PDA

View Full Version : Obama Nation: Faster & Furious-er!



jmervyn
12-10-2011, 20:33
There's a couple of items that y'all are studiously avoiding discussion on, if you're even aware of them. Jon Stewart is unlikely to mention them, seeing as how they're both potentially impeachable offenses. I figure I hadn't made any Obama Nation threads in a while, so here's the first of the two.

http://www.bokbluster.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/111007boklores.jpg

In a nutshell, "Fast and Furious" is a massive scandal involving the Attorney General (Eric Holder, since you might not know), your beloved Lightworker (President Obama), and $80 Million of those "stimulus" dollars the EBIL TEA Party is angry about. In 2009, the Obama administration was trying to generate support for more weapons bans, as well as propagate and support the (initially dishonest) claim that the Mexican narco-terrorist organizations receive their arms from U.S. gun dealers. We can get into the <previous> dishonesty of the claim if needed, but the claim is obviously legitimate <now> - Obama's administration has indeed been proved to have routinely provided arms and munitions to drug dealers.

To support the dual policy initiative above, "Fast and Furious" was announced shortly after Obama took office. Weapons traffic attempts by narco-terrorist gangs were allowed to proceed until the recipient could be identified and arrested - seemingly typical law enforcement procedure, to catch them red-handed. However, the facts behind the program were obscured, and the weapons were apparently supposed to "walk" - be delivered and not seized. What actually occurred was that gun stores who would have reported suspicious weapons requests, like from probable narco-terrorists, were instead asked to sell the weapons against their better judgement. Furthermore, it has been reported that ATF or FBI agents actually sold and trafficked in the weapons in order to get them to the "right" (wrong) hands.

The concept of "gun walking" may have actually been practiced previously, including by the Bush administration ("Operation Wide Receiver" per the AP (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ATF_BUSH_ERA_PROBE?SITE=KMOV&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT)). This already led to half-hearted attempts to claim that the whole problem was Bush's fault (http://nation.foxnews.com/fast-and-furious/2011/10/04/bush-blamed-fast-and-furious), since which someone Obama-friendly seems to have put their fist into the claimant's throat because they want this issue GONE. It has even been speculated that the recent announcement of the Iranian assassination plot was announced in order to take the heat off of the DoJ.

Furthermore, I suspect it was probably recognized that the ATF under Bush conducted the program properly/under surveillance (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/pj-gladnick/2011/10/05/sf-chronicle-story-repeats-ap-fast-furious-misinformation), i.e. they generally recaptured the weapons as soon as they were in the targets' hands. However, the AP claims that there were 9 people charged, with two pleading guilty to making false statements, so it is obvious that this program's concept was a flawed and dangerous one from the onset.

Under Holder's jurisdiction, however, the weapons were <deliberately> not monitored, the FBI apparently waived background checks (http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/09/robert-farago/atf-death-watch-89-40-fast-and-furious-firearms-found-in-el-pas/), and the whereabouts of the illegal transfers have not even been traced since. We literally don't know where the ~1500+ guns are, and under F&F or similar programs they were not 'trafficked' in order to make arrests. ATF, DEA, FBI, and Border Patrol agents all had misgivings about the programs, and now the bureaucrats are coming out (late) to denounce their politically appointed masters for the program and point fingers at each other (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/gunwalker-drug-enforcement-agency-admits-involvement/).

The weapons are now also showing up everywhere, most notably in border killings which have claimed the lives of at least 200 (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/09/obamas-operation-fast-and-furious-program-linked-to-over-200-murders/), including around 150 Mexican law enforcement officials - but the American media studiously has ignored this scandal for months even though at least 11 crimes were linked to the U.S. - until the death of U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry (at which time the gig was up and F&F halted).

Holder has perjured himself already, claiming that he had no idea when he had been briefed multiple times and all his underlings were in it up to their necks. His attempted cover-up and white-wash of the issue, like appointing a friendly IG to perform an "investigation" (http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/10/fast_and_furious_in_a_rotten_nutshell.html), are blowing up in his face. Now Rep Issa has subpoenaed him, and mentioned that the White House is intimidating witnesses. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/26/issa-atf-warns-witnesses-to-limit-testimony/?page=all) I'm expecting Holder to take the 5th, in no small part because he'd be the direct link to proving Obama's false denials of involvement - which to this point are only substantiated by this (hoping the link is to the right clip):
PNhYk9NuNc

Alaris
12-10-2011, 20:55
Ok, anyone with credibility wants to bother fact-checking this?

I'll file it under "spin" like the last 20 J articles I fact-checked.

MixedVariety
12-10-2011, 22:40
Ok, anyone with credibility wants to bother fact-checking this?

I'll file it under "spin" like the last 20 J articles I fact-checked.

That's a pretty shabby response, Alaris.

GrimShade
12-10-2011, 23:10
Ok, anyone with credibility wants to bother fact-checking this?

I'll file it under "spin" like the last 20 J articles I fact-checked.

No not really, because frankly ‘war on drugs’ which I’ll classify this issue under, has gone back far beyond Obama and Bush. If this particular investigation is being conducted the same as before, to the same standards as before is not really relevant until the case is closed and the results are accounted for, they can say this in an ongoing investigation and they are ‘still building their case.’ I’ll bet the same weapons that were allowed to be sold under Bush, and we can go back as far as Regan, are also being used to kill people in the drug wars going on now.

This is not impeachable, that is frankly a stupid statement and is just propaganda to hype people up. I’ve heard of ‘impeachable’ dealings claims coming from the opposing political party from every president in office since I was old enough to pay attention, meaning Regan. Frankly they will have better luck trying to impeach Obama for killing a US citizen that most of people in the US would have run our car over three times if we saw the guy crossing the road in front of us. Hell if that guy had stuck his head out in Texas they would have lynched him, shot him in the street and left him there.

Is Obama going to be held liable for a poorly conducted investigation when he may have only appointed the guy. No way in hell will that happen, the worst that will happen is Obama will call for his resignation for screwing things up. Was Bush impeached for the poor handling of Katrina? Sticking anything to Obama for this is less likely than getting someone to admit that Bush invaded Iraq as a personal vendetta for Sadam sending assassins after papa Bush. I wish them luck spending money on the investigation, I hope they spend more time finding those guns and putting them to the heads of the drug gangs that have been using them.

I would not doubt they screwed up royally and now have a bunch of US made guns in the hands of Mexican drug gangs, but I’d say they will have an easier time finding OJ guilty than they will sticking this to someone as low as Holder, this won’t even scuff Obama’s shoes.

I hope the other issue is the killing of a US citizen, that will be a more interesting discussion.

Skyy High
12-10-2011, 23:40
Stewart covered this a while ago, actually. His take was that it was an unbelievably stupid plan that has now backfired horribly. I'd agree with that assessment. He also presented the facts a bit differently than how J has presented them: namely, the original idea was indeed to put tracking devices (GPS) in the guns and then sell them...but the devices ran out of battery power within a day and so they lost them all. So...yeah. Really goddamn stupid. I'll try to find the video...

[edit]Got it. It ran back in June.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-21-2011/the-fast-and-the-furious---mexico-grift

No I'm not embedding it.

[edit2]Of course, Jon only mentions it going up as far as the acting director of the ATF, Ken Melson. Where he got his orders from isn't talked about much, other than the DoJ wasn't exactly cooperating. In June. I imagine J's info is more recent.

djacob
13-10-2011, 01:18
Thanks for posting that Skyy, it's headshakingly horrible news but at least there's a bit less bias with that info.

