21 thoughts on “The Holder Hearing Recap”

  1. Rand, I am a long time reader of your blog from Canada. first time commenting. I have been following the Fast & Furious debacle for some time now. Holder’s contempt for the constitution and the rule of law if obvious. It’s very hard to believe he was not a party to this; I would be surprised if your Great Leader Obama didn’t also know about it very early.

    Let’s remember that a burglary and coverup caused the resignation of a President. F&F has KILLED 100’s of Mexicans and at least 1 Federal agent! And for what? The suggestion is that this was allowed to happen to bolster the argument for more gun control. Sounds unfortunately too plausible.

  2. F&F has KILLED 100′s of Mexicans and at least 1 Federal agent!

    Because without F&F-provided guns, Mexican drug gangs wouldn’t have killed those people? All we have to do to stop drug cartel murders is decline to sell them guns?

    1. Wow. Way to completely miss the point, while adopting the viewpoint of supporters of the Second Amendment, which the intent of this operation was to eviscerate.

      Head spin much?

      No, people would have been killed, because obviously they would figure out where to get guns regardless, but our own government made it a lot easier for them, while not informing the Mexican government that we were doing so.

      Can you say “act of war”?

      1. It’s okay because Jim knows for a fact that Brian Terry would still be dead w/o F&F. He discovered this with his magical time machine. Hey, I guess I can go out and kill people because they’d die anyway, but only the one’s that would be dead in Jim’s alternate timeline.

        Wow, just wow…

      2. I just enjoy the cognitive dissonance of people who are sure that gun control is totally ineffective, while equally sure that in this case the absence of gun control resulted in 100s of deaths.

        I don’t think anyone is asserting that F&F was well executed. But there’s a difference between a failure and a crime. Or an act of war.

        Can you say “act of war”?

        Which, of course, is why the Mexican government is massing troops to retake Texas….

        This sort of hyperbole just makes you look silly. We’re talking about a botched sting operation, not tanks through the Fulda Gap. Since when has the House GOP objected to US arms sales to unsavory foreign characters? Usually they’re lobbying for that sort of thing — it creates US jobs! If it’s an act of war to sell guns to Mexican nationals, we’re at war with most of the countries on earth.

        Is it really so hard to believe that an arm of the federal government could screw up? Isn’t that what you generally expect them to do?

        1. I just enjoy the cognitive dissonance of people who are sure that gun control is totally ineffective, while equally sure that in this case the absence of gun control resulted in 100s of deaths.

          This wasn’t caused by an “absence of gun control.” It was caused by deliberately giving weapons to criminals.

          Which, of course, is why the Mexican government is massing troops to retake Texas….

          That’s only because they’re not stupid, not because it wasn’t an act of war.

          Is it really so hard to believe that an arm of the federal government could screw up?

          No, but this doesn’t look like a screw up. It looks like it did exactly what they planned it to do.

          1. This wasn’t caused by an “absence of gun control.” It was caused by deliberately giving weapons to criminals.

            A distinction without a difference.

            F&F: criminals are allowed to buy guns
            Absence of gun control: criminals are allowed to buy guns

            No, but this doesn’t look like a screw up. It looks like it did exactly what they planned it to do.

            To someone looking for a conspiracy, everything looks like a conspiracy.

        2. Jim, historical ‘Acts of War’ haven’t been -anywhere- near the modern levels.

          Hell, “He took my date!” has been used.

        3. Is it really so hard to believe that an arm of the federal government could screw up?

          No

          Isn’t that what you generally expect them to do?

          I expect them to hold the screw ups accountable. Don’t you, Jim? Ollie North was held accountable.

          1. Ollie North wasn’t a screw up, he was a criminal, and in the end his conviction was overturned (due to Congressional screw-ups) and he parlayed his notoriety into a great career. That’s being held accountable?

          2. He spent time in jail, who involved with F&F did that?

            “Screw up” suggests somewhat flubbed something, what was the plan for F&F? I believe that’s one of the questions Congress still wants answered.

            Speaking of unanswered questions, I ask again, what law was F&F upholding?

  3. So Jim, Iran/Contra was alright by you? After all, the Ayatollah’s were killing people anyway? Or was it that the US actually made money off the sell that makes it bad? Surely it wasn’t the Boland Amendment, or do you believe its lawful for the US federal government to provide firearms to Mexican civilians, even criminal ones?

  4. Iran/Contra was an attempt to circumvent the law. F&F was an attempt to enforce it. Iran/Contra was dreamed up by the National Security Council in the White House, to serve the Reagan administration’s political and policy goals. F&F was dreamed up by an ATF branch office in Arizona, a continuation of investigations dating back to the Bush administration.

    As Issa admitted yesterday, after a year’s investigations, subpoenas, and half a dozen hearings, there’s no evidence to date that Holder even approved F&F, much less ordered it.

    2. What law was F&F enforcing? I believe that’s a question that’s being asked and not being answered. Tell us Jim, what law do you speak of?

      1. Laws against gun smuggling. If the Phoenix ATF had actually traced the weapons, they could have identified players in the cross-border gun business, and prosecuted them. But they acted like Keystone Kops and got nothing.

        1. It’s amazing that the ATF can allow firearms to be smuggled across the border without any elected official being notified or queried in advance. Why are they allowed to that Jim? Who said they could conduct such operations autonomously? What other laws can they violate in order to supposedly uphold some laws?

  5. As Issa admitted yesterday, after a year’s investigations, subpoenas, and half a dozen hearings, there’s no evidence to date that Holder even approved F&F, much less ordered it.

    Are we supposed to take this blatant disingenuity seriously? Yes, because Holder is ignoring the subpoenas and refusing to turn over the evidence, not because there isn’t any.

    1. The GOP/Fox News/talk radio right has been moaning about corruption in the Obama administration since he was sworn in. Forged birth certificate! $200M/day trips to India! ACORN! New Black Panthers! Czars! F&F!

      Now they’ve had Congressional subpoena power for over a year, so they can put anyone in front of cameras to testify under oath, and they’ve yet to find a single charge that actually sticks.

      So you complain that Holder surely would get caught, if only he’d be agreeable and hand over the smoking gun that he is doubtless hiding in his files.

      Pretty weak.

      1. You digress Jim, because your other arguments on F&F aren’t working. No one is expecting Holder of concealing a smoking gun. The question is why does the AG allow the ATF so much leeway in violating the laws of the land, and for that matter, the laws of foreign countries? Or does the ATF not have that leeway without oversite for elected and appointed officials?

        I ask again, Jim, what other laws will the AG allow the ATF to break in order to uphold some laws?

Comments are closed.