Obama Failure Thread Part IV

Here's a timeline just so everyone follows, with the understanding that the tactic of "gunwalking" is a very serious issue that runs contrary to ATF and DOJ policy, and has for many years:

October 2009: ATF launches Fast and Furious
June 2010: ATF receives first reports of F&F guns at crime scenes
July 2010: Holder sent briefing on Fast & Furious program
October 2010: High level DOJ officials acknowledge use of "gunwalking" tactic in email exchange discussing Fast and Furious
December 2010: USBP agent Brian Terry killed in firefight involving F&F weapons
January 2011: Fast & Furious terminated, Phoenix ATF agent in charge Bill Newell denies use of "gunwalking"
February 2011: DOJ also denies use of "gunwalking" tactic in letter to Congress (later withdrawn), Holder orders investigation into F&F
May 2011: Holder testifies under oath to House Judiciary Committee that he had "probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks."
November 2011: Holder acknowledges use of "gunwalking" but continues to deny this was ever known by high-level DOJ officials
June 2012: House Oversight Committee subpoenas documents dated post February 4, 2011 relating to F&F, Holder claims that the Oct 2010 DOJ emails that use the phrase “Fast and Furious” do not refer to the controversial gun-walking operation Fast and Furious

Pres. Obama has utilized executive privilege to deny the release of all documents dated post Februrary 4, 2011. Rep. Issa is currently seeking documents that show why the DOJ decided to withdraw as inaccurate a February 2011 letter sent to Congress denying the use "gunwalking". Holder has offered to release some of these post Feb.4.11 documents in exchange for dropping of contempt proceedings. Issa, however, said Holder put unreasonable conditions on his offer. (possibly the degree of redaction)

In his letter to Pres. Obama seeking that executive action, Holder said he was "very concerned that the compelled production to Congress of internal Executive Branch documents generated in the course of the deliberative process concerning its response to congressional oversight and related media inquiries would have significant, damaging consequences." Holder also said releasing the documents would "inhibit the candor of executive branch deliberations in the future and significantly impair the ability of the executive branch to respond independently and effectively to congressional oversight."

In other words, the reasoning being used to justify the executive action is not specific to this case, but rather the general principle that the forced release by Congress of documents like these could harm the president's ability to obtain candid advice from his aides. Which is a worthy claim in theory. What is concerning is that a SPECIFIC date range of documents are being withheld, and a date which is significant to the inquiry as to why the February DOJ letter was withdrawn as inaccurate. Not to mention the AG's obvious unreliability when it comes to statements made under oath also isn't reassuring that the withheld documents are innocent in nature.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/20/politics/holder-contempt/index.html

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...rious-documents-are-privileged/1#.T-bb6vXNkYJ

 

If anyone is interested in Issa's side of this, the congressman will be on with Gregory, Stephanopolous, and Wallace tomorrow morning.

 

I don't think anyone cares what side a multimillionaire felon chooses to portray.

 

Going to go out on a limb and say this is probably incorrect.

 

This shit is on CSPAN and the Internet. No one needs to take my word on it:

!

 

I can't figure out why the repugs feel like they have a leg to stand on with the fast and furious debacle. The repugs sold a phony iraq war that caused hundreds of thousands of iraqi lives....


maybe the problem lies with me trying to figure that out

 

The typical answer to that point is, "there you go, avoiding responsibility and blaming everything on George Bush again."

And if you point out that, well, that response indicates that your side isn't taking responsibility for an even bigger debacle, then you're a socialist and probably not born in America, etc...

 

Forgive me for asking, but what does "Fast and Furious" have to do with the Iraq War?

 

It is called an "analogy." The Iraq war was a ******** up. Fast and Furious was a ******** up. By comparing the amount of spittle generated on Fox News and rant radio, you would think they were ******** ups of equal historical magnitude. One was largely cheered by Fox, one wasn't.

 

Yeah, you definitely answered your own question.

 

At some points I feel like adding some posters to my ignore list, but then, it would be impossible to understand the logical (or ilogical) twists of the conversation... Yes, the Republican Doublethink is baffling....

 

Strangely, #vfish is write about this one. Whether or not Obama or Holder f'ed up wrt F'n'F has nothing to do with Bush f'ing up the Iraq War. I mean, if you want to argue it's a matter of perspective, that's one thing, OBVIOUSLY f'ing up Iraq is a much, much, much, much bigger deal. But I don't think that's the argument you're making.

 

There's the matter of perspective, sure. But there's also the matter of substance. The Bush administration f'ed up Iraq badly, but the issue is that they might well have intentionally misled the public and Congress to get support for the invasion and there is actual evidence to support that viewpoint. We don't know for sure though, because they claimed EP on literally everything and no one in Congress called them on it.

For F&F, there is no evidence whatsoever that the Obama administration intentionally misled the public and Congress. In fact, there is ample evidence that the entire premise of the investigation was created whole cloth by right wing conspiracy theorists. And yet Congress is screaming that there has to be a smoking gun. It is the very definition of a fishing expedition.

That's the difference.

 

Interesting article (a little bit too long) on Fast and Furious... Here are two paragraphs that illustrate the moronic behavior of Issa and the GOP...


http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/06/27/fast-and-furious-truth/

Irony abounds when it comes to the Fast and Furious scandal. But the ultimate irony is this: Republicans who support the National Rifle Association and its attempts to weaken gun laws are lambasting ATF agents for not seizing ​

enough​

weapons—ones that, in this case, prosecutors deemed to be legal.​

Issa's claim that the ATF is using the Fast and Furious scandal to limit gun rights seems, to put it charitably, far-fetched. Meanwhile, Issa and other lawmakers say they want ATF to stanch the deadly tide of guns, widely implicated in the killing of 47,000 Mexicans in the drug-war violence of the past five years. But the public bludgeoning of the ATF has had the opposite effect. From 2010, when Congress began investigating, to 2011, gun seizures by Group VII and the ATF's three other groups in Phoenix dropped by more than 90%.​

​

 

Was just about to post that link...

Should be required reading for anyone wondering what Fast and Furious is all about.

 

Worth noting that Fortune is a right-leaning business mag. This isn't a hack job from a partisan lefty publication.

 

Except they are only right leaning when they agree with the Republicans. Any time they publish anything negative of the Republicans, or positive of Democrats they are a member of the liberal media.

 

Who isn't?

 

100% agree. The problem is, the vast majority of people won't bother reading it (assuming they are even aware the article exists, to begin with), since in their minds, they already "know" what FnF is all about anyway.

 

If Fortune is a member of the liberal media, then England will win Euro 2012.