The difference between "stupid but well intentioned" and some "nefarious" plot is intent. Nothing I've seen offers any tangible evidence towards ill-intent on behalf of the administration; rather, it's just pure speculation and tinfoil hattery. I tend to err on the side of "well intentioned", until I see evidence suggesting otherwise, consistent with our innocent until proven guilty legal system. Making it personal doesn't change that analysis. I'm not condoning the actions, nor am I blaming Bush for F&F. I just don't buy it's some evil, anti-gun plot from the highest level of the administration - at least not until I see evidence suggesting it is.
As for the differences between F&F and Wide Receiver, while I never said the differences are trivial, I think there are way more similarities than differences between the two. As far as "aiding and abetting smuggling across an international border", both F&F and previous operations allowed straw purchasers to move guns across the border. Finally, while you listed off some basic criminal offenses, whether these operations or someone's failure to testify constituted a criminal act is an issue for the courts and/or a jury to sort out.
