Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

Fast and FuriousFollow

#1 Jun 20 2012 at 3:41 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,577 posts
Since there's been very very little discussion of this (shocking, I know!), and some interesting developments occurred today, I figured I'd start a thread on the subject.


I've been following this story for some time now and have been somewhat surprised both by the lack of media coverage and the apparent solid stonewall the Obama administration (especially AG Holder) have used. It just seems like something they could have complied with and cooperated with a year+ ago and been done with, which makes one really wonder why he hasn't. It's gotten to the point where today the House Oversite committee voted to hold the Attorney General in Contempt of Congress (which is theoretically a "big deal").


What's really interesting is that President Obama just jumped in by exercising executive privilege to block the documents the committee has been asking for for over a year from being handed over. It's strange because for most of that time the Justice Department has insisted that this was a regional program that was handled well below the federal level, and Holder was never involved in anything to do with it. How then does the White House get involved? My understanding is that the documents under subpoena have no direct connection to the White House or any senior White House staff (other than Holder).


So... President jumping in to protect his subordinate? Something about the operation actually did involve the President? Or something else? Hell. Are there people who've just never even heard of this before?


EDIT: Added link I intended to include initially.

Edited, Jun 20th 2012 3:22pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#2 Jun 20 2012 at 3:53 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
I have no idea what's going on here...
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#3 Jun 20 2012 at 4:00 PM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
Most people would have provided a source to go with their opening statements, but that also would imply they had any intention of informed discussion. Here's a link to what he's directly talking about.. Anyway, a while ago it was found out that some officials were running guns to (from? I forget.) Mexico and it was a big no no. I'm just about out the door to pick up my daughter so I'm not doing any more digging, but from my understanding is privilege was invoked because there are issues during the investigation, and not knowing what those problems were, or if there even were any makes me not really care too deeply in any direction.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#4 Jun 20 2012 at 4:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,753 posts
gbaji wrote:
So... President jumping in to protect his subordinate? Something about the operation actually did involve the President? Or something else? Hell. Are there people who've just never even heard of this before?


My guess is that someone with some sort of political connections was involved deeply enough in the debacle to tap those connections in an attempt to cover his own ass. Unfortunately the problems didn't go away as hoped, and have slowly escalated to where they are now. Eventually someone will end up doing something illegal to cover up something stupid or illegal that someone else did, if they haven't already.


Edited, Jun 20th 2012 3:02pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#5 Jun 20 2012 at 4:10 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Most people would have provided a source to go with their opening statements, but that also would imply they had any intention of informed discussion. Here's a link to what he's directly talking about..
Thanks, I was thinking that maybe Gbaji accidentally made a thread instead of a reply or something since his post is such a vague and standard Gbaji post (not knowing about the issue or who Mr Holder is) that it seemed like it could have applied to any number of topics Gbaji cares to ramble about.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#6 Jun 20 2012 at 4:37 PM Rating: Good
***
2,798 posts
Read Gbaji's post below mine. It's a much better synopsis of what happened.

Edited, Jun 20th 2012 5:51pm by Bigdaddyjug
____________________________
Sir Xsarus wrote:
That's pretty much the best ninja edit ever.


Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn
Midgarsormr realm
Eartha Kitty 30 BRD/12 MNK
#7 Jun 20 2012 at 4:44 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,577 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Most people would have provided a source to go with their opening statements, but that also would imply they had any intention of informed discussion. Here's a link to what he's directly talking about..
Thanks, I was thinking that maybe Gbaji accidentally made a thread instead of a reply or something since his post is such a vague and standard Gbaji post (not knowing about the issue or who Mr Holder is) that it seemed like it could have applied to any number of topics Gbaji cares to ramble about.


Nah. Sorry about that (and thanks to lolgaxe for providing a link). I had a page all loaded up and ready, and then just plain forgot to link it when writing the OP.


The issue is that the ATF (which operates under the Justice Department) ran a sting operation where they worked with local gun store owners in the SW to deliberately sell guns to illegal buyers. But instead of just catching the buyers or middlemen (which previous operations had done), they were supposedly going to track the guns and see where they went and then catch someone bigger up the stream. But what happened is that the guys who were setting up the selling part of it assumed that some other group of agents were going to be tracking the guns, but it appears that no one actually did. Thus, the guns "walked" across the border, into Mexico, ended out in the hands of drug cartel guys and resulted in increased gun violence on the border (remember that happening back in 2009/2010?).

