A New Word

lol... Hemmer, you are awesome !
Ref; If you did not mean to insinuate anything about Bush . Please inform all of us
what your posting was for ? lol...
The problem I see over and over is that pdls's like ref , Do these postings and
comments for their followers do not actually read and check out the full topics .
When this happens the PDLS's tend to believe that "Bush" , or "Republicans" did
something wrong . When in fact it was their supreme leader the o who is at fault
again , but will not be held accountable as an adult for PDLS's will lie for him ! Again
!!

WFB - read my last comment. If you have difficulty understanding it, I'll explain it to you in simple terms. Don't take someone else's opinion as fact. Read it for yourself.

goergdeuyba:

The "loophole" was the distance and length of time that the guns could be traced over due to the technology used. The knowledge that a single gun could get into criminal hands without being able to be tracked real time and found, ended Wide Receiver.

Fast and Furious BEGAN with the knowledge that guns could not be tracked real time. By design it aided criminal activity and could only discover the whereabouts of the guns AFTER a crime (involving a shooting). Poor plan, poor execution and people died. Just like Benghazi.

WFB- With regard to the gaps in coverage from NY Times, I don't see any huge chasms lacking coverage. They aren't covering the conspiracy theories related to the Obama presidency (birthers, the transcripts, etc.). There are some gaps in coverage which contribute to my preference - there isn't much coverage of celebrities, for example. Which I don't care about. The Op-Ed page has conservative hacks (Brooks), legitimate conservatives (Douthat), some liberal hacks (such as Dowd), some moderate-liberal hacks (such as Friedman), and some legitimate liberals (Krugman and Kristof). Editorials are liberal.

I can't immediately think of any broad areas lacking coverage, but I can't rule it out completely.

Ref, you should have known that pointing someone to a report detailing the Fast and Furious program was a preposterous response to a question about why we haven't gotten answers about the Fast and Furious program. How very partisan of you. That report came out before someone was killed by the guns, so it was too focused on the details of the program and not enough of a witch hunt.

Hayett Says:
"Peter123...majority of Americans agree with me with liberal bias. Especially with the NY Times. "

".......majority of Americans agree with me with liberal bias."

Proof please.

GWB: The guns from "Wide Receiver" had the tracking devices in them. When the Mexican criminals getting the guns discovered this, they took the tracking devices out or destroyed them. "Wide Receiver" ended.
"Fast and Furious" - started under Obama and resulting in the death of an American ATF agent had no accountability and was a disaster from the get-go. Agents were complaining about it. It was a mess. Although - a mess designed by the Obama Administration to try to enable more gun control legislation in our own country. However, the nefarious plans of Obama & Co. backfired with the death of the agent - killed by one of the "Fast and Furious" guns.
Face it, all the "investigating" in the world isn't going to do diddly - cuz Obama & Co. will stonewall, the press will go along with it, and it will fade (as it already has). Benghazi is the same. Obama & Co. stonewall, the press reports what Obama wants out there, and after more time has passed - Obama & Co. hope people lose interest. Unfortunately, many Americans are just not interested and the end result will be complacency. We have seen with an election that almost half the country is more interested in "getting stuff" at the expense of the other half, so when nothing is in it for them, they don't care. Why care about an ATF agent murdered during Obama's failed "Fast and Furious?" Why worry about four Americans killed in Benghazi simply cuz a president was unwilling to help them (cuz if he did then he would have had to admit the truth - that al-Qaeda was back in business, which could have been detrimental to re-election) and instead chose to further his political career. Sad but true.

Here's a great article detailing the differences between "Wide Receiver" and "Fast and Furious." It points out how "Wide Receiver" had tracking devices and they failed. As soon as they failed, the program ended. "Fast and Furious" was a mess from the get-go.

Read on:
http://patriotupdate.com/25043/how-wide-receiver-and-fast-and-furious-are-different

groegerbudya:

5-10% of tracking units in the approximately 300-400 guns for Wide Receiver were failing due to component failures, destruction or range issues. When this was discovered, the program ended.

Fast and Furious never attempted to track guns. It was a deliberate flood of over 2000 guns by design. The dozens of deaths that have, are, and will continue occur was obviously predictable and exacerbated by the Obama Administration keeping Mexico out of the loop. We are all waiting for the results that were worth all these civilian lives. The geniuses surrounding Obama must have something brilliant in mind that us knuckleheads can't understand.

I notice one common thing in the Libs posting their comments. The Obama Administration has no responsiblity for Fast and Furious. Because of "Wide Receiver", it is all Bush's fault.

Pete123..."Sanctions on Iran are much more effective because his diplomatic team was able to get the rest of the world to agree to harsh sanctions."
We can all go to bed at night knowing the world is safer (except in the Middle East and Africa and Isreal).
Our new contries motto, "Bin Laden is dead and GM lives". Life is good under our current leader.

Geno,

Curious that you take a quote from a comment that I made, then say that the liberals commenting here have absolved the Obama administration of responsibility for something I said was a point against the President in that very comment. "Wide Receiver" was brought up (repeatedly) in response to a comment by Referee33 pointing to a report about Fast and Furious (and Wide Receiver, although Ref didn't mention it). Because Wide Receiver was an early section of that report, GWB (the commenter) and Amy presume that it was the key point Ref was making. Why?

I've glanced at the report Ref mentioned, looking at the Fast and Furious section. Here are a few points: Fast and Furious was an attempt to get the buyers further up the line instead of focusing on the straw buyers, who there are certainly many of that have not been caught. The idea was to defer bringing in the guys ATF had evidence on (which the report says they had nothing which could be prosecuted, as gun rights are still in place) when going after those would have been far from stopping the guns entirely. So they gave up a minor gain now for a chance at real progress later. The operation was badly handled at the district office of ATF. More reading is needed to assess whether it might go further up, but there were emails found which reported misleading information up the line.

