proven I will be the first to say there heads should roll. Now is that clear to you?


 Thats perty much what Pelosi said too.


----------



## Kane

Cowboy said:


> Thats perty much what Pelosi said too.


I wonder how she would feel if she could no longer play cowboy gun games?


----------



## joec

Cowboy said:


> Thats perty much what Pelosi said too.



For one of the few times I guess Pelosi and I agree then if that is what she said.


----------



## joec

Kane said:


> I wonder how she would feel if she could no longer play cowboy gun games?



Perhaps Kane you should do some research how treaties effect laws within the US period. Look at the Constitution, as well as case law handed down by our Judicial system. 

Now I have a question when is the ATF allowed to break current US laws? It seems to me if I buy a gun for someone else I'm guilty of a straw purchase which has a pretty stiff sentence. Now this whole plan be it from Gun Walker to the current fast and furious broke those laws. Hence my concern that in the name of law enforcement one can break the laws and get away with it with immunity from prosecution period. Both sides of the aisle are guilty of it in the past and I'm sure it will continue in the future.


----------



## Kane

*You're in more good company, joec.
*

*Fast And Furious Apologist Maddow Lashes Out At Breitbart*

While appearing on HBO's "Real Time  with Bill Maher," NBC News' Rachel Maddow took the opportunity to  randomly slam Breitbart in a vain attempt to suggest that the Fast and  Furious scandal, which resulted in the death of hundreds including a US  Border Patrol agent, was not an important story.   (By the way Ms.  Maddow, the "guy in a pimp suit" exposed ACORN, not Planned Parenthood.)


----------



## Melensdad

joec said:


> . . .Now this whole plan be it from Gun Walker to the current fast and furious broke those laws. Hence my concern that in the name of law enforcement one can break the laws and get away with it with immunity from prosecution period. Both sides of the aisle are guilty of it in the past and I'm sure it will continue in the future.



Under Gun Walker/Wide Receiver, the Bush Administration did not do retail straw sales, further under Gun Walker/Wide Receiver the guns were chipped with GPS chips and were tracked, and people were arrested when they took possession of the guns.  Add to that the fact that the Mexican Government worked with the Bush Administration in a joint nation sting that terminated in arrests of traffickers.

Lets be very clear that Gun Walker/Wide Receiver is very different than Fast & Furious.  In F&F there was ZERO tracking of the guns after they left the gun dealers.  Let's be clear also that gun dealers are on record as objecting to being forced, by the ATF, to make the sales of the weapons.  In F&F the guns were not seen again until they showed up at crime scenes and then a weapons trace was placed on the gun to show it coming from gun dealers in the USA.  Further, many of the gun dealers who objected to be forced into the F&F scheme were then chastised and slandered by the media and politicians as being part of the problem of providing guns to cartels.  Remember the false claims in the media and by the politicians about all the guns being traced to the US, that was the initial fallout of F&F and the pro-gunners in the US went scrambling for facts.  It was not until CBS News picked up on the fact that a DEA agent, working in Mexico, and a Border Patrol Agent in Texas were slain with F&F guns that this story blew open as gun dealer then came out, and Border Patrol Agents testified, and the botched program blew up into a real scandal.  The fires were further fanned when Obama was quoted by the Brady Campaign as working "under the radar" on gun controls.

We should also be clear that Obama's Attny General Eric Holder has retracted (multiple times) claims that Gun Walker was the same as F&F and that the Bush Admin was culpable in misdeeds.  He certainly inferred that, and he implied that Bush had done wrong, but when questioned with the facts in hand by reporters he was forced to redact his statements, the most recent of which occurred only a few days ago!

Just making it clear as to what the differences really are.


----------



## Kane

Melensdad said:


> Just making it clear as to what the differences really are.


So it would seem that Holder and Obama are being contemptuous just for the sport.


----------



## Melensdad

Kane said:


> So it would seem that Holder and Obama are being contemptuous just for the sport.



Sure, but many have suggested that the whole and sole purpose was to enact new gun control measures:
. . . the real purpose of the operation was to provide "evidence" that U.S. arms were behind the gang violence in Mexico to provide a basis for further restrictions on U.S. arms sales, pointing to comments by Hillary Clinton and the New York Times editors on the need for further restrictions to limit the weaponry of the Mexican drug cartels. . .

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011...operation_fast_and_furious.html#ixzz1ykE8f3BF​
Understand too that F&F was actually designed to KILL MEXICANS so that liberals in the US could justify gun bans.


----------



## joec

Kane said:


> *You're in more good company, joec.
> *
> 
> *Fast And Furious Apologist Maddow Lashes Out At Breitbart*
> 
> While appearing on HBO's "Real Time  with Bill Maher," NBC News' Rachel Maddow took the opportunity to  randomly slam Breitbart in a vain attempt to suggest that the Fast and  Furious scandal, which resulted in the death of hundreds including a US  Border Patrol agent, was not an important story.   (By the way Ms.  Maddow, the "guy in a pimp suit" exposed ACORN, not Planned Parenthood.)



And what makes you think I agree with everything Maddow or even Bill mar state much less Brietbart? One officers death in the grand scheme of things really isn't major news today by anyone standards compared to all the other problems facing this nation. However Maddow like most of the media gives it as much time as they do to really trivial matters like who some actor is sleeping with. News today has been lowed to selling commercial time on TV and little else giving what they think the majority are really interested it. In my opinion most Americans can no more give a shit about this case as any other and proof of that is the Sanduskyhearings which seemed to be covered wall to wall by main stream media in a lot of detail while this has been little covered on even CSPAN. 