As for Alaris's response, it might be a little over exaggerated, but it is hard to take someone seriously when they say always say EBIL right before talking about an organization they like/love/idk, not to mention saying that I love Obama (hint: I don't) and calling him a Lightworker (is that like a lightsaber, cause lightsabers are cool so it must be a complement right? Oh wait, it's J so obviously it's meant to sound like one but isn't really... so it probably means we all think the lights would all shut off if he wasn't running the show, again, incorrect). And then immediately follow it with a statement like this:

Obama's administration has indeed been proved to have routinely provided arms and munitions to drug dealers. I don't know if that's just poor grammar, or he was trying to get people to believe by reiterating the point. The question I have though is; who done did proved it (and what is routinely)?

This is not to say that the info J pointed out was wrong, or that he was wrong in pointing it out, just that it's reasonable to ask for fact-checking when the person giving out info is showing so much bias. Bias is what makes people start to discredit info from a person, and then finding out the person is wrong as well as biased leads to a lack of credibility... and people's definition of wrong are different so bias can make some people discredit a source before others.

Basically, what I'm saying is this: J, if you want to be taken seriously, drop the bias and actually converse like a normal human being. Oh yeah, and stop labeling everyone else as an enemy before you even hear what they have to say.

Getting back to it though, this was one really bad plan, did they test it like... at all? Sounds like they slapped the trackers in the guns, turned on the tracking equipment and gave the thumbs up to ship them out when they saw blips on the screen. By the way, this is what I was referring to back in the thread on thinking outside the box, just because a new idea sounds good doesn't mean it is, you need to think of every possible flaw and actually test to make sure that it isn't an issue.

Not only battery life, but what would happen if the Mexicans buying these guns you know... checked them or disassembled them for one reason or another? How sturdy are the trackers... it's not like gun shipments to Mexico are being moved along a nice smooth road the whole way. Something tells me that if they were as cheap as was said on Stewart's video they could have broken as easily as an egg.

Bah, so now what? Should we send some nukes down there with slightly more expensive trackers in the hopes that those won't get checked for bugs? Of course, we'd have to give them a week or maybe a month to get to the buyer just to make sure we get the right person.

Rob Van Der Sloot
13-10-2011, 02:46
Basically, what I'm saying is this: J, if you want to be taken seriously, drop the bias and actually converse like a normal human being. Oh yeah, and stop labeling everyone else as an enemy before you even hear what they have to say.

Yeah this pretty much. Surely we can all just discuss facts, without constantly labeling people Lefties, Commies, Zombies, and throwing buzz words around The One, Obamessiah. Why not simply, discuss the issue? Yes, I realise a lot of us are left leaning, is that a reason to immediately be a jerk to anyone that is willing to partake in an open discussion with you?

Give it a try, humour us, you might end up liking it. I'm not saying, dodge the issue, but be less of a jerk about it. Try to be a bit unbiased about it, hard as that may seem.

bearsfwd
13-10-2011, 04:19
Seriously? We go months without a single one of these stupid threads, and I just begin to think they are gone for good...then look what shows up in my "New Posts".

Can we get a filter of some sort on the "New Posts" thing, pretty please?! Or just maybe something in the user control panel to ignore all threads that contain certain things in the title?

Political talk is one thing, but totally biased political talk is a whole different ballgame.

*goes off to corner grumbling about how dumb politics are*

The Praetorian
13-10-2011, 08:22
Yeah this pretty much. Surely we can all just discuss facts, without constantly labeling people Lefties, Commies, Zombies, and throwing buzz words around The One, Obamessiah. Why not simply, discuss the issue? Yes, I realise a lot of us are left leaning, is that a reason to immediately be a jerk to anyone that is willing to partake in an open discussion with you?

Give it a try, humour us, you might end up liking it. I'm not saying, dodge the issue, but be less of a jerk about it. Try to be a bit unbiased about it, hard as that may seem.

He's a troll... he's not here to have a discussion on an adult level. He's here to troll. It's what trolls do.

jmervyn
13-10-2011, 13:14
That's a pretty shabby response, Alaris.Shabby is as shabby does, I suppose.

No not really, because frankly ‘war on drugs’ which I’ll classify this issue under, has gone back far beyond Obama and Bush.This really isn't <about> drugs any longer, but criminal terror gangs that threaten the stability of Mexico. The "narco-" prefix just indicates their main revenue stream, to differentiate them from "Islamic" or other types.

I’ll bet the same weapons that were allowed to be sold under Bush, and we can go back as far as Regan, are also being used to kill people in the drug wars going on now.Okay, so let's consider that claim. Can you substantiate it? Or is it just a "well, so's you!" assertion in the face of appalling misconduct?

This is not impeachable, that is frankly a stupid statement and is just propaganda to hype people up. I’ve heard of ‘impeachable’ dealings claims coming from the opposing political party from every president in office since I was old enough to pay attention, meaning Regan.Sorry, but it <does> fall under that category, and back when the shoe was on the other foot (http://articles.latimes.com/1987-06-15/news/mn-4220_1_president-reagan) you would have shouted it from the rooftops. I'd not expect Obama to fall prey to it, mind you, but it's certainly enough for him to have to throw Holder under the bus with all the rest (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/02/nation/la-na-atf-guns-20110902).

Hell if that guy had stuck his head out in Texas they would have lynched him, shot him in the street and left him there.Have you ever lived in Texas? Or is this just generic slander?

Is Obama going to be held liable for a poorly conducted investigation when he may have only appointed the guy. No way in hell will that happen, the worst that will happen is Obama will call for his resignation for screwing things up.The difference is if Holder fingers Obama to save his own skin. This project is not a 'poorly conducted investigation'; it's trafficking arms to terrorists in a neighboring country - and the Mexicans are reported (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2011/10/mexico-wide-receiver-reaction-guns-weapons-left-right.html) as being incensed over it.

Was Bush impeached for the poor handling of Katrina?No, and neither were Ray "Chocolate City" Nagin or Kathleen "Queen Bee" Blanco, who were far more guilty of incompetence. Obama wasn't impeached over the BP spill, either. Being at the helm during multi-layer bureaucratic stuff-ups doesn't rise to the level of deliberately arming hostile terrorists.

Thanks for posting that Skyy, it's headshakingly horrible news but at least there's a bit less bias with that info.So you proceed to spend the bulk of your response whining about me, and not bothering to discuss the subject. Nice.

Basically, what I'm saying is this: J, if you want to be taken seriously, drop the bias and actually converse like a normal human being. Oh yeah, and stop labeling everyone else as an enemy before you even hear what they have to say.Considering the audience, why should I bother?

Getting back to it though, this was one really bad plan, did they test it like... at all? Sounds like they slapped the trackers in the guns, turned on the tracking equipment and gave the thumbs up to ship them out when they saw blips on the screen.Do you have any substantiation of the tracking claim? These arms did not have such high-tech bug devices, from accounts other than Stewart's. You <do> remember that he's not just a comedian, but a shill for all Left-wing causes, don't you?

There are only two cases known at this point (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-administration-not-enforcing-gun-laws-rep-issa-says) where the weapons were actually "bugged". Operation Wide Receiver did indeed use RFID tags, and the shortcomings were noted at that time. (http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/2011/06/operation-wide-receiver.html)

Bah, so now what?Now we watch the body count. I'm not referring to the ongoing ATF cover-up (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/05/news/la-pn-atf-personnel-20111005).

He's a troll... he's not here to have a discussion on an adult level. He's here to troll. It's what trolls do.So obviously, it doesn't merit proving any of what I've cited wrong; far better to just make an ad hominem attack and walk away.

MixedVariety
13-10-2011, 13:36
Seriously? We go months without a single one of these stupid threads, and I just begin to think they are gone for good...then look what shows up in my "New Posts".

