OFFLINE

Media Matters to the Rescue of Eric Holder

Liberal leaning media watchdog Media Matters for America took aim at The Washington Examiner for calling for DOJ firings. We have making the same argument for months, noting that someone at DOJ has to go. But Media Matters seems to think this is wrong writing:

“In an editorial this morning, The Washington Examiner claims that Attorney General Eric Holder ‘should fire his aides — or get fired himself’ due to what the editorial suggests is either incompetence by the aides or a lack of candor about what Holder knew about the failed ATF sting Operation Fast and Furious and when he knew it.”

The post then adds:

“But according to DOJ, Weinstein’s references to ‘guns that have walked’ wasn’t to Operation Fast and Furious, but rather to ‘Laura’s Tucson case,’ which Justice Department sources identified as the Bush-era Operation Wide Receiver. According to DOJ, as in Fast and Furious, Wide Receiver involved ATF allowing guns to be trafficked in hopes of tracing them and taking down a trafficking network. DOJ says Trusty and Weinstein did not know that guns had been walked in Operation Fast and Furious at the time of their email exchange.”

This is again a twist on the “Blame Bush” strategy, which basically says that since Bush did it, than Fast and Furious should be his mess. But let’s consider another point as in “according to the DOJ,” which basically means that we have to trust the DOJ as a source for the mess that the DOJ is in. If Eric Holder and DOJ say, “we knew about Wide Receiver” but “never heard about Fast and Furious,” are we just supposed to believe them?

<url>http://www.firearmstruth.com/tag/fast-and-furious<url>

I for one do not understand why most media outlets are not realizing just what our present admin was trying to do with "Operation Fast and Furious". It was nothing more than an attempt to drum up support for new anti-gun laws plain and simple.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Mark Simmons:

Media Matters to the Rescue of Eric Holder

Liberal leaning media watchdog Media Matters for America took aim at The Washington Examiner for calling for DOJ firings. We have making the same argument for months, noting that someone at DOJ has to go. But Media Matters seems to think this is wrong writing:

“In an editorial this morning, The Washington Examiner claims that Attorney General Eric Holder ‘should fire his aides — or get fired himself’ due to what the editorial suggests is either incompetence by the aides or a lack of candor about what Holder knew about the failed ATF sting Operation Fast and Furious and when he knew it.”

The post then adds:

“But according to DOJ, Weinstein’s references to ‘guns that have walked’ wasn’t to Operation Fast and Furious, but rather to ‘Laura’s Tucson case,’ which Justice Department sources identified as the Bush-era Operation Wide Receiver. According to DOJ, as in Fast and Furious, Wide Receiver involved ATF allowing guns to be trafficked in hopes of tracing them and taking down a trafficking network. DOJ says Trusty and Weinstein did not know that guns had been walked in Operation Fast and Furious at the time of their email exchange.”

This is again a twist on the “Blame Bush” strategy, which basically says that since Bush did it, than Fast and Furious should be his mess. But let’s consider another point as in “according to the DOJ,” which basically means that we have to trust the DOJ as a source for the mess that the DOJ is in. If Eric Holder and DOJ say, “we knew about Wide Receiver” but “never heard about Fast and Furious,” are we just supposed to believe them?

<url>http://www.firearmstruth.com/tag/fast-and-furious<url>

I for one do not understand why most media outlets are not realizing just what our present admin was trying to do with "Operation Fast and Furious". It was nothing more than an attempt to drum up support for new anti-gun laws plain and simple.

Come on, you're above this NRA paranoia bs.  I remember after Obama won in '08 several gun shops around here sold out of ammo because people were terrified that Obama was ganna try to take away their guns.  All this despite the fact he made no mention of ever wanting to.  I'm going down to Arizona with the girl for thanksgiving to visit her parents, if I were inclined I could swing by a gun shop and buy a fully automatic AK47 and the Obama admin wouldn't care (although the State of California might have a thing or two to say if I were to try to bring one home!).

Lack of precedent aside, how do the observations fit the hypothesis?  How would this logically lead to increased support for restrictions on gun sale to US citizen (save perhaps ATF employees)?  

OFFLINE

well obama does still stand on the record of supporting a UN global gun ban.