Hey Libs....Still Laughing Off Fast and Furious?

[onmyknees]

More than a year ago in response to my post about Fast and Furious, you all had a real good laugh. It was NBD (no big deal) just another racially motivated with hunt that wouldn't amount to squat. In typical lib fashion you laughed it off . Well .....Chairmen Issa and Grassley must be on to something because an 11th hour invocation of executive privilege , and a contempt citation would indicate so. This we know as fact.....Holder mislead Congress on the matter ( his words were "misinformed") and let those misrepresentations stand for 8 months before formally retracting the statements. He also lied about the involvement of former attorney general Mulcasey and had to retract that statement as well. He refused to issue an official apology publicly or privately to the dead border agents family who was killed by weapons that "walked" under his watch. We also know that Obama denied any knowledge of, or involvement in the misguided policy. So why the "executive"privilege if the executive knew nothing? And this from an Administration that pledged unparalleled transparency and who according to the NY Times, leaked confidential and secret information on everything to electronic espionage in Iran to the President's kill list. Hope and Change. Watch for honest liberals ( yes, there is one left) Dianne Feinstein to distance herself from this scoundrel Holder similar to what she did with respect to the multiple and dangerous leaks. None of you will ever reach that point because you're sycophants....if pictures were produced of Holder himself handing an AK-47 to someone identified as a member of the Tijuana Cartel, you all would say he was planning a hunting trip...nothing to see here !! so who's laughing now?

[Ben]

More than a year ago in response to my post about Fast and Furious, you all had a real good laugh. It was NBD (no big deal) just another racially motivated with hunt that wouldn't amount to squat. In typical lib fashion you laughed it off . Well .....Chairmen Issa and Grassley must be on to something because an 11th hour invocation of executive privilege , and a contempt citation would indicate so. This we know as fact.....Holder mislead Congress on the matter ( his words were "misinformed") and let those misrepresentations stand for 8 months before formally retracting the statements. He also lied about the involvement of former attorney general Mulcasey and had to retract that statement as well. He refused to issue an official apology publicly or privately to the dead border agents family who was killed by weapons that "walked" under his watch. We also know that Obama denied any knowledge of, or involvement in the misguided policy. So why the "executive"privilege if the executive knew nothing? And this from an Administration that pledged unparalleled transparency and who according to the NY Times, leaked confidential and secret information on everything to electronic espionage in Iran to the President's kill list. Hope and Change. Watch for honest liberals ( yes, there is one left) Dianne Feinstein to distance herself from this scoundrel Holder similar to what she did with respect to the multiple and dangerous leaks. None of you will ever reach that point because you're sycophants....if pictures were produced of Holder himself handing an AK-47 to someone identified as a member of the Tijuana Cartel, you all would say he was planning a hunting trip...nothing to see here !! so who's laughing now?

OMK, I like your avatar. Isn't that Janine Lindemulder???

[Ben]

The paleoconservative Alex Jones always has an interesting take on state-corporate policy....
I'm ambivalent about Alex Jones. At times he comes across as a kook. And, well, other times one thinks: maybe this guy is right. Who knows.
But he does make one paranoid and anxiety-ridden. And one tends to realize there's a dark cloud over everything -- ha ha ha!

[onmyknees]

The paleoconservative Alex Jones always has an interesting take on state-corporate policy....
I'm ambivalent about Alex Jones. At times he comes across as a kook. And, well, other times one thinks: maybe this guy is right. Who knows.
But he does make one paranoid and anxiety-ridden. And one tends to realize there's a dark cloud over everything -- ha ha ha!

It's absolutely Janie

[onmyknees]

Not much play on this topic. That could be for a variety or reasons, but I suspect it's becoming a harder and harder lift defending Barry and his crew for you all. I guess executive privilege, dead Mexicans, murdered federal agents, drug cartels, false testimony before Congress might make for a great Steven Segal movie, but when it's real life....it's easier to cackle about Fox News.I guess I can understand that. Well... thankfully The Daily Show took up the subject as did The Washington Post. Now we're getting somewhere.

Can You Hear Me Now???


http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-june-21-2012...



For the Liberal WaPo this is as rough as you're ever going to see them treat Obama.








Executive privilege poses tricky situation for Obama






By David Nakamura, Published: June 20The Washington Post


President Obama’s decision Wednesday to assert executive privilege to shield his attorney general and the Justice Department from congressional investigators reignited a long-running Washington debate over the limits of White House power in which Obama has argued both sides.
In 2007, Obama, then a senator with higher ambitions, chided President George W. Bush for employing his executive authority to block then-senior White House adviser Karl Rove from testifying before Congress in a scandal involving the firing of nine U.S. attorneys.






.



