41 Replies to “Jay Carney: The White House has been very cooperative about Fast & Furious and has nothing but sympathy for the family of dead agent what’s his name [Darleen Click]”

1. geoffb says:

   June 21, 2012 at 11:40 pm

   Meanwhile, someone needs to 5150 San Fran Nan and take some blood samples

   This should help.

2. happyfeet says:

   June 21, 2012 at 11:44 pm

   sometimes she just makes me so mad

3. palaeomerus says:

   June 22, 2012 at 12:08 am

   Insanity never afflicts rich and and important or famous leftists unless they start to lose the votes or cross a bugger leftist in the chain of power or turn to the right a little. Then they were ALWAYS insane. They were born insane to insane parents who only accidently managed to have intercourse because they were so insane.

4. BigBangHunter says:

   June 22, 2012 at 12:36 am

   – Will Pill-losi’s stupidity, or DeadAgentGate be enough lipstick on the pig to burry this weeks employment/economic figures?

   – We report, you decide.

5. BigBangHunter says:

   June 22, 2012 at 1:20 am

   – When you can;t even depend on Gallup number juggling, you may need to change to a different shade of piggy lipstick.

6. Matt says:

   June 22, 2012 at 6:47 am

   Carney forgetting the name of Brian Terry’s family is inexcusable. If I was Brian’s dad, I’d want to punch Carney in his smug lying face, repeatedly, so he’d remember the name next time.

7. Pablo says:

   June 22, 2012 at 6:56 am

   Jesus, BBH. That’s with adults, not even registered voters.

   Et tu, Gallup?

8. mojo says:

   June 22, 2012 at 8:52 am

   She’s actually “normal”, if you limit your sample group to Russian Hill and Marin.

9. sdferr says:

   June 22, 2012 at 1:06 pm

   This is a very good summation Limbaugh has put together. If you didn’t happen to hear it, take the time to read it.

   So: The Sting. The Sting has a mark. That’s what makes it a sting.

   Limbaugh puts it this way: “Wide Receiver was a sting operation. There doesn’t seem to be any plan for any kind of a sting in Fast and Furious, at least not against the gun smugglers.”

   Good.

   “. . . [A]t least not against the gun smugglers . . . ” That’s what we call a hint, or breadcrumb.

   So, if Fast and Furious was a sting of some kind, where is the mark?

   We American citizens, I’d suggest, were the mark. The sting in Fast and Furious was clearly aimed at our firearms laws, if we’re to suppose a sting. Granted, we can only think of Fast and Furious in the sense that we think of other ‘black box’ objects, simply because we have an unexplained event, the documentary evidence which could possibly explain the event is withheld, so we’re left to conjecture.

   But as conjectures go, this looks the best obtained so far.

   And as we’ve seen, Congressional Democrats continue to this day to insist restrictive modification of firearms laws is the only possible conclusion we can reach when we examine the circumstances of Fast and Furious.

   I say examining their conclusions points in a better direction altogether, if we want to get to the underlying motives of Fast and Furious as yet unexplained.

10. RI Red says:

    June 22, 2012 at 1:20 pm

    Well, yesterday’s submission didn’t fly, so how about, “Obfus-Gate”?
    Help me out here, folks.

11. sdferr says:

    June 22, 2012 at 1:53 pm

    Jay Carney deserves a beating. He isn’t alone.

12. leigh says:

    June 22, 2012 at 2:06 pm

    I like Obfus-gate, Red. I was thinking Fast and Furious was an obvious FUBAR, as well.

13. sdferr says:

    June 22, 2012 at 2:08 pm

    So if only a fubar, then not at base a sting run against the American people leigh?

14. leigh says:

    June 22, 2012 at 2:15 pm

    No, it’s a sting, stephen. A FUBAR of a sting.

    Rush is right: Holder lied. Mexicans and Brian Terry died.

15. sdferr says:

    June 22, 2012 at 2:19 pm

    We have to plainly draw the implications, I think, rather than use dismissive terms like fubar. Because if it were a sting, then it isn’t a fubar. Someone had to make the strategic decision as to the direction to take. Someone had to decide not to include the Mexican govern’t in the circle of knowledge. Someone had to decide to leave guns to walk without the slightest concern where they walked, until, that is, such time as they were used in a crime and could be brought to the attention of Congress for the purpose of driving more restrictive gun laws.

    These sorts of decisions are not made in field offices.

16. leigh says:

    June 22, 2012 at 2:34 pm

    I withdraw fubar.