Mucho said above that 5-10% of tracking units failed, causing ATF to end Wide Receiver. Which means 90% were still working. If it's realistic to stop all the guns going to Mexico, that's a fatal flaw. As it's not, that's an increased operating risk.

Was Fast and Furious a good idea? Do I support it? No. Is it a failure of government? Yes. Should the Mexican authorities have been involved? Probably (although given corruption, that's not a slam dunk question).

And in conclusion, barring evidence to the contrary, bungled operations are usually more likely than malicious intent. Read the report.

Regarding Iran and dangers in the Middle East, what would you have done? Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon yet, and pressure is being put on them to stop enriching nuclear fuel. The rest of the world is united in saying they should stop. The alternative I see is unilateral (well, bilateral... Israel would help) invasion of Iran to shut it down, as bombings of nuclear facilities would only delay, not stop, the program.

Again, the world has problems. President Obama has made some of them worse. He's made some better.

Pete , to prove my point lets just look at one of those things you cited ! How many
years did it take for the media to publish the o's birth certificate ? If the New York
timers did iots job why did it not push for it ? Do you remember when Bush was in
office ? I do , the media gave him 2 weeks to give information on himself . YTet
when he ran over the time by a couple of days the New Joke times did pieces on
how Bush was hiding something !!!! Yet the o gets away with birth for 2 years and
his transcripts for 4 years . What else ? If the njt did its job it probobly would have
stopped people from guessing if the o was a legal citizen . But instead the media
calls those people birthers instead of taking blame themselves for not informing
people immediatly when the o started !!!!! Will we ever get the facts on the o ? Or
will we the people have to guess until the media can use the guesses against
American citizens as a slight for not knowing ?

Peter123 - What a refreshing breath of fresh air in this malodorous blog. I enjoy your comments. They are refreshingly bipartisan (my opinion). In order to survive in this blogosphere, you must truly be bipartisan. You must have the thickness and toughness of the hide of an elephant and the stubbornness and obstinacy of a donkey in order to survive the constant attacks on intelligence that takes place here daily.

Ref, you've got far more stamina for this than I do. I have time and energy for this right now because I'm out of town for work in an area with not too much going on. I'm glad you enjoy my comments, but in truth it's all just an attempt to get some differing opinions into Waukesha County. You're not my target audience.

WFB, the birth certificate thing was a fabricated issue. It was a no-win situation for the Times. They could have done an in-depth investigation. What would that have accomplished? They had already concluded that he was born in Hawai'i. They could have found more evidence, and doubters would have continued to blame the liberal bias at the Times for failing to provide evidence. If I recall correctly, that's basically what happened.

What's to be gained from transcripts now? It won't show that he's ineligible to be President. It won't prove some conflict of interest (which is the justification for tax return demands). He has a record to be judged on. The transcripts won't provide anything more.

I was too young to vote in 2000, so I don't recall the two week deadline you're referring to for President Bush's records. Did those relate to his service in the National Guard? Was it his transcripts? His tax returns? His birth certificate?

Did any see the movie Idiocracy?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy

"...(His (Bush) transcripts are better than the o's)..."

And you would know this how?

Taking another WAG?

"Did any see the movie Idiocracy?"
Yes I did. Did anybody read the book (Short story actually) it was based on? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Marching_Morons

First of all everything was looked in to by the media about Bush ! The o has had a
pass on everything even Benghazi until the right pushed harder ! If the media
wanted to be a media they should treat all the presidents the same . That is not the
case with the o . The media still refuses to tie the o with several anti american
people . Aires is one of them . Why ? Look how the media still jumps on Bush's
second . yet they pass on Biden . Benghazi has to be forced on the njt . The media
blames bush for our economy but fails to show us how Bush did something more
than the o ! Yet the o gets a pass and the media still blames Bush ! Bush 4 T in 8
years the o 6 T in 4 years and counting ! Yet bush wasted money ? Bush had a war
while the o has 3 ! Bush went to Harvard so did the o ! Yet Bushes transcripts are
public ! Where is the o's ? Bush had Katrina and was attacked for not propping up
people after 2 weeks . The o had the one along the east coast and people still do not
have help in many areas . Yet it is many weeks later and I still do not see attacks on
the o ,or even have a recollection of the storms name ! lol...How would the media
have attacked Bush if he had ties to terrorists like the o has ?
Over and over the o is a failure yet the media still props the leader up as a savior .
How sad even with me and others pointing this out you still just ignore the truth.
Just look at Walker . He turned to the police for he saw problems with some who
worked under him. Yet the media,unions, PDLS's try to tie Walker to these crooks
even though Walker was the one to turn them in !!!! Bias , bias, bias . Yet you still do
not see it PDLS's !

WFB - Give up the Birth Certificate issue. It is inane. In 2008 we had a guy born in the Panama Canal running against a guy born in Hawaii to mixed parents (one foreign-national and one US Citizen.)

The "new word" Hemmer brings up alludes more ot the cycle of democracy than the faults of any one elected leader. Obama is an unfortunate agent acting as a catalyst in the downfall of democracy.

If you are unaware of this phenomenon, detailed by Alexander Tytler over 200 years ago, start here:

http://www.wrisley.com/cycle.htm

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury.

"From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising them the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."


Some are electing to fight the cycle while Obama and his legion are greasing the slide.