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

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

ahoy ConservSpeakin',

hail me hearty, aye! i think that thar be actual tapes that would implicate Mr. Nixon in the malfeasance 'o Watergate, so...aye, it does seem that he did lie. that bein' said, i think President Nixon was a pretty good skipper fer our nation, and its kinda a shame that his entire rule o'er our country be viewed through the prism 'o Watergate.

also...

*throws down the gauntlet*

though i would claim that Mr. Bush knew far more about the invasion 'o Iraq and was directly involved with the policy decisions regardin' our armed conflict thar (as opposed to Mr. Obama, whar thar be zero proof he was involved or even aware of Operation Fast 'n Furious), i challenge thee to find one post that i've scribed in the last half decade that whar i claim that President Bush lied to our nation and congress when leadin' us into that war.

- MeadHallPirate

Actually, there are tapes that were erased. It was never proven who erased them, or what was on them. There was absolutely no proof that Nixon had any knowledge of the Watergate breakin.

As far as Bush goes, I have already said that I believe that Bush streatched the truth in his statement on Iraq. It was known that Iraq had the Means to restart it's WMD's programs, they had the intent to restart the program as soon as the sanctions were lifted, and it was known that they had attempted to replace some of the depleted materials. But it was not known that they actually had any working weapons. Yet, his statement was that they had an active WMD's program in Iraq. But what he did not do is arm the enemies of a friendly nation.

If you want a fair comparison, then compare Bush's actions and reasonings for the Iraq situation compared to Obama's actions and reasoning for the Libya situation. I counter that Iraq posed a more creditable threat to the interests of the US then Libya did.

You challange me after refusing to meet my challange? I challanged you to produce a piece of legislature where Obama has shown that he is in support of the 2nd Amendment. You chose to ignore that challange. As far as your challange, I have not been on this board very long. So, I can only know what you have shown since that time. I have no time to go back and review all your rantings on this board. So, far you have shown yourself to be a hardcore Liberal. Your attempts to paint Obama as a Moderate Conservative is complete ridicules. You completely ignore the one fact that most hardcore Liberals ignore. The fact that those like you are not mainstream. Most people within the US range from Conservative Leaning Indepentents to hardcore Conservatives. You hardcore Liberals make up the smallest portion of the US population. When Obama announces a Liberal move then he is blasted by mainstream Americans, and he moderates his stance. That is called politics. In politics, words often speaks louder then actions. Get used to it.

As far as your statement that Obama knew nothing even though three members of his staff was briefed, it just shows us that you have know knowledge of how governments work. If three sections of the Whitehouse requested information on the programs, then there was some interest by the Administration in the program. That is supported by Obama's attacks on the 2nd Admendment rights of US citizens.

Originally Posted by ConservSpeakin'

Actually, there are tapes that were erased. It was never proven who erased them, or what was on them. There was absolutely no proof that Nixon had any knowledge of the Watergate breakin.

ahoy ConservSpeakin',

good lordy, mate.

regardin' the Nixon Watergate tapes:

Cassette: E - 2 Segment: 1 (8 minutes)
Cassette: E - 2 Segment: 2 (4 minutes)

ABSTRACT: "The Smoking Gun" conversation: Haldeman and Nixon discuss the progress of the FBI's investigation especially the tracing of the source of money found on the burglars. They propose having the CIA ask the FBI to halt their investigation of the Watergate break-in by claiming that the break-in was a national security operation.
A discussion of how Hunt's involvement in the Watergate break-in would point the investigators to the CIA, and potentially, Hunt's role in the Bay of Pigs debacle.

and...

Cassette: E - 3 Segment: 1 (34 minutes)

ABSTRACT: A discussion of press treatment of the break-in and lawsuits; discovery of another bug in the DNC; bugs in other political campaigns; DNC lawsuits; Edward Bennett Williams; RNC countersuits; election law violations; Congress; the burglars' civil rights; the Washington Post's TV & Radio licenses; depositions on sex-lives of DNC members.

and...