Oh and in closing I don't watch Maddow but do watch Maher as I find his show funny for the most part, the same as I find other shows such as Jon Stewart and many others that did social satire.


----------



## joec

Melensdad said:


> Sure, but many have suggested that the whole and sole purpose was to enact new gun control measures:. . . the real purpose of the operation was to provide "evidence" that U.S. arms were behind the gang violence in Mexico to provide a basis for further restrictions on U.S. arms sales, pointing to comments by Hillary Clinton and the New York Times editors on the need for further restrictions to limit the weaponry of the Mexican drug cartels. . .
> 
> Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011...operation_fast_and_furious.html#ixzz1ykE8f3BF​Understand too that F&F was actually designed to KILL MEXICANS so that liberals in the US could justify gun bans.



For some reason this doesn't ring true to me but again I'm holding judgement until I start seeing moves through congress with enough backing to pass before I get excited over those accusations either.


----------



## joec

Melensdad said:


> Under Gun Walker/Wide Receiver, the Bush Administration did not do retail straw sales, further under Gun Walker/Wide Receiver the guns were chipped with GPS chips and were tracked, and people were arrested when they took possession of the guns.  Add to that the fact that the Mexican Government worked with the Bush Administration in a joint nation sting that terminated in arrests of traffickers.
> 
> Lets be very clear that Gun Walker/Wide Receiver is very different than Fast & Furious.  In F&F there was ZERO tracking of the guns after they left the gun dealers.  Let's be clear also that gun dealers are on record as objecting to being forced, by the ATF, to make the sales of the weapons.  In F&F the guns were not seen again until they showed up at crime scenes and then a weapons trace was placed on the gun to show it coming from gun dealers in the USA.  Further, many of the gun dealers who objected to be forced into the F&F scheme were then chastised and slandered by the media and politicians as being part of the problem of providing guns to cartels.  Remember the false claims in the media and by the politicians about all the guns being traced to the US, that was the initial fallout of F&F and the pro-gunners in the US went scrambling for facts.  It was not until CBS News picked up on the fact that a DEA agent, working in Mexico, and a Border Patrol Agent in Texas were slain with F&F guns that this story blew open as gun dealer then came out, and Border Patrol Agents testified, and the botched program blew up into a real scandal.  The fires were further fanned when Obama was quoted by the Brady Campaign as working "under the radar" on gun controls.
> 
> We should also be clear that Obama's Attny General Eric Holder has retracted (multiple times) claims that Gun Walker was the same as F&F and that the Bush Admin was culpable in misdeeds.  He certainly inferred that, and he implied that Bush had done wrong, but when questioned with the facts in hand by reporters he was forced to redact his statements, the most recent of which occurred only a few days ago!
> 
> Just making it clear as to what the differences really are.



You know this for fact, I don't since I only know what I've been told by administration officials. None of which have been called before this committee either. The only difference I see is one the Mexican government was aware according to them and the other it wasn't. However where did the guns come from, who purchased them, was their licensed gun dealers involved and the list of questions goes on? So in the current political climate in this country no one will know the facts behind all of these operations and I'm not sure it is important now either.


----------



## tiredretired

joec said:


> So in the current political climate in this country no one will know the facts behind all of these operations and I'm not sure it is important now either.



I'd be willing to bet that Brian Terry's parents would like to know all the facts.  Those facts may be irrelevant to some people but I'll bet you London to a brick it won't be to them.  Just sayin'.


----------



## joec

TiredRetired said:


> I'd be willing to bet that Brian Terry's parents would like to know all the facts.  Those facts may be irrelevant to some people but I'll bet you London to a brick it won't be to them.  Just sayin'.



Of course they would and nothing I said should be construed as unimportant to their getting it either. My comment was as per the medias point of view and my point that thousands have died due to botched operations and judgements by government officials is also true. The press isn't covering the facts they are covering the conjecture thrown out by both sides of the aisle, hardly either of which is proven fact at this point. So far I've mostly read nothing but Machiavellian views of this administration as well as the last but the difference is facts not views.

It kind of brings to mind the death of a US Solider who died due to friendly fire. He just happened to of been a NFL football player so his death was lied about as to cause. How long did it take the Defense Department to make the facts it was even friendly fire related known. With out the facts period all you have is what you are told by "those in the know" which might also have motives for covering up.


----------



## Melensdad

joec said:


> You know this for fact


yes because it was widely reported and then confirmed by Holder when he redacted his comparison between F&F and the programs under the Bush Admin.




> The only difference I see is one the Mexican government was aware according to them and the other it wasn't. However where did the guns come from, who purchased them, was their licensed gun dealers involved and the list of questions goes on?


Joe, you apparently have not been following the story.  That is typical because most of America is reasonably uninformed too.  So let me repeat to get you up to speed.

Bush didn't use gun dealers.  Obama did.
Bush used GPS chips to track guns.  Obama did not attempt to track the guns.
Bush cooperated with the Mexican government.  Obama's program killed Mexican citizens.
Bush shut down his program when there was a possibility that guns might be lost.  Obama intentionally sent guns into Mexico without any way to follow them.

