# Here's the attempt to "Swiftboat' Obama **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [August 16, 2012, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heres-the-attempt-to-swiftboat-obama/631685 "2012-08-16T17:12:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2012, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heres-the-attempt-to-swiftboat-obama/631685/241 "2012-08-19T06:38:46Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Okay, so he’s LESS than a CEO? Because last I checked, CEOs were held publicly responsible when something bad happened in their company and they generally accept that responsibility. Cite? Are you sure you know what the position of President actually entails? (hint: **'luci** got it right) I guess we should get that out of the way first. [ > [@](#): > > The President of the United States of America (acronym: POTUS) is the head of state and head of government of the United States. The president leads the executive branch of the federal government and is the commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces. > > Article II of the U.S. Constitution vests the executive power of the United States in the president and charges him with the execution of federal law, alongside the responsibility of appointing federal executive, diplomatic, regulatory, and judicial officers, and concluding treaties with foreign powers, with the advice and consent of the Senate. The president is further empowered to grant federal pardons and reprieves, and to convene and adjourn either or both houses of Congress under extraordinary circumstances. Since the founding of the United States, the power of the president and the federal government have grown substantially and each modern president, despite possessing no formal legislative powers beyond signing or vetoing congressionally passed bills, is largely responsible for dictating the legislative agenda of his party and the foreign and domestic policy of the United States. The president is frequently described as the most powerful person in the world. ]([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President\_of\_the\_United\_States](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States)) I don’t see anywhere in there that he has to know everything that every person on the government payroll is doing, nor do I see that he is personally responsible for every facet of government. It’s true that in general a President is responsible for things that happen during his term, but it’s unreasonable, IMO, to hold a President accountable for something he had no knowledge of, unless it’s part of a larger pattern which would then possibly be indicative of ineptitude. Do you see this single incident that you’ve cited as somehow indicative of a larger pattern? What other incidents, in your opinion, comprise that pattern? ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2012, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heres-the-attempt-to-swiftboat-obama/631685/242 "2012-08-19T06:50:40Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Okay, so he’s LESS than a CEO? Because last I checked, CEOs were held publicly responsible when something bad happened in their company and they generally accept that responsibility. > > I just want to be clear on just how low a standard we hold our Presidents to. I mean, we’ve already established that the buck doesn’t stop at the top in the federal government, now we’re getting into just how little accountability a President has, say compared to a shift manager at McDonald’s. The impression I’m getting is that the shift manager is held to a higher standard. Well, [how high a standard was Ronald Reagan held to](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair)? Or [Richard Nixon](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal)? Note that in those cases actual crimes were committed, and at least in the case of Nixon, we know he was actively involved in the commission of crimes. Did they accept responsibility? Should they have? They shift manager at McDonald’s is held accountable for the things that he is responsible for; he is not held accountable for things beyond his ken unless it was something he was supposed to know about. Are you arguing that as part of his job as POTUS, Obama was supposed to know about the details of this particular sting operation? If so, why do you think that? And, how was he supposed to know it was happening in the first place, in order to be able to know about it in-depth enough to exert control or be responsible for it? Do you think the POTUS should know details about all the hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands of criminal investigations that are on-going? I’ll mock you here by reminding you that his name is Barack Obama, not Brainiac Obama. I eagerly await a cite for the assertion you made about CEOs taking responsibility, and for the answers to the questions posed in this and in my previous post. ---
**Author:** ![Algorithm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/algorithm/32/12204_2.png) [@Algorithm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algorithm)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2012, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heres-the-attempt-to-swiftboat-obama/631685/243 "2012-08-19T06:52:41Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Okay, so he’s LESS than a CEO? It’s a job, not a point on a number line. Different jobs entail different responsibilities and different expectations. You can’t compare them with terms like “less” or “more”. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2012, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heres-the-attempt-to-swiftboat-obama/631685/244 "2012-08-19T06:55:38Z")
Okay, so the executive branch has NO one in charge, no one accountable for its performance? That’s a novel argument, gotta admit. But it does explain the dysfunction of government. Good to know that the ATF is just running around doing whatever and the President doesn’t have to care. Not his problem. I would think we’d all be able to agree that the ATF falls under the president’s responsibilities. if it doesn’t, then I’d love to know whose it does fall under. Can’t have rogue agencies with power of life and death yet no one accountable. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2012, 7:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heres-the-attempt-to-swiftboat-obama/631685/245 "2012-08-19T07:00:57Z")
