‘Fast and Furious’ Does Not Mean 'Fast and Furious'......

[Texgun]

It is truly a sad commentary on our government if any member of Congress can willfully ignore the deliberate obfuscation by Holder and not hold him in contempt of Congress. If the only thing that can be achieved by Congress is additional debt we should not have too much longer to worry about these partisan issues. We will be following the Romans into history.

[The Annoyed Man]

Republicans on Leaks: Either President or Times Is Wrong
Both cannot be correct.
2:46 PM, JUN 8, 2012 • BY DANIEL HALPER
Weekly Standard

President Obama at a press conference this morning insisted that high-level national security leaks are not coming from the White House. "The notion that my White House would purposefully release classified information is offensive," President Obama said.

But a Republican memo from the Senate Republican Policy Committee maintains that either the president or the New York Times is wrong.

"It would appear the President’s statement and the New York Times statements directly conflict with each other and cannot both be true at the same time," the memo states.

For proof, the memo highlights Obama's denial that the White House is responsible for the leaks and certain statements in the Times's stories.

"If that statement were meant to serve as a denial that the Obama Administration leaked classified information, it would appear to stand in direct contrast to the New York Times article describing the President’s personal involvement in a process 'to designate terrorists for kill or capture,'" the memo states. "One of the opening paragraphs described the methodology for compiling the story, saying 'three dozen' of the President’s 'current and former advisers' were interview sources for the story."

The memo cites another example that would seem to contradict the president's statement: "A second story, about cyberattacks on Iran nuclear facilities, citied discussions with 'officials involved in the program,' and went on to say that program 'remains highly classified.'"

In his conference, President Obama assured the American public that an investigation would be done. We'll see, then, who is right: the New York Times or the president.

This is too delicious. When Bush was president, the NYT leaked classified information, and the relationship between the NYT and the administration was largely adversarial. The Bush administration, for its part, was too busy pursuing the WOT and didn't deign to pursue the NYT for publishing classified information. The NYT, for their part, are so vested in being advocates for liberalsim and committed to an anti-war editorial stance that they had no problem compromising our intelligence system. But, whatever other criticisms one could level against the Bush administration, the one charge for which the administration were teflon coated was that of being soft of national defense. Nobody with a lick of sense would accuse Bush of being soft on national defense, and had anybody made that accusation, they would have been laughed off the planet.

But the Obama administration is manifestly soft on protecting the national interests, including national defense. They have a manifest history of leaking classified information to their most favored media outlets.......inviting reporters into the Situation Room during live operations, for instance. They have, per the NYT, leaked classified information to the NYT, who, true to form, have leaked those things to the public. This is not something the administration can afford, because it further confirms they are soft as hades, and during an election season no less.

They are guilty as charged. They are guilty of leaking classified information. That is a violation of federal law. But what else is new? This administration breaks federal law with such regularity and brazenness that they manifestly do not believe that the law applies to them. The NYT have not only published the classified information, but they have flat out named the administration as having provided it to them.

What does this have to do with Holder? He has appointed two US Attorneys to investigate the leaks. One of them is a Bush appointee. The other is an Obama appointee WHO DONATED $4350 TO OBAMA'S CAMPAIGN.

This administration is, without a doubt, the most corrupt administration in American history; and Holder, the AG, is its principle enabler of corruption.

[atticus]

Holder is largely responsible for the Mark Rich and FALN terrorist pardons under Clinton. Holder's bad character was already visible. He was a known quantity when Obama nominated him. Yet many Republican senators were on board for his confirmation. My disgust is aimed mostly at those senators. Bringing it a little closer to home, neither Cornyn nor Hutchison have been outstanding senators for Texas. Although they tend to follow the party in voting, they have not been leaders. I'd like to see Texas getting a little more bang for its buck in the Senate in terms of leadership. I'm not talking about leadership positions, I'm talking about legislative leadership. We have an opportunity this year as we replace Kay Bailey. As big as it is, Texas deserves some better representation. I don't think it's enough just to be a dependable cipher.

