Purlpe,

I know you are new here so I will tell you that that study on U.S. guns in Mexico has been brought up and debunked as being grossly misleading at least 3 other times.

fate

How do we know Holder and the President had no knowledge?

During an appearance on "Fox News Sunday," host Chris Wallace asked Issa whether he had "any evidence" that the White House had been involved with the matter.

"No, we don't," Issa said.

The Justice Department's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms apparently allowed some gun sales in Arizona to known Mexican criminals. Two of the guns involved were found at the scene of a firefight in which U.S. Customs Agent Brian Terry was killed.

In February 2011, DOJ sent a letter to Congress denying such sales, but retracted that claim in December. It is not clear if either Attorney General Eric Holder or President Barack Obama were aware of the program, and Issa acknowledged Sunday that he has not found evidence Holder was involved.

"I did not say that Eric Holder always knew," Issa said.

Purple, I think you are generally right. But what Fate failed to notice, and you too, is that I don't excuse Holder .
I noted, and accepted his failings.
And I said that its likely the use of EP is to hide something embarressing. (I suppose there's still the possibility that the reasons given, protection of ongoing investigations, might be valid. But I'm sceptical.)

I'm saying that Issa is at fault for the methods and nature of his "investigation" becasue I agree with Fate when he says :

Many people have died as a result of F and F. Where is the investigation?

Although Many is actually 1, for sure.... More? No evidence.

Fate; You're absolutley right to be aghast that there hasn't been a thorough investigation that called up all the early architects, and examined the whole history of this stupid program. Issa had his chance but decided that trying to embarress Holder over a gaffe in a response to the committee, is more important.

archduke

I know you are new here so I will tell you that that study on U.S. guns in Mexico has been brought up and debunked as being grossly misleading at least 3 other times.

Sure, because guns, particularly automatic rifles, aren't being bought in Texas and other border states and smuggled across the border?
If the Brady study is wrong, why isn't congress interested in a more stringent examination of the phenomenon.? And just to contradict this; republicans voted in favour of F&F because they recognized that gun smuggling was a major factor in how the Mexican cartels get their arms.

But now, Issa is making speeches where he floats conspiracy theories ....
In April, Issa presented the case at a National Rifle Association conference.

"Could it be that what they really were thinking of was in fact to use this walking of guns in order to promote an assault weapons ban? Many think so," Issa said at the time. "And they haven't come up with an explanation that would cause any of us not to agree."

So Issa is saying the program was an insidious plot to somehow promote weapons bans. And yet he voted for it....
And this is a guy who has the power of the Oversight Committee?

Archduke Russell John wrote:Purlpe,

I know you are new here so I will tell you that that study on U.S. guns in Mexico has been brought up and debunked as being grossly misleading at least 3 other times.

I searched the forums here for "mexico atf firearms" and came up with five hits - none a debunking. I googled "mexico atf firearms 68,000" and came up with 1,790,000 hits. I just went through the first ten pages - not a hint of debunking. Could you please direct me to a specific source so I can either retract or defend my use of the ATF data? I've tried to find it on my own but have had no luck. Thanks.

Purple may be new, but he's rapidly becoming one of the most incisive members of thede forums. Say, Purple, do you do much in the way of Diplomacy playing? I think you'd be a formidable opponent.

Purple wrote:Let me try to help Rickyp out. He needs the assistance.

Noble thought, but no one has that much time.

Doctor Fate wrote:...what kind of messed up organization allows guns to go to murderers, kidnappers and drug cartels?

Answer: The Republican-controlled US House of Representatives, at least according to the Brady Campaign, who note that the guns sent south by FaF represent just 3% (at best, I would note) of the guns crossing that border. Mexico "recovers" firearms and sends them to ATF for tracing.

Danivon thinks you're "incisive." I think I'll go with mischievous.

This is a crock. Under F and F, the US government sent guns to Mexico drug cartels. You offer the Brady Campaign, noted for its balance as a source?

Not only that, but what is the link between the GOP Congress and the 97% of (alleged) guns crossing into Mexico? Is it a Congressional program that those dastardly Republicans snuck by the Senate and the President?

Nope, it's a failure to act!

