[prog2djent]

Basically.

*government lets mexican weapons into the US, in order to track them towards drug cartels, 300 mexicans dead, a bunch of national guards and a civilian.
Congress wants to see details, Obama (with his new authority as the head for, what is essentially, America moving towards martial law) is holding on to them.
I'll try and provide sources from different areas of the spectrum.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin...mas-watergate/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18524414

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-ga...b_1370819.html

http://rt.com/usa/news/obama-fast-attorney-issa-315/

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/w...212027627.html

http://www.westernjournalism.com/wil...mber-election/

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ti...mas-watergate/

[kingsholmmad]

The Huff seems to have gone completely off the rails over this, implying that Washington is only one step away from turning into Baghdad or Tehran. If however, Bush and Clinton each did this several times (as stated in the BBC article), how come it's so terrible when Obama does it once?

[prog2djent]

(Original post by kingsholmmad)
The Huff seems to have gone completely off the rails over this, implying that Washington is only one step away from turning into Baghdad or Tehran. If however, Bush and Clinton each did this several times (as stated in the BBC article), how come it's so terrible when Obama does it once?

By granting himself authority to do what he wants without congress to go through? Both before, and after the event, and congress can't even see the details?

[Cyanohydrin]

Obama has really attacked domestic civil liberties in a way that makes Bush look a libertarian.

[kingsholmmad]

(Original post by prog2djent)
By granting himself authority to do what he wants without congress to go through? Both before, and after the event, and congress can't even see the details?

(Original post by Cyanohydrin)
Obama has really attacked domestic civil liberties in a way that makes Bush look a libertarian.

But Bush and Clinton did exactly the same thing. Several times each. Why is the one and only time that Obama has done it so much worse?

[Norton1]

(Original post by kingsholmmad)
But Bush and Clinton did exactly the same thing. Several times each. Why is the one and only time that Obama has done it so much worse?

Pigmentation?

[ckingalt]

(Original post by kingsholmmad)
But Bush and Clinton did exactly the same thing. Several times each. Why is the one and only time that Obama has done it so much worse?

That is a bit of standard political spin perpetuated by the Obama camp. The program in place during the Bush administration was the precursor to "Fast and Furious", but not the same. The previous program collected intelligence on illegal arms being smuggled for the purpose of tracking them to the drug cartels. Fast and Furious which was implemented during the Obama administration actually provided the weapons to the smugglers for the same purpose. They then lost track of the weapons. Those very same weapons have been used in various murders. There is a big difference between simply tracking illegal arms and actually selling them yourself.

Furthermore, Obama's Attorney General (Eric Holder) has been held in contempt of Congress. He has probably lied to Congress by denying any previous knowledge of the program. He has invoked executive privilege in order to refuse to provide the documents Congress has demanded. Those documents would likely prove he has lied. Lying to Congress is a criminal act.

The Obama Administration is using a privilege that was designed to protect national security in order to protect itself from scrutiny and prosecution. That is a situation which has nothing to do with Bush or Clinton.

[Baltimoron]

(Original post by ckingalt)
That is a bit of standard political spin perpetuated by the Obama camp. The program in place during the Bush administration was the precursor to "Fast and Furious", but not the same. The previous program collected intelligence on illegal arms being smuggled for the purpose of tracking them to the drug cartels. Fast and Furious which was implemented during the Obama administration actually provided the weapons to the smugglers for the same purpose. They then lost track of the weapons. Those very same weapons have been used in various murders. There is a big difference between simply tracking illegal arms and actually selling them yourself.

Furthermore, Obama's Attorney General (Eric Holder) has been held in contempt of Congress. He has probably lied to Congress by denying any previous knowledge of the program. He has invoked executive privilege in order to refuse to provide the documents Congress has demanded. Those documents would likely prove he has lied. Lying to Congress is a criminal act.

The Obama Administration is using a privilege that was designed to protect national security in order to protect itself from scrutiny and prosecution. That is a situation which has nothing to do with Bush or Clinton.

No offense, but you clearly don't understand the situation or how the US government works. And I'm not defending Obama. This is potentially a big scandal. But you say Holder invoked executive privilege. Wrong. Obama did. Holder has no such privilege to invoke.

I think the person you quoted might have been referencing executive privilege, not the Fast and Furious program (or anything similar to it in the Bush administration). In which case, Bush, Clinton, H.W. Bush, Reagan, Nixon, and numerous other presidents have used executive privilege. Executive privilege is not something new or revolutionary that opponents of Obama are trying to make it out to be.

As for Holder being held in contempt of Congress, well, yes, but it was a strict party line vote. Let's not act like this was something everyone agreed on.

[ckingalt]

(Original post by Baltimoron)
No offense, but you clearly don't understand the situation or how the US government works. And I'm not defending Obama. This is potentially a big scandal. But you say Holder invoked executive privilege. Wrong. Obama did. Holder has no such privilege to invoke.

I understand it just fine. Obama is acting on behalf of his administration. That is an administration which Holder is currently the representative for in regards to this issue. So Holder may not have actually invoked anything but if it was done on his and the administration's behalf, then the point still stands. I'll try to be specific and technically correct in the future. By the way being pedantic does not make you clever, it makes you annoying.

(Original post by Baltimoron)
think the person you quoted might have been referencing executive privilege, not the Fast and Furious program (or anything similar to it in the Bush administration). In which case, Bush, Clinton, H.W. Bush, Reagan, Nixon, and numerous other presidents have used executive privilege. Executive privilege is not something new or revolutionary that opponents of Obama are trying to make it out to be.

As I said before, executive privilege is designed to protect national security. It is not designed to protect the executive branch from accountability. It may be nothing new but it is not acceptable.

(Original post by Baltimoron)
for Holder being held in contempt of Congress, well, yes, but it was a strict party line vote. Let's not act like this was something everyone agreed on.

Is the issue politicized? Yes. Is Holder covering up at best and outright lying at worst? Yes.

[Baltimoron]

(Original post by ckingalt)
I understand it just fine. Obama is acting on behalf of his administration. That is an administration which Holder is currently the representative for in regards to this issue. So Holder may not have actually invoked anything but if it was done on his and the administration's behalf, then the point still stands. I'll try to be specific and technically correct in the future. By the way being pedantic does not make you clever, it makes you annoying.


As I said before, executive privilege is designed to protect national security. It is not designed to protect the executive branch from accountability. It may be nothing new but it is not acceptable.


Is the issue politicized? Yes. Is Holder covering up at best and outright lying at worst? Yes.

So using the term correctly makes me pedantic? Cool, I'll keep that in mind for the future.

As for executive privilege, again I will say, I don't think you understand the concept. Executive privilege is NOT designed just for issues of national security. It's used to "resist certain subpoenas and other interventions by the legislative and judicial branches of government" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege). This can be used in investigations for anything, not just issues of national security. Numerous presidents have used it for other things. This is only the first time Obama has used executive privilege, too. Quite a departure from the likes of Bush and Clinton. Let's not act like he's doing something new or somehow abusing it.

Also, as a disclaimer, I strongly dislike Holder. He and the Department of Justice have raided and shutdown countless medical marijuana dispensaries even after, during the 2008 campaign, Obama said he wouldn't. It's despicable. But that's a whole different issue altogether.