I could go on but it's clear there are DRAMATIC DIFFERENCES between the programs.


----------



## Kane

Melensdad said:


> I could go on but it's clear there are DRAMATIC DIFFERENCES between the programs.


May be a waste of breath, Melensdad. No matter the truth, so many deeply committed folks on the left may never choose to admit that their Chosen Ones ain't so special after all.  Sad, really.


----------



## joec

Melensdad said:


> yes because it was widely reported and then confirmed by Holder when he redacted his comparison between F&F and the programs under the Bush Admin.
> 
> 
> 
> Joe, you apparently have not been following the story.  That is typical because most of America is reasonably uninformed too.  So let me repeat to get you up to speed.
> 
> Bush didn't use gun dealers.  Obama did.
> Bush used GPS chips to track guns.  Obama did not attempt to track the guns.
> Bush cooperated with the Mexican government.  Obama's program killed Mexican citizens.
> Bush shut down his program when there was a possibility that guns might be lost.  Obama intentionally sent guns into Mexico without any way to follow them.
> 
> I could go on but it's clear there are DRAMATIC DIFFERENCES between the programs.



Actually I have been following the story Mel, however I follow stories like this based on those involved and have said in recent history. So with that said I continue. I've followed it right from the horse's mouth as they say and not some network telling me how what I just heard should be taken another way depending on their slant on it. In other words I will believe what those involved said period nothing more.


Mel show me where any president regardless, micro managed his departments  ever on the scale of a single operation based on how many agencies come under their administrations. Now please point out that the fact these safe guards where used buy Bush. I also don't mean by some right or left wing media outlet either but government over sight committee.  What I basically saying is this group as a whole and others of the right attack the left for the same things they do on at any given moment it is hypocrisy. As I said if proven that Holder had knowledge of this before the fact or for that matter the current administration then all evolved should be out of office period. Now to make that claim it must be backed up by hard irrefutable facts not opinion of the press but facts provable in a court of law. As I've had said since the facts started coming out this was a sub group called the ATF that took it upon themselves to do this with no approval from the current AG or administration. Now I ask if you can prove that I will ask for not only the AG's resignation but Obama's also. Is that clear yet what I've been saying since the start?


----------



## Melensdad

Joe you will apologize for this administration to it's last day.


----------



## joec

Melensdad said:


> Joe you will apologize for this administration to it's last day.



I'm not apologizing at all. Prove this administration has done something wrong is all I'm asking. If it can be proven then I will join you. Till then no point in arguing the points you keep making as they have no more validity than any other opinion period. You believe they are wrong on everything and I say not all is bad and but some is questionable, however I want proof before I'm convinced you are correct which so far you and others have failed to do. You seem to always want me to prove my opinions yet don't prove your own. As they have said for decades now opinions are like assholes we all have them. Besides there is two sides to every story and the truth is often in the middle, that is what I'm asking for before I accuse anyone of anything, especially at this level of importance. I'm sure not defending this administration but have problems with Issa for the way he has run these hearings. So far based on previous statement made by him one he became part to the controlling party has not given me confidence in his impartially. To me so far him and his committee doesn't seem to want to get to the truth but to go after the current administration nothing more. Simply have to take people at their word until they show otherwise.


----------



## Cowboy

joec said:


> Actually I have been following the story Mel, however I follow stories like this based on those involved and have said in recent history. So with that said I continue. I've followed it right from the horse's mouth as they say and not some network telling me how what I just heard should be taken another way depending on their slant on it. In other words I will believe what those involved said period nothing more.


 With all due respect i have to call bullshit joe, i can remember a couple of old threads where this was being discussed and you stated you HADN't followed the story and knew very little about it. And no i am not going to go dig the posts up to prove it. You only read what you want and refuse to look at other articles or vids others post no fucking matter where they are from. Not to mention you also posted before you really enjoy arguing with most folks on this forum no matter what the topic is.  

Sorry Joe but you have a way of talking down to folks here for some reason, like you have "inside information", and i find a hard time beleiving a lot of it. I know you dont give a damn about what I think, but thats just the way i see it and like you i damn sure have a right to my opinion also without being belittled. 

  I am just saddened that a "fellow firearms enthuisist" is so quick to defend anything this administration does that the rest of us are so concerned about.  

As far as your claim to have followed it from "the horses mouth", your getting it from the other end in my humble fuckin opinion.


----------



## Kane

A little patience, I suppose.  It took eight months for the Watergate story to break.  And when it finally did, it toppled a president.  Fast & Furious will make Watergate look like a little B&E, which is what it was in comparison ...  a little B&E.

When the truth comes to light, Holder will be found to be covering not only for his failed president, but also for the Secretary of State in a sorry scheme to impugn the 2A gone bad.  Say goodbye to 2016, Hillary.

Say goodbye to 2012, Hussein.


----------



## Danang Sailor

Joe, I believe we ALL have a dog in this fight; we all want to see the truth come out, although that may be a forlorn hope.  It
is worth mentioning the Rep. Issa was on "This Week" today, and noted that his committee had tried to reach a compromise
with Holder and DoJ.  Here are his remarks about their response:

“They came with nothing. Not even an offer in a form of a piece of  paper. What they said orally was ‘we will brief you. We will then give  you the
information we believe supports that briefing, but you have to  first agree to dismiss your subpoenas and your contempt'.  You can’t play liar’s poker
when you’re looking for who killed  somebody, when you’re looking into this kind of a crime, and when you’re  looking into the cover-up. Remember, it
was deny, delay, and recuse.”