This eventually lead to a Border Patrol agent being shot and killed by one of the guns that the ATF had allowed to walk (or at least one or more of those guns were at the scene, I'm don't remember if he was actually shot by one of them). At that point, it appears that there may have been a cover up of the operation once someone realized that the serial numbers on those guns matched those used in the operation. Or at least an attempt to do so. However, a couple of ATF agents got together and compared stories and realized that this wasn't just some fluke mistake, but that apparently no one involved in said operation was actually involved in the tracking part of it (some of this is speculation of course, since we still don't know all the facts). But they blew the whistle on the operation and brought it to the attention of the media and the House Oversite Committee (which has... um... oversite on such things).


The committee has attempted to get an answer about this since that happened, but the Justice Department originally claimed that it knew nothing about it. Then they admitted that they heard about it, but only after the fact. Then they started handing over documents consisting of blanked out pages. All very unusual for an executive branch agency when reporting to an oversite committee. The more the committee has dug, the more stonewalling they've run into. Culminating in todays vote to find Holder in contempt of Congress.


What's really strange is Obama using executive privilege though. That's only something that can be used with documents directly related to actions taken by the president. Very unusual for something that supposedly never even reached federal level attention. Lots of people have speculated that Obama might do something like this, but that it would be a bad idea since it effectively admits that this whole mess involved the office of the President in the first place. Up until now, it's been downplayed as a minor snafu at a low level. It's kind of a risky move since while it may protect the documents in question, it now puts the President right in the middle of it.


Oh. And as a bit of side fun, there's been some theorizing about *why* the operation went down the way it did. Obviously, the first answer would be incompetence, perhaps followed up by a foolish, but otherwise not terribly sinister attempt to cover up the mistake. Another theory though is that this was the intent of the operation from the beginning. They told the agents setting up the selling part of the operation that the guns would be tracked as cover, but never did so. The plan was to increase the statistics on illegal guns sold in the US that ended out in the hands of criminals along the border. After all, absent those agents blowing the whistle on this, since the guns were not sold by ATF agents directly, but laundered through local gun shops, the DOJ could just have included them in some data used to general gun crime statistics and none would be the wiser.


I'm not sure how much I buy that theory, but it has the interesting quality of actually explaining every single thing that's happened. The poor construction of the operation. The decision to have gun stores act as the sellers. Hell. You could even tie in trips and statements Obama made at the time about the problem of gun violence on the border. Certainly, Obama's decision to use executive privilege today only gives fuel to that conspiracy theory. Why do that unless there was some coordination between his office and this operation? You can certainly argue that just a regional level coverup within a sub-organization of the DOJ should not justify such an action.


Dunno. I find it to be an interesting story. One that has unfortunately been ignored in most of the media, but which I suspect might have just gotten a bit bigger.

Edited, Jun 20th 2012 3:47pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#8 Jun 20 2012 at 5:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The only people who think this has been "ignored in the media" are people who either (a) just want to cry about "the media" or (b) people who literally are not getting their news from anywhere.

It has been a story many people don't care about since it has come across as the same partisan dog and pony show as everything else Congress has done for the last two years.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#9 Jun 20 2012 at 5:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,054 posts
This issue is of great interest to me, but obviously not the liberal cheer section. Therefore, a discussion seems pointless.

Guns are bad, m'kay?
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#10 Jun 20 2012 at 5:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The issue was pure politics the moment Issa bragged in 2010 that he was going to bury the administration in subpoenas. Any chance for a serious discussion died on the vine before it even got started.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#11 Jun 20 2012 at 6:02 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,577 posts
Jophiel wrote:
The only people who think this has been "ignored in the media" are people who either (a) just want to cry about "the media" or (b) people who literally are not getting their news from anywhere.


