Fast & Furious

[wayfriend]

I'm simply pointing out what I infer from Wayfriend's spirited defense of President Obama and his administration.

B.S. I pointed out where you blamed Obama for a specific instance of hyprocracy where there was none. You invented everything else, to change the topic as far as I can tell. The story that I claimed Obama was never hypocrital about anything was your invention entirely. Cuz that's how you roll.

SS was responding to Wayfriend saying, "But I dare say you'll find him hyporcritcal anyway," as if it's a problem with SS for finding Obama hypocritical, like a character flaw or bias in a fellow Watch poster, rather than a problem inherent to all politicians.

Or like someone who points out a false claim of hypocracy where there was none. But there is no form of antagonism you can refuse, can you? So you make up shit to add to the general mix of false accusations, character assassination, and topic diversion.

[SerScot]

Wayfriend,

I never said you said the Obama Administration was never hypocritical. I said I infered it from your consent defense. If you agree they've engaged in hypocritical conduct could you please tell us what you believe they've done that is hypocritical?

[wayfriend]

Wayfriend,

I never said you said the Obama Administration was never hypocritical. I said I infered it from your consent defense. If you agree they've engaged in hypocritical conduct could you please tell us what you believe they've done that is hypocritical?

Your fascination for what I, out of all the members here, think, is rather alarming. "Stalker" comes to mind very frequently. Making me a perpetual target is the attribute of a bully, isn't it? You are, in essence and in fact, being a creep.

Yes, I will. When the occassion arises.

I do not, however, consider failing to keep a campaign promise, especially one that they tried to keep and failed to achieve, making one a hypocrit. Or even a liar. "I will do X" is a statement of intention, not an oracular statement of fact. I have never held anyone accountable in that way. Obama certainly would be a hypocrit if he opened another off-shore prison for terrorists where they were held without trial and tortured. But he hasn't.

One can't help but notice the Gitmo thing becoming more and more important to the Obama bashers. So many other campaign promises have been met. Without Gitmo, they'd have nothing to bash with. So it gets elevated from "political failure" to "lie" and "hypocracy", not out of fact, but out of need.

Now, Romney coming out against the health care individual mandate -- that's hypocritical. Ditto all the other Republicans who supported it before they were against it.

[SerScot]

Wayfriend,

So, your answer is that you have not yet perceived hypocrisy from the Obama administration? You don't think it is hypocritical to promise to give Gitmo Prisoners real trials and to stop holding them without trial and fail to do this, in addition to not closing Gitmo in the first place?

The reason I ask you in particular is that I cannot recall you ever offering criticism of the Obama Administration. Others, who nominally support the Administration, have offered such criticism. If I'm incorrect I would be most appricative if you would direct me to that criticism.

Oh, and Romney is a hypocrite, without question. His attempts to distinguish his plan in Massachusetts from the ACA are quite hypocritical.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Obama spent too much time trying to be liked by people

This, I think, was his biggest mistake. The President's job description is not "must be well-liked"; instead, the President's job description includes "must be an effective leader" and I don't think Mr. Obama has been that. He could have been, especially if he had better advisors in his Cabinet, but I think he tried too hard to be everything for everyone.

He mismanged 2009 and 2010, the two years in which he had a relatively friendly Congress and could have gotten things passed that we wanted--the Republicans didn't have enough votes to stop anything. Instead, he wanted to be "bipartisan", something every politician claims to want to be when a news camera is pointing at them but which none of them are when debating or voting for legislation.

[wayfriend]

You don't think it is hypocritical to promise to give Gitmo Prisoners real trials and to stop holding them without trial and fail to do this, in addition to not closing Gitmo in the first place?

What part hasn't already been answered in the previous post? Failure is not hypocracy.

[SerScot]

Wayfriend,

It is entirely in the President's power to determine whether the Prisoners in Gitmo are given trials or not. That was on Bush during his administration now it is on President Obama.

[Ananda]

Obama spent too much time trying to be liked by people

This, I think, was his biggest mistake. The President's job description is not "must be well-liked"; instead, the President's job description includes "must be an effective leader" and I don't think Mr. Obama has been that. He could have been, especially if he had better advisors in his Cabinet, but I think he tried too hard to be everything for everyone.

