Such a good question!

Posted by: Phineas on October 13, 2011 at 8:21 pm

**Posted by Phineas

How is it that President Obama knew about Operation Fast and Furious before Attorney General Eric Holder?

It couldn’t be that Holder was lying, could it? Nah…

via Breitbart TV

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

RSS feed for comments on this post.

29 Responses to “Such a good question!”

Comments

  1. Great White Rat says:

    It all depends on what the meaning of “knew” is. I’m sure Holder’s lackeys are busy trying to find a way to explain “knew” in some novel way that’s never been used before, and certainly isn’t in the dictionary.

  2. Carlos says:

    Since the socialists have changed the meaning of nearly every word in the dictionary to suit their nefarious purposes anyway, what’s the big deal of finding a new meaning for the word “knew”?

    They’ll probably claim Holder thought Issa was using the word in the biblical sense, and “knew” he didn’t “know” a thing about the Bible anyway. At least, he doesn’t “know” anything about the Bible that matters.

  3. Neo says:

    Obama said he heard about “Fast and Furious” on TV.
    I went to high school with a guy who went on to become the official “3rd shift” TV watcher at the FBI. His job to watch all the shows on to look for breaking news that FBI officials might need to know or be asked about. Unless the FBI got rid of this job, Eric Holder should have known about it at the same time as the President.

  4. SpideyTerry says:

    You dare ask Obama and his administration a difficult question? Who do you think you are – a Mitt Romney spokesperson?!

    ;)

  5. Zachriel says:

    Gregory blew the question as Holder said “few weeks” while Gregory said a “couple weeks.”

    Issa was also briefed on Fast and Furious in 2010. His spokesman said “the briefing was broad… my understanding is that Fast and Furious never came up by name in this briefing, and certainly they had no discussion about the controversial tactics.”

    LINK

    Oddly enough, many ‘conservatives’ don’t think the government should regulate the sale of guns anyway.

  6. Carlos says:

    “How is it that President Obama knew about Operation Fast and Furious before Attorney General Eric Holder?”

    Better question is, if neither knew about the operation, why did Holder’s boss talk about it in a Univision interview a year ago? Seems to me Holder would have to have at least a passing knowledge of it then, unless Holder is simply window dressing and Obhammud is the one underlings actually report to and Holder is kept completely in the dark.

    Which isn’t completely impossible, since both are completely in the dark about all things reality.

    And Zachriel, what about the “…make no law…” part of the Second Amendment don’t you understand? It isn’t a suggestion.

  7. Lorica says:

    Actually Carlos it says:

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    The “Make No Law” statement is made in the 1st amendment:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    But to further address the foolish thinking of Zachriel. Where would you think that Conservatives want violent criminals to freely and openly be able to purchase weapons?? What kind of idiotic thinking is that?? Ohhh wait, that is exactly the stupid thinking behind Fast and Furious. Don’t make ridiculous comparison between our stand for the 2nd amendment and Holder’s stupid idea to get rid of it. It really makes you look stupid too. – Lorica

  8. Zachriel says:

    Carlos: And Zachriel, what about the “…make no law…” part of the Second Amendment don’t you understand?

    You might to try reading that again.

    Lorica: Where would you think that Conservatives want violent criminals to freely and openly be able to purchase weapons??

    Many conservatives have resisted laws requiring background checks.

  9. Lorica says:

    Resisted the extent of the back ground check, resisted the use of back ground checks against law abiding people so they could not have guns. Your point is invalid as you still have not shown where Conservatives want to put guns in the hands of violent criminals. Unlike what has happened with Fast and Furious. Find me a Conservative that wants that to happen and you might have a point. Until then you do not. – Lorica

  10. Carlos says:

    Sorry about the misquote – it was real early in the AM where I live and my brain wasn’t quite functioning yet.

    But the point is still valid. What part of “…shall not be infringed.” is subject to interpretation? Being a former English teacher, I find any question about that phrase self-serving, deceptive and ignorant.

  11. Zachriel says:

    Lorica: Resisted the extent of the back ground check, resisted the use of back ground checks against law abiding people so they could not have guns.

    Well, no. Many conservatives resisted any background checks.

    Lorica: Your point is invalid as you still have not shown where Conservatives want to put guns in the hands of violent criminals.

    As we didn’t make that claim, you are posing a straw man argument. Rather, it is considered an infringement to regulate at the point of purchase. That doesn’t make it legal for felons to buy guns or someone to buy a gun for a nefarious purpose, but requires other means to catch them after the fact.

    Carlos: But the point is still valid. What part of “…shall not be infringed.” is subject to interpretation?

    As it is part of a single sentence that talks about a well-regulated militia, it certainly is subject to interpretation. In addition, the term “the people” refers to a collective actions, such as its use in the Declaration of Independence. However, most people think that they should have a right of self-defence, and not have to completely rely upon a tardy authority.

