HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » The Truth about Fast &...

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 04:26 PM

The Truth about Fast & Furious

A great article about F&F just came out in Fortune. Looks like almost everything the gun nuts have been claiming about F&F is a lie. It's curious that the same pro-gunners who want to wait for all the evidence is in to render judgement on Zimmerman have been so quick to crucify the ATF despite not knowing the whole story. As more information comes in, as sane people rather than just loony gun bloggers start to examine the issue, the focus is starting to change from the conspiracy theories to the real facts about gun trafficking and the NRA's extremist pro-gun agenda.

The reality is that thousands of lives, both Mexican and American, have been lost as a direct and predictable consequence of the NRA's continued successful opposition to even the mildest of common sense gun laws -- things like closing the gun show loophole, passing a law specifically against gun trafficking, adequately funding and staffing the ATF.

http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/06/27/fast-and-furious-truth/
A Fortune investigation reveals that the ATF never intentionally allowed guns to fall into the hands of Mexican drug cartels. How the world came to believe just the opposite is a tale of rivalry, murder, and political bloodlust.

...

Quite simply, there's a fundamental misconception at the heart of the Fast and Furious scandal. Nobody disputes that suspected straw purchasers under surveillance by the ATF repeatedly bought guns that eventually fell into criminal hands. Issa and others charge that the ATF intentionally allowed guns to walk as an operational tactic. But five law-enforcement agents directly involved in Fast and Furious tell Fortune that the ATF had no such tactic. They insist they never purposefully allowed guns to be illegally trafficked. Just the opposite: They say they seized weapons whenever they could but were hamstrung by prosecutors and weak laws, which stymied them at every turn.

Indeed, a six-month Fortune investigation reveals that the public case alleging that Voth and his colleagues walked guns is replete with distortions, errors, partial truths, and even some outright lies. Fortune reviewed more than 2,000 pages of confidential ATF documents and interviewed 39 people, including seven law-enforcement agents with direct knowledge of the case. Several, including Voth, are speaking out for the first time.

How Fast and Furious reached the headlines is a strange and unsettling saga, one that reveals a lot about politics and media today. It's a story that starts with a grudge, specifically Dodson's anger at Voth. After the terrible murder of agent Terry, Dodson made complaints that were then amplified, first by right-wing bloggers, then by CBS. Rep. Issa and other politicians then seized those elements to score points against the Obama administration, which, for its part, has capitulated in an apparent effort to avoid a rhetorical battle over gun control in the run-up to the presidential election. (A Justice Department spokesperson denies this and asserts that the department is not drawing conclusions until the inspector general's report is submitted.)

130 replies, 14462 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 130 replies Author Time Post
Reply The Truth about Fast & Furious (Original post)
DanTex Jun 2012 OP
handmade34 Jun 2012 #1
DonP Jun 2012 #2
DanTex Jun 2012 #4
DonP Jun 2012 #9
DanTex Jun 2012 #14
Oneka Jun 2012 #20
Starboard Tack Jun 2012 #36
Simo 1939_1940 Jul 2012 #82
friendly_iconoclast Jul 2012 #81
friendly_iconoclast Aug 2012 #84
PavePusher Aug 2012 #127
gejohnston Aug 2012 #128
Starboard Tack Jun 2012 #35
Clames Jul 2012 #46
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jun 2012 #5
Canopus Jun 2012 #13
Hoyt Jun 2012 #15
HankyDub Jun 2012 #25
beevul Jun 2012 #27
HankyDub Jun 2012 #30
Callisto32 Jun 2012 #32
HankyDub Jun 2012 #34
gejohnston Jun 2012 #38
HankyDub Jun 2012 #39
gejohnston Jun 2012 #40
DanTex Jun 2012 #41
gejohnston Jun 2012 #42
Oneka Jun 2012 #43
gejohnston Jun 2012 #44
Tuesday Afternoon Jun 2012 #45
MADem Jun 2012 #33
truedelphi Jun 2012 #3
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jun 2012 #6
ileus Jun 2012 #7
Hoyt Jun 2012 #16
Atypical Liberal Jun 2012 #8
SemperEadem Jun 2012 #11
Hoyt Jun 2012 #17
Atypical Liberal Jun 2012 #23
SemperEadem Jun 2012 #10
Callisto32 Jun 2012 #12
Hoyt Jun 2012 #18
Remmah2 Jun 2012 #29
Hoyt Jul 2012 #68
Remmah2 Jul 2012 #71
Hoyt Jul 2012 #73
Remmah2 Jul 2012 #74
gejohnston Jul 2012 #66
Oneka Jun 2012 #19
TPaine7 Jun 2012 #21
Oneka Jun 2012 #26
Atypical Liberal Jun 2012 #24
gejohnston Jun 2012 #22
Oneka Jul 2012 #67
Remmah2 Jun 2012 #28
PavePusher Jun 2012 #31
friendly_iconoclast Jul 2012 #49
PavePusher Jul 2012 #50
jpak Jun 2012 #37
Clames Jul 2012 #47
Simo 1939_1940 Jul 2012 #48
DirkGently Jul 2012 #51
Oneka Jul 2012 #52
DanTex Jul 2012 #53
Oneka Jul 2012 #54
DanTex Jul 2012 #55
TPaine7 Jul 2012 #57
DanTex Jul 2012 #58
TPaine7 Jul 2012 #60
DanTex Jul 2012 #63
TPaine7 Jul 2012 #69
DanTex Jul 2012 #70
Oneka Jul 2012 #72
Euromutt Jul 2012 #79
Oneka Jul 2012 #65
gejohnston Jul 2012 #61
gejohnston Jul 2012 #75
spin Jul 2012 #56
DanTex Jul 2012 #59
TPaine7 Jul 2012 #62
spin Jul 2012 #64
gejohnston Jul 2012 #76
friendly_iconoclast Jul 2012 #77
TPaine7 Jul 2012 #78
Oneka Jul 2012 #80
Oneka Aug 2012 #83
DanTex Aug 2012 #85
gejohnston Aug 2012 #86
DanTex Aug 2012 #87
gejohnston Aug 2012 #88
friendly_iconoclast Aug 2012 #89
DanTex Aug 2012 #91
friendly_iconoclast Aug 2012 #92
DanTex Aug 2012 #90
gejohnston Aug 2012 #93
friendly_iconoclast Aug 2012 #94
friendly_iconoclast Aug 2012 #95
DanTex Aug 2012 #96
gejohnston Aug 2012 #97
DanTex Aug 2012 #98
gejohnston Aug 2012 #99
DanTex Aug 2012 #100
gejohnston Aug 2012 #103
DanTex Aug 2012 #105
gejohnston Aug 2012 #108
DanTex Aug 2012 #111
gejohnston Aug 2012 #113
DanTex Aug 2012 #114
gejohnston Aug 2012 #116
DanTex Aug 2012 #119
gejohnston Aug 2012 #120
DanTex Aug 2012 #123
gejohnston Aug 2012 #124
DanTex Aug 2012 #125
gejohnston Aug 2012 #126
friendly_iconoclast Aug 2012 #101
DanTex Aug 2012 #102
gejohnston Aug 2012 #104
friendly_iconoclast Aug 2012 #106
DanTex Aug 2012 #107
gejohnston Aug 2012 #109
friendly_iconoclast Aug 2012 #110
DanTex Aug 2012 #112
friendly_iconoclast Aug 2012 #115
DanTex Aug 2012 #117
gejohnston Aug 2012 #118
DanTex Aug 2012 #121
gejohnston Aug 2012 #122
friendly_iconoclast Aug 2012 #129
Tuesday Afternoon Aug 2012 #130

Response to DanTex (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 04:28 PM

1. rec

must read

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 04:34 PM

2. So, suddenly Fortune magazine, Corporatist rag, is a reliable news source? Funny how that works.

The same Fortune that is a mouthpiece of Wall Street and the Corporate culture is all of a sudden a great source of reliable information on DU?

Or is this like when a bunch of you all of a sudden liked Scott Walker when he banned guns from some Wisconsin state buildings? Or a bunch of "progressives" that came to love the same Cheney/Bush no fly "Terrah list, that we all hated and denounced for 8 years, when they wanted to use it to ban gun purchases?

Conditional ethics strike again. Any source is good and "trusted" if it's bad for gun rights, and any source that supports them is obviously a right wing shill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #2)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 04:36 PM

4. LOL. The gunnies don't like it when actual reporters look into their conspiracy theories!

Wasn't it so much more fun when it was just Sipsey Street and WorldNetDaily!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #4)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 06:13 PM

9. No, but I expect you to keep quiet the next time somebody quotes the WSJ or Forbes

Since Wall Street rags are suddenly "real" reporting.

Must be nice to have such a flexible conscience, if that's what you call it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #9)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 08:06 PM

14. Keep that head buried in that sand!

The article was written by award winning investigative reporter Katherine Eban.
KATHERINE EBAN, an award-winning investigative reporter, writes for Fortune, Self, Vanity Fair and other national magazines. She has worked at Conde Nast Portfolio, the New York Times, New York, the New York Observer, and ABC News. Her work has been featured on national news programs including 60 Minutes, 20/20, Nightline and NPR. She was a 2006 Alicia Patterson fellow.

Dangerous Doses, her first book, was excerpted in Vanity Fair and was a Barnes & Noble “Discover Great New Writers” selection, a Borders Recommends pick and was named one of the Best Books of 2005 by Kirkus Reviews. It has won awards from the American Society of Journalists and Authors and the National Association of Health Care Journalists. While in progress, the book received grants from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and the Fund for Investigative Journalism.

Eban, a Rhodes Scholar, lives in Brooklyn with her husband, two daughters.

http://www.katherineeban.com/index.php/about/biography/

Ouch, Rhodes Scholar. There's nothing the gun nuts hate more than a good education!

Conversely, this Forbes article posted by one of our more clueless pro-gunners a while back was written by a moron named Larry Bell, whose day job is being a professional global warming denier.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117216919

But don't let a few facts stand in the way of your gun conspiracy delusions!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #14)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 10:24 PM

20. So being a Rhodes Scholar

is now the gold standard of truth and enlightenment on guns?

I think not..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oneka (Reply #20)

Thu Jun 28, 2012, 03:17 PM

36. What a great pic. Gotta love her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #36)

Thu Jul 5, 2012, 10:10 AM

82. Actually, I **don't** gotta love anyone who inflicts serious damage

to their own causes (and mine!) through dishonesty on the gun restriction issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #14)

Thu Jul 5, 2012, 12:16 AM

81. Argument from authority is now acceptable if you agree with the authority?

So much for formal logic...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #14)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 04:19 AM

84. About that "Rhodes Scholar" bit...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #14)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 06:57 PM

127. Hmmm, a "Rhodes Scholar", eh?

 

Does Oxford have a degree program in firearms issues?

If so, please cite to it.

If not, please explain what part of her studies lends weight to her opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #127)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 07:12 PM

128. I wonder if he has the same high opinion of all Rhodes Scholars?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #9)

Thu Jun 28, 2012, 03:12 PM

35. Your understanding of journalism is on a par with your understanding of public safety.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #35)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 12:16 AM

46. Your understanding of public safety is on par with my cat's understanding of particle physics.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #2)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 04:41 PM

5. So you're saying that...

...an enemy in common doesn't necessarily qualify one as the best choice for an ally? Hmmm.

Good point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #2)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 08:03 PM

13. The gun control freaks* would embrace FR if it claimed F&F was bogus.

 

Conditional ethics? Yes...or situational, if you prefer. It would be amusing if it weren't so sad and disgusting.

* I use this term thinking it must be okay because I've seen "gun nut" used here with impunity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Canopus (Reply #13)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 09:04 PM

15. How about giving us a shout when FR says anything positive about Obama, ATF, SS, Medicaid, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #2)

Thu Jun 28, 2012, 07:23 AM

25. Classic ad hominem

 

Don't attack the source. Attack the argument.

This was a 6 month investigation. As you point out, Fortune is generally on the right, this isn't one of your lefty boogeymen (or boogeywomen). If the facts in here stand up (and the article appears to be airtight), this is a real eye-opener and blows the lid off of over a year of F&F howling.

