Jonathan Strong of Roll Call reported that one point of difference between the DOJ and the House Oversight Committee has been settled by the IG’s report:
It’s been a key subject of dispute throughout the “Fast and Furious” saga but one shrouded in mystery: whether wiretap applications reviewed and approved by senior Justice Department officials should have tipped them off about the dangerous tactics being used in the operation.
House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who obtained the wiretap applications surreptitiously from a whistleblower, said yes.
Attorney General Eric Holder and Congressional Democrats who reviewed them adamantly said no.
But because the documents were under court seal, the public was only afforded a glimpse of what was in them when Issa inserted a letter that characterized and quoted from them in the Congressional Record.
Now Michael Horowitz, the Justice Department’s inspector general, is broadly siding with Issa, saying in testimony before the Oversight panel today that the wiretap applications should have raised red flags to senior officials who approved them.
Asked by several Republican lawmakers at the hearing whether reading the wiretap applications would have indicated that guns were being “walked,” the tactic employed in Fast and Furious, Horowitz said “yes.”
Here’s video from a House hearing last June, where Congressman Ben Quayle asked Holder about the wiretaps that senior officials had to sign off on. (H/T sulli159):
Holder very specifically answered that he had seen the affidavits, and the summaries…“there’s nothing in those affidavits as I’ve reviewed them that indicates that gunwalking was allowed – let’s get to the bottom line – so I didn’t see anything that would put on notice a person who was reviewing either at the line level, or at the Deputy Asst. Atty General level …. that these inappropriate tactics were being used.”
Obama, seemingly using MMFA’s bogus talking points, told a blatant lie in answer to some tough questioning on Fast and Furious from Jorge Ramos on Univision, earlier this week. By stating that Fast and Furious was started under the previous administration, and was ended promptly by Holder, he put the blame on President Bush for his own administration’s obscene scandal.
In a Univision interview, President Barack Obama discusses Operation Fast and Furious and Attorney General Eric Holder’s role in the operation. Obama falsely states that Operation Fast and Furious started under the Bush administration. A recent report by the Inspector General of the Department of Justice reveals that 14 top officials in the DOJ and ATF were involved in the gunwalking operation, and 2 officials resigned following the release of the Inspector General report.
At Senate Hearing in November of 2011, in answer to questions from Senator John Cornyn, Holder himself demonstrated that he knew the difference between the Bush era program, Wide Receiver and the more reckless and deadly Fast and Furious, which started during the Obama administration.
GOP Rapid Response: Holder Still Doesn’t Believe He Should Have Been Notified About “Fast And Furious”:
During the House Government Oversight Committee hearing the DOJ Inspector General says that AG Eric Holder thought he didn’t need to be informed about “Fast and Furious” (September 20, 2012).
“When he walks in to debate Obama, he’s got to be as tough with Obama as he was with me in Florida,” Gingrich said in an interview on CNN’s “Piers Morgan Tonight.”
After all, Gingrich said, Romney “is not in a competition to be likeable.”
At two debates in Florida last January amidst their bitter struggle for the GOP presidential nomination, Romney lit into Gingrich.
The two entered the Florida primary locked up in the polls. But after some heavy stumping – and arguably some debate thumping – Romney emerged on top in the vote count, beating Gingrich by 14 points and claiming the state’s delegate haul.
Granny Jan and Jihad Kitty: We’re Out of Patience and You’re Gone, Obama!:
Lee Doren, How The World Works: Epic Barack Obama Fail!!!!
How many times in the last week have we heard that the “U.S. rejects “all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others”” and that the Obama admin and State Dept. “absolutely reject its content and message” when it comes to the video being used as a scapegoat for the Islamist violence and protests which just happened to occur on September 11? The Obama admin. even went as far as asking Google to see if the trailers for the movie violated YouTube’s terms of service, and the filmaker just happened to get a midnight visit from a ton of police. People wondered if Team Obama would do the same when it came to religions other than Islam being insulted. They were quite silent on the play “The Book Of Mormon”, and ……
(Fox News) Religious groups are blasting President Obama for not condemning am anti-Christian art display set to appear in New York City and one Republican lawmaker said he is “fed up with the administration’s double standard and religious hypocrisy.
“Piss Christ,” once branded as a “deplorable, despicable display of vulgarity,” will be displayed at the Edward Tyler Nahem Gallery in Manhattan on Thursday. The artwork features a “photograph of the crucifix submerged in the artist’s urine.”
Rep. Michael Grimm (R, C-NY) wants to know why President Obama hasn’t denounced the exhibit and said he’s fed up with what he called the administration’s “religious hypocrisy.”
Charles Krauthammer on a League of Democracy replacing the UN “PlayPen for Dictators”:
Wherein Charles Krauthammer verbalizes what all sane Americans think about the UN:
John Bolton: Barack Obama’s Worldview is Flawed. Islamic Terrorism is Still Alive:
Bolton, appearing on Greta Van Susteren argued that the Obama administration’s lame misdirection on MidEast turmoil is due to Obama’s flawed worldview.
They’ve staked out their ground, and they’re going to stand or fall on it as the facts come out. The reason they took that position was that it was convenient to their US domestic political agenda and very flawed worldview. The war on terror is over, the White House declared it over, and therefore, it cannot be a terrorist group in Libya that killed our Ambassador. It cannot be that there is hatred for the United States since Barack Obama became our President, therefore the riots must be caused by the video.
These guys in Libya didn’t get the memo – ‘the war on terror is over’.