  12. Carlos says:

    The causal clause (“A well-regulated…of a free state,”) has nothing to do with the predicate of the sentence, Zachriel. “…shall not be infringed” refers to “…the right of the people to bear arms” and nothing else in that fairly simple sentence.

    If I were an absolute constitutionalist or libertarian I suppose I could argue that any laws, including those prohibiting felons from owning or bearing, would be unconstitutional, but I’m not in that camp. Yet, anyway.

  13. Zachriel says:

    Carlos: The causal clause (“A well-regulated…of a free state,”) has nothing to do with the predicate of the sentence,

    “Well-regulated militia” and “the people” both refer to collective rights.

    Carlos: “…shall not be infringed” refers to “…the right of the people to bear arms” and nothing else in that fairly simple sentence.

    Yes, and “the people” refers traditionally to the collective, not to individuals. Nevertheless, the courts have ruled that it does apply to individuals to some degree, but that it’s not an unlimited right. For instance, it doesn’t mean you have the right to a machine gun, or that the government can’t require you to implement safe practices.

    As we said, most people think they should have some right to self-defence without having to rely on the government.

  14. Lorica says:

    Oddly enough, many ‘conservatives’ don’t think the government should regulate the sale of guns anyway.

    This is a thread about the stupidity of Fast and Furious, which obviously you are clueless about, as you make one of the dumbest judgements I have ever read. (the above quote)

    I am sorry but I did not set up a straw man I only put 2 & 2 together regarding your comment about a lack of regulation on a thread about felons buying weapons for drug dealers. – Lorica

  15. Lorica says:

    As it is part of a single sentence that talks about a well-regulated militia, it certainly is subject to interpretation

    Wrong again Zach. The 2nd amendment is clear as to what the actual right is. It states: “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms”. There is no subject of interpretation on what the actual right is. – Lorica

  16. Zachriel says:

    Zachriel: Oddly enough, many ‘conservatives’ don’t think the government should regulate the sale of guns anyway.

    Lorica: This is a thread about the stupidity of Fast and Furious, which obviously you are clueless about, as you make one of the dumbest judgements I have ever read. (the above quote)

    We didn’t address the wisdom of Fast and Furious in that original comment, but the apparent irony in the conservative position.

    Lorica: It states: “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms”. There is no subject of interpretation on what the actual right is.

    You forgot the ellipses, “… the right of the people to keep and bear arms…” We pointed to at least three areas of interpretation, which you didn’t bother to address. Generations of Supreme Courts interpreted in one way, and the current Supreme Court interpreted it in another, hence your claim is false on its face.

  17. Lorica says:

    And I am comparing your comment in light of what this thread is all about. I find it odd how you make a comment regarding how you see the Conservative position, when hundreds of people have died over this administrations polices. How you defend your comment means very little to me. It is how you just casually throw out some percieved irony that I find strange.

    Ohhh I didn’t forget anything. The 2nd amendment clearly states that the Right is for people to keep and bear arms. Now the proceeding statement is regarding the protection of this free country. This is how the Founders determined it and that is how is should still be interpreted today. The right is more relevant now that it was then… as we have more enemies now and a border than almost anyone can cross, a military that is stretched rather thin and cannot keep the People fully protected…. so this right should not be infringed upon as we need an armed citizenry more now than ever. – Lorica

  18. Lorica says:

    Furtermore …. Where the hell is all the pull out your hair screaming over this from our friends on the left??? I want to see the nightly body counts like we had with Afghanistan and Iraq. Where are the great lions of the Senate screaming about how someone lied and people died??? Want to talk about ironies… let’s look at our friends on the left. Amazing how fast they desend into violence when they are all about peace and love. LOL Has the nightly news even talked about this yet…. I would love to see the investigative reporting on this… I bet that file is pretty thin.

    It reminds me of Poor Scooter Libby when he was framed for something he didn’t do by useless leftie buffoons. One of which was a 4 star general who if he had ANY honor would never have let that happen to him. – Lorica

  19. Zachriel says:

    Lorica: Ohhh I didn’t forget anything.

    Except to address the points raised.

  20. Lorica says:

    Huh??? Seems to me that I addressed your points. It is not my problem you don’t seem to understand. – Lorica

  21. Zachriel says:

    1. The Second Amendment refers to a well-regulated militia.

    2. “The people,” such as in the U.S. Declaration of Independence, refers to a collective right.

    3. You said there it was not subject to interpretation, yet the Supreme Court has interpreted the Amendment in different ways over time.

    4. The current Supreme Court has affirmed that certain restrictions are allowed.

  22. Lorica says:

    1. All amendments are regarding the rights of the people. Big whoop it refers, what is the right?? To keep and bare arms. Also, since we don’t have a well regulated militia that can keep the people protected right now, your point is moot.