Or (c) People who note just how little this has been covered in the media given the issue itself. Government program somehow managed to result in thousands of guns being illegally obtained by Mexican drug cartels resulting in the death of a border patrol agent should be big news all by itself. Add in Justice Department refusing to cooperate with a pretty reasonable request for answers by the very committee responsible and empowered to ask them and it should be a big story and scandal. Have this go on for over a year and it should have been worth a half dozen front page NYT spreads.


Quote:
It has been a story many people don't care about since it has come across as the same partisan dog and pony show as everything else Congress has done for the last two years.


The only thing partisan about this is the circling of wagons the left is doing. Given the circumstances of this case *any* congress should be investigating it. Partisanship has nothing to do with it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#12 Jun 20 2012 at 6:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
The only people who think this has been "ignored in the media" are people who either (a) just want to cry about "the media" or (b) people who literally are not getting their news from anywhere.
Or (c) People who note just how little this has been covered in the media given the issue itself.

Which would only hold true if this were the case. Which brings us back to (a) and (b)

Quote:
Partisanship has nothing to do with it.

I won't even dignify that with a long sting of "Ha"s
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#13 Jun 20 2012 at 6:48 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,577 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
The only people who think this has been "ignored in the media" are people who either (a) just want to cry about "the media" or (b) people who literally are not getting their news from anywhere.
Or (c) People who note just how little this has been covered in the media given the issue itself.

Which would only hold true if this were the case.


Are you saying it's not? Care to elaborate on why this is such a non-issue that it does not warrant much media coverage? Forget which party is involved. Just honestly answer the question. The fact is that the oversite committee has not been provided any answers at all about who authorized the program, why it was implemented the way it was, who was involved in it, etc. The Attorney General has already been caught in one lie on this. Something that should have already been major news all by itself. But you can almost hear the crickets in this case.


The partisanship has been in the lefts willingness to do apparently anything at all to protect a senior member of the Obama administration. I suspect that's going to bite them in the end though.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#14 Jun 20 2012 at 7:02 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Are you saying it's not?

It's not. There's been extensive coverage.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#15 Jun 20 2012 at 7:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,224 posts
Yeah, it damaged Reagan so much in the whole Iran-Contra debacle.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#16 Jun 20 2012 at 7:16 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,643 posts
Samira wrote:
Yeah, it damaged Reagan so much in the whole Iran-Contra debacle.



I know I'm not voting for him again.
#17 Jun 20 2012 at 7:46 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,577 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Are you saying it's not?

It's not. There's been extensive coverage.


Um... No. there hasn't.

Yes. Conservative source, but the fact that NBC failed to mention this even one time on their major news show is pretty amazing (and true). But if it was just them, that would be just them, right?

I'm sure you'll just ignore this because those are crazy conservatives saying it. So it must be all lies. Um... Sadly, it's not. The lack of any serious coverage of this story is shocking. Most people have never heard of it, and those who have don't know much about it, or have any sense that it's very important (largely because it hasn't been covered of course). The media has a massive influence on people's perceptions about the relative importance of events, and in this case the lack of coverage is absolutely feeding a perception that this isn't important.

By all means though, show me this "extensive coverage" that the major networks have been providing to their viewers on this subject.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#18 Jun 20 2012 at 7:48 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,577 posts
Hell. The fact that I posted a thread about this, forgot to include a link to the story, and the immediate responses were "without a link we don't know what you're talking about" ought to speak volumes about how this story has not been covered. I actually assumed that most of the posters on this board, being liberal, just choose not to bring it up. But now it appears that most of them have just never heard of it (or not enough to remember what it's about). Like I said, shocking.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#19 Jun 20 2012 at 7:48 PM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
gbaji wrote:
Forget which party is involved.
Heh.
gbaji wrote:
Hell. The fact that I posted a thread about this, forgot to include a link to the story, and the immediate responses were "without a link we don't know what you're talking about" ought to speak volumes about how this story has not been covered.
Speaks more volumes that the only person that didn't know what you were talking about isn't even American but you seem to be counting him multiple times.