I understand that gun rights people have a great deal of emotion tied up in this. Hopefully you guys can digest this material, and come to the inevitable conclusions. The only person who intentionally allowed guns to go to criminals was your sainted whistleblower, who comes off as a complete ass, btw. The ATF was aware of straw purchasers and attempted to bring them to justice, only to be stymied by Federal Prosecutors in AZ.

It seems quite plausible that the DOJ has reasons to protect what may still be ongoing investigations, and Obama is doing the right thing by shielding the DOJ from politically motivated attacks on the AG. I'm no fan of Mr. Holder, but even Issa admits that he had no knowledge of any tactics used by the ATF, even if they included gun-walking which it appears THEY DID NOT.

Read the article. Then check with Sipsey Street or anyone else you would like to. If you have been duped this whole time, at least have the ovaries to admit it. I was duped, it's hard not to be with all the misleading coverage on this issue. But if these are the facts, then you've got some crow to eat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to beevul (Reply #27)

Thu Jun 28, 2012, 10:54 AM

30. hiya!

 

Obviously I don't expect beevul to be terribly interested in facts, but my past experience here is that there are many pro-gun people are reasonable people capable of rational thought.

Now I have to remember how to ignore folks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HankyDub (Reply #30)

Thu Jun 28, 2012, 01:45 PM

32. Self-imposed intellectual circle-jerking.

Awesome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Callisto32 (Reply #32)

Thu Jun 28, 2012, 02:40 PM

34. Less anger

 

more substance

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HankyDub (Reply #34)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 12:12 AM

38. I'm glad you came back with more substance

and less anger. Mind if I call you Lazarus (of Bethany)?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #38)

Sat Jun 30, 2012, 01:24 PM

39. call me whatever you like

 

I'd prefer it if you called me daddy.

Now none o you have anything to say about the article? Sad...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HankyDub (Reply #39)

Sat Jun 30, 2012, 06:27 PM

40. I call no one daddy, including my father.

Actually, there is a lot to say about it. Much of it has already been said. Basically, it is a puff piece written by magazine writer who interviewed a couple of ATF agents, the ones with something to hide. What was not covered:
Mexican authorities did not know, therefore there was no coordination between ATF and Mexican Federal Police.
ATF had no tracking mechanism what so ever, so how would they figure out where they went?
ATF has no jurisdiction in Mexico, so how are they going to take down cartels?

One more thing, her article said that the penalties for straw buying is weak. Since when was ten years a weak sentence? She never bothered to look up or mention what those penalties are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #40)

Sat Jun 30, 2012, 06:48 PM

41. LOL. A "puff piece". A "couple of ATF agents".

The denialism is so strong. I guess it's not easy to hear that the conspiracy theory that all gun nuts were so worked up about for over a year crumbles to the ground. That's what happens when you put your trust in gun blogs!

In reality this article is the single best piece of reporting since the beginning of the F&F story. Rather than just take the word of one disgruntled ATF agent who didn't get along with his boss, and build a whole strange conspiracy theory around his allegations, this reporter actually talked to everyone involved to figure out what was going on. The "couple" of people interviewed turns out to be 39:
Indeed, a six-month Fortune investigation reveals that the public case alleging that Voth and his colleagues walked guns is replete with distortions, errors, partial truths, and even some outright lies. Fortune reviewed more than 2,000 pages of confidential ATF documents and interviewed 39 people, including seven law-enforcement agents with direct knowledge of the case. Several, including Voth, are speaking out for the first time.


Oh, and the penalties for straw purchases are weak. Ten years is the maximum, but what matters is not the maximum, but what happens in practice, and in practice straw purchases are both hard to prove and also don't get large sentences. For some reason, this notion seems to be well beyond the complexity threshold of what NRA bubblers are capable of understanding.
For prosecutors, straw-purchasing cases were hard to prove and unrewarding to prosecute, with minimal penalties attached. In December 2010, five U.S. Attorneys along the Southwest border, including Burke in Arizona, wrote to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, asking that penalties for straw purchasing be increased. The commission did increase the recommended jail time by a few months. But because the straw purchasers, by definition, have no criminal record and there is no firearms-trafficking statute that would allow prosecutors to charge them with conspiracy as a group, the penalties remain low.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #41)

Sat Jun 30, 2012, 07:33 PM

42. CBS did a better job.

And what conspiracy theory is that? What is the average sentence for straw purchasing? You think it is the single best piece only because it conforms to your pre conceived view. Talk about denialism.

The documents obtained and interviews conducted by the Committee
indicate that, following a briefing in March 2010, ATF Deputy Director William
Hoover ordered an “exit strategy” in order to extract ATF-Phoenix from this
operation. At the March briefing, the ATF Intelligence Operations Specialist and
the Group Supervisor made a presentation regarding Operation Fast and Furious
that covered the suspects, the number of firearms each had purchased, the amount
of money each had spent, the known stash houses where guns were deposited,
and the locations in Mexico where Fast and Furious firearms had been recovered.
The briefing also included Assistant Director for Field Operations Mark Chait and
Deputy Assistant Director for Field Operations William McMahon, four ATF Special
Agents in Charge from ATF’s Southwest border offices, and others.

page 40
http://democrats.oversight.house.gov/images/stories/minority_report_13112.pdf
Wow, I can copy and paste too. I read the article.

For some reason, this notion seems to be well beyond the complexity threshold of what NRA bubblers are capable of understanding.
Such condescending bullshit. Ideologues of any stripe have problems with complexity, that makes them ideologues. Brady/VPC bubblers are incapable of basic critical thinking. Yes, ten years is the max. What is the average? The article never mentioned. Either way, the guideline should be increased if not a mandatory min. like being a felon in possession.
Straw purchasing may or may not be hard to prove. It is not that hard to get probable cause. If the FFL reports it as a possible straw purchase, that gives ATF probable cause. If there is a pattern of multiple gun purchases in a short period of time, that is probable cause. That is why multiple handgun purchases have to reported directly, and has been since the 1960s. That is the point behind the multiple long gun sale reporting requirement as well.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #41)

Sat Jun 30, 2012, 08:34 PM

43. Who is in denial?

Last edited Sat Jun 30, 2012, 09:05 PM - Edit history (1)

they have since agreed that the ATF purposefully chose not to interdict guns it lawfully could have seized. Holder testified in December that "the use of this misguided tactic is inexcusable, and it must never happen again."


This goes a bit deeper than 1 disgruntled ATF field agent.
This excerpt was taken from the article that you linked.
Feel free to keep denying ,just don't expect the rest of us to fall for ,a bad political hatchet job, disguised as journism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oneka (Reply #43)

Sat Jun 30, 2012, 08:47 PM

44. and a way for those responsible to pin it on

the one that turned them in. So how did the whistleblower let 2000 guns walk in one incident? Notice how those who got turned in are blaming the whistleblower and some people don't stop to ask WTF?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HankyDub (Reply #30)


Response to DonP (Reply #2)

Thu Jun 28, 2012, 02:27 PM

33. It's not "conditional ethics." It's "When even the wingdings can't buy the rightwing bullshit, the

argument is well and truly busted."

That's all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 04:35 PM

3. Next up: How the DOJ's war on medical marijuana

Prevented thousands of grandmas with MS from becoming heads of Mexican Drug Cartels.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Reply #3)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 05:15 PM

6. Who was it...

...that said 'Beer leads to heroine?'

(I thought it was a good pun)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 05:53 PM

7. Like we all didn't know F&F was the NRA's fault.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ileus (Reply #7)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 09:05 PM

16. Gun culture and their allies -- such as NRA -- damn sure did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 06:11 PM

8. Too long to read

 

But one does wonder why such obvious truth needs Executive Privilege to hide it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #8)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 06:37 PM

11. read it... your question is answered in the article.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #8)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 09:07 PM

17. It's pretty obvious to most. And it's being handled perfectly -- Obama is throwing it in face of

right wingers just as he stuffed his birth certificate down Trumps throat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #17)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 11:53 PM

23. I'm basking in the glow of transparency.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 06:36 PM

10. I just read that article

it's amazing. Utterly amazing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 07:14 PM

12. So...

Issa and others charge that the ATF intentionally allowed guns to walk as an operational tactic. But five law-enforcement agents directly involved in Fast and Furious tell Fortune that the ATF had no such tactic.


Nothing like finding a disinterested party as your source.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Callisto32 (Reply #12)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 09:09 PM

18. To pro-gun/anti-Obama crowd, this has to be like george bush failing to find WMDs

Last edited Mon Jul 2, 2012, 09:40 PM - Edit history (1)

after telling us we were going up in a mushroom cloud.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #18)

Thu Jun 28, 2012, 10:05 AM

29. What?

 

Where's NRA blame in the post?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Remmah2 (Reply #29)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 09:40 PM

68. Don't have to mention it every time because I have you conditioned to think about the no-good NRA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #68)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 09:15 AM

71. When you mentioned mushroom cloud I thought someone was smoking them.

 

Sheesh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Remmah2 (Reply #71)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 10:08 AM

73. No I was referring to george bush lies about Iraq and their "nuclear bombs."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #73)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 11:28 AM

74. Don't forget the biological and chemical WMD's

 

Ole King George got fooled.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #18)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 08:47 PM

66. maybe a few an the fringe right

that the administration cooked up some Nixonian scheme. I actually could picture it with some of the characters Nixon and Reagan had in their administrations were around. But seems Obama hired a better class of people. I will say my biggest problem with Holder remains coddling Wall Street, Massey Coal, and BP.
I'm sure we agree on this much, Tim Geithner is thanking whoever moved ATF from Treasury to Justice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 10:07 PM

19. So which is it?

Eric Holder's sworn testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,?

OR: 5 unnamed law enforcement agents, who tell Fortune that ATF didn't do what Eric Holder, testified that they did?

As political pressure has mounted, ATF and Justice Department officials have reversed themselves. After initially supporting Group VII agents and denying the allegations, they have since agreed that the ATF purposefully chose not to interdict guns it lawfully could have seized. Holder testified in December that "the use of this misguided tactic is inexcusable, and it must never happen again."



Quite simply, there's a fundamental misconception at the heart of the Fast and Furious scandal. Nobody disputes that suspected straw purchasers under surveillance by the ATF repeatedly bought guns that eventually fell into criminal hands. Issa and others charge that the ATF intentionally allowed guns to walk as an operational tactic. But five law-enforcement agents directly involved in Fast and Furious tell Fortune that the ATF had no such tactic.




I'm a little confused, am i supposed to believe our Attorney General when he gives sworn testimony before a house committee, or am i supposed to believe 5 anonymous law enforcement agents, giving interviews to a fortune reporter?



Our attorney general wouldn't lie under oath, to a congressional committee, now would he?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oneka (Reply #19)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 10:35 PM

21. Right Wing Holder is Part of the Effort to Take Down Obama!!1@!!!1

 

So are the evil, right wing tea party Democrats who wrote this:

http://democrats.oversight.house.gov/images/stories/minority_report_13112.pdf

They are all stooges of the eeeevil NRA!!!11!!!11!!!!1!!

It's worse than we thought!1!!!!!!11!!!!


(Either that or there might be some minor issues with the Fortune story.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #21)

Thu Jun 28, 2012, 08:36 AM

26. "minor issues with the Fortune story."

Not possible, the author is a Rhodes Scholar ya know. Rhodes Scholar...

We all know that Rhodes Scholars would never write a slanted misleading article,
about guns, and government corruption.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oneka (Reply #19)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 11:55 PM

24. The truth is out there.

 

But you won't be hearing it from our government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 11:00 PM

22. I would have only one question for Holder

This report debunks many unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. Contrary to repeated
claims by some, the Committee has obtained no evidence that Operation Fast and Furious was
a politically-motivated operation conceived and directed by high-level Obama Administration
political appointees at the Department of Justice. The documents obtained and interviews
conducted by the Committee indicate that it was the latest in a series of reckless and fatally
flawed operations run by ATF’s Phoenix Field Division during both the previous and current
administrations.
Flawed and reckless is a bit of an understatement. My single question would be: Why are the idiots who dreamed up and ordered this project still in management positions, let alone still employed with ATF"?

http://democrats.oversight.house.gov/images/stories/minority_report_13112.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #22)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 09:16 PM

67. The idiots in question

are being protected from any real threat of prosecution.