    2. Ok, we the people have the right to keep and bare arms. Sounds good to me.

    3. Only in the minds of people who have this preordained dislike of guns is this statement subject to interpretation. The right is still to keep and bare arms, not a well regulated militia.

    4. And just like the restrictions on the freedom of religion, the freedom to kill your babies, the Dred Scott ruling and a host of other OPINIONS, the Supreme Court can get things wrong.

    Now just so you don’t think I am some nut job that thinks that anyone should be able to have an M1 Abrams parked in their front yard, yes I believe that there are certain weapons that the people don’t really need to have in their possesion. But most of us who defend the right to have guns from cities like Chicago who ruled that the people don’t have a right to even own a gun within their borders. Seems alittle extreme, especially in a city that has a notorious problem with crime. – Lorica

  23. Zachriel says:

    Lorica: All amendments are regarding the rights of the people.

    No. The right to free speech, for instance, is an individual right. The right of *the people* to alter or abolish government is a collective right. You still have yet to address this point.

    Lorica: Also, since we don’t have a well regulated militia that can keep the people protected right now, your point is moot.

    So, you’re saying the verbiage is extraneous, even though it is cited as the foundation for the right.

    Lorica: 3. Only in the minds of people who have this preordained dislike of guns is this statement subject to interpretation.

    So, it is subject to interpretation, unlike what you said earlier. In any case, it is doubtful that personal aversion to guns undergirded previous Supreme Court rulings.

    Lorica: 4. And just like the restrictions on the freedom of religion, the freedom to kill your babies, the Dred Scott ruling and a host of other OPINIONS, the Supreme Court can get things wrong.

    So you are saying no restrictions are allowable under the Second Amendment.

    Lorica: Now just so you don’t think I am some nut job that thinks that anyone should be able to have an M1 Abrams parked in their front yard, yes I believe that there are certain weapons that the people don’t really need to have in their possesion.

    Ah, so now you admit to restrictions. Whence comes the power of government to make those distinctions?

  24. Lorica says:

    Zach, I do not distinguish between the individual and the collective. They are the same. What is the collective if it is not a group of individuals. A little too simple I know, but it works better for all the people.

    The right is still to keep and bare arms, the verbage is there to further strengthen the right. It is not the right itself.

    I would disagree with you on this point as personal bias has come into court opinions time and time again.

    No I am not saying that no restrictions are allowable under the 2nd amendment and I address that with the final paragraph.

    I don’t actually classify a M1 Abrams as an “arm”. It is more closely classified as mobile artilery, and should be subject to a restrition. LOL

    Anyway I am to the point with this discussion to agree to disagree. You are obviously an educated thinking person, it is just my hope and prayer that you come to realize that over thinking these things can cause the same sort of problems that paralyze our current government. God Bless you Zach, it has been fun to say the least. – Lorica

  25. Zachriel says:

    Lorica: I do not distinguish between the individual and the collective.

    It doesn’t matter whether you do or not, but how the framers used the terms.

    Lorica: What is the collective if it is not a group of individuals.

    Consider this phrase: “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, ”

    Do you really think they were saying that any individual can abolish the government? Were the American Founders anarchists? No, rather it is a collective right of “the People” working in concert, but not necessarily unanimously.

    Lorica: No I am not saying that no restrictions are allowable under the 2nd amendment and I address that with the final paragraph.

    You said there could be restrictions, but didn’t tell us where the government gets this power or how it is consistent with your notion of the Second Amendment.

  26. Lorica says:

    Were the Framers the individual or the collective when they were throwing off the shackles of tyrany??? They were such a small group of folks whose ideas were not in the main stream of thinking, doesn’t seem like the collective to me.

    As far as the Gov. restricting the people from purchasing military hardware, its not really “arms” as defined by the Framers. It is perfectly consistant as your idea of arms is incredibly broad in some hopeless quest to make me look foolish. Good luck with that as this discussion as become fruitless – Lorica

  27. Zachriel says:

    Lorica: Were the Framers the individual or the collective when they were throwing off the shackles of tyrany???

    They acted as a group through elected legislatures, including in their adoption of the Declaration of Independence.

    “We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.” — Ben Franklin before signing the Declaration of Independence.

    Lorica: As far as the Gov. restricting the people from purchasing military hardware, its not really “arms” as defined by the Framers.

    So the meaning of the terms as intended by the Framers does matter, after all.

  28. Lorica says:

    Yes they acted as a group, but the idea of revolution was not in the mainstream of thinking in the collective. Did all the people sign the Declaration of Independance, no. Did all the elected officials sign the Declaration, no. They were a small group, who then had to convince The People to go along with the ideas of freedom.

    I never said it didn’t matter, but I have said all along the Framers clearly say the right is to keep and bare arms, not the militia. How many times to I have to repeat myself?? – Lorica