Shared publicly  - 
3
John Splater's profile photoMike DeSimone's profile photoJames Barrow's profile photo
15 comments
 
It amazes me how long the AG has tried to whitewash the Fast & Furious debacle.  Just hold him in contempt already.  Jeez. 

"Eric Holder — the man for whom the buck never stops as long as he can plausibly blame someone else."
 
There is nothing in the article about Holder blaming someone else. Nor is there anything about whitewashing. Just that Issa did not get the answers he wanted, which at best indicates prejudice on Issa's part. Maybe you meant to comment on a different article?
 
+Mike DeSimone I have to hand it to you, you keep missing the mark, but you keep trying. Okay, from the top.

The "blaming" quote is in quotes to show that I said it, not that it was in the article.  The "whitewashing" can be derived from simply working from the beginning of the investigation to the article:  requests for information > requests denied in part or in full > subpoenas issued > more stonewalling > Holder "not a good witness."

Your views on what's prejudiced are just backwards. Eric Holder has been caught in a lie. Evidence was exhibited and Eric Holder lied. So when Rep. Issa references the evidence, and Holder lies about his original lie, that isn't prejudice on Issa's part.  That's lying on Holder's part, which is why he should be held in contempt. 
 
Wait, wait, wait..."unknowingly passed on bad information"?!  Is that like George Bush acting on credible and actionable intel about WMDs that later didn't pan out?  Just askin'...
 
James is just defending his own. It's partisan, sure, but I don't recall him saying he wasn't partisan. He also doesn't claim to be consistent; he'll slam others' opinions by asserting that they were presented as facts, but the above "blame" thing was opinion so it's good.

Then, in his defense he cites a theory of his that requires Holder to be acting in bad faith as proof of Holder's alleged bad faith, completely discounting the possibility that Issa's requests for information could be a straightforward fishing expedition without sufficient probable cause. In other areas of law, a judge would decide what is or isn't a valid subpoena, but here Issa is playing that role, and James is asserting Issa has that right. Again, James never claimed to be nonpartisan.

Then the bit about "Holder has been caught in a lie." Again, proven in what court of law? Or is the court of public opinion (Hon. J. Barrow presiding) sufficient? But then a ray of light: if Holder has been lying, then shouldn't Issa have charged him with perjury? What's he waiting for? Could it be that the "evidence" of perjury is not in fact airtight, Issa needed a smoking, and was disappointed by Holder's refusal to give it to him, fabricating it out of thin air if needed?

AG Gonzales routinely blew off Congress in similar situations. I don't see why Holder has to manufacture a scandal because Issa wants it. This has been going on for years now. Issa should put up or shut up, and if he had his act together, Holder's testimony simply would not matter.
 
If you could prove that 1) Holder had access to good information, and 2) that the people who gave him the bad information said it was likely bad, then you'd have a decent comparison to GWB. But you need those two things.
 
+Mike DeSimone Um, no.  You missed the mark again.  I was commenting on Alex's assertion, not the merit's of the Fast & Furious investigation, so no "proof" is needed.  Let's compare his comment and my response:

Alex: "[Holder] uknowingly passed on bad information" Result:  Border Patrol agent murdered.

Jim:  "George Bush acted on credible and actionable intel" Result: Iraq War.

So we're supposed to give Holder a pass on this because he "didn't know"?  He's the Attorney General - it's his job to know.
 
I got that. The simile between Holder and Bush still falls apart because the former (to the best of our knowledge) only got bad or no information, but the latter cherry-picked bad information that was presented as being from a non-credible witness over good information from multiple sources, including the IAEA. Again, maybe there exists evidence somewhere that Holder acted in bad faith, but that shouldn't have to come from Holder (per 5th Amendment). Issa has other means and should (and likely will) use them.

Also, it may be Holder's job to know, but that in itself is not evidence that he knew. Subordinates "forget" to tell bosses things all the time for various reasons; a system that assumes otherwise is a joke.

The only pass Holder should get is "innocent until proven guilty."
 
+Alex Ryking I think you just set a record for the most logical fallacies used in one day:

Argumentum ex Silentio -- The fallacy of supposing that someone's silence is necessarily proof of ignorance.