[AEA]

I emailed Cornyn prior to Holder's confirmation and warned him that if Holder was confirmed it would be the worst thing that could happen for 2a rights since the creation of the US Govt.

He replied and stated that he somewhat agreed and would work hard to block his confirmation. He lied. Plain and simple.

Our entire Washington "good ole boys" system is not serving our interests. The PEOPLE are not being represented. Only the MEMBERS representing themselves (and their friends/special interests).

I wish there was a way to clean house and just get rid of all of them and start over.

One thing that may help is the slap in the face that SCOTUS will hand them in about 3 weeks with the ruling on Health Care. They won't get the message though, they will just look for another run-around to reach their goals.

[atticus]

AEA said: "One thing that may help is the slap in the face that SCOTUS will hand them in about 3 weeks with the ruling on Health Care. They won't get the message though, they will just look for another run-around to reach their goals."

From your lips to G_d's ear.

[Heartland Patriot]

Republicans on Leaks: Either President or Times Is Wrong
Both cannot be correct.
2:46 PM, JUN 8, 2012 • BY DANIEL HALPER
Weekly Standard

President Obama at a press conference this morning insisted that high-level national security leaks are not coming from the White House. "The notion that my White House would purposefully release classified information is offensive," President Obama said.

But a Republican memo from the Senate Republican Policy Committee maintains that either the president or the New York Times is wrong.

"It would appear the President’s statement and the New York Times statements directly conflict with each other and cannot both be true at the same time," the memo states.

For proof, the memo highlights Obama's denial that the White House is responsible for the leaks and certain statements in the Times's stories.

"If that statement were meant to serve as a denial that the Obama Administration leaked classified information, it would appear to stand in direct contrast to the New York Times article describing the President’s personal involvement in a process 'to designate terrorists for kill or capture,'" the memo states. "One of the opening paragraphs described the methodology for compiling the story, saying 'three dozen' of the President’s 'current and former advisers' were interview sources for the story."

The memo cites another example that would seem to contradict the president's statement: "A second story, about cyberattacks on Iran nuclear facilities, citied discussions with 'officials involved in the program,' and went on to say that program 'remains highly classified.'"

In his conference, President Obama assured the American public that an investigation would be done. We'll see, then, who is right: the New York Times or the president.

This is too delicious. When Bush was president, the NYT leaked classified information, and the relationship between the NYT and the administration was largely adversarial. The Bush administration, for its part, was too busy pursuing the WOT and didn't deign to pursue the NYT for publishing classified information. The NYT, for their part, are so vested in being advocates for liberalsim and committed to an anti-war editorial stance that they had no problem compromising our intelligence system. But, whatever other criticisms one could level against the Bush administration, the one charge for which the administration were teflon coated was that of being soft of national defense. Nobody with a lick of sense would accuse Bush of being soft on national defense, and had anybody made that accusation, they would have been laughed off the planet.

But the Obama administration is manifestly soft on protecting the national interests, including national defense. They have a manifest history of leaking classified information to their most favored media outlets.......inviting reporters into the Situation Room during live operations, for instance. They have, per the NYT, leaked classified information to the NYT, who, true to form, have leaked those things to the public. This is not something the administration can afford, because it further confirms they are soft as hades, and during an election season no less.

They are guilty as charged. They are guilty of leaking classified information. That is a violation of federal law. But what else is new? This administration breaks federal law with such regularity and brazenness that they manifestly do not believe that the law applies to them. The NYT have not only published the classified information, but they have flat out named the administration as having provided it to them.

What does this have to do with Holder? He has appointed two US Attorneys to investigate the leaks. One of them is a Bush appointee. The other is an Obama appointee WHO DONATED $4350 TO OBAMA'S CAMPAIGN.

This administration is, without a doubt, the most corrupt administration in American history; and Holder, the AG, is its principle enabler of corruption.