The big problem here is that Sergeant Schulz letter ("I know nothing ... nothing!") that DoJ gave Issa's committee, which
was provably false but not recalled for a full ten months.  It does indeed smack of a cover-up and that leads to obvious
questions that deserve answers.  That is my dog; thirty-nine years back Watergate sensitized me to this sort of BS.


----------



## joec

Danang Sailor said:


> Joe, I believe we ALL have a dog in this fight; we all want to see the truth come out, although that may be a forlorn hope.  It
> is worth mentioning the Rep. Issa was on "This Week" today, and noted that his committee had tried to reach a compromise
> with Holder and DoJ.  Here are his remarks about their response:
> 
> “They came with nothing. Not even an offer in a form of a piece of  paper. What they said orally was ‘we will brief you. We will then give  you the
> information we believe supports that briefing, but you have to  first agree to dismiss your subpoenas and your contempt'.  You can’t play liar’s poker
> when you’re looking for who killed  somebody, when you’re looking into this kind of a crime, and when you’re  looking into the cover-up. Remember, it
> was deny, delay, and recuse.”
> 
> The big problem here is that Sergeant Schulz letter ("I know nothing ... nothing!") that DoJ gave Issa's committee, which
> was provably false but not recalled for a full ten months.  It does indeed smack of a cover-up and that leads to obvious
> questions that deserve answers.  That is my dog; thirty-nine years back Watergate sensitized me to this sort of BS.



My problem is DS this group and generally the right put out stories based on conjecture not on fact. I have no problem with Issa getting what he wants however it might not be in the best interest of say on going criminal investigations in this case at this time. 

Again please don't quote comments by Issa as fact when the other side and he didn't come to an understanding on a compromise? Is it more of my way or the highway or is it fact really? Perhaps now you will get the point I'm trying to make here. Because Issa and Holder couldn't come to terms where is the facts to those terms being laid out by both sides? What is the information he wants to enter into an open congressional hearing? 

The whole point is that Holder offered to show those documents in private to both leaders on this committees ranking members and it was assumed to be accepted until the day Issa called for contempt of congress charges. Now that too is based on statements by both sides just the day before.  So who is speaking the truth? I have no idea any more than you or anyone else does in regards to these hearings. So what Issa says really means nothing at this conversation, no more than anyone's statement from the left either.


----------



## pirate_girl

Kane said:


> A little patience, I suppose.  It took eight months for the Watergate story to break.  And when it finally did, it toppled a president.  Fast & Furious will make Watergate look like a little B&E, which is what it was in comparison ...  a little B&E.
> 
> When the truth comes to light, Holder will be found to be covering not only for his failed president, but also for the Secretary of State in a sorry scheme to impugn the 2A gone bad.  Say goodbye to 2016, Hillary.
> 
> Say goodbye to 2012, Hussein.



You're gonna get repped for that..


----------



## Danang Sailor

Okay, we've all been griping about the absence of F&F coverage in the MSM.  Herewith, the front page of the ABC News
webpage:


----------



## Melensdad

Kane said:


> A little patience, I suppose.  It took eight months for the Watergate story to break.  And when it finally did, it toppled a president.  Fast & Furious will make Watergate look like a little B&E, which is what it was in comparison ...  a little B&E.
> 
> When the truth comes to light, Holder will be found to be covering not only for his failed president, but also for the Secretary of State in a sorry scheme to impugn the 2A gone bad.  Say goodbye to 2016, Hillary.
> 
> Say goodbye to 2012, Hussein.



I disagree.  

By proclaiming executive priveledge the President has stalled this and it will go to court, effectively delaying impact of this until after the election.


----------



## Kane

Melensdad said:


> I disagree.
> 
> By proclaiming executive priveledge the President has stalled this and it will go to court, effectively delaying impact of this until after the election.


Every news outlet from AM radio to cable teevee (except MSNBC) is now carrying the story.  And now that Obama has interjected the WH into the scandal by claiming privilege (effectively admitting misdeed) the media and the PAC's will be relentless in badgering the administration for the truth.  The media is now the court.  The court of public opinion.

Hopefully this week Issa and Boehner will stick to their guns (groan), cite Holder for contempt and demand answers.  If so ...

Fast & Furious may be the October Surprise.
.


----------



## Melensdad

For the sake of the families of the slain Border Patrol agent and the slain ICE agent and the hundreds of slain Mexicans, I hope that the whole truth comes out.  

As much as I dislike Eric Holder, and as much as I believe he is inept and over his head, this really is about the murdered people in Mexico and our agents, and the intentions of the administrators (at whatever level) who approved this.  Those dead people deserve the truth.  Those administrators probably deserve the firing squad if the suspicions of this being a political ploy designed to kill people as a justification for more gun control prove to be true.


----------



## Kane

Melensdad said:


> For the sake of the families of the slain Border Patrol agent and the slain ICE agent and the hundreds of slain Mexicans, I hope that the whole truth comes out.
> 
> As much as I dislike Eric Holder, and as much as I believe he is inept and over his head, this really is about the murdered people in Mexico and our agents, and the intentions of the administrators (at whatever level) who approved this.  Those dead people deserve the truth.  Those administrators probably deserve the firing squad if the suspicions of this being a political ploy designed to kill people as a justification for more gun control prove to be true.