The guy at Brady says:

Not only has the Republican House majority done nothing to stem the trafficking of guns to Mexico; it has acted to block the modest efforts of the Obama Administration to address the problem. The House twice has voted to block continued implementation of the Administration’s regulatory requirement that multiple sales of semi-automatic rifles in the border states be promptly reported to ATF to give the law enforcers real-time notice of the suspicious gun sales that are feeding the cartels. Given that “Fast and Furious” has been rightly criticized for allowing guns to “walk” to Mexico, it seems odd that House Republicans would object to a regulation that is enabling ATF to better stop trafficked guns before they get to the border and to arrest the traffickers.

In less than one year, ATF opened more than 120 criminal investigations based solely on the rifle reporting rule, more than 25 of which have been referred to prosecutors. It is difficult to take seriously the Republican leaders’ expression of concern about cracking down on gun trafficking, when they are working to dismantle an initiative of such obvious enforcement value.

That's not causal. One might as well argue it is Obama's fault for failing to secure the border.

Doctor Fate wrote:Why should the American people pay salaries for people who are that incompetent and DANGEROUS?

Indeed. I assume Dr. Fate will be voting Democrat this fall.

Because I really want the First and Second Amendments to continue to be abridged by Democrats?

Please stop muddying the water. What Republicans did/did not do has nothing at all to do with covering up the idiotic cover-up of F and F.

To summarize all of the above, there are two stories here. Dr. Fate is more or less on-point about A but is ignoring B, while Rickyp is more or less on-point about B but is ignoring A.

Tripe. Democrats had control of both houses of Congress for 2 years while Obama has been President. Did they crack down on the alleged guns going to Mexico? Did they secure the border? Reform immigration?

To even mention the GOP without giving all of the relevant info regarding these bills and citing the most anti-gun lobby in the US as your source is at best ricky-plus argumentation. I'm giving you a "plus" because you at least bothered to source it.

As a discussion like the above shows, it can be incredibly difficult in a partisan environment to dispassionately address both A and B even if/when both deserve to be addressed.

How does the alleged GOP failure to support the pure and holy restrictions the Brady Campaign supports even compare to an illicit gun-running scheme by the US government and then a cover-up of something (the extent of which is to be determined)?

You're throwing dirt up in the air and making it out like it's a salient point.

Giving him the benefit of the doubt would mean believing that he invoked EP this time solely for legitimate reasons: either A) to protect the freedom of speech within the executive department, so officials can offer what they think is the best possible pure policy advice - or just engage in blue-sky thinking out loud - without worrying about their words (probably out of context) appearing via congressional subpoena on the pages of the Washington Post, or B) to protect the separation of powers - the executive department's ability to internally plan/plot "against" the congress. (Imagine if Obama demanded transcripts of the private discussions that take place in John Boehner's office!)

But, it's not clear that this is strictly a separation of powers situation, is it? Didn't Holder lie to Congress--or at least materially misrepresent the truth? Doesn't Congress have oversight over the agency responsible for F and F? Aren't they permitted to investigate why Holder was not honest with them over an agency they fund?

Rickyp's story has much more long-term and far-reaching importance, and certainly more humane importance.

Not proved, whereas the number of deaths brought about by F and F is substantial.

But abuse of executive power isn't chicken feed. Dr. Fate's story also needs to be resolved. Working on both simultaneously would require a much less partisan environment. I'm not holding my breath.

When David Brooks disagrees with the President, it's news.

While I am not saying this is Watergate, I will say Watergate was "no big deal" until the scope of the cover-up was known. How about we wait just a little while before we bury this in the "it's no big deal" graveyard?

After I posted, I saw this, which contains this nice response to Purple/Brady's countercharge:

The reality is that the fact of 29,999 other gun related deaths does not make the death of Brian Terry one iota less tragic or important. And yes, there is a vast difference between criminals running guns into Mexico and the government doing it. We already know there is a problem with criminals looking to make big profits by running guns across the border and we need to beef up our efforts to curb that activity. We’re not surprised that criminals do this. We are surprised when the government does.

When it comes to Eric Holder and the President, a very old rule applies: the cover-up is almost always worse than the screw-up which led to it. And in terms of our democracy, the former may be more damaging than the latter. But Hayes and Cohen are welcome to keep telling themselves that it’s all dishonest politics and it’s only the Republicans who try to go after Democrats and prosecute them for political gain. I’m pretty sure Scooter Libby wrote something similar in his journal while doing his 400 hours of community service.

