.
.
.
Much like the Nixon Administrations attempted cover up of the plumbers and other parts of Watergate, the Obama Administration has been in full force retaliation mode to squelch any discussion of the “Fast and Furious” gun running scandal known as “Obama’s Murdergate.” Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder has made it clear that he does not pay much attention to internal memos, staff briefings or commands from Congress so it stands to reason that he was completely unaware of the directive from Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) who said “any attempt to retaliate against [whistleblowers] for their testimony today would be unfair, unwise, and unlawful.” http://politicons.net/whistleblowers-that-testified-against-fast-furious-facing-retaliation-from-doj/
Fast forward six months and you find that most of the folks that actually implemented the programs that directly led the guns ending up in the hands of violent drug-runners, contributing to the deaths of as many as 200 Mexican nationals and US border patrol agent Brian Terry, as well as adding to the bloodbath in Mexico’s border regions have been promoted or otherwise rewarded:
Acting ATF Chief Ken Melson, who oversaw the operation, is now an adviser in the Office of Legal Affairs. He remains in ATF’s Washington, D.C., headquarters.
Acting Deputy Director Billy Hoover, who knew his agency was walking guns and demanded an “exit strategy” just five months into the program, is now the special agent in charge of the D.C. office. He, too, did not have to relocate.
Deputy Director for Field Operations William McMahon received detailed briefings about the illegal operation and later admitted he shares “responsibility for mistakes that were made.” Yet, he also stays in D.C., ironically as the No. 2 man at the ATF’s Office of Internal Affairs.
Special Agent in Charge of Phoenix Bill Newell, the man most responsible for directly overseeing Fast and Furious, was promoted to the Office of Management in Washington.
Phoenix Deputy Chief George Gillette was also promoted to Washington as ATF’s liaison to the U.S. Marshal’s Service.
Group Supervisor David Voth managed Fast and Furious on a day-to-day basis and repeatedly stopped field agents from interdicting weapons headed to the border, according to congressional testimony. ATF boosted Voth to chief of the ATF Tobacco Division, where he now supervises more employees in Washington than he ever did in Phoenix.
On the other hand, those that were whistleblowers shedding light on Obama’s Murdegate have been treated harshly. Kkey whistleblower ATF agent John Dodson was shuffled off to an FBI task force, and can’t even get into the ATF building with his access pass anymore. The brass said that contact with him “was detrimental to any ATF career.” U.S. attorney Dennis Burke admitted leaking documents to discredit Dodson. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=47851
Other agents found themselves demoted, reassigned, and generally floating in career dead zones. The pattern is consistent enough to be disturbing, and several of the agents involved have been disturbed enough to call for investigations. They’ll probably get about as far as the family of murdered U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, which spent Thanksgiving digesting the knowledge that the Obama Administration had sealed the court records in his case. Even the judge’s reason for sealing the case was sealed. Some very provocative details leaked out before all the envelopes were glued shut, but we should probably say no more about it, because the Attorney General told us not to.
Evidently the First Amendment is also something Holder is not familiar with:
As Holder’s aide was escorting the attorney general offstage following his remarks Tuesday afternoon at the White House, a Daily Caller reporter introduced himself and shook Holder’s hand. The reporter asked him for a response to the growing chorus of federal legislators demanding his resignation. Holder stepped towards the exit, then turned around, stepped back toward the reporter, and sternly said, “You guys need to — you need to stop this. It’s not an organic thing that’s just happening. You guys are behind it.” Holder then walked offstage without answering TheDC’s request for comment about calls for his resignation. http://www.courageinamerica.com/
As soon as I saw the term “murdergate” I knew we were in for another spectacular seris of GW exaggerations and misrepresentations.
Here’s my favorite for the moment: “Some very provocative details leaked out before all the envelopes were glued shut.” My oh my.
You don’t considered the facts on the hyperlink to be provocative? “Brian Terry’s killers were hunting federal Agents.” That’s not provocative?
Geoff, how many times do I have to tell you that facts don’t matter to libs unless they can bend them to fit their purpose. Why do you think they have they been so silent as to what happened (you know, facts) and have instead resorted to attacking you?
My greatest fear is that the Republican Party spends a lot of money making this an issue in the 2012 election. Hear that? MY GREATEST FEAR!!!
You can attempt to deflect all you want, but I suspect most Americans have a problem with the Democratic-led Justice Department knowingly letting guns walk to Mexican drug cartels, particulalry when one of those guns was involved in the killing of a Border Agent. Add to that the highly suspect treatment of the whistleblowers (you know, the ones that Democrats are always saying they want to protect) versus the fools running the show, and the very non-transparent sealing of records from the purportedly transparent administration and I can see why your GREATEST FEAR should be this becoming a big issue next year.
When you tell everybody this story, I’m sure you’re going to include the fact that this program, or an almost identical one, was approved under Bush’s justice department. I mean, it would just be dishonest – unChristian even – to leave that detail out.
While I think that is a false claim Vern, it is also irrelevant to whether Obama’s Administration has taken actions that has led to the murders of hundreds of people and at least one federal agent. Instead of even discussing that, the tactic has been to attack me or to say others have done bad things. It seems like the left is mentally incapable of admitting fault even when caught with a literal smoking gun.
Regardless of what president or political party started this stupid program, the fact of the matter is that this could be the smoking gun that wakes people up over the fact that the War on Drugs is essentially the US Government’s war on its own people.
Until we get over our myopic idol worship over political figures and partisan platforms, we will continue to let ourselves get run over by power hungry people like Bush and Obama and their amen corners in Washington.
Geoff, honestly, I wish you every success with getting this story known — and researched — and independently evaluated.
Meanwhile, we’ll be over here talking about extending the payroll tax cut and allowing the deficit-ballooning Bush tax cuts on the rich to expire. Fair?
Mr. Diamond, you don’t really care if the Attorney General lied about a project that resulted in the death of federal law enforcement agents? That is pretty arrogant.
Mister G. Willis: A “lie” (paraphrasing from memory the definition in perjury and fraud) has to be both knowing or extremely reckless and material to be actionable; from the accounts I’ve seen, I’m not sure that this is either. However, if you’re right, and if Eric Holder is somehow personally villainous here, then by all means pursue it. It won’t help you in the election and calling it “Murdergate” is laughably counterproductive, but that’s your problem, not mine. And it may lead to an AG who is not obsessed with squashing California’s cannabis laws, which would be a nice bonus IF it is a real bad act on Holder’s part.
As for resulting in deaths — government does that all the time, through both action and inaction. Is your only concern here that one person killed by the guns was a federal law enforcement agent? If so, that is beyond pretty arrogant.
Geoff does have a point. It is arrogant to dismiss a heinous act like this (among other heinous acts committed by the duopoly in the US Government ranging from the expansion of rise of rampant corporatism, the curtailing of basic civil liberties to the expansionist agenda of the military and prison industrial complexes here and abroad). Which illustrates my point about myopic idol worship over political figures and partisan platforms. Always rely on changing the subject when your beloved idols are called out on their BS.
And before you pull the tactic of your DPOC colleague MoRon V’s by arguing that “the other side is worse” on me, let me ask you this question. Where did I state that I supported “the other side?”
It’s more like, Geoff, the way the program was originally conceived made good sense to a lot of professional people in law enforcement, working for either political party. And now that it’s gone off the tracks, people like you and Newbie want to make it a Democrat thing. Just hoping you’d admit to being – well, you won’t admit disingenuous – but at least hyperpartisan about it.
Guy’s got a good point, this is really just more carnage in the ill-conceived War on Drugs.
Skallywag says it pretty well:
Vern is saying, in effect, that “Fast & Furious was Bush’s fault.” – BULLS**T !!
Drawing of an equivalence between “tracing” in a controlled-delivery situation – as in the Bush Administration’s Operation Wide Receiver – and “tracing” in Fast & Furious is laughable
In a controlled delivery firearms case, guns are traced in the sense that agents closely and physically follow them — they don’t just note the serial numbers or other identifying markers. The agents are thus able to trace the precise path of the guns from, say, American dealers to straw purchasers to Mexican buyers who are under surveilance.
To the contrary, Fast & Furious involved uncontrolled deliveries — of thousands of weapons. It was an utterly heedless program in which the feds allowed these guns to be sold to straw purchasers — often leaning on reluctant gun dealers to make the sales.
The straw purchasers in F&F were not followed by close physical surveillance; they were freely permitted to bulk transfer the guns to, among others, Mexican drug gangs and other violent criminals — with no agents on hand to swoop in, make arrests, and grab the firearms. The inevitable result of this was that the guns have been used (and will continue to be used) in many crimes, including the murder of U.S. border patrol agent Brian Terry.
