View Full Version : Executive Privilege
Operation Fast & Furious and Project Gunrunner are themselves absurd enough to be considered business as usual for the ATF. I mean really, who dreams this stuff up? "Gunwalking" aside I'm curious to see if Eric Holder will actually be held in contempt of Congress over his failure to divulge what he knew and when now that the President has invoked executive privilege.
I was surprised to learn this was the first time President Obama used executive privilege. I do think that is a necessary tool for a president to have. I don't know the inside scoop here so will give Mr. Obama the benefit of the doubt as to whether it was call for here or not. But good for him for not abusing the privilege in the past. President Bush used it 6 times. In light of 9/11 and the wars that followed 6 times in 8 years doesn't seem too excessive. President Clinton used it 14 times. In a time of economic boom and very little overall conflict that does seem excessive. I guess it was also a time with plenty of scandals that needed to be swept under the rug.
So what do you think, should a President have the ability to close the books using executive privilege?
Executive privilege should be used to prevent disclosure of information that may be detrimental to national security. It should absolutely not be used to prevent disclosure of information that would prove top government officials lied about their involvement in something, which seems to be the case in the Fast & Furious probe.
It seems strange that people from this administration have felt free to disclose national secrets such as involvement with Stuxnet and Flame, inside details of the Bin Laden raid, including the identity of a confidential source who now languishes in a Pakistani jail as a result, and operational information regarding drone activities, but refuse to tell us the details of their deadly gun running experiment. The whole thing seems to me to be a series of high stakes public relations events, and consequences be damned.
That said, I do believe a President should have the ability to invoke executive privilege, but that President should also be prepared to suffer the consequences of using it improperly.
Well, I think in this case, it was appropriate. This republican witch hunt, trying desperately to reach out and smack Obama any way they can, should be held up as the farce it is. Although most people won't bother to investigate this 'scandal', if they did they would find that this questionable program started in the Bush administration, although not a single person from this administration is being called to testify (surprise surprise). Holder didn't authorise this gun program and when he learned of it he called for an investigation and shut it down. He has testified countless times and submitted reams of documents, but true to the republican way, this vindictive congressman is going to hammer hammer hammer until he finds some little place where Holder didn't dot his I or cross the t and then try to hang him on it.
This is all they got. This is all the republicans can do. They are like spoiled children, or rather like a third world coup where when they get the power all they do is retaliate and prosecute and used that power to grind people under their heels. this guy, Issa, came into office vowing to carry out witch hunt after witch hunt until he could find something, or embellish something, or maybe pull something whole cloth out of his butt. This is a disgusting display of the only republican skill. Nasty vindictive witch hunts.
But, I'm not surprised that some on this board would immediately go for the jugular, knowing others won't bother to learn of the history of this program. Oh I'm sure more will chime in with bluster and blow about rule of law, yada yada yada. But it seems rule of law only applies to democrats. I'm still waiting for hearings on Cheney outing our own CIA agents, which is a clear case of treason.(do we still hang traitors?) I'm still waiting for the investigation into Bush lying us into a war that cost hundreds of thousands of lives and billions of dollars, which we still pay today. Where is that investigation?
http://underthelobsterscope.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/lt-columbo-peter-falk.jpg
ApatheticNoMore
6-20-12, 4:19pm
The Executive has WAY WAY WAY too much power at present. And you can't give someone something like exective priviledge without them abusing it (do any real means actually exist to prevent this abuse? If you are going to have something like that it seems you need some kind of means to prevent abuse. And no sorry voting is NOT AN EFFECTIVE MEANS of stopping the abuse, in fact if they both do it, it's the most useless check on power ever).
Meanwhile Romney goes on record saying the president should be able to declare war with Iran without congressional approval. Obama does it? Well precisely Obama declares secret drone wars on places like Yemen without congressional approval, bad enough. Iran would be a major war. And that is what Romney is, have no illusions, he's making it clear to you exactly how he will govern.
I'm still waiting for the investigation into Bush lying us into a war that cost hundreds of thousands of lives and billions of dollars, which we still pay today. Where is that investigation?
Obama pardoned and the war criminals walked.
Because we don't know what kind of risk there might be to agents in the field if certain information was made public I still think we need to give a free pass on executive privilege, even if it does appear that this could be a misuse of it. Even in the most extreme case, if it were to be proved that this was an egregious use of executive privilege strictly geared to cover the administration's tracks, I don't think that is their biggest worry.
This is all they got. This is all the republicans can do.
It may be enough. This has the look and feel of something that could easily become a cascade failure. Watergate started with one ill fated act that probably wouldn't have amounted to anything if the Nixon administration had fessed up (or sacrificed a scapegoat) and moved on. I'm not comparing Mr. Obama to Nixon, but it is a great example of how things can get WAY out of control in a hurry. And Mr. Nixon only had to deal with Walter Cronkite, not the internet. I think all the Republicans are really going to do is sit back and watch as this unfolds. I don't care how much money Mitt Romney has, he couldn't have bought anything better at this stage in the cycle.
ApatheticNoMore
6-20-12, 5:50pm
It may be enough. This has the look and feel of something that could easily become a cascade failure. Watergate started with one ill fated act that probably wouldn't have amounted to anything if the Nixon administration had fessed up (or sacrificed a scapegoat) and moved on.