He mismanged 2009 and 2010, the two years in which he had a relatively friendly Congress and could have gotten things passed that we wanted--the Republicans didn't have enough votes to stop anything. Instead, he wanted to be "bipartisan", something every politician claims to want to be when a news camera is pointing at them but which none of them are when debating or voting for legislation.

Yes. It is why I said a few times that I thought Obama was a weak centrist (relative to your politics). Still, I think he was better than Bush W, worse than Clinton, equal to Bush v1. I wouldn't say that I like him, but I like him more than Bush W or that new corporate guy running against him (Obama seems to be a corporate prop, too, but the other guy seems far more so, but maybe that is an illusion and the only difference is their social policy).

But, when I see your political climate on the news, it seems so extreme. I think you guys have a lot of problems with corporate money, corporate run news and people being led by the nose, spoon fed outrage of the week, titillating voyeur tv, false controversies, fanning divide amoung the people and general misinformation and propaganda. And, unfortunately, I think this trend is spreading all over the world, not just the us. I know, I say about this stuff, but I think it is a big problem.

To give context to how my view of our politics goes, I do not like Reinfeldts government and policies overall, but some policies are good. I like our minister of foreign stuff guy (used to be PM)- Carl Bildt. He is not from any of the parties I would vote for, but I think he is one of our best politicians, even if I do not always agree with the policy. For Reinfeldt, I think his government has a plan to weaken our social structure for a move to take some away or privatise more in the future that I strongly disagree with. But, I assume that party will not be in power forever and anything done can be undone or modified and we can have stability. I do not think he is destroying our country, I do not think he is a fascist, I do not feel the need to complain about him daily. Cail will just say we are trained to be passive and weak, lacking freedom, bla bla bla, but I think we are just less jerked about. I don't think the us was always as it is today. We used to think america was a good place. Not really so much anymore. (talking about your system, not the people)

[wayfriend]

It is entirely in the President's power to determine whether the Prisoners in Gitmo are given trials or not.

Based on what? The President signed an executive order saying it is to be closed. It's not. So I guess you need to substantiate this claim. (You won't. But you need to.)

Congress has done a real good job of preventing prisoners from leaving. [link] [link]

You could argue that the President could have pushed for this harder. And I'd agree. I doubt he could have overcome the obstacles, however. As does about everyone else. Including the President.

[SerScot]

Wayfriend,

From your Guardian article:

There are 174 detainees remaining at Guantánamo. A government-created taskforce has recommended that 36 be prosecuted and 48 be held indefinitely as enemy combatants.

That's my beef right there. Even when he was trying to get these guys to trial some were exempted and would be held indefinately wihout trial. That's not what the President campaigned on.

I'm well aware he signed the executive order, that and a buck fifty will get you a cup of coffee, if the President fails to push to see that his order is carried out. Congress obstructed, without question. Does that mean the President should get a pass for failing to follow up on his promises? That he gets a pass for continuing policies he used as campaign fodder during 2008? Evidentially.

[Zarathustra]

Zed, dont be so silly. Just because YOU like to score points all the time doesnt mean I do.

Speaking of points ... your questions seemed to miss SS's points. That's why I was dubious of your stated intent. If you actually meant for your questions to step outside of the conversation which you were quoting, to ignore SS's meaning as if it was irrelevant, and impose a new direction on his own statements, then fine, I except your explanation as being entirely non-partisan, and merely curious, without any implied support for one President over another (because you "don't care"! See below ...). But just so you know, it's difficult to tell the difference between someone intentionally ignoring the points of someone they're quoting, and someone who is missing those points and instead pretending to argue against something that the person whom they're addressing/quoting hasn't said. And their explanations after the fact look disingenuous, given that ambiguity. Just to let you know.

I dont really care about nailing Wayf or Obama. Why would I care about Obama for goodness sake? He is your president, not mine.

Indeed, why would you care about Obama? I've often wondered this very thing myself. Why do people in other countries even bother offering Americans their opinion of our leaders (and then pretend not to care about them)? I certainly have no opinions of yours.