Can we get a filter of some sort on the "New Posts" thing, pretty please?! Or just maybe something in the user control panel to ignore all threads that contain certain things in the title?

Political talk is one thing, but totally biased political talk is a whole different ballgame.

*goes off to corner grumbling about how dumb politics are*

Are you really asking for more censoring?

Come on, folks. Do I need to tell some of you to address the posts rather than the poster?

Alaris
13-10-2011, 13:56
Getting back to it though, this was one really bad plan, did they test it like... at all? (...) just because a new idea sounds good doesn't mean it is, you need to think of every possible flaw and actually test to make sure that it isn't an issue.

Actually, it reminds me of 24, where the president's aide tried that with biological weapons. Of COURSE it backfired.

Ok, so it backfired. But I'd like to know is the cost-risk analysis on this. Criminals will find a source to get weapons. At worse, we gave them better quality for cheaper. If even. But it makes me wonder how many other similar operations they have run that has worked. I'd think slapping a few GPS in trade cargo might be a more common practice than you'd think. How many criminals get caught this way?

Maybe they forgot to change the batteries after doing it 10 times succesfully in a row? Is this a possibility?


I hope the other issue is the killing of a US citizen, that will be a more interesting discussion.

More info pls?

-----

The rest concerns the topic of J. No need to read if you are not interested in that.


That's a pretty shabby response, Alaris.

No, it is accurate.

I did factcheck a lot of stuff J posted, first because I thought he might have a point, and later just to see how bad his sources were.

Seems I am not alone in this...


This is not impeachable, that is frankly a stupid statement and is just propaganda to hype people up.


He also presented the facts a bit differently than how J has presented them


Thanks for posting that Skyy, it's headshakingly horrible news but at least there's a bit less bias with that info.

As for Alaris's response, it might be a little over exaggerated (...)

Basically, what I'm saying is this: J, if you want to be taken seriously, drop the bias and actually converse like a normal human being. Oh yeah, and stop labeling everyone else as an enemy before you even hear what they have to say.


Yes, I realise a lot of us are left leaning, is that a reason to immediately be a jerk to anyone that is willing to partake in an open discussion with you?


Political talk is one thing, but totally biased political talk is a whole different ballgame.


He's a troll... he's not here to have a discussion on an adult level. He's here to troll. It's what trolls do.

Enough?

----


So obviously, it doesn't merit proving any of what I've cited wrong; far better to just make an ad hominem attack and walk away.

Proving you wrong is the easy part. Making you accept it, well, I've given up on that. No amount of logic or data gets to you. Even science is no good against your beliefs.

I'd give up on the hate too if you were nice to posters. You can keep your bias, I think it's healthy that people have different viewpoints and beliefs.

I'm not picking on you, I am just responding to how you bully people around.

MixedVariety
13-10-2011, 15:16
Enough?



You're asking me if it's enough? Enough what?

shawn
13-10-2011, 15:34
Aw c'mon guys. You know what the best way to deal with these threads is?



*goes off to corner grumbling about how dumb politics are*
bears, you haven't been on in three weeks. Come pve with me :(


Enough?
You can never have enough poutine. Have any recommendations on where to get a good one?


Zombies
Haha that Left 4 Dead sure is a good game! /highfive


That's a pretty shabby response, Alaris.
You know what isn't shabby? Your moderation, good sir. I do believe you're the favorite mod of many, and you let us beat dead horses without interfering or locking every other thread, so do keep up the excellent work.


[stuff about american stuff]
How's it going? You're in Amazon Basin right? They still kicking? That used to be my old stompin' grounds when I was a pveing lad.


[edit]Got it. It ran back in June.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-21-2011/the-fast-and-the-furious---mexico-grift
Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift was really disappointing, wasn't it? Did anyone bother seeing Fast Five?

jmervyn
13-10-2011, 15:52
No, it is accurate.

I did factcheck a lot of stuff J posted, first because I thought he might have a point, and later just to see how bad his sources were.Odd, then, that you have not produced anything indicating inaccuracy. Cat got your tongue?

Seems I am not alone in this...Ah, so safety in numbers. Yep, most scientific, intelligent, and accurate. You think it's "hate", but it's "scorn".

Proving you wrong is the easy part. Making you accept it, well, I've given up on that. No amount of logic or data gets to you. Even science is no good against your beliefs.Do it then, tough guy. You claim I'm the bully, but you're the one linking arms with people making nasty en masse.

I'm not picking on you, I am just responding to how you bully people around.Bullcrap, as is almost always the case. You didn't respond to the topic, yet your pointless ad hominem was the very first response (http://guildwars.incgamers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5731687&postcount=2).

Alaris
13-10-2011, 15:52
MV, I don't want to be singled out as the bad guy here. I don't think that I deserve that honorable mention. I might have strong opinions about certain topics, and I have my own biases... I think that I am being reasonable where it applies.

I try to keep conflict fairly civil and concise, and I try to keep on topic with rational thinking or humor even. But I do admit that I dislike irrational hateful speech, and plan to keep calling out on it when I see it.

@Shawn: hahah awesome response. Btw, apparently "La banquise" has the best poutine in Mtl, but I never actually tried it. We should go sometime ;)

@J: actually, there was plenty of ad hominem in the OP. I (and others) have produced plenty of evidence against your claims of Obama infanticide, immorality in atheism, climate change "controversy", "socialist" healthcare, to name a few. But evidence only makes you angry.

jmervyn
13-10-2011, 16:32
MV, I don't want to be singled out as the bad guy here. I don't think that I deserve that honorable mention.Too late; your desires don't correspond with your behavior, and certainly not with your claims:

I try to keep conflict fairly civil and concise, and I try to keep on topic with rational thinking or humor even.What was civil, rational, or humorous about your post? Are you waiting like the rest of my fan club to pounce on whatever I happen to type next and find something to take offense at? Because that's certainly the appearance.

@J: actually, there was plenty of ad hominem in the OP.The obvious difference being, I made no attack against you personally, and only a single possible passing references to the theological politics of what I believe to be the majority of OTF members:
"There's a couple of items that y'all are studiously avoiding discussion on, if you're even aware of them" That's obviously an intro, since the cover-up of the issue is ongoing, and since the first thing that came close to being a counter to my post was a Daily Show clip, I don't see how it's ad hominem to point out the lack of awareness common here.

I (and others) have produced plenty of evidence against your claims of Obama infanticide, immorality in atheism, climate change "controversy", "socialist" healthcare, to name a few.Again, I attack vague or third party entities, with legitimate though unpleasant claims, and then you attack <ME> with intense personal hostility. But you're above all that sort of vile, personal, knee-jerk bigotry, right? :angry:

Rob Van Der Sloot
13-10-2011, 16:39
Again, I attack vague or third party entities, with legitimate though unpleasant claims, and then you attack <ME> with intense personal hostility. But you're above all that sort of vile, personal, knee-jerk bigotry, right? :angry:

Yeah, we'll be the judge if they are legitimate claims... and I think we've provided evidence that they aren't. But you don't get to play the victim card when every opening post of yours starts with insulting people left and right... no mostly left. All we're saying is, why don't you try it without the insults?

How about instead of immediately smearing Obama, and calling him Obamesiah, you simply discuss the topic at hand? In the case of the issue you brought up in this thread, how is Obama responsible for this obvious blunder? Did he green light it, and was he aware what the plan was about when he did? If the answer on any of those is no, then its odd to hold him responsible for what seems like the blunder of a particular group of really stupid people.

Alaris
13-10-2011, 16:42
I guess I should be thankful, J. You've been good for my postcount.