With the exception of a handful of stubborn liberals still in denial,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





the rest of informed America smells a rat.






And they won't let it go.






Personally, I'd like to have some journalist confront Bill Clinton and ask about his wife's involvement in F&F. GULP.


----------



## Cowboy

I still remember this little speech from Holder in 09, allthough he doesnt mention F&F. 



> Attorney General Eric Holder at the Mexico/United States Arms Trafficking Conference
> CUERNAVACA, MEXICO ~ Thursday, April 2, 2009​
> _Remarks as prepared for delivery.
> _
> First, let me express my thanks to Attorney General Medina Mora and Secretary of Government Gomez Mont for making this conference possible.
> This is my first trip to another country as Attorney General.   I wanted to come to Mexico to deliver a single message: We stand shoulder-to-shoulder with you in this fight against the narcotics cartels.  The United States shares responsibility for this problem and we will take responsibility by joining our Mexican counterparts in every step of this fight.
> And, together, we will win – thanks in large part to the courage of my Mexican colleagues here today, who are on the front lines every day, and with whom I am proud to collaborate.
> The topic that has been addressed over the past two days could not be more important – the development of an arms trafficking prosecution and enforcement strategy on both sides of the border.
> I would like to thank the Mexican and U.S. experts who have worked so hard on this issue.  On our side, Secretary Napolitano and I are committed to putting the resources in place to increase our attack on arms trafficking into Mexico.
> Last week, our administration launched a major new effort to break the backs of the cartels.  My department is committing 100 new ATF personnel to the Southwest border in the next 100 days to supplement our ongoing Project Gunrunner, DEA is adding 16 new positions on the border, as well as mobile enforcement teams, and the FBI is creating a new intelligence group focusing on kidnapping and extortion.  DHS is making similar commitments, as Secretary Napolitano will detail.
> But as today’s conference has emphasized, the problem of arms trafficking will not be stopped at the border alone.  Rather, as our experts emphasized, this is a problem that must be met as part of a comprehensive attack against the cartels – an attack in depth, on both sides of the border, that focuses on the leadership and assets of the cartel.  This is the type of full-bore, prosecution-driven approach that the U.S. Department of Justice took to dismantle La Cosa Nostra – once the most powerful organized crime group operating in the United States.
> With partners like those we have here today, I am confident that together, we will defeat these narcotics cartels in exactly the same way.  I am proud to stand with you, and to join you in this fight.  Thank you again for inviting me here.


http://www.justice.gov/ag/speeches/2009/ag-speech-090402.html


----------



## Kane

This is interesting.  I was not aware of the relationship Justice has under Congress.



> "There was no Department of Justice for nearly a century  after the Constitution was adopted. And while the post of attorney  general was established by the first Congress, it was conceived as a  part-time position, with no staff, limited to providing legal advice to  the president and representing the federal government in civil  litigation. There was no thought that there would be a criminal  law-enforcement mission for the central government, much less that the  feds would regulate firearms (and do so by sending them to murderous  foreign drug cartels). The Framers were quite clear that law enforcement  would remain the exclusive province of the states. I rehearse all this  history because I've always thought it very presumptuous of the Justice  Department to claim a power to conceal information from Congress when it  is completely dependent on Congress for its existence and its mission.  Congress could repeal the Justice Department tomorrow. Congress writes  the statutes that the Justice Department enforces, is the master of the  Department's jurisdiction, and pays for everything the Department does  -- without which budget the Justice Department could do nothing."  --columnist Andrew C. McCarthy


Under Holder's inept reign, what purpose does Justice even serve?  Seems a royal waste of money.


----------



## pirate_girl

http://noisyroom.net/blog/2012/06/2...ecutive-privilege-over-fast-and-furious-docs/

On the eve of Attorney General Eric Holder being cited for contempt  over his refusal to supply documents on Fast and Furious that were  subpoenaed by the Congressional Oversight committee, President Obama  asserted executive privilege over the documents in question. What will  be the end result of this strategy and what does it signify? The Council  weighs in:

*The Right Planet:* Invoking executive privilege in  the Fast and Furious gun-walking scheme has, for all intents and  purposes, forced the hand of the media to deal with the F&F  investigation. To what extent, I cannot predict, but it surely was a  shock to the mainstream media to discover the president (ab)used  executive authority, on behalf of Attorney General Eric Holder, to block  DoJ documents being requested by Rep. Issa and the Oversight Committee  relating to the Fast and Furious operation. The problem for the Obama  Administration is now twofold: either AG Holder lied to Congress; or  Obama was fully aware and involved in Operation Fast and Furious. The  documents now in question are allegedly related to communications  between the WH and AG Holder during the course of the investigation.  Additionally, Holder has made several retractions from his testimony  before the Oversight Committee when new facts came to light. Think about  it … who gets to retract testimony during an investigation or court  trial? Apparently the Obama Administration thinks it can.
 I predict the liberal media will blame Bush–claiming that a similar  program was implemented during Bush’s term–Operation Wide Receiver–and  that Operation Fast and Furious was simply a continuation. Sorry, MSM,  Operation Wide Receiver and Operation Fast and Furious are fundamentally  different. The Wide Receiver op was conducted in cooperation with the  Mexican government, unlike Fast and Furious. Also, Wide Receiver tagged  and tracked the guns sold to straw purchasers–once again, unlike the  Fast and Furious op. The liberal media claims Fast and Furious was just a  “botched” operation. Really? A “botched” operation that lead to the  deaths of two Border Patrol agents and nearly 300 Mexicans? No, that’s  on par with a war crime. The question now becomes who are the  individuals responsible for mass murder. And why. What was the specific  purpose of Fast Furious? I will also predict the MSM will try and slough  off the use executive privilege by claiming Bush, and other presidents,  did it too. Well, to me, that’s not a rebuttal. What national security  matter is being threatened by not releasing the documents to Congress as  prescribed by the Constitution? The use of executive privilege can only  be invoked to protect national security in these matters, not to  cover-up wrongdoing (see Nixon). I predict this will not end well for  Holder or Obama.