Yeah, are you gonna also reprint my response, if you’re in the mood for reprinting everything?
For the record, I’m never “this is all Bush’s fault.” That’s more you lot’s type of simplification.
Geoff,
I know how you cherish your hyperbole but for those who want information, here’s an article on Holder’s opening statement, courtesy of TPM;
RYAN J. REILLY NOVEMBER 8, 2011
In his opening statement before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, Attorney General Eric Holder said that ATF’s Fast and Furious operation was “a flawed response to, not the cause of, the flow of illegal guns from the United States into Mexico.”
Holder said that “gun walking” was “unacceptable” and said Fast and Furious “was flawed in concept, as well as in execution.”
Unfortunately, Holder said, “we will feel its effects for years to come as guns that were lost during this operation continue to show up at crimes scenes both here and in Mexico. This should never have happened. And it must never happen again.”
But Holder said that that he wanted to correct “some of the inaccurate – and irresponsible – accusations” about Fast and Furious.
“Some of the overheated rhetoric might lead you to believe that this local, Arizona-based operation was somehow the cause of the epidemic of gun violence in Mexico,” Holder said.
The U.S. is “losing the battle to stop the flow of illegal guns to Mexico,” and Holder said that Congress needs to listen to the agents “who serve on the front lines of this battle” who he said “sounded the alarm to Congress that they need our help.” Said Holder:
ATF agents who testified before a House committee this summer explained that the agency’s ability to stem the flow of guns from the United States into Mexico suffers from a lack of effective enforcement tools. One critical first step should be for Congressional leaders to work with us to provide ATF with the resources and statutory tools it needs to be effective. Another would be for Congress to fully fund our request for teams of agents to fight gun trafficking. Unfortunately, earlier this year the House of Representatives actually voted to keep law enforcement in the dark when individuals purchase multiple semi-automatic rifles and shotguns in Southwest border gun shops. Providing law enforcement with the tools to detect and disrupt illegal gun trafficking is entirely consistent with the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens and it is critical to addressing the public safety crisis on the Southwest border.
“For the record, I’m never “this is all Bush’s fault.” That’s more you lot’s type of simplification”
No, it’s the fault of Yorba Linda’s favorite son, Richard Milhous Nixon.
Or if you really want to go that far back, it was Franklin D. Rooselvelt complying with the wishes of the nation’s first “drug czar” Harry J. Anslinger and his big corporate supporter, William Randolph Hearst. Regardless of whose fault it is or who did what under what partisan umbrella , this episode just goes to show that until we end this failed policy of the War on Drugs, we will continue to see crap like this go on and on with more lives of law enforcement agents and innocent civilians lost in the process.
Unfortunately, that message has been lost in the midst of the hyperpartisan squabbling.
Please don’t throw me into that briar patch, Brer Newbie! It’s my GREATEST FEAR!
I have many qualms with the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Stupidity and the Drug Enforcement Administration.be they run by Democrats or Republicans. This episode just goes to shaw that there are many hypocrites of all partisan stripes running around trying to justify the War on Drugs. Which, in essence, is what our government is trying to do by pulling crap like this.
Eric Holder denies in the same way Wiener did when caught red-handed:
“You guys stop that!”
“I command you to.”
“Do you know who I am?”
“Do you know how much power I have?”
“Do you know I’m above reproach?”
“My best friend is the President.”
But, Eric Holder can add this one the repertoire:
“I’ll have your head, if you don’t stop.”
If you support Eric Holder then you’re part of “gansta government” and inhumane. You could care less about the direct murders of hundreds of human beings attributable to Murdergate. Congressional Democrats should be leading the charge to fire Holder. And, what’s with that judge? Bought and paid for, another facet of “gansta government.” This is what the left has brought us, criminals in our Department of Justice and in our courts. And, their just fine with it!
“Gangsta.” Eric Holder. Barack Obama. I gotchya, brotha.
“Eric Holder denies in the same way Wiener did when caught red-handed ..”
That’s the Dem Dream Ticket: Wiener Holder – “wiener holder”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2804866/posts
Will you two stop repeating yourselves, on the same thread?
Wiener Holder was a secret we were planning to spring on all of you.
Did you see the bumper sticker – it makes the joke even more hilarious.
Really. Okay, I’ll look at it, if it’s really funny I will put it up here.
It doesn’t surprise me that our government has been secretly financing drug cartels for years now. This crap has been going on since Richard Nixon declared his “War on Drugs” in 1971 or possibly earlier since the enactment of the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 (signed into law by that Democratic Party patron saint Franklin D. Roosevelt with support from our nation’s 1st drug czar, Harry J. Anslinger) Whether the people in question are the Muhjadeen in Afghanistan, the cartels in Mexico or the contra rebels in Nicaragua, it’s all part of the same shell game when it comes to regulating people’s personal behavior.
This is an great example of why our government fears drug legalization. There is too much money floating around from all kind of players in the criminal cartels whether they exist in the realms of Big Pharma or are actually conducting underground criminal activity. Only two presidential candidates from the party duopoly (Democratic and Republican parties) have called for an end to the War on Drugs. Ironically, both men are running for the GOP nomination.
Even though I don’t see eye to eye with GW on a lot of issues, my skepticism regarding our Federal Government’s role on the War on Drugs trumps my ideological leanings. If only more of his so called “limited government” allies would join the legalization bandwagon.
Legalization to put a stop to the unscrupulous financing of drug cartels by our own government, presents a greater problem. If a civil society doesn’t control drug use in some fashion, it is in a sense normalizing it making it socially acceptable and therefore allowing many to fall prey to each drug’s varying unique characteristic of mind altering effects and/or physical dependency causing equally unique and varying devastation to the individual and his/her family. This would be especially true since we already have laws against these drugs. This would be irresponsible and uncaring on the part of society. Advertisement for $5 a line of cocaine would get a lot of people buying it, still making it a very prosperous enterprise. And, since our current culture is running toward socialism, taxpayers would become even more strapped with having to subsidize the drug users’ lives and their families; and, their numbers would grow each year. In general, remember that whatever we subsidize we will get more of it, not less. For this reason, a civil society owes its people a moral standard to live by. Our Founding Fathers never envisioned and even stated that the Republic will not be successful without morals, i.e. without a belief in God. In this instance unlike many of the laws being promoted today, legalizing drug use goes against the preamble of our Constitution of promoting the general welfare and securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
“Our Founding Fathers never envisioned and even stated that the Republic will not be successful without morals, i.e. without a belief in God.”
Whose ass did you pull this whopper out of? That’s some major crap, and usually Geoff is the one who’s the king.
“…legalizing drug use goes against the preamble of our Constitution of promoting the general welfare and securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”
So if I am to understand your mindset, creating a taxpayer funded Draconian police state to monitor the behaviors of consenting adults promotes the general welfare and secures the blessings of liberty?
Still waiting for the “study” that shows legalizing drugs will lead to increased use. Or do you make crap like this up as you go along?
“Advertisement for $5 a line of cocaine would get a lot of people buying it.”
Can you provide verfied proof that drug use will increase? How many people do you know that would go out tomorrow if cocaine was legalized and say “gee, I’m going to start my morning off with a line of coke?” Or are you just merely making assumptions out of your ass like many prohibitionists do? In many countries like Spain and Portugal, where decriminalization was put into effect over 10 years ago, it showed that drug use decrease because they treated its use as a health problem, not a criminal justice problem like they do here in the US. If you would like the verified studies, I’d be more than happy to provide them for you.
My next question is would you rather prefer to go back to the days of Prohibition? Alcohol, which is a far more dangerous drug, was banned in the 20s thus bringing the market underground. The Federal Government in their wisdom saw the folly in their policy and ended up repealing it in 1933. Thank God, they haven’t enacted tobacco prohibition. Tobacco kills far more people than heroin, cocaine and alcohol combined. Yet, you bring that market underground and you will see something that makes the Canadian gang wars over untaxed cigarettes look like a grade school playground.
My final question to you is who made you the authority on “moral standards”? Is there some secret box of “moral standards” that us unwashed heathens dare unaware of?
“How many people do you know that would go out tomorrow if cocaine was legalized and say ‘gee, I’m going to start my morning off with a line of coke?’”
Must … suppress … joke about … Republican political consultants … here….
(Thanks for asking for a number rather than specific names. Much less libelous!)
FWIW, my answer to people like Liberty33 is: “let’s try it right now with cannabis and take notes before we talk about anything else. (Psilocybin too, by the way, but then definitely do not drive!)