My first post in this thread doesn't exist in a vacuum. It exists in the context of this forum.

Skyy High
13-10-2011, 16:59
That's obviously an intro, since the cover-up of the issue is ongoing, and since the first thing that came close to being a counter to my post was a Daily Show clip, I don't see how it's ad hominem to point out the lack of awareness common here.
I don't really think it's a "counter" (and I didn't mean for it to be as such). I posted it because a) you said that you didn't think Stewart would cover such matter, and I wanted to show that he did, and b) Alaris asked for corroborating info. TDS works well enough to show that such a scandal did occur, if it can't be trusted to get the details 100%. Incidentally, I disagree with the "how do we know there were plans to track the guns, Stewart's a liberal shill," comment, considering the clip he showed was from a congressional hearing. If you want to say that they were lying about the plan to put GPSes into the guns, fine, but that's not Stewart's doing, and it doesn't make sense, besides. I find it much easier to think that they tried this plan and f***ed up the battery life on the GPS trackers, than they just sold guns fully knowing they had no goddamn way of tracking them.

Incidentally, for everyone who isn't J: yes, this stupidity really f***ing happened! The only thing you can really quibble about is how far up does this really go, and who should take the blame for it. Obama certainly won't, and probably shouldn't; even if he directly authorized this, he wasn't the idiot who bought GPS trackers with battery lives of a few hours. The plan, while being incredibly sleezy on our part for the trouble it would have caused the Mexican police in any case, would have at least worked (....possibly) if the trackers worked.

MixedVariety
13-10-2011, 17:04
*Group Hug.*

You too, J, join the fondling.

raspberry jam
13-10-2011, 17:20
*Group Hug.*YAY! :grin::cutie: I love you guyss :cloud9:

Alaris
13-10-2011, 17:31
Incidentally, for everyone who isn't J: yes, this stupidity really f***ing happened!

Well, glad I got corroborating evidence.

Also, I'd like to mention that the non-J story differs quite a bit from the J story, even if there is some truth to it.


The plan, while being incredibly sleezy on our part for the trouble it would have caused the Mexican police in any case, would have at least worked (....possibly) if the trackers worked.

Sleezy? The plan could have worked if they did this properly. The real question then is, what do you accept to do in order to fight the real sleeze.

Remember, if we only play nice, we catch fewer criminals. There's a real trade-off here to consider. You can't punish the failure without also rewarding the successes.


*Group Hug.*

You too, J, join the fondling.

/winthread

Giggles
13-10-2011, 17:42
*Group Hug.*

You too, J, join the fondling.

I don't want any part of this virtual "fondling". It sounds really rude. The last thing I need are you guys groping me.

GrimShade
13-10-2011, 17:45
More info pls?


The killing of al-Awlaki, since he was a US citizen. Much of the right has come out criticizing the act, when I am sure just about all of them would have made the exact same decision if they were in office. All in all this makes a much more interesting conversation, even if everyone just says, good riddance.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65035.html


How's it going? You're in Amazon Basin right? They still kicking? That used to be my old stompin' grounds when I was a pveing lad.

Yup I’m Basin, it’s still around, but everything seems to have dwindled a bit, I attribute that to the lack of decent new games out now. I think there will be a lot more action once D3, GW2 and TSW get released. My actual in game play time has dropped so much I rarely get to play with any of the rest of the guys at this point, and as far as PvE once you get so many chars through the game you really start to lose interest in things to do.

Alaris
13-10-2011, 18:03
So, they want to impeach Obama because he ordered the killing of a known Al Queda high-ranking official... because that guy was born in the US?

lol

Grasping at straws, I say.

Off-topic, I'm really enjoying Orcs Must Die. I'm not a pro at strategy games, but it's clear that this is not going to be a walk in the park like Plants vs Zombies was. I'm having difficulties and I am not even out of act 1 yet.

djacob
13-10-2011, 19:44
All bolded text was originally posted by Jmervyn

Originally Posted by djacob
Thanks for posting that Skyy, it's headshakingly horrible news but at least there's a bit less bias with that info.

So you proceed to spend the bulk of your response whining about me, and not bothering to discuss the subject. Nice.

Hard to discuss when the OP is putting a ton of off-topic bias in their post, it makes it hard for me to follow. Notice though that I did eventually get back to the subject at hand. Looking back I probably should have put that sentence where I discussed the subject, oh well. By the way, I can be a lot more whiney, and probably do so while staying within the rules of the OTF (which I think I understand a bit better now).


Quote:
Originally Posted by djacob
Basically, what I'm saying is this: J, if you want to be taken seriously, drop the bias and actually converse like a normal human being. Oh yeah, and stop labeling everyone else as an enemy before you even hear what they have to say.

Considering the audience, why should I bother?

Notice how the first sentence I wrote that you quoted answered this question? On the other hand, if you don't want to be taken seriously keep writing what you are. I'm sure it amuses you greatly when no one agrees with what you say. My point is that no one here should be blamed for asking for fact-checking as your opinionated beliefs aren't exactly easy to believe.


Quote:
Originally Posted by djacob
Getting back to it though, this was one really bad plan, did they test it like... at all? Sounds like they slapped the trackers in the guns, turned on the tracking equipment and gave the thumbs up to ship them out when they saw blips on the screen.

Do you have any substantiation of the tracking claim? These arms did not have such high-tech bug devices, from accounts other than Stewart's. You <do> remember that he's not just a comedian, but a shill for all Left-wing causes, don't you?

There are only two cases known at this point where the weapons were actually "bugged". Operation Wide Receiver did indeed use RFID tags, and the shortcomings were noted at that time.

This has been answered, but yeah... I'm just commenting on what people here are saying. I'd try and become more of an expert on the subject if I thought that I could do something about this. Is there a vote for impeachment coming up soon?


Quote:
Originally Posted by djacob
Bah, so now what?

Now we watch the body count. I'm not referring to the ongoing ATF cover-up.

Yeah... been doing that for a while now. The story on using acid (or was it thermite?) to disolve the bodies was particularly gruesome. Mexico is not having a good time right now and this isn't helping.

Skyy High
13-10-2011, 19:47
Well, glad I got corroborating evidence.

Also, I'd like to mention that the non-J story differs quite a bit from the J story, even if there is some truth to it.
First of all, note that TDS is from June. J's sources are from October.
Second of all, what's so different (besides J claiming they never put transmitters in the guns, which I find inconceivable).


Sleezy? The plan could have worked if they did this properly. The real question then is, what do you accept to do in order to fight the real sleeze.

Remember, if we only play nice, we catch fewer criminals. There's a real trade-off here to consider. You can't punish the failure without also rewarding the successes.
Quite. But we were selling weapons to criminals for use in another country, and we didn't even inform (let alone get permission or cooperation from) that country's government. That's what I was calling sleezy, not the selling of weapons itself (though I'm not entirely comfortable with that, I wouldn't argue with it if it had worked).

Alaris
13-10-2011, 20:35
we were selling weapons to criminals for use in another country (...) That's what I was calling sleezy, not the selling of weapons itself

Ah, right. Gotcha.

I'd claim that sometimes, it's counter-productive to work with governments of other countries, especially given evidence of significant corruption. But... that certainly is a valid point to debate.


First of all, note that TDS is from June. J's sources are from October.
Second of all, what's so different (besides J claiming they never put transmitters in the guns, which I find inconceivable).

Honestly, this is all news to me. I have to thank J for bringing awareness (however spinful and biased), and everyone else for providing a relatively unbiased account.