And, as you know, Libby was not the source of the Plame leak.

We need to know the truth about F and F. If it's just a political witch hunt, the truth will reveal that.

doctor fate

Democrats had control of both houses of Congress for 2 years while Obama has been President

you keep repeating this like its true.I'm sure becasue you read it on conservative blogs all the time you believe it is true.
it isn't .You don't have control of the senate with 59 votes. or 58.
The Senate Filibustered constantly...
cloture was invoked 63 times in 2009 and 2010, which isn't just the most ever, it's more than the sum total of instances from 1919 through 1982. That's not a typo.
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/refere ... Counts.htm

Purple wrote:I searched the forums here for "mexico atf firearms" and came up with five hits - none a debunking. I googled "mexico atf firearms 68,000" and came up with 1,790,000 hits. I just went through the first ten pages - not a hint of debunking. Could you please direct me to a specific source so I can either retract or defend my use of the ATF data? I've tried to find it on my own but have had no luck. Thanks.

For the Redscape debunking it was on the old boards. What we are on now is actually Redscape 2.0. The old Redscape boards became corrupted about a year or two ago. The website admin at the time (GMChad) had to rebuild the whole site from scratch. Everybody had to sign up as new members and then have their accounts changed to reflect the old info. Unfortunately, none of the old posts were able to be transferred to the new site due to the corruption. Chad maintained the old site for a while as a reference but took it down a few months back. Unfortunately, all the stuff on the old board was lost which was about what 10-15 years of games and posts.

As for the debunking, I don't remember it fully. What I do remember was that only something like 20% of weapons found at Mexican crimes scenes are actually referred to the U.S. for identification because most of the other are identifiable as from another country. But I'll have to see if I can find it.

Another thing to remember is that Fast and Furious wasn't a couple of guns. It was 2,000 semi automatic rifles some 1,700+ were lost track of. Also, at least 150 mexican citizen deaths have been linked to F&F guns.

Doctor Fate wrote:You offer the Brady Campaign, noted for its balance as a source?

No, the source of the 3% figure, which seems to be what you're criticizing, is actually the ATF. You saw the word "Brady" and had a brainfart. Please re-read my post. If you do, you'll see this also...

Doctor Fate wrote:Not only that, but what is the link between the GOP Congress and the 97% of (alleged) guns crossing into Mexico?

As I had posted: "...the Republican House majority ... has acted to block the modest efforts of the Obama Administration to address the problem. The House twice has voted to block continued implementation of the Administration’s regulatory requirement that multiple sales of semi-automatic rifles in the border states be promptly reported to ATF to give the law enforcers real-time notice of the suspicious gun sales that are feeding the cartels." Obviously Obama's "modest efforts" couldn't have stopped all the guns, but "In less than one year, ATF opened more than 120 criminal investigations based solely on the rifle reporting rule, more than 25 of which have been referred to prosecutors." That's not chicken feed.

The source of the above info is indeed someone who works for the Brady Campaign. They have an agenda. So does almost everyone you source. If you want to contest the data, do some research that proves it wrong, don't just dismiss an entire organization simply because you don't like their agenda. The author of the blogpost I quoted "was named [in 2004] one of the top ten 'Lawyers of the Year' by Lawyers' Weekly magazine." His bio: http://www.bradycampaign.org/about/denny Why should I trust your content-less dismissal more than his apparently well-informed writing? Don't you, too, have an agenda?

Archduke Russell John wrote:As for the debunking, I don't remember it fully. What I do remember was that only something like 20% of weapons found at Mexican crimes scenes are actually referred to the U.S. for identification because most of the other are identifiable as from another country.

That's not at all inconsistent with what I reported. I'm sorry, but without something more substantial I can't accept your debunking effort.

I seem to be spending a lot of time and effort countering critiques, which it seems to me are somewhat weak and peevish, of what I've written, rather than engaging in substantive discussion leading to greater enlightenment for all. I don't like this, but I'll try to hang in there a little longer.

rickyp wrote:doctor fate

Democrats had control of both houses of Congress for 2 years while Obama has been President

you keep repeating this like its true.I'm sure becasue you read it on conservative blogs all the time you believe it is true.

No, because it is true. What does "control" mean?

In common use, it means a given party has a majority.

