Fast and Furious

[onmyknees]

I recall several months ago when I first posted about Fast and Furious, Obama Ass Kissers ( and you know who you are) laughed wildly about the absurdity of my contentions....In fact, one big ass kisser incredulously told us it was a continuation of Arms for Hostages. Well not quite.....So far the body count is 200 Mexican citizens and one US Border Patrol Agent.
The next casualties should be Holder and anyone else who had a hand in this deadly attempt to steer public opinion in favor of more restrictive gun laws.




December 7, 2011 1:44 PM

Documents: ATF used "Fast and Furious" to make the case for gun regulations

By Sharyl Attkisson (http://www.cbsnews.com/8300-31727_162-10391695.html?contributor=41919)
.



http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2011/02/24/guns_atf_110224_244x183.jpg (Credit: CBS)
Documents obtained by CBS News show that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) discussed using their covert operation "Fast and Furious" to argue for controversial new rules about gun sales.
PICTURES: ATF "Gunwalking" scandal timeline (http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-31727_162-10009697.html)
In Fast and Furious, ATF secretly encouraged gun dealers to sell to suspected traffickers for Mexican drug cartels to go after the "big fish." But ATF whistleblowers told CBS News and Congress it was a dangerous practice called "gunwalking," and it put thousands of weapons on the street. Many were used in violent crimes in Mexico. Two were found at the murder scene of a U.S. Border Patrol agent.

ATF officials didn't intend to publicly disclose their own role in letting Mexican cartels obtain the weapons, but emails show they discussed using the sales, including sales encouraged by ATF, to justify a new gun regulation called "Demand Letter 3". That would require some U.S. gun shops to report the sale of multiple rifles or "long guns." Demand Letter 3 was so named because it would be the third ATF program demanding gun dealers report tracing information.

On July 14, 2010 after ATF headquarters in Washington D.C. received an update on Fast and Furious, ATF Field Ops Assistant Director Mark Chait emailed Bill Newell, ATF's Phoenix Special Agent in Charge of Fast and Furious:

"Bill - can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same (licensed gun dealer) and at one time. We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales. Thanks."

More Fast and Furious coverage:
Memos contradict Holder on Fast and Furious (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20115038-10391695.html)
Agent: I was ordered to let guns "walk" into Mexico (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/03/eveningnews/main20039031.shtml)
Gunwalking scandal uncovered at ATF (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/02/23/eveningnews/main20035609.shtml)
On Jan. 4, 2011, as ATF prepared a press conference to announce arrests in Fast and Furious, Newell saw it as "(A)nother time to address Multiple Sale on Long Guns issue." And a day after the press conference, Chait emailed Newell: "Bill--well done yesterday... (I)n light of our request for Demand letter 3, this case could be a strong supporting factor if we can determine how many multiple sales of long guns occurred during the course of this case."

This revelation angers gun rights advocates. Larry Keane, a spokesman for National Shooting Sports Foundation, a gun industry trade group, calls the discussion of Fast and Furious to argue for Demand Letter 3 "disappointing and ironic." Keane says it's "deeply troubling" if sales made by gun dealers "voluntarily cooperating with ATF's flawed 'Operation Fast & Furious' were going to be used by some individuals within ATF to justify imposing a multiple sales reporting requirement for rifles."


The Gun Dealers' Quandary

Several gun dealers who cooperated with ATF told CBS News and Congressional investigators they only went through with suspicious sales because ATF asked them to.

Sometimes it was against the gun dealer's own best judgment.
Read the email (http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/atf_investigation_02_111207.pdf)

In April, 2010 a licensed gun dealer cooperating with ATF was increasingly concerned about selling so many guns. "We just want to make sure we are cooperating with ATF and that we are not viewed as selling to the bad guys," writes the gun dealer to ATF Phoenix officials, "(W)e were hoping to put together something like a letter of understanding to alleviate concerns of some type of recourse against us down the road for selling these items."

Read the email (http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/atf_investigation_01_111207.pdf)
ATF's group supervisor on Fast and Furious David Voth assures the gun dealer there's nothing to worry about. "We (ATF) are continually monitoring these suspects using a variety of investigative techniques which I cannot go into detail."

Two months later, the same gun dealer grew more agitated.

