Van Jones breaks with Holder/Obama on Fast and Furious

In a radio interview on Thursday (May 17),  the one-time Green Czar for the Obama Administration,  Van Jones,  unexpectedly revealed his concern with Eric Holder and whoever is to blame for the Fast and Furious scandal.  Understand that this scandal involved 2,200 guns and rifles sold to the criminal element running the American/Mexican border.

The claim was that the Feds were attempting to track these weapons to the major players in the various crime syndicates in Mexico.  None of these weapons had tracking devises installed,  proving the Feds story to be little more than a fantasy tale.   The more troubling rumor was that the Holder/Obama partnership had hoped to use increased crime rates,  because of these weapons,  and move,  legislatively to ban private gun ownership.  The plan backfired resulting in the murders of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agent Jaime Zapata.  Zapata is seldom mentioned in such stories as this,  but his killing is as well established as is Brian Terry's.  In addition to these agents,  more than 300 Mexican civilians have been killed by use of the guns involved in Fast and Furious.

You should know that all DOJ investigations are given their code names  (such as "Fast and Furious")  by only one person,  that being the Attorney General.  If it has a name,  the AG knew about the program.

The lack of regard for the loss of life because of Fast and Furious is something that is seen as disgusting,  not only to the conservative side of the aisle,  but to some liberals.  Van Jones is a case in point.  In a report published by the Daily Caller,  Van Jones expressed his angst with Holder for his role in the gun running scandal and grave loss of life as a result.

In one of the most surprising statements of Obama's time in office,  his one-time ally had this to say about the scandal:

“I do know enough to know that something terrible is going on down there, . . . if the tea party is going to lead the way to try and shed some light on it, I’ll be right behind the tea party on it. I just don’t know enough about it right now.”

Point of post:  to demonstrate the lack of enthusiasm and confluence within the Administration.  In this case,  a member of the Administration is questioning the moral certitude of those with whom he once had a working relationship.

End notes:
In the Daily Caller article,  reference is made of a "conservative radio" interview. I do not think "conservative" is the political bias of the radio coop, referenced,  but you can decide for yourself by clicking on "appearance."