But that makes this statement problematic:

Yes. It is why I said a few times that I thought Obama was a weak centrist (relative to your politics). Still, I think he was better than Bush W, worse than Clinton, equal to Bush v1. I wouldn't say that I like him, but I like him more than Bush W or that new corporate guy running against him (Obama seems to be a corporate prop, too, but the other guy seems far more so, but maybe that is an illusion and the only difference is their social policy).

See why I'm confused? It's no secret that you like Obama better than our last President, and that your own politics aligns you more closely with him than Republicans. If all politicians are equally hypocritical (as you seem to imply), even to the point where *we* might be the problem ourselves for believing them, then why bother having an opinion about which one is better than the other? Your questions and assumptions about politicians being equally bad belie your own stated preference ... a preference which you denied, but then admit! But it's my fault for mistakenly thinking that you're not really saying what you mean .... hmm. Okay.

You really can be unbearable at times, Zed.

I realize this. But at least you always know what I think. You don't have to guess or wonder. There usually isn't any confusion or doubts about what I mean.

Or like someone who points out a false claim of hypocracy where there was none. But there is no form of antagonism you can refuse, can you? So you make up shit to add to the general mix of false accusations, character assassination, and topic diversion.

As usual, I really don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You made a statement. SS asked you what you meant. You still haven't explained it. Which leads us to wonder. Naturally, everyone has their own interpretation of every statement written on this board. Our interpretations can be more or less accurate. That doesn't mean that "shit" has been made up. We did, after all, express our confusion over what you meant. Merely stating our guess as to what you meant isn't antagonistic. You've just got a huge fucking chip on your shoulder, and are unable to have a grown-up conversation about politics without morally judging your opponents or perceiving yourself as a victim. If you don't want your statements or positions challenged, I'm not sure why you participate in a forum where you know that will happen.

So, what did you mean by, "But I dare say you'll find him hyporcritcal anyway," if not something about SerScot personally? If that wasn't a cheap shot, or personal jab intending to imply that he is dogmatic on this issue, then here's your opportunity to clear the air and explain yourself.
It's your statement. If you won't stand by it and explain it, it's not my fault for noticing and having an interpretation.

[wayfriend]

And that's a great beef. Now that you've changed your beef enough times.

[SerScot]

Wayfriend,

You are the most devoted internet defender of this administration I have seen. And that's saying something.

[Ananda]

...

Geez, Zed... get some perspective. This is opinions on the internets... All that we can really accomplish here is to learn about each other. Nothing done here affects policy. As I said, I am interested in what some people think because I enjoy it. You just are too overly aggressive and contrary to bear at times and it makes wanting to hear what you have to say really difficult.

I did talk about our politics to give you some example of how I see things on the politics I care about, by the way. Not sure if you know the names, so maybe it didn't mean anything to you.

And Zed, I said Obama was about equal with Bush v1 who, I think, was also a republican? I also said i didn't particularly like Obama. Does this mean I am sympathetic with republicans and democrats or dislike them both and...oh, who cares, it feels like a waste of time to say anything to you. Have a nice day, Zed.

[Ananda]

Wayfriend,

You are the most devoted internet defender of this administration I have seen. And that's saying something.

hihi I agree! There are the Obama r evil group and the Obama r awesome group and they rarely give any concessions.

[wayfriend]

Wayfriend,

You are the most devoted internet defender of this administration I have seen. And that's saying something.

And yet all I did was defend the meaning of "hypocracy".

[Cail]

Remember when this thread was about Fast & Furious? Good times.....

Feds name 4 suspects in border agent’s death linked to Operation Fast and Furious

Authorities made a rare disclosure Monday linked to the botched gun-smuggling investigation known as Operation Fast and Furious, revealing the identities and requesting the public’s help in capturing four fugitives accused in the shooting death of a U.S. Border Patrol agent 18 months ago.

The announcement comes in the wake of pressure from U.S. House Republicans who led a vote to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress, criticizing the nation’s top prosecutor for withholding information related to the probe.