"I wanted to make sure that none of the firearms that were sold per our conversation with you and various ATF agents could or would ever end up south of the border or in the hands of the bad guys. I guess I am looking for a bit of reassurance that the guns are not getting south or in the wrong hands...I want to help ATF with its investigation but not at the risk of agents (sic) safety because I have some very close friends that are US Border Patrol agents in southern AZ as well as my concern for all the agents (sic) safety that protect our country."

"It's like ATF created or added to the problem so they could be the solution to it and pat themselves on the back," says one law enforcement source familiar with the facts. "It's a circular way of thinking."

The Justice Department and ATF declined to comment. ATF officials mentioned in this report did not respond to requests from CBS News to speak with them.

The "Demand Letter 3" Debate

The two sides in the gun debate have long clashed over whether gun dealers should have to report multiple rifle sales. On one side, ATF officials argue that a large number of semi-automatic, high-caliber rifles from the U.S. are being used by violent cartels in Mexico. They believe more reporting requirements would help ATF crack down. On the other side, gun rights advocates say that's unconstitutional, and would not make a difference in Mexican cartel crimes.

Two earlier Demand Letters were initiated in 2000 and affected a relatively small number of gun shops. Demand Letter 3 was to be much more sweeping, affecting 8,500 firearms dealers in four southwest border states: Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas. ATF chose those states because they "have a significant number of crime guns traced back to them from Mexico." The reporting requirements were to apply if a gun dealer sells two or more long guns to a single person within five business days, and only if the guns are semi-automatic, greater than .22 caliber and can be fitted with a detachable magazine.

On April 25, 2011, ATF announced plans to implement Demand Letter 3. The National Shooting Sports Foundation is suing the ATF to stop the new rules. It calls the regulation an illegal attempt to enforce a law Congress never passed. ATF counters that it has reasonably targeted guns used most often to "commit violent crimes in Mexico, especially by drug gangs."

Reaction

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, is investigating Fast and Furious, as well as the alleged use of the case to advance gun regulations. "There's plenty of evidence showing that this administration planned to use the tragedies of Fast and Furious as rationale to further their goals of a long gun reporting requirement. But, we've learned from our investigation that reporting multiple long gun sales would do nothing to stop the flow of firearms to known straw purchasers because many Federal Firearms Dealers are already voluntarily reporting suspicious transactions. It's pretty clear that the problem isn't lack of burdensome reporting requirements."

On July 12, 2011, Sen. Grassley and Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., wrote Attorney General Eric Holder, whose Justice Department oversees ATF. They asked Holder whether officials in his agency discussed how "Fast and Furious could be used to justify additional regulatory authorities." So far, they have not received a response. CBS News asked the Justice Department for comment and context on ATF emails about Fast and Furious and Demand Letter 3, but officials declined to speak with us.

"In light of the evidence, the Justice Department's refusal to answer questions about the role Operation Fast and Furious was supposed to play in advancing new firearms regulations is simply unacceptable," Rep. Issa told CBS News.

[trish]

Stinks as much as Project Gun Runner and Wide Receiver.

[onmyknees]

Stinks as much as Project Gun Runner and Wide Receiver.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2eK4KEsie2w

[trish]

Like I said, it stinks as much as Project Gunrunner and Wide Receiver.

[Stavros]

I think that a more balanced approach to this subject would suggest that Fast and Furious is a stalking operation in the same way that the police and the agencies often tag and follow drug shipments to trace the dealers and the owners. It is inevitable that some of the material will go the wrong way -however, this report from Thursday's Guardian suggests that the cartels are using US citizens in Texas to buy their weapons of choice, even though Pruett in the film disputes this -and in spite of the evidence that it does happen.

A) Congress is so terrified of the NRA it is, in effect, colluding with the cartels in their campaign to replace the state in Mexico;
B) Evidence from Washington DC shows that the dramatic collapse in gun crime in the last 15 years compared to the 1990s is driven in part by better policing and custodial sentences, but, crucially, through a collapse in demand for the crack cocaine that fuelled dysfunctional behaviour, gun and turf wars -young people grew up and shunned the stuff -but the people who shove cocaine up their nose are the people for whom the trade exists, that is the root of the problem.