Cassette: E - 5 Segment: 1 (11 minutes)
Cassette: E - 6 Segment: 1 (36 minutes)

ABSTRACT: This conversation between the President and Haldeman reveals the President's growing frustration with the Watergate affair. Haldeman pleads with the President to protect their "friends" on the Watergate side; Haldeman tries to convince the President he will survive this crisis; concern over Mitchell's knowledge of Liddy's intelligence operation. Haldeman is fatalistic about his own fate; he believes he will be a fall guy to protect others.

Richard M. Nixon: The Watergate Tapes

i say this with no rancor matey, though i know its goin' to across as disrespectful...i can't find no other way to word this; ye hath shown, in post after post, to not really know what yer talkin' about. ye keep gettin' facts wrong, and speak before ye hath a grasp on whatever topic we're discussin'.

i don't mind that, fer thar be numerous subjects on USPO whar i have a good deal to learn from me fellow posters, but i do wish that ye would speak with less certainty about subjects that ye clearly don't have a full understandin' of. ye speak from the gut, and though the gut can be mighty and powerful, 'tis better to use yer noggin' first.

we're pretty far off topic, i'll let ye and the other folk on this thread have the final word. ye each insist that ye know the President is lyin', but in the end, all ye have be yer convictions.

absent any proof, thar really be nothin' fer me to rebut.

*lifts his anchor and leave this thread*

fare the well, me bucko, until we meet again on another thread.

- MeadHallPirate

Originally Posted by MattInFla

Rubbish.

President Obama is the Commander in Chief. He could very easily have said "Within the next 12 months, you must either try or release the prisoners at Gitmo".

Instead, President Obama's administration drafted secret rules governing indefinite detention without trial.

It's sad that so many of Obama's followers will make up excuse after excuse for his failings.

Wile Obama is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, he is thankfully smarter then you. If Obama had released the terrorists then every attack on the US would have been on his head. Even he realized that. So, an unconditional release would not be in the US's best interest. Even from a Liberal point of view.

As far as the secrete rules, a President uses that approach so that he can use them when he wants, and avoid them when it suits him. At the same time he bypasses the legislative process that is required by the Constitution.

As far as me being a Obama follower, your as far out in left field as you can get. Just read my signature would show you that I do not support this President, or anything that he does. I beleive that his very election was a violation of every American's Constitutional rights.

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

ahoy Chassisman,

matey, he's not my skipper...he's everyone's. he be the President 'o our United States.

No, he's not my President, he's a traitor and no traitor is my President.

i find Mr. Holder's lack 'o accountability on this matter inexusable, and i'd be holdin' him accountable. i'd certainly make'm walk the plank. what more do ye want..and why be ye arguein' exclusively with me, matey? me own position be identical to MattLarson's. i think Mr. Holder should be thrown to the alligators, and both Matt and i agree that this be hardly the kinda thing whar the President ought to be impeached fer.

Okay, being as Mr. Nixon was impeached byevidence on tapes he and his lawyers thought was his private property, (I do too), and could not be used against him, let's record every conversation, phone call, and e-mail of every President, just in case we need it for evidence. The subpoena for the tapes was a fishing trip and the tapes shgould have never been allowed as evidence.

...and...i cannot speak fer the liberals here on USPO, but i know that i have a dim view 'o how Mr. Bush and his administration sold the nation and the congress on goin' to war in Iraq. hundreds...no, thousands 'o american lives were lost...hundreds 'o thousands 'o Iraqi lives destroyed, yet i never had me a "shit hemorrage", nor did i call fer anyone at all in the Bush regime to be called to account fer it...not Paul Wolfowitz, not Donald Rumsfeld, not Douglas Feith, not Jonathan Bolton, not Elliot Abrams...no one. i'll note that more than one american life was lost due to this policy.

Do you also have a dim view of Bill Clinton and everyone else who said Sadaam had WMD's and must be removed before Bush was even elected?

so i think it be a little presumptuous fer ye to tell me how i'd react "if this had happened under Bush". i know how i reacted, i gave the administration the benefit 'o the doubt, and i do so no matter who be in the skipper's chair, whether he be a Democrat or a Republican.

i walk it like i talk it, me bucko.

the charges in this here thread hath been absurd, whether it be one 'o the posters gettin' multiple facts incorrect...to the baseless assumption 'o the President lyin'...to the OP's incorrect statement that this news hath been buried and not posted on multiple sites from the New York Times to NPR. 'tis just blind partisan hatred, which be fine...to each his own, but 'tis all inaccurate and based on opinion.

