Do You Think The Fast & Furious Scandal Is Worse Than Watergate Scandal?

[LeftofLeft]

Watergate was worse, though not as bad as the Bush admin lying to the american people with the fabricated "they have WMD's and we know where they are" BS to go to war with Iraq.

If you consider Intel that Bush inherited from The Clinton Administration and the same position that the Clintons and many prominent Democrats took before, during, and after Bush took office, then one could consider "fabricated." Factually speaking, not one Democrat took the position that Bush was LYING when he made his case before Congress and The UN. Doubters, yes, but the lying charge did not come until after we were engaged in Iraq and Democrats found it politically expediant to fabricate a mantra that Bush lied.

Now, back to the issue at hand: Fast and Furious vs. Watergate.

 

[The Infidel]

Latest Friday night document dump shows Holder was informed of Brian Terry

“The guns found in the desert near the murder BP officer connect back to the investigation we were going to talk about – they were AK-47s purchased at a Phoenix gun store,” Burke wrote to Wilkinson.

“I’ll call tomorrow,” Wilkinson responded.

Nothing in that article points out they did forensics on bullets retrieved from the body that are linked to any guns that they can connect to the operation.

Bullets have unique markings that can be traced back to the gun it was fired from.

That sort of evidence hasn't been produced.

Could it be because investigators were directed to not test the bullets?
I want to see ballistic test results.

As far as balistics go.... I concede, they need to be done.

On that part I agree with you and Sallow.

 

[Polk]

I think they should have done the same thing they did under Bush, take reasonable precautions to make sure the guns did not actually get used in a crime. Then again, I have standards.

But they didn't do that under Bush. It just happened that no one got killed.

Actually, they did, and stopped when they discovered that their precautions were inadequate.

Want to try again?

They didn't stop because their precautions were inadequate. They stopped because they didn't gather enough info to press charges against anyone.

 

[paulitician]

Good thing Obamabots don't have souls to sell. Because their defense of this one is pretty awful.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Those laws wouldn't apply in this case.

Explain. Because holder said so? BULLSHIT

Because the laws prohibit gun dealers from selling firearms to those persons. The government a) didn't sell the guns, b) isn't a gun dealer.

They forced the gun dealers to break the law, that is conspiracy and extortion.

 

[The Infidel]

Caan't you obama apologists muster just a bit of intellectual honesty, for Christ's sake?

 

[Polk]

No, because those laws apply to vendors. The government isn't a vendor.

So, if I sold guns to criminal non-citizens, the fact that I'm a private party would render the law null and void?

Or are you saying that because Holder is a democrat, the laws that apply to the little people don't accrue?

The law is intended for the ruled, not the rulers - according to the left.

You have to excuse College Boy Klop...he thinks he's the smartest in the room.

College was pretty fun. I hate not seeing my friends from those days often now.

 

[Polk]

They directed others to. That makes them complicit.

Except that what you're accusing them of is not a crime.

Tell me how selling guns to people federal law prohibits selling guns to, is not a crime. This is the same as hiring someone to kill your wife. You may not have pulled the trigger, but you will be convicted of 1st degree murder every time.
Caan't you obama apologists muster just a bit of intellectual honesty, for Christ's sake?

You're trying to compare two very different things.

 

[Polk]

Explain. Because holder said so? BULLSHIT

Because the laws prohibit gun dealers from selling firearms to those persons. The government a) didn't sell the guns, b) isn't a gun dealer.

They forced the gun dealers to break the law, that is conspiracy and extortion.

The gun dealers weren't in violation of the law either.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I don't know the exact wording of the statute, but the law is probably written to apply to individual sellers a well. Using your standard, it would be impossible to conduct sting operations, because they all involve some level of criminal activity.

So, as I first stated, your position is simply that there are two sets of laws, one that covers the ruled and a very different law that creates immunity for ruling democrats.

I don't give a **** about "sting operations." I prefer the constitutional republic that once existed, where one law was applied to every man from janitor to president.

Now we have rulers for whom the law has no power, and you support this based on your love of party.

 

[Ernie S.]

Nothing in that article points out they did forensics on bullets retrieved from the body that are linked to any guns that they can connect to the operation.

Bullets have unique markings that can be traced back to the gun it was fired from.

That sort of evidence hasn't been produced.

Could it be because investigators were directed to not test the bullets?
I want to see ballistic test results.

As far as balistics go.... I concede, they need to be done.

On that part I agree with you and Sallow.

Please don't pack me in a box with Shallow. He claims there is no ballistic evidence to tie walked guns to Terry's death and I contend that either ballistic tests have not been done at the direction of the Justice Department, or that test results have been hidden from the public.

 

[Sallow]

Could it be because investigators were directed to not test the bullets?
I want to see ballistic test results.

As far as balistics go.... I concede, they need to be done.