Maybe it is exactly analogous. I mean was Watergate the worst thing about Nixon? Well there was a whole failed war going on without end, no matter how many U.S. troops were getting killed and how futile it all was AND how many protested even, Cambodia was also being secretly bombed. And yet a mere burgalry is was what brought Nixon down (not the thousands who died). Now we have a President involved in several half declared wars and proclaiming he can kill whomever he wants and his justice department even implying speech qualifies for the NDAA and this little scandal is what is considered scandalous. If anything was exactly analagous, and could really cause the kind of backlash (the best to be hoped for short of revolution or even rEVOLution) Watergate did, it's overdue. But if all we are going to get is one lousy Romney out of this then whatever. That prize isn't worth anything. The U.S. in the 60s was a very well educated nation too (read any books from the time), probably helped with the backlash (plus the years of protest, they added up).
loosechickens
6-20-12, 6:08pm
I don't know.....since this is the first time that President Obama has instituted Executive Privilege, and our most recent Presidents did so regularly, and since this operation actually began under George W. Bush and the Republicans and was just another of the messes left for this administration to try to clean up, and since the Justice Department has complied and complied and complied, but Issa and his other Republican colleagues have asked for more, more, more.....I'm inclined to accept the White House's explanation for doing so.
One thing I always do, when there is a huge brouhaha about something that is happening, especially when the brouhaha is very partisan, loud and takes up most of the oxygen in the room......I look for whatever else might be happening that the folks brouhahaing the loudest might want to be seeing swept under the rug......didn't have to look far today: from Salon.com
"Over 120 CIA documents concerning 9/11, Osama bin Laden and counterterrorism were published today for the first time, having been newly declassified and released to the National Security Archive. The documents were released after the NSA pored through the footnotes of the 9/11 Commission and sent Freedom of Information Act requests.
The material contains much new information about the hunt before and after 9/11 for bin Laden, the development of the drone campaign in AfPak, and al-Qaida’s relationship with America’s ally, Pakistan. Perhaps most damning are the documents showing that the CIA had bin Laden in its cross hairs a full year before 9/11 — but didn’t get the funding from the Bush administration White House to take him out or even continue monitoring him. The CIA materials directly contradict the many claims of Bush officials that it was aggressively pursuing al-Qaida prior to 9/11, and that nobody could have predicted the attacks. “I don’t think the Bush administration would want to see these released, because they paint a picture of the CIA knowing something would happen before 9/11, but they didn’t get the institutional support they needed,” says Barbara Elias-Sanborn, the NSA fellow who edited the materials."
Just sayin'........now back to our regularly scheduled program........ ;-)
ApatheticNoMore
6-20-12, 6:22pm
I almost mentioned that but I figured I was getting too far off topic. But basically it is what I have for at least awhile intuitively always suspected. 9-11 truth and the government (CIA whatever) brought the buildings down? Not completely impossible, but I'm not sold on that - as that requires serious levels of conspiracy and secrecy to carry that out! But THEY KNEW, they knew something was up (not necessarily the exact details) and terrorists brought the buildings down? I have suspected that yes. That has always seemed the most likely conspiratorial middle ground :). A pretext for war was needed. A pretext for the trashing of all the basic consitutional principles was needed. Intent is hard to prove, you are left with either intent like I just speculated OR else gross negligence (the more mainsteam interpretation).
As for what distracts from what? Oh who even knows anymore. What people focus on is always amusing. See maybe it's all a distraction from the trade agreement I posted recently. Ok that's crazy, but the trade agreement is actually potentially a very major law being made secretly, no spotlight, and information is being leaked on it now. What gets the spotlight and what doesn't? I don't know. I have also very seriously considered that this 9-11 information is ALSO what the government wants us to know now (because potentially it could be used to justify the drone program etc..). Not that it is inaccurate but that it is being released for a reason and justifying current policy is a good one. Wheels within wheels, who was at the grassy knoll? How deep does this hole go? I don't know. But the information that gets out there maybe isn't accidental.
DocHolliday
6-20-12, 8:06pm
Here's candidate Obama's views on executive privilege:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpwYh9TD6Nc&feature=player_embedded
I'm curious as to what national security issue he has found that would explain his actions now. It looks like he's covering up for his buddy Holder.
How can he invoke executive privilege on something he said he new nothing about?
\I'm not comparing Mr. Obama to Nixon
When you bring up Nixon/Watergate as you discuss this issue you are comparing the two regardless of your disclaimer. It's just the nature of the way you're structuring your argument.
I'm curious as to what national security issue he has found that would explain his actions now.
There's the rub, huh? Executive privilege requires an element of national security, and I just don't see any national security implications in the Fast & Furious probe. This seems to be more of a 'cover your butt until the elections are over and then worry about what we knew and when we knew it'.
When all is said and done, I suspect we'll see that the guns were purposely not intercepted and the Mexican government was purposely kept out of the picture starting in 2009 in order to enhance the political advantage of showing how many American weapons were being used in the drug war. You may recall that President Obama later allegedly told Sarah Brady that "we're working on it (gun control) behind the scenes and under the radar".
Just think of how devastating it would be for the campaign to have high level involvement in hundreds of deaths in order to score a political point come out this close to the election.
iris lily
6-20-12, 11:52pm
... I'm still waiting for hearings on Cheney outing our own CIA agents, which is a clear case of treason.(do we still hang traitors?) ...
peggy, Scooter took the fall for that, he fell on the sword, it's over and done with, like it or not. And I don't like it, it's the biggest piece of chicanary of recent years but there it is. Move on.
If I'm not mistaken, F&F (I think Dumb and Dumber would have been more accurate--who comes up with these monikers, anyway?) was a Bush administration scheme to track weapons used in the drug war--by supplying weapons to the bad guys. Brilliant. I can't help thinking of our drug-running Iran-Contra hijinks. I don't see the need for executive privilege, but it will be interesting to see if this is all just the usual partisan finger-pointing timed for maximum political effect--or not.
The Bush-era operations (2006-2007) were known as "Operation Wide Receiver" (and a couple of smaller operations), and the Obama administration properly prosecuted those involved.
The Obama-era gun-running business is what is known as "Fast and Furious" - it is much wider in scope, involves more guns and murders, and you'd think the administration would be bending over backwards revealing facts about it, if in fact it was Bush's fault. As late in the game as 2011...
While it an interesting diversion to blame this all on Bush, the facts don't seem to support that approach...
When you bring up Nixon/Watergate as you discuss this issue you are comparing the two regardless of your disclaimer. It's just the nature of the way you're structuring your argument.