Your arguments sounds very familiar to the arguments an idiot makes against capital punishment. It is common sense that drug use will grow. How many more people would buy it if it were cheaper, especially from the younger crowd of this fast moving degenerate culture and older adults who have lost hope or found the easy way out? And, no, alcohol and tobacco use is not far more destructive than cocaine, another common sense deduction. Your studies you might cite to will probably be like the studies promulgated by the global warming adherents (based on lies) or accountants who are skilled at making numbers draw incorrect conclusions (based deception). And, I never claimed to be an authority. It is already written in untold treatises by many, many wise men that don’t have to twist words or facts or conduct studies, and by the truthful history of societies and nations which has proven time and time again that a society whose foundation of morals in its people reflected in its government produces for the common man more liberty, more happiness, a higher standard of living for all, greater innovations, i.e. in short EXCEPTIONALISM!! Remember, America was exceptional at one time. Remember, it was an outsider that discovered why. Our Founding Fathers knew this based on many wise men before them and the history of societies and nations. They sought out those that worked. They cared about the common man (you and me and our children) and wanted nothing more than to provide the groundwork for the prosperity of freedom, liberty, pursuit of happiness and equality. Unfortunately, no matter how hard you want to argue the need for morals, nothing else will guarantee it or make it remotely possible. If one could get over what they perceive as a restriction or limit on self (which is a lie), one would gain so much more freedom or liberty of self besides happiness.
“It is common sense that drug use will grow.”
Once again, show me some hard proof where drug use will increase if decriminalization and legalization were enacted. Tobacco use has steadily decreased over the years not by locking up cigarette smokers in prisons, but by enacting a harm reduction education policy that shows the effects of tobacco on one’s body.
So are we to believe that the American people are so helpless over the sphere of legalized drugs that they need a government to protect them from its use? Oh crap. heroin is legal. I don’t want to shoot up heroin, so I will need the government to protect me from it. What about the children????!!!!
Do you really think the American people are THAT stupid? Wait, don’t answer that because the laws that we have seen enacted in places like Washington and Sacramento show that how politicians and government think they need to enact laws to protect us from ourselves. Which is essence is the restiction of freedom and liberty.
Sorry missing word “against.”
Unfortunately, no matter how hard you want to argue AGAINST the need for morals, nothing else will guarantee it or make it remotely possible. If one could get over what they perceive as a restriction or limit on self (which is a lie), one would gain so much more freedom or liberty of self besides happiness.
“If one could get over what they perceive as a restriction or limit on self (which is a lie), one would gain so much more freedom or liberty of self besides happiness.”
If we can get over the fact that we should just bend over and let this paternalistic government dictate what consenting ADULTS should do in their daily lives and behaviors, we’d gain more freedom and liberty?
I think Orwell summed it up a lot better
SLAVERY = FREEDOM
I’ll get it for you but it is not with me right now. Tomorrow.
In the meantime, do you believe morals have no place in government, that our Founding Fathers were wrong in stating that self-government cannot stand without a moral compass or standard? You see, a strict Constitutionalist would have to look to not only the words written in the Declaration of Independence but also in the Constitution and its underlying intent (i.e., Federalist Papers and many more sources). Of course, even George Washington’s farewell address encompasses the need for morals. What say you?
So like any prohibitionist or the powers that be at MSNBC or Fox News, you need some time to fabricate your “evidence” in order to make your flawed support of a failed and financially wasteful policy seem legitimate? Nice one. Unlike what you may believe about legalization advocates like myself, we aren’t stupid or addled brained like you want the rest of the country to believe
For prohibitionists like yourself “Liberty33” (by the way, you might want to seek a different handle since the parternalistis nanny state crap you espouse has nothing to do with advancing the cause of “individual liberty), time is not on your side. Check your latest poll numbers on the percentage of people who now favor a change in our nation’s drug policy.
There are a lot of misconceptions about the effects of drugs and alcohol and getting off of them. I give you this info as the result of my wife’s observations as charge nurse at a very expensive rehab hospital program for the last 5 years. Before that she worked psych for more than 20 years.
There are no links to double blind studies, and huge government funded analysis. This is purely observations from someone who has worked one on one with this segment of our population.
Addiction does not discriminate. Period. It affects rich, poor, smart, stupid, black, white, tall, short, fat and skinny. Arrogant people hate that.
She has treated lawyers, doctors, CEOs, roofers, 18 year olds, 80 year olds, housewives, fishwives, cops, firemen, priests, and one indian chief.
Medical detox is the reason that people come to her facility, and they usually show up impaired. They want it that way, as the do it yourself approach can kill you.
The human body can take a lot of abuse, and has an amazing ability to recover and heal itself, within limits.
People show up who are taking 75 to 80 Oxycontin a day. I have no idea how you do that.
The worst patient they have is the housewife who has been hitting the vodka a little too hard for a while, and decides that she is going to cut back and switch to red wine. Then she gets up to a couple of bottles a night, and then hubby or ex-hubby makes her come in to dry out. This is the worst detox. The tremors, sweats, disorientation, high anxiety, high blood pressure, and high pulse are much more severe than the other alcoholics. The are also more likely to have seizures. They are given tapering doses of valium for three days, unless they are already using valium or xanax, then they give them phenobarbitol. It’s not pretty.
The next worse drug is all of the other kinds of alcohol.
They don’t accept cocaine addicts, as there is no physical detox from coke.
There is no physical withdrawal from pot.
There is no physical withdrawal from methamphetamine.
Opiate (heroin, Oxy, fentenyl vicodin, etc.)withdrawal takes 5 days and is treated with tapering doses of phenobarbitol and Subutex.
Benzodiazepines (xanax, klonopin, valium and adavan) take 5-7 days, and are all treated with tapering doses of phenobarbitol.
That’s the critical care side of it.
Long term damage to the patient…..
The worst is meth and ecstasy. Have you ever seen a meth head’s teeth? Their brain looks the same.
Next is alcohol. It eventually shuts down every system in your body.
Physically you’re better off abusing heroin than being a wino.
Coke is not real good for you, especially as you get older.It also makes you blabber on and complain about how your dad never played catch with you.
Pot is rather benign and my wife is in favor of it’s legalization.
Pick your poison.
If “Liberty33” had his/her way, the addicts that you described would be part of the prison system because they don’t measure up to his/her perception of what a “moral” person should be.
Wonder if Liberty33 is still in the middle of fabricating their evidence when it comes to showing how drug use has increased with decriminalization?
Liberty 33 (the address of the Federal Reserve, weird) is a Bill O’Reilly disciple (quoting “What say you?”). Those people can’t think for themselves and look to Papa Bear for their direction in life.
It’s sad to see people fall for that crap, and I doubt he/she will come back with any legitimate evidence.
And yes, Lib33, alcohol is way worse for you than coke. The detox from coke is sleep. No DT’s, sweats, heart attacks, cirrhosis, wet brain syndrome etc. There are no tapering doses of powerful narcotics to ease you back into sobriety.
Good catch on the Federal Reserve reference.
I was going to say he was a Glenn Beck disciple but Beck favors legalization. Which is the one of two issues I agree with him on.
And the other that you agree with Beck on ? I can’t take too much of him, and haven’t watched enough to find another point to agree with.
I think it was something about the Federal Reserve or gun rights. I don’t remember. Regardless, he is a shill for the eminent domain policies of Israel. Strangely, I do miss him on TV since good, unintentional comedy is hard to find these days.
“…good, unintentional comedy is hard to find these days.”
Have you missed this entire Republican primary?
It’s not as funny as “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia.”
Yes it is.
With Herman Cain out of the race, the comedy will be going downhill. Gingrich or Romney doesn’t hit my funny meter. I tend to agree with a lot of Ron Paul’s positions on foreign policy and civil liberties.
If Trump enters the race, then the quality of the unintentional comedy will skyrocket to astronomical proportions.
I’m still holding out hope for Larry Flynt.
Now you’re talking! And don’t forget, Perry, Bachmann, and Santorum (whoops, wash my mouth out with soap) are still in the mix!
Perry doesn’t do much for me.
Santorum is a non-factor. He’s like the kid in school who asked the teacher for more homework.
Bachmann was a lot funnier when she was a Minnesota State Senator. I know. I was living in the Twin Cities during her tenure as an activist and a politician. And I was in that Twin Cities megachurch when she told an audience that “God (or her closeted, self loathing beau Marcus) told her to run for Congress.” I was working as a volunteer with a local airshow trying to plan and coordinate event parking and transportation control when I overheard her making that claim.