And to get back to the actual subject, since the OP isn’t fond of my taking us off topic, with good reason: Is the President also not responsible for leaks? He seems awfully uninterested in finding out who has been leaking all these secrets. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2012, 7:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heres-the-attempt-to-swiftboat-obama/631685/246 "2012-08-19T07:18:13Z")
You’ve yet to explain how Obama is responsible for things he doesn’t know about, or how he’s supposed to find out which things he doesn’t know about which are important. Do you expect him to call each and every employee of the federal government on a daily basis and ask them what’s up? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2012, 7:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heres-the-attempt-to-swiftboat-obama/631685/247 "2012-08-19T07:21:26Z")
Adaher, your views on Presidential responsibility have undergone a remarkable evolution. From a May 2003 thread on the stunning absence of WMD in Iraq. [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=187112&page=2](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=187112&page=2) > [@](#): > > They are there, and we will find them, don’t worry. and this: > [@](#): > > Well, the same people that wanted to give inspections 12 years are in a rush to see WMD after only 2 months. and the cherry on top > [@](#): > > …Some people just can’t wait to find the President wrong. You were rather forgiving. Grew out of it, did you? ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2012, 7:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heres-the-attempt-to-swiftboat-obama/631685/248 "2012-08-19T07:21:38Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > And to get back to the actual subject, since the OP isn’t fond of my taking us off topic, with good reason: > > Is the President also not responsible for leaks? He seems awfully uninterested in finding out who has been leaking all these secrets. When you say “he seems awfully uninterested”, what gives you that impression? Has he said “I am uninterested in finding out who has been leaking all these secrets”? Or did you form that impression from something else he said or did? Or did you form that impression based on things you didn’t see or hear? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2012, 7:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heres-the-attempt-to-swiftboat-obama/631685/249 "2012-08-19T07:35:07Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > You’ve yet to explain how Obama is responsible for things he doesn’t know about, or how he’s supposed to find out which things he doesn’t know about which are important. > > Do you expect him to call each and every employee of the federal government on a daily basis and ask them what’s up? The basic idea of how an organization works is not exactly complicated. Anything going on with the ATF would reach the President through the Attorney general and the head of the FBI. Fast and Furious was hatched in a meeting between high level Justice Department officials, including the Directors of the FBI and ATF: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-anti-gunrunning-effort-turns-fatally-wrong/2011/07/14/gIQAH5d6YI\_story\_1.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-anti-gunrunning-effort-turns-fatally-wrong/2011/07/14/gIQAH5d6YI_story_1.html) Now, was the President not told because such an idea just isn’t important enough for him to be briefed on, or was he not told because such an idea is politically risky, and thus the President should be kept out of the loop? In addition, Eric Holder was informed in July 2010, while it was still going on: [http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727\_162-20115038-10391695.html](http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20115038-10391695.html) At this point, even if the President was never told, this is his appointee. many of the people in on the meeting that approved the operation were direct appointees of the President. Now I’m sure we can all agree that the President is directly responsible for his appointees’ actions. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2012, 7:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heres-the-attempt-to-swiftboat-obama/631685/250 "2012-08-19T07:40:46Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Adaher, your views on Presidential responsibility have undergone a remarkable evolution. > From a May 2003 thread on the stunning absence of WMD in Iraq. > > [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=187112&page=2](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=187112&page=2) > > and this: > > and the cherry on top > > You were rather forgiving. Grew out of it, did you? It was May 2003. President Bush is not only responsible for the war in Iraq and the failure to find WMDs in significant quantities, but he was rightly held responsible by the public, along with his whole party. The Iraq war was a disaster for the political fortunes of the Republican Party, resulting directly in the 2006 shellacking they took, and it also resulted in GWB becoming a lame duck not too long after he was elected. What you folks seem to be asking is that we overlook pretty much everything bad that’s ever happened on Obama’s watch and blame it on someone else. While giving him full credit for the good things that happened on his watch. I’m interested to know what the standard is here. I can see not blaming the president for the economy. that’s mostly beyond a President’s control and the public still mostly blamed GWB. But things that his administration actually does are clearly his responsibility. When the EPA sets rules that directly cost jobs, he’s responsible for those lost jobs. The EPA is under his authority. When the ATF gets a border agent killed because of a botched gunrunning operation, that’s also an agency he’s in charge of. He can’t be responsible for the actions of SEAL Team Six and yet not responsible for the ATF. And no, he does not get to just choose what he will and won’t pay attention to and only be held responsible for what he chooses to pay attention to. His job description involves him using sound judgement to determine what he should directly involve himself in and what he should delegate to others. And those decisions appear to be motivated primarily by politics rather than by governing. Get in on the stuff that makes him look good, keep him away from stuff that might make him look bad. this is not unusual behavior in an administration, we saw the same type of thing happen with Bush and Abu Ghraib. But in the end, the public did not hold Bush blameless for Abu Ghraib and I doubt they’ll hold Obama blameless for what the ATF does closer to home. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2012, 8:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heres-the-attempt-to-swiftboat-obama/631685/251 "2012-08-19T08:09:19Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > What you folks seem to be asking is that we overlook pretty much everything bad that’s ever happened on Obama’s watch and blame it on someone else. AFAIK, you’ve only given us one bad thing that you hold him responsible for. I asked you if you saw this as part of a larger pattern, and if so, to describe that pattern. Thus far, you have not done that, and so “everything bad” amounts to one thing. > [@adaher](#): > > While giving him full credit for the good things that happened on his watch. I’m interested to know what the standard is here. I can see not blaming the president for the economy. that’s mostly beyond a President’s control and > the public still mostly blamed GWB. But things that his administration actually does are clearly his responsibility. When the EPA sets rules that directly cost jobs, he’s responsible for those lost jobs. The EPA is under his authority. Exactly what are you talking about here? > [@adaher](#): > > When the ATF gets a border agent killed because of a botched gunrunning operation, that’s also an agency he’s in charge of. He can’t be responsible for the actions of SEAL Team Six and yet not responsible for the ATF. This is the same item you’ve already listed as something you believe he should be responsible for, even though he did not know about it. It only counts once, no matter how many times you list it. > [@adaher](#): > > And no, he does not get to just choose what he will and won’t pay attention to and only be held responsible for what he chooses to pay attention to. His job description involves him using sound judgement to determine what he should directly involve himself in and what he should delegate to others. And those decisions appear to be motivated primarily by politics rather than by governing. What is it about his decisions that make them appear to be “motivated primarily by politics rather than by governing”? What should he do differently, in your opinion, in order to appear to be motivated by governing? > [@adaher](#): > > Get in on the stuff that makes him look good, keep him away from stuff that might make him look bad. this is not unusual behavior in an administration, we saw the same type of thing happen with Bush and Abu Ghraib. But in the end, the public did not hold Bush blameless for Abu Ghraib and I doubt they’ll hold Obama blameless for what the ATF does closer to home. You’re back to harping on the ATF thing. It still only counts as one thing. ---
**Author:** ![Enkel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/df705f/32.png) [@Enkel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enkel)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2012, 8:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heres-the-attempt-to-swiftboat-obama/631685/252 "2012-08-19T08:16:45Z")
IRT Fast and Furious: > [@](#): > > Quite simply, there’s a fundamental misconception at the heart of the Fast and Furious scandal. Nobody disputes that suspected straw purchasers under surveillance by the ATF repeatedly bought guns that eventually fell into criminal hands. Issa and others charge that the ATF intentionally allowed guns to walk as an operational tactic. But five law-enforcement agents directly involved in Fast and Furious tell Fortune that the ATF had no such tactic. They insist they never purposefully allowed guns to be illegally trafficked. Just the opposite: They say they seized weapons whenever they could but were hamstrung by prosecutors and weak laws, which stymied them at every turn. > > Indeed, a six-month Fortune investigation reveals that the public case alleging that Voth and his colleagues walked guns is replete with distortions, errors, partial truths, and even some