Inaccurate and based on opinion? Politics is all about opinion. What's new there?
Truman said the buck srops here, obama says the buck starts here.
Truman said, "If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen".
Obama say's, "If you can't stand the heat, blame it on Bush".

aye.

- MeadHallPirate

Opinion is formed by behavior, and Obama's behavior has been shameful.

Originally Posted by chassisman

Criticizing an admin where Border Patrol agents are killed with guns the ATF purposely put in the hands of drug cartels is "a bit outta hand"? Criticizing an admin where everyone, the POTUS, the AG, and whomever is asked "knew nothing about it" is out of hand?
I think you want is for your "skipper" to have a job complete with zero accountability. If this had happened under Bush , liberals would have had a shit hemorrhage.

Get with the program. It's Bush's fault anyway.

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

ahoy ConservSpeakin',

good lordy, mate.

regardin' the Nixon Watergate tapes:



and...



and...

Richard M. Nixon: The Watergate Tapes

i say this with no rancor matey, though i know its goin' to across as disrespectful...i can't find no other way to word this; ye hath shown, in post after post, to not really know what yer talkin' about. ye keep gettin' facts wrong, and speak before ye hath a grasp on whatever topic we're discussin'.

i don't mind that, fer thar be numerous subjects on USPO whar i have a good deal to learn from me fellow posters, but i do wish that ye would speak with less certainty about subjects that ye clearly don't have a full understandin' of. ye speak from the gut, and though the gut can be mighty and powerful, 'tis better to use yer noggin' first.

we're pretty far off topic, i'll let ye and the other folk on this thread have the final word. ye each insist that ye know the President is lyin', but in the end, all ye have be yer convictions.

absent any proof, thar really be nothin' fer me to rebut.

*lifts his anchor and leave this thread*

fare the well, me bucko, until we meet again on another thread.

- MeadHallPirate

Have to disagree. ConservativeSpeakin' did not even hint at any of the above and, as is so often the case, you have introduced a straw man. What he said was that there was not one shred of proof that Nixon knew about the Watergate break in [we assume he meant advance information] and he is correct.

In all of the testimony, in all of the tapes, not even in Stone's mockumentary is there a suggestion that Nixon knew about the break in.

What he was driven out of office for was obstruction of justice...the cover up.

If you're going to hold others to task for minitutea then you should do so as well.

Originally Posted by FearandLoathing

Have to disagree. ConservativeSpeakin' did not even hint at any of the above and, as is so often the case, you have introduced a straw man. What he said was that there was not one shred of proof that Nixon knew about the Watergate break in [we assume he meant advance information] and he is correct.

In all of the testimony, in all of the tapes, not even in Stone's mockumentary is there a suggestion that Nixon knew about the break in.

What he was driven out of office for was obstruction of justice...the cover up.

If you're going to hold others to task for minitutea then you should do so as well.

ahoy FearandLoathing,

ahhhh, fair enough. i actually didn't read that post 'o his closely enough. at any rate, the tapes clearly implicate Mr. Nixon in the coverup, which 'o course be what the Watergate impeachment was all about....the POTUS' complicity in tryin' to bury the affair. also...Oliver Stone's movie? whar on earth does that reference come from? what has that got to do with anythin'? (i prefered the storytellin' in Mr. Pakula's "All The President's Men").

imma not the one slammin' me fist on the table claimin' me "facts" are indisputitable, only to have'm disproven...that would be ConservSpeakin', not me. if someone is goin' to make them kinda statements, they'd better be correct.

it really doesn't change me main point, which be this; thar be no proof that the President 'o the United States knew about operation Fast 'n Furious.

none.

nothin' at all.

and when asked about the matter, he confirmed that he knew nothin'.

so thats all thar be to the matter...'cept a few partisans who insist that they know better, due to thar mighty sluethin' abilities. if yer sypmathetic to the point 'o view 'o Natstew and ConservSpeakin', 'tis fine with me, matey. as i said, thar be nothin' presented on this point as fact, so thar really be nothin' fer me to rebut.

