• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

‘Fast & Furious' operation: Justice probe clears Eric Holder

Well it is different than a shotgun leveled at the door. These are human beings that are making these decisions at the ground level.

It will also happen in any large entity. It wasn't but a couple of months ago that a trader at Chase...which is widely believed one of the best ran banks had a trader that lost the company 6 billion dollars.

No entity is infaliable. The difference between government and Wal Mart is that government is in charge of life and death situations and screw ups can cost lives. The stakes are higher but it's still people in charge and it still can only operate with some sort of autonomy granted to the parts of the big machine.

If that autonomy results in deaths then the system being used needs to be done away with. In the case of Chase or WalMart the casualty is money. When people are dying it is absolutely imperative that it functions as designed. I own an auto repair shop, imagine if I worked on someone's car and a wheel came off going down the road resulting in fatalities. Do you think "well, it doesn't happen often" would be acceptable? When it comes to innocent lives, the acceptable margin for error is zero.
 
That may be the case...maybe the ATF needs to be radically changed or abolished and I don't know.

That about sums it up. Print that bigger and in color and this thread is over.
 
Now you're seriously deflecting. I didn't say anything about Bush. Bush is gone. Let him go.
No I'm pointing out a major logical inconsistency that is showing how irrational your views are.

If you believe the buck stops at Obama with anything that happens under his watch than you should blame Bush for 9/11. Of course I take the other view...that Obama and Bush are both dealing with a massive government structure in which there's no way on earth they can know everything that's going on at everytime. In fact they depend on that structure to inform them of situations.

My point was that the Dept of Justice falls under the responsibility of the President, and thus, any scandal which happens in it is a scandal of the Administration, and therefore, yes indeed, it reflects on the President.

No one said Obama was personally involved in it.
Sure...to some degree. To conservatives it's a major scandal. To most Americans it seems to be an unfortunate situation that should be prevented from ever happening again.

Wide Receiver wasn't under investigation. Fast and Furious did not need to be initiated, yet it was. You cannot blame the Bush administration here.
Of course not...I blame the field office and individuals that made the mistake of using the same tactics they used under Wide Receiver. How on earth can you say the two aren't connected? Wide Receiver was inititiated to stop gun trafficking. It was initiated in the same Arizona ATF field office. When Department of Justice officials stated they needed to do something about gun traffiking the field office decides to re-implement the same policy they had used previously to stop gun trafficking.

If you want to make the argument that Wide Receiver should have received the same attention, then that's a different argument, which does not absolve a thing which happened in Fast and Furious. Of course, all it really does is the usual thing -- defending the Obama Administration by saying the Worst Administration Ever (TM) did the same thing, once again making the Obama Administration ALSO the Worst Administration Ever (TM). I really don't know where you think it gets you.
No...I don't think Wide Receiver should receive the same attention. In fact I think it's come to light how dumb both operations were and they should never be reimplemented. Holder has insured that takes place.

It doesn't absolve the lunacy of Fast and Furious...which isn't my point of mentioning operation WR. My point in mentioning Wide Receiver from the get go is to point out it's not some new fangled policy created by Holder. It's a field office reimplementing an previous policy they had used to go after gun traffickers. It's bad policy period. No matter who orders it. In the new form...under the new name Fast and Furious it resulted in the death of an American. The bad policy was brought to light and the individuals that were shown to be involved are getting fired or resigning. To me that's what you would expect. It's conservatives that think it's some cudgel with which to beat up on the Obama administration.

I don't even know why I'm on here talking about this for so long because this issue is resolved to most Americans and for those it's not resolved....it's purely politics.
 
If that autonomy results in deaths then the system being used needs to be done away with. In the case of Chase or WalMart the casualty is money. When people are dying it is absolutely imperative that it functions as designed. I own an auto repair shop, imagine if I worked on someone's car and a wheel came off going down the road resulting in fatalities. Do you think "well, it doesn't happen often" would be acceptable? When it comes to innocent lives, the acceptable margin for error is zero.

Of course not...but there are differences. If an officer makes a bad call that ends in the death of some of his soldiers he shouldn't be punished. Those decisions need to be made...and they are life or death. Nobody is going to make the right one everytime.

You should check out "Fog of War". It's a documentary on Robert McNamarra....it's a great documentary and in it Robert McNamarra states it perfectly. He's not perfect, he made mistakes, but he had to make decisions and those decisions almost everytime could result in major concequences. Nobody is going to be right 100% of the time but your job is to make A decision on the best information you have available and if it's the wrong one never make the same mistake twice.
 
That may be the case...maybe the ATF needs to be radically changed or abolished and I don't know.

