IDBillzFan Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 The REAL stupidity is that, with the Republican House crying "contempt" and the Democratic Senate sitting on the sidelines, the administration jumps in with both feet and confirms that what should only be an administrative issue (a federal department did something stupid) is now a political football. A political football that can't possibly benefit Obama. In an election year. Frickin' amateur hour. Y'see, this is what I don't understand. I've been watching the proceedings online this morning and beyond some Democrats grandstanding that none of this would have happened if you couldn't walk into an Arizona 7-11 and buy all the AK-47s you want, it's hard to imagine an upside to the WH doing this. Not a one. It's one of those things where, maybe a year or two ago, you'd think, "Well, maybe they're being clever and shrewd in a way I am unable to predict" before being proven wrong. Now you just get the sense it simply has no idea what it's doing.
UConn James Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 (edited) And someone (at Justice, probably) is going to argue that "executive privilege" applies to the Executive Branch, not just the President, so its use neither implies the President has direct involvement, nor is limited to issues directly involving the President. And cite the Bush administration as precedent. Big deal...that's going nowhere. The REAL stupidity is that, with the Republican House crying "contempt" and the Democratic Senate sitting on the sidelines, the administration jumps in with both feet and confirms that what should only be an administrative issue (a federal department did something stupid) is now a political football. A political football that can't possibly benefit Obama. In an election year. Frickin' amateur hour. Either that, or the documents DOJ is sitting on are THAT damning to this president i.e. that Obama had direct dealings in it. Could easily be a case where they'd rather just let people assume the worst, rather than for the worst to be confirmed. I realize that the people occupying the WH are arrogant to an extreme and know they've bought X amount of votes with public money, but even this is beyond the pale. They aren't that stupid. Which begs the question:Just what are they hiding? Who reviews the legality of "executive privilege"? Edited June 20, 2012 by UConn James
3rdnlng Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 (edited) And someone (at Justice, probably) is going to argue that "executive privilege" applies to the Executive Branch, not just the President, so its use neither implies the President has direct involvement, nor is limited to issues directly involving the President. And cite the Bush administration as precedent. Big deal...that's going nowhere. The REAL stupidity is that, with the Republican House crying "contempt" and the Democratic Senate sitting on the sidelines, the administration jumps in with both feet and confirms that what should only be an administrative issue (a federal department did something stupid) is now a political football. A political football that can't possibly benefit Obama. In an election year. Frickin' amateur hour. They should have owned up to all facets of F&F from the start. I would have been history by now and nobody would be in danger of perjury or contempt charges. This could be just a ploy though to keep everyone's mind off the economy. It also could be a good excuse for why the economy is so bad. I can here it now, "it's all those damn republicans keeping us from focusing on the economy and making us deal with F&F". I heard some snippets on the news today where Holder was trying to connect "Wide Receiver" to F&F and blame F&F on the Bush administration. Edited June 20, 2012 by 3rdnlng
RI Bills Fan Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 One more time. I started a thread about the MSM not really covering the egregious security leaks and you kept saying they were no more serious than the Valerie Plame deal. I explained to your sorry ass that the leaks were coming from high up in the administration and were obviously for political reasons. The Plame leak was from Richard Armitage in the State Dept. who didn't agree with Bush's foreign policy. No harm was actually done to Plame. The latest leaks here could harm many people including you or me. You kept telling me that my motives were strictly partisan. When I posted an article about Barbara Feinstein's indigation over the leaks to point out that I wasn't being partisan you tried to twist it all around. The leaks are very serious and the MSM lack of reporting and disinterest in holding this administration's feet to the fire is deplorable. Can you imagine the schitstorm if Bush had openly targeted terrorists with drones and released the kind of classified info that this administration has? I haven't heard much about the Patriot Act or Gitmo in the last 3 1/2 years. I started a thread about the MSM not covering the leaks and I get crap here that the Valerie Plame deal was much worse. Certain posters here think it's ok to throw the people that helped us under the bus, but for someone in the State Dept. that disagreed with the Administration's foreign policy, to out someone that wasn't even undercover was worse than getting the good doc who helped us get OBL and the guy who infiltrated Al Qaeda and saved a terrorist attack into deep schit. I'm posting this again just to show what a hypocrite you are 3rd. So AGAIN! Either provide the link to where I said any of the things you're claiming I said or STFU.
UConn James Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 I'm posting this again just to show what a hypocrite you are 3rd. So AGAIN! Either provide the link to where I said any of the things you're claiming I said or STFU. Dude, I'm not dissing you or trying to deflect anything, but this thread is about Operation Fast and Furious. The leaks issue has its own dedicated thread. Keep that discussion there.
IDBillzFan Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 Yeah, you're right. But... What I would do is follow him over to the main board and do this. Especially on the OTW board.
RI Bills Fan Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 What I would do is follow him over to the main board and do this. Especially on the OTW board. Yeah, me listening to you would be a good idea! You should be proud, you trained young 3rd well.
3rdnlng Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 Yeah, me listening to you would be a good idea! You should be proud, you trained young 3rd well. I truly made a mistake just now in responding to you in the "leaks" thread. I should have let you continue to make a fool of yourself for a few more days.
Taro T Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 They should have owned up to all facets of F&F from the start. I would have been history by now and nobody would be in danger of perjury or contempt charges. This could be just a ploy though to keep everyone's mind off the economy. It also could be a good excuse for why the economy is so bad. I can here it now, "it's all those damn republicans keeping us from focusing on the economy and making us deal with F&F". I heard some snippets on the news today where Holder was trying to connect "Wide Receiver" to F&F and blame F&F on the Bush administration. It's rarely the action that elicits the proverbial @#$%storm but the coverup that gets it fully rolling. Amateur hour indeed.