Operation Fast and Furious probe










Speaking to CNN host Larry King, Obama declared that the Bush administration had a tendency to “hide behind executive privilege every time there’s something a little shaky that’s taking place.”
Obama urged Bush to consider “coming clean,” adding that “the American people deserve to know what was going on there.”
On Wednesday, his role had changed, but the debate was the same: Republican were asking what exactly Obama was trying to hide by invoking his right to executive privilege for the first time. The administration is refusing to turn over documents related to the Justice Department’s “Fast and Furious” operation, which involved the flow of illegal guns to Mexico. A House committee on Wednesday voted to find Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. in contempt of Congress for failing to turn over the documents.
The answers to his critics’ questions could have broad implications for Obama five months before voters decide whether to grant him a second term. The expected protracted legal dispute has the potential to embarrass and distract the White House during the heart of the reelection campaign. Obama’s assertion of privilege quickly became fodder for his political opponents, who have latched onto the Fast and Furious scandal to accuse the president of trying to avoid congressional scrutiny.
Sen. Charles E. Grassley (Iowa), a senior Republican on the Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to Obama on Wednesday asking for more detail on the exact scope of the privilege that Obama invoked.
Administration officials dismissed suggestions that the president's action contradicted the position Obama held as a presidential candidate in 2007. They noted the administration already has handed over 7,600 documents to Congress and Holder has testified nine times.
The documents in dispute are “deliberative process” memos that have traditionally been protected by Democratic and Republican administrations so that the White House staff can freely discuss sensitive matters without being influenced by the fear that their internal debates will be made public, administration officials said.
White House spokesman Eric Schultz noted that Obama has shown greater reluctance to use executive privilege than his two immediate predecessors. Bush invoked the power six times and Bill Clinton 14, according to the Congressional Research Service.
But Mark Rozell, a public policy professor at George Mason University who has testified before Congress on executive privilege, said the question is not how many times the power is invoked but whether there is a legal justification.
The Constitution does not mention executive privilege, said Rozell, who noted that courts have typically ruled that it applies in cases of vital national security interests.
That might be the legal definition, but the political calculus for the White House is whether what Obama is seeking to keep private is more damaging to him than failing to publicly disclose the documents.
“Every time a president claims executive privilege, it brings up memories of President Nixon’s abuses of that doctrine,” Rozell said.
Not all claims of executive privilege hold legal water. Some of President Bill Clinton’s attempts to invoke privilege during grand jury hearings into his relationship with Monica Lewinsky were withdrawn or rejected in court.
Rove eventually did testify on the firing of the U.S. attorneys, meeting with congressional leaders behind closed doors in 2009 — after Bush had left office.
Scott Coffina, a Bush administration counsel who is now in private practice, emphasized the need to safeguard “unvarnished” legal advice on policy matters.
But he acknowledged that the documents in dispute could contain “significant information” that may explain why Holder reversed himself and declared the Fast and Furious program “fundamentally flawed” after initially standing by it.

[trish]

Still laughing. The reichwingnuts think that if they subpoena enough documents they'll uncover a plot to undercut the Second Amendment. It's not a witch hunt, it's a snipe hunt. LOL

[buttslinger]

Well, OMK, first, your link doesn't work.
second, you haven't even posted Brian Terry's picture or mentioned him every 5 seconds.
That cheap stunt is 2,000 years old.

[trish]

Wide Receiver(2006), Fast and Furious(2009)...both gun walking programs initiated by the ATF under the Bush administration (operations of Project Gun Runner)... Gun walking programs loved by republicans everywhere...until now.

[Stavros]

To me the signal question to ask here is why both the Mexican and US Governments think that violence is the solution to the violence of the narcotics trade in the USA and Mexico. Taking on the cartels, who are fighting both each other for a greater share of a declining trrade and the Mexican government is a futile project - the cartels can buy police, and have allegedly bought members of the government too. For an oil rich state with a once-robust tourist industry and the richest man in the world, the core question ought to be -Why Isn't Mexico as Rich as the USA and Canada?

The USA has, overtly and covertly been supplying weapons, credits for arms etc to so many nasty regimes over the decades you have to wonder where the morals went anyway? Has onmyknees already forgotten who was one of the most relible backers of a certainly dead Arab called Saddam Hussein? And remind me who it was who joined with Saudi Arabia, that crade of Arab democracy, to beef up the Mujahideen in Afghanistan during their combat with the USSR? And the consequences...

..if you want to attack President Obama, the 'war on drugs' might be a good place to start; but then I don't suppose his fellow Americans are going to stop shoving white powder up their nose, or smoke the current money-earner, marijuana in its various forms.

[LibertyHarkness]

what makes you laiugh is the government knows who all the cartels are and run buy etc.. they just need to man the fuck up and exterminate them all in one swift decisive action and arradicate this issue . instead of thinking with their own finance issues ...