The article is linked below.
How Mexico's drug cartels profit from flow of guns across the border

Cartels using US residents to buy guns legally and smuggle them across the border as Mexico pleads with Congress to act






Chris McGreal (http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/chrismcgreal) in Houston
guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/), Thursday 8 December 2011 14.40 GMT



'The majority of the weapons used by the cartels are coming from the US' Link to this video (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2011/dec/08/mexico-drug-wars-us-guns)



If anyone at Academy sports shop in Houston was suspicious as John Hernandez pushed $2,600 in cash across the counter, they kept it to themselves.
The 25 year-old unemployed machinist in dark glasses walked out of the gun shop clutching three powerful assault rifles modelled on the US army's M-16.
A few weeks later, Hernandez bought five similar weapons at another Houston gun shop, Carter's Country. There were few questions on that occasion, either, or as he visited other weapons stores across the city in the following months until he had bought a total of 14 assault rifles and nine other weapons for nearly $25,000.
With each purchase, all the law required was that Hernandez prove he lived in Texas and wait a few minutes while the store checked he had no criminal record.
Months later, one of those assault rifles was seized in neighbouring Mexico (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/mexico) at the scene of the "Acapulco police massacre", after one of the country's most powerful drug cartels killed five officers and two secretaries in an attack at the beach resort once regarded as a millionaires' playground. Another was recovered after the kidnap and murder of a cattle buyer. Others were found in the hands of top-level enforcers for narcotics traffickers, or abandoned after attacks on Mexican police and the military. The guns have been tied to eight killings in Mexico.
In time, US federal agents discovered that Hernandez was at the heart of a ring of two dozen people who bought more than 300 weapons from Texas gun shops for one of the more notorious Mexican drug cartels, Los Zetas. Some of those guns have since been linked to the killings of at least 18 Mexican police officers and civilians, including members of the judiciary and a businessman who was abducted and murdered.
The weapons bought by Hernandez and his ring were just a fraction of the tens of thousands smuggled across the US's southern border to cartels fighting a bloody war with the Mexican government that has claimed about 45,000 lives in five years.
It's a war sustained by a merry-go-round. The cartels use the money paid by Americans for drugs to buy weapons at US guns stores, which are then shipped across the frontier, often using the same vehicles and routes used to smuggle more narcotics north. The weapons are used by the cartels to protect narcotics production in their battle with the Mexican police and army, and smuggle drugs north.
Key to the cycle is the ease with which traffickers are able to obtain guns in the US, made possible in large part by the robust opposition of the powerful gun lobby – backed by much of the US Congress – to tighter laws against arms trafficking.
"The United States (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/usa) is the easiest and the cheapest place for drug traffickers to get their firearms, and as long as we are the easiest and cheapest place for the cartels to get their firearms there'll continue to be gun trafficking," said J Dewey Webb, the special agent in charge of pursuing weapons traffickers in Texas at the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).
Kristen Rand, director of the Violence Policy Centre which campaigns for greater gun control, said drug traffickers face little more than a few logistical difficulties in buying weapons in America.
"If you wanted to design a set of laws to encourage gun trafficking, that is what the US has done," she said. "The traffickers are able to access a high volume of assault weapons, sniper rifles, armour-piercing handguns. All the weapons they need to wage war are readily available on the civilian market. There's basically nothing to stop them other than the annoyance of having to round up enough people to buy them."
'All the weapons are bought in the US'
It's even easier to buy ammunition. While many US states demand a driving licence to buy common types of cold medicine that can also be used to manufacture the drug meth amphetamine, not a single state requires identification to purchase ammunition, even in large quantities.
According to the US Government Accountability Office, 87% of firearms seized by Mexico over the previous five years were traced to the US. Texas was the single largest source. The US attorney general, Eric Holder, told Congress last month that of 94,000 weapons captured from drug traffickers by the Mexican authorities, over 64,000 originated in the US.
http://1.2.3.11/bmi/static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2011/12/8/1323352976335/US-guns-used-in-Mexican-d-007.jpg Tens of thousands of guns have been smuggled across the US's southern border. Photograph: Ronaldo Schemidt/AFP/Getty Images One of the most senior members of the Zetas, Jesus Enrique Rejon Aguilar, said after his capture in July that the cartel is armed by weapons from American gun shops.
"All the weapons are bought in the United States," he said in a video recorded by the Mexican federal police (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sd1SW8SS8ew&feature=player_embedded).
Only legal residents of Texas can buy guns over the counter, so the cartels use people such as Hernandez, who has since been jailed for eight years along with other members of his ring, as "straw purchasers".
"We see them being paid $50 to $500 a time. In these times, that's a lot of money for folks," said Webb. "What we've seen with the cartels is very elaborate schemes. They have people that handle the money. They have people that handle the transportation of the weapons. They use the same infrastructure they use to bring the drugs in. Sometimes even the same vehicles that move the narcotics north are the vehicles that move the firearms and the ammunition and money south."