Edited, Jun 20th 2012 9:52pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#20 Jun 20 2012 at 7:53 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,354 posts
NPR may be more kind to the left than Fox News, but their main show isn't called "All Things Considered" for nothing. If it's important and it's happening, it'll probably end up on either ATC or Morning Edition at some point. Like this did, ages ago. Even the bits about the Rs in the House demanding Holder's resignation, and Holder almost giving a farewell speech at some points because this scandal might just take him down.

Funny thing is, most liberals weren't too fond of Holder anyway.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#21 Jun 20 2012 at 7:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Huh. And yet there's an average of around 135 stories in the last year that come up when you search for +"Fast and furious"+Holder on CBS News' website, ABC News' website and CNN website. NBC News's site is actually MSNBC which comes up with 374 hits but it's wonky about showing me the actual article list so I'm content to just call it ~135 as an overall average. Which I'll admit is much easier for the layperson to check against than me going through a year's worth of video from news outlets to check against some blog entries crying about the mean ole media.

Well, you already played the "crazy conservatives" card so no reason for me to go there. Carry on.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#22 Jun 20 2012 at 7:59 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,577 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Forget which party is involved.
Heh.


I know this is hard to do, but try. At the end of the day, you've got an executive branch department refusing to comply with the requests of the committee that has direct oversite on that departments activities. It doesn't matter which party is which. Taking a side based on party in this case effectively tosses the rule of law out the window and assigns right and wrong to a simple determination of which party is involved. It's absurd. There is no indication that what the committee is asking for is unreasonable. It has every right to make those requests. Holder and the DOJ are required by law to comply. It doesn't matter which party is involved in which part of this.

Or at least, it shouldn't.

Edited, Jun 20th 2012 7:11pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#23 Jun 20 2012 at 8:05 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,577 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Huh. And yet there's an average of around 135 stories in the last year that come up when you search for +"Fast and furious"+Holder on CBS News' website, ABC News' website and CNN website. NBC News's site is actually MSNBC which comes up with 374 hits but it's wonky about showing me the actual article list so I'm content to just call it ~135 as an overall average. Which I'll admit is much easier for the layperson to check against than me going through a year's worth of video from news outlets to check against some blog entries crying about the mean ole media.


On their websites. Not on their evening news shows. Kind of a big difference, don't you think?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#24 Jun 20 2012 at 8:05 PM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
gbaji wrote:
Or at least, it shouldn't.
I agree, and I'll add that most everything shouldn't be based on which party is involved as the deciding factor. You're full of shit if you think anyone believes that the reason you're in a tizzy over this isn't because of party affiliation, though. Which does deserve a chuckle.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#25 Jun 20 2012 at 8:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
On their websites. Not on their evening news shows. Kind of a big difference, don't you think?

Right. One is easy to check when a blog tells you there's never been a story, the other one is much more difficult to verify. I suppose it makes sense that a news outlet would put out 135 stories but then be sure to super-secret-never-tell-anyone on the news though. Makes sense Smiley: nod

Also lulz at conservative cry-fests that are forced to say "Well, except CBS News which broke the story and won an award for their coverage" while going on about how the "media" refuses to cover the story. Who knew CBS was no longer the scary "mainstream media"? Smiley: laugh

Edited, Jun 20th 2012 9:21pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#26 Jun 20 2012 at 8:22 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,577 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Or at least, it shouldn't.
I agree, and I'll add that most everything shouldn't be based on which party is involved as the deciding factor. You're full of shit if you think anyone believes that the reason you're in a tizzy over this isn't because of party affiliation, though. Which does deserve a chuckle.


If a republican AG were doing this, I'd also be demanding answers. The difference is that once those answers were made and the committee satisfied with them, I would question those who continued to insist that some kind of conspiracy was going on. The partisanship is coming from the left here, not the right (just like it usually does).
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#27 Jun 20 2012 at 8:30 PM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
gbaji wrote:
If a republican AG were doing this, I'd also be demanding answers.
"If I had the money, I'd relocate my family to Texas." Easy to say, and you actually might, but you've (and I in my initial sentence in this post) behaved/posted in a manner that wouldn't get anyone to trust that claim.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#28 Jun 20 2012 at 8:38 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'm reminded of Gbaji's behavior during the whole Plame thing and how he eventually just started insisting that Fitzgerald's case was all political and now I just laugh when he pretends that he'd approach this from a non-partisan standpoint if the parties were reversed.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#29 Jun 20 2012 at 8:55 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,577 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
On their websites. Not on their evening news shows. Kind of a big difference, don't you think?