No one died from Watergate.
It seams odd that with all the other true security leaks going on that they can keep this under wraps.
It seams odd that with all the other true security leaks going on that they can keep this under wraps.
I don't think it's odd at all. The numerous national security leaks were designed to enhance an image with independants and moderate republicans. This executive privilege claim is designed to keep the public from seeing the political machinations involved in a scheme to provide weapons to drug cartels, and the several hundred subsequent deaths.
It's all political.
When you bring up Nixon/Watergate as you discuss this issue you are comparing the two regardless of your disclaimer. It's just the nature of the way you're structuring your argument.
It is entirely possible to compare the situations without comparing the men, but perhaps you're right and there is no reason to try to stop short. President Nixon's legacy & Watergate are part of history. President Obama's legacy is being written as we speak. Time will tell how similar they are.
For reference, the Vietnam 'conflict' began to form under Eisenhower, blossemed under Kennedy and expanded exponentially under Johnson, but which President is almost always most closely tied to it? Yup, Nixon. The "who started it" blame game is tiresome. Government operations are ongoing, they often span changes in leadership. That is not going to change. A President's legacy will be determined by how he managed operations (covert and otherwise) while he was in charge. Project Gunrunner was ongoing from 2006 to 2011. Three years under Bush, three under Obama. If Mr. Obama was vehemently opposed to the operation he had ample opportunity to end it. Instead Operation Fast and Furious was initiated under the umbrella of Gunrunner in 2009, completely under Mr. Obama's watch.
Maybe this affair will be part of the Obama legacy, maybe not. My real point was that it easily could be if not handled properly. At this stage it could be Watergate II or it could be just a little PR mess that a subsidiary of Soros, Inc. cleans up. Do Nixon and Obama have a folie à deux? I don't know, again, time will tell. I can say that between the two, and for all his faults, I'm glad it was Nixon who went to China.
No one died from Watergate.
I was actually commenting on something Gregg said but if I get you right you're saying this situation and Obama's handling of it is more scandalous and a more egregious example of illegality than the Watergate break-in and cover up because someone died, right?
It is entirely possible to compare the situations without comparing the men, but perhaps you're right and there is no reason to try to stop short. President Nixon's legacy & Watergate are part of history.
So you are comparing them then? I mean the totality of a person's character is mostly determined by the behavior they exhibit, right?
Unlike the Watergate scandal which is totally resolved and adjudicated and most of the players are now dead, this situation is in its infancy. I wouldn't presume to to start comparing any situation that I heard about for the first time yesterday (or last week or a month ago or even a year ago) to the worst scandal in the history of the Presidency. But hey, that's just me. Obviously, not everyone is as concerned with details and truth as I am.
I was actually commenting on something Gregg said but if I get you right you're saying this situation and Obama's handling of it is more scandalous and a more egregious example of illegality than the Watergate break-in and cover up because someone died, right?
I'm sure the dead agent and his family would say someone being killed is more scandalous than a break in.
So you are comparing them then? I mean the totality of a person's character is mostly determined by the behavior they exhibit, right?
Unlike the Watergate scandal which is totally resolved and adjudicated and most of the players are now dead, this situation is in its infancy. I wouldn't presume to to start comparing any situation that I heard about for the first time yesterday (or last week or a month ago or even a year ago) to the worst scandal in the history of the Presidency. But hey, that's just me. Obviously, not everyone is as concerned with details and truth as I am.
+1
I wouldn't presume to to start comparing any situation that I heard about for the first time yesterday (or last week or a month ago or even a year ago) to the worst scandal in the history of the Presidency.
There are people who feel plotting to overthrow and/or assassinate foreign leaders or having multiple affairs with office staffers or pocketing whisky taxes or selling federal drilling rights under the table might actually rank as greater sins than bugging a political party's hired gun's hotel room. Every President deals a few cards off the bottom of the deck, away from the public spotlight, its the nature of the beast. The good ones just seem to have a staff that's better at keeping plausible deniability on the table. To believe otherwise would just be naive. A more entertaining comparison would be to put the senior staff of each President eyeball to eyeball. John Mitchell to Eric Holder, in this case. Hmmm. Now that might be interesting...
Y'all keep branding this man with a program that he didn't start or authorize, and stopped after his own investigation into the matter. Why isn't anyone calling for an investigation into the ones who actually started it, who thought this was a good idea in the first place?
Holder, who isn't the one who started this by the way, has testified numerous times, and turned over reams and reams of documents, but Issa, who is determined to find a devil, even where none may exist, is going to keep 'probing and probing and demanding' until he has Holder's grandmother's secret recipe for berry cobbler. And if Holder refuses, will be held in contempt. This guy, Issa, will NOT be satisfied because he isn't really interested in the truth, he is only interested in smearing Obama, any way he can. Remember, Job #1.
Now, neither I or Issa, is privy to top secret, Presidents-eyes-only documents, so neither of us knows if these documents are of national security importance. He will just have to give the President the benefit of the doubt, and the respect that the office demands in Executive privilege, just as congress did 6 times for Bush.
"Bush invoked executive privilege "in substance" in refusing to disclose the details of Vice President Dick Cheney's meetings with energy executives, which was not appealed by the GAO. In a separate Supreme Court decision in 2004, however, Justice Anthony Kennedy noted "Executive privilege is an extraordinary assertion of power 'not to be lightly invoked.' United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1, 7 (1953)."
"Further, on June 28, 2007, Bush invoked executive privilege in response to congressional subpoenas requesting documents from former presidential counsel Harriet Miers and former political director Sara Taylor,[10] citing that:
The reason for these distinctions rests upon a bedrock presidential prerogative: for the President to perform his constitutional duties, it is imperative that he receive candid and unfettered advice and that free and open discussions and deliberations occur among his advisors and between those advisors and others within and outside the Executive Branch."