Unless DOJ is compelled to hand over the relevant documents,we will likely never find out who these "idiots" are.

This apparent coverup, may end up being a bigger scandal, then the actual gun walking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Thu Jun 28, 2012, 10:04 AM

28. Intentional or accidental the results were still the same.

 

The unintentional consequences of a bunch of bungling bureaucrats.

I've gone to reasonable lengths to make sure my firearms are secure from children, thieves and the like. The fact is, the ATF is complicit in the end result.

OOPS, it was just an accident is no fracking excuse. Just like the moron who says I didn't know my gun was loaded.

Screw up, own up. Stop the excuses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Thu Jun 28, 2012, 01:17 PM

31. From the article:

 

Voth's mandate was to stop gun traffickers in Arizona, the state ranked by the gun-control advocacy group Legal Community Against Violence as having the nation's "weakest gun violence prevention laws." Just 200 miles from Mexico, which prohibits gun sales, the Phoenix area is home to 853 federally licensed firearms dealers. Billboards advertise volume discounts for multiple purchases.

Customers can legally buy as many weapons as they want in Arizona as long as they're 18 or older and pass a criminal background check. There are no waiting periods and no need for permits, and buyers are allowed to resell the guns. "In Arizona," says Voth, "someone buying three guns is like someone buying a sandwich."


No Arizona laws were broken. This was a Federal investigation into the breaking of Federal gun laws and had nothing to do with Arizona, other than location. Since only the Federal government is allowed to control gun movement between states and across U.S. national borders, 'raising Arizona' is a red herring.

Unless, suddenly, Arizona enforcing Federal laws is now a GOOD thing?!?!

Also note that when the ATF and Federal prosecuters obstructed arrests and seizures, Federal agents asked Arizona law enforcement for assistance.

So, what gives? Should Arizona be enforcing Federal law or not?


MAKE UP YOUR FUCKING MINDS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #31)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 08:34 PM

49. The OP seems to have found your questions inconvenient, as they have gone missing.

Or perhaps they suddenly remembered an appointment for a root canal...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #49)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 12:56 AM

50. Yeah, typical. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Thu Jun 28, 2012, 05:27 PM

37. locking

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #37)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 12:20 AM

47. Delusions of being a host...

 

...jpak has them. Maybe if you had more to say than "yup" your threads wouldn't get locked






Yup.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #47)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 10:07 AM

48. And perhaps if his behavior didn't match


that depicted by his avatar he'd have a shot as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 02:06 AM

51. It's a fascinating lie to protect shady American gun sellers.

So, the reality, as the article points out, is that it is virtually impossible to stop gun traffic into Mexico, because most of what constitutes gun trafficking is actually legal, thanks to the overwhelming success of pro-gun lobbyists. ATF agents, already hampered and largely defanged by the relentless "jackbooted thugs" campaign carried on by the NRA, went as far as New York to try to get the obvious trafficking they were witnessing prosecuted. But they couldn't. It's not illegal for an 18-yr-old to, say buy $20,000 in weaponry, repeatedly, on the theory it might be for "personal use," and then sell them all the next day having "changed his mind."

So, the reality is that gun laws are so weak that Mexico is flooded with American guns in a process that essentially isn't illegal, because gun rights are so broad here. That's what's actually happening. ATF can't arrest anyone because you basically would have to witness someone saying, "Here, let me illegally traffic this firearm to you, hahahahahahaha!"

The conspiracy theory cooked up to deal with this is a gob-smacking piece of cognitively dissonant genius. It's just so bald-faced nuts that it makes perfect sense, if you just invert reason entirely. You just have to believe that law enforcement agents never wanted to do their jobs, bust people and stop weapons trafficking -- how naive! Nooo, they wanted to FAIL, so gun trafficking would get bad, so we'd all THINK we needed better enforcements and / or legislation. Because law enforcement agents think like that, and readily agree to engage in complex conspiracies involving deliberately letting their comrades be murdered, just to please President Obama and his secretly anti-gun stance that he has never revealed in speech or policy. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHA!

Wow. This is exactly the same flavor of proving-something-via-its-utter-nonexistence that NRA President / gibbering nutwad Wayne Lapierre introduced a while back, where Obama has been soft on gun control, BECAUSE HE WANTS TO BE HARD ON GUN CONTROL!!

It's perfect logic, if you're insane. And the best part is yet to come. You see, as soon as it sort of sinks in that the ATF was actually (gasp) trying to do its job, and not pretending to not be able to do its job in order to ... TAKE OUR GUNS! someone will be tempted to suggest that maybe we need some kind of database to track gun sales, instead of those boxes of forms the article talks about agents having to painstakingly review by hand. Or, maybe there could be some kind of limit on large sales to individuals. Or something. Anything. But they won't be able to, because as soon as anyone tries, a trillion screaming NRA acolytes will shout ...

AHA! WE KNEW IT! Look at the gun grabbers, using the ATF's "fake" failure to stop guns from going to Mexico to falsely try to justify laws to actually stop guns from going to Mexico! !!! !!! !!!

So at last we scrape down through all the crazy slogans and pseudo-logic, and unending hysteria about jack-booted G-men coming to take Grandma's shotgun and we see what's really most important to the mega-powerful gun lobby in America.

Gun-running to Mexico. All of this nonsense, from Lapierre to Issa, and this galactically impossible non-scandal, is aimed at protecting gun shops that sell a hell of a lot of weaponry to mules headed to Mexico. It has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. Nothing to do with self-defense, or hunting or target shooting, or a Swiss-like ideal of every citizen being prepared to defend the homeland.

Gunrunner profits. That's what matters here. That's what all the screaming and sweating and false visions of gun-stripping apocalypsi are about. They knew people were wondering why there is a steady river of arms flowing from Arizona directly to Mexician drug lords, and got worried someone might eventually want to do something about it. So we all got Congressman Car Thief Issa's epic hearings, the first attempt to hold a USAG in contempt of Congress, and the "Fast and Furious scandal."

But no talk so far of doing a single thing to stem the flow of illegal American guns. Because once again, when it comes to firearms in America, crazy works just fine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DirkGently (Reply #51)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 08:44 AM

52. So who ordered this?

they have since agreed that the ATF purposefully chose not to interdict guns it lawfully could have seized. Holder testified in December that "the use of this misguided tactic is inexcusable, and it must never happen again."



The evil NRA? Gun store owners profiteering off the gun trafficking to Mexico? Who ordered the ATF to let guns walk, when they could have been seized?
Weak laws? Really? Read this again...

ATF purposefully chose not to interdict guns it lawfully could have seized..

Since when ,have the ATF ,followed the marching orders of gun shops , and the,
NRA?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oneka (Reply #52)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 09:52 AM

53. Why do you insist on quoting the article out of context?

This is one of the more hilarious out-of-context excerpts I've seen. Not only do you slice the first sentence in half, but you also fail to mention the fact that the next sentence after your quote is "There's the rub." I'll give you NRA bubblers credit for one thing: no level of dishonesty is too brazen, and no amount of facts will stand in your way when it comes to pushing a conspiracy theory!

Try reading the whole article. It's really very informative! You can start with the context surrounding that quote of yours.

As political pressure has mounted, ATF and Justice Department officials have reversed themselves. After initially supporting Group VII agents and denying the allegations, they have since agreed that the ATF purposefully chose not to interdict guns it lawfully could have seized. Holder testified in December that "the use of this misguided tactic is inexcusable, and it must never happen again."

There's the rub.

Quite simply, there's a fundamental misconception at the heart of the Fast and Furious scandal. Nobody disputes that suspected straw purchasers under surveillance by the ATF repeatedly bought guns that eventually fell into criminal hands. Issa and others charge that the ATF intentionally allowed guns to walk as an operational tactic. But five law-enforcement agents directly involved in Fast and Furious tell Fortune that the ATF had no such tactic. They insist they never purposefully allowed guns to be illegally trafficked. Just the opposite: They say they seized weapons whenever they could but were hamstrung by prosecutors and weak laws, which stymied them at every turn.

Indeed, a six-month Fortune investigation reveals that the public case alleging that Voth and his colleagues walked guns is replete with distortions, errors, partial truths, and even some outright lies. Fortune reviewed more than 2,000 pages of confidential ATF documents and interviewed 39 people, including seven law-enforcement agents with direct knowledge of the case. Several, including Voth, are speaking out for the first time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #53)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 11:22 AM

54. pushing a conspiracy theory!

Please explain to me, what are the details
of the conspiracy theory , that I'm pushing, in your own words.

BTW, that quote I keep quoting,
that belongs to your Rhodes scholar, not
me

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oneka (Reply #54)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 11:36 AM

55. Yes, the quote is from the Fortune article, but you took it out of context.

Do you know what "out of context" means?

The conspiracy theory is that this is some orchestrated effort to intentionally arm Mexican drug cartels. As Darrell Issa put it:
Issa has alleged on Fox News that Fast and Furious is part of a liberal conspiracy to restrict gun rights: "Very clearly, made a crisis and they are using this crisis to somehow take away or limit people's Second Amendment rights."


The reality, as DirkGently pointed out, is that the gun laws are so weak that the ATF couldn't legally interdict the guns headed for Mexico. If anyone in the NRA crowd actually cared about illegal guns in Mexico, the first thing they would do is agree to tighten up these laws, for example, by implementing the gun trafficking statute that numerous Democrats and ATF agents have called for. Instead, the NRA works tirelessly to ensure that it is as difficult as possible for the ATF to track and catch gun traffickers. And then when, predictably, tens of thousands of guns from US gun stores end up in the hands of Mexican criminals, they concoct some absurd story about how it the ATF let the guns go on purpose in order to build up a rationale for gun control.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #55)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 04:03 PM

57. "Out of context"

 

I see no deception, nothing of what is implied by "out of context."

It is raw data, stripped of the explanation (or spin) surrounding it. Raw data can be used by either side as they see fit, it must not always be placed in the context of the other side's arguments.

If it is indeed true that Justice Department officials "have since agreed that the ATF purposefully chose not to interdict guns it lawfully could have seized" it becomes no less true if one quotes that from an opponent, stripped of her arguments.

It is a serious charge to say that the Attorney General of the United States of America lied under oath, throwing honest agents under the bus and undermining the President:

Holder testified in December that "the use of this misguided tactic is inexcusable, and it must never happen again."


Either the Attorney General knows more about this than the author of the Fortune article and he is telling the truth or he apparently purjured himself by admitting intentional gunwalking as a government practice. (And that seems like an especially stupid tactic, if the facts would support him in denying it.)

Quoting the article to show that even it admits what Holder testified is legitimate, even if one strips the quotation of the arguments or spin as the case may be. Raw data stands on its own feet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #57)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 05:23 PM

58. If you look up a few posts, you will see that Oneka highlighted this part of the passage in bold

ATF purposefully chose not to interdict guns it lawfully could have seized..

This is the exact opposite of what the Fortune investigation found. It's about as severe an example of quoting something out of context that you can imagine. For example, if I said, "some people still think the world is flat, but they are idiots", and you excerpted this as "the world is flat", that would be out of context, no matter how much you argue that really you're actually quoting the "some people" and not me.

As to why Eric Holder said that, who knows. The article hints that it was done out of political expediency. That sounds plausible. Or maybe he was referring to the guns that were intentionally walked by Agent Dodson in the one incident described in the Fortune article. Or maybe there were other isolated incidents of gunwalking by rogue agents.

In any case, what the Fortune article makes clear is that F&F was actually not a "gunwalking" operation, and that the evidence used to reach this conclusion has largely been cherry-picked, first by a right-wing gun blogger, then by gun crazies thirsty for a conspiracy theory, and finally by Republicans in congress looking to score political points. The reason they let the guns "walk" is because the couldn't legally seize them, due to the absurdly weak gun laws that are currently in place.