Right. One is easy to check when a blog tells you there's never been a story, the other one is much more difficult to verify. I suppose it makes sense that a news outlet would put out 135 stories but then be sure to super-secret-never-tell-anyone on the news though. Makes sense Smiley: nod


Do you think that every story that appears on a new agencies web site also appears on their live news broadcast that day? Cause that's kind of impossible.

The point is that it's cheap and easy to put a story on the website. It costs much more to put it on the air, but you get a much broader audience. And traditionally, scandals of this nature tend to get massive media airplay. But this one has gotten very very little.

Quote:
Also lulz at conservative cry-fests that are forced to say "Well, except CBS News which broke the story and won an award for their coverage" while going on about how the "media" refuses to cover the story. Who knew CBS was no longer the scary "mainstream media"?


Really? So the fact that the other two major news agencies ignored the story just doesn't matter? You're not a paid operative of the Democratic party Joph, so why are you making such effort to spin this? I know it may be shocking to you to believe that conservatives appreciate when a news agency (well, one person at one news agency) buck the liberal circled wagons and actually writes a story that everyone should be writing. But that speaks more about conservatives willing to give credit than credit is due than any sort of accomplishment among the media as a whole. I'm not sure why you think that is funny. It's an indictment of just how f'ed in the head your "side" is.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#30 Jun 20 2012 at 8:58 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,577 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I'm reminded of Gbaji's behavior during the whole Plame thing and how he eventually just started insisting that Fitzgerald's case was all political and now I just laugh when he pretends that he'd approach this from a non-partisan standpoint if the parties were reversed.


Um.. Except that in that case it was all political. Fitzgerald knew who the leak was before he even started the investigation. WTF? You just don't bother to even think about what you're saying, do you? That is pretty much the worst example you could have come up with. Wow. Just... wow.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#31 Jun 20 2012 at 9:00 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,643 posts
The hypocrisy dripping out of all of gbajis posts would be more amusing if his posts were shorter.
#32 Jun 20 2012 at 9:03 PM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
Nah, the ones he's desperately trying to prove his ability to be nonpartisan are good sized.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#33 Jun 20 2012 at 9:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Do you think that every story that appears on a new agencies web site also appears on their live news broadcast that day? Cause that's kind of impossible.

No, but nice strawman?

Quote:
But this one has gotten very very little.

So you really, really want everyone to believe.

Quote:
So the fact that the other two major news agencies ignored the story just doesn't matter?

They didn't.

Quote:
why are you making such effort to spin this?

Says the guy who started the thread by crying about how "the media" isn't reporting this... I understand you were told your talking points and recited them and now have to stand fast to them truth be damned and say things like "135 news stories don't count because it's not what I say it has to be to count!" but you'd be better off just quietly dropping it than repeatedly showing how wrong you were. Hey, maybe next time you're told no one ever reported on it, actually check it out yourself instead of parroting the "fact" and looking stupid.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#34 Jun 20 2012 at 9:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Um.. Except that in that case it was all political. Fitzgerald knew who the leak was before he even started the investigation. WTF? You just don't bother to even think about what you're saying, do you? That is pretty much the worst example you could have come up with. Wow. Just... wow.

*snrk* Thanks... Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#35 Jun 20 2012 at 9:20 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,942 posts
Does it blow a hole in gbaji's lack of media argument if I heard this exact story on ABC's nighttime news as I was reading this thread?

When I saw the title of this thread, "Man, Vin Diesel is making *another* sequel?" was *not* the first thought to come to mind. It was the second.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#36 Jun 20 2012 at 11:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,643 posts
Debalic wrote:
Does it blow a hole in gbaji's lack of media argument if I heard this exact story on ABC's nighttime news as I was reading this thread?


And on All Things Considered on my way home in the car.
#37 Jun 21 2012 at 12:00 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,921 posts
Read the OP article link. The first legitimate reason I can think of to suppress documents about the "Fast and Furious" operations is that it would endanger undercover law enforcement agents still involved with the drug cartel and gun traders. Redacting their names may or may not help that.