"On July 13, less than a week after claiming executive privilege for Miers and Taylor, Counsel Fielding effectively claimed the privilege once again, this time in relation to documents related to the 2004 death of Army Ranger Pat Tillman. In a letter to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Fielding claimed certain papers relating to discussion of the friendly-fire shooting “implicate Executive Branch confidentiality interests” and would therefore not be turned over to the committee.[13]"
"On August 1, 2007, Bush invoked the privilege for the fourth time in little over a month, this time rejecting a subpoena for Karl Rove. The subpoena would have required the President's Senior Advisor to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee in a probe over fired federal prosecutors. In a letter to Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, Fielding claimed that "Mr. Rove, as an immediate presidential advisor, is immune from compelled congressional testimony about matters that arose during his tenure and that relate to his official duties in that capacity...."[14]
Leahy claimed that President Bush was not involved with the employment terminations of U.S. attorneys. Furthermore, he asserted that the president's executive privilege claims protecting Josh Bolten, and Karl Rove are illegal. The Senator demanded that Bolten, Rove, Sara Taylor, and J. Scott Jennings comply "immediately" with their subpoenas, presumably to await a further review of these matters. This development paved the way for a Senate panel vote on whether to advance the citations to the full Senate. "It is obvious that the reasons given for these firings were contrived as part of a cover up and that the stonewalling by the White House is part and parcel of that same effort", Leahy concluded about these incidents.[15][16][17][18]
As of July 17, 2008, Rove is still claiming executive privilege to avoid a congressional subpoena. Rove's lawyer writes that his client is "constitutionally immune from compelled congressional testimony."[19]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege
Y'all keep branding this man with a program that he didn't start or authorize, and stopped after his own investigation into the matter. Why isn't anyone calling for an investigation into the ones who actually started it, who thought this was a good idea in the first place?
The Fast & Furious phase of the program began in 2009 and differed from previous versions in that the ATF no longer attempted to intercept the weapons as they transfered hands, and they did not coordinate their efforts with the Mexican government, as its predecesors did.
Holder, who isn't the one who started this by the way, has testified numerous times, and turned over reams and reams of documents, but Issa, who is determined to find a devil, even where none may exist, is going to keep 'probing and probing and demanding' until he has Holder's grandmother's secret recipe for berry cobbler. And if Holder refuses, will be held in contempt.
Holder has turned over approximately 5% of the documents requested, refusing to turn over the rest for reasons unknown.
This guy, Issa, will NOT be satisfied because he isn't really interested in the truth, he is only interested in smearing Obama, any way he can.
Issa and his committee are actually following up on whistleblower complaints from within the ATF. In early committee hearings the Attorney General mis-represented several facts and has since stone-walled at every turn. The President was not involved in any part of the investigation until yesterday, somehow proclaiming executive privilege which would indicate White House involvement in whatever the Attorney General is attempting to hide.
It keeps getting curiouser and curiouser, dontcha think?
Its always interesting to hear the responses. Its' either Bush's fault, or someone else has done something worse. Or there is the race card. Its been 3 1/2 years now, time to take some responsibility.
That transparency talk was a good one. I wonder how he kept a straight face when he said that.
Its always interesting to hear the responses.
It's the same set of canned responses, distractions, and diversions each time, from pretty much the same cast of characters. Not interesting at all, except in the consistency of it.
I have to agree. At the 3 1/2 year mark still blaming your predecessor for everything wears pretty thin. I am frankly amazed at the consistency of the responses this far in, its almost robotic.
I have to agree. At the 3 1/2 year mark still blaming your predecessor for everything wears pretty thin. I am frankly amazed at the consistency of the responses this far in, its almost robotic.
So all problems are resolvable in 3.5 years? I think one thing that does not get considered enough is not just where we were when Obama came into office but the direction and velocity with which we were headed. If it had kept in that direction we'd be in a very different place right now.
So all problems are resolvable in 3.5 years? I think one thing that does not get considered enough is not just where we were when Obama came into office but the direction and velocity with which we were headed. If it had kept in that direction we'd be in a very different place right now.
No, not every problem can be solved in that time frame. It is, however, plenty of time to shut down a defective program if the leadership is actually opposed to it. Declaring resolutions can't be achieved in that time frame simply because someone else initiated an action is an argument made completely of straw. Where we would be if John McCain had won the election is another strawman meant to do nothing but deflect attention from the issues at hand. It is pure speculation and absolutely, 100% irrelevant. There is no possible way to determine whether the country would be better off in that situation or not and even then "better off" is a purely subjective term. That said everyone will naturally have an opinion and roughly 1/2 the people polled in the US seem to feel they would be better off now had the last election turned out differently. Who's to say they're wrong?
ApatheticNoMore
6-22-12, 10:06am
No, not every problem can be solved in that time frame. It is, however, plenty of time to shut down a defective program if the leadership is actually opposed to it. Declaring resolutions can't be achieved in that time frame simply because someone else initiated an action is an argument made completely of straw. Where we would be if John McCain had won the election is another strawman meant to do nothing but deflect attention from the issues at hand. It is pure speculation and absolutely, 100% irrelevant. There is no possible way to determine whether the country would be better off in that situation or not and even then "better off" is a purely subjective term. That said everyone will naturally have an opinion and roughly 1/2 the people polled in the US seem to feel they would be better off now had the last election turned out differently. Who's to say they're wrong?
Robotic, eh. Make the case why I should uniquely get upset about this scandal as opposed to say getting upset about drone murders and terror tuesdays? And um I didn't initially get upset about that even (what initially upset me instantaneously was NDAA and the non-coverage of it - that just seemed instantly horrible), but the drone murders I thought about the framing of it, in which it could be seen as uniquely horrible and not uniquely horrible and shifted toward the former.