Could the Fortune article be wrong? Of course, anything can be wrong. But so far, it is the best researched article on F&F, and it explains a lot of things that were previously unclear. It is simply impossible to intelligently discuss F&F and gun trafficking along the border while ignoring the fact that the largest culprit is the weak gun laws, and not some strange gun-running conspiracy that was hatched by a loony right-wing militia guy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #58)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 05:58 PM

60. Oneka can correct me if I'm wrong,

 

But the real authority being appealed to is "they"-- senior Justice Department officials, including Holder. The article you cited is just a convenient summarizer of some undisputed facts. The exact same points could easily have been made using direct quotations from Holder and others.

In other words, what Oneka said is not a representation of the article's position, never mind a misrepresentation.

IMO, the idea that Holder and other senior Justice Department officials agreed to systematically lie under oath, against their own interests, against their department, and against the President on camera before the American people is one of the most outlandish conspiracy theories that I have ever heard advanced in US politics.

And, with all due respect--I'm not trying to be provocative here, just honest--you are advancing this outlandish Conspiracy Theory even though you can't articulate a credible motive. You know, someone has Holder's child, there are nukes hidden in several US cities, or the like.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #60)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 06:50 PM

63. Let's try this again: we don't know why Holder said that.

Maybe he actually thought there was gunwalking. In fact, as the Fortune article pointed out, there really was at least one instance of gunwalking on the part of Dodson. Maybe there were a few more such isolated incidents. Maybe Holder figured it was easier to just say "this should never happen again" than to try and explain to Darrell Issa what actually happened. After all, it's been obvious from the beginning that this is just a witch hunt and has nothing to do with the GOP's concern about gun trafficking.

According to the article, the Justice department first said there was no gunwalking, and then they switched and said there was gunwalking. So, at least once they were wrong. Apparently a DoJ official making an incorrect statement to congress isn't all that outlandish after all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #63)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 10:59 PM

69. I think, rationally speaking, we have a very good idea why Holder said what he said. IT WAS TRUE.

 

Last edited Tue Jul 3, 2012, 12:07 AM - Edit history (1)

That's the most obvious, consistent reason why Holder reversed himself.

Maybe he actually thought there was gunwalking. In fact, as the Fortune article pointed out, there really was at least one instance of gunwalking on the part of Dodson. Maybe there were a few more such isolated incidents. Maybe Holder figured it was easier to just say "this should never happen again" than to try and explain to Darrell Issa what actually happened.


LOL!

Maybe... Maybe... Maybe...

Why don't you listen to a real authority (3:20 to 3:50):



Does it sound like he is referring to "at least one instance of gunwalking on the part of Dodson" or "a few more such isolated incidents"?

How about 5:14 to 5:47, where he talked about the "tactics" of Fast and Furious? Does that language naturally bring to your mind "at least one instance of gunwalking on the part of Dodson" or "a few more such isolated incidents"?

If Dodson and a few isolated bad apples smuggled drugs and killed rival dealers, would that make drug trafficking and murder "tactics" of an official Federal program too?

According to the article, the Justice department first said there was no gunwalking, and then they switched and said there was gunwalking. So, at least once they were wrong. Apparently a DoJ official making an incorrect statement to congress isn't all that outlandish after all.


It's hard to take this seriously. Who said that a DoJ official making an incorrect statement to Congress was outlandish? Here's what I said:

IMO, the idea that Holder and other senior Justice Department officials agreed to systematically lie under oath, against their own interests, against their department, and against the President on camera before the American people is one of the most outlandish conspiracy theories that I have ever heard advanced in US politics.


Can't you see the differences between that and making an incorrect statement by mistake?

Let me itemize the issues, since you obviously missed them earlier. For your conspiracy theory to work, we would have to believe the following:

1) Holder and other senior Justice Department officials agreed to systematically lie under oath

2) Holder and other senior Justice Department officials agreed to systematically lie against their own interests

3) Holder and other senior Justice Department officials agreed to systematically lie under oath, against the interests of their department

4) Holder and other senior Justice Department officials agreed to systematically lie under oath, against the interests of the President--their boss

5) Holder and other senior Justice Department officials agreed to sabotage themselves, their department, their subordinates, and the President on a election year

6) Holder and other senior Justice Department officials agreed to subject themselves, at least theoretically to criminal charges and prison time

7)The best reasons you can give are "Maybe...", "Maybe..." and "Maybe..."


This is the mother of all Conspiracy Theories! Conspiracy against self, against department, against subordinates, against President and boss and imperiling one's freedom, all for... what, exactly? And the idea that a Fortune reporter got further investigating this than the Attorney General of the United States, while not impossible, is far from a slam dunk.

You might like what this reporter is saying, but assuming that her piece is definitive is, to put it mildly, funny.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #69)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 07:36 AM

70. The skill you need to work on is tolerance of uncertainty.

It's really important, because once you move past the third grade, you will find that the world is full of situations like this one, where you don't have all of the facts.

People who can't reason in the face of uncertainty often tend to buy into conspiracy theories, UFOs, things like that. There is a lot of "evidence" for conspiracy theories that can't be immediately explained away, so you need to be comfortable with uncertainty. I don't know why that picture looks like an aircraft and 20 different people said they saw a bright light, but I'm still pretty sure it's not a UFO. I don't know why the pictures of the moon landing have no stars in them, but I'm pretty sure there's some explanation besides it being faked in a studio and they forgot the stars. I don't know why Obama decided to wait for so long before releasing the "long form" birth certificate, but I'm pretty sure it's not because he had to wait until his operatives had bribed enough people to get it faked. Etc.

Actually, since a government official getting something wrong in congressional testimony is not really very unusual, it's kind of surprising that your head is exploding over this. I guess the thought of losing the beloved F&F conspiracy theory strikes terror and triggers desperation. Like I said, getting something wrong doesn't imply lying -- Holder could have been mistaken. Or not -- like I also said, there actually was at least one instance of "gunwalking". We simply don't know how thorough an investigation the DoJ performed, after all, they did give two different answers to the "gunwalking" question, so they got it wrong one of those two times. What it looks like to me is that Holder's testimony was motivated by political expediency, but in the end, we don't know.

This whole incident reminds me again of that study about the difference between thought patterns of conservatives. As I've noted before, the thought patterns pro-gunners and conservatives are very similar. And this is not just because they are usually the same people, it's because the kind of propensities that would drive people towards believing the NRA line are simply more common among right-wingers. Not surprisingly, intolerance of uncertainty and ambiguity and a need for order, structure, and closure are some of the significant differentiating characteristics. This is one of the reasons why conservatives have trouble dealing with the chaotic real world in which reasoning under uncertainty is an essential skill.

Analyzing political conservatism as motivated social cognition integrates theories of personality (authoritarianism, dogmatism–intolerance of ambiguity), epistemic and existential needs (for closure, regulatory focus, terror management), and ideological rationalization (social dominance, system justification). A meta-analysis (88 samples, 12 countries, 22,818 cases) confirms that several psychological variables predict political conservatism: death anxiety (weighted mean r  .50); system instability (.47); dogmatism–intolerance of ambiguity (.34); openness to experience (–.32); uncertainty tolerance (–.27); needs for order, structure, and closure (.26); integrative complexity (–.20); fear of threat and loss (.18); and self-esteem (–.09). The core ideology of conservatism stresses resistance to change and justification of inequality and is motivated by needs that vary situationally and dispositionally to manage uncertainty and threat.


http://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/jost.glaser.political-conservatism-as-motivated-social-cog.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #70)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 09:57 AM

72. Translation:

Tpaine7,
You disagree with my point of view.
Your arguments are better than mine, and are rooted in fact,that I cannot refute.

Therefore:
You are a 3rd grader, you are intolerant,
you are a conspiracy theorist, you are a right wing ,gun lover ( they are one in the same according to research ,I found on the Internet) you are a birther,you are a moon landing denier.

Please respond , when/if you gain the life skills to do so.











As if it were really needed:



I'm quite sure I have never seen such a condescending post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #70)

Wed Jul 4, 2012, 03:26 AM

79. Do I smell a whiff of irony there?

You present some article as "The Truth about Fast & Furious," do not at any point acknowledge that there might be some doubt about that claim, and then tell other people they need to work on their "tolerance of uncertainty"? You have got to be fucking joking. Yes, I'm sure we'd all like those of us who disagree with us to doubt their side of the story while we ourselves need labor under no such requirement, but let's not pretend it'd be more than a little hypocritical to criticize others for failing to do so while feeling no compulsion to do so ourselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #60)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 08:24 PM

65. No correction neccassarry

What i have articulated here in several posts,is essentially what you summarize above. The author of this article, has proven herself to
be advancing an agenda that is IMO, nothing more then a really bad attempt at a political hatchet job.

The reason i say "really bad" is that, she opens with FACT, right from Eric Holders mouth, then spends the rest of the article attempting to tell her readers that the "FACT" didn't happen, then goes on to say, that it did happen but blames the whole fiasco on "weak gun laws".
Some here have the cognitive dissonance to fall for such "really bad" reporting , but most of us here can see through it immediately. Some hereabouts even have the gall to call me out as a conspiracy theorist, when they are the ones working with fishy unproven "facts", then go on to make weak dodges about taking real FACTS out of context, when the statements stand on their own quite
nicely.

This is the conspiracy theory in question: it is not mine however.

The conspiracy theory is that this is some orchestrated effort to intentionally arm Mexican drug cartels. As Darrell Issa put it:

Issa has alleged on Fox News that Fast and Furious is part of a liberal conspiracy to restrict gun rights: "Very clearly, made a crisis and they are using this crisis to somehow take away or limit people's Second Amendment rights."

For fairness sake , I asked him to lay out the theory, that he hung around my shoulders upthread.

But the first part of this theory:
"Very clearly, made a crisis and they are using this crisis to somehow take away or limit people's Second Amendment rights."


is supported by "FACTS" written in the article in the OP, and here. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/03/eveningnews/main20039031.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody


The second part is supported by, Demand letter 3.

So how does this statement:
The reality, as DirkGently pointed out, is that the gun laws are so weak that the ATF couldn't legally interdict the guns headed for Mexico.


Square up with,this statement:
they have since agreed that the ATF purposefully chose not to interdict guns it lawfully could have seized
.and this sworn testimony from Eric Holder:
"the use of this misguided tactic is inexcusable, and it must never happen again."


I must be missing that "context" thingy again. Maybe someone can tell me how two guys on DU have more authoritative "facts" than
congressional testimony from the highest ranking law enforcement agent in the USA?
I'm sure it's just a context thing


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #58)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 06:11 PM

61. Here are some questions:

Last edited Mon Jul 2, 2012, 08:29 PM - Edit history (1)

and no, it is not the best researched. It is the one you like the most, but it is not the best researched. It might explain a few things, but raises more questions.
What "confidential documents" did she look at? Did she have free reign, or did ATF management just hand the ones that serve their purpose?
Which ATF agents did she talk to? Again, did she have free reign and agents could talk to her openly and honestly, or were they hand picked by management. The military hand picks who gets to talk to the media or politician all of the time, why would ATF agent Voth be any different?
So, they are saying Dodson became whistleblower to cover his own ass? More likely they are trying to scapegoat Dodson.