    It has the appearance of a fubar, at first glance, which is where most of the country, that aren’t bitterclinging, are with the story. This definately comes all the way from the top. Dare I say that this was cooked up by the president and Holder their ownselves? I dare. Who the other cast of characters are, I don’t know yet. But, this was nothing more than a calculated attempt at backdoor gun control and all the cries of “Wingnut!” aren’t going to change that.

    The wild deflections of Nancy Pelosi and others are just a “look over here!” acts of desperation. And piss on her and Carney for minimizing the death of a border patrol agent and others.

17. sdferr says:

    June 22, 2012 at 2:42 pm

    Yep. Under the hypothesis, I think, the better term would be ‘Monstrous’. Evil. Or as Rush puts it, “Heinous”.

    But such harsh characterizations would demand evidence.

    “Ah, true,” we would say to our Democrat interlocutors. So let us have the evidence. Let us trace all the evidence wherever it may lead.

18. leigh says:

    June 22, 2012 at 2:48 pm

    It’s really that simple, isn’t it? If there is nothing to hide, then let us see it.

19. sdferr says:

    June 22, 2012 at 4:15 pm

    Katie Pavelich, by the way, will be interviewed on C-Span for an hour by Major Garrett at 9:00pm eastern, Sunday June 24 (and repeated at 12:00am eastern, later that night).

20. leigh says:

    June 22, 2012 at 5:38 pm

    Just saw this, sdferr. Thankee!

21. LBascom says:

    June 22, 2012 at 5:59 pm

    sdferr,

    Limbaugh puts it this way: “Wide Receiver was a sting operation. There doesn’t seem to be any plan for any kind of a sting in Fast and Furious, at least not against the gun smugglers.”

    I posit the sting was against guns. Period.

    Dangerous damn things (they say), when in the hands of the sheeple. Only [our] bodyguards should have them.

    I say examining their conclusions points in a better direction altogether, if we want to get to the underlying motives of Fast and Furious as yet unexplained.

    See, I read the first part of that sentence and when in a totoally different direction than you did. Like this:

    I say examining their conclusions points in a better direction altogether, if we want to get to the underlying motives of Fast and Furious as yet unexplained assault weapons should be manditory, and full automatic legalized for all citizens.

22. LBascom says:

    June 22, 2012 at 6:05 pm

    went, not when…

23. leigh says:

    June 22, 2012 at 8:45 pm

    sdferr, here’s a handy chart of the chain of command at Justice:

    http://lh3.ggpht.com/-Dc21cv4QwpY/T-SPVCxyz9I/AAAAAAAAhjo/9wNAg85E_6Y/s1600-h/justice_orgchart%25255B4%25255D.png

24. sdferr says:

    June 22, 2012 at 9:46 pm

    The hard part about running a sting against guns is that guns don’t conceptualize, hence can’t opine about the tricksy bits the stingers are waving before them, and therefore make crappy marks. They just sit there being guns, waiting to be fired or not fired, cleaned or not cleaned, as the case may be.

    It’s the potential marksmen — good bad or indifferent — the stingers aim to fool.

25. Pablo says:

    June 22, 2012 at 9:59 pm

    No, it’s a sting, stephen. A FUBAR of a sting.

    No, it wasn’t a sting. There was no plan for tracking or a bust. They captured serial numbers, and that was it. So when they turned up at crime scenes, they could say “LOOK! GUNS!!! FROM AMERICA!!! BAD!!!”

    A sting supposes a takedown. That element was absent from this plan.

26. Pablo says:

    June 22, 2012 at 10:01 pm

    I withdraw fubar.

    It was fubar. By design.

27. sdferr says:

    June 22, 2012 at 10:18 pm

    The takedown (using the movie The Sting as a model) is the swindle to be perpetrated on the law, i.e. the notion, as Limbaugh himself cites it, that:
    “The assault weapons ban had failed, and that’s not good enough for Obama and Holder and the rest of the Democrats who don’t want you having guns. This was a way to change your mind. They created crimes. They facilitated the creation of crimes. There were two hundred Mexican deaths at the hands of drug cartels. You could not escape what was going to happen here. In fact, it was just the opposite. You had to know, if you were the regime, what was going to happen — and you had to want it to happen. […] Fast and Furious was an effort to build a case against the Second Amendment and American gun dealers. Because after all, if Fast and Furious worked the way the regime wanted it to, guess who is in the crosshairs? The people selling these guns (in Arizona and elsewhere) that ended up in the hands of the drug cartel.”