I know why it is more politically useful for some that I get upset over this as opposed to the drone killings (Romney likely has NO intent of abandoned the latter) but .... I don't care much about being politically pawned. Why should I get uniquely upset about this as opposed to all the undeclared wars going on (and the declared ones!)? Because this is killing people I am told. Yes and what exactly do you think the effect of wars is? Wars don't kill people? War isn't hell? But likely Romney has no intent of ending this. Why should I think gun-running is any worse than arms trades that go on to viscious countries all the time. The U.S. is the single biggest arms exporter in the world. Read that sentence again: the single biggest arms exporter in the world. Some of this is definitely going to brutal countries .... heck historically the U.S. government ARMED IRAQ. But tell me again is that going to change under Romney? Make the case this is historically unique, we've already established it isn't due to Bush, but make the case this is historcally unique within the context of the drug war which has visited horrible consequences on many countries (including perhaps our own), within the context of Iran Contra, and U.S. historical involvements all over the world. That the U.S. was heavily involved in the destruction of Mexico isn't even exaclty shocking. I mean wasn't that pretty easy to suspect from the get go? That they destroyed a good people in a fairly benign country (oh that government was always corrupt but in many ways still benign compared to this country) is just @#$# up. And now even U.S. citizens fear visiting there, I hate that too.
Obama is conducting horrible policies that are killing people? Yea and that statement stands independent of this, this is just another case of it. Obama is not some peace loving liberal? Gosh, who that is aware what is going on with the world thinks so? Romney might stop the gun walking? Good for him, but if we get involved in a war with Iran, it won't be a net win in terms of people the U.S. government is causing the deaths of (is Romney more likely to do this than Obama, I don't know). But if I'm not just automatically convinced Romney is a net win on this well forgive me. If Republicans wanted a net win in that, sorry but they would have chosen Ron Paul or someone with a similar foreign policy (yea I've seen the charts by which Romney outspent all other primary challenges by many multiples - I know, an election was probably bought - if not stolen, I know). If the only point is Obama has a horrible foreign policy in almost all regards, tell me something I don't know. I hate the guy. But why should I be convinced switching to the other guy is any better? Isn't that to fall into the same trap liberals did 4 years ago, and what we got from it is the 3rd term of Bush! And honestly they had a lot more reason to believe in Obama (though it was still a flawed assessment and obviously so in retrospect) than someone should have voting for Romney because "he will stop things like gun walking".
No, not every problem can be solved in that time frame. It is, however, plenty of time to shut down a defective program if the leadership is actually opposed to it.
agreed
Where we would be if John McCain had won the election is another strawman meant to do nothing but deflect attention from the issues at hand. It is pure speculation and absolutely, 100% irrelevant. There is no possible way to determine whether the country would be better off in that situation or not and even then "better off" is a purely subjective term.
There are ways to determine whether it would be better off under certain criteria. Civil liberties? No, look at McCains record. Wars we are involved in? Hard to say for sure, but look at McCains record on this too, it's not promising. There are ways to evaluate liklihoods here, it's not entirely unknowable.
That said everyone will naturally have an opinion and roughly 1/2 the people polled in the US seem to feel they would be better off now had the last election turned out differently. Who's to say they're wrong?
Yea you can't with a vague "better off". That there are ways to create what looks like prosperity in those timeframes, I don't contest. But if you do so somehow by blowing another bubble what's the point? What about prosperity that is sustaible over time and is not a bubble or destroying the planet in the meantime? Yea, see that's the kind of thing I care about. My timeframe is not 3 years. I'm trying to extrapolate the long term consequences of things (at least a decade ahead ok). But at the same time deliberately evil policies like gun walking yes should be stopped ASAP.
Robotic, eh.
"Robotic" was referring to the responses that tend to pop up every time the President, his cabinet or his policies are criticized. The wording in the responses just doesn't change. The first jerk of the knee is almost always an attempt to point the blame at the Bush administration. Continual assurance (by way of automated responses) that Mr. Bush was the worst President of all time will, in the end, do nothing to secure Mr. Obama a position as the best. Whether the previous administration is to blame for any particular problem becomse a moot point after enough time has elapsed. IMO at 3 ½ years into a 4 year term its time to take some ownership. Voters gave Mr. Obama 4 years to try something different. There are 137 days left.
No, not every problem can be solved in that time frame. It is, however, plenty of time to shut down a defective program if the leadership is actually opposed to it.
Uh..he did, actually.
You know, for a political party who wants to keep government out of every one's business, y'all sure expect President Obama, Eric Holder, etc...to micro manage everything. could it be this man wasn't personally involved with this program? considering how this program was just an extension of Bush's program, and yes Alan, that program was a sham too, maybe he really wasn't aware of the small details of the program.
