Thread: Fast and Furious--goes to the top of chain--in massive cover up scheme

Originally Posted by C-B-M

Even if Obama wants to claim plausible deniability, now that he's aware of the issue he'd have to explain why nobody's head has rolled yet. Basically, he's ignoring the issue, so at this point that points to him being complicit. Plus, if this was done without his knowledge, that would also point to the fact that he's basically irrelevant as a President. He's nominally in charge and everyone below him just does whatever they want. That's not a flattering picture, either.

Regardless, the important thing is the total lack of media concern over the issue. Has anyone heard any reporting on this for the past two or three months? Because I haven't. This should be reported on every single week, at least. But, hey, I guess it's because the mainstream media is so biased to the right, lol.

Originally Posted by Forplay

It makes no difference, he is the commander in chief, and if the commander in chief wants to be hands off he is still responsible for making that decision. There is no excuse for him not knowing or if he did know the outcome is the same. CEO's get fired every day for not knowing what is going on in one's company. It is their job to know and if Obama did not know he should be fired for wanting to not be advised.

Believe me...I don't think the guy should be let off the hook for this. I just don't think that it was his idea.

Originally Posted by C-B-M

The problem with most people today is that you say "Watergate" and they don't actually know what it was about. They just know that "something bad -- like, really bad -- happened." The actual events of Watergate were relatively benign. The coverup was the problem.

Yeah. "Relatively" benign.

Like, the President funded a secret unit full of ex-CIA operatives whose mission was to sabotage Nixon's political opponent with dirty, illegal tactics such as burglarizing and wiretapping the Democratic National Committee's (DNC) headquarters.

Like, the President funded another secret unit full of ex-CIA operatives to dig up dirt on and smear his political enemies, including breaking into Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office in order to try to destroy him personally. Talk about pathetic--as if smearing Ellsberg would in any way affect the significance of the Pentagon Papers.

And there there was the cover-up, which including direct payments of hush money to the "plumbers" to buy their silence, and repeatedly lying to the public for more than two years about the whole affair. When Howard Hunt demanded more money, effectively blackmailing the President, Nixon told his men to pay the ransom.

Then Nixon ordered the special prosecutor to drop his subpoena of the famous tapes. Cox refused. Nixon ordered Attorney General Richardson and his deputy William Ruckelshaus to fire Cox. When they refused, Nixon fired them! (He searched the Justice Department for someone willing to carry out the order, and found Robert Bork).

Finally, Nixon sicked the CIA on the FBI, approving a plan in which the CIA would tell the FBI to back off from their investigation. The very definition of obstructing justice.

So. If you think that the White House using former CIA agents to deliberately sabotage political campaigns, illegally paying them with laundered cash (you can be sure they didn't file any 1099s to record payments for services rendered), breaking into private citizen's medical histories in order to personally smear people who pissed them off, breaking into the headquarters of you opponents' campaigns and whatnot, is "relatively benign," then just remember what your standards are. Be sure and apply them consistently.

As for the cover-up, yes, that was indeed the "problem," and it was what caused most of the outrage and sealed the end for Nixon. Had he not obstructed justice and used his illegal slush fund to bribe people to lie for him while he himself lied through his teeth to the public and had he not ordered the CIA to tell the FBI to stop their investigation of his illegal activities, and had he not recorded all of this, then he would not have secured his place in history as the only President to have resigned from office.

But he did.

So if you want to compare the current far-right obsession with Watergate, perhaps you should review the facts.

Nobody was saying that it wasn't a crime, dude. What I said -- and what is generally agreed upon -- is that the coverup was the real problem that led to Nixon's impeachment. And by the way, you're quite melodramatic and passionate about Watergate. I have yet to see you get at all worked up about the Fast and Furious. In fact, you dropped in on this thread for the sole purpose of talking about Watergate, which is of course your right to do. But your total lack of concern about the topic at hand is equally illuminating. Thanks.

