Fast & Furious

[LongBlade]

An update on F&F.

Word is out that at least three other agencies were involved in this: DEA, ICE, and the FBI.

While criticism surrounding Operation Fast and Furious has so far focused on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, three other federal agencies knew about the operation and some of their agents tried to stop it, according to the former chief of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration in Tucson.

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/10/former-dea-chief-says-3-other-federal-agencies-knew-about-furious/#ixzz1lzgUmEyi

[son_of_montfort]

If you look at those letters, it looks like you put "De-Ice the FBI." But I'm wondering if there is a secret anagram here. Lets see.... if you put DEA, ICE, FBI, and POTUS into the anagram solver... you get:

Beatific Dud Ops
Debut Dip Fiasco

and my favorite:

Pacified Doubts

;D

I like the sudden "we tried to stop it" part. Nice touch that they would come out with this now...

[LongBlade]

Far too little too late.

Right now they're scrambling to keep Obama's fingerprints off of this. It seems they have succeeded, though I have very serious doubts that such a program wouldn't have been mentioned to him.

But Holder seems to be willing to take the fall. To my eyes it would be easier simply to be honest. I guess that's why I'm not in politics.

[son_of_montfort]

I told you Holder would take the blame... but you didn't believe me! That is exactly what subordinates are for in politics!

[Jarhead0331]

Holder is not taking the blame for anything.  Rather, he is being evasive, stone-walling and just playing dumb.

On Thursday, February 2, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee regarding his role in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives' gun running operation known as "Fast and Furious."

During the hearing, Holder continued to deny any foreknowledge of the botched operation.  Representative Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), chairman of the House committee, led the charge in questioning Holder on his involvement and knowledge.  When Issa asked Holder if he had been briefed on the wiretaps presented in this case, Holder responded, "These wiretaps are very voluminous, red well kinds of things.  I have not read them."

The U.S. Attorney General has an obligation to the American people to know what is going on under his watch, but throughout the hearing Holder continuously tried to distance himself from the activities of his staff.

At one point during the hearing, Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) told Holder, "You've not taken action, you've not fired anybody, you haven't changed policy, because it's clear you didn't enforce the policy before." 

"Fast and Furious" was also used as justification to force what amounts to a gun registration scheme.  Devised by Holder and the Obama administration, the scheme requires federally licensed firearms retailers in states bordering Mexico to report all sales of two or more semiautomatic rifles within five consecutive business days, if the rifles are larger than .22 caliber and use detachable magazines. Yet, under existing law, the bureau has full access to every record of every firearm transaction by every licensed dealer, whether during a bona fide criminal investigation or simply to enforce compliance with record keeping requirements. This reporting scheme would create a registry of owners of many of today's most popular rifles--firearms owned by millions of Americans for self-defense, hunting and other lawful purposes. 

Emerging evidence has made it clear that "Fast and Furious" was used as justification to force the multiple sales reporting requirement.

Holder is the worst breed of politician.  He needs to be removed post haste.

[son_of_montfort]

You are likely to eventually get your wish.

Although we shouldn't call him a "politician" per se. He wasn't elected, he was appointed. So he basically lives to serve this very purpose.

I suppose that makes cabinet members, etc. "cronies" rather than "politicians."  ;)

[Jarhead0331]

You are likely to eventually get your wish.

Although we shouldn't call him a "politician" per se. He wasn't elected, he was appointed. So he basically lives to serve this very purpose.

I suppose that makes cabinet members, etc. "cronies" rather than "politicians."  ;)

Are you suggesting that a "politician" is only one who is elected to an official post?  I don't see that as being a factor in one's role as a politician at all.  In fact, you won't find that as a criteria in any definition...

Rather, a politician is someone who seeks or holds public office, but is more concerned about winning favor or retaining power than about maintaining principles.  See, e.g. Eric Himpton Holder, Jr.

[son_of_montfort]

I'm suggesting that, as a former judge and now appointed official, he has no compunction to be responsive to the will of the people or to care about public opinion.