This program was a bad idea from the beginning, and by that I mean the beginning in Bush's term.( sorry, I won't re-write history to satisfy republicans. It started under Bush and yes, continued under Obama) I'm not saying Bush is all to blame, I'm just saying trying to set ALL this in Obama's /Holders lap is equally ridiculous. If Obama is to blame, so is Bush. Period. I sure feel sorry for that border patrol officers family, but then I also feel sorry/angry for the thousands of families who lost loved ones in Iraq. Bush lied about that one didn't he. Where are the investigations? Where is the accountability there? At least Eric Holder isn't running around the white House joking about not finding guns under his desk! :(
This isn't Obama's Watergate, no matter how hard the republicans try to make it. It's just not going to stick, cause it's a dumb idea, one that is ONLY being put forth by Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. (so we know who y'all have been listening to)
"The first known ATF "gunwalking" operation to Mexican drug cartels, named Operation Wide Receiver, began in early 2006 and ran into late 2007. Licensed dealer Mike Detty informed the ATF of a suspicious gun purchase that took place in February 2006 in Tucson, Arizona. In March he was hired as a confidential informant working with the ATF's Tucson office, part of their Phoenix, Arizona field division.[23] With the use of surveillance equipment, ATF agents monitored additional sales by Detty to straw purchasers. With assurance from ATF "that Mexican officials would be conducting surveillance or interdictions when guns got to the other side of the border",[24] Detty would sell a total of about 450 guns during the operation.[22] These included AR-15s, semi-automatic AK-pattern rifles, and Colt .38s. The vast majority of the guns were eventually lost as they moved into Mexico.[7][23][25]
At the time, under the Bush administration Department of Justice (DOJ), no arrests or indictments were made. After President Barack Obama took office in 2009, the DOJ reviewed Wide Receiver in September 2009[26] and found that guns had been allowed into the hands of suspected gun traffickers. Indictments began in 2010, over three years after Wide Receiver concluded. As of October 4, 2011, nine people had been charged with making false statements in acquisition of firearms and illicit transfer, shipment or delivery of firearms.[18] As of November, charges against one defendant had been dropped; five of them had pled guilty, and one had been sentenced to one year and one day in prison. Two of them remained fugitives.[23]"
"Robotic" was referring to the responses that tend to pop up every time the President, his cabinet or his policies are criticized. The wording in the responses just doesn't change. The first jerk of the knee is almost always an attempt to point the blame at the Bush administration. Continual assurance (by way of automated responses) that Mr. Bush was the worst President of all time will, in the end, do nothing to secure Mr. Obama a position as the best. Whether the previous administration is to blame for any particular problem becomse a moot point after enough time has elapsed. IMO at 3 ½ years into a 4 year term its time to take some ownership. Voters gave Mr. Obama 4 years to try something different. There are 137 days left.
And robotic would describe the knee jerk responses to paint Obama as failure as well. Every little (or big, or medium sized) issue that comes up is his 'Watergate'. That's pretty automatic as well. And yes, it is the usual cast of characters who never disappoint in that.
And robotic would describe the knee jerk responses to paint Obama as failure as well. Every little (or big, or medium sized) issue that comes up is his 'Watergate'. That's pretty automatic as well. And yes, it is the usual cast of characters who never disappoint in that.
I believe there are two separate issues at work here. One is the Fast & Furious operation itself, and Two is the coverup. It's the second one that brings Watergate to mind.
To recap some of the major issues in the coverup, I'm not sure how anyone could give Holder credit for shutting down the operation in December, 2010 when he testified to Congress that he didn't know about the operation until May, 2011. Congress is also in possession of emails indicating that the presence of some of these weapons at crime scenes in Mexico and the United States would bolster efforts to restrict gun sales in the United States. This may lead someone to believe that the operation's focus was political rather than a strategic effort to track illegal gun sales, especially since the controls placed on previous gunwalking efforts were abandoned in the Fast & Furious version. Some might say that a political ploy against the 2nd Ammendment which resulted in the deaths of as many as 300 people should be investigated fully.
Perhaps a full disclosure to Congress would put it to rest, or, perhaps it would verify the worst. For some reason, full disclosure is not forthcoming. Should we just accept it and move on?
If this is all Bush's fault and/or there is nothing to hide, why not release the documents?
Holder has released a fraction of the information congress has requested. Surely a substantial portion of the other 95% of the documents could be released without causing danger to our operations and or agents.
I'm surpised Obama hasn't sacrificed Holder to help his re-election chances.
This isn't Obama's Watergate, no matter how hard the republicans try to make it.
Maybe it will be, maybe not. Its off to an eerily similar start, though. And for the record this is the first time during the now 3.5 year old Obama administration that I've heard anyone toss the word Watergate around. We must just listen to different info-sources.
And robotic would describe the knee jerk responses to paint Obama as failure as well.
The classic "I'm rubber and you're glue" rebuttal? Man, I really walked into that one! Let me ask it this way peggy, at what point in his 4 year term would it be appropriate for Mr. Obama to stand up and take ownership of the various programs he oversees? Try to avoid cherry picking even though I know its tempting. A President can't just pick the candy and shuffle the trash off on someone else forever.
I'm surpised Obama hasn't sacrificed Holder to help his re-election chances.
Ahhh, but the night is young and the dance is just beginning.
"Robotic" was referring to the responses that tend to pop up every time the President, his cabinet or his policies are criticized. The wording in the responses just doesn't change. The first jerk of the knee is almost always an attempt to point the blame at the Bush administration. Continual assurance (by way of automated responses) that Mr. Bush was the worst President of all time will, in the end, do nothing to secure Mr. Obama a position as the best. Whether the previous administration is to blame for any particular problem becomse a moot point after enough time has elapsed. IMO at 3 ½ years into a 4 year term its time to take some ownership. Voters gave Mr. Obama 4 years to try something different. There are 137 days left.
Personally, I think the Obama administration has primarily just been a continuation of the Bush years and we're going to get another 4 more years of it regardless of who is elected.
All that said though, I don't see anything to make me want to vote Republican.
The twisting and turning to avoid producing records for oversight offends me.
In my State, the law lays out very explicitly:
RCW 42.56.030
The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may maintain control over the instruments that they have created.
My State has some very strong public records access and open meetings laws, to enforce the concept that the government is the servant of the people, and answerable to them on all things. I have been to multiple classes on how to operate with these laws, in my roles variously as a minor appointed or elected offical, and the overwhelming message has been to structure our governmental processes and actions for as much transparency as possible, and to always err on the side of the people's right to know, and to not try to come up with clever ways to skirt the open government policies, because it is *our job* to serve the people, and this is part of *our job*.
So playng footsie with a congressional oversight committee, by either party, sickens me, and those involved in hiding information should be discharged, or thrown out of office, IMNSHO.
I believe there are two separate issues at work here. One is the Fast & Furious operation itself, and Two is the coverup. It's the second one that brings Watergate to mind.
To recap some of the major issues in the coverup, I'm not sure how anyone could give Holder credit for shutting down the operation in December, 2010 when he testified to Congress that he didn't know about the operation until May, 2011. Congress is also in possession of emails indicating that the presence of some of these weapons at crime scenes in Mexico and the United States would bolster efforts to restrict gun sales in the United States. This may lead someone to believe that the operation's focus was political rather than a strategic effort to track illegal gun sales, especially since the controls placed on previous gunwalking efforts were abandoned in the Fast & Furious version. Some might say that a political ploy against the 2nd Ammendment which resulted in the deaths of as many as 300 people should be investigated fully.