Well, Newt can be pretty funny too. Did you hear the one where Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae paid him millions of dollars … but not as a lobbyist but a historian! (While meanwhile he says Dodd and Frank – the people who tried to rein in the excesses with regulation – should be jailed for working with them.)
That’s on a level with Danny DeVito, don’t you think?
Vern is saying, in effect, that “Fast & Furious was Bush’s fault.” – BULLS**T !!
Drawing of an equivalence between “tracing” in a controlled-delivery situation – as in the Bush Administration’s Operation Wide Receiver – and “tracing” in Fast & Furious is laughable
In a controlled delivery firearms case, guns are traced in the sense that agents closely and physically follow them — they don’t just note the serial numbers or other identifying markers. The agents are thus able to trace the precise path of the guns from, say, American dealers to straw purchasers to Mexican buyers who are under surveilance.
To the contrary, Fast & Furious involved uncontrolled deliveries — of thousands of weapons. It was an utterly heedless program in which the feds allowed these guns to be sold to straw purchasers — often leaning on reluctant gun dealers to make the sales.
The straw purchasers in F&F were not followed by close physical surveillance; they were freely permitted to bulk transfer the guns to, among others, Mexican drug gangs and other violent criminals — with no agents on hand to swoop in, make arrests, and grab the firearms. The inevitable result of this was that the guns have been used (and will continue to be used) in many crimes, including the murder of U.S. border patrol agent Brian Terry.
Well… that sounds like maybe a credible explanation. Sounds like the Obama ATF did fuck up worse than the Bush ATF. Well… their bad. Okay then, run with it.
Bush ATF had no fuck-up. They lost no weapons.
This is Obama’s fuck-up all the way. And if you believe that he was not involved in this up to his neck then you are living in dreamland.
He is such a stupid fuck – he thought that he could further his anti-Second Amendment agenda by blaming this criminal malfeasance on gun dealers.
Now you’re a nut. Swallowing the NRA koolaid. ONE EXAMPLE of Obama’s anti-2nd amendment agenda? I know I hear that crazy story too, and everybody intelligent laughed. People who care about gun control, a lot more than I, search high and low for any evidence that Obama’s on their side.
Speaking of AG Eric Holder
Democrat Dream Ticket: Weiner / Holder
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2804866/posts
I can’t say it any better than this guy!
The NRA, Fast and Furious, and Wide Receiver: What a difference a few years makes
“By now, most people have heard of the “Fast and Furious” scandal, stemming from an operation conducted out of the Phoenix office of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE). During that sting, a number of guns were allowed to “walk” across the border to Mexico in order to allow BATFE to track an organization of “straw” gun buyers.
The operation became a scandal when some of the guns started turning up at Mexican crime scenes, and even were involved in the killing of a Border Patrol agent in southern Arizona.
The operation has come in for criticisms from many quarters and is the subject of Congressional investigations.
While some of the criticisms are certainly justified, the loudest critics seem to have selective memories.
Just a few years ago, during the previous presidential administration, another very similar BATFE effort called Operation Wide Receiver did much the same thing – allowed weapons to cross the border with Mexico, ostensibly to use the weapons to track criminal organizations there.
It failed, not as spectacularly as Fast and Furious, but it still failed miserably.
At the time in 2006, it pretty much escaped notice. Certainly, many of the critics of Fast and Furious now ignored Wide Receiver then.
The NRA is a good example of this.
They started criticizing BATFE and the Department of Justice over this in February, following up in February again, February (yet again!), March, March (again), April, May, June, June (again), June (yet again!), July, July (again), July (yet again!), July (one more time for good measure), August, and September.
That list is just the NRA’s press releases that directly reference the operation. It doesn’t include the anti-Mexico/Central America propaganda spouted by the NRA’s communications shop. They spent the spring trying to deflect attention from the inconvenient fact that most of the crime guns in Mexico come from the United States.
In addition to the press releases, Wayne LaPierre, the NRA’s executive vice president and the primary voice and face of the NRA has been ranting into any microphone that somebody puts in front of him (“Biggest cover up since Watergate” is my personal favorite).
By comparison, the NRA’s press releases on Operation Wide Receiver –
[crickets chirping]
Now, I’m not accusing the NRA of engaging in anything illegal here. However, if they ever want to regain some credibility in civil society, they need to become more than a partisan press release generator/marketing agency for gun manufacturers and retailers.”
for the rest of his posting:
http://cpmazrandommusings.blogspot.com/2011/10/nra-fast-and-furious-and-wide-receiver.html
@ Ms. Ruby Lee,
Out of fear of receiving a rebuke from His Excellancy Web Master Vern Nelson, I will not repost my comment debunking the “Fast & Furious is the same as Wide Receiver” canard.
I will rather refer you to my comment regarding same above.
Geoff and skallywag,
I think that you are MISTAKEN on your information about Operation Wide Receiver, of course the article you two are referencing is ALL OVER the right wing blogosphere;
From Katie Pavlich;
http://www.fastnfuriousinvestigation.com/2011/11/confirmed-operation-wide-receiver.html
Guns were not being “walked” in Wide Receiver, however, 2,000 guns were walked and lost in Fast and Furious under Obama. Documentation provided by Grassley’s office also shows a solid effort by ATF to intercept guns before they could be trafficked back into Mexico.
Operation Wide Receiver ran from 2006 to 2007, and Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer has said that approximately 350 guns were walked in the case. The Justice Department has produced very few documents from the time period when Wide Receiver was conducted, but what they have provided indicates that the case involved a cooperating gun dealer and real-time notice of suspect purchases, and yet multiple guns ended up in Mexico. When the Justice Department revived the case for prosecution in 2009 to 2010, the prosecutors recognized these factors constituted gunwalking.
On the other hand, the Hernandez investigation took place in late 2007 and involved a controlled delivery, not gunwalking. In a controlled delivery, law enforcement watches to see that their target goes through with the steps of a crime in order to see that they have the requisite intent, but then interdicts the guns afterwards. Documents produced by the Justice Department make clear that in the Hernandez investigation, Mexican law enforcement waiting on the other side of the border failed to interdict the weapons. The Hernandez investigation is different from Fast and Furious and apparently from Wide Receiver in that those cases involved no safeguards and the government of Mexico was never informed about them.
**********
Katie says no guns were walked during operation Wide Receiver, but that is a LIE, because that is NOT what the report says, the “controlled delivery” is referencing the Hernandez Investigation NOT OPERATION WIDE RECEIVER. Let’s revisit the last sentence;
” The Hernandez investigation is different from Fast and Furious and apparently from Wide Receiver in that those cases involved no safeguards and the government of Mexico was never informed about them.”
From the Grassley Report;
“In contrast, no attempt was made to work with the government of Mexico in Operation Fast and Furious. It is unclear whether such an attempt was made in Operation Wide Receiver.”
http://www.rcreader.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20363&Itemid=1007
anonster,
You left out the last line of Katie Pavlich’s article – little wonder why.
“So there you have it, under Wide Receiver the Mexican government dropped the ball, guns were not being “walked.” Nice try, Holder. Time to get a new tactic that doesn’t involve blaming President Bush.”
skallywag,
Katie is a LYIN’ IDIOT, she may say Operation Wide Receiver didn’t walk guns but the report itself DOES NOT SAY THAT. In fact it DOES SAY that 350 GUNS WERE WALKED.
“Operation Wide Receiver ran from 2006 to 2007, and Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer has said that approximately 350 guns were walked in the case.”
As someone who supports gun rights, I liked the NRA a lot better when they were more focused on firearm safety and education. Now they’ve become a hyperpartisan lobbying organization. If you want to support a real gun owners advocacy organization that is inclusive, join Pink Pistols.
http://www.pinkpistols.org
anonster – “.. Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer has said that approximately 350 guns were walked in the case.”
Breuer is a lying stooge for Wiener Holder and BHO.
skallywag,
Regardless of what you think of AG Lanny Breuer, Katie Pavlich’s “conclusions” were made up out of whole cloth, as the testimony and evidence presented thus far, DOES NOT BACK UP HER CONCLUSIONS.
What does this say about YOUR judgement?
You’ve chosen to believe an obvious fabrication, you’re putting your ideology over facts, your credibility rating; ZERO.
Skallywag, arguing with Anonster is pointless. When wrong, she will attack you. When she disagrees she will quote some bizarre source incorrectly paraphrasing. When you quote a solid source she will instantly dismiss it as “conservative” as if that discredits it. No matter what you do, she will attack you by saying you are lazy and don’t read.