Then she, and you, are accusing Dodson of perjury before congress.
Over the course of the next 10 months that I was involved in this operation, we monitored as they purchased hand guns, AK-47 variants, and .50 caliber rifles almost daily. Rather than conduct any enforcement actions, we took notes, we recorded observations, we tracked movements of these individuals for a short time after their purchases, but nothing more. Knowing all the while, just days after these purchases, the guns that we saw these individuals buy would begin turning up at crime scenes in the United States and Mexico, we still did nothing. I can recall, for example, watching one suspect receive a bag filled with cash from a third party then proceed to a gun dealer and purchase weapons with that cash and deliver them to this same unknown third party. Although my instincts made me want to intervene and interdict these weapons, my supervisors directed me and my colleagues not to make any stop or arrest, but rather, to keep the straw purchaser under surveillance while allowing the guns to walk. Surveillance operations like this were the rule, not the exception. This was not a matter of some weapons getting away from us, or allowing a few to walk so as to follow them to a much larger or more significant target. Allowing loads of weapons that we knew to be destined for criminals—this was the plan. It was so mandated.
I put in bold what would be a slam dunk conviction for "lying and buying"
http://tucsoncitizen.com/view-from-baja-arizona/2011/06/15/statement-of-john-dodson-about-atf-gunwalker-scandal-the-very-idea-of-letting-guns-walk-is-unthinkable-to-most-law-enforcement/


Ten weeks later, an ATF agent named John Dodson, whom Voth had supervised, made startling allegations on the CBS Evening News. He charged that his supervisors had intentionally allowed American firearms to be trafficked—a tactic known as "walking guns"—to Mexican drug cartels. Dodson claimed that supervisors repeatedly ordered him not to seize weapons because they wanted to track the guns into the hands of criminal ringleaders. The program showed internal e-mails from Voth, which purportedly revealed agents locked in a dispute over the deadly strategy. The guns permitted to flow to criminals, the program charged, played a role in Terry's death.
After the CBS broadcast, Fast and Furious erupted as a major scandal for the Obama administration. The story has become a fixture on Fox News and the subject of numerous reports in media outlets from CNN to the New York Times. The furor has prompted repeated congressional hearings—with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder testifying multiple times—dueling reports from congressional committees, and an ongoing investigation by the Justice Department's inspector general. It has led to the resignations of the acting ATF chief, the U.S. Attorney in Arizona, and his chief criminal prosecutor.

It seems that the loony right wing militia guy that started the conspiracy theory was....CBS news? Faux and others jumped on it only after CBS interviewed Dodson. It is simply impossible to intelligently discuss FF, gun and drug trafficking without having to let go of "to be a good liberal/conservative, I must believe this regardless of the evidence."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #58)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 08:43 PM

75. so this Fortune article is accusing a whisleblowing agent of

dereliction of duty and lying to congress? Is Holder going to use the article as evidence to go after Dodson for perjury? Wait, I don't think he can. I think it might be hersey. I stand by what I said, puff piece and snow job.

&feature=g-vrec

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 02:49 PM

56. I find it interesting that CBS news has also done a series of reports on Fast and Furious ...

and unlike the Fortune article these reports do not discount the possibility of an actual scandal.

If only Fox News and the NRA were publishing propaganda about the gun running scandal, I might have a different view but I always thought CBS news was a reliable source of information. It's all to easy to label this story as a "gun nut" fantasyn containing nothing but lies but it does seem to a possible basis in fact.

Documents: ATF used "Fast and Furious" to make the case for gun regulations

By Sharyl Attkisson December 7, 2011 1:44 PM

Documents obtained by CBS News show that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) discussed using their covert operation "Fast and Furious" to argue for controversial new rules about gun sales.
...emphasis added

In Fast and Furious, ATF secretly encouraged gun dealers to sell to suspected traffickers for Mexican drug cartels to go after the "big fish." But ATF whistleblowers told CBS News and Congress it was a dangerous practice called "gunwalking," and it put thousands of weapons on the street. Many were used in violent crimes in Mexico. Two were found at the murder scene of a U.S. Border Patrol agent.

ATF officials didn't intend to publicly disclose their own role in letting Mexican cartels obtain the weapons, but emails show they discussed using the sales, including sales encouraged by ATF, to justify a new gun regulation called "Demand Letter 3". That would require some U.S. gun shops to report the sale of multiple rifles or "long guns." Demand Letter 3 was so named because it would be the third ATF program demanding gun dealers report tracing information.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-57338546-10391695/documents-atf-used-fast-and-furious-to-make-the-case-for-gun-regulations/


If you took the time to read through the Fortune article I suggest you read the primer from CBS news on the "Fast and Furious" incident. I will post a couple of excerpts.

A primer on the "Fast and Furious" scandal
June 26, 2012 10:54 PM
By Sharyl Attkisson Topics Law and Order

***snip***

What's the controversy over the Justice Department's Feb. 4, 2011 letter to Sen. Grassley?

In its earliest response to Sen. Grassley's questions about the gunwalking operation, the Justice Department sent a letter that contained inaccurate information. The letter, signed by Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich, stated that ATF never "knowingly allowed the sale of assault weapons to a straw purchaser who then transported them into Mexico." Ten months later, the Justice Department withdrew the letter acknowledging that it contained inaccuracies. In April 2012, Weich announced his intention to resign from the Justice Department to become dean of the University of Baltimore Law School. Documents subpoenaed by the House Oversight Committee, but not turned over, include Justice Department communications after the Feb. 4, 2011 letter leading up to the Dec. 2011 retraction of the inaccurate letter. Republicans in Congress want to see who-knew-when that the Feb. 4 assertion denying gunwalking was false, and why it took ten months for the administration's retraction.

What law enforcement agencies were involved in "Fast and Furious"?

Records show that in addition to ATF; Immigration and Customs (ICE) under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Arizona US Attorney's office, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) played roles in Fast and Furious....emphasis added

Who is the highest-ranking official who has admitted knowing about gunwalking?

The head of the Justice Department's criminal division, Lanny Breuer, is the highest-ranking official who admits knowing that ATF had used the tactic of gunwalking early on. Breuer's deputy wrote him in April 2011 that in Wide Receiver, a case started under the Bush Administration. "ATF let a bunch of guns walk," and said it could be "embarrassing" to ATF. When those documents were made public on Oct. 31, 2011, Breuer issued a statement saying he didn't alert others in Justice Department leadership about the gunwalking, that he "regrets" not having done so, and that he likewise regretted not alerting leaders about the similarities between Wide Receiver, started in 2006, and Fast and Furious, started in 2009, at a time when the Justice Department's public position was that no gunwalking had ever occurred. Documents show two other justice officials mulled over gunwalking in Wide Receiver on Oct. 18, 2011 as they discussed the pros and cons of prosecuting the case. "It's a tricky case given the number of guns that have walked but is a significant set of prosecutions," wrote Jason Weinstein, Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division. Deputy Chief of the National Gang Unit James Trusty replied "I'm not sure how much grief we get for 'guns walking.' It may be more like, "Finally they're going after the people who sent guns down there."
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-57461204-10391695/a-primer-on-the-fast-and-furious-scandal/


Sharyl Attkisson is the investigative reporter for CBS who has been behind the CBS stories on Fast and Furious and other gun walking schemes. Just who is Sharyl Attkisson?

Sharyl Attkisson

Sharyl Attkisson is a Washington-based CBS News Investigative Correspondent.



In June 2012, Attkisson was awarded the RTNDA Edward R. Murrow Award for Excellence in Investigative Reporting for the "Gunwalker: Fast and Furious" story. Attkisson received an Investigative Emmy Award in 2009 for "Outstanding Investigative Reporting of a Business News Story" for her exclusive investigations into TARP and the bank bailout. She received an Investigative Emmy Award in 2002 for "Outstanding Investigative Journalism" for her series of exclusive reports about mismanagement at the Red Cross.

She has received two Investigative Reporters and Editors (I.R.E.) Finalist awards: "Investigating TARP" in 2009 and "Dangerous Drugs" in 2000; and two Emmy nominations in 2011 for her investigations into Congressional travel and aid to Haiti earthquake victims. She was also part of the CBS News team that received RTNDA-Edward R. Murrow Awards in 2005 and 2008 for Overall Excellence.

Attkisson has been a Washington-based correspondent for CBS News since January 1995. She is one of the few journalists to have flown in a B-52 on a combat mission in Kosovo and in an F-15 fighter jet Combat Air Patrol flight.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18564_162-524782/sharyl-attkisson/


Sharyl Attkisson

Sharyl Attkisson (born in Florida) is an investigative correspondent in the Washington bureau for CBS News. She has also substituted as anchor for the CBS Evening News.

Career

From 1990 to 1993, Attkisson was an anchor for CNN. She left CNN in 1993, moving to CBS, where she anchored the television news broadcast CBS News Up to the Minute and became an investigative correspondent based in Washington D.C. She simultaneously hosted the PBS Health news magazine HealthWeek from 1997 to 2003. She was also a key anchor for CBS space exploration coverage in 1993. In 2002, Attkisson co-authored a college textbook titled Writing Right for Broadcast and Internet News . She served as Capitol Hill correspondent for CBS in 2006. In 2006, she was one of a small number of female anchors covering the 2006 midterms.

Awards and nominations

In 2001, Attkisson received an Investigative Emmy Award nomination for "Firestone Tire Fiasco" from the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences. In 2002, Attkisson also won an Emmy Award for her Investigative Journalism about the American Red Cross. The award was presented in New York City on Sept. 10, 2002. In 2003, Attkisson was nominated for an Outstanding Investigative Journalism Emmy Award for "Drugs, Money, and Safety"; prescription drugs and vaccines. In 2009, Attkisson won an Investigative Emmy Award for Business and Financial Reporting for her exclusive reports on TARP and the bank bailout. The award was presented on Dec. 7, at Fordham University's Lincoln Center Campus in New York City. In 2010, Attkisson received an Emmy Award nomination for her investigations into members of Congress, and she also received a 2010 Emmy Award nomination for her investigation into waste of tax dollars. In July 2011, Attkisson was nominated for an Emmy Award for her "Follow the Money" investigations into Congressional travel to the Copenhagen climate summit, and aid to Haiti earthquake victims. In 2012, CBS News accepted an Investigative Reporting Award given to Attkisson's reporting on ATF's "Fast and Furious" gunwalker controversy. The award was from the conservative media watchdog group "Accuracy in Media" and was presented at the Conservative Political Action Conference. In June 2012, Attkisson's investigative reporting for the "Gunwalker" story also won the CBS Evening News the Radio and Television News Directors Association's National Edward R. Murrow Award for Excellence in Video Investigative Reporting. The award will be presented Oct. 8, 2012 in New York City.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharyl_Attkisson


I suggest that when an investigative reporter for a major news organization with the background and awards that Sharyl Attkisson has received focuses her attention on an incident such as "Fast and Furious" there might be not only smoke but fire.

This story is beginning to gain momentum and there does appear to be a steady drip of new information to keep it alive. Since the facts will not come out until after the election, I can't see any reason for the Republicans to focus on it. It detracts from their best issue which is the state of the economy and will only fire up the Republican base which feels Obama plans to instate another "assault weapons" ban. Those voters will show up at the polls to foolishly vote for Romney who is no friend of gun owners so there is little gain for the Republicans and indeed the issue might cause more Democrats who support Eric Holder to vote against Romney on election day. It appears to me that this issue is a net loss for Republicans. Perhaps that is why the Republican speaker of the House was reluctant to peruse the contempt ruling against Eric Holder.

One of the reasons that I voted for Obama is that I felt his administration would be far more transparent then previous administrations. Perhaps Obama has good reason to claim executive privilege but since at the worst (at this time) "Fast and Furious" appears to be a minor scandal that could have been resolved quickly with a just a little embarrassment it doesn't make sense that he would invoke this privilege.

I don't wish to compare "Fast and Furious" to the Watergate scandal but it is true that "Fast and Furious" not only involves the death of a border patrol agent it also may have caused several hundred deaths in Mexico. It's impossible to say but if the scandal does have legs and grows it might negatively impact the second Obama term if there is indeed a coverup.

I feel that as a Democrat we are fortunate to have the support of most of the mainstream media because had "Fast and Furious" been uncovered under a Republican Administration it would have received far more attention in the media. However the media can be fickle and may well value profit over values if it senses in the future that covering this story might increase their bottom line profits.

I also don't wish to view myself as a hypocrite. I would have been infuriated had this story broke under a Republican administration. I expect my party to have even higher standards than I do of Republicans. That's why I am a Democrat!

I will agree that this incident is being played for political gain by both Democrats and Republicans. Unfortunately unlike so many other political issues many people have died and families are suffering the consequences.

I hate to mention this but could there be a possibility of CIA involvement in this incident? Could they, once again, be playing games in foreign nations to support their friends? It's highly unlikely but I keep remembering Iran-Contra and many other incidents. While I have always loved conspiracy theories I also love to debunk them. Unfortunately some are factual.