The second and more believable reason, at least if this was in Britain, is that the documents would reveal too much undercover police procedure. Even in trials by jury, undercover police are not to be asked WHERE they observed a witness from, because that blows police methods. They can only be asked WHAT they observed of the witnesses' behaviour. Even if the undervover police officer was in the same room as the witness, and fully visible to the witness.

Edited, Jun 21st 2012 2:09am by Aripyanfar
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#38 Jun 21 2012 at 6:23 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,896 posts
gbaji wrote:
Since there's been very very little discussion of this (shocking, I know!), and some interesting developments occurred today, I figured I'd start a thread on the subject.


I've been following this story for some time now and have been somewhat surprised both by the lack of media coverage ....
I only can get to here and any bit of credibility I may have decided to allow you for the day escapes from existence.

One little liberal rags reporting on Fast and Furious.









Edited, Jun 21st 2012 3:40pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#39 Jun 21 2012 at 7:05 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
"No media coverage!" has been diluted to "Well, sure there's tons of print coverage and CBS won an award for its broadcast coverage and ABC has been covering it (but we say not enough) and it's been on all the cable news networks but we're pretty sure this one show on NBC (we're not counting any other news coverage on NBC or its affiliates) didn't cover it because... LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS!!!!"
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#40 Jun 21 2012 at 7:14 AM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
There's been a few articles over the last week in the paper, but print is dead so it doesn't count.

I'm guessing Daily Show doesn't count either.

Edited, Jun 21st 2012 9:31am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#41 Jun 21 2012 at 9:21 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,753 posts
I'm assuming if I heard about it through the mainstream media months ago, they did a good enough job of covering it.

Bigdaddyjug wrote:
Read Gbaji's post below mine. It's a much better synopsis of what happened.

Edited, Jun 20th 2012 5:51pm by Bigdaddyjug


I liked yours better though. It had 95% of what was in gbaji's post, and a lot lot lot less words. Smiley: frown


From a CNN opinion piece:
Quote:
United States v. Nixon held that, with the possible exception of documents pertaining to military and state secrets, executive privilege is not absolute but "qualified."

Under a "qualified privilege," documents that are potentially exempt from mandatory disclosure might still have to be released to another branch of government. This would happen when the institutional needs of the demanding branch to acquire the information in support of its own constitutional functions are weightier than the harms that would follow should the executive branch be forced to disclose it.


TLDR = basically my understanding is since it isn't a military/state secret they still have to share these documents with the appropriate court if it demands them. They just feel they have no obligation to share them with congress at this point. If there's reason to suspect criminal wrongdoing, you press charges and should have access to the documents in question.

Edited, Jun 21st 2012 8:23am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#42 Jun 21 2012 at 9:53 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Issa's been fishing for a big score since he took the chair. After numerous testimonies and disclosures, the administration is done playing along. Any votes on it will be strictly party line and reinforce the partisan aspects of it. There actually is stuff about the program worth investigating and rebuking but it's under such a heavy slathering of partisan hunting at this point that it's never going to be productive. Issa doesn't want anything less than a big embarrassment for the president so he's uninterested in anything but pushing further and further no matter what it actually deserves.

In a few days to a week, the SCotUS will rule on the health care law and this will be all but forgotten.

This is also, unless I'm forgetting anything, the fourth major display of Executive power in the face of Congress. The others springing to mind being Libya, immigration (discretion & the recent order) and recess appointments during the pro-forma session. The GOP has folded each previous time and I'm sure Obama feels emboldened to exercise it now.

Edited, Jun 21st 2012 10:58am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#43 Jun 21 2012 at 10:28 AM Rating: Good
My favorite part of this whole thing is how the far right wing is interpreting it. Let's see, this is how Obama is going to destroy the 2nd amendment. Something along the lines of "The gangs will kill lots of people with the guns, causing an outcry for more gun control!".

The better part is the NRA's line about Obama not doing anything at all about gun control in his 1st term to lull people into relaxing, and he's gonna take our guns in his 2nd term!

