Who is we? I do not justify actions by the results if our actions are illegal. Maybe it's the lawyer in me. If a CIA agent assassinated a really bad guy without legal authorization, I cannot exonerate the action by the CIA agent because the results were "good". Can you?

 

I think my history of posts on here show I don't flow with the crowd so I'm with you overall. I have an ability to keep emotions out of the way. I like that Osama was killed but it certainly opens up the country should ,say, Mexico send troops to Texas for some reason.

 

However, as I said, I'm in the minority.

No.

 

By the way the Pakistan example supports my "end justifying the means" comment.

 

Good (as to the No). So if the evidence indicates that Holder knew of the operation and the operation was illegal, you and I both support firing Holder and having him tried.

Good (as to the No). So if the evidence indicates that Holder knew of the operation and the operation was illegal, you and I both support firing Holder and having him tried.

 

Yes. Everyone is accountable.

Who is we? I do not justify actions by the results if our actions are illegal. Maybe it's the lawyer in me. If a CIA agent assassinated a really bad guy without legal authorization, I cannot exonerate the action by the CIA agent because the results were "good". Can you?

 

I think you have been consistent with that and I applaud you for it. I think the jest of what Clyde was "getting at" was that this activity is nothing new.

 

1. US involvement in the Russian Civil War with the side known as the "Whites."

2. CIA coup that led to the rise of the Shah in Iran in '53.

3. Chile in the early 70's.

4. Nicaragua in the 80's.

 

Just to name only a few. I believe these are examples of what Clyde was speaking about.

I think you have been consistent with that and I applaud you for it. I think the jest of what Clyde was "getting at" was that this activity is nothing new.

 

1. US involvement in the Russian Civil War with the side known as the "Whites."

2. CIA coup that led to the rise of the Shah in Iran in '53.

3. Chile in the early 70's.

4. Nicaragua in the 80's.

 

Just to name only a few. I believe these are examples of what Clyde was speaking about.

 

Thank you for the compliment and I agree with Clyde and you that there are ample incidents in our Country's history where those in power did things and took actions that violated our laws. Some of them worked out extremely well. Some, not so well. Some horribly.

Wouldn't be fine with it at all even if the intent was good. It would still have been a stupid and dangerous operation. If Holder had knowledge before hand, he should be fired. Then again, he was okay with us violating Pakistan's sovereign rights, so I doubt he and I would see this issue the same as one another. If F&F violated US gun laws, are those that approved F&F any different than Colonel North?

 

This is what I have been wondering.

If anyone thinks Holder is telling the truth about not knowing everything, I have some beach front property for sale in Ky.

Getting testy....

 

 

 

Additional references to operation Wide Receiver under Gonzalez/Bush.

 

Wide Receiver is being equivocated to F&F. But it was designed to actually track transactions and keep track of them. It did not work well and guns were lost track of in the effort. But the operation was not at all designed to intentionally allow guns across the border. F&F basically protected known straw purchasers until they were in Mexico. In WR the suspects slipped the surveillance.

 

Fast & Furious Was . . . Bush’s Fault - By Andrew C. McCarthy - The Corner - National Review Online

 

As Sen. Cornyn pointed out, there is another major distinction between Wide Receiver and Fast & Furious. The former was actually a coordinated effort between American and Mexican authorities. Law enforcement agents in both countries kept each other apprised about suspected transactions and tried to work together to apprehend law-breakers. To the contrary, Fast & Furious was a unilateral, half-baked scheme cooked up by an agency of the Obama Justice Department — an agency that was coordinating with the Justice Department on the operation and that turned to Main Justice in order to get wiretapping authority.

 

 

By the time Cornyn was done drawing this stark contrast between Wide Receiver and Fast & Furious, Holder was reduced to conceding, “I’m not trying to equate the two.” That is big of him given that the two cannot be equated. But the attorney general seemed fine with the effort to equate them — to make them one and the same — when it was Schumer asking the questions.

 

Emphasis added.

 

At around the 8:00 mark in the video above from this week Holder does equate the two operations.

Now Holder is wanting to "compromise".... AG Wants Compromise after Contempt Vote Scheduled

More lying and stonewalling from Holder.. This time on Kagans involvement in ObamaCare...Holder Refuses to Provide Testimony on Kagan

It looks like the administration is ready to backfill Holder in the event he goes....

 

Unprecedented: Top DOJ Officials Were Obama Bundlers with Wall Street Ties

 

Rumors are that Tony West would be the guy tapped as the replacement. He is the brother-in-law of Kamala Harris, the current AG for California. Harris is rumored to be next in line for a Supreme Court position when one opens up. West's wife Maya Harris was head of the Northern California ACLU.

 

ACLU of Northern California Appoints New Executive Director to Lead Largest ACLU Affiliate in the Country | American Civil Liberties Union

 

So if Holder goes the backfill will likely be well connected Obama team members.

Scary to think of how the Supreme Court might look if Obama gets another term..

National Border Patrol Council (NBPC) president calls for Holder's resignation.

 

Border Patrol group calls for Holder's resignation - Washington Times

 

NBPC is the union that represents the border patrol agents and is a subset of the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO.

 

 

National Border Patrol Council - About NBPC

Obama has issued an executive order to seal documents on F&F but the order is unlikely to head off the contempt against Holder.. Again, so much for Obamas transparency..

Obama has issued an executive order to seal documents on F&F but the order is unlikely to head off the contempt against Holder.. Again, so much for Obamas transparency..

 

 

OK, so how does the administration put documents under lock and key via executive privilege for something that the administration originally said it had no knowledge of and was a rogue field operation?

 

This action itself is damning. Its like saying we are going create a black hole of information. But you can still 'see' the black hole by the external events it affects.

 

Welcome back to the future...1974 to be exact...

 

United States v. Nixon (1974)