The truth will be whatever Obama decides it is, dammit. Now shut up and go get him a juicebox.
John Nolte, Big Government: Obama to Condemn Christian Filmmaker Before United Nations:
Not only are we seeing the White House and State Department call more attention to the Mohammed-mocking “Innocence of Muslims” than any terrorist network ever could’ve hoped for, but the President’s indefensible scapegoating of the film and filmmaker to draw attention and blame away from U.S. security failures apparently knows no bounds.
Next week, Obama will denounce the film in a speech before the United Nations General Assembly:
National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor previews the president’s speech to the UN General Assembly next week:
“UNGA always provides an opportunity for the President to put the international situation in context, and to put forward a vision of US leadership. I would certainly expect the President to address the recent unrest in the Muslim world, and the broader context of the democratic transitions in the Arab World.”
“As he has in recent days, the President will make it clear that we reject the views in this video, while also underscoring that violence is never acceptable[.]
My God, between the media and the Obama White House, we are finally witnessing Orwell’s “1984” blossom to life.
Yes we are – and I was going to say it, myself, but was thinking, ‘how many “1984” comparisons to this administration are too many?’ Answer: There can never be too many because the shoe fits so well. Eurasia has always been at war with Eastasia and the violence in the MiddleEast has always been a video’s fault.
Stephen Hayes makes a very good point – namely that this isn’t the first time the regime has tried to sell a bogus narrative after an attack, The Weekly Standard: Permanent Spin:
On December 28, 2009, three days after Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to detonate explosives in his underwear aboard an airliner over Detroit, President Obama told the country that the incident was the work of “an isolated extremist.” It wasn’t. Abdulmutallab was trained, directed, and financed by Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, a fact he shared with investigators early in his interrogation.
The same thing happened less than six months later, after Faisal Shahzad attempted to blow up his Nissan Pathfinder in Times Square. Two days following the botched attack, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano took to the Sunday shows to dismiss reports of a conspiracy and insisted that the attempted bombing was just a “one-off” by a single attacker. It wasn’t. A week later, after much of the information had leaked, Attorney General Eric Holder acknowledged that the United States had “evidence that shows that the Pakistani Taliban was behind the attack. We know that they helped facilitate it, we know that they probably helped finance it and that he was working at their direction.”
In each instance, top administration officials quickly downplayed or dismissed the seriousness of the events, only to acknowledge, after the shock had worn off and the media had turned to other news, that their initial stories were incorrect. Whether it was because the attempted attacks were unsuccessful or because the media simply lost interest, the administration largely escaped serious criticism for making claims that turned out to be wrong.
They’ve had mixed success this time. On the one hand, as the final elements of the administration’s story began to unravel in the middle of last week, the New York Times did not find those facts fit to print. On Thursday morning, the same day White House spokesman Jay Carney would finally admit that the Benghazi assault was “a terrorist attack,” the Times did not publish a story about Libya. It wasn’t as though it took serious digging to find the contradictions. One day earlier, Fox News had reported that intelligence officials were investigating the possibility that a former Guantánamo detainee had been involved in the attack. A story by Reuters raised questions about administration descriptions of the protests, noting “new information” that “suggests that the protests at the outset were so small and unthreatening as to attract little notice.” The story reported: “While many questions remain, the latest accounts differ from the initial information provided by the Obama administration, which had suggested that protests in front of the consulate over an anti-Islamic film had played a major role in precipitating the subsequent violent attack.” And CBS, as noted, reported that same day that there simply were no protests.
And what about the film? The Obama administration has sought to explain nearly everything that has happened over the past two weeks as a response to the video. President Obama denounced it during his remarks at the memorial for the four Americans killed in Libya. So did Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. White House spokesman Jay Carney has mentioned it almost daily. At the end of last week, the United States spent $70,000 to buy ads in Pakistan to distance the U.S. government from its message.
Riehl World View: Oof! New ad links Obama to Muslim Brotherhood:
Damn. Talk about taking the gloves off. Video below.
Bill Whittle: THE STRATOSPHERE LOUNGE EPISODE 15:
iOWNTHEWORLD: Aquatic ballet of horror:
It’s the nose plugs. They must do something about those hideous nose plugs.
Noisy Room: The part of Romney’s Tape the media isn’t playing:
This happened back in June, but I missed it.
Sen Claire McCaskill tells the Quincy Journal that the Senate has passed a budget:
That’s pretty amazing, because when Speaker of the House, John Boehner slammed Democrats back in March for not passing a budget in over 1000 days, even the grotesquely partisan Politifact gave him a 100% correct rating.
Budget resolutions are policy plans. They are not appropriations bills, or spending bills, which actually allocate money for specific purposes.
If a budget resolution doesn’t pass, the federal government won’t go dark. In the absence of a budget resolution, appropriations bills have continued to allocate money.
But, as a previous PolitiFact story said, “the inability to pass the budget framework can reflect poorly on the majority’s organizational skills and/or the degree of partisan discord in Congress. It also increases the likelihood of a logjam of appropriations bills in the fall and winter, and decreases the chance that controversial tax bills will pass the Senate.”
We wondered if the Senate, under Democratic control, had neglected its basic responsibility.
As the Daily Caller reported, several other Democrats agreed:
Senator Joe Manchin said, “there’s no excuse” for the Democrats’ failure to pass a new budget. Senator Mark Pryor said, “We’ve had three years with President Obama where we’re not able to get a budget resolution passed.” And Independent Senator Joe Lieberman expressed that he is “disappointed” in Democratic efforts to pass a new budget. And the list goes on.