As an American citizen and as a Democrat, I personally feel our citizens should know exactly what led to this fiasco called "Fast and Furious." The investigation should be through and detailed and it should also deal with similar programs during prior administrations. Let the chips fall where they may.

If democracy and freedom and the way our government conducts its policy are important to us we need to know how and why these poorly conceived gun running programs came to be. We have a major problem here as many deaths have occurred and we need to know how to prevent it from happening again in the future.

We hold ourselves up as a shining beacon to the world. If we wish to live up to that lofty ideal we have to hold ourselves accountable for our mistakes. At this time I feel an independent, nonpartisan investigation of this incident is warranted.
















Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #56)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 05:58 PM

59. What I find interesting is that the very mention of guns "causing deaths"...

...invariably produces a unison cry of "GUNZ DONT KILL PEEPULZ" from the NRA crowd. And yet, somehow, when it comes to the Fast and Furious conspiracy theories, suddenly these same pro-gunners have no trouble blaming the death of Brian Terry squarely on the ATF.

In a way, it is refreshing to see pro-gunners agree that guns cause deaths, even if the only reason they are doing so is because they love strange conspiracy theories even more than they love repeating mantras. I'm not sure how they survive what I can only imagine is a life-threatening attack of cognitive dissonance that results from blaming guns for death only in the special case of guns that came from F&F, but I guess this is a step closer to sanity from their usual full-on denial.

The reality is that, when it comes to guns on the Mexican border, our weak gun laws are responsible for far more deaths than even the wildest Fast & Furious conspiracy theories could even hope to aspire to. As the Fortune article demonstrates, while there may have been an isolated case of gunwalking here or there by rogue agents like Dodson, the lack of effective gun laws is systematically allowing traffickers to get away with guns by the thousands, and preventing the ATF from legally seizing guns that are pretty clearly headed for Mexico. To even attempt to discuss F&F and gun trafficking without mentioning the gross inadequacy of our gun laws is simply dishonest.

It's not a surprise that the NRA crowd prefers the conspiracy angle to the facts. But this may turn out badly for the right-wingers. Any sane person who looks at the situation objectively, will quickly come to wonder why, for example, we don't actually have a statute against gun trafficking, despite the fact that numerous ATF officials have pointed out that this is needed to really slow or stop the flow of guns.

When the only people talking about F&F were teabaggers and militia members, things were a bit different, but the more mainstream attention this gets, the more the NRA types look like birthers with their devotion to crazy conspiracies, and the more they risk people wising up to just how many poeople are dying due the the fact that the gun lobby has been blocking badly need gun laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #59)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 06:32 PM

62. Guns don't kill people; guns don't cause deaths.

 

(With rare exceptions involving defects.)

However, anyone choosing to arm criminal gangs is responsible for empowering them--the criminal gangs, not the weapons--to kill innocent people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #59)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 07:41 PM

64. I don't feel that many gun owners would say that allowing firearms to end up in the hands ...

of criminal drug gangs in Mexico would not result in their misuse and consequently cause death. It wasn't the firearms that caused the killings, it was the people who pulled the trigger on the firearms. Firearms are inanimate objects that merely function in the hands of a human.

You also have to realize that American gun stores are not supplying the drug cartels in Mexico with many of the weapons that they use. Fully automatic firearms which are common weapons used by the Mexican drug cartels are tightly controlled in the United States and generally they are not available at mom and pop gun stores in the United States. Nor are grenades and rocket launchers.

Mexican Cartels Get Heavy Weapons from Central America, U.S. Cables Say

MEXICO CITY – The most fearsome weapons wielded by Mexico’s drug cartels enter the country from Central America, not the United States, according to U.S. diplomatic cables disseminated by WikiLeaks and published on Tuesday by La Jornada newspaper.

Items such as grenades and rocket-launchers are stolen from Central American armies and smuggled into Mexico via neighboring Guatemala, the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City reported to Washington.

The assertions appear in embassy cables written after three bilateral conferences on arms trafficking that took place between March 2009 and January 2010 in Cuernavaca, Mexico; Phoenix; and Tapachula, Mexico, respectively.

***snip***

Yet one of the cables maintains that 90 percent of the heavy armament Mexican security forces seize from cartel gunmen comes from Central America.
http://www.laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=390473&CategoryId=14091


Drug cartels' new weaponry means war
Narcotics traffickers are acquiring firepower more appropriate to an army -- including grenade launchers and antitank rockets -- and the police are feeling outgunned.

By Ken Ellingwood and Tracy Wilkinson March 15, 2009


***snip***

The Feb. 21 attack on police headquarters in coastal Zihuatanejo, which injured four people, fit a disturbing trend of Mexico's drug wars. Traffickers have escalated their arms race, acquiring military-grade weapons, including hand grenades, grenade launchers, armor-piercing munitions and antitank rockets with firepower far beyond the assault rifles and pistols that have dominated their arsenals.

Most of these weapons are being smuggled from Central American countries or by sea, eluding U.S. and Mexican monitors who are focused on the smuggling of semiauto- matic and conventional weapons purchased from dealers in the U.S. border states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California.

The proliferation of heavier armaments points to a menacing new stage in the Mexican government's 2-year-old war against drug organizations, which are evolving into a more militarized force prepared to take on Mexican army troops, deployed by the thousands, as well as to attack each other.

These groups appear to be taking advantage of a robust global black market and porous borders, especially between Mexico and Guatemala. Some of the weapons are left over from the wars that the United States helped fight in Central America, U.S. officials said.

These groups appear to be taking advantage of a robust global black market and porous borders, especially between Mexico and Guatemala. Some of the weapons are left over from the wars that the United States helped fight in Central America, U.S. officials said.


U.S. role in arming Mexico's drug war exaggerated: study


By Stephanie Nebehay GENEVA | Thu Oct 27, 2011 1:47pm EDT


(Reuters) - Mexico's hardline fight against drug gangs has driven violence to levels higher in than many war zones but the role the United States plays in arming these brutal cartels appears exaggerated, independent arms researchers said on Thursday.

***snip***

He said only 30 percent of an estimated 100,000 weapons confiscated in Mexico each year are sent by authorities to the United States for identification on suspicion of having crossed the long, porous border.

Of these, 80 percent turn out to be U.S.-made but that does not mean that 80 percent of the overall total of arms seized in Mexico are of U.S. origin, as is often claimed, he said.

***snip***

He said seizures and photographs suggest significant quantities of military-style weapons such as grenades and even rocket launchers, were not coming across the U.S. border but coming from surplus stocks in places such as Guatemala or even from other official sources in Mexico itself.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/27/us-arms-violence-idUSTRE79Q57620111027


Obviously it serves the purpose of those who would like to see another assault weapons ban or gun registration to claim that guns from mom and pop gun stores are the primary armament of the drug cartels in Mexico. However this is untrue as the weapons come from many sources. I will admit that the straw purchase of firearms in our nation does indeed occur and the result is the smuggling of firearms to both Mexico and the streets of our cities.

I will agree that we need to better enforce existing laws and possibly increase the punishment for anyone involved in the straw purchase of firearms or their smuggling. I also believe that the goal of stopping the drug wars in Mexico is important as the violence there will eventually lead to similar violence in our own nation.

I don't believe that another assault weapons ban will stop the wars in Mexico nor will any draconian laws in our nation that effect only honest gun owners. If such laws would accomplish this goal, I would support them despite my views that favor gun rights for civilians.

I personally feel we would be far better off if we just reconsidered continuing our failed War on Drugs. Just as with our experience in prohibiting alcohol from 1920 to 1933, the War on Drugs has backfired and led to the creation of powerful criminal gangs that are terrorizing Mexico and our nation. We had the commonsense to stop a foolish effort in 1933 and once again legalize alcohol. We need to rediscover that same commonsense today and legalize some drugs such as Marijuana. Obviously there will be drawbacks as drugs are dangerous just as alcohol is, but we may live in a far more peaceful society.

I look more for results than to support my personal beliefs. If furthering the goals of gun control groups such as the Brady Campaign and other gun control advocates would actually accomplish something positive I would support such efforts. I feel that enforcing our laws is the correct goal and have no problem with tweaking them to accomplish that result but I definitely feel that when our government decides to bypass our laws and deliver dangerous firearms to Mexican drug gangs is a foolish plan and deserves a serious investigation as to motives.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to gejohnston (Reply #76)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 10:02 PM

77. *That* will be ignored, as it doesn't fit the meme being pushed in the OP.

Last edited Tue Jul 3, 2012, 11:31 PM - Edit history (1)

As an aside, did anyone else notice the author's apparent ignorance of the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the ITAR treaty?

passing a law specifically against gun trafficking


http://www.democraticunderground.com/117245461#post44

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117245461#post50

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117245461#post59


In gun control circles, it would seem deliberate ignorance is a positive virtue...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #77)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 10:09 PM

78. But... but... but... Rhodes Scholar... climate change denial... gun bloggers... right wing

 

conspiracies...

Have you taken that into account?!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #77)

Wed Jul 4, 2012, 01:26 PM

80. LOOK ME IN THE EYE..

you are feeling VEEEERRRRRYYYY SSSSLLLLEEEEEEEEPPPPYYYY<>>>>

Your eyelids are getting VVVVEEEERRRRYYYY HHHHEEEEAAAAVVVVYYYY>>>>>>

As you drift off to sleep you are feeling VERY relaxed , very sleepy, your arms become limp and loose as you drift off farther deeper.....


NOW,, when you awaken you will only remember this:

The skill you need to work on is tolerance of uncertainty.


It's really important, because once you move past the third grade, you will find that the world is full of situations like this one, where you don't have all of the facts.



Only the facts that I present have any value whatsoever, all other facts are to be questioned as outright lies.

When i count to three, you will wake up with a renewed sense of wellbeing, you will in fact feel better then ever before.
when you wake up you will believe only the facts that i present,

ONE;
When you wake up you will feel the urge to throw away any cigarettes, you own, in fact they will taste terrible and you may want to throw away your spouses cigarettes. only my facts are really facts.

TWO;

When you awaken you will feel the urge to quit drinking,, and only my facts are important

THREE:
you will awaken NOW and forget all i have said here but will have the deep seated fear of any objective Fast and Furious facts, unless they are prestented by, Rhodes scholar "Fortune" reporters, or me.


WAKE UP!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Wed Aug 1, 2012, 09:59 PM

83. An opposing view from someone in the House oversight comittee ,long read, but informative.

Unfortunately, the numerous errors and omissions in the article left such a misleading impression, that it was necessary to set the record straight




http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/7-31-12-FF-Part-I-FINAL-Appendix-III.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oneka (Reply #83)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 07:30 AM

85. LOL. "someone in the House oversight committee" = Darrell Issa

So not only are you citing a piece of right-wing propaganda by a guy pushing a conspiracy theory against the Obama administration, you actually try to pretend that this is some kind of non-partisan "opposing view" by "someone" rather than a GOP hit piece.

I guess pretty soon you are going to be citing the Paul Ryan budged as an "informative opposing view" by "someone" on the question of whether we should cut taxes on the wealthy and pay for it by slashing medicare...

Are you a Republican in real life, or do you just play one on DU?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #85)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 11:55 AM

86. one has supporting evidence, the other only claims it.