Perhaps a full disclosure to Congress would put it to rest, or, perhaps it would verify the worst. For some reason, full disclosure is not forthcoming. Should we just accept it and move on?
Gee, for a guy who is 'trying to take every one's guns away' you'd think President Obama would have, you know, submitted SOME sort of legislation towards that end. Something, anything! I guess he is a stealth anti-gun person cause you all are still armed to the teeth!
(sigh) You sure know it's election season when the right trots out the 'democrats are gonna take away your guns' meme. You'd think after 30 years of that, SOME would notice the trend! And notice they still have guns! You CAN fool some of the people ALL of the time!
If we re-elect Obama, he will turn this country into a fascist country! Yeah, I know we said that last time, but this time we really really mean it! He's just waiting for his SECOND term to totally destroy everything American, paint the white house black and sell the Brooklyn bridge to China! LOL You people are really too funny!
I don't remember any discussion when Bush used HIS Executive Privilege 6 times for very dubious reasons.
This 'cover-up' is an email where Holder says the program is dead, but he was mistaken and corrected himself later. That's it! That's the whole thing! This investigation is into why Holder thought the program was dead! They are investigating why he was mistaken! Really! Talk about grasping at straws! They aren't actually investigating the program itself, but why he was mistaken, even though he admits he was mistaken.
But, you know, if you gun people want to go there, let's go there. Let's talk about the incredibly loose access to guns in this country. These cartels don't need ATF to sell them guns, they can simply get their guys to go to gun shows in the states and buy all they want. I'm sure all you concerned citizens are for closing these gun show loopholes. Can I hear a yea on that one? No? Too bad. Would help the credibility of this Holder hand wringing.
"In 2000, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) published the "Following the Gun" report.[18] The ATF analyzed more than 1,530 trafficking investigations over a two-and-a-half-year period and found gun shows to be the second leading source of illegally diverted guns in the nation. "Straw purchasing was the most common channel in trafficking investigations."[19] These investigations involved a total of 84,128 firearms that had been diverted from legal to illegal commerce. All told, the report identified more than 26,000 firearms that had been illegally trafficked through gun shows in 212 separate investigations. The report stated that: "A prior review of ATF gun show investigations shows that prohibited persons, such as convicted felons and juveniles, do personally buy firearms at gun shows and gun shows are sources of firearms that are trafficked to such prohibited persons. The gun show review found that firearms were diverted at and through gun shows by straw purchasers, unregulated private sellers, and licensed dealers. Felons were associated with selling or purchasing firearms in 46 percent of the gun show investigations. Firearms that were illegally diverted at or through gun shows were recovered in subsequent crimes, including homicide and robbery, in more than a third of the gun show investigations."
"The ATF's Phoenix Field Division reported that "many gun shows attracted large numbers of gang members from Mexico and California. They often bought large quantities of assault weapons and smuggled them into Mexico or transported them to California."[1] Garen Wintemute, a professor at the University of California at Davis, calls Arizona and Texas a "gunrunner's paradise."[26]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_shows_in_the_United_States
Mark V. Shaney would be proud.
Gee, for a guy who is 'trying to take every one's guns away' you'd think President Obama would have, you know, submitted SOME sort of legislation towards that end. Something, anything! I guess he is a stealth anti-gun person cause you all are still armed to the teeth!
Looks like we'll have to wait for a modern day Woodward and Bernstein to discover their Deep Throat to see just how close they came to setting up the premise for that legislation.
ApatheticNoMore
6-22-12, 4:24pm
Meh, by that point who will care anymore? Those with an axe to grind? 9-11 being botched is old news. Recent reports also show just to the extent the Bush administration knew Iraq was never involved in 9-11 (I mean duh, but it is just more evidence). At a certain point it's old news.
All real whistleblowers seem to end up in jail anyway. Bradley Manning never will see a trial. Julian Assange is trying to flee to Ecuador.
Bradley Manning never will see a trial.
I understand his trial is scheduled for September. Are the mysterious forces of oppression planning to dispatch him before then?
Bless you, ANM. And thank you. (For post #33)
[QUOTE=Alan;87009..... which resulted in the deaths of as many as 300 people should be investigated fully.
Perhaps a full disclosure to Congress would put it to rest, or, perhaps it would verify the worst. For some reason, full disclosure is not forthcoming. Should we just accept it and move on?[/QUOTE]
As far as that pesky 'full disclosure' goes, apparently Issa has asked for documents which he is not privy to. He has asked for document which Eric Holder either doesn't have access to or can not disclose by law. Like grand jury testimony, and transcripts of closed door meetings that Issa clearly does not have authority to have. But I'm sure he will press on..Job #1 and all!
But Alan, I must apologize to you. I'm sorry I doubted your motives or sincerity in this matter. Clearly you are just interested in guns crossing the border to land in the hands of criminals and killing people. A concern I too share. As do many others. I'm so glad you support the effort to close the loopholes in gun show laws, gun shows being a major source of guns purchased to transport over the border. I'm sure bae, who is sickened by cover ups and those who seem to support illegal activity, joins you in supporting this effort to close gun show loop holes.
"U.S. federal law requires persons engaged in interstate firearm commerce, or those who are "engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, to hold a Federal Firearms License and perform background checks through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System maintained by the FBI prior to transferring a firearm. Under the terms of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, however, individuals "not engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, or who only make "occasional" sales within their state of residence, are under no requirement to conduct background checks on purchasers or maintain records of sale (although even private sellers are forbidden under federal law from selling firearms to persons they have reason to believe are felons or otherwise prohibited from purchasing firearms).