In 1990, an undercover ATF agent forced a man name Randy Weaver to shorten the barrel of a shotgun to a length that would force it to be registered and taxed as an SBR, and sell it to another undercover ATF agent. He was arrested, but released due to entrapment. In turn, the ATF put a notice out that Weaver was a bank robber, a militant radical, was armed and dangerous, and that he had secret tunnels under his house. This resulted in the US Marshals wounding Weaver, and killing his wife.

In 1993, the ATF assaulted a compound in Waco, Tx. They violated Posse Comitatus by lying to the National Guard to gain their assistance, which resulted in the ignition of the compound, and deaths of innocent women and children.

From 2004-2005, the ATF conducted sting operations at 8 different gun shows in Virginia. They primarily targeted women. They would allow the people to purchase firearms from the gun shows, then stopped them as they were driving home, illegally detained them without warrant, illegally confiscated their purchases, then forced them to report to the ATF offices under threat of imprisonment to "justify" their purchases. They then continued this operation in Pittsburgh, where they would wait a week later after a customer made a purchase at a gun show so they could illegally search the persons home without warrant. Anyone who refused was illegally detained. The operation was brought under Congressional investigation. None of the people harassed and intimidated by the ATF were guilty of any crime.

In 2008 IG filed a report after a 5 year audit that 76 firearms, and 418 laptop computers had gone missing from the ATFs inventory. Those items were never recovered.

The ATF not only redefines incompetence, they're a danger to everyone around them. They should have been dissolved a long time ago, and every agent within the ATF blacklisted so they never work in the field of law enforcement ever again.
 
Why do you keep cutting my screen name out of your quotes? You don't do that with anyone else. Do you not want me to get notification that you quoted me?

No I'm pointing out a major logical inconsistency that is showing how irrational your views are.

If you believe the buck stops at Obama with anything that happens under his watch than you should blame Bush for 9/11.

When did I say anything about Bush and 9/11?

When, also, did I say that "the buck stops with Obama?" I said what happens in his Administration is a reflection on his Administration.

I don't even know how that's debatable.

And in fact, I even said, explicitly, with these exact words: "No one said Obama was personally involved in it."

Why do you have to continually twist what I say?


Of course I take the other view...that Obama and Bush are both dealing with a massive government structure in which there's no way on earth they can know everything that's going on at everytime. In fact they depend on that structure to inform them of situations.

"Other view"? When did I say anything which contradicts this?

Sure...to some degree. To conservatives it's a major scandal. To most Americans it seems to be an unfortunate situation that should be prevented from ever happening again.

Again, speaking to points you wish I made rather than what I actually said.


Of course not...I blame the field office and individuals that made the mistake of using the same tactics they used under Wide Receiver. How on earth can you say the two aren't connected?

I grow tired of your need to accuse me of saying things I didn't say.

It doesn't matter if they were "connected." Fast and Furious was initiated in 2009 and didn't have to be. Nor did it have to be conducted in the way it was. This was a choice made by the Holder Justice Dept and no one else.


Wide Receiver was inititiated to stop gun trafficking. It was initiated in the same Arizona ATF field office. When Department of Justice officials stated they needed to do something about gun traffiking the field office decides to re-implement the same policy they had used previously to stop gun trafficking.

Even if they were identical -- which they weren't -- it wouldn't matter. If they were both wrong, Wide Receiver does not absolve Fast and Furious. I don't know why that is so difficult to grasp.


No...I don't think Wide Receiver should receive the same attention. In fact I think it's come to light how dumb both operations were and they should never be reimplemented. Holder has insured that takes place.

It doesn't absolve the lunacy of Fast and Furious...which isn't my point of mentioning operation WR. My point in mentioning Wide Receiver from the get go is to point out it's not some new fangled policy created by Holder. It's a field office reimplementing an previous policy they had used to go after gun traffickers. It's bad policy period. No matter who orders it. In the new form...under the new name Fast and Furious it resulted in the death of an American. The bad policy was brought to light and the individuals that were shown to be involved are getting fired or resigning. To me that's what you would expect. It's conservatives that think it's some cudgel with which to beat up on the Obama administration..

No, actually, want you want to do is try to take some of the heat off the Obama Administration by impugning the Bush Administration. I already responded to this:

Of course, all it really does is the usual thing -- defending the Obama Administration by saying the Worst Administration Ever (TM) did the same thing, once again making the Obama Administration ALSO the Worst Administration Ever (TM). I really don't know where you think it gets you.

It continues to baffle me how "Bush did it too!" is seen as a viable excuse.

Or, in the alternative, you're vindicating the Bush Administration and saying they were doing the right things all along after all. You pick, I guess.
 