And I disagree with this part:

but is more concerned about winning favor or retaining power than about maintaining principles.

Like so many past presidential cabinet members or appointed high-level officials, the principles they maintain tend to be to support and sacrifice to keep the top-dog in office. The President before Obama had guys like this... as has most every President... well... at least since Grant and probably beyond. So he doesn't personally want to retain power, he wants his guy to retain power.

I could be wrong and he could refuse to fall on the sword and pass the buck to Obama, but I wouldn't bet on it.

[Jarhead0331]

I'm suggesting that, as a former judge and now appointed official, he has no compunction to be responsive to the will of the people or to care about public opinion.

Of course he has a compunction to be responsive to the will of the people and to care about public opinion!!!  He took a freakin oath to do so!  He is the CHIEF LEGAL OFFICER of the United States and you don't think he has a compunction to be responsive to the will of the people?  Just because he is appointed and not elected doesn't mean he is not supposed to fulfill his responsibilities to the fullest.  I really think we must be having a failure to communicate here because I can't fathom that you really believe what you seem to be saying.

And I disagree with this part:

but is more concerned about winning favor or retaining power than about maintaining principles.

Like so many past presidential cabinet members or appointed high-level officials, the principles they maintain tend to be to support and sacrifice to keep the top-dog in office. The President before Obama had guys like this... as has most every President... well... at least since Grant and probably beyond. So he doesn't personally want to retain power, he wants his guy to retain power.

I could be wrong and he could refuse to fall on the sword and pass the buck to Obama, but I wouldn't bet on it.

You disagree with that part of the definition of "politician?"  Oh...ok, I guess you disagree with Merriam-Webster then?

1: a person experienced in the art or science of government; especially : one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government

2: a : a person engaged in party politics as a profession
     b : a person primarily interested in political office for selfish or other narrow usually short-sighted reasons

I guess you also disagree with Dictionary.com?

pol·i·ti·cian
/ˌpɒlɪˈtɪʃən/ Show Spelled[pol-i-tish-uhn] Show IPA
noun
1.  a person who is active in party politics.

2.  a seeker or holder of public office, who is more concerned about winning favor or retaining power than about maintaining principles.

3.  a person who holds a political  office.

4.  a person skilled in political  government or administration; statesman or stateswoman.

5.  an expert in politics  or political  government.

Of course he wants Obama to stay in office, that is the only way HIS sorry a$$ is going to have a job!  I dunno man...I'm confused about what we're debating here.

[Martok]

(I'm just going to preemptively apologize right now to both Monty and Jarhead here -- to the former in case I'm putting words in your mouth that you don't mean, and to the latter in case my well-intentioned words end up unwittingly offending you...) 

I'm suggesting that, as a former judge and now appointed official, he has no compunction to be responsive to the will of the people or to care about public opinion.

Of course he has a compunction to be responsive to the will of the people and to care about public opinion!!!  He took a freakin oath to do so!  He is the CHIEF LEGAL OFFICER of the United States and you don't think he has a compunction to be responsive to the will of the people?  Just because he is appointed and not elected doesn't mean he is not supposed to fulfill his responsibilities to the fullest.  I really think we must be having a failure to communicate here because I can't fathom that you really believe what you seem to be saying.

I think all SoM is saying here is simply that Holder does not have a compunction to be "responsive to the will of the people", even if he *should* (as you're asserting).  That what "how it's supposed to be", is different from what actually "is". 

I dunno man...I'm confused about what we're debating here.

I suspect you and Monty are actually probably pretty close in your positions overall.  It's just that he likes to be exact in his definitions -- often to the point of being pedantic -- which a lot of folks here get frustrated with.  :P 

[Jarhead0331]

^makes perfect sense...

[son_of_montfort]

Actually, I sort of mean that. But as Holder is a Department of Justice official, he actually does NOT have any compunction to care about public opinion or the will of the people. Holder is also a former judge, a position also not dependent upon the will of the people. Our judicial branch is constitutionally buffered from popular opinion and election, for good reason.

