No, I think it was pretty clear that I was not making that comparison.
Actually, I'm a moderate. Remember, liberals are anti-gun, and think corporations are a bad idea. I pull the best viewpoints from both sides and leave the psycho stuff to the extremists on both sides.
I almost, for a second there, forgot you were our token liberal, but thanks for reminding me.
Admittedly, it was a bad idea. Unfortunately, you don't always know it's a bad idea until you try it.
The accountability of Holder is that he knew about the operation, and in good conscience didn't stop to say "wait, I'm in charge, I can stop this, this is a bad idea."
That's exactly how I read it.
I wasn't referring to manliness, you misunderstand, being a "Man" in terms of "be a responsible adult, take responsibility for what you do."
I clearly accept this. Question for you: were guns willingly sold by FFLs in Arizona, legally, to straw buyers in Arizona who it turn sold them illegally to the Mexican drug cartels happening before either of the ATF sting operations in the Bush and Obama adminstrations took place? It's obvious that they were, or the ATF wouldn't have gotten involved in the first place. Regardless of whether Operation Wide Receiver or Operation Fast and Furious had taken place, guns would have flowed to the cartels, and the scumbags that killed our agents would have possessed guns.
I don't know if we can discuss with you, you take things out of context just a bit. If Holder is the boss of the Head of the BATFE, and he orders an operation that is clearly giving guns to cartels, and he knows about it, then he is responsible.
It's not illegal for the authorities to not arrest folks in a criminal act. That's how stings operate. It's not illegal to keep covert operations covert. Lying to Congress is illegal, and we have due process to account for that. OF&F was a stupid operation, but not an illegal one. Unfortunately, lives were lost. Unfortunately, lives were lost during the war in Afghanistan, too. We're fighting a War on Drugs, remember?
I agreed. I wasn't claiming that the two were the same - I was presenting different ends of the issue, and asking opinions for where the line was drawn. While the direct superior is certainly responsible for his/her immediate subordinates, many commands have been lost by actions that the commanders could have have reasonably controlled. Let the JOD put a cruiser on sandbar while the Captain is asleep and see who keeps their job.
If a Regimental commander tells his BDE commanders to "Conduct COIN Operations in XXXX" and a PV2 dicks up it's a totally different matter and the blame lies with the PV2's direct superior usually.






Reply With Quote