*The Razor:* I’ve often wondered if Nixon had been a  Democrat whether there would have been a Watergate investigation by  Washington Post reporters. At the time I don’t think reporters were  anywhere near as biased towards the Democrats as they are now due to  Johnson’s escalation of the Vietnam war, but considering how they’ve  lost all pretense to objectivity since I find it worth considering. It’s  a shame because Fast and Furious has the potential to be the worst  scandal since Watergate.
 The administration created procedures to funnel guns to  narcoterrorists in Mexico for an unknown reason. There are three  possible reasons for the operation: First, that the administration was  so incompetent that it failed to create tracking mechanisms for the guns  on the Mexican side of the border by working with Mexican authorities.  Second that the administration was passing guns to the narcoterrorists  as a tool of American foreign policy to help them destabilize the  Mexican government for example. Finally, that the administration  funneled guns to the narcoterrorists as a tool of domestic policy to  justify gun control measures made easier by American made guns turning  up at crimes committed by the Mexican gangs. All three options are  impeachable offenses by the Attorney General, and the last two are  impeachable offenses of the president. I don’t take impeachment lightly.  I opposed the Republican effort to impeach Clinton in 1998 and still  do, but Fast and Furious has the necessary ingredients to justify it in  this case if the facts bear it out.
 That said I do not expect the Executive Privilege orders to be  challenged by a mainstream press that operates as the propaganda wing of  the DNC. The orders are coming over the summer when most people are too  busy enjoying themselves to pay much attention to the news, and the  orders have enough nuances to them (Bush used them 6 times while this is  Obama’s first) for people to give the administration the benefit of the  doubt. The administration knows how to play the press better than any  I’ve seen in my lifetime thanks to the press’s willingness to be played.
 It is a shame because what is known about Fast and Furious is enough  to justify full disclosure. I expect that we will someday know the  truth, but I don’t expect it before November.

*Bookworm Room:* If Obama cannot credibly prove that  the documents he seeks to protect involve the executive decision-making  process, his claim will die and die quickly. He’ll end up looking like a  fool, and the documents will be squeezed out of Holder.
 If Obama can credibly prove that the documents he seeks to protect  involve the executive decision-making process, he’s actually in trouble,  because he will have implicated himself in the Fast & Furious  cover-up. In this regard, keep in mind that Rep. Issa posed an extremely  narrow request that goes to Fast & Furious testimony, rather than  Fast & Furious itself. Because Holder has consistently backtracked —  i.e., recanted lies — Obama’s claim means that his office was a part of  the cover-up. And to the extent that Holder is still refusing to turn  over documents, Obama is part of a continuing cover-up. Worse, for  Obama, the narrow range of this type of executive privilege claim means  that, because wrongdoing is involved, Obama will ultimately still need  to let those documents go to the House.
 The worst thing for Obama is that, by invoking executive privilege,  he leaped over the the Cone of Silence that the media had so  thoughtfully built around Fast & Furious. It’s gone from being a  scandal in the conservative internet to becoming national news. Those  same citizens who were once completely oblivious to this chicanery are  now sitting up and taking notice.
 There’s debate as to whether the Democrat party has become so  ethically corrupt that it will continue to rally around Obama and Holder  regardless of subsequent discovery about wrongdoing. If Dems do rally  around him, Obama will avoid impeachment or official humiliation from  the legislative branch. What’s more important, though, is that this  whole debacle won’t end well in the public eye. Obama will look like a  fool for wrongly invoking executive privilege or, if he had reason to  invoke it, his fingerprints will suddenly be all over a scheme that  armed drug runners, killed American law officers, and killed innumerable  Hispanics on both sides of the border.

*Joshuapundit:* President Obama is playing an interesting game here, and one he has a decent chance of winning.
 This is by no means the first time the Administration has been  fingered in questionable deeds. Most American have forgotten, for  instance, that the White House was directly implicated by two senate  candidates who both made public statements that the White House offered  them jobs not to primary incumbents, a felony offense that somehow just wafted away into the ozone. Congress’s request to the DOJ for a special prosecutor was denied here too.
 President Obama believes he has Teflon underwear based on these and  other instances I could mention, and and the president knows it  primarily comes from his race and the unspoken threat of massive urban  civil unrest should he be called to account and secondly from his  idolization by the dinosaur media. That’s why Fast and Furious has been  allowed to drag on so long.
 The House will almost certainly vote on party lines to cite Holder  for contempt, but their only possible redress will be through the DC  circuit court, which will take months. If President Obama loses, he will  likely grant Eric Holder and anyone else concerned a pardon, which is  irrevocable. It’s unlikely that a new Republican Administration would  pursue this matter, given how the political classes operate. If the  president should win and if the Republicans take both houses of Congress  this matter might be pursued but if so it’s likely to end up as the  Clinton impeachment did because most Democrats in the Senate are  unlikely to vote for impeachment of a Democrat no matter what, and the  likelihood of getting 60 votes to convict is sketchy. Especially since  the president has the power to pardon any awkward witnesses to eliminate  any possibility of prosecutors granting immunity in exchange for  testimony.
 The only positive thing is that by prematurely claiming  non-catalogued executive privilege this president has not only linked  the White House to Fast and Furious with iron shackles, but forced the  dinosaur media to cover the scandal instead of being able to ignore it.