But back to your...er...errors...

1. Bush did not knowingly use false intel. According to your link, he was presented with information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam’s inner circle.  That was one intel briefing against dozens that said otherwise.

2. As someone who has been race-baiting all day, you may want to think twice about who's trying to change the subject.

3. As for defending Rep. Issa, it seems rather pointless when you're acting so irrationnaly (I was going to say acting like an idiot, but since you know how to type, I'm not sure if that would have been accurate.)

Contrary to your weak racism hooey, Rep. Issa's newly obtained wiretaps show that senior Justice Department officials knew about and approved Fast and Furious tactics.

Back in March, 2011, Obama promised that there would be exposure to this, and that they would hold people accountable. Hasn't happened. So the committee had to issue a subpoena back in October, which the DOJ didn't comply with. Speaker Boehner sent a letter over to the Department of Justice, asking some very basic questions of them and the White House. They didn't comply. The DOJ is refusing to provide the very same documents that they're claiming will clear them!

Smells like a cover up to me.
 
Issa needs to get a federal judge to help get all the information he needs to put obama and goons in prison where they belong.  maybe if they water board holder they could get the truth.
 
+James Barrow Unless you've got some access to Bush's inner thoughts that we don't know about, you can't be sure he didn't knowingly use false intel. In other words, he had a case of confirmation bias.

I don't think that refusing a request from the Speaker's office matters on the grounds of both the 5th Amendment and need to know. Neither the committee nor the Speaker's office are impartial parts of the Judiciary branch, thus there is no expectation of a fair trial proceeding from such disclosure as opposed to political grandstanding.

Again, Issa should get his stuff together and put it in front of a judge already.

"Smells like a cover up" is an opinion, granted, but it is also using silence to imply guilt. I'll let you look up the Latin for that.

+John Splater I'll let James explain the problems in your statement from the words "to put" onward.
 
+Mike DeSimone The first part of your argument is flawed.  Of course President Bush had to use his judgement as to which intel was credible, and which wasn't.  Iraq was an intractable and difficult subject. The tradecraft of intelligence rarely has the luxury of having black and white facts. Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, and Bill Harlow all confirmed that the intel was constant and static. To say that the President acted on false intel would imply that the entire administration, and world spy agencies were involved in a global conspiracy.

And you're a bit off on your facts regarding the House Judiciary Committee.  Rep. Issa is conducting hearings, not a trial.  There are actually two problems with the Fast & Furious hearings:  1) The subpoenas, although warranted, were not very specific.  So when Darrell Issa asks Eric Holder, "What did you know?", it leaves so much wiggle room for Holder that it's almost impossible to pin him down on anything. 2) With so much wiggle room, Holder is able to evade direct questioning, and provide often vague and ambiguous answers.  I've watched coverage of the hearings, and Eric Holder's answers often come across sounding like he's saying, "Duh, wut?"

Of course "Smells like a cover-up" is an opinion.  It would have been disingenous to say that it is a cover-up, since I only know as much as what's been said in the hearings.  Not really sure what you meant by "using silence."
 
+Alex Ryking 1. You commit several logical fallacies in your comments.

2. You have a habit of calling information that doesn't jibe with your political beliefs "BS."  That's called poisoning the well.

3. Bush didn't lie: http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=3851

4. Claiming that Rep. Issa is only trying to smear the names of a black president and black AG is race-baiting.

5. Since the hearings are to determine what the Eric Holder knew, and when he knew it, and they're ongoing, your links are worthless.

6. The title says it all:  "ATF officials reassigned in latest Fast and Furious fallout."  FAIL.

7. Eric Holder lied:  http://www.westernjournalism.com/holders-lies-exposed-by-doj-document-leak/

8. Incorrect. Holder has surrendered 7,600 pages of approximately 240,000. Those 7,600 pages are so heavily redacted as to be almost unreadable. For over a year, DOJ has failed to cite a single piece of legal authority or case law that supports its refusal to produce documents to Congress.

9. You're flailing.  Maybe you should take a break.
 
+Alex Ryking Debating your opinions, specualtion, assumptions and non sequiturs is pointless.
Add a comment...