Originally Posted by C-B-M

Nobody was saying that it wasn't a crime, dude. What I said -- and what is generally agreed upon -- is that the coverup was the real problem that led to Nixon's impeachment. And by the way, you're quite melodramatic and passionate about Watergate. I have yet to see you get at all worked up about the Fast and Furious. In fact, you dropped in on this thread for the sole purpose of talking about Watergate, which is of course your right to do. But your total lack of concern about the topic at hand is equally illuminating. Thanks.

Oh, you're welcome. After all, you chose to comment on it first. If you found my rather dry recitation of the facts of Watergate to be "melodramatic and passionate," my, you really ought to read Wuthering Heights some day.

As for this conservative-only "scandal," if I got excited every time a new "scandal" was reported by Fox "News," I would have aged many years since November, 2008.

The President was born in Africa, and therefore can't be president!!!
Michele Obama hates America!
Barack Obama is a Muslim!
Obama's powdering his hair to make it look grey so that people will think he's working hard and feel sorry for him! (Actual Rush Limbaugh show).

You guys cry "Wolf" about every other day, and when no one pays attention to you it's all the Liberal Media's fault.

Everyone back on topic please. We can discuss Watergate in another thread if someone wants to.

Originally Posted by Oreo

The only reason it's not at Watergate level--is because the media is trying to protect the Obama administration. The only network that is covering this is Fox news.

This post is demonstrably ... false.

So why not drop this whole "liberal media" rhetoric?

Originally Posted by jpn

The President was born in Africa, and therefore can't be president!!!
Michele Obama hates America!
Barack Obama is a Muslim!
Obama's powdering his hair to make it look grey so that people will think he's working hard and feel sorry for him! (Actual Rush Limbaugh show).

Let's see:

- Sure, the "birthers" were wrong. What you don't get is that people never got all hot and bothered about it. For example, Rush Limbaugh didn't care about it. You guys on the left love to bring up the "birther" issue because it's literally the one thing that Obama has "won" on. That's sort of sad, wouldn't you say? Like, when you need a "go to" win, you go "what about the birthers?!" LOL.

- That's actually true. What do you expect when someone says that they're "finally" proud of the country? And by the way, that wasn't a "scandal."

- Again, you're relying on creating arguments that are non-existent to knock down. I had no idea that the "Muslim" argument was used against Obama in any way. Nor that it was a "scandal," again.

- That's great. I actually listen to the Rush Limbaugh show. You're quite right that he talked about Obama's grey hair "being powdered." You're also forgetting that he was joking about it -- well, probably not, since I'm sure you didn't actually hear him saying it and just read it on some Democrat blog site or forum. Also, not a "scandal."

So in other words, you're comparing Fast and Furious to this stuff. Bravo.

Originally Posted by jpn

So why not drop this whole "liberal media" rhetoric?

Because the liberal media is not reporting on the issue, which you're quite aware of. It's basically like you on this issue. You basically got dragged kicking and screaming into referring to the issue in a sideways manner and only really to defend Obama. You haven't at all been upset about the actual issue at all, just upset that Obama's being criticized. Yet you probably consider yourself to be "even-handed" with regards to the issue.

Originally Posted by lutherf

And that is why, in my opinion, this whole thing points to Hillary. The AWB was Clinton's baby - right along with universal health care - and it addressed EXACTLY the kind of hardware that F&F was pumping to the cartels. The coincidences are simply too many to ignore.

Banning assault weapons was part of Obama's campaign platform. It was one of his objectives since day one, while Clinton was still in the Senate;

Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

Urban Policy | Change.gov: The Obama-Biden Transition Team

If anything, I'd think Clinton would want to avoid the whole issue after seeing how it lost her husband the House majority when he pushed it.

Originally Posted by CYDdharta

Banning assault weapons was part of Obama's campaign platform. It was one of his objectives since day one, while Clinton was still in the Senate;


Urban Policy | Change.gov: The Obama-Biden Transition Team

If anything, I'd think Clinton would want to avoid the whole issue after seeing how it lost her husband the House majority when he pushed it.

True, but the 1994 AWB was hers (through Bill) and this was a way of reinstating it or getting comparable legislation passed.