I doubt that *time* is the factor that accounts for the difference in the stories though, but I'll change my tune provided corroborating evidence. Namely, J's account differs on:


1) Jon Stewart is unlikely to mention them
2) seeing as how they're both potentially impeachable offenses.
3) it has been reported that ATF or FBI agents actually sold and trafficked in the weapons in order to get them to the "right" (wrong) hands.
4) Under Holder's jurisdiction, however, the weapons were <deliberately> not monitored
5) under F&F or similar programs they were not 'trafficked' in order to make arrests
6) Holder (...) attempted cover-up and white-wash of the issue (...) are blowing up in his face
7) the White House is intimidating witnesses
8) proving Obama's false denials of involvement

I see a lot of accusations based on speculation, and not much evidence. Of course, with J, lack of evidence = evidence of cover up.

djacob
14-10-2011, 00:14
First of all, note that TDS is from June. J's sources are from October.
Second of all, what's so different (besides J claiming they never put transmitters in the guns, which I find inconceivable).


Quite. But we were selling weapons to criminals for use in another country, and we didn't even inform (let alone get permission or cooperation from) that country's government. That's what I was calling sleezy, not the selling of weapons itself (though I'm not entirely comfortable with that, I wouldn't argue with it if it had worked).

Yeah, if they never put transmitters in the guns then it would either mean they meant to catch them in the US but failed (which would have made them look better than this scenario if not by a ton), or they just wanted to arm criminals with guns... I'd as soon believe that former President Bush was the one who ordered the terrorist attack on the pentagon and twin towers (yes, someone actually told me they believed that's what happened). I think my response in the future to such allegations is going to be: That's an interesting theory bro.

But yeah, this operation is definitely shameful for the US, although after reading this:


Ah, right. Gotcha.

I'd claim that sometimes, it's counter-productive to work with governments of other countries, especially given evidence of significant corruption. But... that certainly is a valid point to debate.

I remembered hearing an awful lot about the corruption down there, directly from people who've been there. So although it's awful that the operation failed I can see reasons why we'd keep Mexico's government in the dark. For all we know, the reason why our gov. tried this instead of the apparently more standard operation of stopping them before the border was that they were hoping to track the guns to corrupt government officials... which wouldn't happen if they knew about the operation now would it?

Idk for sure though, like I said before I'm not an expert on this subject and don't exactly expect to become one.

Alaris
14-10-2011, 00:25
Well, I am no expert either, but remember folks... they didn't get government approval when they killed Osama Bin Laden.

Skyy High
14-10-2011, 13:57
What? Do you mean Obama didn't ask Congress if he could do it? Because if so...you're surprised about that? That's pretty much been our MO for a few decades now.

Alaris
14-10-2011, 14:35
Congress? No, I was talking about the country where Osama was hiding. Obama didn't get that country's approval before going in. (yes, I forget where he was hiding, and too lazy to look it up)

Giggles
14-10-2011, 14:43
Well, that's nothing new. The US has been causing trouble in other countries without their approval for over half a century.

Here's a list of known CIA activities that only goes up to 1993. I can't imaging what has been going on in the last 10 years.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/CIAtimeline.html

Skyy High
14-10-2011, 14:52
Congress? No, I was talking about the country where Osama was hiding. Obama didn't get that country's approval before going in. (yes, I forget where he was hiding, and too lazy to look it up)
Ah. Well, in one case we were taking out a criminal, in the other we were giving guns to criminals. That said, we fled Pakistan with their army at our heels (iirc), so I don't think they were exactly pleased with us.

Alaris
14-10-2011, 14:55
Team America: World Police.

As for giving guns to criminals, I think that it's rather really a case of "selling guns with a gps so we can catch them, but oops it literally backfired".

Incompetence =/= mal-intent.

Skyy High
14-10-2011, 15:10
Incompetence =/= mal-intent.
Which is why I'm not as peeved about this as J, I think, nor do I think it's grounds for impeachment. Hell, it's frankly absurd to think that this was incompetence on Obama's part, or really anyone higher up than the supervisors of the guys actually running the operation; he didn't pick out the damn batteries.

djacob
14-10-2011, 15:19
Which is why I'm not as peeved about this as J, I think, nor do I think it's grounds for impeachment. Hell, it's frankly absurd to think that this was incompetence on Obama's part, or really anyone higher up than the supervisors of the guys actually running the operation; he didn't pick out the damn batteries.

Indeed. I'm sure J will be coming around shortly to notify us that we are completely idiotic for thinking this though. "Of course you would defend him, he's your Lightworker." *rolls eyes*

Alaris
14-10-2011, 15:23
Hence my first post in this thread, asking for actual non-biased info.

jmervyn
14-10-2011, 16:15
Yeah, we'll be the judge if they are legitimate claims... and I think we've provided evidence that they aren't.In pretty much... well, none of the claims I bring, has anyone managed to do so. All that is done is to quote the official position or an alternative explanation, and then go back to the stroking. This phenomena can clearly be seen if one substitutes "Bush" for "Obama" in any circumstance; the credibility threshold is astonishingly low for Bush but impossibly high for Obama, despite obvious evidence to the contrary.

But you don't get to play the victim card when every opening post of yours starts with insulting people left and right... no mostly left. All we're saying is, why don't you try it without the insults?How is saying that you lot are studiously ignoring something if you've even heard about it, an insult?

How about instead of immediately smearing Obama, and calling him Obamesiah, you simply discuss the topic at hand?Because the Left, including the bulk of this forum, continues to obsess about the godlike qualities of one of the worst presidents in recent memory - and continues to blame his hapless predecessor for all problems he's caused and causing.

In the case of the issue you brought up in this thread, how is Obama responsible for this obvious blunder?What, the standards Bush was cudgeled for on a routine basis no longer apply since the President is a Marxist? Why is what's good for the goose not good for the Leftist gander?

Did he green light it, and was he aware what the plan was about when he did?The answer appears to be "yes" (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/10/13/obama_spoke_about_fast__furious_before_holder_clai med_he_knew.html), but it is now part & parcel of the ongoing cover-up.

If the answer on any of those is no, then its odd to hold him responsible for what seems like the blunder of a particular group of really stupid people.That's precisely what you and most others here did for over 8 years running. That's what's called "intellectually dishonest", as on proud display with Hurricane Katrina vs. the BP oil spill.
http://thepatriotperspective.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/bush_fault1.gif
Or do you pretend there's a legitimate reason to apply "the buck stops here" selectively?

I don't really think it's a "counter" (and I didn't mean for it to be as such). I posted it because a) you said that you didn't think Stewart would cover such matter, and I wanted to show that he did,Fair enough, but I'd consider that an attempt to counter rather than just naysaying.

Incidentally, I disagree with the "how do we know there were plans to track the guns, Stewart's a liberal shill," comment, considering the clip he showed was from a congressional hearing.I can't see clips most often, but Stewart has a track record of being a liberal shill, and representing issues unilaterally.

I find it much easier to think that they tried this plan and f***ed up the battery life on the GPS trackers, than they just sold guns fully knowing they had no goddamn way of tracking them.That's because you still want to support the Progressives, but not think about what the objectives were. The 'cover' for this was to track weapons, but the reality was that this was intended to substantiate the Progressive's canard about most Mexican weapons in criminal hands coming from America (http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110209-mexicos-gun-supply-and-90-percent-myth). It wasn't true then, but it's quite likely to be possible now.

Obama certainly won't, and probably shouldn't; even if he directly authorized this, he wasn't the idiot who bought GPS trackers with battery lives of a few hours.Whyever not? Again, the reason I easily and legitimately apply the label "hypocrite" to so many of you is that you hold conservatives like Bush to the highest standard, and socialists/leftists like Obama to the lowest. Obama was in charge. He knew about the program, AND knew it was a complete screw-up. What actually needs to be determined is if orders came from the White House to let the guns go, or if it was Holder's idea. Because the various people trying to save their skins currently share one common conclusion - the guns walked on the orders of management at the political level, not the career/professional level, and then the careerists were silenced (http://www.theoutdoorwire.com/features/224570) while the DoJ stonewalled investigators.