For a guy who is both a lawyer and lecturing me on the Second Amendment, you would think you would know that!  ;D I kid. But really, the Attorney General pledges to protect the law of the land, not to popular opinion. We don't want our judicial officials to base their decision upon popular will, right? So you can fathom that I would believe this - I don't want the AG to prosecute cases based upon what the masses wish, I want him or her to prosecute based upon an impartial view of the law.

Now, I don't think Holder is doing any of that. If you want to say he is a politician because he puts party politics over his job, then I agree. So in that, yes, I'll bite.

I suspect you and Monty are actually probably pretty close in your positions overall.  It's just that he likes to be exact in his definitions -- often to the point of being pedantic -- which a lot of folks here get frustrated with.

Errr... I'm not sure how to take that statement.

[son_of_montfort]

Oddly enough JH, I thought you would agree with my post. I said he was being a Crony, like Oliver North, etc. before him

So I wasn't trying to start a disagreement or anything.

[Martok]

I suspect you and Monty are actually probably pretty close in your positions overall.  It's just that he likes to be exact in his definitions -- often to the point of being pedantic -- which a lot of folks here get frustrated with.

Errr... I'm not sure how to take that statement.

[chuckles]  Well I wasn't insulting you, if that's what you're wondering.  Far from it! 

Whether it's because of your academic training or simply because of your personality (or -- more likely -- both), it's clear you prefer to be as precise as possible when defining something.  Frequently, that ends up leading you into writing long and occasionally circuitous explanations as to what you mean.  Subsequently, we sometimes have trouble following you, which I suspect leads to frustration and/or misunderstanding a lot of the time (ironically enough). 

Personally, I don't mind it at all, as I'm much the same way.  At the same time, however, it's not hard for me to see why it is that we sometimes struggle when conversing with you!  Not that you should "dumb down" your words or anything -- that's the last thing I'd want -- but just remember that straight lines are generally easier to follow (so you'll understand when your metaphorical loops & curves throw us off from time to time).  :P 

[Jarhead0331]

Actually, I sort of mean that. But as Holder is a Department of Justice official, he actually does NOT have any compunction to care about public opinion or the will of the people. Holder is also a former judge, a position also not dependent upon the will of the people. Our judicial branch is constitutionally buffered from popular opinion and election, for good reason.

For a guy who is both a lawyer and lecturing me on the Second Amendment, you would think you would know that!  ;D I kid. But really, the Attorney General pledges to protect the law of the land, not to popular opinion. We don't want our judicial officials to base their decision upon popular will, right? So you can fathom that I would believe this - I don't want the AG to prosecute cases based upon what the masses wish, I want him or her to prosecute based upon an impartial view of the law.

Now, I don't think Holder is doing any of that. If you want to say he is a politician because he puts party politics over his job, then I agree. So in that, yes, I'll bite.

I suspect you and Monty are actually probably pretty close in your positions overall.  It's just that he likes to be exact in his definitions -- often to the point of being pedantic -- which a lot of folks here get frustrated with.

Errr... I'm not sure how to take that statement.

Ah yes, I have been schooled by our great Medieval academic. Not!  ;)  Unfortunately, laws (at least most of them) have changed since the 12th century, so keep studying! You have a few years to cover before you're current.

In all fairness to you, I believe we are, in part, in agreement, however, this may not have been clear to you because I did not use the precision of a neurosurgeon in explaining my point (my bad). When I say "will of the people and public opinion," I mean this in the broadest sense in keeping with the rule of the law for the benefit and protection of the people.  As you indicate, Holder has the duty to act in accordance with the impartial rule of law.  My point is, he, and the Obama administration have failed to do this.  There has been nothing impartial about the policies implemented by the Justice Department under Obama and Holder. Fast & Furious is a perfect example.  In breaking the law, Holder has failed the people.

I hope my point is clear now.