You have no evidence that it came from Issa, or any other Republican for that matter. Much of what the writer claimed is contradicted by sworn testimony and documented, and public, evidence. At no point does the report claim that the WH is part of any Nixonian conspiracy. It only shows that the AUSA was derelict in his duty to prosecute easily proven trafficking cases. It shows Voth as an idiot. If one of those "confidential documents" was in fact Dodson's, or any other whistle-blowers, personnel file, Voth should also fact appropriate criminal civil sanctions for violating privacy laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #86)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 01:24 PM

87. No evidence it came from Issa? Are you joking?

It's the appendix to the report titled "Fast and Furious: The Anatomy of a Failed Operation", by Issa and Grassley. Yet again, you and the rest of the NRA crowd are siding with the Republicans and teabaggers and ignoring the facts.

http://oversight.house.gov/release/congressional-investigators-release-first-part-of-final-joint-report-on-operation-fast-and-furious/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #87)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 02:32 PM

88. you are ignoring facts, backed up by evidence presented

that refutes every bit of that whistle-blower retaliation nonsense. Not claimed to have seen "confidential documents" including records that Eban had no legitimate right to have access to.
It has nothing to do with the NRA or Tea Party. As chairs of the committee, their names are going to be on it. Sounds like you are the one being dogmatic and ignoring the facts. The facts are these:
The AUSA failed to do his job, and he lost his job. That is how it should be.
Voth fucked up and tried to retaliate against whistle-blowers, following the same pattern used by corporations. Eban was a freelance writer who was used as a mouthpiece.
I'm not siding with anyone. I am siding against Voth for not only be an idiot that got caught, tried to retaliate against whistle-blowers, and apparently give unauthorized people access to documents including personnel records. I don't know about the ATF, but if it were the military, Voth would be in the world of shit for violating the Privacy Act. If he gave Eban access to those records, without Dodson's permission (apparently, that is how she found Dodson's ex-wife) then Voth or Newell should be nailed for it. Simple as that. In my world view, there is only right and wrong. I don't give a fuck if it serves a partisan interest or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #88)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 03:06 PM

89. Your interlocutor relies on the argument from authority, and its flipside the genetic fallacy.

As for the first, where the Rhodes Scholarship of the author cited is claimed to be a sign of credibility:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117246555#post14

there's an easy and obvious rejoinder: Jonah Lehrer

For the second, I see much squawking about Republicans, Paul Ryan, and teabaggers but no actual refutation of the claims made in the linked document, save carping about the source.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #89)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 03:24 PM

91. The irony...

The whole reason I quoted Katherine Eban's credentials is because I was responding to a clueless pro-gunner who attacked the report for being published in Fortune, rather than, as you put it, attempting to refute the actual claims. In fact, so far, nobody has come close to refuting anything from the Fortune report, least of all your hero Darrell Issa.

The Rhodes scholar thing was just funny to me, as a contrast to the anti-intellectualism and uneducatedness that is so typical of the NRA crowd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #91)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 05:14 PM

92. All the better reason for you to detail the factual errors in the linked *.pdf

If it is inaccurate, it would strengthen your arguments against Issa, et al, would it not?

(added on edit) God knows I'm certainly ready to take after the VPC or the Brady Campaign when they issue forth with a clanger, so it would only be fair for Issa to get the same treatment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #88)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 03:17 PM

90. Wow, you are even more clueless than I thought!

Do you really think that this is a non-partisan document, and that the names of Issa and Grassley just happen to be on it because they are the committee chairs? LOL.

None of your "facts" are actual facts. This is just standard partisan politics: a detailed investigative report comes out with evidence that refutes some of the misinformation that the GOP has been peddling about F&F, and so they issue a propaganda document purporting to discredit the report.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #90)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 09:46 PM

93. Project much?

I know how to go to the supporting documents to see if the citation supports the claim. I also know giving some freelance writer access to personnel records or records that are classified or For Official Use Only is a crime. She makes a lot claims with subjective language, but I'm not seeing anything to back it up. Simply saying "I investigated" doesn't cut it. She accused Dodson and other whistle blowers of committing felonies, I hope she can back it up. If Dodson is anything like me, her lawyer would be meeting my lawyer. Voth would be meeting my lawyer for violating the Privacy Act by giving her access to personnel records, or any personal information, without his permission.

Do you really think that this is a non-partisan document, and that the names of Issa and Grassley just happen to be on it because they are the committee chairs? LOL.
No, but I do read the cited sources. That is the difference. That is what scientific minded people do. I spent enough years writing similar reports, with footnotes for source documents.

None of your "facts" are actual facts. This is just standard partisan politics: a detailed investigative report comes out with evidence that refutes some of the misinformation that the GOP has been peddling about F&F, and so they issue a propaganda document purporting to discredit the report.
No, go to the primary source documents that are attached. That is the evidence.

I'm supposed to ignore that for claimed evidence, not presented but claimed, based on information from a whistle blower target? If this evidence is real, let's see the primary sources. Oh yeah, they were "confidential", as in she had no legal right to see them. When is Eban going to include copies of these documents she had access to? Oh wait, that would cause a world of shit like someone going to jail or getting the shit sued out of them. Or are they simply claims made on Voth's lawyer's stationary? Is Dodson's personnel folder part of those records? For her and Voth's sake, better not be. Like I said, that is violating the Privacy Act.
You don't know subjective language from what primary source documents? Can't help you other than suggest you take a high school comp class. Maybe taking a critical thinking class would help too.

So once again, you use call names, use logical fallacies and can't point to anything to support her or your claims.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #90)


Response to DanTex (Reply #90)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 01:54 AM

95. Well, then- get busy fisking the document linked in post #83. Point out the errors.

Turning up the volume on your complaints about the source(s) isn't cutting it...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #95)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 06:46 AM

96. Sorry, I'm not going through 300 pages of right-wing propaganda...

...just to point out each and every flaw to kool-aid drinkers like yourself. The few pages I read were just the same tired talking points, and nothing to cast any doubt on the Fortune report.

The point here is that the pro-gunners are once again citing right-wing sources (and then trying to deny it... LOL). If there were any truth to the pro-gun dogma, you'd be able to cite something that doesn't come from the likes of Darrell Issa from time to time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #96)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 08:43 AM

97. you don't know the difference between a magazine article and a report?

You really are ideologically blind or fucking clueless. The first red flag on the article was that she was given access to "confidential documents" that she had no authorization to see. If fact, her access violated laws. Cummings would have authorized access. The Democrats did not write any thing based on any of these documents. That in itself casts doubt. Subjective language in describing people, the way one would in fiction, is also a red flag.

The now former AUSA you are defending, along with Voth, is a Bush appointee who was sent there to look for "voter fraud". Based on the congressional report, which is based on sworn testimony and other documented evidence, is either lazy or corrupt. Voth is just a dim wit covering his ass.
What dogma? The ATF fucked up?
The cited sources does not come from Issa or Grassely, they come from the original authors. That is most of the 300 pages. You could also just skip to the part that debunks the hit piece. Here is one, can you back up any of her claims from another source that isn't political propaganda?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #97)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 08:56 AM

98. Ooh! Terminology!

Yes, Virginia, an investigative reporter managed to get access to confidential documents. Also, she decided not to take the word of a rogue agent who had an axe to grind against his boss, and instead talked to the other people involved. I'm sure it would be easier for you if everyone just swallowed everything that the GOP fed them, but fortunately, not everyone lives inside the NRA bubble.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigative_journalism

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #98)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 11:08 AM

99. In other words, substance and logic are not your strong suit

but bullshit is.
can she provide the documents?
How did she obtain the documents? None of those are public records. Read the Wiki page closer, investigative reporters have use public records. She has no subpoena powers, so she had to depend on someone leaking them to her, risking their job or freedom. The leaker can pick and choose the documents they hand out. In this case, it is an incompetent agent in charge with an axe to grind. She said she talked to these other people, more people that were involved such as Dodson's ex wife. Again, a lead gained by the leaker committing a crime to serve his own purpose.

I'm missing the ideological angle to this. This is a standard whistle blower case where an incompetent agent in charge gets busted, and tries to retaliate against the whistle blowers. It not as Alex Jones claims, a plot to pass stricter gun laws. Or is it a CIA plot to give one of the cartels the upperhand. But then, I never quite understood what passes for thought in the Brady bubble.

I'm sure it would be easier for you if everyone just swallowed everything that the GOP fed them, but fortunately, not everyone lives inside the NRA bubble.
You really don't think do you? Why isn't Cummings using any of these documents in the Democratic report? He has every legal right to them, and make them public to support his case. Write and ask his staff. If Dodson committed the felonies Eban and you claim, I'm certain Cummings would jump at exposing him and embarrass Issa.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #99)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 01:14 PM

100. LOL. You are slowly going off the deep end on this one.

Getting more entertaining by the post. Anyway, enjoy your conspiracy theories and your Darrell Issa reports, which I'm sure sit very nicely with your utter ignorance of the way either investigative reporting or partisan politics work. Whatever it takes to keep believing the NRA story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #100)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 01:33 PM

103. what conspiracy theory?

I have not endorsed nor advanced any conspiracy theory. You seem to have the unlikely and absurd conspiracy theory.

which I'm sure sit very nicely with your utter ignorance of the way either investigative reporting or partisan politics work.
I know very well how investigative reporting works, certainly more than you. I also know, far more than you, about confidential government documents and how and why they are released. Any document marked "For Official Use Only" or classified document, could not be legally obtained. Voth did not have the authority to release them to anyone, certainly not someone claiming to be an investigative reporter. Personnel records can not be released either. The only person on the planet that has the authority to let anyone see his personnel record, outside of his chain of command, is Dodson himself. But you claim to be an expert on everything, when you can't make your point.
It is kind of amusing when you can't address or refute the substance of anything. You call the other person ignorant or stupid while not having the slightest clue what you are talking about. Let's try this:
Can you address a single point I made?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #103)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 01:45 PM

105. Your "points" are completely divorced from reality.

Starting out with your claim that Issa and Grassley didn't actually write the report that had their names on the cover of it (OK, their staffs probably wrote it...) and your bizarre denial that this was a partisan report written by Republicans with political intentions, on to your strange theories about confidential documents and investigative journalism, your insistence that a piece of investigative journalism should be called an "article" rather than a "report", what you hypothetically think that Cummings would or should have done in your alternate reality universe, and so on.

The fact of the matter is that Katherine Eban, for the first time, did a thorough job of interviewing a whole bunch of people associated with F&F, to get a complete and accurate picture of what was going on, and she also obtained a large number of documents, some (but not all) of which she made public. Yes, of course it's possible that she's lying or she got tricked or she's an anti-gun stooge or whatever other unlikely theory that you manage to convince yourself of in order to justify your devotion to Darrell Issa's witch hunt, but like I said over and over again, outside the NRA bubble, you have yet to make a single cogent point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #105)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 02:25 PM

108. you have no idea how the system works

, on to your strange theories about confidential documents and investigative journalism, your insistence that a piece of investigative journalism should be called an "article" rather than a "report", what you hypothetically think that Cummings would or should have done in your alternate reality universe, and so on.
What strange theories are those? Partisan or not, they have documents to back up their claims. I know how the system works, and the laws governing official documents. Since the article only uses the unofficial term "confidential", I am left to assume they refer to administrative markings like FOUO (or a DoJ equivalent) or is actually classified as CONFIDENTIAL. At the same time, Dodson claims that Eban contacted his ex wife, getting her address from Dodson's personnel record.
In November 2011, Agent Dodson contacted
Congressional investigators to advise them that a reporter named Katherine Eban had contacted
his ex-wife. Ms. Eban was inquiring about the circumstances of Dodson’s divorce, apparently
based on information in Agent Dodson’s ATF personnel file
If that is true, it was obtained without Dodson's permission, violating the Privacy Act. If someone did that to me in the Air Force, they would be in jail.

Either way, a felony was committed because both are exempt by FOIA. I have processed for FOIA requests than you. I also spent enough time dealing with and writing such documents, FOUO through SECRET, to know what I am talking about. I find it strange that someone who doesn't seen to know anything on that aspect of government bureaucracy would describe explanations based on actual knowledge as "strange theories". Ask Pvt Manning about those strange theories. What do you think the charges against him actually are? Disclosing classified information to unauthorized persons.
Look up the Privacy Act. It is an article in a magazine. I don't know what Cummings should or should not do, I do know what I would do if I were in his position.


The fact of the matter is that Katherine Eban, for the first time, did a thorough job of interviewing a whole bunch of people associated with F&F, to get a complete and accurate picture of what was going on, and she also obtained a large number of documents, some (but not all) of which she made public.
You can think whatever you want. She only quoted two people, including Voth. She did not make any documents public, she included excerpts from documents that were already public. We only have her word for it. The whole article makes Voth look like Mr. Squared Away Marine and the rest of the crew as a mess that needs to be cleaned up. The whole article actually reminds me of the movie Heartbreak Ridge. It has the same basic plot.