The plan, while being incredibly sleezy on our part for the trouble it would have caused the Mexican police in any case, would have at least worked (....possibly) if the trackers worked.[/QUOTE]There is no evidence, much less legitimate claim, that more than a handful of the up to 12,000 weapons trafficked (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/gunwalker-gunning-down-the-bush-did-it-too-lie/?singlepage=true)under the various Obama forms of "Fast & Furious" were RFID-tagged. Those references are to Bush's "Wide Receiver", which was understood to have been a disaster (I've seen references that the Bush operation let 450 guns "walk" because of failures like the batteries or the RFID's range, and were the proximate cause of the cases I mentioned earlier).

There are no legitimate references to widespread RFID tagging of the 12000 guns trafficked by the Obama administration. Please find any such references, if "Bush Did It TOO!" continues to be the counter.

http://thepatriotperspective.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/gnomes_plan-fast-furious-cr.jpg?w=442&h=334


I don't want any part of this virtual "fondling". It sounds really rude. The last thing I need are you guys groping me.I get constant rogering from my customers; I hardly need more.

Hard to discuss when the OP is putting a ton of off-topic bias in their post, it makes it hard for me to follow.Beg pardon? My one sentence is a ton off off-topic bias, and the way you lot scream on page after page about my being a troll is <my> fault? I would be quite happy to have you attack the claims I've cited with legitimacy, but you (like rest here) don't have any defense - ad hominem is weak sauce but it's all you seem to have.

I'm sure it amuses you greatly when no one agrees with what you say. My point is that no one here should be blamed for asking for fact-checking as your opinionated beliefs aren't exactly easy to believe.It kind of does, true - because you lot seem to have John Stewart as your primary news source, yet caterwaul endlessly when I dare point out the OTF's historical, monomaniacal support for all things Obama.

I'd try and become more of an expert on the subject if I thought that I could do something about this.I take it you endlessly attacked those demanding all manner of nasty for Bush and his "illegal war"? Because there was never any "there" there, but it sure is "here".

Mexico is not having a good time right now and this isn't helping.Which is the point. I've also read accusations that this may be laid at the feet of Rahm Emanuel, with the "never let a good crisis go to waste" claim. Pouring fuel on the neighbor's house conflagration is what has been documented (by the ATF & other worker-bee level people) as being deliberately done by our Executive branch, so the next question is, "Why?"

First of all, note that TDS is from June. J's sources are from October.Hardly. I'm just putting out the most recent coverage. I actually recall reading some of this dating back to Wide Receiver.

Second of all, what's so different (besides J claiming they never put transmitters in the guns, which I find inconceivable).Prove it wrong. The difference, per ATF agents, is that Wide Receiver was a surveillance screw-up, but this was deliberate arming of hostiles.

That's what I was calling sleezy, not the selling of weapons itself (though I'm not entirely comfortable with that, I wouldn't argue with it if it had worked).The selling of the weapons is indeed an illegal act. Compounding the problem was that ATF agents and surrogates did the selling - if people want an analogy, they need to start considering Iran-Contra, because weapons sales are legally a very sensitive area.

Honestly, this is all news to me. I have to thank J for bringing awareness (however spinful and biased), and everyone else for providing a relatively unbiased account.Please cite my spin and bias, plzkthx.

I doubt that *time* is the factor that accounts for the difference in the stories though, but I'll change my tune provided corroborating evidence. Namely, J's account differs on:

1) Jon Stewart is unlikely to mention them
2) seeing as how they're both potentially impeachable offenses.
3) it has been reported that ATF or FBI agents actually sold and trafficked in the weapons in order to get them to the "right" (wrong) hands.
4) Under Holder's jurisdiction, however, the weapons were <deliberately> not monitored
5) under F&F or similar programs they were not 'trafficked' in order to make arrests
6) Holder (...) attempted cover-up and white-wash of the issue (...) are blowing up in his face
7) the White House is intimidating witnesses
8) proving Obama's false denials of involvement
I see a lot of accusations based on speculation, and not much evidence. Of course, with J, lack of evidence = evidence of cover up.As you know, it pisses me off when people falsify a quotation of me, but in this instance I understand why you did so and will let it slide.

Stewart not mentioning the issue when I thought it "unlikely" - is this the best you have? Really? Particularly when the issue is 'cresting' now?
IF Obama ordered Holder to conduct this operation, it's impeachable. The only way out would have to have been one of those "secret findings" and Holder would have a copy, in order to break U.S. and international law in this fashion. Even in that circumstance, the legitimacy of the "finding"/order would be grounds for "high crimes & misdemeanors".
FBI and ATF agents, as well as 'affiliates', have indeed trafficked in these weapons. (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/shocking-claim-feds-bought-and-sold-fast-and-furious-guns/) Their "CYA" film & affidavits are part of what the DoJ was trying to silence.
How can you claim monitoring existed, when the agents' complaints are uniform about the deliberate lack of monitoring?
The same issue - arrests weren't made; the ATF agents just watched these weapons head south.
I've already cited the DoJ's stonewalling and misleading of Issa and other investigations; I can't read for you. I've also cited one article describing Holder's apparent lie to Issa's committee, but there have been others. Issa is currently leaving the "Holder's such a buffoon that he didn't bother to read what his subordinates reported to him on at least five separate occasions" door open, but I suspect Issa is laying a trap in doing so. If Holder tries to plead ignorance, he's unlikely to then be able to take the 5th without jail time (http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/2011/09/22/fast-and-furious-coverup-justice-department).
Please pay attention. The White House is intimidating investigations and reporters. The ATF is intimidating and shuffling witnesses (http://michellemalkin.com/2011/08/31/screw-up-move-up-cover-up-fast-and-furious-edition/). Even though the ATF is responsible to the White House, there's some differentiation - I thought you were all about being exact?
Obama's denials are indeed the issue (http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2011/09/our-department-of-obstructing-justice.html), which is why Issa has thrown a lasso around Jay Carney as well (http://pohdiaries.com/the-gunwalker-scandal-how-far-up-does-it-go-part-2/). On the face of it, Obama was falsely identified by his spokesman as not knowing or authorizing it (http://pohdiaries.com/the-gunwalker-scandal-how-far-up-does-it-go-part-2/), but at the same time he had made previous statements recognizing it.

Here's a "journalist's guide to Project Gunwalker" (http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-national/a-journalist-s-guide-to-project-gunwalker-part-six), since you continue your baseless ad hominem attacks as grounds to dismiss the entire. You can see it far predates Stewart's piece. I haven't yet read it deeply, so you can't accuse me of trying to dredge up biased favoritism in my claims. Or at least, with any legitimacy, not that you've ever found it to be a problem.

EDIT - in the interim:

Which is why I'm not as peeved about this as J, I think, nor do I think it's grounds for impeachment. Hell, it's frankly absurd to think that this was incompetence on Obama's part, or really anyone higher up than the supervisors of the guys actually running the operation; he didn't pick out the damn batteries.The supervisors <also> protested the operation, and Obama appointees at the DoJ not only demanded their cooperation but later their silence. Read the background.