TAM, I have lost any hope that anything will be done to Holder. I have my worries about the election because it seems that its more about how "mean" Mitt Romney is because he made his money as a businessman instead of as an actor or sports star, or about the Republican "war on women" (they won't get certain items handed out at the taxpayers' expense), or about the man in the White House being such a "cool guy" and people just HAVE to vote for him because of that...instead of having an administration/government that at least TRIES to do things correctly. I'm not giving up hope because I know there are a LOT of ticked off folks out there and we aren't the only ones...I just hope there are enough of us.

[Middle Age Russ]

I'm not giving up hope because I know there are a LOT of ticked off folks out there and we aren't the only ones...I just hope there are enough of us.

I wholeheartedly agree. I am dumbfounded daily by the blind nanny state mentality exhibited by media and too many commentators on various websites. Their vitriol-filled "attack first, ask questions later" tactics are not only a nuisance, but make one fear for a complete societal breakdown should our government begin to take the necessary measures to shrink itself and the debt it has amassed.

[Dave2]

I'm not giving up hope because I know there are a LOT of ticked off folks out there and we aren't the only ones...I just hope there are enough of us.

I wholeheartedly agree. I am dumbfounded daily by the blind nanny state mentality exhibited by media and too many commentators on various websites. Their vitirol-filled "attack first, ask questions later" tactics are not only a nuisance, but make one fear for a complete societal breakdown should our government begin to take the necessary measures to shrink itself and the debt it has amassed.

The OWS peeps will not help in this regard. I'm not certain of it or anything (mostly because the people who would be the most opposed to such measures seem too lazy to do anything other sit around in the park all day), but I do worry about it.

[The Annoyed Man]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- ... ColumnArea

[tomneal]

The drip-drip-drip of news stories on Holder and fast & furious gun running continues.

I stand by my prediction that the drips will continue until the November 6th election or Holder resigns and that he will never be convicted of Contempt because of the Democrat controlled Senate.

[Heartland Patriot]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- ... ColumnArea

I emailed Speaker Boehner's office urging them to take more vigorous action on this. While I doubt they are going to take the words of a mechanic into account, if enough people contact the Speaker it might show public support for taking a harder line on this. All I can do is keep my fingers crossed because it ain't like I can do anything else about it.

[tomneal]

Just another observation:
Charles Krauthammer commented yesterday that the Fast & Furious scandal will not cost Obama any votes. Folks that care about guns aren't going to vote for him anyway.

[Heartland Patriot]

Just another observation:
Charles Krauthammer commented yesterday that the Fast & Furious scandal will not cost Obama any votes. Folks that care about guns aren't going to vote for him anyway.

Indeed, that may be true. But, how many folks seem quite willing to just sit out this election because they somehow (wrongly, IMHO) feel that not enough is being done by Congress on this and other issues. How not voting for the Republican against the Democrats who have pulled these stunts such as F&F/Gunwalker makes it get any better is beyond me...but maybe the folks in Congress taking a harder line on this subject will be able to show that they indeed do take a serious interest in what is going on.

[74novaman]

Eric Holder is now concerned that Congress looking into Fast and Furious is going to cause a "constitutional crisis".......

Attorney General Eric Holder spoke in a conciliatory tone Tuesday about his willingness for “compromises” to avoid what he called “an impending constitutional crisis” over the withholding of documents in response to a congressional subpoena.

Amazing how he tries to hide behind the very document he's actively trying to shed. Disgusting.

Full story: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77327.html

[Heartland Patriot]

Eric Holder is now concerned that Congress looking into Fast and Furious is going to cause a "constitutional crisis".......

Attorney General Eric Holder spoke in a conciliatory tone Tuesday about his willingness for “compromises” to avoid what he called “an impending constitutional crisis” over the withholding of documents in response to a congressional subpoena.

Amazing how he tries to hide behind the very document he's actively trying to shed. Disgusting.

Full story: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77327.html

I want the House to go ahead and hold him in contempt...then the Republican members of the Senate can do so as well (hopefully with one or two Democrats on-board) and that would put Harry Reid on the spot to either defend this guy and show his true colors OR go along with it and go against his political lord and master...