Obama Blames U.S. For Gun Violence In...

Obama Blames U.S. For Gun Violence In Mexico

Posted in the Coopersburg Forum

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
diesel

Broomall, PA

#1 May 3, 2013
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/0...

Guess he forgot his role in Fast and Furious.
Duh

Broomall, PA

#3 May 3, 2013
Will this assclown every accept responsibility for ANYTHING?

I'm surprised he didn't blame Bush!
Inquiring Mind

Cape May Court House, NJ

#4 May 4, 2013
Duh wrote:
Will this assclown every accept responsibility for ANYTHING?

I'm surprised he didn't blame Bush!
It's another apology tour. Does he know we sell guns to Canada, too? And we sell cigarettes to the world knowing full well how many people they will kill. Come to think of it, American-made cars are responsible for tens of thousands of deaths. Maybe we should stop exporting them also.
diesel

Broomall, PA

#5 May 5, 2013
Holder Begs Court To Prevent Public From Seeing Obama’s “Executive Privilege” Records Relating to “Fast And Furious”

Attorney General Eric Holder and his Department of Justice have asked a federal court to indefinitely delay a lawsuit brought by watchdog group Judicial Watch. The lawsuit seeks the enforcement of open records requests relating to Operation Fast and Furious, as required by law.

Judicial Watch had filed, on June 22, 2012, a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking all documents relating to Operation Fast and Furious and “specifically [a]ll records subject to the claim of executive privilege invoked by President Barack Obama on or about June 20, 2012.”

The administration has refused to comply with Judicial Watch’s FOIA request, and in mid-September the group filed a lawsuit challenging Holder’s denial. That lawsuit remains ongoing but within the past week President Barack Obama’s administration filed what’s called a “motion to stay” the suit. Such a motion is something that if granted would delay the lawsuit indefinitely.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said that Holder’s and Obama’s desire to continually hide these Fast and Furious documents is “ironic” now that they’re so gung-ho on gun control.

“It is beyond ironic that the Obama administration has initiated an anti-gun violence push as it seeking to keep secret key documents about its very own Fast and Furious gun walking scandal,” Fitton said in a statement.“Getting beyond the Obama administration’s smokescreen, this lawsuit is about a very simple principle: the public’s right to know the full truth about an egregious political scandal that led to the death of at least one American and countless others in Mexico.

The American people are sick and tired of the Obama administration trying to rewrite FOIA law to protect this president and his appointees. Americans want answers about Fast and Furious killings and lies.” Read more via Breitbart...

http://redflagnews.com/headlines/holder-plead...
dbar

Quakertown, PA

#6 May 5, 2013
diesel wrote:
Holder Begs Court To Prevent Public From Seeing
and the court can rule on the documents being covered by executive privilege or not.

breitbart?
really?
by the same author who endangered the President's children by releasing the vacation area they were going to?
diesel

Broomall, PA

#7 May 5, 2013
dbar wrote:
<quoted text>
and the court can rule on the documents being covered by executive privilege or not.
breitbart?
really?
by the same author who endangered the President's children by releasing the vacation area they were going to?
Has/is Eric Holder and his Department of Justice asking a federal court to NOT release records relating to Operation Fast and Furious, as required by law.

Quite Simple dbar - Yes or No? if Yes, WHY?
Info

Broomall, PA

#8 May 5, 2013
dbar wrote:
<quoted text>
and the court can rule on the documents being covered by executive privilege or not.
breitbart?
really?
by the same author who endangered the President's children by releasing the vacation area they were going to?
And you've posted from the Huff n Puff Post on many occasions...
dbar

Quakertown, PA

#9 May 5, 2013
diesel wrote:
<quoted text>
Has/is Eric Holder and his Department of Justice asking a federal court to NOT release records relating to Operation Fast and Furious, as required by law.
Quite Simple dbar - Yes or No? if Yes, WHY?
no, holder is asking a federal court to not release records covered by executive privilege.
items under executive privilege are not required to be released by law.
something the right wing demanded (no release of records)when the House requested records involving Cheney meeting with the Ceo of Enron.

seems the right wing has a double standard.
it is ok when a republican admin does it but is bad when a democratic admin does it.
dbar

Quakertown, PA

#10 May 5, 2013
Info wrote:
<quoted text>
And you've posted from the Huff n Puff Post on many occasions...
and they endangered a President's children exactly when?