On that part I agree with you and Sallow.

Please don't pack me in a box with Shallow. He claims there is no ballistic evidence to tie walked guns to Terry's death and I contend that either ballistic tests have not been done at the direction of the Justice Department, or that test results have been hidden from the public.

Either way..they don't exist.

That's the point I was making.

 

[Ernie S.]

So, if I sold guns to criminal non-citizens, the fact that I'm a private party would render the law null and void?

Or are you saying that because Holder is a democrat, the laws that apply to the little people don't accrue?

The law is intended for the ruled, not the rulers - according to the left.

You have to excuse College Boy Klop...he thinks he's the smartest in the room.

College was pretty fun. I hate not seeing my friends from those days often now.

Let me guess. You have a degree in basket weaving from UC Berkley.

 

[Pheonixops]

I think it's a very interesting question. Most were very willing to crucify the President over Watergate. So what about 'Fast & Furious?' What do you think?

Not under the current circumstances.

 

[Polk]

I don't know the exact wording of the statute, but the law is probably written to apply to individual sellers a well. Using your standard, it would be impossible to conduct sting operations, because they all involve some level of criminal activity.

So, as I first stated, your position is simply that there are two sets of laws, one that covers the ruled and a very different law that creates immunity for ruling democrats.

I don't give a **** about "sting operations." I prefer the constitutional republic that once existed, where one law was applied to every man from janitor to president.

Now we have rulers for whom the law has no power, and you support this based on your love of party.

If you want to think of it as "two sets of laws", fine, but reasonable people will continue to think the police should be able to set up sting operations to take down complex criminal enterprises.

 

[Sallow]

Then you have no firm ground. You have lost it with the hyperbole. Way to go.

What's incredible here is that the very same people "outraged" over this..don't seem to have any "interest" in that there were so many other outrageous actions that have never been fully vetted.

Like 9/11. No one is interested about the failures there. On how a nation that was spending close to 600 billion dollars on national defense...couldn't defend against a small band of determined terrorists. And the 9/11 commission that did investigate, called in members of the Clinton administration..as well as the Bush administration. They wrapped it up in a little under a year. Close to 3000 Americans died in that fiasco.


So you are a truther.... figures

Or Iraq. All the information that the Bush administration provided to the world..and this country..turned out to be completely wrong. Nothing happened to them. No investigation, nadda.

So are the dems that were fooled by bad intel culpable as well?? Again, you are a hack.

Or the financial meltdown. Aside for pouring in trillions to keep rich boys from going broke, NOTHING HAPPENED.

Idiocy...

Or Valerie Plame. Very serious crime. Leaking the name of a covert agent. Aside from a lackey falling on his sword...not much happened.

Valerie Plame...? Really??? Are you as "outraged about the leaks coming from Obama's administration? Yeah, didnt think so... hypocrite.

This..however..jumps to the head of the line.

And not one Bush official is being called.

And this is being conducted by a man..who before he knew anythng about it..threatened to have investigations into what he called the most corrupt administration in history..every single day.

So is it little wonder why it's called "partisan bullshit"?

That's cause it is.

"partisan bullshit" alright.... on your part, you silly "Truther"

Truther?

Truther would be someone who believes the US government had something to do with it.

I believe that there was a fundamental break down in both defense and security.

As well as a cover up for the Saudis.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The gun dealers weren't in violation of the law either.

Based on the whim of our ruling lords that they cared not for the law at this time.


Since we are a regime ruled by the whim of men, not a free republic governed by the rule of codified law, the law was whatever our rulers declared it to be at that particular second.

 

[Ernie S.]

Except that what you're accusing them of is not a crime.

Tell me how selling guns to people federal law prohibits selling guns to, is not a crime. This is the same as hiring someone to kill your wife. You may not have pulled the trigger, but you will be convicted of 1st degree murder every time.
Caan't you obama apologists muster just a bit of intellectual honesty, for Christ's sake?

You're trying to compare two very different things.

No, I'm trying to give you an example of what the word complicit means.
If it was a crime for the Phoenix gun dealer to sell the weapons that killed Terry to straw purchasers, it was a crime for Justice to direct them to do so.

 

[Polk]

You have to excuse College Boy Klop...he thinks he's the smartest in the room.

College was pretty fun. I hate not seeing my friends from those days often now.

Let me guess. You have a degree in basket weaving from UC Berkley.

I didn't attend UC Berkeley, but you do realize it is the one of the most prestigious schools in the nation, right? My degree was in economics. Thank you for your interest.

 

[Ernie S.]

Because the laws prohibit gun dealers from selling firearms to those persons. The government a) didn't sell the guns, b) isn't a gun dealer.

They forced the gun dealers to break the law, that is conspiracy and extortion.

The gun dealers weren't in violation of the law either.

How so?