and since we agree that Fast and Furious was probably not responsible for taking more lives than if it had not existed, since the same weapons were readily available for use from other sources, all we are talking about is principle and not cause and effect. Yes, it would have been better if Fast and Furious had not violated the law. But the way I look at it, the program had good intentions. I don't buy the Republican conspiracy theories about Obama wanting to use it to argue for gun control. The program sought to serve the greater good. Governments break the law all the time in trying to serve the greater good. If Fast and Furious had been successful in severely damaging the drug trade, thousands of lives might have been saved. While I agree that we are a nation of laws and we should uphold those principles, I can also understand the notion, although misguided, that the program might have helped end the terrible war taking thousands of lives in our southern neighboring country. I understand why war crimes such as the bombing of German civilians in World War II or a hit carried out by the mafia of an enemy agent on behalf of the CIA or FBI might also serve a greater good. There's no absolute black and white about this and it depends on what's at stake, case by case. I agree with you in principle that the U.S. government should not break the law even if it has no harmful effect, but if Fast and Furious had been highly successful at saving lives, I think I could easily compromise my principles when it comes to human life. My opinion about Fast and Furious is that it was not successful and that was its major problem. If it had been successful, Republicans would be trumpeting its success as a Bush operation, whether it broke the law or not.
= new reply since forum marked as read