I have to admit that I haven’t read the articles in question, but from here on the sidelines it seems like a fair dispute to hash out. I don’t see why Anonster’s response calls for your categorical and pejorative dismissal. She seems to be quoting an article, to which the reply is “well you can’t trust Lanny Breuer.” Surely the debate need not stop there, right?
Geoff,
“she will quote some bizarre source incorrectly paraphrasing”
Yes, that “bizarre source” that is the very same “conservative” source that YOU were using and FYI, I didn’t “paraphrase”. Katie Pavlich’s conclusions aren’t backed up by the text (congressional record) she references, in fact, the text says just the opposite.
Miss Katie has a history of lying though;
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201111100012
Sorry, but the fact is YOU and scallywag do have POOR reading comprehension skills or maybe, just maybe you WERE too lazy to read the material, like that would be a surprise, LOL.
Breuer’s story (lie) is implausible because he says that learned about Wider Receiver at the same time as Fast and Furious, run by the same agents and the same U.S. attorney’s office.
He was asking questions about Wide Receiver at the same time Fast and Furious was going on and it was going on in the same division within the Justice Department, so why wouldn’t they be asking questions about Fast and Furious the same way as they were about Wide Receiver?
skallywag,
What does that have to do with Katie’s erroneous conclusions?
Nothing you say has any credibility, just because you want to smear Obama and the AG you refuse to believe sworn testimony but will believe an OBVIOUS lie by some right-wing blogger.
Nice try at a dodge, but you FAIL.
anonster – maybe you will believe Wiener Holder’s testimony:
“Senator (Cornyn), I have not tried to equate the two–I have not tried to equate Wide Receiver with Fast and Furious. . . . Again, I’m not trying to equate the two.”
Thar’s quite a bit of difference between the two operations.
Wide Receiver sought to track and interdict guns being smuggled south using a combination of RFID-tracking devices embedded in the shipments and overheard surveillance aircraft. Wide Receiver failed because of the limitations of the technology used, compounded by the ineptness of its installation and the unexpected resourcefulness of the cartel’s gun smugglers.
As a result of the mistakes made in Wide Receiver, guns were lost: approximately 450 made it into Mexico. As a result, the botched operation launched in 2006 — and in this instance, actually botched — was SHUT DOWN by the Bush Admin. in 2007.
Compare the mistakes of Wide Receiver to the operations launched under Eric Holder’s Department of Justice, which had the advantages of learning from the postmortem failures of Wide Receiver two years before.
Fast and Furious used neither tracking devices nor aircraft, ran interference for smugglers with local law enforcement on multiple occasions, and federal agents were not allowed to interdict weapons.
Wide Receiver was SHUT DOWN by the Bush Admin. within a year after 450 weapons went missing in a botched law enforcement operation. Fast and Furious purposefully ran at least 2,020 weapons to the Sinaloa cartel without any intention of arresting the straw purchasers and smugglers.
“Wide Receiver” “Fast and Furious” How come both names sound so wildly GAY?
Especially together.
That’s a real non sequitur.
I take it that you haven’t seen that new DiCaprio movie about Hoover?
TODAY, on TPM:
A former U.S. Attorney who resigned in the wake of ATF’s botched operation Fast and Furious called Sen. Chuck Grassley’s staff “willing stooges for the Gun Lobby” when the Senator started investigating the issue in early 2011, according to emails DOJ sent up to congressional investigators and released to news organizations, including TPM, on Friday afternoon.
“I am so personally outraged by Senator Grassley’s falsehoods,” former Arizona U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke wrote in an email regarding the allegation that a weapon connected to the ATF operation was found at the murder scene of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. “It is one of the lowest acts I have ever seen in politics.”
“What is so offensive about this whole project is that Grassley’s staff, acting as willing stooges for the Gun Lobby, have attempted to distract from the incredible success in dismantling [Southwest border] guntrafficking operation (while also changing an acceptable culture of straw purchasing) by not uttering one word of rightful parse and thanks to ATF — but, instead, lobbing this reckless despicable accusation that ATF is complicit in the murder of a fellow federal law enforcement officer,” Burke said in a Feb. 2, 2011 email sent to other Justice Department and ATF officials.
“No commentary by Grassley on the lax laws, nor greedy gun shop owners, nor careless straw purchasers, and not boo about the evil gun traffickers for the Cartels. Nope. Just demonize ATF w/ a strategically-timed repulsive letter e-mailed to the entire press world before we ever saw it,” Burke wrote.
Discussing the Department’s response to a letter that Grassley sent to the agency concerning the allegation that a gun from the ATF was used to kill Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, Burke continued: “I sat there during the press conference on this case wondering how the Gun Lobby would counter the American public’ (sic) exposure to the legality of people buying 20-30 AK-47s during one purchase [with] no reporting requirement. Well, they figured out [their] counter. Never crossed my [mind] they would stoop this low — and now we are playing defense [with] this low-tone response.”
Burke had written in earlier emails that Grassley’s “assertions regarding the Arizona investigation and the weapons recovered at the BP Agent Terry murder scene are based on categorial falsehoods.” He said he was worried that ATF “will take 8 months to answer this when they should be refuting its underlying accusations right now.”
Vern,
I found this article that seems to have a pretty fair and balanced take on this whole mess;
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2011/11/12/20111112atf-gun-probe-operation-fast-and-furious-fall.html
Fair and balanced? Well, that might be interesting to you and me. I’ll check it out.
It’s sure not what Geoff, Skallywag and Newbie are looking for though. They’re desperate to find a way to smear our President this year.
Yes, it’s all about Obama’s SECRET PLAN to destroy their 2nd amendment rights, aaggghhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Vern, I’m not desperate. Obama’s doing very well smearing himself with little effort from me or anyone else.
Anonster – it took me 30 seconds to find the fallacy in the article you cite – you are losing credibility.
“Rigid defenders of the right to bear arms, who typically assail ATF for enforcing gun laws, took a polar position on Fast and Furious, arguing that ATF agents should have arrested suspected straw buyers and seized their weapons even though the purchases were, in most cases, legal.”
Of course the original straw purchases were legal. It is when those firearms are transfered that the transaction becomes illegal and THAT is when F&F should have intercepted the weapons.
More incomplete reporting – more lies – fuckers!
skallywag,
“Of course the original straw purchases were legal. It is when those firearms are transfered that the transaction becomes illegal and THAT is when F&F should have intercepted the weapons.”
Maybe you needed to read a little further;;
In a letter to Congress last month complaining about “political posturing,” Holder said authorities are “severely impaired by a lack of effective law enforcement tools.” The penalty for straw purchases is so weak, he argued, that trafficking is not deterred and agents have no leverage to flip suspects into informers. Holder also lamented the lack of laws restricting multiple rifle purchases.
Gun-rights advocates point to such statements as evidence that Fast and Furious was part of a gambit to justify gun control.
But Operation Wide Receiver seems to challenge that assertion. That investigation, based in Tucson during 2006-07, allowed nearly 300 guns to be smuggled into Mexico. The objective, according to federal records: catch cartel kingpins.
The problem for those who see gun-walking as a conspiracy of the Obama administration: Operation Wide Receiver was carried out during the Bush administration, under then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2011/11/12/20111112atf-gun-probe-operation-fast-and-furious-fall.html#ixzz1fdPDZi8R
anonster,
You are ignoring the substantive difference between WR & F&F.
WR was designed and intended to trace and interdict (stop) the weapons from crossing into Mexico. WR receiver failed to interdict all of the straw purchase weapons; some of the weapons crossed into Mexico therefore the Bush Administration SHUT-DOWN the program.
F&F had no such design or intention. Under F&F the weapons were intentionally allowed to flow into Mexico with no attempt at tracing or interdiction. The government of Mexico was not even informed of this program.
It is not unreasonable to assume that the Obama Administration despite having the knowledge that WR failed – proceeded with a plan with no hope of success – therefore had motives other than criminal apprehension and prosecution.
skallywag,
” Under F&F the weapons were intentionally allowed to flow into Mexico with no attempt at tracing or interdiction.”
FALSE.
From Live News Central;
“The goals behind Fast and Furious may be the only thing not in dispute. Law enforcement officials wanted to target big Mexican drug cartels that use U.S. weapons to fuel violence along the Southwest border. Agents at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives conducted surveillance at gun dealerships in Arizona, watching as suspicious people purchased large numbers of firearms.
They intended to follow those weapons south, but agents in some cases lost track of the firearms. Some of the weapons later turned up near the body of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, killed in a gunfight last December in Arizona.”