outright lies. Fortune reviewed more than 2,000 pages of confidential ATF documents and interviewed 39 people, including seven law-enforcement agents with direct knowledge of the case. Several, including Voth, are speaking out for the first time. > > How Fast and Furious reached the headlines is a strange and unsettling saga, one that reveals a lot about politics and media today. It’s a story that starts with a grudge, specifically Dodson’s anger at Voth. After the terrible murder of agent Terry, Dodson made complaints that were then amplified, first by right-wing bloggers, then by CBS. Rep. Issa and other politicians then seized those elements to score points against the Obama administration, which, for its part, has capitulated in an apparent effort to avoid a rhetorical battle over gun control in the run-up to the presidential election. (A Justice Department spokesperson denies this and asserts that the department is not drawing conclusions until the inspector general’s report is submitted.) > [@](#): > > Irony abounds when it comes to the Fast and Furious scandal. But the ultimate irony is this: Republicans who support the National Rifle Association and its attempts to weaken gun laws are lambasting ATF agents for not seizing enough weapons—ones that, in this case, prosecutors deemed to be legal. [http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/06/27/fast-and-furious-truth/](http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/06/27/fast-and-furious-truth/) ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2012, 8:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heres-the-attempt-to-swiftboat-obama/631685/253 "2012-08-19T08:17:07Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The basic idea of how an organization works is not exactly complicated. Anything going on with the ATF would reach the President through the Attorney general and the head of the FBI. Fast and Furious was hatched in a meeting between high level Justice Department officials, including the Directors of the FBI and ATF: > > [http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-anti-gunrunning-effort-turns-fatally-wrong/2011/07/14/gIQAH5d6YI\_story\_1.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-anti-gunrunning-effort-turns-fatally-wrong/2011/07/14/gIQAH5d6YI_story_1.html) > > Now, was the President not told because such an idea just isn’t important enough for him to be briefed on, or was he not told because such an idea is politically risky, and thus the President should be kept out of the loop? > > In addition, Eric Holder was informed in July 2010, while it was still going on: > > [http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727\_162-20115038-10391695.html](http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20115038-10391695.html) > > At this point, even if the President was never told, this is his appointee. many of the people in on the meeting that approved the operation were direct appointees of the President. Now I’m sure we can all agree that the President is directly responsible for his appointees’ actions. Your first link shows only a headline, no story. From your second link: > [@](#): > > The Justice Department told CBS News that the officials in those emails were talking about a different case started before Eric Holder became Attorney General. And tonight they tell CBS News, Holder misunderstood that question from the committee - he did know about Fast and Furious - just not the details. So Holder knew an operation called Fast & Furious existed, but we don’t know what level of detail he knew. I presume you want to hold him responsible for not knowing something, but I hardly see how you can hold him responsible for the actions of others when he didn’t know what they were doing. Are you able to separate those two things, or is all responsibility just merged into one big pile? ---
**Author:** ![Enkel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/df705f/32.png) [@Enkel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enkel)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2012, 8:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heres-the-attempt-to-swiftboat-obama/631685/254 "2012-08-19T08:26:55Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > When the ATF gets a border agent killed because of a botched gunrunning operation, that’s also an agency he’s in charge of. He can’t be responsible for the actions of SEAL Team Six and yet not responsible for the ATF. Uh… yes, he was directly involved in the SEAL Team Six mission planning (remember, he opted for the invasion instead of a bomb strike? He opted for “fight your way out” instead of wait for diplomatic extraction? So, yes INDEED, he was directly responsible for the SEAL Team Six mission. I very much doubt that he was directly involved in one of the several hundred ATF missions that are running at any given time. > [@](#): > > And no, he does not get to just choose what he will and won’t pay attention to and only be held responsible for what he chooses to pay attention to. His job description involves him using sound judgement to determine what he should directly involve himself in and what he should delegate to others. And those decisions appear to be motivated primarily by politics rather than by governing. This makes no sense. Going back to the CEO thing, Obama would be the CEO of the parent company and ATF would be like a wholely owned subsidiary with it’s own CEO (called a Director). ATF runs hundreds of operations on a continual basis. Are you really saying that Obama should be personally involved in all of those operations? Perhaps he should also be personally approving all medications for the FDA and personally involved in all IRS investigations. Heck, in his spare time, maybe he could pop down and run the White House gift shop for a while. > [@](#): > > we saw the same type of thing happen with Bush and Abu Ghraib. But in the end, the public did not hold Bush blameless for Abu Ghraib. Ummm… it was military NCOs who were prosecuted for Abu Ghraib, so not only did Bush not get held accountable, NOBODY in the whole chain of command was held accountable. They threw a couple lowly NCOs under the bus to take their punishment. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2012, 8:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heres-the-attempt-to-swiftboat-obama/631685/255 "2012-08-19T08:29:43Z")
You know, if I don’t tell my boss about things that could end up having a major impact on the company, I get fired. Of course, in the government, the top priority is to protect the President, and that’s done by not telling him. There is simply no world in which Fast and Furious isn’t important enough for the President to be apprised of it. It was important enough to involve the top law enforcement officers in the country and no one bothered to tell the president? Given the foreign policy implications, there is just no way, unless there was an intent to keep the President out of the loop for his own protection. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2012, 8:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heres-the-attempt-to-swiftboat-obama/631685/256 "2012-08-19T08:33:40Z")
> [@Enkel](#): > > This makes no sense. Going back to the CEO thing, Obama would be the CEO of the parent company and ATF would be like a wholely owned subsidiary with it’s own CEO (called a Director). ATF runs hundreds of operations on a continual basis. Are you really saying that Obama should be personally involved in all of those operations? Perhaps he should also be personally approving all medications for the FDA and personally involved in all IRS investigations. Heck, in his spare time, maybe he could pop down and run the White House gift shop for a while. Was the CEO of BP responsible for what happened on an oil rig not directly owned by BP? > [@](#): > > Ummm… it was military NCOs who were prosecuted for Abu Ghraib, so not only did Bush not get held accountable, NOBODY in the whole chain of command was held accountable. They threw a couple lowly NCOs under the bus to take their punishment. I’m not asking for Obama to be impeached. I’m asking for him to be held politically accountable. And that doesn’t even mean he loses reelection. It just means that people acknowledge that when the administration he is in charge of does something stupid, that’s on him. Especially given that Fast and Furious wasn’t some merely local operation. It involved the head of the ATF and the FBI. And guess who got fired for Fast and Furious? The whistleblower. ---
**Author:** ![Enkel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/df705f/32.png) [@Enkel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enkel)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2012, 8:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heres-the-attempt-to-swiftboat-obama/631685/257 "2012-08-19T08:43:06Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Was the CEO of BP responsible for what happened on an oil rig not directly owned by BP? First: No, he was not held personally responsible. Find any quote that says the he, as an individual, should have know that they were SUB-CONTRACTING to companies with a record of faulty work? AND, the were prior documented cases of that same company screwing up that same kind of work. AND, that the specific valve used was not adequate. So please show me where he was held personally accountable. He stepped down because it was politically expedient to quell the angry masses. But that is not the same as being held personally responsible. Second: A SUB-CONTRACTOR is not the same as a wholly owned subsidiary with it’s own management structure. > [@](#): > > It just means that people acknowledge that when the administration he is in charge of does something stupid, that’s on him. Especially given that Fast and Furious wasn’t some merely local operation. It involved the head of the ATF and the FBI. And guess who got fired for Fast and Furious? The whistleblower. Did you even read the article that I linked? It is a bit more recent than your information sources. ---
**Author:** ![Enkel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/df705f/32.png) [@Enkel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enkel)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2012, 8:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heres-the-attempt-to-swiftboat-obama/631685/258 "2012-08-19T08:52:21Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Of course, in the government, the top priority is to protect the President, and that’s done by not telling him. You watch too many movies. > [@](#): > > There is simply no world in which Fast and Furious isn’t important enough for the President to be apprised of it. It was important enough to involve the top law enforcement officers in the country and no one bothered to tell the president? Had that agent not been killed, no one would have ever heard of the operation. It was a fairly standard operation involving one local area. > [@](#): > > Given the foreign policy implications, there is just no way, unless there was an intent to keep the President out of the loop for his own protection. Exactly WHAT foreign policy implications? Our ATF and other agencies have worked with Mexican authorities for a very, very long time. Mexico didn’t just suddenly move in down there. The US didn’t suddenly start tossing 2000 weapons over their boarder each day. Both countries want the weapons trafficking stopped. Do you think Mexico would declare war on the US because of gun walking from a few gun shops in a single city? Especially in light of the fact that we were probably passing them the serial numbers so that they could identify the trafficking routes? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2012, 8:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heres-the-attempt-to-swiftboat-obama/631685/259 "2012-08-19T08:59:53Z")
The Mexican government was deliberately kept out of the loop. Am I to believe that low level ATF people, on their own, made such a consequential diplomatic decision? Furthermore, the Mexican government has not received an apology for the US government’s conduct: > **[Mexico still waiting for answers on Fast and Furious gun program](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2011-sep-19-la-fg-mexico-fast-furious-20110920-story.html)** > > Mexico still waiting for answers on Fast and Furious gun program Marisela Morales, Mexico’s attorney general and a longtime favorite of American law enforcement agents in Mexico, told The Times that she first learned about Fast and Furious from news reports. And to this day, she said, U.S. officials have not briefed her on the operation gone awry, nor have they apologized. “At no time did we know or were we made aware that there might have been arms trafficking permitted,” Morales, Mexico’s highest-ranking law enforcement official, said in a recent interview. “In no way would we have allowed it, because it is an attack on the safety of Mexicans.” Morales said she did not want to draw conclusions before the outcome of U.S. investigations, but that deliberately letting weapons “walk” into Mexico — with the intention of tracing the guns to drug cartels — would represent a “betrayal” of a country enduring a drug war that has killed more than 40,000 people. U.S. agents lost track of hundreds of weapons under the program. Call me crazy, but this seems like the kind of thing the President’s appointees would want to make the President aware of. Why do they still have their jobs? ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2012, 10:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heres-the-attempt-to-swiftboat-obama/631685/260 "2012-08-19T10:14:25Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The Mexican government was deliberately kept out of the loop. Am I to believe that low level ATF people, on their own, made such a consequential diplomatic decision? > > Furthermore, the Mexican government has not received an apology for the US government’s conduct: > > [Mexico still waiting for answers on Fast and Furious gun program](http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/19/world/la-fg-mexico-fast-furious-20110920) > > Marisela Morales, Mexico’s attorney general and a longtime favorite of American law enforcement agents in Mexico, told The Times that she first learned about Fast and Furious from news reports. And to this day, she said, U.S. officials have not briefed her on the operation gone awry, nor have they apologized. > > “At no time did we know or were we made aware that there might have been arms trafficking permitted,” Morales, Mexico’s highest-ranking law enforcement official, said in a recent interview. “In no way would we have allowed it, because it is an attack on the safety of Mexicans.” > > Morales said she did not want to draw conclusions before the outcome of U.S. investigations, but that deliberately letting weapons “walk” into Mexico — with the intention of tracing the guns to drug cartels — would represent a “betrayal” of a country enduring a drug war that has killed more than 40,000 people. U.S. agents lost track of hundreds of weapons under the program. First, this article contains lots of “ifs” and “mights”. More up-to-date information shows that the situation was more complicated than the article makes out. > [@adaher](#): > > Call me crazy, but this seems like the kind of thing the President’s appointees would want to make the President aware of. Why do they still have their jobs? Why does who still have their job? Most of the people involved DO NOT still have their jobs. Robert Mueller does, presumably because he is very good at being the head of the FBI, despite this operation. After all, he is a Bush appointee that Obama kept on the job, and he has currently been head of the FBI for 11 years. And Eric Holder still has his job because he didn’t know about the gun walking, and because once he found out about it, he took steps to shut down the operation and put policies in place to prevent the tactic from being used again, and because the President felt that the pressure brought to bear on members of Congress to vote to convict Holder of contempt was out of line (more on that below). You seem to be unaware of this quote: > [@President Obama](#): > > There may be a situation here in which a serious mistake was made, and if that’s the case then we’ll find out and we’ll hold somebody accountable. That’s from a 23 March 2011 appearance on Univision, where he also that neither he nor Attorney General Holder authorized Fast and Furious. Gun-walking was not a new tactic, nor was it something that was implemented by the Obama administration. In fact, it dates back to 2006 (and the Bush administration). > [@](#): > > On June 7, 2012, under the threat of being held in contempt of Congress for not turning over additional requested documents, Attorney General Holder appeared at his seventh Congressional hearing, where he continued to deny knowledge of “gunwalking” by high-level officials. By then, the Justice Department had turned over more than 7,000 pages of documents.