It's fun watching the crazies sometimes, but not for too long.
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#44 Jun 21 2012 at 3:11 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,577 posts
Belkira wrote:
Debalic wrote:
Does it blow a hole in gbaji's lack of media argument if I heard this exact story on ABC's nighttime news as I was reading this thread?


And on All Things Considered on my way home in the car.


Yes. Now tell me how many times you saw this on TV or heard about it on any non-conservative talk radio show prior to the last couple weeks? That's the point. This has gotten very little media coverage until now. And now only because the media kinda can't not report on it at this point. Is it really so hard for you people to see the contrast between the kind of coverage this story has gotten compared to past allegations involving Republicans? The Plame story burst into a massive media frenzy based essentially on one reporter speculating that something another reporter wrote might have been classified and might have come from someone in the White House. Pure speculation, which ended out being completely false on both counts, yet that didn't prevent massive coverage broadcast into every livingroom in the country.


Here you have a case where we know that the operation was badly executed. We know that people died as a result. We know that our own government was behind it. We know that attempts were made to cover this up which were thwarted by a few whistle blowers in the ATF. Someone please explain to me then why it's taken well over a year for the media to provide any coverage and half of the coverage it's doing now is about how this is just the GOP engaging in election year politicking.


I keep becoming more and more ashamed of the media we have in this country. They used to at least attempt to pretend to cover the news fairly and leave their own biases at the door. But that time seems to be in the past now.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#45 Jun 21 2012 at 3:26 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,577 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
Read the OP article link. The first legitimate reason I can think of to suppress documents about the "Fast and Furious" operations is that it would endanger undercover law enforcement agents still involved with the drug cartel and gun traders. Redacting their names may or may not help that.


Um... No one's asking for the documents to be made public, but for them to be made available to the oversight committee. These committees deal with classified documents all the time and are under the same oaths that those handing them over are under. That is simply not an excuse. These committees exist to examine sensitive documents in the smallest group possible for exactly this reason. There is no legitimate excuse not to hand this stuff over.

Quote:
The second and more believable reason, at least if this was in Britain, is that the documents would reveal too much undercover police procedure.


Um... Except in this case, it was the procedures used which caused this whole thing to fail. Oversight committees have oversight on the executive programs they fund. That's the whole point of the system. Those programs and those running them are required to provide any information about their operations to the relevant committees upon request. Again, they exist to provide oversight. Saying "we don't want to tell you how we operate" is not a valid response.

Quote:
Even in trials by jury, undercover police are not to be asked WHERE they observed a witness from, because that blows police methods. They can only be asked WHAT they observed of the witnesses' behaviour. Even if the undervover police officer was in the same room as the witness, and fully visible to the witness.


This is not a trial. It's a congressional committee asking for information about a program that they have legal oversight over. Holder refusing to hand over the documents would be like an employee refusing to explain to his boss why he lost the Flugelheim contract. Saying "something went wrong, but I'm not going to tell you what" is not a valid response. This is not about releasing these documents to the public. It's about releasing them to a small group of members of Congress who's job is to examine these sorts of documents and make assessments of them so that we *don't* have to tell the whole public (or even the whole congress) the secret details of some government operation.


We trust members of congress with details about black ops we conduct. We then trust them as elected officials to represent *us* when determining whether said operations were handled properly or were necessary. We do it this way so that we can maintain national security interests while still ensuring that "the people" have a say in what goes on. That's the whole point of our system. This is why Holder's actions really do have no grounds at all. If he's not required to report to this oversight committee, then he's not bound by the law at all. That's a really big deal. And for some to shrug this off as partisan politics is not just ignorant, but it's dangerous as well. These sorts of hearings and oversight is the check that we citizens have against abuses of power by our own government. Weaken that and you weaken all of us. Not just Democrats or Republicans.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#46 Jun 21 2012 at 3:50 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,577 posts
Jophiel wrote:
There actually is stuff about the program worth investigating and rebuking but it's under such a heavy slathering of partisan hunting at this point that it's never going to be productive.


What slathering? I think that's pretty subjective. Is it slathering anytime a Republican asks for information from a Democrat? The whole claim of partisanship loses its weight if you apply it every single time no matter what the situation. Boy who cried wolf and all that.