as to breitbart they fall for things like this.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/...
plato

Broomall, PA

#11 May 5, 2013
diesel wrote:
<quoted text>
Has/is Eric Holder and his Department of Justice asking a federal crt to NOT release records relating to Operation Fast and Furious, as required by law.
Quite Simple dbar - Yes or No? if Yes, WHY?
LOL! I highly doubt dbar will return with a simple YES or NO. He's off searching for something totally unrelated to copy and paste.
dbar

Quakertown, PA

#12 May 5, 2013
plato wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL! I highly doubt dbar will return with a simple YES or NO. He's off searching for something totally unrelated to copy and paste.
so just for you

http://www.judicialwatch.org/cases/67/factshe...

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/judge-s...

"Jackson didn’t rule Wednesday, but she seemed to speak approvingly of a ruling one of her colleagues issued in 2008 in the face of a similar dispute involving the refusal of President George W. Bush’s White House to comply with House subpoenas for testimony and documents about the firing of nine U.S. attorneys.

U.S. District Court Judge John Bates, a Bush appointee, ruled that he had authority to consider the issue and that White House advisers were not immune from appearing in response to the congressional subpoenas. However, the Bush administration appealed. Bush’s term finished and he was out of office while the appeal was pending. The dispute was soon resolved, so the D.C. Circuit dismissed the appeal without resolving whether Bates was right or wrong."
Inquiring Mind

Quakertown, PA

#13 May 5, 2013
dbar wrote:
<quoted text>no, holder is asking a federal court to not release records covered by executive privilege.
items under executive privilege are not required to be released by law.
something the right wing demanded (no release of records)when the House requested records involving Cheney meeting with the Ceo of Enron.

seems the right wing has a double standard.
it is ok when a republican admin does it but is bad when a democratic admin does it.
Again you cite Republican bad behavior to counter posts about Democrat bad behavior. That just gets in the way of an answer. So, let's agree there's a double standard for argument's sake. Now what's your opinion on the issue?
dbar

Quakertown, PA

#14 May 5, 2013
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
Again you cite Republican bad behavior to counter posts about Democrat bad behavior. That just gets in the way of an answer. So, let's agree there's a double standard for argument's sake. Now what's your opinion on the issue?
i agree with executive privilege.
even though it might have been used to keep embarrassing items from coming to light in either of the two cases.
the President needs the advice of people who can give their true thoughts on a subject without having to frame everything from the perspective of how a pundit(right or left) will splatter it out to the public.
one thing i had a problem with Issa was his refusal to view the documents he wanted to see from Holder when offered.
Holder agreed to show the documents to Issa.
with the catch that Issa could not just publish them in his report.
now any info gleaned from Issa viewing those documents were fair game.
Issa could then call anyone to testify if Issa wanted to.
for example a document says that Hillary does not like grapes.
Issa could call Hillary to testify and ask her if she hates grapes.
but he could not just publish the Hillary dislike grapes document.
or try to claim that Hillary had once said she liked grapes on the campaign trail and he has the smoking gun.
Issa wanted a complete set of documents to do whatever he felt like.
that would trample the idea of executive privilege.

just the same as the meeting transcripts of VP Cheney and others on energy policy would trample the idea of executive privilege.

Can executive privilege be abused?
yes it can.
the courts will decide but i prefer that the leaders of the country whether that is President bush or President Obama get the info from people without having those people not say something they believe in.
.
Inquiring Mind

North Wales, PA

#15 May 6, 2013
dbar wrote:
<quoted text>
i agree with executive privilege.
even though it might have been used to keep embarrassing items from coming to light in either of the two cases.
the President needs the advice of people who can give their true thoughts on a subject without having to frame everything from the perspective of how a pundit(right or left) will splatter it out to the public.
one thing i had a problem with Issa was his refusal to view the documents he wanted to see from Holder when offered.
Holder agreed to show the documents to Issa.
with the catch that Issa could not just publish them in his report.
now any info gleaned from Issa viewing those documents were fair game.
Issa could then call anyone to testify if Issa wanted to.
for example a document says that Hillary does not like grapes.
Issa could call Hillary to testify and ask her if she hates grapes.
but he could not just publish the Hillary dislike grapes document.
or try to claim that Hillary had once said she liked grapes on the campaign trail and he has the smoking gun.
Issa wanted a complete set of documents to do whatever he felt like.
that would trample the idea of executive privilege.
just the same as the meeting transcripts of VP Cheney and others on energy policy would trample the idea of executive privilege.
Can executive privilege be abused?
yes it can.
the courts will decide but i prefer that the leaders of the country whether that is President bush or President Obama get the info from people without having those people not say something they believe in.
.
Interesting, thanks for that honest reply. Can you provide the source for your information regarding Holder's offer and Issa's refusal?
dbar