Indeed. I'm sure J will be coming around shortly to notify us that we are completely idiotic for thinking this though. "Of course you would defend him, he's your Lightworker." *rolls eyes*No, I think you're a bunch of hypocritical tools for conjuring up unsubstantiated claims of malfunctioning RFID chips. The reason you do so is, indeed, because it's your Lightworker (explanation of my sneer in the link (http://michellemalkin.com/2008/06/08/obama-the-lightworker/)). You're hypocritical because you find fault with all things non-Obama/Socialist, but don't dare apply the same standard you wail and gnash teeth about when conservatives even come close.

Alaris
14-10-2011, 16:43
Please cite my spin and bias, plzkthx.

95% of what you post. The other 5% is truth.


As you know, it pisses me off when people falsify a quotation of me, but in this instance I understand why you did so and will let it slide.

1) Minor editing for brevety aside, I quoted your post.
2) I'd apologize for pissing you off, except:
2A) Not like you care about our feelings, in fact, you insult us any chance you get.
2B) You piss of really easy anyways, go see a therapist.

Also:
1) Minor editing for brevety aside, I quoted your post.

jmervyn
14-10-2011, 17:40
95% of what you post. The other 5% is truth.Given your inability to read or spell, I'm not terribly worried about your inability to discern.

1) Minor editing for brevety aside, I quoted your post.
2) I'd apologize for pissing you off, except:
2A) Not like you care about our feelings, in fact, you insult us any chance you get.
2B) You piss of really easy anyways, go see a therapist.No, I insult belief systems y'all hold dear and their representatives, while mocking those you identify with. You folks are the ones who insult and attack me personally, pointlessly, and incessantly, as you demonstrated only yesterday.

As for me getting pissed off, you haven't a clue, Doctor. This is performance art for me, and you lot are my canvas.

Also:
1) Minor editing for brevety aside, I quoted your post.Care to try again, champ?

Alaris
14-10-2011, 17:49
Funny you should fake insult at quote mistakes, when you deliberately make **** up and pretend we're saying it.

The Praetorian
14-10-2011, 17:49
Given your inability to read or spell, I'm not terribly worried about your inability to discern.

Classic Troll behaviour.

jmervyn
14-10-2011, 17:53
Funny you should fake insult at quote mistakes, when you deliberately make **** up and pretend we're saying it.Actually, I said I <didn't> take insult at your falsified quote. Plus, what stuff are you claiming I make up? IIRC something like 70% of you were in the Obama tank, and many of you are proud/angry socialists.

GrimShade
14-10-2011, 18:23
Perhaps I know too many Europeans, but why is Socialist a derogative word in your vocabulary?

An before you start accusing me, I'm not Socialist, I'm Independent.

David Holtzman
14-10-2011, 18:31
Perhaps I know too many Europeans, but why is Socialist a derogative word in your vocabulary?

An before you start accusing me, I'm not Socialist, I'm Independent.

I expect it has something to do with that giant war we fought against the socialists 25 years ago.

Giggles
14-10-2011, 18:35
I'd say it largely comes from McCarthyism. The Commies were so bad and evil after WWII that that anger / fear has stayed with many people in the US. Anything remotely close to it manifests a huge knee jerk reaction from a lot of people. Even though a large parts of the world have some form of socialist tendencies many people in the US can't fathom the thought of it even when it's been demonstrated that it can be cheaper.

http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/7712/800pxinternationalcompa.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/717/800pxinternationalcompa.png/)

Skyy High
14-10-2011, 18:37
Fair enough, but I'd consider that an attempt to counter rather than just naysaying.
I'm not sure what the difference between "counter" and "naysaying" is, but my point was that he does do these stories (particularly egregiously stupid ones like this), and he did talk about this one.

I can't see clips most often, but Stewart has a track record of being a liberal shill, and representing issues unilaterally.
Avoiding the issue of the track record....you're just going to have to take my word for it if you can't see the clip. Special Agent Dodson of the ATF is testifying before Congress (June 15) that he personally bought and put GPS trackers in the guns, but the batteries died. That's all the evidence we have, until someone goes out, gets the guns back, and checks to see if there are a bunch of dead GPS trackers in them.

That's because you still want to support the Progressives, but not think about what the objectives were. The 'cover' for this was to track weapons, but the reality was that this was intended to substantiate the Progressive's canard about most Mexican weapons in criminal hands coming from America (http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110209-mexicos-gun-supply-and-90-percent-myth). It wasn't true then, but it's quite likely to be possible now.
This is a bit of a side-track, but this link doesn't prove that the "90% myth" is a myth, it proves that the sample size for which the "myth" is based on is a relatively small fraction of the number of guns seized (but still based on 4000 guns). The other thousands of guns could not or were not traced for various reasons (including the probably common method of just obliterating the registration number). So...yeah, the 90% number could be way off, but if we assume the sample size of guns that were seized and traced was representative of the total population, it shouldn't be too far off. Further, this link does nothing to prove your claim as to the "true objective" of this operation; hell, it's from February, it can't have anything to say about it.

I'll agree that your theory fits (by which I mean, introducing a ton of guns into Mexico "accidentally" is something that would help the Progressive mantra of gun control (and, I suppose you would say, self-flaggelation over our wrongs against other countries)), but this isn't evidence of that. The rest of this really boils down into hearsay and, hate to say it, conspiracy theories. You say it was done maliciously for ulterior motives, the government agents said in June that it was a mistake, that the guns were tagged with GPS locators, but the batteries died. Who's right? How are we supposed to know for sure? I'll throw a favorite quote of yours back at you though: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." (Just googled that, didn't know it had a name; "Hanlon's Razor")


Whyever not? Again, the reason I easily and legitimately apply the label "hypocrite" to so many of you is that you hold conservatives like Bush to the highest standard, and socialists/leftists like Obama to the lowest.
If I promise to not act like a stupid teenager who thinks that every goddamn aspect of the government is directly the President's responsibility, will you stop harping on this? :grin:


Obama was in charge. He knew about the program, AND knew it was a complete screw-up. What actually needs to be determined is if orders came from the White House to let the guns go, or if it was Holder's idea. Because the various people trying to save their skins currently share one common conclusion - the guns walked on the orders of management at the political level, not the career/professional level, and then the careerists were silenced (http://www.theoutdoorwire.com/features/224570) while the DoJ stonewalled investigators.
Well, of course the guns walked, that was the plan, wasn't it? The question isn't where the orders to let the guns walk came from, the question is did those orders say "track them" or "don't track them". In the former case, it was a probably illegal operation, but it had a shot at working and wouldn't have resulted in losing thousands of weapons. In the latter case, we have the situation you're claiming.


There is no evidence, much less legitimate claim, that more than a handful of the up to 12,000 weapons trafficked (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/gunwalker-gunning-down-the-bush-did-it-too-lie/?singlepage=true)under the various Obama forms of "Fast & Furious" were RFID-tagged.
There's no evidence that they weren't tracked. As for evidence supporting the fact that they were being tracked, we have the agents' testimony. He actually says he walked down to Radio Shack and bought some of these himself. Again, we have his testimony vs. your "I think this is what happened because that's what liberals would want to happen," statements. I'm not saying the testimony is irrefutable, it's just what the guy claimed, but why should I believe you over him?

Incidentally, this Agent Dodson you're citing as speaking out against the lack of security and surveillance is the same one shown in Stewart's clip telling Congress about how he put GPS trackers in the guns. I don't see in any of your citations any claim that the guns themselves weren't supposed to be tracked, only that Dodson was not happy with the operation and how it was being conducted. Incidentally, as a bit of personal speculation, if he really was one of the guys who was supposed to go "down to Radio Shack" to fit the guns with trackers, I'm not surprised that he's fingering his bosses as incompetent and/or maliciously trying to get the guns out untracked, because it very well sounds like he might have been the guy who picked the wrong GPS model or battery.