ConservSpeakin' be someone who believes that Mr. Obama's election be a "violation 'o his constitutional rights", so if yer mindset be similar to his...well...ye keep some peculiar company, mate. i had no idear ye were such a partisan.

*shrugs*

- MeadHallPirate

Ah yes, obstruction of justice

It's only a crime when a Republican does it.

When Clinton was charged with it in his impeachment hearings, it was okay because it was about sex, and besides Paula Jones was "trailer trash".

That miscarriage of justice convinced me that all Democraps are slimey pieces of feces.

Bill Clinton was charged with sexual harrassment of Paula Jones, not with having oral "non sex" with an intern.

Want the details of his harrassment? Had Paula Jones brought to his office and whipped out his dick, asked her to kiss it.............want more? Bill Clinton should have been thrown out of office and into jail.

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

it really doesn't change me main point, which be this; thar be no proof that the President 'o the United States knew about operation Fast 'n Furious.

none.

nothin' at all.

and when asked about the matter, he confirmed that he knew nothin'.

so thats all thar be to the matter...'cept a few partisans who insist that they know better, due to thar mighty sluethin' abilities. if yer sypmathetic to the point 'o view 'o Natstew and ConservSpeakin', 'tis fine with me, matey. as i said, thar be nothin' presented on this point as fact, so thar really be nothin' fer me to rebut.

ConservSpeakin' be someone who believes that Mr. Obama's election be a "violation 'o his constitutional rights", so if yer mindset be similar to his...well...ye keep some peculiar company, mate. i had no idear ye were such a partisan.

*shrugs*

- MeadHallPirate

First, I have never suggested at any time that Owebama had knowledge of the Fast and Furious program prior to it becoming public. But he does now. But, what action has be taken? Has he acted as a chief executive should?
Laws were broken on his watch, lives were lost because of that illegality. Again, what has he done?

I suggest you consider more carefully the words you chose. While you imply that I am partisan in a back handed manner

i had no idear ye were such a partisan.

you continue to use clearly partisan language such as

he confirmed that he knew nothin'

.

Barak Obama has "confirmed" no such thing nor could he. He has *claimed* he knew nothing. If he were "confirming" he would be agreeing with or documenting that which has already been established and no such thing has been established.

I have serious doubts that three departments under his watch could launch a lengthy, expensive and exhaustive overt operation without at least some degree of executive knowledge....and if it is true that is one very loose ship begging the question what the hell else is going on?

ahoy FearandLoathing,

Originally Posted by FearandLoathing

First, I have never suggested at any time that Owebama had knowledge of the Fast and Furious program prior to it becoming public. But he does now. But, what action has be taken? Has he acted as a chief executive should?
Laws were broken on his watch, lives were lost because of that illegality. Again, what has he done?

done matey? what would ye have our skipper do? he rashly and incorrectly fired Shirley Sherrod (imma not sure i spelled the lass' name right), and now he's learned to temper his actions a bit, and be less rash. he said an investigation be underway in the 5,000 person ATF to correctly discern how this errant program was authorized. it seems to be the right course to sail, to me. me own feelin' be in line with MattinFla, that Mr. Holder outta be made to walk to walk the plank and tossed into the drink.

I suggest you consider more carefully the words you chose. While you imply that I am partisan in a back handed manner you continue to use clearly partisan language such as .

Barak Obama has "confirmed" no such thing nor could he. He has *claimed* he knew nothing. If he were "confirming" he would be agreeing with or documenting that which has already been established and no such thing has been established.

lol, i was just echoin' what the skipper said, which is, he was unaware 'o Operation Fast and Furious. i really don't see how it be partisan to just link a quote the President made as to his awareness 'o that program (which i only did at the request 'o Thanatos144, who asked, "What duid the president know and when did he know it....And will he have the the honor to do what Nixon did. Or will he puss out like he does on everything but screwing over Israel." in post #60). i'd like to note that i didn't bring Nixon into this thread, either...imma just respondin' to what another poster hath scribed.