Yes, of course it's possible that she's lying or she got tricked or she's an anti-gun stooge or whatever other unlikely theory that you manage to convince yourself of in order to justify your devotion to Darrell Issa's witch hunt, but like I said over and over again, outside the NRA bubble, you have yet to make a single cogent point.
Pro or anti gun has nothing to do with it. It is a standard whistle blower case. Issa might have decided to turn it into a witch hunt, but I'm talking about Voth. It started with a group of whistle blowers rolling over on Voth's stupidity. Where Issa or anyone else decided to take it is beside the point. If anyone has failed to make a single cogent point, it is you because you have no idea what you are talking about. If name calling is "cogent" by your definition, then I can understand why you didn't make the debate team.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #108)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 02:40 PM

111. This is hilarious, coming from the guy who didn't think that Darrell Issa authored of the...

...Issa-Grassley report. Do you remember this?

You have no evidence that it came from Issa, or any other Republican for that matter.


As usual, you're just going to pretend that didn't happen, along with the other absurd things you've said so far this thread. Your strategy seems to be to simply write whatever crazy thing that comes to mind, and then when you are proven wrong simply ignore it and move on to the next crazy thing in the hopes that you'll eventually get something right just by accident.

Anyway, you obviously have no clue how investigative reporting works. I'll take your word about how man FOIA requests you've made, but it doesn't seem to have helped your understanding of either reporting or government processes. And, most important, you have yet to make any kind of substantive criticism of the Eban report that anyone outside the NRA bubble would take seriously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #111)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 02:48 PM

113. I was seeing if you could back something you said up

and not relevant.


As usual, you're just going to pretend that didn't happen, along with the other absurd things you've said so far this thread. Your strategy seems to be to simply write whatever crazy thing that comes to mind, and then when you are proven wrong simply ignore it and move on to the next crazy thing in the hopes that you'll eventually get something right just by accident.
What absurd things are those? All you are doing is ranting incoherently. You have proven nothing I was was wrong. I have proven you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

Anyway, you obviously have no clue how investigative reporting works. I'll take your word about how man FOIA requests you've made, but it doesn't seem to have helped your understanding of either reporting or government processes. And, most important, you have yet to make any kind of substantive criticism of the Eban report that anyone outside the NRA bubble would take seriously.
Actually I do. Learn to read, I did not say I made any FOIA requests. I said I processed FOIA requests made by others. No understanding of government processes? That was funny. I know far more than you do. Look let's be blunt. You like to pretend you know more than everyone else, even on things you have no fucking clue what you are talking about. Kind of reminds me of Walter Mitty.
What do you know about investigative reporting or government processes? Or laws and regulations concerning government documents?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #113)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 02:56 PM

114. Well, at the very least I know that the Issa-Grassley report...

...was a partisan document, written by Issa, Grassley, and their staffs. It was not, as you suggested, an apolitical document:
As chairs of the committee, their names are going to be on it.


Now, what I don't know is how someone who doesn't understand that can claim to understand government processes. Maybe you'll enlighten me. Or you can just keep ignoring this point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #114)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 03:18 PM

116. Where is Cumming's document saying it is full of shit?

Other than holding Holder in contempt. What in the supporting documents contradicts what Grassley approved in the report? Staffs write reports, the head guy signs it. Partisan or not, they have the sworn testimony and documents to back it up.

Now, how did Eban get those records? If I were accusing whistle blowers of felonies, including giving false testimony to congress, I would have a lot more to back it up than what she provided. At least I know a snow job and retaliation against whistle blowers when I see it. Why Eban wrote it, doesn't really matter to me. That said, if I were on of the whistle blowers, my lawyers would be finding out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #116)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 03:42 PM

119. What are you talking about?

Cummings's document saying it is full of shit? What? Are you just making things up now? And by "now" I mean "again"...

Also, as the Eban report pointed out, the right-wing has been conveniently cherry-picking the evidence from the beginning, and this latest report that you admire so much is no different in that regard. In short, the evidence does not actually back up what Issa is saying, no matter how much you keep repeating that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #119)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 03:51 PM

120. Where is Cumming's document contradicting Issa's?

Still looking for it. Do I have to spell out everything and be that specific because you can't put a sentence in context of what is being said?

Also, as the Eban report pointed out, the right-wing has been conveniently cherry-picking the evidence from the beginning, and this latest report that you admire so much is no different in that regard. In short, the evidence does not actually back up what Issa is saying, no matter how much you keep repeating that.
The evidence I read says she cherry picked. I don't admire it, simply have to look at the stronger of the two and deal with it. Since you admitted that you did not read the report beyond a few pages, I'm guessing you didn't compare what was claimed with the evidence provided. That being the case, you don't have the slightest idea what it says and you are making assumptions or making shit up.

So, when does the trial start? Eban accused Dodson and other whistle blowers of felonies, and has all of these documents to prove it. When are those thousands of documents going to get dumped on some US attorney's desk? Yeah, you avoid that don't you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #120)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 04:22 PM

123. You should ask Cummings that question. And ask the US attorneys about the documents and the trials.

And when you're done, you should go back and read this post of mine about reasoning under uncertainty. My guess is that the Dems just want to steer clear of the issue in order to not rile up people like you and the teabaggers, who are likely to believe loony conspiracy theories with no evidence to back them up. But that's just a guess. Fortunately, unlike you, I am capable of reasoning under uncertainty:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117246555#post70

Anyway, what I do know is that the evidence available supports Eban, and that Issa and Grassley have been routinely cherry-picking the evidence to build a misleading case. Let's not forget, Issa is on the record (on your favorite pro-gun TV network) supporting the conspiracy theory that this whole thing was a ploy to pass gun control laws. No, I haven't read the entire Issa-Grassley report (and neither have you), but what I did read is just the same distortions and half-truths that I've come to expect from the GOP. I'm not going to read all 300 (or whatever) pages of this junk, just on the off chance that some key fact is hidden on page 189.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #123)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 04:43 PM

124. I can reason under uncertainty quite well

I can also set aside my opinion of Issa and read the supporting evidence, which is something you can't do. I don't know about any teabaggers, but I wouldn't get riled up at all if they prove their case because it doesn't have a thing to do with guns or gun laws. It was about a Bush appointed AUSA not doing his job and Voth not going to another US Attorney or even to a local DA. You keep mentioning loony conspiracy theories, but I have not said I supported one. What are these theories? Other than saying Voth is a fuck up and is covering his ass, I don't believe I said anything that could reasonably be described as loony.

Anyway, what I do know is that the evidence available supports Eban, and that Issa and Grassley have been routinely cherry-picking the evidence to build a misleading case.
no it doesn't. It contradicts Eban, even the documents she quotes from when you read the entire document.


Let's not forget, Issa is on the record (on your favorite pro-gun TV network) supporting the conspiracy theory that this whole thing was a ploy to pass gun control laws.
I don't have cable, and I wouldn't waste my time with Faux, I'm guessing that is what you are referring to, so I don't know what Issa said. Someone on Pacifica might have said the ATF was working with the CIA helping one of the cartels for all I know. It is a simple case of Voth and Newell being fuck ups, getting caught, and retaliating against the whistle blowers, no more no less. Happens in corporations on a regular basis. Doesn't have a thing to with Holder, gun laws or anything else. That being the case, I fail to see why you are defending Voth, Newell, and Bush appointee Hurley.


No, I haven't read the entire Issa-Grassley report (and neither have you), but what I did read is just the same distortions and half-truths that I've come to expect from the GOP. I'm not going to read all 300 (or whatever) pages of this junk, just on the off chance that some key fact is hidden on page 189.
Actually I have read the whole thing, and all of the supporting documents, including the ones Eban cherry picked in her article.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #124)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 05:31 PM

125. Really? You read the whole thing? Well, I have a question.

How can a person who claims to have read the entire Issa-Grassley report say this about it?

You have no evidence that it came from Issa, or any other Republican for that matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #125)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 06:34 PM

126. because I figured you didn't read it

and I figured you would dismiss it without looking. Notice I didn't say it wasn't. I said "you have no evidence" Understand that now? Didn't think so. Regardless of what Issa was hoping to find, what it amounts to is this:
Bush appointed AUSA Hurley didn't want to be bothered with easy to prove federal level trafficking charges, including the ones the gun dealers reported as possible straw purchasers.
Voth and Newell decided not to go to a different AUSA or a local prosecutor and dreamed up this stupid scheme, maybe in good faith maybe not, doesn't matter.
Dodson and others was blown off by their chain of command before going to CBS.
Voth and Newell begin retribution

Issa decides to make a partisan "it is about Holder being a gun grabber" while the other side rant about Arizona law, which is irrelevant since we are talking about feds enforcing federal law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #96)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 01:21 PM

101. You don't address the substance of what's said, but complain about the source? Genetic fallacy...

...of the purest ray serene.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #101)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 01:28 PM

102. LOL. You sure know your logic buzzwords!

Apparently, your crowning achievement in life was being a third-string member of your junior high debate team. It gets a little old though... wake me up the first time you make a substantive argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #102)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 01:35 PM

104. where is yours?

Ours has more substance than yours. I'm guessing you are jealous because you couldn't even make the debate team. Wake us up when you can actually make a substantive argument. First, you should look up the word substance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #102)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 01:54 PM

106. Theme and variation on "Eban good, Issa bad, those that question it are fools. Take my word on it".

Let us know when you get some new material, mmkay?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #106)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 02:00 PM

107. LOL. You're failing! You won't make the 8th grade team if you can't do better than that!

C'mon, just one substantive point. About anything, it doesn't even have to be gun-related, if this issue is too emotional for you. Maybe just talk about your favorite flavor of ice cream.

You can do it!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #107)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 02:27 PM

109. where is yours?

All you said is "I believe it because Eban is a Rhodes Scholar and Rachel says it is true."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #107)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 02:37 PM

110. Not my job. You claim "Issa's" work is bogus, so demonstrate the bogosity.

Your responses are no different from saying "Eban is full of it.", without explaining why.

I don't mind your jibes, as ill-feeling from the politically ineffective towards the successful is part and parcel of politics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #110)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 02:47 PM

112. Actually, you are the one claiming Eban's work is bogus.

Without any evidence, as usual. Is your attention span this short?

PS Ooh! Trash talk! I like it! But the whole "there are more teabaggers than liberals" card is actually not very original... try harder!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #112)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 03:05 PM

115. Not so; I said the defense of her work by citations of her credentials is...

...just as claiming that Issa's work is wrong becauses he's, well, Issa is bogus. Others here, however have mentioned her use of hearsay and unsubstantiated claims
(Protip: Citing 2000 pages of "confidential documents" and producing only two of them is not substantial).

I agree with them, and find it differs not a whit from Tailgunner Joe McCarthy's "I have here in my hand a list...". We never got to see JoeMac's list, either...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #115)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 03:27 PM

117. Of course!

An investigative reporter keeping her sources anonymous is exactly like McCarthyism!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #117)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 03:31 PM

118. don't most investigative reporters

speak truth to power by supporting whistle blowers against the system, rather than helping the system smear the whistle blowers?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #118)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 03:59 PM

121. Investigative reporters speak truth.

They don't just take the word of someone because they claim to be blowing a whistle. For example, how about a "whistleblower" who claims to know the truth about Obama's manipulation of Hawaii's birth certificate records.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #121)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 04:14 PM

122. I haven't seen any one claiming any such thing

but if you compare resumes of investigative reporters Attkisson's is more impressive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharyl_Attkisson

But we are not talking about birth certificates. We are not talking about "whistle blowers" that are motivated by politics or a payday and go to wnd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #121)

Sat Aug 4, 2012, 02:14 AM

129. Without a dump of those "2,000 pages of confidential ATF documents", Eban is cherry-picking.

A practice you denounced from Issa and Grassley:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117246555#post123

Sauce for goose, meet gander...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Sat Aug 4, 2012, 09:46 AM

130. what a crock of shit. UnRec.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread