Jump to content

Obama's Mexican Gunrunning Operation


Recommended Posts

The hearing had their star witnesses speculating out loud that it looked like middle-management idiocy to them. That really took a lot of steam out of Grassley and Issa's quest for the Holy Grail. Then the indications that Melson is not going to finger anybody came out of his preliminary talks with Grassley.

 

Even the Terry family made a statement that they would prefer if this did not interfere with any on-going investigations or prosecutions of the people that killed their boy.

 

http://thehill.com/h...t-atf-officials

 

I did not see that speculation in the hearings, but did see numerous reports saying that Director Melson was in on this operation, and that he was doing his bosses' bidding.

 

The Terry family has repeatedly said that he would want the truth to come out, and they repeated it in the article you linked, which also said this:

 

The operation's objective was to use the gun sales to trace and ultimately dismantle the illicit trafficking routes that bring guns bought in the U.S. to Mexico. But officials did not authorize an appropriate level of surveillance for the weapons and their traffickers, and the majority of them eventually went missing, ATF agents have testified.

 

Do you think that "did not authorize an appropriate level of surveillance" really captures what happened here? You know, the whole "ordering agents NOT to track weapons" thing that happened? Was that really "not authorizing appropriate surveillance" or "ordering a halt to appropriate surveillance"?

 

JMD, that last question is for you, too. I have corrected numerous "reports" on this scandal in this thread, and all seem to have a common theme: it somehow got outta hand. Yeah, somehow, but none mention the orders NOT to track the guns. That is a significant fact, and omitting it is bias of omission. There is a notable pattern of that bias, if you just care to look.

 

edit to add:

 

Heyer clarified that Terry’s family was not trying to imply that it was calling for the prosecution of government officials involved in the operation, though he said he could understand how that could be inferred from his earlier statement. Instead, the family would like to see the government officials who authorized the operation take responsibility for their decisions.

 

Yeah, I would like to see that too, but it seems the outcome will have to be forced. If we were going to find out who authorized this operation just by having someone take responsibility for his actions, it would have happened long ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It's Judge Jackson or Judge Berman Jackson. It isn't Judge Berman unless you're watching reality court TV at the laundromat. Actually, I did mean only those documents. Again, the Kenyan’s EP was

Maybe he'll be nicer now that his period is over.

People who have time to read things like the relevant Inspector General's report instead of just spewing insults and talking points know that the reality is that the stupid program was shut down under

Posted Images

 

JMD, that last question is for you, too. I have corrected numerous "reports" on this scandal in this thread, and all seem to have a common theme: it somehow got outta hand. Yeah, somehow, but none mention the orders NOT to track the guns. That is a significant fact, and omitting it is bias of omission. There is a notable pattern of that bias, if you just care to look.

 

There were "orders NOT to track the guns?"

 

Says who?

Link to post
Share on other sites

JMD, that last question is for you, too. I have corrected numerous "reports" on this scandal in this thread, and all seem to have a common theme: it somehow got outta hand. Yeah, somehow, but none mention the orders NOT to track the guns. That is a significant fact, and omitting it is bias of omission. There is a notable pattern of that bias, if you just care to look.

 

There were "orders NOT to track the guns?"

 

Says who?

 

Agent Dodson, among others. I've only been bitching about that aspect of the operation repeatedly ever since. Try to keep up.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/03/eveningnews/main20039031.shtml

Link to post
Share on other sites

JMD, that last question is for you, too. I have corrected numerous "reports" on this scandal in this thread, and all seem to have a common theme: it somehow got outta hand. Yeah, somehow, but none mention the orders NOT to track the guns. That is a significant fact, and omitting it is bias of omission. There is a notable pattern of that bias, if you just care to look.

 

There were "orders NOT to track the guns?"

 

Says who?

 

Agent Dodson, among others. I've only been bitching about that aspect of the operation repeatedly ever since. Try to keep up.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/03/eveningnews/main20039031.shtml

 

The amazing thing is that nobody has yet noticed the bit of testimony that implicated Obama. It's been sitting there all along.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think that "did not authorize an appropriate level of surveillance" really captures what happened here? You know, the whole "ordering agents NOT to track weapons" thing that happened? Was that really "not authorizing appropriate surveillance" or "ordering a halt to appropriate surveillance"?

 

JMD, that last question is for you, too. I have corrected numerous "reports" on this scandal in this thread, and all seem to have a common theme: it somehow got outta hand. Yeah, somehow, but none mention the orders NOT to track the guns. That is a significant fact, and omitting it is bias of omission. There is a notable pattern of that bias, if you just care to look.

How 'bout you re-read what I posted, this time with more of a focus on what I actually said and less of a desire to make up what you think I said?

Link to post
Share on other sites

JMD, that last question is for you, too. I have corrected numerous "reports" on this scandal in this thread, and all seem to have a common theme: it somehow got outta hand. Yeah, somehow, but none mention the orders NOT to track the guns. That is a significant fact, and omitting it is bias of omission. There is a notable pattern of that bias, if you just care to look.

 

There were "orders NOT to track the guns?"

 

Says who?

 

Agent Dodson, among others. I've only been bitching about that aspect of the operation repeatedly ever since. Try to keep up.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/03/eveningnews/main20039031.shtml

 

He didn't say that he was ordered not to track the guns. He said that he was ordered not to intercept them.

 

Not the same thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Juan Williams takes on Gunwalking

 

GOP distracts from drug horror

 

And right from the headline, he starts trying to distract readers from focusing on the government wrongdoing. Surprise, surprise, surprise! His lesson from all of this is that Republicans are bad. Let's explore...

 

The daily horror of mass murder in Mexico hit the U.S. Congress last week in the form of scandal. Sadly, the scandal is not about the incredible loss of life in the drug wars. Instead, Republicans in Congress are busy targeting their least favorite member of the Obama cabinet, Attorney General Eric Holder.

 

Last week? Wow, he's even more out of it than Holder. Congress has been investigating since January. I'm sure he is sad that the scandal is not exclusively about the drug war, but is it really just about targeting Eric Holder? I mean, this scandal happened, and in a completely unrelated development, Republicans hate Eric Holder? Or maybe some people think he his lying, and has lied to Congress about this matter?

 

He goes on to list many reasons conservatives don't like Holder, but fails to mention Holder's work on the drug Oxycontin, let alone his long record of supporting all gun control.

 

Recent congressional testimony indicates that some of the 15,000 drug-related murders in Mexico last year may have been committed with weapons provided to the drug cartels with the help of the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

 

The ATF, which is part of the Justice Department, allegedly allowed some 2,000 firearms to be sold to associates of Mexican drug cartels and transported across the border back to Mexico as part of Operation Fast and Furious.

 

"May have been committed?" "Allegedly allowed to be sold?" That murders were committed in Mexico using "walked" guns is established fact now, not speculation. Another fact, and one you will not see Juan mention, is that supervisors were "giddy" when walked guns turned up at crime scenes because it meant that the strategy was "working." He just will not quite admit what happened.

 

The idea was that ATF would be able to trace the firearms back to their original buyers, enabling them to arrest and prosecute members of the drug cartels. The operation spun wildly out of control and less than half of the firearms have been accounted for.

 

Again, there were orders not to track the guns. That inconvenient fact is awfully hard to explain, and does not fit with the meme that ATF would be able to trace the guns. It is just not true that the operation "spun wildly out of control." The operation was proceeding according to a "strategy" that was "working" according to "giddy" supervisors. If it "spun out of control" then I would like for someone to tell me exactly when that happened. The only spinning I have seen is being done by journalists like Juan Williams, who will not mention all of the facts.

 

The ATF fiasco has enabled Rep. Darrell Issa, (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to embarrass Holder and call for his resignation.

 

Behind the scenes, another player in this political game is the National Rifle Association (NRA). They want Holder’s Justice Department to back off any attempt to renew the ban on assault weapons that President Bush let lapse back in 2004.

 

Wayne LaPierre, the head of the NRA, made his goal plain in a recent speech: “If he didn’t know, then who’s minding the store? … Holder has to go.”

 

If Holder is embarrassed, he should be, and not because of what Issa says, but because he either did not know what was going on in his department long after any excuse for ignorance was gone, or he lied to Congress. Holder embarrassed Holder, and late to the party though they may have been, the NRA is right.

 

The political games being played around this investigation smell bad. The stench, however, should not be allowed to distract from the very real negligence involved with ATF’s Operation Fast and Furious.

 

Hey, at last we're getting somewhere, maybe! He then goes on for four paragraphs about how bad the violence problem in heavily-gun-controlled Mexico is, none of which has anything to do with "very real negligence" from the ATF. Then we get to this:

 

 

 

 

It is offensive to think an American government agent would hand out firearms to the drug gangs even if they thought it would help build a case they could prosecute.

 

Well, offensive it is, but Juan is going to have to start getting used to thinking it, if he is ever to write an accurate piece about this scandal. It happened.

 

 

 

 

ATF Director Kenneth Melson testified to Issa’s committee last week that he did not know the ATF would be unable to track the firearms.

 

Which is more troubling: that the head of the ATF knew this was going on or that he didn’t know? If he did not know, he should have known. I believe he knew.

 

 

 

 

Issa and Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, wrote Holder last week that “knowing what we know so far, we believe it would be inappropriate to make Mr. Melson the fall guy in an attempt to prevent further congressional oversight.”

 

That’s because they really don’t care about the carnage in Mexico. The real fall guy they have in mind is the attorney general.

 

Juan's mindreading powers are more advanced than mine, and I do not know for sure that Issa and Grassley are monsters who just do not care about murders. That could be true, but strikes me as partisan crapola.

 

I would say that if anyone does not care about government irresponsibility resulting in murders, it would have to be Congressman Cummings, whose minority whitewash "report" on gunwalking did not mention the actual gunwalking.

 

It seems to me that anyone willing to ignore the established fact that gunwalking occurred and that the walked guns were used in murders does not really care all that much about the carnage in Mexico NOR about irresponsibility in our government.

Link to post
Share on other sites

JMD, that last question is for you, too. I have corrected numerous "reports" on this scandal in this thread, and all seem to have a common theme: it somehow got outta hand. Yeah, somehow, but none mention the orders NOT to track the guns. That is a significant fact, and omitting it is bias of omission. There is a notable pattern of that bias, if you just care to look.

 

There were "orders NOT to track the guns?"

 

Says who?

 

Agent Dodson, among others. I've only been bitching about that aspect of the operation repeatedly ever since. Try to keep up.

 

http://www.cbsnews.c...n20039031.shtml

 

He didn't say that he was ordered not to track the guns. He said that he was ordered not to intercept them.

 

Not the same thing.

 

Project Gunrunner tracked guns using homing devices and aircraft. They would bust guns on our side of the border. That is how you track guns.

 

In Fast and Furious, Agent Dodson attempted to do that with Radio Shack parts, but it was not part of official policy, and they had no aircraft overhead.

 

In the previous article, linked to the one I relinked for you:

 

For months, ATF agents followed 50-caliber Barrett rifles and other guns believed headed for the Mexican border, but were ordered to let them go. One distraught agent was often overheard on ATF radios begging and pleading to be allowed to intercept transports. The answer: "Negative. Stand down."

 

CBS News has been told at least 11 ATF agents and senior managers voiced fierce opposition to the strategy. "It got ugly..." said one. There was "screaming and yelling" says another. A third warned: "this is crazy, somebody is gonna to get killed."

 

 

In another article buried someplace back in this thread, there was reference to agents following "walked" guns a couple of hours NORTH (away from Mexico) before being ordered to quit tracking them. I'll find it for you later and link to the post in question, since you were not interested enough to notice the orders not to track the guns the first time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here comes a slow-pitch for the coveted triple messenger attack...

 

Congressman Issa on Hannity on Fox!

 

Part 1, in which he accuses the Attorney General of lying under oath to Congress.

 

Part 2, in which he talks more about Melson's testimony and says whistleblowers told Congress far more than the DOJ did. Wraps up with another accusation that Holder lied about when (and how) he learned of this program, then points out that even if it is true, he should have known.

 

Wabbit, watch for the report on the agents tracking guns and driving north, then being ordered to turn around. With no further way to track those guns, that is ordering agents not to track guns.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Project Gunrunner tracked guns using homing devices and aircraft. They would bust guns on our side of the border. That is how you track guns.

 

 

Only if you are trying to track the guns to a buyer on our side of the border. Busting guns on our side of the border would seem to a highly ineffective way of tracking guns to buyers on the other side.

 

In Fast and Furious, Agent Dodson attempted to do that with Radio Shack parts, but it was not part of official policy, and they had no aircraft overhead.

 

In the previous article, linked to the one I relinked for you:

 

For months, ATF agents followed 50-caliber Barrett rifles and other guns believed headed for the Mexican border, but were ordered to let them go. One distraught agent was often overheard on ATF radios begging and pleading to be allowed to intercept transports. The answer: "Negative. Stand down."

 

CBS News has been told at least 11 ATF agents and senior managers voiced fierce opposition to the strategy. "It got ugly..." said one. There was "screaming and yelling" says another. A third warned: "this is crazy, somebody is gonna to get killed."

 

Like I said, being told not to intercept guns is not the same as being ordered not to track them.

 

In another article buried someplace back in this thread, there was reference to agents following "walked" guns a couple of hours NORTH (away from Mexico) before being ordered to quit tracking them. I'll find it for you later and link to the post in question, since you were not interested enough to notice the orders not to track the guns the first time.

 

If it's another one of your screeds from the "Gun Rights Examiner," spare yourself the effort. I don't consider that a credible source.

Link to post
Share on other sites

project-gunrunner-operation-gunrunner-gunwalker-fast-and-furious-barack-obama-eric-holder-janet-napolitano-atf-doj-dhs-sad-hill-news.jpg

Here comes a slow-pitch for the coveted triple messenger attack...

 

Congressman Issa on Hannity on Fox!

 

Part 1, in which he accuses the Attorney General of lying under oath to Congress.

 

Part 2, in which he talks more about Melson's testimony and says whistleblowers told Congress far more than the DOJ did. Wraps up with another accusation that Holder lied about when (and how) he learned of this program, then points out that even if it is true, he should have known.

 

Wabbit, watch for the report on the agents tracking guns and driving north, then being ordered to turn around. With no further way to track those guns, that is ordering agents not to track guns.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Project Gunrunner tracked guns using homing devices and aircraft. They would bust guns on our side of the border. That is how you track guns.

 

 

Only if you are trying to track the guns to a buyer on our side of the border. Busting guns on our side of the border would seem to a highly ineffective way of tracking guns to buyers on the other side.

...

If it's another one of your screeds from the "Gun Rights Examiner," spare yourself the effort. I don't consider that a credible source.

 

Busting guns on our side of the border netted straw buyers, as the Inspector General's report noted, but at least it was legal and did not violate any treaties.

 

There is no evidence that any attempt was made to track the guns on the other side of the border. They just waited for them to show up at crime scenes. That is not tracking.

 

The Gun Rights Examiner broke this story, and if everyone had your attitude, we would not know about it. I'm sure you would like that, but saying they are not credible when they have been proven right over and over is just stupid.

 

Besides, if you read the thread, you would know that the source is Issa on Hannity on Fox. All ready for a really inspirational triple messenger attack. Try to keep the substance out of it. I have said why I think the lamestream media has done a poor job and called them out on many specifics. I'm waiting for you to call out the Gun Rights Examiner on even one specific.

 

Sorry, but all of the sources you would consider "credible" are just now struggling to admit that this trainwreck happened at all, so none of them have the kind of coverage of the facts that the extremist media does.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey wabbit, wanna go on record early?

 

I'm willing to bet that the Gun Rights Examiner and Sipsey Street Irregulars guys are right that there was gunwalking out of Tampa to Honduras. If they are truly not credible, you should be willing to risk a small amount of money or something in a bet on that subject. Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is on gunwalking to Honduras?

 

I know that aspect of this scandal is being ignored in the hopes it will just go away, which was the original strategy when the Mexican gunwalking was exposed.

 

The Tampa and Honduras thing won't just go away either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How do different media handle AP stories?

 

Huffnpuff

 

WASHINGTON — In an effort to stem the illicit flow of weapons into Mexico, the Justice Department says gun shops in four Southwest border states will be required to alert the federal government to frequent buyers of high-powered rifles.

 

The new policy comes amid wide-spread criticism of a failed federal probe called Operation Fast and Furious aimed at dismantling large-scale arms trafficking networks along the Arizona border with Mexico.

 

Under the new policy, federal firearms licensees in Texas, California, Arizona and New Mexico must report purchases of two or more of some types of rifles by the same person in a five-day span. The requirement applies to purchases of semi-automatic rifles that have detachable magazines and a caliber of greater than .22.

 

 

Fox

 

WASHINGTON -- In an effort to stem the illicit flow of weapons into Mexico, the Justice Department announced Monday that all gun shops in four Southwest border states will be required to alert the federal government to frequent buyers of high-powered rifles.

 

The new policy comes amid criticism of a failed federal probe aimed at dismantling large-scale arms trafficking networks along the Arizona border with Mexico.

 

In the probe, called Operation Fast and Furious, several agents with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives say they were inexplicably ordered by superiors to stop tracking some small-time "straw" buyers who purchased large numbers of weapons apparently destined for drug cartels.

 

Under the new policy, federal firearms licensees in Texas, California, Arizona and New Mexico must report purchases of two or more of some types of rifles by the same person in a five-day span. The requirement applies to purchases of semi-automatic rifles that have detachable magazines and a caliber of greater than .22.

 

 

Looks to me like Huffnpuff, sensitive to information that might offend the tender ears of wabbits, has omitted a small and rather insignificant part of the article, not that this is any indication of something I have been calling bias of omission for a long time. Just being responsible and conserving electrons, I'm sure. <_<

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Busting guns on our side of the border netted straw buyers, as the Inspector General's report noted, but at least it was legal and did not violate any treaties.

 

There is no evidence that any attempt was made to track the guns on the other side of the border. They just waited for them to show up at crime scenes. That is not tracking.

 

 

Wiggle wiggle squirm squirm.

 

You said that they were ordered NOT to track the guns. That's not the same as being ordered not to intercept them and that's not the same as doing a lousy job of tracking them.

 

The Gun Rights Examiner broke this story, and if everyone had your attitude, we would not know about it. I'm sure you would like that, but saying they are not credible when they have been proven right over and over is just stupid.

 

Besides, if you read the thread, you would know that the source is Issa on Hannity on Fox. All ready for a really inspirational triple messenger attack. Try to keep the substance out of it. I have said why I think the lamestream media has done a poor job and called them out on many specifics. I'm waiting for you to call out the Gun Rights Examiner on even one specific.

 

Sorry, but all of the sources you would consider "credible" are just now struggling to admit that this trainwreck happened at all, so none of them have the kind of coverage of the facts that the extremist media does.

 

Issa. Hannity. Fox. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

 

Tell you what. I'll accept your sources when you accept Huffington Post and Talking Points Memo as objective sources of information.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How do different media handle AP stories?

 

Huffnpuff

 

WASHINGTON — In an effort to stem the illicit flow of weapons into Mexico, the Justice Department says gun shops in four Southwest border states will be required to alert the federal government to frequent buyers of high-powered rifles.

 

The new policy comes amid wide-spread criticism of a failed federal probe called Operation Fast and Furious aimed at dismantling large-scale arms trafficking networks along the Arizona border with Mexico.

 

Under the new policy, federal firearms licensees in Texas, California, Arizona and New Mexico must report purchases of two or more of some types of rifles by the same person in a five-day span. The requirement applies to purchases of semi-automatic rifles that have detachable magazines and a caliber of greater than .22.

 

 

Fox

 

WASHINGTON -- In an effort to stem the illicit flow of weapons into Mexico, the Justice Department announced Monday that all gun shops in four Southwest border states will be required to alert the federal government to frequent buyers of high-powered rifles.

 

The new policy comes amid criticism of a failed federal probe aimed at dismantling large-scale arms trafficking networks along the Arizona border with Mexico.

 

In the probe, called Operation Fast and Furious, several agents with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives say they were inexplicably ordered by superiors to stop tracking some small-time "straw" buyers who purchased large numbers of weapons apparently destined for drug cartels.

 

Under the new policy, federal firearms licensees in Texas, California, Arizona and New Mexico must report purchases of two or more of some types of rifles by the same person in a five-day span. The requirement applies to purchases of semi-automatic rifles that have detachable magazines and a caliber of greater than .22.

 

 

Looks to me like Huffnpuff, sensitive to information that might offend the tender ears of wabbits, has omitted a small and rather insignificant part of the article, not that this is any indication of something I have been calling bias of omission for a long time. Just being responsible and conserving electrons, I'm sure. <_<

 

And it looks to me like Fox is fabricating a whole bunch of "facts" not in evidence.

 

Hardly unusual.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey wabbit, wanna go on record early?

 

I'm willing to bet that the Gun Rights Examiner and Sipsey Street Irregulars guys are right that there was gunwalking out of Tampa to Honduras. If they are truly not credible, you should be willing to risk a small amount of money or something in a bet on that subject. Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is on gunwalking to Honduras?

 

I know that aspect of this scandal is being ignored in the hopes it will just go away, which was the original strategy when the Mexican gunwalking was exposed.

 

The Tampa and Honduras thing won't just go away either.

 

I would make a bet, but you are about as rational about this subject as nanny is about the Obama birth certificate.

 

There is no amount of evidence that would ever convince you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How do different media handle AP stories?

 

Huffnpuff

 

WASHINGTON — In an effort to stem the illicit flow of weapons into Mexico, the Justice Department says gun shops in four Southwest border states will be required to alert the federal government to frequent buyers of high-powered rifles.

 

The new policy comes amid wide-spread criticism of a failed federal probe called Operation Fast and Furious aimed at dismantling large-scale arms trafficking networks along the Arizona border with Mexico.

 

Under the new policy, federal firearms licensees in Texas, California, Arizona and New Mexico must report purchases of two or more of some types of rifles by the same person in a five-day span. The requirement applies to purchases of semi-automatic rifles that have detachable magazines and a caliber of greater than .22.

 

 

Fox

 

WASHINGTON -- In an effort to stem the illicit flow of weapons into Mexico, the Justice Department announced Monday that all gun shops in four Southwest border states will be required to alert the federal government to frequent buyers of high-powered rifles.

 

The new policy comes amid criticism of a failed federal probe aimed at dismantling large-scale arms trafficking networks along the Arizona border with Mexico.

 

In the probe, called Operation Fast and Furious, several agents with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives say they were inexplicably ordered by superiors to stop tracking some small-time "straw" buyers who purchased large numbers of weapons apparently destined for drug cartels.

 

Under the new policy, federal firearms licensees in Texas, California, Arizona and New Mexico must report purchases of two or more of some types of rifles by the same person in a five-day span. The requirement applies to purchases of semi-automatic rifles that have detachable magazines and a caliber of greater than .22.

 

 

Looks to me like Huffnpuff, sensitive to information that might offend the tender ears of wabbits, has omitted a small and rather insignificant part of the article, not that this is any indication of something I have been calling bias of omission for a long time. Just being responsible and conserving electrons, I'm sure. <_<

 

And it looks to me like Fox is fabricating a whole bunch of "facts" not in evidence.

 

Hardly unusual.

 

Both media outlets simply printed an AP piece. Neither authored it, though one did edit it.

 

So you're saying the AP fabricated their report that several agents with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives say they were inexplicably ordered by superiors to stop tracking some small-time "straw" buyers who purchased large numbers of weapons apparently destined for drug cartels?

 

And no, I will not accept Huffnpuff as an adequate media source if they continue doing deceptive edits like that on AP pieces.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You said that they were ordered NOT to track the guns. That's not the same as being ordered not to intercept them and that's not the same as doing a lousy job of tracking them.

 

The agents who said they were ordered to turn around were the only ones tracking those guns at that time. They were ordered to stop tracking them. I have provided reports from Fox and AP saying so, and you want to rely on Huffnpuff, which cut that part out of an AP piece?

 

We are clearly never going to see eye to eye on who is a credible media source, but I'd encourage you to at least look at the ones who print the entire piece from AP, not just the parts they like.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How do different media handle AP stories?

 

Huffnpuff

 

WASHINGTON — In an effort to stem the illicit flow of weapons into Mexico, the Justice Department says gun shops in four Southwest border states will be required to alert the federal government to frequent buyers of high-powered rifles.

 

The new policy comes amid wide-spread criticism of a failed federal probe called Operation Fast and Furious aimed at dismantling large-scale arms trafficking networks along the Arizona border with Mexico.

 

Under the new policy, federal firearms licensees in Texas, California, Arizona and New Mexico must report purchases of two or more of some types of rifles by the same person in a five-day span. The requirement applies to purchases of semi-automatic rifles that have detachable magazines and a caliber of greater than .22.

 

 

Fox

 

WASHINGTON -- In an effort to stem the illicit flow of weapons into Mexico, the Justice Department announced Monday that all gun shops in four Southwest border states will be required to alert the federal government to frequent buyers of high-powered rifles.

 

The new policy comes amid criticism of a failed federal probe aimed at dismantling large-scale arms trafficking networks along the Arizona border with Mexico.

 

In the probe, called Operation Fast and Furious, several agents with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives say they were inexplicably ordered by superiors to stop tracking some small-time "straw" buyers who purchased large numbers of weapons apparently destined for drug cartels.

 

Under the new policy, federal firearms licensees in Texas, California, Arizona and New Mexico must report purchases of two or more of some types of rifles by the same person in a five-day span. The requirement applies to purchases of semi-automatic rifles that have detachable magazines and a caliber of greater than .22.

 

 

Looks to me like Huffnpuff, sensitive to information that might offend the tender ears of wabbits, has omitted a small and rather insignificant part of the article, not that this is any indication of something I have been calling bias of omission for a long time. Just being responsible and conserving electrons, I'm sure. <_<

 

And it looks to me like Fox is fabricating a whole bunch of "facts" not in evidence.

 

Hardly unusual.

 

Both media outlets simply printed an AP piece. Neither authored it, though one did edit it.

 

So you're saying the AP fabricated their report that several agents with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives say they were inexplicably ordered by superiors to stop tracking some small-time "straw" buyers who purchased large numbers of weapons apparently destined for drug cartels?

 

And no, I will not accept Huffnpuff as an adequate media source if they continue doing deceptive edits like that on AP pieces.

 

Fox edited the AP story, too.

 

So by your standard I guess you will no longer accept Fox "as an adequate media source."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not on Fox

 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- In an effort to stem the illicit flow of weapons into Mexico, the Justice Department announced Monday that all gun shops in four Southwest border states will be required to alert the federal government to frequent buyers of high-powered rifles.

 

The new policy comes amid criticism of a flawed federal probe aimed at dismantling large-scale arms trafficking networks along the Arizona border with Mexico.

 

In the probe, called Operation Fast and Furious, several agents with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives say they were inexplicably ordered by superiors to stop tracking some small-time "straw" buyers who purchased large numbers of weapons apparently destined for drug cartels.

 

 

Is the AP making shit up again?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not on Fox

 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- In an effort to stem the illicit flow of weapons into Mexico, the Justice Department announced Monday that all gun shops in four Southwest border states will be required to alert the federal government to frequent buyers of high-powered rifles.

 

The new policy comes amid criticism of a flawed federal probe aimed at dismantling large-scale arms trafficking networks along the Arizona border with Mexico.

 

In the probe, called Operation Fast and Furious, several agents with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives say they were inexplicably ordered by superiors to stop tracking some small-time "straw" buyers who purchased large numbers of weapons apparently destined for drug cartels.

 

 

Is the AP making shit up again?

 

Did you notice what Fox cut when it ran the story?

 

Is Fox deceptive?

 

I would say at the very least, the AP is deceptively paraphrasing what the agents said.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You said that they were ordered NOT to track the guns. That's not the same as being ordered not to intercept them and that's not the same as doing a lousy job of tracking them.

 

The agents who said they were ordered to turn around were the only ones tracking those guns at that time. They were ordered to stop tracking them. I have provided reports from Fox and AP saying so, and you want to rely on Huffnpuff, which cut that part out of an AP piece?

 

We are clearly never going to see eye to eye on who is a credible media source, but I'd encourage you to at least look at the ones who print the entire piece from AP, not just the parts they like.

 

Spot the missing paragraph, Tom.

 

Why do you suppose Fox cut it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fox edited the AP story, too.

 

So by your standard I guess you will no longer accept Fox "as an adequate media source."

 

The article from Fox:

 

WASHINGTON -- In an effort to stem the illicit flow of weapons into Mexico, the Justice Department announced Monday that all gun shops in four Southwest border states will be required to alert the federal government to frequent buyers of high-powered rifles.

 

The new policy comes amid criticism of a failed federal probe aimed at dismantling large-scale arms trafficking networks along the Arizona border with Mexico.

 

In the probe, called Operation Fast and Furious, several agents with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives say they were inexplicably ordered by superiors to stop tracking some small-time "straw" buyers who purchased large numbers of weapons apparently destined for drug cartels.

 

Under the new policy, federal firearms licensees in Texas, California, Arizona and New Mexico must report purchases of two or more of some types of rifles by the same person in a five-day span. The requirement applies to purchases of semi-automatic rifles that have detachable magazines and a caliber of greater than .22.

 

ATF estimates it will generate 18,000 reports a year.

 

Deputy Attorney General James Cole said the new reporting measure will improve the ATF's ability to disrupt illegal weapons trafficking networks that funnel firearms to criminal organizations.

 

One of the critics of Operation Fast and Furious called the new policy "the height of hypocrisy."

 

The Obama administration is restricting the gun rights of border state citizens, "when the administration knowingly and intentionally allowed guns to be trafficked into Mexico," said House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas.

 

"Limiting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens is not going to solve the problem," Smith said.

 

ATF estimates the requirement will cover nearly 8,500 gun store operators in the four states, though less than 30 percent of those operators are expected to have multiple sales to report.

 

ATF will retain the information and if no investigative leads have been realized after two years, it will be purged.

 

Holders of federal firearms licenses already report multiple sales of handguns. The results go to the National Tracing Center, and ATF says it has led to successful prosecutions for firearms trafficking.

 

 

 

And Huffnpuff:

 

WASHINGTON — In an effort to stem the illicit flow of weapons into Mexico, the Justice Department says gun shops in four Southwest border states will be required to alert the federal government to frequent buyers of high-powered rifles.

 

The new policy comes amid wide-spread criticism of a failed federal probe called Operation Fast and Furious aimed at dismantling large-scale arms trafficking networks along the Arizona border with Mexico.

 

Under the new policy, federal firearms licensees in Texas, California, Arizona and New Mexico must report purchases of two or more of some types of rifles by the same person in a five-day span. The requirement applies to purchases of semi-automatic rifles that have detachable magazines and a caliber of greater than .22.

 

ATF estimates it will generate 18,000 reports a year.

 

 

And from the AP:

 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- In an effort to stem the illicit flow of weapons into Mexico, the Justice Department announced Monday that all gun shops in four Southwest border states will be required to alert the federal government to frequent buyers of high-powered rifles.

 

The new policy comes amid criticism of a flawed federal probe aimed at dismantling large-scale arms trafficking networks along the Arizona border with Mexico.

 

In the probe, called Operation Fast and Furious, several agents with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives say they were inexplicably ordered by superiors to stop tracking some small-time "straw" buyers who purchased large numbers of weapons apparently destined for drug cartels.

 

Twenty low-level gun buyers have been charged in the operation. In December, two assault rifles that one of the now-indicted small-time buyers under scrutiny in Fast and Furious had purchased from a gun shop in Glendale, Ariz., turned up at the scene of a shootout that killed Brian Terry, an agent of U.S. Customs and Border Protection. In recent congressional testimony, ATF agent John Dodson estimated that 1,800 guns in Fast and Furious were unaccounted for and that about two-thirds are probably in Mexico.

 

Under the new policy, federal firearms licensees in Texas, California, Arizona and New Mexico must report purchases of two or more of some types of rifles by the same person in a five-day span. The requirement applies to purchases of semi-automatic rifles that have detachable magazines and a caliber of greater than .22.

 

ATF estimates it will generate 18,000 reports a year.

 

Deputy Attorney General James Cole said the new reporting measure will improve the ATF's ability to disrupt illegal weapons trafficking networks that funnel firearms to criminal organizations

 

Rep. Elijah Cummings, the ranking Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said the new policy "is exactly what ATF agents on the ground told Congress - that reporting multiple sales of military-grade assault weapons is a crucial tool to identify and disrupt Mexican drug cartels engaged in gun trafficking."

 

One of the critics of Operation Fast and Furious called the new policy "the height of hypocrisy." The Obama administration is restricting the gun rights of border state citizens, "when the administration knowingly and intentionally allowed guns to be trafficked into Mexico," said House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas.

 

"Limiting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens is not going to solve the problem," Smith said.

 

Mexico's federal security spokesman, Alejandro Poire, praised Obama's action.

 

ATF estimates the requirement will cover nearly 8,500 gun store operators in the four states, though less than 30 percent of those operators are expected to have multiple sales to report.

 

ATF will retain the information and if no investigative leads have been realized after two years, it will be purged.

 

Holders of federal firearms licenses already report multiple sales of handguns. The results go to the National Tracing Center, and ATF says it has led to successful prosecutions for firearms trafficking.

 

 

It is true that Fox also cut out parts they did not like, but it looks to me like you get a more complete story from them than from Huffnpuff.

 

Now, are you still saying that the AP made that part up? The part about agents being ordered not to track guns?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Spot the missing paragraph, Tom.

 

Why do you suppose Fox cut it?

Possibly because yet another call for more gun control from Representative Cummings will do exactly what his whitewash report on gunwalking (the one that did not mention the gunwalking) did to further understanding of our government's illegal actions: nothing.

 

Why do you suppose Huffnpuff cut the parts they did?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Spot the missing paragraph, Tom.

 

Why do you suppose Fox cut it?

Possibly because yet another call for more gun control from Representative Cummings will do exactly what his whitewash report on gunwalking (the one that did not mention the gunwalking) did to further understanding of our government's illegal actions: nothing.

 

Why do you suppose Huffnpuff cut the parts they did?

 

Cummings isn't white-washing gun walking, that's just more Pajamas Media garbage spin on his separate hearing on gun laws related to the flow of arms to Mexico. He called it right after Issa would not let Agent Focelli speak about that in the hearing. The Fast and Furious scandal was not being investigated in that hearing, and wasn't dealt with. No more a white-wash of the ATF probe than a hearing on dog leashes in parks is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Spot the missing paragraph, Tom.

 

Why do you suppose Fox cut it?

Possibly because yet another call for more gun control from Representative Cummings will do exactly what his whitewash report on gunwalking (the one that did not mention the gunwalking) did to further understanding of our government's illegal actions: nothing.

 

Why do you suppose Huffnpuff cut the parts they did?

 

So, just to clarify, it's terrible for HuffPo to edit AP stories, but OK for Fox to do so.

 

Got it.

 

FWIW, in case you didn't get the message earlier, I don't consider Fox, the "Gun Examiner," the Huffington Post, or Talking Points Memo to be particularly reliable sources of information.

 

Go ahead, see if you can find me citing any of them. I'm much more interested in primary sources. I don't need to have my information masticated for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Spot the missing paragraph, Tom.

 

Why do you suppose Fox cut it?

Possibly because yet another call for more gun control from Representative Cummings will do exactly what his whitewash report on gunwalking (the one that did not mention the gunwalking) did to further understanding of our government's illegal actions: nothing.

 

Why do you suppose Huffnpuff cut the parts they did?

 

Cummings isn't white-washing gun walking, that's just more Pajamas Media garbage spin on his separate hearing on gun laws related to the flow of arms to Mexico. He called it right after Issa would not let Agent Focelli speak about that in the hearing. The Fast and Furious scandal was not being investigated in that hearing, and wasn't dealt with. No more a white-wash of the ATF probe than a hearing on dog leashes in parks is.

 

It's Forcelli, with an r. :rolleyes: His opinions (and Cummings') on gun laws were not relevant to the wrongdoing being investigated by the oversight committee, and Issa was right not to allow the distraction.

 

Further, the big complaint (and thrust of new policy) was that the ATF needs reports on multiple long gun sales. They were getting them! So many that it made the dealers nervous, and some had to be reassured by ATF and DOJ that they should continue the illegal sales!

 

What they did with those reports (gathering serial numbers and waiting for them to appear at crime scenes) was grossly irresponsible, and I do not think they should get any more until they demonstrate that they can behave responsibly and within our laws and international treaties.

 

If F n F was not dealt with in the hearing, why did Cummings make reference to it in his report? Mentioning "troubling" behavior without any elaboration at all is not responsible oversight.

 

If multiple long gun sales reports are so important, why did his oversight report not make mention of how they were being used in F n F?

 

Last but not least, formulating policy is not oversight. Cummings' oversight committee report was just policy advocacy and nothing else. There is nothing wrong with that, but let's not pretend that it is oversight.

Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, in case you didn't get the message earlier, I don't consider Fox, the "Gun Examiner," the Huffington Post, or Talking Points Memo to be particularly reliable sources of information.

 

Go ahead, see if you can find me citing any of them. I'm much more interested in primary sources. I don't need to have my information masticated for me.

 

In this case the primary source was AP. Are you still saying they made up the part about agents being ordered not to track guns?

 

When you thought it was a Fox report, you thought it was made up. Do you still, or is AP a credible source?

Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, in case you didn't get the message earlier, I don't consider Fox, the "Gun Examiner," the Huffington Post, or Talking Points Memo to be particularly reliable sources of information.

 

Go ahead, see if you can find me citing any of them. I'm much more interested in primary sources. I don't need to have my information masticated for me.

 

In this case the primary source was AP. Are you still saying they made up the part about agents being ordered not to track guns?

 

When you thought it was a Fox report, you thought it was made up. Do you still, or is AP a credible source?

 

1. I don't consider the AP a primary source. In this case, the primary source would be the transcript of the agent's testimony. For example, here is a transcript of Forcelli's testimony from a source that I trust will suit you.

 

2. As I have pointed out numerous times, I think that the AP is mis-paraphrasing what the ATF agents said. Forcelli, for example, doesn't say that he was ordered not to track the guns, he says that they failed to "lawfully interdict weapons." As I've repeated over and over again, these simply aren't the same thing. OTOH, he does say a lot of things that don't fit into your rabid anti-Holder narrative, such as the fact that he believes the problems in Phoenix date back to at least 2007, when he was transferred there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Spot the missing paragraph, Tom.

 

Why do you suppose Fox cut it?

Possibly because yet another call for more gun control from Representative Cummings will do exactly what his whitewash report on gunwalking (the one that did not mention the gunwalking) did to further understanding of our government's illegal actions: nothing.

 

Why do you suppose Huffnpuff cut the parts they did?

 

Cummings isn't white-washing gun walking, that's just more Pajamas Media garbage spin on his separate hearing on gun laws related to the flow of arms to Mexico. He called it right after Issa would not let Agent Focelli speak about that in the hearing. The Fast and Furious scandal was not being investigated in that hearing, and wasn't dealt with. No more a white-wash of the ATF probe than a hearing on dog leashes in parks is.

 

It's Forcelli, with an r. :rolleyes: His opinions (and Cummings') on gun laws were not relevant to the wrongdoing being investigated by the oversight committee, and Issa was right not to allow the distraction.

 

Further, the big complaint (and thrust of new policy) was that the ATF needs reports on multiple long gun sales. They were getting them! So many that it made the dealers nervous, and some had to be reassured by ATF and DOJ that they should continue the illegal sales!

 

What they did with those reports (gathering serial numbers and waiting for them to appear at crime scenes) was grossly irresponsible, and I do not think they should get any more until they demonstrate that they can behave responsibly and within our laws and international treaties.

 

If F n F was not dealt with in the hearing, why did Cummings make reference to it in his report? Mentioning "troubling" behavior without any elaboration at all is not responsible oversight.

 

If multiple long gun sales reports are so important, why did his oversight report not make mention of how they were being used in F n F?

 

Last but not least, formulating policy is not oversight. Cummings' oversight committee report was just policy advocacy and nothing else. There is nothing wrong with that, but let's not pretend that it is oversight.

 

I was only pointing out that calling Cummings report a whitewash was was a lie, one which you have repeated multiple times.

 

You have offered nothing in the above that refutes that claim, so we are in agreement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Spot the missing paragraph, Tom.

 

Why do you suppose Fox cut it?

Possibly because yet another call for more gun control from Representative Cummings will do exactly what his whitewash report on gunwalking (the one that did not mention the gunwalking) did to further understanding of our government's illegal actions: nothing.

 

Why do you suppose Huffnpuff cut the parts they did?

 

Cummings isn't white-washing gun walking, that's just more Pajamas Media garbage spin on his separate hearing on gun laws related to the flow of arms to Mexico. He called it right after Issa would not let Agent Focelli speak about that in the hearing. The Fast and Furious scandal was not being investigated in that hearing, and wasn't dealt with. No more a white-wash of the ATF probe than a hearing on dog leashes in parks is.

 

It's Forcelli, with an r. :rolleyes: His opinions (and Cummings') on gun laws were not relevant to the wrongdoing being investigated by the oversight committee, and Issa was right not to allow the distraction.

 

Further, the big complaint (and thrust of new policy) was that the ATF needs reports on multiple long gun sales. They were getting them! So many that it made the dealers nervous, and some had to be reassured by ATF and DOJ that they should continue the illegal sales!

 

What they did with those reports (gathering serial numbers and waiting for them to appear at crime scenes) was grossly irresponsible, and I do not think they should get any more until they demonstrate that they can behave responsibly and within our laws and international treaties.

 

If F n F was not dealt with in the hearing, why did Cummings make reference to it in his report? Mentioning "troubling" behavior without any elaboration at all is not responsible oversight.

 

If multiple long gun sales reports are so important, why did his oversight report not make mention of how they were being used in F n F?

 

Last but not least, formulating policy is not oversight. Cummings' oversight committee report was just policy advocacy and nothing else. There is nothing wrong with that, but let's not pretend that it is oversight.

 

I was only pointing out that calling Cummings report a whitewash was was a lie, one which you have repeated multiple times.

 

You have offered nothing in the above that refutes that claim, so we are in agreement.

 

You can call my opinion "a lie" all you want, but I still believe that his report was not oversight but advocacy and responsible oversight would have mentioned the scandal. Making a vague reference to it and then using that as an excuse/jumping off point for advocacy is a whitewash. Issa's report was a report.

Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, in case you didn't get the message earlier, I don't consider Fox, the "Gun Examiner," the Huffington Post, or Talking Points Memo to be particularly reliable sources of information.

 

Go ahead, see if you can find me citing any of them. I'm much more interested in primary sources. I don't need to have my information masticated for me.

 

In this case the primary source was AP. Are you still saying they made up the part about agents being ordered not to track guns?

 

When you thought it was a Fox report, you thought it was made up. Do you still, or is AP a credible source?

 

1. I don't consider the AP a primary source. In this case, the primary source would be the transcript of the agent's testimony. For example, here is a transcript of Forcelli's testimony from a source that I trust will suit you.

 

2. As I have pointed out numerous times, I think that the AP is mis-paraphrasing what the ATF agents said. Forcelli, for example, doesn't say that he was ordered not to track the guns, he says that they failed to "lawfully interdict weapons." As I've repeated over and over again, these simply aren't the same thing. OTOH, he does say a lot of things that don't fit into your rabid anti-Holder narrative, such as the fact that he believes the problems in Phoenix date back to at least 2007, when he was transferred there.

 

Testimony of Agent Casa:

 

Yeah . . . one of those days I called the case agent on the Nextel,

said, hey . . . our straw purchaser, one of our targets has transferred

the guns, he is driving south. This unknown person that just got

delivered the firearms probably . . . all intents and purposes gave

the straw purchaser the money to buy the guns had all the guns and

he is going north. Hey, why don’t we go ahead and stop that

vehicle, rip the guns, and you can do what you want, we can arrest

them. We don’t have to arrest them. But we will grab the guns.

And they said no. And I said this person is an unknown person.

Well, you got the license plate. Well, it can be, that car could be

registered to anybody, we don’t know who that person is, let’s at

least do a vehicle stop so we can ID the person so maybe later we

could get the guns back. No, just surveil. 33

 

That agent was tracking those guns. He wanted to stop them. He was ordered not to, and the guns and bad guys got away.

 

My crazy distortion of that situation: the agent was ordered not to interdict, as you said, that was the end of the tracking. I interpret that as an order to stop tracking, though the order not to interdict is almost equally inexplicable in that case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You can call my opinion "a lie" all you want, but I still believe that his report was not oversight but advocacy and responsible oversight would have mentioned the scandal. Making a vague reference to it and then using that as an excuse/jumping off point for advocacy is a whitewash. Issa's report was a report.

 

It would have to attempt to gloss over the problem to be a whitewash and Cummings is not trying to do that. In fact he's very much for getting to the bottom of it, and punishing whomever is responsible. Saying that he is attempting to whitewash this is not just a little white lie either, it is a damn lie. A whopper.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the whitewash by Cummings was unrelated to Fast and Furious, why does the opening line reference Fast and Furious?

 

This is the only time the minority "report" on gunwalking mentions the actual gunwalking:

 

On March 16, 2011, Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell E. Issa launched an

investigation into allegations that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), as part of an effort known as Operation Fast and Furious, failed to properly monitor hundreds of firearms acquired by suspected straw purchasers and destined for drug cartels in Mexico.

 

...

 

The post above is not quite accurate, as Elijah does make one other reference to the gunwalking in his gunwalking report:

 

On June 15, 2011, Chairman Issa held a hearing relating to this investigation and called

three ATF field agents to testify about their complaints regarding the mismanagement of

Operation Fast and Furious. At the hearing, Ranking Member Elijah E. Cummings voiced

significant concern, stating: "The allegations that have been made are very troubling, and new

information we have obtained raises additional concerns about the role of various actors involved

in these incidents."

 

Well, "troubling allegations" is, I assume, sort of a reference to the gunwalking. Washington Post readers would have no clue what the reference means, but people who have read better media sources on this topic, such as pajamasmedia, will know.

 

One mention of "troubling allegations" with no further elaboration whatsoever is oversight?

 

If the "troubling allegations" were unrelated to his hearings, why mention them at all?

 

That's a whitewash.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It would have to attempt to gloss over the problem to be a whitewash and Cummings is not trying to do that. In fact he's very much for getting to the bottom of it, and punishing whomever is responsible. Saying that he is attempting to whitewash this is not just a little white lie either, it is a damn lie. A whopper.

 

Mentioning "troubling allegations" without elaboration is enough? I think it is glossing over a problem.

 

If he were trying to get to the bottom of it, he would be focused on what our government did, not gun control laws he would like to see passed. There is no evidence of any such focus in his whitewash report.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It would have to attempt to gloss over the problem to be a whitewash and Cummings is not trying to do that. In fact he's very much for getting to the bottom of it, and punishing whomever is responsible. Saying that he is attempting to whitewash this is not just a little white lie either, it is a damn lie. A whopper.

 

Mentioning "troubling allegations" without elaboration is enough? I think it is glossing over a problem.

 

If he were trying to get to the bottom of it, he would be focused on what our government did, not gun control laws he would like to see passed. There is no evidence of any such focus in his whitewash report.

 

He can quite definitely give the agents a chance to speak about the laws in a separate hearing and not be attempting to whitewash the investigation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It would have to attempt to gloss over the problem to be a whitewash and Cummings is not trying to do that. In fact he's very much for getting to the bottom of it, and punishing whomever is responsible. Saying that he is attempting to whitewash this is not just a little white lie either, it is a damn lie. A whopper.

 

Mentioning "troubling allegations" without elaboration is enough? I think it is glossing over a problem.

 

If he were trying to get to the bottom of it, he would be focused on what our government did, not gun control laws he would like to see passed. There is no evidence of any such focus in his whitewash report.

 

He can quite definitely give the agents a chance to speak about the laws in a separate hearing and not be attempting to whitewash the investigation.

 

It does nothing to further the investigation, does it? If he is so intent on getting to the bottom of this, what has he done about it?

 

That's why his whitewash is not oversight, but advocacy. Nothing wrong with advocacy in the right place, but an oversight committee is not that place. It's a place to investigate government activities. His report did nothing to further the investigation because it did not talk about the government activities they were investigating.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It would have to attempt to gloss over the problem to be a whitewash and Cummings is not trying to do that. In fact he's very much for getting to the bottom of it, and punishing whomever is responsible. Saying that he is attempting to whitewash this is not just a little white lie either, it is a damn lie. A whopper.

 

Mentioning "troubling allegations" without elaboration is enough? I think it is glossing over a problem.

 

If he were trying to get to the bottom of it, he would be focused on what our government did, not gun control laws he would like to see passed. There is no evidence of any such focus in his whitewash report.

 

He can quite definitely give the agents a chance to speak about the laws in a separate hearing and not be attempting to whitewash the investigation.

 

It does nothing to further the investigation, does it? If he is so intent on getting to the bottom of this, what has he done about it?

 

That's why his whitewash is not oversight, but advocacy. Nothing wrong with advocacy in the right place, but an oversight committee is not that place. It's a place to investigate government activities. His report did nothing to further the investigation because it did not talk about the government activities they were investigating.

 

That's not a whitewash. By implying Cummings is trying to whitewash this, and is not genuinely concerned with the flow of guns into Mexico, is garbage. I'm confident that anybody who watches the tape of that hearing and watched Issa and Cummings leave it with arms on each other shoulders will know that PJ media is merely seeking to play partisan games with it too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not a whitewash. By implying Cummings is trying to whitewash this, and is not genuinely concerned with the flow of guns into Mexico, is garbage.

 

I never said he was not concerned with the guns going to Mexico, just that he is not concerned enough with the "troubling allegations" raised about our government's role in it to actually say what they are in his report.

 

I gave him credit when due in this investigation, but that oversight committee report of his was not responsible oversight of the wrongdoing by our government. He has not done anything to answer the question for which I gave him credit: "I think the problem here is, is the question … How deeply is Justice itself implicated?"

 

If his oversight report had delved into that question instead of glossing over it with a single remark about "troubling allegations" then I would not call it a whitewash. But it's a pathetic whitewash.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A gun dealer on another forum comments on the new make-work rules imposed on his business...

 

Responding to a poster who asked whether dealers are supposed to pore over their transactions for the past 5 days before selling someone a gun:

 

Basically, yes. It's a hassle. As you mentioned, not all multiple gun purchases are done in the same sitting. So, if John Smith buys a gun from Tom on Monday morning, then Dick logs out the gun and files the form on Tuesday, there's a chance that Harry won't know it's a multiple sale when he's selling John a gun on the evening shift Thursday.

 

The form itself is a hassle, and it has to be mailed to the local sheriff as well. Of all the multiple handgun sale reports filed, very few of them are for anything suspicious. Anyone who knows about the law can simply spread their purchases out over multiple stores or a longer timeframe.

 

Oh my goodness! Lots of useless paper shuffling and very little uncovered that is suspicious, possibly because criminals will be able to figure out an easy way around the law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

NRA says they will sue over the new reporting rules.

 

"They don't have the statutory authority to do it and we'll file a lawsuit as soon as the first letters are sent" demanding the sales information from dealers, the NRA's legislative director Chris Cox told POLITICO Monday afternoon.

 

...

 

Cox accused the Obama administration of making an end-run around Congress, which has approved mandatory reporting of multiple handgun purchases, but did not include long-arms or so-called assault weapons in that requirement.

 

The argument in court will amount to "when Congress let us regulate handguns in this way, but excluded long guns, they actually meant to include long guns."

 

It's going to fly about as well as Chicago's "you must go to a range, but we won't allow a range" or DC's "you must send your gun through a dealer, but we won't allow a dealer" arguments. Just a waste of taxpayer money on a losing argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think that "did not authorize an appropriate level of surveillance" really captures what happened here? You know, the whole "ordering agents NOT to track weapons" thing that happened? Was that really "not authorizing appropriate surveillance" or "ordering a halt to appropriate surveillance"?

 

JMD, that last question is for you, too. I have corrected numerous "reports" on this scandal in this thread, and all seem to have a common theme: it somehow got outta hand. Yeah, somehow, but none mention the orders NOT to track the guns. That is a significant fact, and omitting it is bias of omission. There is a notable pattern of that bias, if you just care to look.

How 'bout you re-read what I posted, this time with more of a focus on what I actually said and less of a desire to make up what you think I said?

You there, Tom?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Testimony of Agent Casa:

 

Yeah . . . one of those days I called the case agent on the Nextel,

said, hey . . . our straw purchaser, one of our targets has transferred

the guns, he is driving south. This unknown person that just got

delivered the firearms probably . . . all intents and purposes gave

the straw purchaser the money to buy the guns had all the guns and

he is going north. Hey, why don’t we go ahead and stop that

vehicle, rip the guns, and you can do what you want, we can arrest

them. We don’t have to arrest them. But we will grab the guns.

And they said no. And I said this person is an unknown person.

Well, you got the license plate. Well, it can be, that car could be

registered to anybody, we don’t know who that person is, let’s at

least do a vehicle stop so we can ID the person so maybe later we

could get the guns back. No, just surveil. 33

 

That agent was tracking those guns. He wanted to stop them. He was ordered not to, and the guns and bad guys got away.

 

My crazy distortion of that situation: the agent was ordered not to interdict, as you said, that was the end of the tracking. I interpret that as an order to stop tracking, though the order not to interdict is almost equally inexplicable in that case.

 

Are you really arguing that interdicting is the same as tracking?

 

By his own testimony, as butchered as it has been by Issa (speaking of creative editing), Casa was ordered to "surveil."

 

Do you know what "surveil" means, Tom?

 

A gun dealer on another forum comments on the new make-work rules imposed on his business...

 

Responding to a poster who asked whether dealers are supposed to pore over their transactions for the past 5 days before selling someone a gun:

 

Basically, yes. It's a hassle. As you mentioned, not all multiple gun purchases are done in the same sitting. So, if John Smith buys a gun from Tom on Monday morning, then Dick logs out the gun and files the form on Tuesday, there's a chance that Harry won't know it's a multiple sale when he's selling John a gun on the evening shift Thursday.

 

The form itself is a hassle, and it has to be mailed to the local sheriff as well. Of all the multiple handgun sale reports filed, very few of them are for anything suspicious. Anyone who knows about the law can simply spread their purchases out over multiple stores or a longer timeframe.

 

Oh my goodness! Lots of useless paper shuffling and very little uncovered that is suspicious, possibly because criminals will be able to figure out an easy way around the law.

 

Gun dealers don't have computers?

 

That seems a little lame.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think that "did not authorize an appropriate level of surveillance" really captures what happened here? You know, the whole "ordering agents NOT to track weapons" thing that happened? Was that really "not authorizing appropriate surveillance" or "ordering a halt to appropriate surveillance"?

 

JMD, that last question is for you, too. I have corrected numerous "reports" on this scandal in this thread, and all seem to have a common theme: it somehow got outta hand. Yeah, somehow, but none mention the orders NOT to track the guns. That is a significant fact, and omitting it is bias of omission. There is a notable pattern of that bias, if you just care to look.

How 'bout you re-read what I posted, this time with more of a focus on what I actually said and less of a desire to make up what you think I said?

You there, Tom?

 

Sorry, priorities. It's Kids' Camp Week at the Community Sailing Center. Why do they all try to sail directly upwind?

 

Your original post suggested to me that you believe this story is not being reported or is being reported inaccurately due to fatigue. I have pointed out repeated examples of bias, not fatigue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Are you really arguing that interdicting is the same as tracking?

 

By his own testimony, as butchered as it has been by Issa (speaking of creative editing), Casa was ordered to "surveil."

 

Do you know what "surveil" means, Tom?

 

No, the agents wanted to put an end to the tracking (or surveillance, if you prefer) by interdicting. They were ordered not to do that, so they continued to surveil...

 

And then what happened? Are they still watching those guys, did they interdict them, or did they get away when they realized they were being followed and the agents were ordered not to interdict? Has to be one of the three...

Link to post
Share on other sites

The family of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry is considering suing the government to find out what happened to him.

 

The last time we heard official word on the subject, Eric Holder said to Congress that we would have to wait and see whether the gun used was sold under Fast and Furious.

 

He was killed in December. It's July. We have the guns and the body. It's waaaaay past time for them to get an answer to the question of whether or not the gun used was, in fact, part of Fast and Furious.

 

Everyone has been assuming that is the case because FnF weapons were found at the crime scene, but there has been on official confirmation, just official stonewalling. I'd sue if it were my relative.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is evidence to warrent a special investigation .

 

The law suit will bring inquirey and more evidence .

 

It is interesting how some commemorate the Iran Contra investigation yet can not believe any similar black ops with weapons over borders can occur if a prez has a D by his or her name ,nor apparently does it warrent inquirey or further investigation --to them anyway .

 

The inconsistancy and blind obedience to political party are more apparent in issues of foriegn policy and war if observed over time .

 

It is very apparent here .

 

With the absence of inquirey much less any consistant standards applied by one political party and its followers Obama has had a very effective weapons program and CIA OPERATIONS --

 

i e -DRONE BOMBING KILLED ANOTHER 45 "SUSPECT TERRORISTS" {in the news today} .

 

Killing dozens at a time based on foriegn intel over foriegn borders --Hey -what could possibley go wrong ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Are you really arguing that interdicting is the same as tracking?

 

By his own testimony, as butchered as it has been by Issa (speaking of creative editing), Casa was ordered to "surveil."

 

Do you know what "surveil" means, Tom?

 

No, the agents wanted to put an end to the tracking (or surveillance, if you prefer) by interdicting. They were ordered not to do that, so they continued to surveil...

 

 

So you admit that you were wrong when you repeatedly asserted that they were ordered NOT to track the guns, right?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Smoking gun? Here's Deputy Attorney General David Ogden announcing way back on March 24, 2009 that the "President has directed us" in launching a comprehensive plan including Project Gunrunner:

 

 

 

The donkey Marxist's fingerprints are now all over this thing. No wonder Carney wouldn't answer the question about when Obama became aware of project gunrunner.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not a whitewash. By implying Cummings is trying to whitewash this, and is not genuinely concerned with the flow of guns into Mexico, is garbage.

 

I never said he was not concerned with the guns going to Mexico, just that he is not concerned enough with the "troubling allegations" raised about our government's role in it to actually say what they are in his report.

 

I gave him credit when due in this investigation, but that oversight committee report of his was not responsible oversight of the wrongdoing by our government. He has not done anything to answer the question for which I gave him credit: "I think the problem here is, is the question … How deeply is Justice itself implicated?"

 

If his oversight report had delved into that question instead of glossing over it with a single remark about "troubling allegations" then I would not call it a whitewash. But it's a pathetic whitewash.

 

You give him credit for wanting to get to the bottom of this, and then claim he is whitewashing it. I understand your position quite well. It's ridiculous.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Smoking gun? Here's Deputy Attorney General David Ogden announcing way back on March 24, 2009 that the "President has directed us" in launching a comprehensive plan including Project Gunrunner:

 

 

 

The donkey Marxist's fingerprints are now all over this thing. No wonder Carney wouldn't answer the question about when Obama became aware of project gunrunner.

 

Project Gunrunner has existed since 2005.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you really arguing that interdicting is the same as tracking?

 

By his own testimony, as butchered as it has been by Issa (speaking of creative editing), Casa was ordered to "surveil."

 

Do you know what "surveil" means, Tom?

 

No, the agents wanted to put an end to the tracking (or surveillance, if you prefer) by interdicting. They were ordered not to do that, so they continued to surveil...

 

 

So you admit that you were wrong when you repeatedly asserted that they were ordered NOT to track the guns, right?

 

Are they still tracking those guns, or what happened to them? Afraid of the question? You know what happened. They got away. Why? The order not to interdict was, in effect, an order to cease tracking.

 

Did you not understand why that is?

 

I thought Agent Casa, and Dodson after him, made it pretty clear that when someone you are tailing has "made" the tail, you contact him then or lose him. They were ordered not to contact them then, and lost them. That's one order not to track the guns. They were also ordered not to follow the guns into Mexico, nor to stop them at the border. Orders to watch them wandering off into Mexico strike me as orders to cease tracking at that point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not a whitewash. By implying Cummings is trying to whitewash this, and is not genuinely concerned with the flow of guns into Mexico, is garbage.

 

I never said he was not concerned with the guns going to Mexico, just that he is not concerned enough with the "troubling allegations" raised about our government's role in it to actually say what they are in his report.

 

I gave him credit when due in this investigation, but that oversight committee report of his was not responsible oversight of the wrongdoing by our government. He has not done anything to answer the question for which I gave him credit: "I think the problem here is, is the question … How deeply is Justice itself implicated?"

 

If his oversight report had delved into that question instead of glossing over it with a single remark about "troubling allegations" then I would not call it a whitewash. But it's a pathetic whitewash.

 

You give him credit for wanting to get to the bottom of this, and then claim he is whitewashing it. I understand your position quite well. It's ridiculous.

 

No, I thought giving him credit back when he was at least saying useful things was appropriate.

 

Referencing "troubling allegations" in his whitewash report with no elaboration is not exactly getting to the bottom of those allegations, nor has he done anything since to get to the bottom of them. That's glossing over the problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not a whitewash. By implying Cummings is trying to whitewash this, and is not genuinely concerned with the flow of guns into Mexico, is garbage.

 

I never said he was not concerned with the guns going to Mexico, just that he is not concerned enough with the "troubling allegations" raised about our government's role in it to actually say what they are in his report.

 

I gave him credit when due in this investigation, but that oversight committee report of his was not responsible oversight of the wrongdoing by our government. He has not done anything to answer the question for which I gave him credit: "I think the problem here is, is the question … How deeply is Justice itself implicated?"

 

If his oversight report had delved into that question instead of glossing over it with a single remark about "troubling allegations" then I would not call it a whitewash. But it's a pathetic whitewash.

 

You give him credit for wanting to get to the bottom of this, and then claim he is whitewashing it. I understand your position quite well. It's ridiculous.

 

No, I thought giving him credit back when he was at least saying useful things was appropriate.

 

Referencing "troubling allegations" in his whitewash report with no elaboration is not exactly getting to the bottom of those allegations, nor has he done anything since to get to the bottom of them. That's glossing over the problem.

 

You just referred to it as "troubling allegations". What a whitewash! Your glossing over of Fast and Furious is shameful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not a whitewash. By implying Cummings is trying to whitewash this, and is not genuinely concerned with the flow of guns into Mexico, is garbage.

 

I never said he was not concerned with the guns going to Mexico, just that he is not concerned enough with the "troubling allegations" raised about our government's role in it to actually say what they are in his report.

 

I gave him credit when due in this investigation, but that oversight committee report of his was not responsible oversight of the wrongdoing by our government. He has not done anything to answer the question for which I gave him credit: "I think the problem here is, is the question … How deeply is Justice itself implicated?"

 

If his oversight report had delved into that question instead of glossing over it with a single remark about "troubling allegations" then I would not call it a whitewash. But it's a pathetic whitewash.

 

You give him credit for wanting to get to the bottom of this, and then claim he is whitewashing it. I understand your position quite well. It's ridiculous.

 

No, I thought giving him credit back when he was at least saying useful things was appropriate.

 

Referencing "troubling allegations" in his whitewash report with no elaboration is not exactly getting to the bottom of those allegations, nor has he done anything since to get to the bottom of them. That's glossing over the problem.

 

You just referred to it as "troubling allegations". What a whitewash! Your glossing over of Fast and Furious is shameful.

Are you aware of the significance of quotation marks?

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not a whitewash. By implying Cummings is trying to whitewash this, and is not genuinely concerned with the flow of guns into Mexico, is garbage.

 

I never said he was not concerned with the guns going to Mexico, just that he is not concerned enough with the "troubling allegations" raised about our government's role in it to actually say what they are in his report.

 

I gave him credit when due in this investigation, but that oversight committee report of his was not responsible oversight of the wrongdoing by our government. He has not done anything to answer the question for which I gave him credit: "I think the problem here is, is the question … How deeply is Justice itself implicated?"

 

If his oversight report had delved into that question instead of glossing over it with a single remark about "troubling allegations" then I would not call it a whitewash. But it's a pathetic whitewash.

 

You give him credit for wanting to get to the bottom of this, and then claim he is whitewashing it. I understand your position quite well. It's ridiculous.

 

No, I thought giving him credit back when he was at least saying useful things was appropriate.

 

Referencing "troubling allegations" in his whitewash report with no elaboration is not exactly getting to the bottom of those allegations, nor has he done anything since to get to the bottom of them. That's glossing over the problem.

 

You just referred to it as "troubling allegations". What a whitewash! Your glossing over of Fast and Furious is shameful.

Are you aware of the significance of quotation marks?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark,

 

Is Cummings' reference to "troubling allegations" all that an oversight committee needs to say about what the government did?

 

Washington Post readers would have no idea what that was in reference to. I think he should have at least mentioned what the allegations are. Had he mentioned what the allegations are, I would not be calling his "report" a whitewash, but he chose to gloss over the whole thing and not say exactly what they are.

 

That's a whitewash, unless your answer to my question above is yes...

 

If your answer is yes, it just shows that you still do not think this situation merits Congressional oversight, and think the whole thing is just an NRA operation to increase gun dealer sales. I'm still waiting for the evidence on that one, by the way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark,

 

Is Cummings' reference to "troubling allegations" all that an oversight committee needs to say about what the government did?

 

Washington Post readers would have no idea what that was in reference to. I think he should have at least mentioned what the allegations are. Had he mentioned what the allegations are, I would not be calling his "report" a whitewash, but he chose to gloss over the whole thing and not say exactly what they are.

 

That's a whitewash, unless your answer to my question above is yes...

 

If your answer is yes, it just shows that you still do not think this situation merits Congressional oversight, and think the whole thing is just an NRA operation to increase gun dealer sales. I'm still waiting for the evidence on that one, by the way.

Dag nabbit, there you go with the quotation marks again. That's going to confuse Mark all over.

 

You know darn well that the alleged dead guys were allegedly federal alleged agents who were allegedly shot with an alleged gun that the Department of alleged Justice alledgedly deliberately allowed to be allegedgedly bought and hypothetcically moved to a country that might be mexico.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Smoking gun? Here's Deputy Attorney General David Ogden announcing way back on March 24, 2009 that the "President has directed us" in launching a comprehensive plan including Project Gunrunner:

 

 

 

The donkey Marxist's fingerprints are now all over this thing. No wonder Carney wouldn't answer the question about when Obama became aware of project gunrunner.

 

Project Gunrunner has existed since 2005.

Nice try He said "NEW and AGGRESIVE steps" - why would he use the word NEW for a project that was 4 years old? Considering this coincides pretty closely from when "Fast and Furious" started, according to testimony before congress it pretty much confirms that Obama and Holder not only knew about Fast and Furious, but probably authorized it. Which in the world created by Iran Contra should have Holder facing charges and Obama facing a special prosecutor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark,

 

Is Cummings' reference to "troubling allegations" all that an oversight committee needs to say about what the government did?

 

Washington Post readers would have no idea what that was in reference to. I think he should have at least mentioned what the allegations are. Had he mentioned what the allegations are, I would not be calling his "report" a whitewash, but he chose to gloss over the whole thing and not say exactly what they are.

 

That's a whitewash, unless your answer to my question above is yes...

 

If your answer is yes, it just shows that you still do not think this situation merits Congressional oversight, and think the whole thing is just an NRA operation to increase gun dealer sales. I'm still waiting for the evidence on that one, by the way.

 

You've just fallen for the PJ Media attempt to portray a democrat as trying to protect another democrat is all that this is. Anybody who watched or listened to the hearing knows that this was at least an extreme and unforgettable case of Keystone Kops, and nobody there gave any indication of trying to refute the agents account or opinions on it.

 

Cummings report was not dealing with that investigation, which is on-going and certainly not going to end, and simply mentioning it was not an attempt to whitewash or gloss it over, not anymore than your abbreviated mention of it was in this conversation was.

 

That's how partisan sites make their money, trying to make a partisan shit-fight out of everything they can.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark,

 

Is Cummings' reference to "troubling allegations" all that an oversight committee needs to say about what the government did?

 

Washington Post readers would have no idea what that was in reference to. I think he should have at least mentioned what the allegations are. Had he mentioned what the allegations are, I would not be calling his "report" a whitewash, but he chose to gloss over the whole thing and not say exactly what they are.

 

That's a whitewash, unless your answer to my question above is yes...

 

If your answer is yes, it just shows that you still do not think this situation merits Congressional oversight, and think the whole thing is just an NRA operation to increase gun dealer sales. I'm still waiting for the evidence on that one, by the way.

 

You've just fallen for the PJ Media attempt to portray a democrat as trying to protect another democrat is all that this is. Anybody who watched or listened to the hearing knows that this was at least an extreme and unforgettable case of Keystone Kops, and nobody there gave any indication of trying to refute the agents account or opinions on it.

 

Cummings report was not dealing with that investigation, which is on-going and certainly not going to end, and simply mentioning it was not an attempt to whitewash or gloss it over, not anymore than your abbreviated mention of it was in this conversation was.

 

That's how partisan sites make their money, trying to make a partisan shit-fight out of everything they can.

tell ya what. There is a dead federal agent with a bullet in him, a gun that seems to have fired it. Of course, it is the BATF but, even they have probably run ballistics on it. They should also have the list of guns that they allowed to cross the border. Shouldn't take Sherlock Holmes to take a look at things and determine whether the gun that crossed the border was used to kill the agent.

 

Once that is answered, the next question is "WHAT THE FUCK WERE YOU PEOPLE THINKING????"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark,

 

Is Cummings' reference to "troubling allegations" all that an oversight committee needs to say about what the government did?

 

Washington Post readers would have no idea what that was in reference to. I think he should have at least mentioned what the allegations are. Had he mentioned what the allegations are, I would not be calling his "report" a whitewash, but he chose to gloss over the whole thing and not say exactly what they are.

 

That's a whitewash, unless your answer to my question above is yes...

 

If your answer is yes, it just shows that you still do not think this situation merits Congressional oversight, and think the whole thing is just an NRA operation to increase gun dealer sales. I'm still waiting for the evidence on that one, by the way.

 

You've just fallen for the PJ Media attempt to portray a democrat as trying to protect another democrat is all that this is. Anybody who watched or listened to the hearing knows that this was at least an extreme and unforgettable case of Keystone Kops, and nobody there gave any indication of trying to refute the agents account or opinions on it.

 

Cummings report was not dealing with that investigation, which is on-going and certainly not going to end, and simply mentioning it was not an attempt to whitewash or gloss it over, not anymore than your abbreviated mention of it was in this conversation was.

 

That's how partisan sites make their money, trying to make a partisan shit-fight out of everything they can.

tell ya what. There is a dead federal agent with a bullet in him, a gun that seems to have fired it. Of course, it is the BATF but, even they have probably run ballistics on it. They should also have the list of guns that they allowed to cross the border. Shouldn't take Sherlock Holmes to take a look at things and determine whether the gun that crossed the border was used to kill the agent.

 

Once that is answered, the next question is "WHAT THE FUCK WERE YOU PEOPLE THINKING????"

 

Let's hope the attempt to turn this into a partisan witch-hunt doesn't interfere with the investigation and prosecution of who pulled the trigger.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark,

 

Is Cummings' reference to "troubling allegations" all that an oversight committee needs to say about what the government did?

 

Washington Post readers would have no idea what that was in reference to. I think he should have at least mentioned what the allegations are. Had he mentioned what the allegations are, I would not be calling his "report" a whitewash, but he chose to gloss over the whole thing and not say exactly what they are.

 

That's a whitewash, unless your answer to my question above is yes...

 

If your answer is yes, it just shows that you still do not think this situation merits Congressional oversight, and think the whole thing is just an NRA operation to increase gun dealer sales. I'm still waiting for the evidence on that one, by the way.

 

You've just fallen for the PJ Media attempt to portray a democrat as trying to protect another democrat is all that this is. Anybody who watched or listened to the hearing knows that this was at least an extreme and unforgettable case of Keystone Kops, and nobody there gave any indication of trying to refute the agents account or opinions on it.

 

Cummings report was not dealing with that investigation, which is on-going and certainly not going to end, and simply mentioning it was not an attempt to whitewash or gloss it over, not anymore than your abbreviated mention of it was in this conversation was.

 

That's how partisan sites make their money, trying to make a partisan shit-fight out of everything they can.

tell ya what. There is a dead federal agent with a bullet in him, a gun that seems to have fired it. Of course, it is the BATF but, even they have probably run ballistics on it. They should also have the list of guns that they allowed to cross the border. Shouldn't take Sherlock Holmes to take a look at things and determine whether the gun that crossed the border was used to kill the agent.

 

Once that is answered, the next question is "WHAT THE FUCK WERE YOU PEOPLE THINKING????"

 

Let's hope the attempt to turn this into a partisan witch-hunt doesn't interfere with the investigation and prosecution of who pulled the trigger.

I see Holder and the DOJ and the BATF trying to cover their asses. I didn't much like the BATF in the first place when they began stretching beyond their licensing and tax collecting roles into outright thuggery but, that's probably just me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark,

 

Is Cummings' reference to "troubling allegations" all that an oversight committee needs to say about what the government did?

 

Washington Post readers would have no idea what that was in reference to. I think he should have at least mentioned what the allegations are. Had he mentioned what the allegations are, I would not be calling his "report" a whitewash, but he chose to gloss over the whole thing and not say exactly what they are.

 

That's a whitewash, unless your answer to my question above is yes...

 

If your answer is yes, it just shows that you still do not think this situation merits Congressional oversight, and think the whole thing is just an NRA operation to increase gun dealer sales. I'm still waiting for the evidence on that one, by the way.

 

You've just fallen for the PJ Media attempt to portray a democrat as trying to protect another democrat is all that this is. Anybody who watched or listened to the hearing knows that this was at least an extreme and unforgettable case of Keystone Kops, and nobody there gave any indication of trying to refute the agents account or opinions on it.

 

Cummings report was not dealing with that investigation, which is on-going and certainly not going to end, and simply mentioning it was not an attempt to whitewash or gloss it over, not anymore than your abbreviated mention of it was in this conversation was.

 

That's how partisan sites make their money, trying to make a partisan shit-fight out of everything they can.

 

Your paranoia about the NRA seems to have seeped over into media. Actually, I read nothing about Cummings on Pajamas Media, but if they are saying the same things, we came to the same conclusions independently.

 

What government oversight was Cummings' report dealing with? Why mention the "troubling allegations" that were the subject of the oversight hearings at all if it was not dealing with it?

 

You know, when you finally noticed the second hearing in Congress, the one you thought was the first hearing, you linked to what seems an awfully partisan site, tpmmuckraker. Their take on what our government did wrong: Chairman Issa did not want to interrupt the oversight to go off on a call for more gun control!

 

The horror. Some of us saw some other things wrong, but did not have a problem with an oversight committee sticking to oversight.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark,

 

Is Cummings' reference to "troubling allegations" all that an oversight committee needs to say about what the government did?

 

Washington Post readers would have no idea what that was in reference to. I think he should have at least mentioned what the allegations are. Had he mentioned what the allegations are, I would not be calling his "report" a whitewash, but he chose to gloss over the whole thing and not say exactly what they are.

 

That's a whitewash, unless your answer to my question above is yes...

 

If your answer is yes, it just shows that you still do not think this situation merits Congressional oversight, and think the whole thing is just an NRA operation to increase gun dealer sales. I'm still waiting for the evidence on that one, by the way.

 

You've just fallen for the PJ Media attempt to portray a democrat as trying to protect another democrat is all that this is. Anybody who watched or listened to the hearing knows that this was at least an extreme and unforgettable case of Keystone Kops, and nobody there gave any indication of trying to refute the agents account or opinions on it.

 

Cummings report was not dealing with that investigation, which is on-going and certainly not going to end, and simply mentioning it was not an attempt to whitewash or gloss it over, not anymore than your abbreviated mention of it was in this conversation was.

 

That's how partisan sites make their money, trying to make a partisan shit-fight out of everything they can.

 

Your paranoia about the NRA seems to have seeped over into media. Actually, I read nothing about Cummings on Pajamas Media, but if they are saying the same things, we came to the same conclusions independently.

 

What government oversight was Cummings' report dealing with? Why mention the "troubling allegations" that were the subject of the oversight hearings at all if it was not dealing with it?

 

You know, when you finally noticed the second hearing in Congress, the one you thought was the first hearing, you linked to what seems an awfully partisan site, tpmmuckraker. Their take on what our government did wrong: Chairman Issa did not want to interrupt the oversight to go off on a call for more gun control!

 

The horror. Some of us saw some other things wrong, but did not have a problem with an oversight committee sticking to oversight.

 

Just google Cummings white wash and see what comes up.

 

Funny how so many publications all decided to use the same word. I'm sure you just thought it up all by yourself Tom. Sure you did...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark,

 

Is Cummings' reference to "troubling allegations" all that an oversight committee needs to say about what the government did?

 

Washington Post readers would have no idea what that was in reference to. I think he should have at least mentioned what the allegations are. Had he mentioned what the allegations are, I would not be calling his "report" a whitewash, but he chose to gloss over the whole thing and not say exactly what they are.

 

That's a whitewash, unless your answer to my question above is yes...

 

If your answer is yes, it just shows that you still do not think this situation merits Congressional oversight, and think the whole thing is just an NRA operation to increase gun dealer sales. I'm still waiting for the evidence on that one, by the way.

 

You've just fallen for the PJ Media attempt to portray a democrat as trying to protect another democrat is all that this is. Anybody who watched or listened to the hearing knows that this was at least an extreme and unforgettable case of Keystone Kops, and nobody there gave any indication of trying to refute the agents account or opinions on it.

 

Cummings report was not dealing with that investigation, which is on-going and certainly not going to end, and simply mentioning it was not an attempt to whitewash or gloss it over, not anymore than your abbreviated mention of it was in this conversation was.

 

That's how partisan sites make their money, trying to make a partisan shit-fight out of everything they can.

 

Your paranoia about the NRA seems to have seeped over into media. Actually, I read nothing about Cummings on Pajamas Media, but if they are saying the same things, we came to the same conclusions independently.

 

What government oversight was Cummings' report dealing with? Why mention the "troubling allegations" that were the subject of the oversight hearings at all if it was not dealing with it?

 

You know, when you finally noticed the second hearing in Congress, the one you thought was the first hearing, you linked to what seems an awfully partisan site, tpmmuckraker. Their take on what our government did wrong: Chairman Issa did not want to interrupt the oversight to go off on a call for more gun control!

 

The horror. Some of us saw some other things wrong, but did not have a problem with an oversight committee sticking to oversight.

 

Just google Cummings white wash and see what comes up.

 

Funny how so many publications all decided to use the same word. I'm sure you just thought it up all by yourself Tom. Sure you did...

 

It's a common word for this sort of situation. No surprise that a lot of us knew it.

 

Are you in a question answering mood?

 

What government oversight was Cummings' report dealing with? Why mention the "troubling allegations" that were the subject of the oversight hearings at all if it was not dealing with it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark,

 

Is Cummings' reference to "troubling allegations" all that an oversight committee needs to say about what the government did?

 

Washington Post readers would have no idea what that was in reference to. I think he should have at least mentioned what the allegations are. Had he mentioned what the allegations are, I would not be calling his "report" a whitewash, but he chose to gloss over the whole thing and not say exactly what they are.

 

That's a whitewash, unless your answer to my question above is yes...

 

If your answer is yes, it just shows that you still do not think this situation merits Congressional oversight, and think the whole thing is just an NRA operation to increase gun dealer sales. I'm still waiting for the evidence on that one, by the way.

 

You've just fallen for the PJ Media attempt to portray a democrat as trying to protect another democrat is all that this is. Anybody who watched or listened to the hearing knows that this was at least an extreme and unforgettable case of Keystone Kops, and nobody there gave any indication of trying to refute the agents account or opinions on it.

 

Cummings report was not dealing with that investigation, which is on-going and certainly not going to end, and simply mentioning it was not an attempt to whitewash or gloss it over, not anymore than your abbreviated mention of it was in this conversation was.

 

That's how partisan sites make their money, trying to make a partisan shit-fight out of everything they can.

 

Your paranoia about the NRA seems to have seeped over into media. Actually, I read nothing about Cummings on Pajamas Media, but if they are saying the same things, we came to the same conclusions independently.

 

What government oversight was Cummings' report dealing with? Why mention the "troubling allegations" that were the subject of the oversight hearings at all if it was not dealing with it?

 

You know, when you finally noticed the second hearing in Congress, the one you thought was the first hearing, you linked to what seems an awfully partisan site, tpmmuckraker. Their take on what our government did wrong: Chairman Issa did not want to interrupt the oversight to go off on a call for more gun control!

 

The horror. Some of us saw some other things wrong, but did not have a problem with an oversight committee sticking to oversight.

 

Just google Cummings white wash and see what comes up.

 

Funny how so many publications all decided to use the same word. I'm sure you just thought it up all by yourself Tom. Sure you did...

 

It's a common word for this sort of situation. No surprise that a lot of us knew it.

 

Are you in a question answering mood?

 

What government oversight was Cummings' report dealing with? Why mention the "troubling allegations" that were the subject of the oversight hearings at all if it was not dealing with it?

 

It was in that hearing that it was brought to Cummings attention that the laws were so lax, that it made the ATF's assigned mission all but impossible. The agents were quite clear about that. This is tangential to that investigation and not part of it.

 

Of course all this is known to you, as you must have checked the whole thing out before you decided to put the word "whitewash" on it, which of course was strictly by happenstance the word that every gun-nut site on the web was using for it, of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seen this internal ATF memo yet?

 

Screenshot2011-07-13at114656AM.png

 

 

Operation Fast and Furious: Designed to Promote Gun Control "Internal ATF emails seem to suggest that ATF agents were counseled to highlight a link between criminals and certain semi-automatic weapons in order to bolster a case for a rulelike the one the DOJ announced yesterday [Monday]."

http://townhall.com/...ote_gun_control

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What government oversight was Cummings' report dealing with? Why mention the "troubling allegations" that were the subject of the oversight hearings at all if it was not dealing with it?

 

It was in that hearing that it was brought to Cummings attention that the laws were so lax, that it made the ATF's assigned mission all but impossible. The agents were quite clear about that. This is tangential to that investigation and not part of it.

 

Of course all this is known to you, as you must have checked the whole thing out before you decided to put the word "whitewash" on it, which of course was strictly by happenstance the word that every gun-nut site on the web was using for it, of course.

 

You can't seem to tell the difference between oversight and advocacy. Do you still believe that these hearings are just an NRA operation to increase gun dealer sales?

 

No doubt this operation brought a few needed changes to mind for Wayne LaPierre. Would it have been appropriate "oversight" if Issa had called him and included his legislative wish list in his report, like Cummings did with the Brady Bunch? I fail to see how their wishes for more gun control are "oversight" of government operations under (and outside of) existing law, and I do not think that calling in the gun rights crowd would have been appropriate either.

 

Why am I even asking a person who did not want Congessional oversight at all, and thinks this should have all been handled "on the QT"? Cummings' report, glossing over the wrongdoing that was the subject of oversight, sure fits what you have wanted all along: a whitewash.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seen this internal ATF memo yet?

 

Screenshot2011-07-13at114656AM.png

 

 

Operation Fast and Furious: Designed to Promote Gun Control "Internal ATF emails seem to suggest that ATF agents were counseled to highlight a link between criminals and certain semi-automatic weapons in order to bolster a case for a rulelike the one the DOJ announced yesterday [Monday]."

http://townhall.com/...ote_gun_control

 

The calls for more gun control produced by the ATF's misbehavior are just a (predictable) coincidence, not any kind of conspiracy.

 

The program was cleverly designed so that the authorities could locate guns at Mexican crime scenes and then (somehow) bust kingpins. It makes total sense, and it is the logical explanation for this program. (As soon as someone explains the somehow part)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What government oversight was Cummings' report dealing with? Why mention the "troubling allegations" that were the subject of the oversight hearings at all if it was not dealing with it?

 

It was in that hearing that it was brought to Cummings attention that the laws were so lax, that it made the ATF's assigned mission all but impossible. The agents were quite clear about that. This is tangential to that investigation and not part of it.

 

Of course all this is known to you, as you must have checked the whole thing out before you decided to put the word "whitewash" on it, which of course was strictly by happenstance the word that every gun-nut site on the web was using for it, of course.

 

You can't seem to tell the difference between oversight and advocacy. Do you still believe that these hearings are just an NRA operation to increase gun dealer sales?

 

No doubt this operation brought a few needed changes to mind for Wayne LaPierre. Would it have been appropriate "oversight" if Issa had called him and included his legislative wish list in his report, like Cummings did with the Brady Bunch? I fail to see how their wishes for more gun control are "oversight" of government operations under (and outside of) existing law, and I do not think that calling in the gun rights crowd would have been appropriate either.

 

Why am I even asking a person who did not want Congessional oversight at all, and thinks this should have all been handled "on the QT"? Cummings' report, glossing over the wrongdoing that was the subject of oversight, sure fits what you have wanted all along: a whitewash.

 

Wanting it handled on the QT is still wanting it handled.

 

You have decided to cling to the position that Cummings is attempting to whitewash this awful bit of law enforcement. This is quite a charge to make against this man. You should write him a letter.

Link to post
Share on other sites