No, actually, want you want to do is try to take some of the heat off the Obama Administration by impugning the Bush Administration. I already responded to this:
There is no heat on the administration! It's not even news to people outside of the right. The issue is resolved.

It continues to baffle me how "Bush did it too!" is seen as a viable excuse.
Is that what I'm saying?

It doesn't absolve the lunacy of Fast and Furious

My point in mentioning Wide Receiver from the get go is to point out it's not some new fangled policy created by Holder. It's a field office reimplementing an previous policy

It's bad policy period.
 
There is no heat on the administration!

That's baffling. Of course there is.

You may not agree with it, but that doesn't mean there isn't.

It's not even news to people outside of the right.

Oddly, plenty of news organizations disagree.

The issue is resolved.

Well, not really, not in the sense you seem to be saying it is. There was indeed something to see, even if it's left at the results of this internal investigation (and it won't be).


Is that what I'm saying?

Well, yes. I get that you want to backpedal on it, but yes.
 
please detail me the differences between Fast and Furious and Wide Receiver

rfid tags to track the weapons, far fewer guns in the first place, mexican authorities involved, WR was shut down in 07

sources: cbs (primarily), latimes, ibd, others

Daily Kos: Operation Wide Receiver v Fast & Furious

indeed, mexican officials (including calderon) have publicly objected to their being frozen out

Mexican attorney general: "Obama more involved in Fast & Furious than admitted!" - National Law Enforcement | Examiner.com

how can some people talk so much and know so little?

oh well
 
Last edited:
{intentionally cutting your screen name tag out of this}I'm back peddling by reposting my previous posts?

No, you're backpedaling, AND reposting previous posts.
 
They failed to stop the sale of firearms to straw buyers. Straw purchase is illegal in every state, and as a result of the ATF's inaction and stupidity, hundreds of people are dead. That's not the simple little oversight you're trying to brush this off as. It's criminal negligence resulting in a high body count, which is what the ATF is best at.
Straw purchases are legal as long as those goods or services are not used in a crime. The ATF agents couldn't stop the purchases of those guns, so they watched where the guns went as best they could to try and stop them from getting into the hands of criminals. When you have lose gun regulations, you can't just go in and arrest people for purchasing a lot of weapons even if they are straw buyers. The Justice Department would have to have evidence them guns purchased were being handled in an illegal way before anyone could be arrested. The actual walking of the guns was not the focus of the congressional hearing to begin with. Darrell Issa was just creating a scandal that wasn't there to begin with.

Straw purchase - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A straw purchase is any purchase wherein an agent acquires a good or service for someone who is unable to purchase the good or service himself. Straw purchases are legal except in cases where the ultimate receiver of goods or services uses those goods or services in the commission of a crime.
 
Well, your opinion is not endorsed by anything other than yourself. That's what makes it worthless. And it has nothing to do with who you are, it the fact that you're just one guy one the internet demanding proof that there isn't a conspiracy. When it's backed up by any facts or anything other than your own dogmatic beliefs, call me maybe?


What conspiracy? I'm saying this administration is corrupt. It squanders money collected from tax payers to prop up public unions and did so with the Failed Stimulus. It contrived a method to drain another 20 billion dollars out of the Treasury to the UAW in the Failed GM Bailout.

The DOJ sued Boeing for hiring non union employees and dropped the suit when Boeing bribed the union.

The Administration shut down Gibson Guitar for daring to expand a non union shop.

Obama's administration restrained drilling in the Gulf after a court ruled that drilling could resume. If he puts himself outside of the law, that is corrupt.

Obama used Executive Privilege to protect holder either making the act of us EP illegal or declaring that Obama is complicit in the malfeasance in this.

The Administration refuses to enforce laws passed by Congress.

The Administration enforces laws not passed by Congress.

The Administration leaks information for political gain endangering operatives in the field and their families.

Obama and his henchmen actively attack those who he perceives to be a political enemy.

If you have been unaware of these things, i am glad that you are finally recovered from your coma. You should investigate your hero. He has feet of clay.

Strassel: Obama's Enemies List—Part II - WSJ.com
Jon Stewart Trashes Obama’s Executive Privilege Assertion On Fast And Furious | Mediaite
SPECIAL OPS group attacks Obama over bin Laden bragging, leaks | Reuters
 
The Inspector General reviewed the documents and found nothing wrong with Holder's handling of the situation, other than he lack of knowledge about what was going on in Arizona. Failure to turn over documents that are top secret to an open congressoinal hearing is not a separation of powers violation. Holder was not allowed, legally, to turn those documents over. Issa knew this and just wanted to create a scandal where there was none.


So holder is the Sergeant Schultz of the American Government? Nixon was never actually connected to the crimes, only the cover up.

Holder is just another corrupt mechanic working for a corrupt President.
 
