I doubt you will read this either since it is going to provide facts you do not want to know but here it goes. The article shows that Fast & Furious was NOT a sting operation. The ATF NEVER sold guns to anyone. All they did is track the purchasers of the guns and those they were sold to, try to track the money sources (There were people on welfare buying 10,000s and 100,000s of dollars of weapons in the course of a couple of months. Where did the money come from? How is that in any related to personal use?), and arrest the people who were responsible. They were denied permission to do so by the US Attorneys Office because their cases didn't meet the requirements of Arizona's gun laws. That those requirements are practically impossible to meet doesn't seem to matter to those who want to push this off on the ATF agents who were doing their jobs. As it turns out, some of the people providing the money for the gun purchases were FBI agents! Don't hear about that on Fox News do you? But of course, all you are interested in is the truth even if it exonerates people you have a personal animosity towards. -- Brian
On Jun 27, 2012, at 8:20 PM, Brian Lawson wrote: > Wow, your arrogance is astounding. How dare you accuse me of not "giving a > shit" about the Mexican citizens or the US Border Patrol agent killed by > those guns. When the hell did I ever say any such thing or that it didn't > happen or that no one should be held accountable? > > It seems to me that you did not bother to read the article. It squarely > places the blame right where it belongs, on the permissive AZ gun laws that > allows anyone to by as many guns as they want of any type for any reason as > long as they sign a form saying it is for "personal use". Even when you can > then "change your mind" and sell those same guns to anyone you please > immediately after leaving the gun shop. And on the US Attorney Office who > denied permission for the ATF agents to arrest those who they knew were > running the guns into Mexico and sat on warrants for wire taps to track the > money sources. > > "If you did care, you'd want to know who was responsible for implementing > such an operation. You'd want to know why it wasn't vetted. " The article > also shows that this was properly vetted. If you did care, you'd read the > article with an open mind rather than dismissing it as liberal propaganda and > cover up. You wouldn't ignore the facts presented just because they don't fit > your predefined (I mean, Fox News defined, also clearly delineated in the > article ) opinions about this. > > When did I say ANYTHING about Obama or Holder? This thread is the first time > I have ever had anything to say about this subject. And yet you insist upon > putting words into my mouth and proclaiming that you know all about my > beliefs and then accuse me of all kinds of crap based upon your baseless, > fact less accusations. > > As for not releasing the papers requested by congress, since when has any > responsible law enforcement agency released their papers on any ongoing > investigation? That would be irresponsible, especially to an organization who > wouldn't hesitate to release anything from it, even if taken out of context, > to bolster their case. And, FYI, I absolutely do believe in congressional > oversight of the Administrative and Judicial branches of government. I don't > believe in using that as a political cudgel to score points for purely > political reasons. Especially when those reasons are based on outright lies > and distortions of the facts. Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Or > molesting your children? See how it works? Baseless accusations and personal > attacks in a form you can't even defend. They mean absolutely nothing and > refusing to answer such ridiculous charges is not proof that you are still > beating your wife and molesting your children or that you have something to > hide. > > Your argument about national security doesn't hold water either since you > don't know what national security interests are at stake and you never will > prior to the release of the documents. Of course, if there were national > security interests revealed by their release you could then accuse the > administration of not protecting them by having released the documents. > > BTW, it was you who tried to split hairs by your selective editing of Bruce's > original post. And as per your usual tactics, instead of discussing the facts > and responding to my post directly, you resort to personal attacks and make > up shit about me. You assume you know what I think and how I feel then > proceed to belittle me based on your erroneous assumptions. > -- > Brian > > On Jun 27, 2012, at 7:18 PM, Francis Drouillard wrote: > >> Splitting hairs looks a lot like flailing on your part. >> >> Obama suckups have denied that "Fast &Furious" was of any consequence for >> over 18 months. They still do. They -- and you -- tried to ignore the story >> because it might make your boy president look bad. You didn't give a shit >> and still don't give a shit about the Mexicans citizens or US Border agent >> killed by those guns. Much easier to convince yourself it didn't happen, or >> that Holder or Obama shouldn't be held responsible for an idiotic operation >> that occurred on their watch. >> >> If you did care, you'd want to know who was responsible for implementing >> such an operation. You'd want to know why it wasn't vetted. You'd want the >> responsible agent "frog-marched" to prison. >> >> But you're all a bunch of f*cking hypocrites when it comes to Obama and his >> lap dog Holder, so you don't want to know. Instead, you mock others that >> want to know. Well screw you! >> >> Holder will now have to provide the documents. If he doesn't, Boehner can >> sue and Holder will have to provide the requested documents to a judge, who >> will look at them and determine if executive privilege applies. >> >> If needed to protect a vital national interest, executive privilege applies. >> If needed protect the Holder DOJ or the Obama administration from >> embarrassment, then executive privilege doesn't apply. >> >> Holder or Obama could have diffused it several months ago if they had >> nothing to hide. They richly deserve all embarrassment they're bringing on >> themselves. >> >> On Jun 27, 2012, at 5:35 PM, Brian Lawson wrote: >> >>> Nice editing BTW. What he said did not happen is "the ATF _intentionally_ >>> (emphasis mine) let guns into mexico?" >>> >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "StrataList-OT" group. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected]. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/stratalist-ot?hl=en. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "StrataList-OT" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/stratalist-ot?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "StrataList-OT" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/stratalist-ot?hl=en.