Quakertown, PA

#16 May 6, 2013
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting, thanks for that honest reply. Can you provide the source for your information regarding Holder's offer and Issa's refusal?
try

http://www.rollcall.com/news/eric_holder_make...

for example the Cummings memo

"Cummings’ memo also addresses the broader set of documents at issue in the draft contempt report, which include some documents the DOJ has declined to release, saying they relate to ongoing criminal investigations.
In the memo, Cummings says the DOJ is legally barred from releasing some of the documents that Issa subpoenaed, including federal wiretap applications — which have been obtained by Issa but not yet seen by the public — that are under fierce dispute.
“It contradicts the rule of law to hold the Attorney General in contempt for abiding by a federal criminal statute, which is precisely what the Contempt Citation does,” the memo says, citing federal wiretap statutes."

or

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/20/politics/holder...

"The committee's top Democrat, Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, accused Issa of setting an "impossible standard" for Holder by initially demanding documents the attorney general is legally prohibited from providing. Now Issa has "no interest in resolving" the dispute with Holder, Cummings said."

IMO Issa wanted documents he knew were protected(by law) for the very purpose of bashing Holder about withholding documents.
Issa wins either way.
If Holder gives him protected documents he bashes Holder for violating the law at worst or now Issa has busted executive privilege.
if Holder does not give him the documents Issa gets to bash Holder and claim a cover-up.
and Issa gets to make all kinds of false claims about F&F.
as an added bonus for Issa he gets to bash the President by making the same claims.
dbar

Quakertown, PA

#17 May 6, 2013
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting, thanks for that honest reply. Can you provide the source for your information regarding Holder's offer and Issa's refusal?
one of Issa's claims.
from a left wing source.

"Issa, speaking to the NRA faithful, advanced the baseless and reckless conspiracy theory that the Obama administration intentionally lost track of guns sold through the program in order to boost gun violence and clear the way for an assault weapons ban. Issa posed this as a rhetorical question and then answered it:
They've never answered the question, "What were they thinking of?" 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. And they haven't come up with an explanation that would cause any of us not to agree."

and from the Democrats on the committee.

http://democrats.oversight.house.gov/images/s...

"With respect to the more extreme claims made by Committee Chairman Darrell E. Issa,
the Inspector General’s report did not substantiate them. The report did not support allegations
that gunwalking was a strategy authorized and approved by the Attorney General, that
gunwalking was used as a deliberate strategy to promote stronger gun laws, that the FBI
concealed a “third gun” from the murder scene of Agent Brian Terry, or that Department
officials intentionally misled Congress during the Committee’s investigation."

the full report from DOJ IG

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/ne...
Inquiring Mind

North Wales, PA

#18 May 6, 2013
dbar wrote:
<quoted text>
try
http://www.rollcall.com/news/eric_holder_make...
for example the Cummings memo
"Cummings’ memo also addresses the broader set of documents at issue in the draft contempt report, which include some documents the DOJ has declined to release, saying they relate to ongoing criminal investigations.
In the memo, Cummings says the DOJ is legally barred from releasing some of the documents that Issa subpoenaed, including federal wiretap applications — which have been obtained by Issa but not yet seen by the public — that are under fierce dispute.
“It contradicts the rule of law to hold the Attorney General in contempt for abiding by a federal criminal statute, which is precisely what the Contempt Citation does,” the memo says, citing federal wiretap statutes."
or
http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/20/politics/holder...
"The committee's top Democrat, Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, accused Issa of setting an "impossible standard" for Holder by initially demanding documents the attorney general is legally prohibited from providing. Now Issa has "no interest in resolving" the dispute with Holder, Cummings said."
IMO Issa wanted documents he knew were protected(by law) for the very purpose of bashing Holder about withholding documents.
Issa wins either way.
If Holder gives him protected documents he bashes Holder for violating the law at worst or now Issa has busted executive privilege.
if Holder does not give him the documents Issa gets to bash Holder and claim a cover-up.
and Issa gets to make all kinds of false claims about F&F.
as an added bonus for Issa he gets to bash the President by making the same claims.
Thanks. Sorry I lost track of the thread. I was thinking of the Benghazi hearings, not F&F. As far as I know, there has been no assertion of Executive Privilege there, at least not yet.
dbar