28. Ernst Schreiber says:

    June 22, 2012 at 10:21 pm

    This was a smaller scale version of what kookier elements on the Left still insisting 9/11 was. And I think it’s damn telling that the enemies these people need a pretext to wage war on (metaphorically speaking) are their fellow citizens.

29. sdferr says:

    June 22, 2012 at 10:27 pm

    And again, the call for tighter gun control laws, the endless nattering about ‘assault weapons’, never ceased flowing from the mouths of every Democrat Congressman in the contempt mark-up hearing, nor from the mouths of every Democrat who shows their face on TV to argue against the contempt citation. Every single one of them are unified in a call for greater restrictions as the obvious conclusion to the investigation of Fast and Furious so far. Indeed, they are all content to see the investigation rest in this place and time with a call for greater gun restrictions as the sole result.

30. sdferr says:

    June 22, 2012 at 10:36 pm

    Or, as Juan Williams seems to have put it today: “People die in war. People get killed.”

31. geoffb says:

    June 22, 2012 at 10:46 pm

    Why executive privilege? Well…

    As early as October 2009, officials in both the Central Intelligence Agency and the Drug Enforcement Administration objected through their respective chains of command about weapons smuggling and related confidential informant operations in the Republic of Mexico on the part of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, including what the world has come to know as Operation Fast and Furious, according to previously reliable sources familiar with the intelligence operations of the United States.

    Because of the refusal of the ATF and FBI at lower levels to allow “deconfliction” with the CIA and DEA, these complaints, according to the sources, were eventually forwarded to the National Security Council of the White House, including Kevin O’Reilly, a State Department employee seconded to the NSC, O’Reilly’s boss Dan Restrepo, then Director of Western Hemisphere Affairs at the NSC and Denis McDonough, then NSC’s head of Strategic Communication and since then promoted to the Deputy Director of the National Security Council. McDonough, described in one biographical sketch as a “tough guy” and “Obama’s single most influential foreign policy adviser,” is also a personal friend and “basketball buddy” of the President of the United States.

    The result, said one source, “The word came back from NSC, ‘butt out.'”

    McDonough is a name not previously mentioned in regard to the Fast and Furious investigation, although it has been established that by March, 2009, Phoenix ATF Special Agent in Charge William Newell was exchanging emails with O’Reilly and that Dan Restrepo was in turn being briefed on those communications by O’Reilly. Yet other sources have recently reported to this writer that O’Reilly, who was suddenly transferred to a State Department job in Iraq when the White House discovered that the Issa committee wanted to talk to him about his contacts with Newell, owes his continued Fast and Furious anonymity to McDonough.

    Said the source, “NSC Deputy Director, Denis McDonough is the guy protecting Kevin O’Reilly,” adding “DEA knows what O’Reilly did.”

    For some older fodder along this line, here, here, here, here.

    They also cautioned against expecting any mention of the tactic of “walking guns” at the higher levels of this scandal. More guns in Mexico from American civilian firearm sources found beside dead bodies was the implicit goal, they say, but don’t look for any specific mention of the tactic of “gunwalking” at Hillary’s level in documents yet to be discovered. As my “old spook” source said in early March:

    “Do you think,” he asked me, “that this happened accidentally in a vacuum?” Meaning that one day “Gunwalker Bill” Newell, Phoenix SAC, just got a wild hair and decided to invent his own foreign policy. “Things like this happen because of meetings. People sit in meetings and they decide what they want to happen. And then they take decisions, make policy and implement that policy to achieve those ends.” He added, “That’s why State is so nervous. They signed off on this. In a meeting.”

    . . . He added, “Of course the meeting transcripts won’t reflect the truth so plainly, but then neither did the Wannsee Conference. These bastards always talk in riddles about what they’re really after. Watch what they do, not what they say.”

    The sources at State repeatedly cautioned about looking for mentions of the tactical (“gunwalking”) in strategic level documents and meeting transcripts. “They will all say that they didn’t know about any ‘Fast and Furious’ or ‘gunwalking,'” one source said, “and they will be accurate. . . as far it goes.” What such statements are hiding, all the sources said, is the strategic fact that the higher ups wanted to achieve: the 90 percent myth. Exactly HOW that was accomplished with the tactic of gunwalking, my sources say, probably was closely held within a small group at the National Security Council and designated “in the know” people at various critical command and control points in the various agencies.

32. sdferr says:

    June 22, 2012 at 10:47 pm

    Whittle joins in.

33. Ernst Schreiber says:

    June 22, 2012 at 10:55 pm

    That’s Brian Terry, a martyr to a cause not his own. Someday Minitrue will have a song composed to honor his glorious self-sacrifice, so that the Proles remember his example of total self-abnegation before the Collective and be inspired to do likewise.