There are no legitimate references to widespread RFID tagging of the 12000 guns trafficked by the Obama administration. Please find any such references, if "Bush Did It TOO!" continues to be the counter.
I don't think they published the receipts for the GPS systems, sorry. And I'm not defending anything based on what Bush did or didn't do, I really don't care about that. I'm just talking about this particular operation.


IF Obama ordered Holder to conduct this operation, it's impeachable.
Only if it's found that they deliberately sold the weapons sans tracking agents with no intention of being able to locate them.

Here's a "journalist's guide to Project Gunwalker" (http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-national/a-journalist-s-guide-to-project-gunwalker-part-six)
Bookmarked to read later.

Also: my first thought when I read about this was Iran/Contra too, but I didn't really want to open that can of wurms.

Alaris
14-10-2011, 18:45
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." (Just googled that, didn't know it had a name; "Hanlon's Razor")

Hahah, good quote. <3

GrimShade
14-10-2011, 19:03
I'd say it largely comes from McCarthyism. The Commies were so bad and evil after WWII that that anger / fear has stayed with many people in the US. Anything remotely close to it manifests a huge knee jerk reaction from a lot of people. Even though a large parts of the world have some form of socialist tendencies many people in the US can't fathom the thought of it even when it's been demonstrated that it can be cheaper.


I guess we shouldn't point out that medicare and social security are socialist ideas.

Alaris
14-10-2011, 19:08
"Not killing each other" is a socialist idea. Your point?

Skyy High
14-10-2011, 19:21
Hahah, good quote. <3
Like I said, I got it from J.

GrimShade
14-10-2011, 19:22
that it's very hipocritical for many of our retired americans to run around bashing socialism while they pick up their social security check and pull out their medicare card when going to the doctor.

Giggles
14-10-2011, 19:47
I guess we shouldn't point out that medicare and social security are socialist ideas.

That's the funny contradictory stance that rolls around the US. From everything I keep hearing, the medical system for the US military is pretty good. It's a socialist system but, I never heard of anyone complaining about it. The same goes for a lot of local infrastructure. Most of that is owned by the local population and is not corporately run.

jmervyn
14-10-2011, 20:07
I'd say it largely comes from McCarthyism. The Commies were so bad and evil after WWII that that anger / fear has stayed with many people in the US. Anything remotely close to it manifests a huge knee jerk reaction from a lot of people.In a personal sense, it's because I was prepared to fight socialists in combat - and then wound up fighting fascists. Who knew?

Even though a large parts of the world have some form of socialist tendencies many people in the US can't fathom the thought of it even when it's been demonstrated that it can be cheaper.It's also even cheaper to liquidate large segments of your undesirable population, which also happens to be a socialist specialty...

I'm not sure what the difference between "counter" and "naysaying" is, but my point was that he does do these stories (particularly egregiously stupid ones like this), and he did talk about this one."Counter" would show that Stewart was actively covering the ongoing holocaust in Mexico. "Naysaying" is just finding fault with one of my lines, which is pretty much the norm here; I say something, someone digs up an exception, and people scream about how evil I am. Nothing new.

That's all the evidence we have, until someone goes out, gets the guns back, and checks to see if there are a bunch of dead GPS trackers in them.I find (let's think razors, shall we?) that a single agent was unlikely to have personally conducted a multi-state RFID installation effort involving up to 12,000 weapons. I suspect that what <was> done was to chip the Barrett .50 cal assault rifles, which in yesteryear would have been regarded as 'anti-tank rifles'. But chipping the AK's and SKS's? Extremely doubtful.

but this link doesn't prove that the "90% myth" is a myth, it proves that the sample size for which the "myth" is based on is a relatively small fraction of the number of guns seized (but still based on 4000 guns).Point being that anti-gun advocates including the Executive branch repeatedly refer to the false 90% claim, and didn't dare investigate the numbers more deeply. The closest the claim comes to legitimization is that 90% of the weapons involved are either of American manufacture or were purchased under U.S. aid programs - duh - but that still deliberately neglects the obvious - that South and Central American weapons trafficking is where these weapons come from, when not from Mexico's own arsenals.

Further, this link does nothing to prove your claim as to the "true objective" of this operation; hell, it's from February, it can't have anything to say about it.The canard's use was recognized far earlier, as well as the rebuttal; what sickens is that the F&F programs obviously allowed the claim to be made with legitimacy due to active efforts by the Administration. What remains to be seen is if there's any <overt> mention of the "ease of weapons trafficking" in Executive documentation.

The rest of this really boils down into hearsay and, hate to say it, conspiracy theories. You say it was done maliciously for ulterior motives, the government agents said in June that it was a mistake, that the guns were tagged with GPS locators, but the batteries died.Again, the claim of GPS or RFID, particularly since they had failed in the past, is very suspect. As for the conspiracy theory aspect, I'd agree - but the serendipity of this abomination being launched as the President wanted new Federal gun control laws does not pass the smell test with me.

I'll throw a favorite quote of yours back at you though: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." (Just googled that, didn't know it had a name; "Hanlon's Razor")Agreed; it's almost as useful as Occam's. There <are> too many unknowns here, since it cannot be established with certainty until Issa has heard testimony whether the DoJ was simply covering up incompetence and correlative links to Obama, or whether there was malice aforethought. Maybe it never will.

If I promise to not act like a stupid teenager who thinks that every goddamn aspect of the government is directly the President's responsibility, will you stop harping on this? :grin:As the saying from Close Encounters goes, "You are not alone". :cutie:

Well, of course the guns walked, that was the plan, wasn't it? The question isn't where the orders to let the guns walk came from, the question is did those orders say "track them" or "don't track them".The orders were from political appointees in the DoJ, and the orders were to not track them. That's beyond the criminal aspect, which apparently ATF might have taken more than one swing at in the Bush years (http://www.theblaze.com/the-wire/10760255/a-second-bush-era-gun-smuggling-probe-emerges/)!

There's no evidence that they weren't tracked.Sigh. We have testimony to that effect from the whistle-blowers in the ATF and FBI, even before the arse-covering started.

I'm not saying the testimony is irrefutable, it's just what the guy claimed, but why should I believe you over him?I'll go look for the other Agents' names when opportunity presents. I'm not fabricating this concept; I forget if Dodson is one of those being asserted as playing cover-up after the fact.

Only if it's found that they deliberately sold the weapons sans tracking agents with no intention of being able to locate them.That is indeed what has been asserted by Issa to have happened, in more than one place.

I guess we shouldn't point out that medicare and social security are socialist ideas.By all means, let's. Care to discuss the common denominator between all three? Hint - color.

that it's very hipocritical for many of our retired americans to run around bashing socialism while they pick up their social security check and pull out their medicare card when going to the doctor.Agreed, and that is one of the more legitimate claims against the TEA party masses (just as the claim against the smelly Occupiers is that they're anarcho-socialists who love corporate products and support Statist Gov't). Granny doesn't like high taxes, she's pissed at the bailouts, she doesn't much like the fact that her kids' kid's kid's kid's kids will be paying for her largesse, BUT DON'T YOU TOUCH "HER" MEDICARE! The Libertarian component is far less silly in that regard, but they only compose about half the movement.

That's the funny contradictory stance that rolls around the US. From everything I keep hearing, the medical system for the US military is pretty good. It's a socialist system but, I never heard of anyone complaining about it.Uh, then you heard wrong. Dead wrong. Google "VA" and "scandal".

Alaris
14-10-2011, 21:20
It's also even cheaper to liquidate large segments of your undesirable population, which also happens to be a socialist specialty...

Let me guess. Hitler? Public healthcare? Obama infanticide?