***************************
“It is not unreasonable to assume that the Obama Administration despite having the knowledge that WR failed – proceeded with a plan with no hope of success-therefore had motives other than criminal apprehension and prosecution.”
FALSE.
From Media Matters
“Right-wing bloggers responded to the news that something similar might have happened during the Bush years with an immediate and sustained scramble to deny that Wide Receiver was anything like Fast and Furious. Using a more creative dodge Fox News correspondent William La Jeunesse dealt with the possible embarrassment of Bush-era gun walking by just suggesting operation Wide Receiver happened at “about the same time” as Fast and Furious in Fox News segment last week.
Today La Jeunesse continued the knee-jerk defense of Wide Receiver by omitting key facts about the case in a segment that aired on Happening Now.
Discussing today’s Senate Judiciary hearing where Holder testified about gunwalking allegations and other issues, La Jeunesse pushed defensive talking points about Wide Receiver:
LA JEUNESSE: Democrats went back to 2007 to blame gun walking on President Bush first and they failed to say however that Operation Wide Receiver was similar but different then Fast and Furious in that we told Mexico it was happening and agents tried but often failed to surveil the weapons and then they stopped the operation. John as know in Fast and Furious there was no attempt to stop it. Only with the death of Brian Terry did they and we did not tell Mexico.
The defense of Wide Receiver comes even though internal Department of Justice e-mails confirmed Wide Receiver involved the controversial tactic of letting guns “walk.”
La Jeunesse is simply wrong that “there was no attempt to stop” Fast and Furious. In January indictments were issued for 20 Fast and Furious suspects. La Jeunesse suggests this just this was only in reaction to the murder of border agent Brian Terry, which were brought considerable attention to Fast and Furious after it was revealed that 2 guns associated with the operation where found at the murder scene. But recently disclosed e-mails show that before Terry was murdered, prosecutors had already planned to issue indictments within weeks.
In the e-mail written on December 14, 2010 at 1:21 p.m., Patrick Cunningham, chief of the criminal division for the Arizona U.S. Attorney’s Office, asks if the indictments of Fast and Furious suspects were still planned for January 6 and 7, indicating previous plans to make arrests in the case. Terry was murdered that evening.
ATF whistleblowers involved with Fast and Furious have suggested that similar indictments could have been issued much earlier, but that doesn’t mean there was never any intention to indict the suspects in Fast and Furious.
Further, while La Jeunesse mentions Wide Receiver ended he fails note that prosecutors at that time let indictments languish.
Under the Obama administration prosecutors reviewed the case and issued indictments. 6 Wide Receiver suspects have already plead guilty suggesting that prosecutors during the Bush administration made a serious error.”
********************
The indictments;
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/AVILA.PDF
“After learning yesterday from the Justice Department that the emails would be released, Mr. Burke personally apologized to Senator Grassley’s staff for the tone and the content of the emails.”
Why do liberals not report the entire story? It is called lying.
That email was sent in February – since then it has been proven that the F&F ATF walked gun WAS involved in the murder of US Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.
Stop fucking lying!
anonster posts –
“The goals behind Fast and Furious may be the only thing not in dispute. Law enforcement officials wanted to target big Mexican drug cartels that use U.S. weapons to fuel violence along the Southwest border. Agents at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives conducted surveillance at gun dealerships in Arizona, watching as suspicious people purchased large numbers of firearms.”
“They intended to follow those weapons south, but agents in some cases lost track of the firearms. Some of the weapons later turned up near the body of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, killed in a gunfight last December in Arizona.”
Pure hocum – this says nothing.
” agents in some cases” – give me a break. Over 2,000 weapons, that is more than “some.”
You have stated NOTHING anonster. The facts are the facts and you don’t have them.
And your Lajeuness comments are more crapola that says nothing.
skallywag,
“Pure hocum – this says nothing.”
Waaahhh! Poor little skallywag, if it doesn’t fit his preconceived notions he’s just not going to believe it.
Wow, what a debater you are, I must say impressive, somewhere between moronic and idiotic.
That’s pretty good for one of you righties.
I have given you a pass on ALL the CRAP you have posted on the virtues of Wide Receiver you have NOT provided any sources, yet you discount mine that ARE SOURCED, out of hand.
Put up or shut up (and hint; because you say it and BELIEVE it, doesn’t count as proof)!
And I’ll re-iterate, although I can’t speak for anonster:
We’re not saying “it’s all Bush’s fault.” We’re saying “It sounded like a good idea to various highly-qualified law-enforcement people working for both Bush and Obama. And that you’re creaming all over it now is just being partisan and looking desperately for some way to discredit the current President.”
Is that about what you’d say, anonster?
Absolutely Vern, I think this excerpt from the Arizona Republic sums it up best;
“Even Dobyns, one of the agents behind cleanupatf.org, discounts notions that the gun-walking tactic originated in Washington, D.C. He says Fast and Furious was concocted by an Arizona field agent and endorsed by ATF bosses up the line from Phoenix.
“I think it was a ploy at self-glorification,” he said. “When the OIG report came out and said, ‘Hey, ATF, you’re failing miserably,’ I think they decided to prove him wrong. They said, ‘I’m going to get the big fish, and how do you like me now?’ ”
As controversy swirled, so did media coverage: Right-leaning news outlets sought to show a scheming, dishonest White House. Left-wing press sought to blame a system that allows unlimited purchases of semiautomatic rifles. Mainstream journalists struggled to separate truth from propaganda.
Lara Brown, a Villanova University professor of political science who focuses on scandals in Washington, D.C., says a pattern of mistakes commonly ensues when something goes wrong in government: Those responsible try to cover up. Critics try to gang up. Concealment efforts smack of a plot, fueling suspicions of conspiracy.
“I think it was Napoleon who said, ‘Don’t attribute malice to incompetence,’ ” Brown says.”
Darrell Issa (yeah I know) is now suggesting the ATF be folded back into the FBI… and I think he’s right! They’ve been screwing up, and counterproductively “defending their turf”, since at least the burning of Waco. I think this is one thing we can join the disingenuous and hyperpartisan Issa on.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2011/12/issas_very_good_idea.php?ref=fpblg
ATF fuck-ups –
“.. since at least the burning of Waco ..”
and Ruby Ridge before that.
ATF is way too political – too much control of ATF by dem administrations.
If the ATF is going to join the FBI, I can name some FBI fuckups too.
Like Wounded Knee 1973?
Yeah, true, true … but going by their records the two agencies’ records the last couple decades I’d say the Issa idea’s a good one.
You seen Clint Eastwood’s J Edgar Hoover movie yet? I gotta catch it…
Absolutely NOT Vern.
I am pointing out the real and undisputed differences between Wide Receiver and Fast & Furious. Differences that resulted in the murder of a US Border Patrol agent. Differences of intention, scope and operation.
I hope that you realize that you can’t fairly call a difference “undisputed” if it’s, well, disputed.
Those that proport that F&F was not materially different than WR leave out material facts and stop there.
Those that say that there are material differences between WR and F&F point out the material differences. Show me where the stated differences are disputed – they are not disputed in the MSM – they are ignored.
“Differences of intention, scope and operation.?
Intention, BOTH operations were (in theory) designed to get the cartel kingpins.
Scope, no one is disputing the fact that Fast and Furious was larger in scope.
Operation, again BOTH were supposed to follow the guns and BOTH failed.
skallywag,
FYI, “some” of the guns from FF have been recovered.
From Huffington Post;
“Fast and Furious involved more than 2,000 weapons. Nearly 700 of the Fast and Furious guns have been recovered – 276 in Mexico and 389 in the United States, according to ATF data through Oct. 20, the latest available.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/04/fast-and-furious-bush-administration_n_1076148.html
Some of those recovered guns are implicated in the murders of 2 US citizens and officials. Nice “recovery” of weapons.
anonster says: “Mainstream journalists struggled to separate truth from propaganda.”
That is really funny anonster – as if the MSM knows the difference – hillarious!
skallywag,
I would agree with about our MSM, if they did their jobs, GW Bush never would have been anointed President, we never would have gone into Iraq and Bush and Cheney would be sitting in jail cells.
““Mainstream journalists struggled to separate truth from propaganda”
Not when it comes to calling out the US Government on the failure of the Drug War and the need for a change in drug policy. For the corporate owned media outlets, it is much “safer” and easier to parrot the ridiculous and inane Drug War propaganda that people like Aspergillus Alexandra are so akin to doing (i.e. the “gateway drug” theory, how pot use leads to rape, et al.) In fact, the LA Times, a “mainstream” newspaper, and that irrelevant geriatric corpse, George Skeleton, came out and called for continuing the War on Drugs when they endorsed a “no” vote on Proposition 19.