    And Juan’s an ignerit slut, fated for the memory-hole once he’s outlived his usefulness to the Party.

34. palaeomerus says:

    June 22, 2012 at 11:49 pm

    “Someday Minitrue will have a song composed to honor his glorious self-sacrifice, so that the Proles remember his example of total self-abnegation before the Collective and be inspired to do likewise.”

    You saw Yimou Zhang’s movie “Hero” didn’t you?

    That’s the one that got me to not like Jet Li as much as I used to.

    Take a folk tale about Jing Ke who tried to stop the formation of the Qin empire but threw his sword, and missed, dooming the citizens of the warring states of what would become china to two + thousand years of interesting times.

    Now TWIST that into a stupid “China loves Taiwan and won’t take no for an answer” movie about a “nameless” assassin who upon seeing a nice calligraphy of “all under heaven” painted by a compatriot assassin, suddenly realized that the empire being formed was “good”, and so laid down his sword(achieving the highest art of the swordsman) voluntarily, and walked out to proudly face the archers that cut him down, because it was necessary.

    Then in the english version, change “all under heaven” to read “our land” instead.

    That way the clueless critics love it and heap praise on how beautiful it is. They have no idea that it is Nationalist Red agitprop about China bringing her supposed wayward provinces (including part of Korea possibly) home by any means necessary because China is a complete set and wars, culture, history, and what people actually want are all meaningless when you have a calligraphy that you don’t want an American audience to fully understand. Of course if they knew, they’d still love it.

35. Ernst Schreiber says:

    June 23, 2012 at 12:10 am

    I liked The Emperor and the Assassin better. But yeah, I picked up on the better to let one big bastard get all the killing over with than to allow a bunch of little bastards to keep the killing going indefinitely theme. Always look on the bright side of life, as the crucified philosopher once sang, I guess. But I wasn’t aware of the “all under heaven” / “our land” translation.

    My favorite Yimou Zhang film is The Road Home, but I’m sentimental like that.

36. palaeomerus says:

    June 23, 2012 at 12:10 am

    Bill Whittle and Scott Ott are awesome. Stephen Greene is pretty good.

    And I like reading Mark Stein. Listening to him…not so much. But he is generously sharing his half a nut with the rest of NRO right now so I graciously grant him leeway in many things for now.

37. Ernst Schreiber says:

    June 23, 2012 at 12:17 am

    Hey, lay off Steyn. Anybody who’s willing to swim the St. Lawrence because they’ve got a DREAM of guest-hosting The Rush Limbaugh Program is okay in my book. Because that’s what America’s all about.

38. palaeomerus says:

    June 23, 2012 at 12:25 am

    Ying Zeng Qin believed that being idealistic and benevolent are not achievable by practicing benevolence and idealism. To be idealistic and benevolent one must kill people until all people agree that one is idealistic and benevolent. Only then is one truly idealistic and benevolent.

    At least ‘The First Emperor/The Emperor and the Assassin” had Jing Ke fail his attempt honestly and still intend to stop Qin’s wars by force in the night. At least they kept his name. At least they didn’t have one of his compatriots kill the other (who betrayed the assassination plan) and then kill herself out of guilt and misery. At least they portrayed the Qin as cruel and cold and a bit of an idiot who’s own palace staff left him to fight the assassin by himself.

    Hero was a sickening inversion. And if I hadn’t been dating a girl from Taiwan when it came out (her brother and father both explained it to me) I wouldn’t have understood how icky it was. (Although, without help, I did recognize the emperor being the personification of the state of a unified chinese people which mere selfish individuality must bow and even offer its life to preserve at any and all costs, and the real intent of the movie was to announce that Taiwan will be coming home with a black eye and chains one day soon as far as Beijing is concerned. In fact my mentioning that is what started the discussion and got them to tell me the “real” story of Jing Ke.)

39. palaeomerus says:

    June 23, 2012 at 12:27 am

    I think Steyn is pretty awful o the radio. He keeps interrupting his own bad jokes with even more bad jokes. I like his writing though.

40. Ernst Schreiber says:

    June 23, 2012 at 12:40 am

    Sickening inversion of history or not, that Ziyi Zhang is a fine looking woman.

41. sdferr says:

    June 23, 2012 at 9:27 am

    Let me advert to the Katie Pavelich interview remark above, a couple of corrections.

    First, all showings will be on C-Span2, not C-Span. Second, the first showing will be tonight at 10:00pm eastern. There is no change in the times of the other showings already mentioned.

Comments are closed.