Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: The Truth about Fast & Furious [View all]Oneka
(653 posts)19. So which is it?
Eric Holder's sworn testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,?
OR: 5 unnamed law enforcement agents, who tell Fortune that ATF didn't do what Eric Holder, testified that they did?
As political pressure has mounted, ATF and Justice Department officials have reversed themselves. After initially supporting Group VII agents and denying the allegations, they have since agreed that the ATF purposefully chose not to interdict guns it lawfully could have seized. Holder testified in December that "the use of this misguided tactic is inexcusable, and it must never happen again."
Quite simply, there's a fundamental misconception at the heart of the Fast and Furious scandal. Nobody disputes that suspected straw purchasers under surveillance by the ATF repeatedly bought guns that eventually fell into criminal hands. Issa and others charge that the ATF intentionally allowed guns to walk as an operational tactic. But five law-enforcement agents directly involved in Fast and Furious tell Fortune that the ATF had no such tactic.
I'm a little confused, am i supposed to believe our Attorney General when he gives sworn testimony before a house committee, or am i supposed to believe 5 anonymous law enforcement agents, giving interviews to a fortune reporter?
Our attorney general wouldn't lie under oath, to a congressional committee, now would he?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
130 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
So, suddenly Fortune magazine, Corporatist rag, is a reliable news source? Funny how that works.
DonP
Jun 2012
#2
LOL. The gunnies don't like it when actual reporters look into their conspiracy theories!
DanTex
Jun 2012
#4
Argument from authority is now acceptable if you agree with the authority?
friendly_iconoclast
Jul 2012
#81
Your understanding of journalism is on a par with your understanding of public safety.
Starboard Tack
Jun 2012
#35
Your understanding of public safety is on par with my cat's understanding of particle physics.
Clames
Jul 2012
#46
How about giving us a shout when FR says anything positive about Obama, ATF, SS, Medicaid, etc.
Hoyt
Jun 2012
#15
It's not "conditional ethics." It's "When even the wingdings can't buy the rightwing bullshit, the
MADem
Jun 2012
#33
It's pretty obvious to most. And it's being handled perfectly -- Obama is throwing it in face of
Hoyt
Jun 2012
#17
Don't have to mention it every time because I have you conditioned to think about the no-good NRA.
Hoyt
Jul 2012
#68
The OP seems to have found your questions inconvenient, as they have gone missing.
friendly_iconoclast
Jul 2012
#49
If you look up a few posts, you will see that Oneka highlighted this part of the passage in bold
DanTex
Jul 2012
#58
I think, rationally speaking, we have a very good idea why Holder said what he said. IT WAS TRUE.
TPaine7
Jul 2012
#69
I find it interesting that CBS news has also done a series of reports on Fast and Furious ...
spin
Jul 2012
#56
I don't feel that many gun owners would say that allowing firearms to end up in the hands ...
spin
Jul 2012
#64
*That* will be ignored, as it doesn't fit the meme being pushed in the OP.
friendly_iconoclast
Jul 2012
#77
But... but... but... Rhodes Scholar... climate change denial... gun bloggers... right wing
TPaine7
Jul 2012
#78
An opposing view from someone in the House oversight comittee ,long read, but informative.
Oneka
Aug 2012
#83
Your interlocutor relies on the argument from authority, and its flipside the genetic fallacy.
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2012
#89
All the better reason for you to detail the factual errors in the linked *.pdf
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2012
#92
Well, then- get busy fisking the document linked in post #83. Point out the errors.
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2012
#95
This is hilarious, coming from the guy who didn't think that Darrell Issa authored of the...
DanTex
Aug 2012
#111
You should ask Cummings that question. And ask the US attorneys about the documents and the trials.
DanTex
Aug 2012
#123
You don't address the substance of what's said, but complain about the source? Genetic fallacy...
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2012
#101
Theme and variation on "Eban good, Issa bad, those that question it are fools. Take my word on it".
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2012
#106
LOL. You're failing! You won't make the 8th grade team if you can't do better than that!
DanTex
Aug 2012
#107
Not my job. You claim "Issa's" work is bogus, so demonstrate the bogosity.
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2012
#110
Not so; I said the defense of her work by citations of her credentials is...
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2012
#115
Without a dump of those "2,000 pages of confidential ATF documents", Eban is cherry-picking.
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2012
#129