Please, your lack of honesty or lack of intellect (you choose) is wearying.

it isn't .You don't have control of the senate with 59 votes. or 58.

They had 60 until Scott Brown won. They also managed to pass several things in spite of Brown's win.

If you can't be an adult, just stop.

Purple wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:You offer the Brady Campaign, noted for its balance as a source?

No, the source of the 3% figure, which seems to be what you're criticizing, is actually the ATF. You saw the word "Brady" and had a brainfart. Please re-read my post. If you do, you'll see this also...

Oh, well, I do apologize . . . for assuming you knew what you meant when you wrote:

Answer: The Republican-controlled US House of Representatives, at least according to the Brady Campaign, who note that the guns sent south by FaF represent just 3% (at best, I would note) of the guns crossing that border. Mexico "recovers" firearms and sends them to ATF for tracing.

Yeah, someone had a brain, er, freeze, but it was you. I bolded the part in which you feel you erred, so feel free to correct yourself. Frankly, someone needs to take you to the woodshed and you seem to want to play the part.

Doctor Fate wrote:Not only that, but what is the link between the GOP Congress and the 97% of (alleged) guns crossing into Mexico?

As I had posted: "...the Republican House majority ... has acted to block the modest efforts of the Obama Administration to address the problem. The House twice has voted to block continued implementation of the Administration’s regulatory requirement that multiple sales of semi-automatic rifles in the border states be promptly reported to ATF to give the law enforcers real-time notice of the suspicious gun sales that are feeding the cartels."

How does that make the GOP responsible for the porous border? How would that solve the problem when the government is giving the cartels guns anyway?

To put this on the GOP is about as lame as you can get. The problem of cartels having guns didn't start when Boehner became Speaker. What did Democrats do when they had a hammerlock on power?

And, pardon me if I don't want to take your word for all that was contained in those bills.

Obviously Obama's "modest efforts" couldn't have stopped all the guns, but "In less than one year, ATF opened more than 120 criminal investigations based solely on the rifle reporting rule, more than 25 of which have been referred to prosecutors." That's not chicken feed.

Well, yes, it is. If 2000 weapons represented 3%, then what did those weapons represent--in those 25 prosecuted cases?

The source of the above info is indeed someone who works for the Brady Campaign. They have an agenda. So does almost everyone you source. If you want to contest the data, do some research that proves it wrong, don't just dismiss an entire organization simply because you don't like their agenda. The author of the blogpost I quoted "was named [in 2004] one of the top ten 'Lawyers of the Year' by Lawyers' Weekly magazine." His bio: http://www.bradycampaign.org/about/denny Why should I trust your content-less dismissal more than his apparently well-informed writing? Don't you, too, have an agenda?

Yes, the Second Amendment is my agenda. Destroying it is his. I don't care if he was the Kiwanis Club citizen of the year. His agenda affects his spin on the data. Dennis might just have a bit of an ax to grind. In fact, he's an anti-gun nut.

I prefer Penn and Teller. They may not be lawyers, but they can understand English better than Mr. Henigan. After googling him, his reason for living seems to be increasing restrictions on gun ownership.

fate
.

No, because it is true. What does "control" mean?
In common use, it means a given party has a majority.
Please, your lack of honesty or lack of intellect (you choose) is wearying

Well, I know you are an honest man so I guess this means you lack a fundamental understanding of how your Senate functions, what cloture is and why filibustering can effectively kill a proposed bill. And why, unless Senate rules are changed in the first session held in a January, 60 Senators is actually the number needed to really have effective control and pass any legislation .

Furthermore...

First:

Archduke Russell John wrote:Purlpe,

I know you are new here so I will tell you that that study on U.S. guns in Mexico has been brought up and debunked as being grossly misleading at least 3 other times.

Then:

Archduke Russell John wrote:For the Redscape debunking it was on the old boards. What we are on now is actually Redscape 2.0. The old Redscape boards became corrupted about a year or two ago. ... Unfortunately, none of the old posts were able to be transferred to the new site due to the corruption.

But the ATF report regarding the 68,000 guns was released on April 26, 2012, just two months ago, long after the boards were purged and hardly enough time for THREE thorough debunkings whose details can't be remembered.

Your credibility with me (and though I can't speak for others I shouldn't think it too difficult for them to agree) is badly damaged. A simple but unequivocal retraction will begin the repairs.