[78] During the June 12, 2012 Senate hearing, Eric Holder stated, “If you want to talk about Fast and Furious, I’m the Attorney General that put an end to the misguided tactics that were used in Fast and Furious. An Attorney General who I suppose you would hold in higher regard was briefed on these kinds of tactics in an operation called Wide Receiver and did nothing to stop them – nothing. Three hundred guns, at least, walked in that instance.” Holder cited a briefing paper on “Wide Receiver”, later clarified to be about the Fidel Hernandez case, prepared for Holder’s predecessor, U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey in 2007. The Attorney General’s office further explained, “As Attorney General Holder also noted in his testimony, and as we have set forth in prior correspondence and testimony, he took measures and instituted a series of important reforms designed to ensure that the inappropriate tactics used in Fast and Furious, Wide Receiver, Hernandez, and other matters about which the Department has informed Congress are not repeated.” **adaher** , I knew very little about the F&F Op before tonight. However, it didn’t take long for me to see that a) it was a tactic that agents had begun using, with approval, during the Bush admin, b) the field offices and AZ Atty Gen. offices didn’t fully inform their superiors of the details of their operations, c) once it was brought to light, Atty. Gen. Holder did in fact move to stop and prevent such operations, all while denouncing the tactic. Despite this, he was charged with criminal & civil contempt of Congress (both votes were in favor of the charges). Despite this, the President chose to keep him as Atty. Gen., recognizing that the charges and the vote were more complex than they might have seemed: > [@](#): > > On Thursday, June 28, 2012, Holder became the first sitting member of the Cabinet of the United States to be held in criminal contempt of Congress by the House of Representatives for refusing to disclose internal Justice Department documents in response to a subpoena. The vote was 255-67 in favor, with 17 Democrats voting yes and a large number of Democrats walking off the floor in protest and refusing to vote. A civil contempt measure was also voted on and passed, 258-95. The civil contempt vote allows the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to go to court with a civil lawsuit to look into the US Justice Department’s refusal to turn over some of the subpoenaed documents and to test Obama’s assertion of executive privilege. Holder dismissed the votes as “the regrettable culmination of what became a misguided — and politically motivated — investigation during an election year,” and the White House called it “political theater rather than legitimate congressional oversight.”[82][83] > The National Rifle Association pressured members of both parties to vote in favor of contempt, with the vote counting toward the organization’s annual scorecard. The 17 Democrats who voted for criminal contempt, which included the most endangered incumbents in conservative districts, had all previously received an “A” grade from the NRA and risked losing the endorsement of the organization when seeking re-election in November. All but two of the Democrats who voted for the contempt charge have received campaign contributions from the NRA during the past two election cycles.[84] In a June 20, 2012 letter to committee chairmen Issa and Cummings,[85] the NRA stated their rationale for supporting the contempt resolution by saying, “The reason we support the contempt resolution is the same reason we first called for Attorney General Holder’s resignation more than a year ago: the Department’s obstruction of congressional oversight of a program that cost lives in support of an anti-gun agenda.” Representative Issa, the NRA and other conservatives have asserted that Operation Fast and Furious began as part of an anti-gun agenda to promote additional gun laws. This tenuous assertion is undermined because documents that refer to changing gun regulations come far after the inception of Fast and Furious. Agents involved were re-assigned, fired or resigned. Mexican officials were kept out of the loop because they were not trusted because of things like this: > [@](#): > > Operation Wide Receiver involved several failed attempts at coordinating with Mexican law enforcement in the apprehension of suspected arms traffickers, with Mexican authorities in one instance saying they didn’t see the vehicle cross the border. Despite the outrage expressed by some, > [@](#): > > Some Mexican officials were more circumspect. For example, Mexican Congressman Humberto Benítez Treviño, a former attorney general, called Fast and Furious “a bad business that got out of hand.” He had also characterized it as “an undercover program that wasn’t properly controlled.” All of this is from [ATF gunwalking scandal - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal) . The vast majority of it is cited. In a few short hours, I appear to have learned a great deal more about F&F than you appear to know, and the reality is that people have been held accountable, including an Atty. Gen. who didn’t know anything about it. If you still think the President should be held accountable, I guess you’ll also have to admit that since, as you pointed out, the POTUS works for the American people, every citizen should be held responsible, even tho none of us knew anything about what was going on. What should be the penalty we 300 million or so citizens should face? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heres-the-attempt-to-swiftboat-obama/631685.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heres-the-attempt-to-swiftboat-obama/631685.md?page=14)