The straw buyers are mostly in search of guns such as AK-47s and Armalite assault rifles, which were popular with the IRA, as well as powerful pistols such as the Belgian-made FN. All are available over the counter in thousands of gun shops.
Webb rests his hand on a long, heavy sniper rifle that fires a round nearly six inches long, seized on its way to Mexico.
"The cartels want that because it fires a round that can disable a vehicle by penetrating the engine. You can hit a target from almost a mile away with that. That gun sells for about $10,000 most places. Over the last five years we've seen an increase in demand by the traffickers for that gun," he said.
"We had a case not too long ago where a juvenile, through his iPhone, was able to buy one of those weapons from a licensed dealer and then sent an adult in to straw-purchase the gun."
Jim Pruett's gun store in northern Houston sells the full array of weapons. "We've been through hurricanes here, many of them, where lawlessness prevails for a short period of time. If something like that hits, you're gonna have to defend yourself," said Pruett, standing next to a gun target that characterises Osama bin Laden as a zombie. "I think the zombies are real in that they are the meth addicts, the crazed cartel druggies."
Pruett said he sees suspicious buyers on a regular basis. He still sells them guns but then reports them.
"Is there racial profiling? Yes. If they're Hispanic and they're female and they're buying 10 AK-47s, yes, that's a red light and we're gonna call ATF and let them know about it," he said.
Has he had such a customer?
"Yes. We unofficially found out she was taking the guns south and turning AK's in to fully automatic," he said. "Gun store owners are patriotic. We want to get the bad guys."
Pruett said he also turned in a man who bought 10 AR-15s, the civilian version of the army's M-16.
Last month, Holder told Congress that the US is "losing the battle" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/08/us-losing-battle-guns-mexico?INTCMP=SRCH) to stem the flow of weapons, and appealed for stronger legislation. Last year, Mexico's president, Felipe Calderon, pleaded with the US Congress to act.
"There is one issue where Mexico needs your cooperation, and that is stopping the flow of assault weapons and other deadly arms across the border," he said.
In July, two Democratic party members of Congress sponsored legislation to make weapons trafficking a federal crime. It has widespread support among police officers including the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association which represents more than 26,000 federal agents.
'Virtually moribund' Congress
But the bill is facing stiff resistance from a gun lobby that says new laws are the thin end of a wedge that will result in the government confiscating all weapons. Wayne LaPierre, chief executive of the National Rifle Association, one of the most powerful lobby groups in the US, has said that tightening gun laws will penalise hunters and those Americans who buy firearms for self-defence.
Many members of Congress, often with one eye on the NRA, are also resistant.
Politicians who speak alarmingly of the threat to the US from the bloodshed on its southern border, and use it to call for tighter immigration controls, are often the ones who most strongly oppose even the most minimal new measures to stem the flow of weapons.
A report by the US senate's narcotics control caucus (https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&doc=143589&coll=limited) in June said: "Congress has been virtually moribund while powerful Mexican drug trafficking organisations continue to gain unfettered access to military-style firearms coming from the United States".
"The reason it doesn't happen is because the National Rifle Association owns Congress," said Rand. "Congress is right now working to pass legislation to loosen the restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons. There's no will, no leadership from the White House."
The Obama administration has spurned appeals to reinstate a ban on the importation of AK-47s and other kinds of foreign-made assault rifles that was in place during the Clinton administration but dropped by President Bush.
The ATF, which falls under Holder's jurisdiction, earlier this year began requiring gun shops in the four US states bordering Mexico to report to authorities if the same person buys two or more assault rifles and some other guns over a five-day period. Congress has tried to block the measure, to Holder's frustration.
"Unfortunately, earlier this year, the House of Representatives actually voted to keep law enforcement in the dark when individuals purchase multiple semi-automatic rifles and shotguns in south-west border gun shops," Holder told Congress.
The gun lobby's strategy has been to go on the attack by questioning whether the cartels are being armed by guns bought in the US at all. It's a view shared by Pruett.
"The idea that Jim Pruett's guns and ammo are supplying the drug cartels with weapons is totally unsound thinking," said Pruett. "The drug cartels probably have more money than Mexico. They get AR-15s, rocket launchers, explosives, you name it, by the cargo container full, probably through legal means. Probably El Salvador is more of a sieve for the influx of guns than the United States is … The argument ends with: the United States does not supply the cartels with weapons."
Webb scoffs at the idea. Although restrained by his position from openly criticising the politics of the issue, he is clearly frustrated at the unwillingness of Congress to act.
"There's some common sense things about the way things should be done," he said.
But ultimately, Webb says it's the drug buyers who are responsible.
"Every person that pays for that marijuana, that meth, that cocaine is paying for the tools of the trade which are guns. Those people that are buying the drugs are just as responsible as the people buying those guns, just as responsible as the people pulling the triggers in Mexico. The drug use in this country is fuelling that machine. It's a never-ending cycle," he said.
Mexico's president sees it differently.
"Why does this arms business continue?" Calderon said in June. "I say it openly: it's because of the profit which the US arms industry makes."