*The Noisy Room:* I believe that the Executive  Privilege that Barack Obama has claimed over Fast and Furious will be  challenged by Issa and others and will wind up at the feet of the  Supreme Court. If I had to guess on that outcome, I believe  Constitutionally they would rule against Obama.
 In the end, this scandal will prove more widespread and deeper than  Watergate and the media will not be able to contain it. The truth will  eventually come out and I have long said that Eric Holder should one day  grace the inside of a prison cell. He will be found in contempt and  will likely get a Presidential pardon. As for Barack Obama, I predict  this whole thing will be stalled until he is out of office, G-d willing,  next year. Obama will most likely never have to pay for his hand in  this, although if he is involved, in the end he could be prosecuted.  Romney will have to clean up the mess left him and try to repair as much  of the damage as possible.

*The Colossus of Rhodey:* The end result will amount  to nothing, ultimately, if Obama loses in the fall, because the matter  will remain in the courts for months/years. But if Obama wins, the GOP  congress will continue to press the matter for all it’s worth well into  the second Obama term. If the SCOTUS deems exec privilege unworthy in  this case a la with Nixon back during Watergate, then we may see another  just such spectacle — and then *that* will drag on for months … all  accompanied with the usual vigorous charges of “racism,” of course. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




*The Independent Sentinel:* Nothing will happen before  the election – nothing. I don’t believe the House will vote for  contempt charges because John Boehner will see it as a potential loser.
 Holder might give up a few more redacted documents and say he has  released an unprecedented amount of documents. The House will seek to  send it to the courts on constitutional grounds.
 Some websites have written about the possibility of using “inherent contempt” charges but that will not happen.
 This election must be about the economy.

*VA Right!:* Fast and Furious was a government  sponsored operation that was created when the 2nd Amendment Bloggers  began examining the misleading statistics the Obama Administration was  using to justify a crackdown on legal gun sales in America. The  statistics being reported indicated that a high percentage of the guns  used by the Drug Cartel in Mexico to kill people actually came from  America. But these reports failed to point out that the statistics were  only compiled on weapons that could be traced. And most of these were  American made. Those made elsewhere are not traceable as other countries  do not keep the records Americans are required to have. And actually,  the percentage of guns originating in the US used in crimes was actually  fairly low when compared to ALL of the guns used by the Cartels.
 Many believe Fast and Furious was intended to change that ratio and push more controls on guns in America.
 But the plan backfired.

 Democrats are complaining that this is a partisan fishing expedition,  and were it not for the deaths of a couple of US Border Patrol Agents  and the fact that Attorney General Eric Holder delivered a letter to  Congress denying the program allowed guns to “walk” across the border  (which was later withdrawn) they may have a point. But in light of  deaths and lies by the Justice Department, the Congressional Committee  is absolutely right in looking into this.

 And the argument of “Executive Privilege” is spurious. Congress will  eventually be allowed to see the documents, but it will, in all  likelihood, be after the election.

 If Richard Nixon’s tapes that were recorded in the Oval Office  between the President and his Advisers did not qualify for Executive  Privilege, then there is no hope for the Obama Administration that this  will stand up in court.
 It is all about delaying this until after the election.

 Since the Justice Department was created by Congress and they control  their funding, it is highly unlikely the final outcome would keep the  document out of the hands of the Overseers.

 There is obviously something in those papers that the White House and Holder cannot let the public see before the election.


----------



## tiredretired

Kane said:


> This is interesting.  I was not aware of the relationship Justice has under Congress.
> 
> Under Holder's inept reign, what purpose does Justice even serve?  Seems a royal waste of money.



I did not know that. I say vote them away.


----------



## squerly

Holder must not know it either.


----------



## tiredretired

Melensdad said:


> Bush didn't use gun dealers.  Obama did.
> Bush used GPS chips to track guns.  Obama did not attempt to track the guns.
> Bush cooperated with the Mexican government.  Obama's program killed Mexican citizens.
> Bush shut down his program when there was a possibility that guns might be lost.  Obama intentionally sent guns into Mexico without any way to follow them.
> 
> I could go on but it's clear there are DRAMATIC DIFFERENCES between the programs.



Agreed.  One of the misconceptions out there is that this was a botched operation.  Not true.  The DOJ did this intentionally with plausible deniability.  Knowing fully well no one north of the border would give a damn about any and all Mexican dead.  Sad but true.  They did not count on two things:
1.  Brian Terry's death
2.  A whistle blower

This left them with 3 options.  