Quote:
Issa doesn't want anything less than a big embarrassment for the president so he's uninterested in anything but pushing further and further no matter what it actually deserves.


So you're saying that Holder (and now the White House) are blocking this because they don't want to be embarrassed? Really!?

Quote:
In a few days to a week, the SCotUS will rule on the health care law and this will be all but forgotten.


I'm sure the media will do everything they can to shuffle this story out of the public eye as quickly as possible and that will be a great excuse to do so. The issue wont go away though.

Quote:
This is also, unless I'm forgetting anything, the fourth major display of Executive power in the face of Congress. The others springing to mind being Libya, immigration (discretion & the recent order) and recess appointments during the pro-forma session. The GOP has folded each previous time and I'm sure Obama feels emboldened to exercise it now.


Good thing we're never allowed to argue a slippery slope though. Because letting someone get away with one abuse of power never leads to them attempting more of the same. Nosirree!

Oh. And you forgot the whole "Justice department refusing to defend DOMA even though it's out job to do so" one as well. Apparently oaths to uphold the law weren't really taken very seriously by members of the Obama Administration. One wonders why we bother to administer such things.

Edited, Jun 21st 2012 2:52pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#47 Jun 21 2012 at 3:58 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
What slathering? I think that's pretty subjective

You're welcome to do so. I've no delusions about convincing you otherwise.
Quote:
So you're saying that Holder (and now the White House) are blocking this because they don't want to be embarrassed? Really!?

That's not even close to what I said.
Quote:
I'm sure the media...

Yes, I'm sure you'll think about the media whatever you're told to think about the media. This thread already demonstrated that.
Quote:
Good thing we're never allowed to argue a slippery slope though.

Your butthurt is showing. Also your inability to argue things logically.
Quote:
Oh. And you forgot the whole "Justice department refusing to defend DOMA even though it's out job to do so" one as well.

Haha, yeah the GOP is taking a bath all over, aren't they? Of course, each thing did have a valid defense by the administration (which is why all the GOP could do was impotently caterwaul) but I know crying about oaths is more important to you so I'll let you have that one was well Smiley: smile
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#48 Jun 21 2012 at 4:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,288 posts
gbaji wrote:
Belkira wrote:
Debalic wrote:
Does it blow a hole in gbaji's lack of media argument if I heard this exact story on ABC's nighttime news as I was reading this thread?


And on All Things Considered on my way home in the car.


Yes. Now tell me how many times you saw this on TV or heard about it on any non-conservative talk radio show prior to the last couple weeks?

This reminds me of what my son says when I tell him more than one time that he has to do something. "But you only said it once! It doesn't count yet!"

Smiley: oyvey
#49 Jun 21 2012 at 5:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Gbaji wrote:
why it's taken well over a year for the media to provide any coverage

Jophiel wrote:
"No media coverage!" has been diluted to "Well, sure there's tons of print coverage and CBS won an award for its broadcast coverage and ABC has been covering it (but we say not enough) and it's been on all the cable news networks but we're pretty sure this one show on NBC (we're not counting any other news coverage on NBC or its affiliates) didn't cover it because... LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS!!!!"

Smiley: nod
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#50 Jun 21 2012 at 5:20 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,576 posts
gbaji wrote:
the lack of media coverage

It's not even a joke. You don't get your news from anywhere. Do you know what my first thought was when reading this thread title? Old news.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvLU7ob7mwA

No, not the fact that it was on The Daily Show, but rather that that segment of the daily show contains a ncie selection of clips from major news organizations about the subject. TDS even had anotehr segment about the debacle days later.

You are utterly a tool. This was in my local paper, The Dallas Morning News, just today. People are even discussing it in the op-ed section of the Dallas Morning News in the section reserved for reader opinions, because apparently everyone seems to know and care about it.
#51 Jun 21 2012 at 5:53 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,577 posts
Jophiel wrote:
"No media coverage!" has been diluted to ...


**** of a strawman there Joph.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 55 All times are in CDT
gbaji, Jophiel, Kastigir, Samira, someproteinguy, Turin, Xsarus, Anonymous Guests (48)