B-Man Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 Need a laugh ? then read on........... From HuffPo; Pelosi: ‘I Could Have Arrested Karl Rove’ WASHINGTON — House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Wednesday that the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is playing politics with its vote to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress, an action she said that even she didn’t seek as House Speaker when she thought someone was legitimately deserving of it. “I could have arrested Karl Rove on any given day,” Pelosi said to laughter, during a sit-down with reporters. “I’m not kidding. There’s a prison here in the Capitol … If we had spotted him in the Capitol, we could have arrested him.” {snip} Asked on what grounds she could have arrested Rove, Pelosi replied, “Oh, any number. But there were some specific ones for his being in contempt of Congress. But we didn’t.” What’s hilarious here is — well, everything. But what’s specifically hilarious is that, in the course of criticizing a potential vote to hold Eric Holder in contempt of Congress, Nancy Pelosi brags that she could have had Rove arrested (something precisely no one in Congress is calling for in Holder’s case) And for what? You guessed it, for being in contempt of Congress! That’s because, in 2008 the House Judiciary Committee held Rove in contempt, on a party-line vote, for failing to answer a subpoena! What a maroon Nancy is............................................................. .
/dev/null Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 http://thehill.com/homenews/house/233763-house-panel-votes-to-place-holder-in-contempt-of-congress
3rdnlng Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 http://thehill.com/homenews/house/233763-house-panel-votes-to-place-holder-in-contempt-of-congress From your link: "That might make for good political theater, but it does little to uncover the truth or address the problems associated with this operation and prior ones dating back to the previous administration." I heard Holder earlier try to merge "Wide Receiver" to F&F so he could blame Bush.
/dev/null Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 From your link: "That might make for good political theater, but it does little to uncover the truth or address the problems associated with this operation and prior ones dating back to the previous administration." I heard Holder earlier try to merge "Wide Receiver" to F&F so he could blame Bush. I heard some of those too. Sheila Jackson Lee was all over it too IIRC. Sketchy as those claims are, it's further proof of the but the other guys did bad stuff so our bad stuff is excusable that America has made for itself
3rdnlng Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 (edited) I heard some of those too. Sheila Jackson Lee was all over it too IIRC. Sketchy as those claims are, it's further proof of the but the other guys did bad stuff so our bad stuff is excusable that America has made for itself I'm not familiar with this site but the blogger does appear to know what she's talking about: http://coffeenchat.wordpress.com/2011/10/07/operation-wide-receiver-vs-operation-fast-and-furious/ "In 2006-2007 the ATF devised Operation Wide Receiver while Bush was in office. The purpose was to track illegal weapons into Mexico and into the hands of the drug cartels. However, the guns all were fitted with transmitters for tracking. The amount of guns allowed to walk into Mexico were a quarter of the size of OFF. Only 450 were utilized and it was managed out of the Tucson office. However, like OFF, it was a failure also. The cartels figured out how to fool the trackers and sometimes when the trackers were placed in the guns they were damaged. This was a very bad idea and it certainly didnt achieve the results they were anticipating." Edited June 20, 2012 by 3rdnlng
DC Tom Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 I'm not familiar with this site but the blogger does appear to know what she's talking about: http://coffeenchat.wordpress.com/2011/10/07/operation-wide-receiver-vs-operation-fast-and-furious/ "In 2006-2007 the ATF devised Operation Wide Receiver while Bush was in office. The purpose was to track illegal weapons into Mexico and into the hands of the drug cartels. However, the guns all were fitted with transmitters for tracking. The amount of guns allowed to “walk” into Mexico were a quarter of the size of OFF. Only 450 were utilized and it was managed out of the Tucson office. However, like OFF, it was a failure also. The cartels figured out how to fool the trackers and sometimes when the trackers were placed in the guns they were damaged. This was a very bad idea and it certainly didn’t achieve the results they were anticipating." And when the next administration comes into office, they expand it. I'd lay long odds the whole Fast & Furious mess has less to do with any sort of coherent decision making at any level and more to do with some !@#$ government mid-level civil servant using bureaucratic inertia to carve out his own little fiefdom.
3rdnlng Posted June 21, 2012 Posted June 21, 2012 And when the next administration comes into office, they expand it. I'd lay long odds the whole Fast & Furious mess has less to do with any sort of coherent decision making at any level and more to do with some !@#$ government mid-level civil servant using bureaucratic inertia to carve out his own little fiefdom. I'd guess you are right but just as the Stimulus Program failed because it wasn't large enough and lacked controls, they figured they'd quadruple the size and give it even less controls. Seriously though, they should have come clean right away, chopped off some heads and been done with it.
DC Tom Posted June 21, 2012 Posted June 21, 2012 I'd guess you are right but just as the Stimulus Program failed because it wasn't large enough and lacked controls, they figured they'd quadruple the size and give it even less controls. Seriously though, they should have come clean right away, chopped off some heads and been done with it. If you "guess" I'm right, then your caveat doesn't even follow, since I said "they" probably weren't involved. So you guess I'm right...but I'm wrong.
3rdnlng Posted June 21, 2012 Posted June 21, 2012 If you "guess" I'm right, then your caveat doesn't even follow, since I said "they" probably weren't involved. So you guess I'm right...but I'm wrong. Lousy metaphor, but the caveat to that is "I wasn't wrong though, because I'm never wrong here on PPP". My guess is that it was approved fairly high up in ATF and it's possible no one in the DOJ of any consequence knew about it until after it was implemented. It'll be interesting to see where this goes though.
Recommended Posts