“We believe it’s in the best interest of this ongoing investigation to unseal the case at this point in time and to enlist the assistance of the general publics in both Mexico and the United States,” said federal prosecutor Laura Duffy.

Operation Fast and Furious was launched in 2009 to catch trafficking kingpins, but federal agents lost track of most of the weapons they were trying to trace. Some of the guns purchased illegally with the government’s knowledge were later found at crime scenes in Mexico and the U.S.

Critics have hammered federal authorities for allowing informants to walk away from Phoenix-area gun shops with weapons, rather than immediately arresting suspects and seizing firearms.

Since the fatal shootout near the U.S.-Mexico line in December 2010, deep flaws in the government’s weapons trafficking case have come to light, and federal authorities have repeatedly declined to disclose information related to the death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, such as what became of the gun used to kill him.

Operation Fast and Furious focused on an accused smuggling ring suspected of purchasing guns for the brutal Sinaloa cartel.

U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agents lost track of about 1,400 of the more than 2,000 weapons — including AK-47s and other high-powered assault rifles — that authorities believed were headed for drug cartels in Mexico.

Smuggling operations often seek out firearms in the U.S. because they have limited access to weapons in Mexico, due in part to very restrictive laws there.

Border bandits have operated in the region for decades, running weapons and drugs and robbing and sexually assaulting illegal immigrants.

The release of the suspects’ identities in a newly unsealed indictment Monday came with the offer of a $1 million reward for information leading to their capture.

It marked the first time all five people accused of being involved in the shooting were named by authorities.

The FBI says it is seeking information related to 31-year-old Jesus Rosario Favela-Astorga, 34-year-old Ivan Soto-Barraza, 34-year-old Heraclio Osorio-Arellanes and Lionel Portillo-Meza.

Portillo-Meza’s age and birthplace were unavailable. The other three fugitives were born in Mexico, but their hometowns were not available.

Authorities had previously released the identity of the fifth suspect, Manuel Osorio-Arellanes, of El Fuerte in the Mexican state of Sinaloa. His age was not immediately available.

All five have been charged with murder. They also face charges of assaulting four federal agents.

Manuel Osorio-Arellanes has been in custody since the night of the shooting. He has pleaded not guilty in the case.

Manuel Osorio-Arellanes was shot during the gunfight. He told investigators that he raised his weapon toward the agents during the shootout but didn’t fire, the FBI said in records.

FBI agents declined to discuss which fugitive is suspected of firing the shot that killed Terry. They also would not comment on whether the weapon was linked to an Operation Fast and Furious purchase.

Much of the information in the Manuel Osorio-Arellanes case has been kept from public view after a judge sealed records in spring 2011. Six news organizations, including The AP, asked for the documents to be uncovered, and earlier this year prosecutors agreed.

However, the information released has revealed little about the circumstances of Terry’s death.

The indictment unsealed Monday says the five men, plus another who faces lesser charges in the case, came to the U.S. from Mexico in order to rob marijuana smugglers.

The other suspect, Rito Osorio-Arellanes, was in custody before the shootout. He does not face murder charges.

The disclosures are among the few details released by authorities despite repeated requests from congressional leaders and news organizations, including The Associated Press. The FBI, ATF, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection have all denied Freedom of Information Act requests that seek reports and other documents in the investigation of the shooting.

FBI Special Agent James Turgal said in announcing the reward that “we stand in support of the Terry family and our partners in Border Patrol.”

Patrick McGroder, an attorney for the Terry family, said in a statement that Monday’s information shows that the prosecution is moving forward, but efforts to hold federal officials accountable for the flawed investigation remain stalled.

McGroder says Holder’s office should release the documents sought by members of Congress.

Agent Terry “and his family rightly deserve a full and thorough explanation of how Operation Fast and Furious came to be,” McGroder said.

The information released Monday was the first update in the case since the contempt vote against Holder in June.

Also, it was the first public development in the case since April when a straw buyer who purchased two rifles found at the scene of the shootout pleaded guilty to firearms charges. Jaime Avila faces up to 10 years in prison when he is sentenced in September.

So far, 11 people in what the government says was a 20-member smuggling ring have pleaded guilty to various charges.

