Thursday, June 21, 2012
Political Mayhem Thursday II: Fast & Furious and House Reps. v. AG Holder
The war between the Attorney General and some House Republicans over an ATF gun sting called "Fast and Furious" has gotten to the point where there may be a vote next week on whether or not to hold the AG in contempt of Congress.
First, of all, can we all agree that maybe it was a mistake to call the operation "Fast and Furious?" Catchy, sure, but a little problematic and a lot derivative... what's next, operation "Attack of the Clones?"
Many people, I suspect, know more about the controversy than about the actual underlying events. I recommend a very handy video recap that CNN has provided.
Who is in the wrong here?
Comments:
<< Home
It seems to me that the big story here is not the "contempt" drama; rather, this event just became noteworthy with the first declaration of Executive Privilege during the Obama administration. Especially ironic because this is the President who promised the most transparent administration in history, and the same President who as a senator castigated the former President for using Executive Privilege as a political tool to stonewall an embarrassing congressional investigation. But, even without the delicious irony (not unusual for this presidency), the first use of Executive Privilege for President Obama moved this onto the front page and makes it historic.
Who is in the wrong? The drug cartel members who shot the ATF agent. I totally agree that F&F seems to have been poorly thought out/executed; that much seems to have been made clear to the American people years ago when this story broke. But it seems clear to me that the house committee members are determined to make the case that this botched operation is not much different than Eric Holder himself supporting the killing of American agents. Aren't these the same folks who argue that 'Guns don't kill people, people kill people'? These cartel goons would have gotten different guns from the same source had F&F never happened, and the same agents would have died In the same way. It is a terrible tragedy that is being used to score political points.
Holder has handed over 1000s of documents and is saying that handing over a few particular documents from months AFTER the murder happened would put ongoing investigations at risk. I'm inclined to believe him. Holding him in contempt is assuming the very worst possible motives for not releasing documents which will very likely not shed any new insights into how F&F went wrong. It's a waste of Congress's time and distracts from the real focus, which should be on how to prevent a future F&F instead of a speculative witch hunt with baldly partisan motives.
Holder has handed over 1000s of documents and is saying that handing over a few particular documents from months AFTER the murder happened would put ongoing investigations at risk. I'm inclined to believe him. Holding him in contempt is assuming the very worst possible motives for not releasing documents which will very likely not shed any new insights into how F&F went wrong. It's a waste of Congress's time and distracts from the real focus, which should be on how to prevent a future F&F instead of a speculative witch hunt with baldly partisan motives.
# posted by 
: 10:55 PM
: 10:55 PM
Who is in the wrong?
1. I think we can agree that giving lots of guns to known criminals who specialize in killing and other forms of mayhem, in retrospect, was a bad idea.
2. Whoever thought this was a good idea was wrong, right?
3. Who was responsible? That is where it gets murky for me. Jay Carney and Atty General Holder say it was a program that they inherited from the Bush administration. So, perhaps George Bush is in the wrong? General Holder thought he did not know anything about it, but then he confessed some confusion about what he knew and when. It seems that he should have know more, if he had been reading his emails. Lots of documents (1000s) have been released to Congress but, evidently, not ones that offer much definitive clarification in re your question.
Who is in the wrong? Is that an answerable question at this point? Maybe someone on this thread has a better answer.
1. I think we can agree that giving lots of guns to known criminals who specialize in killing and other forms of mayhem, in retrospect, was a bad idea.
2. Whoever thought this was a good idea was wrong, right?
3. Who was responsible? That is where it gets murky for me. Jay Carney and Atty General Holder say it was a program that they inherited from the Bush administration. So, perhaps George Bush is in the wrong? General Holder thought he did not know anything about it, but then he confessed some confusion about what he knew and when. It seems that he should have know more, if he had been reading his emails. Lots of documents (1000s) have been released to Congress but, evidently, not ones that offer much definitive clarification in re your question.
Who is in the wrong? Is that an answerable question at this point? Maybe someone on this thread has a better answer.
I attended a fundraiser tonight for a gun violence prevention group, held against the backdrop of some of the worst carnage my city has ever known.
Some of the artwork for sale was by kids who live in neighborhoods so beset by shootings that the children fear they will never grow up. They are realists.
I spoke to two mothers of young sons shot to death, promising lights snuffed out.
If I thought the Republicans who are orchestrating this political theater cared about those children, those mothers, the peace officer who lost his life or his family, I could take the whole F&F kerfuffle seriously.
Forgive what may be political cynicism, and what most certainly is profanity: I do not for one moment think that they give a shit.
Some of the artwork for sale was by kids who live in neighborhoods so beset by shootings that the children fear they will never grow up. They are realists.
I spoke to two mothers of young sons shot to death, promising lights snuffed out.
If I thought the Republicans who are orchestrating this political theater cared about those children, those mothers, the peace officer who lost his life or his family, I could take the whole F&F kerfuffle seriously.
Forgive what may be political cynicism, and what most certainly is profanity: I do not for one moment think that they give a shit.
# posted by : 12:20 AM
: 12:20 AM
Dear anon 12:20,
Do you think the administration (and its agencies) gave a shit about children and adults when they allowed the weapons to be bought and sold without consequence? No one wins here. I grieve for the mothers you met, for the children who have no hope and for all the countless victims in Mexico and in the southwest who were allowed to die because the ATF and ICE chose to look the other way.
This should not be a partisan discussion.
MMM
Post a Comment
Do you think the administration (and its agencies) gave a shit about children and adults when they allowed the weapons to be bought and sold without consequence? No one wins here. I grieve for the mothers you met, for the children who have no hope and for all the countless victims in Mexico and in the southwest who were allowed to die because the ATF and ICE chose to look the other way.
This should not be a partisan discussion.
MMM
# posted by : 12:38 AM
: 12:38 AM << Home