What was that? I couldn't hear you over the gnashing of teeth coming from the conspiracy brigade! :lol:

A DOJ review clears the Head of the DOJ.... sounds legit to me...
 
yesterday the ig, michael horowitz, testified in committee

The White House’s refusal to release communications related to the Fast and Furious gun-walking program and the refusal of a White House official to be interviewed about the matter “made it impossible” for the inspector general (IG) of the Justice Department to “pursue that aspect of the case,” the IG, Michael Horowitz, testified.

IG: White House Made It Impossible To Pursue Fast And Furious

ig horowitz in his testimony suggested house oversight pursue its inquiries, since his investigation ran into an obamite brick wall

the connection at nsa sought by the ig, one kevin oreilly, who had quite a bit of known contact with fallguy willliam newell in phoenix, has actually been relocated by this dept of obstruction of justice---halfway around the world to iraq

still, mr oreilly agreed to a telephone interview with mr horowitz

"white house counsel kathryn ruemmler stated oreilly will not be permitted to give an interview"

what good is an ig report exonerating the admittedly ignorant ag which has been "made impossible" by white house stonewalling?

what are holder and hussein hiding?
 
Andrew Cohen, a contributing editor at The Atlantic and legal analyst for CBS News’ “60 Minutes,” believes Attorney General Eric Holder must resign following this week’s scathing report by the Justice Department’s inspector general, which sharply criticized the administration’s handling of Operation Fast and Furious.

“In the end, the much-heralded, much-maligned Office of the Inspector General’s report on the ‘Fast and Furious’ gun scandal tells us what we already know: Attorney General Eric Holder should resign if President Barack Obama wins another term,” Cohen wrote in a Friday column for The Atlantic.

“Even viewing the documents and investigation in a light most favorable to the current head of the Justice Department, even discounting the conspiracy theories offered by the Administration’s most ardent critics, the Inspector General’s report tells us that Holder ultimately failed to do what he absolutely had to do at Justice when he succeeded caretaker Attorney General Michael Mukasey in early 2009,” Cohen wrote.

“The prime directive – then and now – was to restore more professionalism to the Department after years of partisan abuse and misuse by the Bush Administration,” Cohen continued. “It’s been five years, and many smart people already have forgotten, but the Justice Department under the reign of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was an outright catastrophe, with episodes including but not limited to the U.S. Attorney scandal. Mukasey began the job of cleaning it up during his brief tenure following Gonzales. But it was Holder’s responsibility, when he got the job in January 2009, to ensure that the Department, at a minimum, no longer did anything patently stupid.”

Cohen added that, while the inspector general concluded that Holder was not personally aware of Fast and Furious until February 2011, “avoiding perjury or obstruction of justice, or being ignorant of your department’s biggest scandal, is no cause for relief. There’s no dispute that he should have known.”

Cohen also criticized Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer and the consistent failure of administration officials to communicate.

The [inspector general's] report confirms that Breuer knew about the program in 2010 and yet failed to tell his boss about it,” Cohen wrote. “Never mind what Breuer then said to Congress; this initial failure to report the critical information up the line is inexcusable and unacceptable. And so is Holder’s failure this week even to mention, in his remarks responding to the OIG report, what Breuer belatedly conceded was his ‘mistake.’ Breuer should have resigned long ago. And, since he didn’t, this week Holder should have fired him.

Atlantic columnist, ’60 minutes’ analyst: IG report proves Eric Holder must resign over Fast and Furious | The Daily Caller

never mind what breuer then said to congress?

never mind that he testified he didn't know what the ig and cbs' legal analyst concluded he knew?

yes, mr cohen finds breuer's failure to inform his boss that serious a failure

can you disagree?
 
Hahaha, it must really irk you guys that Holder won't be burnt at the stake. :lol:
 
I'm surprised liberals/socialists aren't upset about this too... I guess life comes cheap for a liberal... agent terry's family wouldn't think like that and neither will the families of the hundreds of mexicans who got gunned down. I also guess the law doesn't matter that much as long as it is not about legalizing gay marriage or drugs.
 
I'm surprised liberals/socialists aren't upset about this too... I guess life comes cheap for a liberal... agent terry's family wouldn't think like that and neither will the families of the hundreds of mexicans who got gunned down. I also guess the law doesn't matter that much as long as it is not about legalizing gay marriage or drugs.

Straw man. Appeal to emotion. Red herring. Non sequitur.

All 4 in one post? I'm impressed.
 
Straw man. Appeal to emotion. Red herring. Non sequitur.

All 4 in one post? I'm impressed.

Thank you.:)

Still, I would really want Holder to see the inside a cell for a few good years.
 
Back
Top Bottom