Even though the Orange County Register editorial staff took the Charlie Brown like wishy washy “neutral” stance on Prop 19 following the same vein as the California Democratic Party and ECCO-PAC, there were at least some of their staff members who took a principled stance on the issue. David Whiting and Steven Greenhut (yes, THAT Steven Greenhut!) were two of the notable names that came out and made their support public.
Regardless of who or what political party, news outlet is to blame for this fisaco, the real culprit is our government’s support (Democratic and Republican) for these failed Drug War policies. Unfortuantely, Brian Terry is another victim in the our government’s incesant need to wage this 40 year old (actually 74 year old if you count the 1937 passage of the Marijuana Tax Act) war that has done nothing but increase violent crime, increase drug abuse among youth and adults and lead to a overcrowded prison population filled with non-violent offenders.
Needless to say, neither party has any substansial resolution when it comes to offering alternatives to the current Drug War policies. And that includes Obama and his #1 Drug Warrior in Cheif, GI Joe Biden.
Why do you leave out that the Democratic Party of OC endorsed Prop 19? One of our finer moments, in my opinion.
Because no one told me who the idiot was in your party that invited Aspergillus Alexandra to your county convention. And besides, I mentioned your state party.
And your establishment party types still worship at the feet of that irrelevant geriatric hack LA Times George Skeleton. I will believe there is some real change in either party when they follow suit (in other words, in writing not mere words) with the Libertarian, Green and Peace and Freedom Parties on the issue of drug policy reform, a non-interventionist foreign policy and a restoration of civil liberties and due process that has been shredded since Johnson (or if you really want to go back, the suspension of habeaus corpus under Abraham Lincoln)
Yeah .. that Abe was a real asshole!
And we wonder why Aspergillus Alexandra refused to speak with me on last year’s Orange Juice Blog radio show. Oh that’s right, I was too rough on her and I should be nicer because she’s “in recovery.”
Instead we got the equally goofy faith based prohibitionist, His Most Royal Excellency THE “Bishop” Ron Allen of Sacramento, who never gave me a straight answer on when I asked him what aspect or component of the cannabis sativa plant justified making its possession and use by an adult a criminal act. His screaming tirade was comical. I thought we were on “Hannity” for his 5 minute non-breathing exhibition. I was impressed by his ability to string sentences together without a breath.
Even money says that the City of the Beige’s biggest NIMBY, the Northwood Night Stalker, invited her given his disdain for anything remotely liberal like the repeal of the PATRIOT Act, marijuana legalization, the Occupy movement or a non-interventionist foreign policy.
I miss the Orange Juice Radio show … we need to start that up again somehow.
Abe was a real asshole to the Blackfeet leading the eradication and eminent domain efforts of the Blackfoot tribes in Illinois in the 1840s. It would be wise not to speak of him in such high esteem on any Blackfoot reservation in Illinois.
So suspending the rule of law must be OK with you. Lincoln did set the precedent when he did that.
Vern. As long as you promise to book Aspergillus Alexandra, I will be more than happy to be a panelist
The state party and county party took different positions, so mentioning only the state party gives the wrong impression.
I’ve thought about it more recently, and I bet inviting Alexandra sealed the deal for the “yes on 19” crowd.
Remember, we had no “no on 19” people, just “yeses” and a bunch of cautious “Let’s abstain on this, it might hurt the party.”
But someone from that last group (presumably) invited the psycho Alexandra, and she made the “no” argument sound so ridiculous that I think she pushed people to “yes.”
Guy,
Here is a White House petion that you and your fellow potheads may be interested in supporting and signing.
Publicly recognize that cannabis contains compounds that have medical applications, as described in patent 6630507
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/publicly-recognize-cannabis-contains-compounds-have-medical-applications-described-patent-6630507/8PKfkzKL
420 steps ahead of you on that one. I signed that one quite awhile ago.
GF: “So suspending the rule of law must be OK with you.”
Yes it is OK with me in cases of war or civil insurection.
So you must be a fan of internment camps and squashing dissenting opinions when it comes to war time, if suspending the rule of law is OK with you. What if the “civil insurrection” was started by a group you support? Would you jail them or join in the fray? If it were the Tea Party or Occupy movement, would you jail them for their “dissent?”
Or is it only a “civil insurrection” when it is a started by a group whose ideology you don’t support?
GF: “So you must be a fan of internment camps and squashing dissenting opinions when it comes to war time,”
You might have a different view of internment camps if you were to be transported back in time to Dec. 7, 1941 – 70th anniversary of which is tomorrow.
“What if the “civil insurrection” was started by a group you support?”
Then we would just have to overcome that and win.
“If it were the Tea Party or Occupy movement, would you jail them for their “dissent?”
Of course not silly – neither are a clear and pesent danger.
Your right, I do have a different view of internment camps since my people were forced into them at the barrel of a gun. You palefaces call them “reservations” and justified the eminent domain policies as “Manifest Destiny”
So a civil insurrection by the Tea Party or Occupy movement doesn’t present a clear and present danger? So you favor government intervention if one arises but don’t if it is either one of these movements?
You “limited government conservatives” amuse me with your asinine logic.
I’m sure Fiala would love to know that you support big government squashing a revolution. Given the fact that he lived through Prague 1968.
Revolution is part of the cycle of life. There is no use trying to stop it.
“.. he (Fiala) lived through Prague 1968.”
And what a blessing for mankind that is …….
Shining the light on the Fast and Furious lies from the DOJ, hot off the presses courtesy of a Friday night document dump (how convenient) – more information for libs on here to ignore in favor of countless non sequiturs (spelled it right for you Vern) and straw man arguments:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/fast_furious_lies_0EAFsSpd9y1RaeAxikkGUN
Here’s another “Fast and Furious” reference from Glenn Garvin of the Miami Herald (although this one is about the fired Border Patrol agent who spoke out in favor of legalization):
“Gonzalez did not light up a joint or bring a pan of Alice B. Toklas brownies to work. He did not let a drug smuggler go. He did not even sell guns to the Sinaloa Cartel. (Though, to be fair, that’s apparently not a firing offense in the Obama administration.) All he did was express an opinion.”
http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/12/05/2533084/in-war-on-drugs-dissent-unpatriotic.html
Probably no surprise to you Mr. Fawkes, but I am against legalization. However, to fire Mr. Gonzalez for expressing his opinion in favor of legalization is a joke. And from the looks of it, it isn’t limited just to Mr. Gonzalez. The only thing that should matter is whether he is meeting or exceeding his job duties.
“So a civil insurrection by the Tea Party or Occupy movement doesn’t present a clear and present danger?”
That was not your question – and there is no civil insurection by either group.
Where did I say that I support a government quashing a revolution?
You need to read my comments a little closer GF.
Who is Asperagus Alexandra?
Vern, if you don’t mind I’ll handle this one since I christened her with the nickname.
“Aspergillus Alexandra” is none other than Alexandra Datig, one of the Southland’s biggest advocates for keeping the status quo when it comes to drug prohibition and one of the loudest voices against last year’s Proposition 19.
Prior to becoming an outspoken, paranoid Prohibition activist, Ms. Datig was employed by Heidi Fleiss (yes, THAT Heidi Fleiss) as a high priced escort providing a wide array of “services” for her male clientele. During her stint at Ms. Fleiss’ Beverly Hills Chicken Ranch, she mixed a lot of drugs and alcohol with the “services” that she was providing. One night, during a huge party with a client she was given a laced marijuana cigarette and ended up getting raped as a result.
After several years of providing escort services, she said she “hit bottom” and turned herself into a drug treatment center. Now that she has several years of 12 Step “recovery,” she has made it her mission to use her “recovery” to advocate for continuing the War on Drugs because in her narrow view of the world, everyone should be coerced into a 12 Step program because it helped her out so much.
Many people, even those in the chemical dependency recovery community, see her as a joke because she has used her status as a 12 Step recovering addict as a way of advancing a political agenda. Her Linkedin profile lists her occupation as “consultant” but one wonders if she has had any real employment that did not involve servicing other people’s needs. And no, I’m not talking about social work. Not that I have an issue with consenting adults swapping money for sexual favors (NOTE: I SAID CONSENTING ADULTS!!!)