I have serious doubts that three departments under his watch could launch a lengthy, expensive and exhaustive overt operation without at least some degree of executive knowledge....and if it is true that is one very loose ship begging the question what the hell else is going on?

ye can have yer doubts, matey...'tis fine with me. the government has many lengthly, expensive, and exhaustive operations, i really doubt that any President be fully briefed on all 'o them.

it happens all the time, me hearty;

Former President Reagan testified in a videotaped deposition released today that he "never had any inkling" that White House aides were secretly helping arm and advise the Nicaraguan Contras at a time when Congress had banned such aid.
In testimony taped last Friday and Saturday for the Iran-Contra trial of former national security adviser John Poindexter, Reagan said he "assured everybody that we would have to abide by the law"during the congressional ban on Contra aid.

Asked if he had any idea that a Poindexter aide, Oliver North, was giving the Contras military advice and logistical support, Reagan said:

"I guess that I had never had any inkling that we were guiding their strategy in any way.' That statement came under cross-examination by Iran-Contra prosecutor Dan Webb during the questioning of Reagan in Los Angeles.

Reagan denies knowledge of Contra aid/Former president in taped deposition testifies he `never had any inkling' 02/22/1990 | Archives | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

In unusually direct and brusque remarks at the White House Rose Garden today, President George W. Bush categorically denied knowledge of or acquaintance with Jack Abramoff, Tom DeLay, and many other primary figures in the ongoing and escalating series of scandals afflicting Republicans in Washington.

Bush Denies Knowing Abramoff, DeLay, Rove, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Others | Avant News

i didn't mean to offend ye be namin' ye a partisan, i don't really see anythin' wrong with partisans ondeck, mate. it makes USPO an interestin' and fun place to drop anchor.

at any rate, this be me last post in this thread. you too, can have the last word...wind at yer back, matey!

- MeadHallPirate

Pirate,

I did not respond to your reply, because you stated that you were leaving the topic. Yet, it seems that you are not a man of your word. So, I will respond now.

i say this with no rancor matey, though i know its goin' to across as disrespectful...i can't find no other way to word this; ye hath shown, in post after post, to not really know what yer talkin' about. ye keep gettin' facts wrong, and speak before ye hath a grasp on whatever topic we're discussin'.

I do admit there are times when I make comments that in retrospect are questionable. Such as the fact that I had forgotten that the Articles of Impeachment drawn up against Nixon was for Obstruction of Justice, and not for the breakin itself. But that does not change the point that I was making. That point being that Liberals have two sets of rules. One set for themselves, and one set for everyone else. Take the Watergate incident as an example. Two Journalists, namely Woodward and Bernstein, were digging for dirt on the Republican Party, and came across a source that detailed the breakin of the Democrat's Party's office at the Watergate Hotel. If that source had told them of the Democrats breaking into the GOP's offices, there never would have been a story. Without the news story, there never would have been an FBI Investigation. In other words, there would have been nothing to cover-up. Now, think about what was taken during the breakin. They simply made copies of some documents that details the DNC's campaign strategy. That's it. That's all there was. No lives were lost. No one was placed in jeopardy. Just some pictures of some papers. For that, a good President had to step down.

Now compare that to Obama's Fast and Furious plan. In this case, the Obama Administration armed the enemies of a friendly government. As a result, lives have lost on both sides of the border. Why? Because Obama wants a reason to stomp on the Second Admendment rights of every American.

absent any proof, thar really be nothin' fer me to rebut.

One question. If it could be proven that Obama new about this program from the start. would agree that he should be Impeached?

ConservSpeakin' be someone who believes that Mr. Obama's election be a "violation 'o his constitutional rights", so if yer mindset be similar to his...well...ye keep some peculiar company, mate. i had no idear ye were such a partisan

.

Pirate,

Have you researched this subject?

I haven't read this thread for a while, but it seems to be the same ol' same ol' by the left. It's like "OK, this looks bad, but we're going to maintain that nobody with any title is responsible NOR is it unusual that they didn't know anything about what was going on -- that is, it is both plausible and acceptable -- AND it is being given the appropriate amount of coverage (in other words, minimal) by the press in the form of about two mentions by the entire mainstream media per month." That's a summary of the entire thread in one sentence.