Those seeking to close the "Gun Show Loophole" argue that it provides convicted felons and other prohibited purchasers (i.e., domestic abusers, substance abusers, those who have been adjudicated as "mental defectives," etc.) with opportunities to evade background checks, as they can easily buy firearms from private sellers with no accountability or oversight."
"In July 2009, Representatives Michael Castle and Carolyn McCarthy introduced the Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2009 (H.R. 2324)[15] in the U.S. House of Representatives. Sen. Frank Lautenberg introduced similar legislation, the "Gun Show Background Check Act of 2009"(S. 843), in the U.S. Senate. As of October 2009, the House version of the bill had 35 co-sponsors (mostly Democrats) and the Senate version had 15 co-sponsors, all Democrats.
Presently, 17 states regulate private firearm sales at gun shows. Seven states require background checks on all gun sales at gun shows (California, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Oregon, New York, Illinois and Colorado). Four states (Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania) require background checks on all handgun, but not long gun, purchasers at gun shows. Six states require individuals to obtain a permit to purchase handguns that involves a background check (Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Iowa, Nebraska). Certain counties in Florida require background checks on all private sales of handguns at gun shows. The remaining 33 states do not restrict private, intrastate sales of firearms at gun shows in any manner.[16][17]"
"In 2000, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) published the "Following the Gun" report.[18] The ATF analyzed more than 1,530 trafficking investigations over a two-and-a-half-year period and found gun shows to be the second leading source of illegally diverted guns in the nation."
"Regarding the trafficking of firearms from the U.S. into Mexico, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report in June 2009 which stated: “While it is impossible to know how many firearms are illegally smuggled into Mexico in a given year, about 87 percent of firearms seized by Mexican authorities and traced in the last 5 years originated in the United States, according to data from Department of Justice’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). According to U.S. and Mexican government officials, these firearms have been increasingly more powerful and lethal in recent years. Many of these firearms come from gun shops and gun shows in Southwest border states.” [7]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_shows_in_the_United_States
And still the echo of the Markov chain sounds through the land...
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2018504861_robinson23.html
This editorial sums up my assessment of the whole thing.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2018504861_robinson23.html
This editorial sums up my assessment of the whole thing.
+1
And still the echo of the Markov chain sounds through the land...
It certainly looks like a path dependent argument.
It certainly looks like a path dependent argument.
The players here and now at least seem to believe it will be different this time. We'll see.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2018504861_robinson23.html
This editorial sums up my assessment of the whole thing.
++1
Looks like we'll have to wait for a modern day Woodward and Bernstein to discover their Deep Throat to see just how close they came to setting up the premise for that legislation.
Channeling Glen Beck? He would be SO proud!
ApatheticNoMore
6-23-12, 11:32pm
Gee, for a guy who is 'trying to take every one's guns away' you'd think President Obama would have, you know, submitted SOME sort of legislation towards that end. Something, anything! I guess he is a stealth anti-gun person cause you all are still armed to the teeth!
Looks like we'll have to wait for a modern day Woodward and Bernstein to discover their Deep Throat to see just how close they came to setting up the premise for that legislation
It's nothing that I'd rule out but it's nothing I know to be true. There is always the question that if Obama wanted to take away all guns why didn't he just pass an executive order? Haha, yea submit legistlation as if that's how things are done these days ....
What I know to be true:
- the government *IS* on an increasingly tyrannical bent
- if you were to ask how why and for whom I could not say exactly but I do know this: this government will serve corporate interests, and place them above all of our interest (I posted a trade agreement that corporations have access to but CONGRESS doesn't yet). This is why we use the term corptocracy.
- The tyranical bent includes increasing crackdowns on dissent, all reports from OWS confirm.
So that the government might not like guns too much either, I don't rule that out. But neither am I convinced it is *THE* reason, beyond just goverment agencies being stupid and on power trips, there is also many many potential goepolitical reasons. Why does the government have a drug war anyway?
Why does the government have a drug war anyway?
Because the drug war is big business!
It's nothing that I'd rule out but it's nothing I know to be true. There is always the question that if Obama wanted to take away all guns why didn't he just pass an executive order?
There's a wee thing called the Second Amendment...
There's a wee thing called the Second Amendment...
The constitution hasn't been viewed as much of an impediment to what either this administration or the last one has decided were Important Matters.
This from National Review: What does Eric Holder's congressional testimony have in common with Wisconsin?
They can't recall.
Politicians from both parties seem to have remarkably bad memories...
Executive privilege should be used to prevent disclosure of information that may be detrimental to national security. It should absolutely not be used to prevent disclosure of information that would prove top government officials lied about their involvement in something, which seems to be the case in the Fast & Furious probe.
It seems strange that people from this administration have felt free to disclose national secrets such as involvement with Stuxnet and Flame, inside details of the Bin Laden raid, including the identity of a confidential source who now languishes in a Pakistani jail as a result, and operational information regarding drone activities, but refuse to tell us the details of their deadly gun running experiment. The whole thing seems to me to be a series of high stakes public relations events, and consequences be damned.
That said, I do believe a President should have the ability to invoke executive privilege, but that President should also be prepared to suffer the consequences of using it improperly.
I would agree with you but for a few things. First information about the cyber attacka etc. came out as leaks to the press and we don't know the administration intended those atories to go public. Second there is a distinction between ongoing operations and completed onea and a distinction between releasing names of people still in the field and atuff like policy memos.
I think the real story is how congress is wasting time and money on a partisan witch hunt gunning for Eric Holder who actually shut f&f down as a failed leftover from the previous admin. An elected official with a great deal of power and influence and contol over tax payer resources is abusing his office for partisan gain and it ain't Obama. It's Rep Issa. Trying to rally his base with crazy conspiracy theories and harrassing his political opponents. Truly he is the villain here. If you have any doubts on that read the investigative report in Fortune magazine. I know Fortune is a left wing socialist Obama lovin rag but really do read it anyway.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.