1.  Admit everything and come clean.  No way
2.  Deny everything as a lie.  Can't do that.
3.  Stonewall any investigation as nothing more than cheap partisan politics. Use the left wing media as a tool to either ignore coverage or to play it down.  Discredit any reputable media outlet as biased or liars that attempt to report the story.  All the while this is taking the attention off of the economy.  The major issue facing most Americans today.  

Holder will keep his job as the DOJ will not investigate itself.  Obama and his guard dog will be long gone by the time this ever plays out in the courts.


----------



## Kane

I just knew it couldn't be about gun walking, or about so many unnecessary deaths, or about high crimes, cover-up and contempt. I just knew it.  And now I'm just glad Chris Matthews and Nancy Pelosi were able to straighten me out and let me know that it's really all about racism and voter suppression.  Ah Ha!  Of course.  Racism! I just knew it!



> *Matthews: Fast and Furious investigation is racist*
> 
> * June 20, 2012
> 
> *MSNBC host Chris Matthews, a former Jimmy Carter aide, suggested  that the congressional investigation into Attorney General Eric Holder’s  handling of Operation Fast and Furious is motivated by racism.
> 
> “I don’t want to start too much forest fire here but it is my  instinct: is this ethnic?” Matthews asked San Francisco Mayor Willie  Brown last night. “It smells like it to me and I think there is a  disdain on the part of some Republicans . . . that do talk down to the  president and his friends,” Matthews added.
> 
> Brown, earlier in the segment, had already accused Issa of “leading a lynch-like mob” against Holder.
> 
> Holder made the same accusation in December. “This is a way to get at  the president because of the way I can be identified with him,” Holder  told the New York Times, “both due to the nature of our relationship and, you know, the fact that we’re both African-American.”
> 
> Matthews also took up Holder’s comment about partisan motivations for  the accusation. “If he can humiliate this guy, if he can get to him,  he’ll be a big star in the Republican caucus,” Matthews said of Issa,  before comparing the House investigator — not the president fighting a  congressional investigation — to a disgraced president. “He’ll be  [Richard] Nixon,” Matthews said.





> *Fast and Furious Investigation Rooted in Racism?*
> 
> Friday, June 22, 2012
> By LD Jackson
> Just when you thought liberals couldn’t get any stranger in  their mindless defense of President Obama and his policies, we learn  they have no intention of disappointing us. For about 18 months,  Congressional Republicans have tried to find out the details of Fast and  Furious. Some of this, we already know, but there is a real need to  know more. Details such as who knew about Fast and Furious and who  authorized it. Details about the President’s involvement and knowledge  of the failed gunrunning operation ran by the ATF. Unbeknownst to the  rest of us, the Republicans have had an underlying reason for this  investigation. According to Nancy Pelosi, it is racism. From Politico:Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said Republicans are  investigating Eric Holder because they want to distract him from  stopping voter suppression laws.
> 
> The argument from the California Democrat is quite unique, as the  party’s argument has long been that the attorney general has provided  enough documentation in the gun-walking investigation, and Rep. Darrell  Issa (R-Calif.) is on a witch hunt.
> 
> Pelosi took it in a new direction during a 30-minute press  conference, when she also lambasted Republicans as intransigent and  unfit to govern.
> 
> “Contempt of Congress, contempt of Congress,” Pelosi said. “To  frivolously use that really important vehicle to undermine the person  who is assigned to stop the voter suppression in our country. I’m  telling you, this is connected. It is no accident. It is a decision and  it is as clear as can be. It’s not only to monopolize his time, it’s to  undermine his name. To undermine his name, undermine his name, as he  goes forward to protect and defend the Constitution of the United  States.”​You’ll have to excuse me for a moment while I suppress the urge to  gag. Not only is this offensive, it’s the most ridiculous charge I have  heard come out of Pelosi’s mouth in a very long time. I am convinced  the liberals will do anything they can to deflect the investigation  into Fast and Furious. The truth is something they have no desire to see  come to the surface.
> 
> To be fair to Nancy Pelosi, she isn’t the first one to suggest racism  is at the root of the Fast and Furious investigation. Eric Holder  brought it up last December, during one of his testimonies before  Congress. His exact words were as follows.This is a way to get at the president because of the way I  can be identified with him…both due to the nature of our relationship  and, you know, the fact that we’re both African-American.​Maybe Pelosi is just following orders by continuing these ridiculous  charges, but she isn’t the only one. I refuse to watch anything offered  by MSNBC, but Chris Matthews is evidently convinced racism has something  to do with why Darrell Issa refuses to back down from Eric Holder and  President Obama. He is suggesting it is “ethnically” related, calling it  a “stop and frisk” moment. You can read a full transcript at The Daily Caller.
> 
> 
> From the moment Barack Obama announced he was running for President, I  was opposed to him. I was repeatedly accused of racism, even though I  went out of my way to never mention his race. Trust me when I say, it  had nothing to do with the color of his skin, and everything to do with  his liberal policies. That holds true today. I don’t care if Barack  Obama and Eric Holder are Jewish, Black, Native American, or just plain  American, their policies are hurting our country. Red, yellow, black, or  white, they should be held accountable, and calling them out on Fast  and Furious does not constitute racism.


----------



## pirate_girl

Of course, Bob has something to say about it...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dm_F_KvNJQ&list=UUFa_paUy6F2IMpUOtgZA1fg&index=1&feature=plcp"]Operation Fast and Furious...      - YouTube[/ame]


----------