Unfortunately, someone in the Democratic Party of Orange County saw her as legitimate enough to have her speak on the dangers of legalizing marijuana at the 2010 convention. One of her biggest claims is that legalizing marijuana in California will lead to a pandemic like spread of aspergillosis if people were allowed to grow marijuana on their own properties. Once I read that on her website, http://www.nipitinthebud2010.org, I gave her the nickname Aspergillus Alexandra. While I missed the DPOC performance (due to the fact that I am not, nor ever will be, a registered Democrat), I had my fill of her BS and antics when trying to coordinate a debate between Judge Jim Gray and John Redman of Californians for a Drug Free Youth.
Vern tried to invite her on the old Orange Juice Blog radio show, but he was told by her that this blog was “too mean” and that we should be nicer to her because she’s “in recovery.” To this day, she has avoided our requests for interviews and appearances. So on the radio show, we ended up with His Excellency of Sacramento, “Bishop” Ron Allen, on the show instead who provided more than his share of unintentional comedy.
Hotter off the presses – the ATF under the Obama administration wanted to use the Fast and Furious program’s walking guns across the border to pimp for stricter gun control laws. Oh, and for Anonster and others who like to challenge references, it came from emails from ATF folks themselves, but spin away or ignore at your pleasure. Nothing to see here (building is engulfed in flames behind) … move along.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-57338546-10391695/documents-atf-used-fast-and-furious-to-make-the-case-for-gun-regulations/
Diamond’s GREATEST FEAR is still bubbling up.
If that’s true — and you’ll pardon me for underlining and capitalizing IF, then it was wrong and whoever approved it should suffer the consequences.
How’s that for taking responsibility? Your side’s turn.
I commend you for being one of the few liberals on here to actually address (well, kind of) the merits of the administration’s handling of the program. When we win in 2012 and you’re firing off stories of whatever inevitable problem the next Republican president has gotten into, I will be happy to review the facts and comment accordingly.
Ha ha. I doubt if the bad decisions even reach up as far as Holder. I can entirely believe, though, that ATF could use some reforming. If you think that that wins you the election, go on thinking that.
Meanwhile, feel free to accept responsibility for the antics of Congressional Republicans.
Complicity in the murder of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry does not equate to “antics.”
Nice attempt at minimization Mr. Diamond.
By that definition of “complicity,” how many deaths are you as an American “complicit” in? There was no intent and not even clearly any actual negligence involved. I think you should think harder before accusing the President of murdering Americans to make a political point, but if you won’t, thanks for the head’s up.
From the CBS article:
In April, 2010 a licensed gun dealer cooperating with ATF was increasingly concerned about selling so many guns. “We just want to make sure we are cooperating with ATF and that we are not viewed as selling to the bad guys,” writes the gun dealer to ATF Phoenix officials.
ATF’s group supervisor on Fast and Furious David Voth assures the gun dealer there’s nothing to worry about. “We (ATF) are continually monitoring these suspects using a variety of investigative techniques which I cannot go into detail.”
LIE – LIE – LIE !! (caps are mine)
Two months later, the same gun dealer grew more agitated.
“I wanted to make sure that none of the firearms that were sold per our conversation with you and various ATF agents could or would ever end up south of the border or in the hands of the bad guys. I guess I am looking for a bit of reassurance that the guns are not getting south or in the wrong hands…I want to help ATF with its investigation but not at the risk of agents’ safety because I have some very close friends that are US Border Patrol agents in southern AZ as well as my concern for all the agents’ safety that protect our country.”
“It’s like ATF created or added to the problem so they could be the solution to it and pat themselves on the back,” says one law enforcement source familiar with the facts. “It’s a circular way of thinking.”
IT IS A FUCKED IN THE HEAD WAY OF THINKING.
The Justice Department and ATF declined to comment. ATF officials mentioned in this report did not respond to requests from CBS News to speak with them.
The motive of the responsible ATF leaders is clear – that makes their actions criminal.
Like I send months ago Vern – “Where is the fucking outrage?”
I’m sorry, but I just don’t feel it. Another government program that fucked up. I can’t convince myself that Barack Obama and Eric Holder got up in the morning and said, “Hey, let’s kill some ATF guy so that we can take away Americans’ guns.” I just can’t… I’m sorry.. . right now, I just can’t not laugh. Sorry about the dead guy.
“Sorry about the dead guy.” ??
Very disrespecful Vern.
Really, thousands of dead guys. Before and after Fast and Furious. It could be argued you’re the disrespectful ones, trying to make political hay off of one guy’s (with a very dangerous job) death.
Want to talk about “dead guys”? How about 34,000 dead and counting (including law enforcement agents) as a result of Mexico’s 4 1/2 year old Drug War. I see a lot of hue and cry for DEA Agent Brian Terry, but how about some outrage over the deaths of these people, Or are they expendable or what some call “collateral damage”?
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/laplaza/2011/06/mexico-war-dead-update-figures-40000.html
40 years of the US’ War on Drugs, we are most likely looking at 100,000+ people including civilians, DEA agents, law enforcement, parents and children and over billions of taxpayer dollars spent. Never mind the money, what about these children????!!!! You make the hue and cry about protecting the children from the scourge of drugs. What about the scourge of the violence that has been enabled by our government’s prohibition policy that leads to crap like “Fast and Furious” and “Wide Receiver”? Operations that have been financed and given the stamp of approval by Democratic and Republican politicians alike.
Some sites documenting the casualties and financial costs of the War on Drugs
http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/drug-war-victim/
http://www.thezephyr.com/warondrugs.htm
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/graphs/14.htm
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/graphs/17.htm
http://www.esquire.com/the-side/richardson-report/drug-war-facts-090109
Here’s some food for thought for you. Or put this in your pipe and smoke it
http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30
Cause of death in 2009
All causes 2,436,652
Cardiovascular diseases 779,367
Malignant neoplasms 568,668
Drug induced 37,485
Suicide 36,547
Motor vehicle accidents 36,284
Septicemia (infections) 35,587
by Firearms 31,224
Accidental poisoning 30,504
Alcohol induced 23,199
Homicide 16,591
Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) 9,424
Viral hepatitis 7,652
Cannabis (Marijuana) 0
“Drugs used in medicine are routinely given what is called an LD-50. The LD-50 rating indicates at what dosage fifty percent of test animals receiving a drug will die as a result of drug induced toxicity. A number of researchers have attempted to determine marijuana’s LD-50 rating in test animals, without success. Simply stated, researchers have been unable to give animals enough marijuana to induce death.
At present it is estimated that marijuana’s LD-50 is around 1:20,000 or 1:40,000. In layman terms this means that in order to induce death a marijuana smoker would have to consume 20,000 to 40,000 times as much marijuana as is contained in one marijuana cigarette. NIDA-supplied marijuana cigarettes weigh approximately .9 grams. A smoker would theoretically have to consume nearly 1,500 pounds of marijuana within about fifteen minutes to induce a lethal response.”
And can someone, Democrat or Republican, tell me why we are wasting billions of taxpayer dollars on this war and why the only political parties in this state that have taken a firm united stance on their party’s platform are: (AUTHOR’S NOTE: I SAID STATEWIDE)
1) The Peace and Freedom Party (since 1967)
2) The Libertarian Party (since 1971)
3) The Green Party (since 1990)
Are covert law enforcement operations like this a prudent use of funds and resources? Regardless of who authorized what, the answer is HELL NO! As far who is “complicit” in the deaths of many people, both the Republican and Democratic Parties share the blame by giving their stamp of approval in continuing this 40 year old War on Drugs. Whether it started with the first drug czar Harry J. Anslinger, a Democrat, with the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 or Calvin Coolidge’s wife “Lemonade” Lucy, a Republican, who was instrumental in helping usher in the Prohibition era, the fact of the matter is that the current policies are wrongheaded and incidents like “Fast and Furious” and “Wide Receiver” are the end results of an overall failed drug policy.
That, in essence, is where the real “fucking outrage” should be focused.
“.. trying to make political hay off of one guy’s (with a very dangerous job) death.”
It was sickening watching Holder testify (lie) yesterday – the dems on the panel were the ones trying to make political hay out of the death of a US Border Patrol agent. This is not going away – Holder is withholding evidence.
Diamond said: “There was no intent and not even clearly any actual negligence involved.”
Intent is difficult to prove – but I think that, eventually, the intent to weaken the 2nd Amendment rights through criminal actions will be understood.
Those who seek tighter gun control laws should do so through legal means – not by attempting to gin up support by priming the pump of illegal gun purchases and smuggling.
If you cannot see the neglegence involved in deliberatly allowing guns to pass into the hands of criminal Mexican drug lords then you have completely lost logical perspective.
AG Holder told the House Judiciary Committee last week:
“Clearly, an attempt to use Fast and Furious as a way to bolster the request for long-gun regulation would have been foolhardy.”
EXACTLY !!