Terry, a former Marine and Michigan police officer, was part of an elite squad similar to a police SWAT team that was sent to the remote areas north of Nogales known for border crime, drug smuggling and violence.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Yes. It is why I said a few times that I thought Obama was a weak centrist (relative to your politics). Still, I think he was better than Bush W, worse than Clinton, equal to Bush v1. I wouldn't say that I like him, but I like him more than Bush W or that new corporate guy running against him (Obama seems to be a corporate prop, too, but the other guy seems far more so, but maybe that is an illusion and the only difference is their social policy).

But, when I see your political climate on the news, it seems so extreme. I think you guys have a lot of problems with corporate money, corporate run news and people being led by the nose, spoon fed outrage of the week, titillating voyeur tv, false controversies, fanning divide amoung the people and general misinformation and propaganda. And, unfortunately, I think this trend is spreading all over the world, not just the us. I know, I say about this stuff, but I think it is a big problem.

To give context to how my view of our politics goes, I do not like Reinfeldts government and policies overall, but some policies are good. I like our minister of foreign stuff guy (used to be PM)- Carl Bildt. He is not from any of the parties I would vote for, but I think he is one of our best politicians, even if I do not always agree with the policy. For Reinfeldt, I think his government has a plan to weaken our social structure for a move to take some away or privatise more in the future that I strongly disagree with. But, I assume that party will not be in power forever and anything done can be undone or modified and we can have stability. I do not think he is destroying our country, I do not think he is a fascist, I do not feel the need to complain about him daily. Cail will just say we are trained to be passive and weak, lacking freedom, bla bla bla, but I think we are just less jerked about. I don't think the us was always as it is today. We used to think america was a good place. Not really so much anymore. (talking about your system, not the people)

Contrary to what many people here think, the likelihood of us electing someone who isn't a centrist is really small. Seriously--if we elected someone as President who really was an extremist we would know it pretty quickly. You are correct in that assessment, though--these days Democrat=Republican and both are controlled by corporate money.

Too many people here, just like too many people in most parts of the world, spend the majority of their time getting their news from only once source. Unlike decades past, when news meant "just the facts", these days "news" also means "political commentary" and, in general, this commentary is more extreme than it used to be. Putting a talking head onto the TV screen and allowing them to say weird or controversial things is a great way to get viewers and sell air time to advertisers, which is the true goal of "news" these days. I don't have TV at the house so I get all my news from the radio and Internet--the radio gives me two versions (the local news station is conservative but I do listen to Democracy Now! in the mornings, which is very progressive) and the Internet is wide-open--all the nutjobs are here, interspersed with kernels of truth.

I freely admit that I know nothing of your national politics. I will also honestly state that I am not going to study up on them so I can hold intelligent conversations about your national politics; I mean no offense when I say that. I don't mean that your country isn't important--it is--but this aligns with my belief that we shouldn't be meddling in another country's politics and I have a certification test for which I am studying and that must take precedence. Now...if I were ambassador to your country then I had better be an expert on your language, history, politics, and culture--it would be my job to live and interact with you.

Cail, name a thread that doesn't derail at some point. Anyway...all the suspects are still living the free life in Mexico, except for the one in jail. The only reason he is in jail is because the cartels haven't met the wardens price for Mr. Osorio-Arellanes' "escape".

[Cail]

Cail, name a thread that doesn't derail at some point.

<sigh> I know, it's just tiresome when it derails to the same, pathetic thing that every other thread derails to.

Anyway...all the suspects are still living the free life in Mexico, except for the one in jail. The only reason he is in jail is because the cartels haven't met the wardens price for Mr. Osorio-Arellanes' "escape".

No doubt.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

<sigh> I know, it's just tiresome when it derails to the same, pathetic thing that every other thread derails to.

I have never seen a board that doesn't become a case of "they're always playing the same old movie on this channel", especially in the politics or religion threads.

I am always very cynical when it comes to Mexico. If talking about their military, their government, or their police, I always presume that they are completely in league with the cartels until proven otherwise. Local politicians and police, though, almost have no choice--typically they must not target cartel operatives or they will be killed and replaced.