Quakertown, PA

#19 May 6, 2013
oops forgot to cite the source for Issa conspiracy claim

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/issa-pe...
Inquiring Mind

North Wales, PA

#20 May 6, 2013
dbar wrote:
oops forgot to cite the source for Issa conspiracy claim
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/issa-pe...
You know, ordinarily I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories. However, Obama's comments in his "apology" tour in Mexico tend to support Issa's contention. I would rather not think about a President of the United States agreeing to such a plan and being indirectly responsible for the death of an American border control agent and other murders to advance a political agenda. Given that, I'd like to know the compelling reason for invoking Executive Privilege. Being open and forthcoming would go a long way to quell this type of speculation from the Right. Seem the "most transparent" administration in history plays it pretty close to the vest when it comes to their own.
dbar

Quakertown, PA

#21 May 6, 2013
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
You know, ordinarily I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories. However, Obama's comments in his "apology" tour in Mexico tend to support Issa's contention. I would rather not think about a President of the United States agreeing to such a plan and being indirectly responsible for the death of an American border control agent and other murders to advance a political agenda. Given that, I'd like to know the compelling reason for invoking Executive Privilege. Being open and forthcoming would go a long way to quell this type of speculation from the Right. Seem the "most transparent" administration in history plays it pretty close to the vest when it comes to their own.
well i would disagree about a conspiracy to get gun legislation.
as to the right wing version of the speech.

http://politic365.com/2013/05/03/president-ob...

"In the United States, we recognize our responsibilities as well. We understand that the root cause of much of the violence here—and so much suffering for many Mexicans— is the demand for illegal drugs, including in the United States. Now, I do not believe that legalizing drugs is the answer; instead, I believe in a comprehensive approach—not just law enforcement, but education, prevention and treatment. And we’re going to keep at it—because the lives of our children and the future of our nations depend on it.

We recognize that most of the guns used to commit violence here in Mexico come from the United States. In America, our Constitution guarantees our individual right to bear arms, and as President I swore an oath to uphold that right—and I always will. At the same time, as I’ve said back home, I will continue to do everything in my power to pass common sense gun reforms that keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people—reforms that will save lives in both our countries. Meanwhile, we’ll keep increasing the pressure on the gun traffickers who bring illegal guns into Mexico, and we’ll keep putting these criminals where they belong—behind bars."

nothing in the President's statement is an "apology"

is the demand for drugs financing the drug wars in Mexico.
yep it is.
do most of the guns come from the US.
yep again.

for example.
when a gun buyer buys twenty m-4 carbines and then simply claim that they were stolen from his car---what law has the guy violated?
by design no record of the purchase is kept.
where is the record of the serial numbers that follows the weapon from buyer to buyer?

so the guy just goes and buys more and the cycle continues.
or the guy just sells them at a gun show and he could care less who buys as long as the money is right.
and selling guns like that is very profitable.
legally he has committed no crime.
and the NRA will legally fight to keep such a process in place.

so either the problem gets fixed or accept the fact of gun violence.
the NRA seems to believe that gun violence is just something that happens and people have to accept it under the guise of "freedom".

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Coopersburg Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
This town is so boring Mon Richard Buffet 4
whats the old Zorrows turing into in Quakertown? Mon bike with buckets 4
Poll How many women go braless ? NO MEN and Ladies b... (Mar '10) Mon Billy Zilembo 97
Richland Meadows (May '09) Mar 23 Kitty 39
News Farm-to-plate restaurant to set up shop in Quak... Mar 23 Kitty 6
Banging noise in Quakertown area Mar 23 Shag D Erotten 3
Sands Brother Dodge in Quakertown (Dec '08) Mar 23 kyle 24

Coopersburg Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Coopersburg Mortgages