http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/08/us-guns-mexico-drug-cartels

[onmyknees]

[QUOTE=Stavros;1059924]I think that a more balanced approach to this subject would suggest that Fast and Furious is a stalking operation in the same way that the police and the agencies often tag and follow drug shipments to trace the dealers and the owners. It is inevitable that some of the material will go the wrong way -however, this report from Thursday's Guardian suggests that the cartels are using US citizens in Texas to buy their weapons of choice, even though Pruett in the film disputes this -and in spite of the evidence that it does happen.

A) Congress is so terrified of the NRA it is, in effect, colluding with the cartels in their campaign to replace the state in Mexico;
B) Evidence from Washington DC shows that the dramatic collapse in gun crime in the last 15 years compared to the 1990s is driven in part by better policing and custodial sentences, but, crucially, through a collapse in demand for the crack cocaine that fuelled dysfunctional behaviour, gun and turf wars -young people grew up and shunned the stuff -but the people who shove cocaine up their nose are the people for whom the trade exists, that is the root of the problem.




With all due respect...you're a way off base Stavros. If that was the intent, a 23 year old police academy grad could tell you with the technology that exists today, a GPS chip could have been planted in each one of these firearms, and it's location tracked by satellite. Obviously there were other motives, as we know the gun dealers repeatedly called ATF prior to selling to these guns to suspicious Mexicans, and were told to sell them all the guns they wanted. So why then did ATF and the Justice Department allow over 2000 highly dangerous weapons to walk across the border? Read the CBS article again by Ms. Atkinson. The intent was to allow them to walk and to be used , exactly as they were....violently ........to influence national public opinion against firearms, thinking that the body count and carnage would move public opinon against gun rights. I guarantee heads will roll, as the blood over 200 innocent Mexican citizens and one Border Agent is on the hands of every Justice Department official who knew about this, and knew there was no way to track these weapons once they left the gun store. Somebody's goin down, and I can only hope it's Holder. His limited powers of recollection, and his refusal to be sworn in before testifying tell you all you need to know. He has a long history of curious associations. Google The Mark Rich Pardon.

While everyone acknowledges the violence south of the border, and the role guns from the US have in that violence, this poorly thought out, politically motivated plan was not the way to deal with that. Issa and Grassley are not going away, so stay tuned.

[russtafa]

We have very tough and restrictive gun laws in Australia and we have never had so many drive bys or gun crimes so i don't think these laws work it just gives more power to the criminals

[trish]

Bullshit

[russtafa]

Bullshitnot bullshit there are home invasions
and more dive bys than ever and i know your personal prejudice's stop you from accepting the truth but that's your hang up.The victims of these crimes sure wish they could protect themselves

[Stavros]

No 1 is that the core issue is the trade in banned narcotics. My assumption is that the economic downturn has actually reduced demand in the USA and that this drop in revenue is as much a part of the inter-cartel conflict in Mexico as the general business argument -I have read various reports of the drug trade being worth X billion $ in one paper with a different figure in another. It is still worth a lot of money, but the business exists because it has customers; greater public awareness of the costs of that snort and that fix (which usually comes via Afghanistan and Pakistan) could, over time, persuade the next generation to try something else to get their kicks; I don't think the current generation of users cares one way or the other how many Mexicans get killed.

The 2nd issue is the hardy perennial of gun control -the USA is addicted to killing, the right to bear arms has been debated again and again and again, but if you are going to reserve the right to buy them, at least make obtaining a weapon as hard as possible, and how can any sane individual want to own an automatic weapon that looks like something out of a war film? What is that used for? Even hunters must surely believe that you have one shot to get the deer, isn't that how they rank each other's ability?

The 3rd Issue is that if the Obama administration devised this policy and it has failed, they must admit it, and find something else. The Obama administration has less of an impact on the cartel wars than drug users, I feel you are trying too hard to smear the Obama administration with any and every calumny you can think of -even the 'neo-cons' didn't bomb the cartels residences into rubble yet they were indifferent to the rubble left behind in Iraq -on day 1 they blasted a private house into dust because someone told them Saddam was eating dinner there -he wasn't, 25 people were killed, and none of them got any compensation. And Mexico's crime has direct impact on the USA in a way Iraq never has.

There is a 4th Issue, and that is whether or not the Calderon administration in Mexico went about this issue the wrong way, and has actually generated more violence than would have happened had the focus been on the manifestly corrupt military and police services of that country. The rule of law? Whose law?
I used to know a well-educated Mexican here in the UK who despaired of his country's political administrations -an oil rich country with plenty of oil that hasn't been discovered in the Gulf, none of which 'trickles' anywhere near the pueblo. In the end, he said, you create a niche for yourself and your family in some town or some city, try to stay in work, eat, pray and play and just hope the reality that is sometimes only metres away doesn't come through the front or the back door.

Ultimately, the drugs trade is just an illegal part of the capitalist system, a system that has no emotional sentiment or morals; it has one motive -to make money: undermine that and you undermine crime syndicates at the level of the cartels, given that there will always be some criminal underworld -but there is no reason why anyone should live in a country where organised crime is, in effect, a parallel government. After all, some people believe elected governments are not much different.

[BluegrassCat]

No 1 is that the core issue is the trade in banned narcotics. My assumption is that the economic downturn has actually reduced demand in the USA and that this drop in revenue is as much a part of the inter-cartel conflict in Mexico as the general business argument -I have read various reports of the drug trade being worth X billion $ in one paper with a different figure in another. It is still worth a lot of money, but the business exists because it has customers; greater public awareness of the costs of that snort and that fix (which usually comes via Afghanistan and Pakistan) could, over time, persuade the next generation to try something else to get their kicks; I don't think the current generation of users cares one way or the other how many Mexicans get killed.

The 2nd issue is the hardy perennial of gun control -the USA is addicted to killing, the right to bear arms has been debated again and again and again, but if you are going to reserve the right to buy them, at least make obtaining a weapon as hard as possible, and how can any sane individual want to own an automatic weapon that looks like something out of a war film? What is that used for? Even hunters must surely believe that you have one shot to get the deer, isn't that how they rank each other's ability?

The 3rd Issue is that if the Obama administration devised this policy and it has failed, they must admit it, and find something else. The Obama administration has less of an impact on the cartel wars than drug users, I feel you are trying too hard to smear the Obama administration with any and every calumny you can think of -even the 'neo-cons' didn't bomb the cartels residences into rubble yet they were indifferent to the rubble left behind in Iraq -on day 1 they blasted a private house into dust because someone told them Saddam was eating dinner there -he wasn't, 25 people were killed, and none of them got any compensation. And Mexico's crime has direct impact on the USA in a way Iraq never has.

There is a 4th Issue, and that is whether or not the Calderon administration in Mexico went about this issue the wrong way, and has actually generated more violence than would have happened had the focus been on the manifestly corrupt military and police services of that country. The rule of law? Whose law?
I used to know a well-educated Mexican here in the UK who despaired of his country's political administrations -an oil rich country with plenty of oil that hasn't been discovered in the Gulf, none of which 'trickles' anywhere near the pueblo. In the end, he said, you create a niche for yourself and your family in some town or some city, try to stay in work, eat, pray and play and just hope the reality that is sometimes only metres away doesn't come through the front or the back door.

Ultimately, the drugs trade is just an illegal part of the capitalist system, a system that has no emotional sentiment or morals; it has one motive -to make money: undermine that and you undermine crime syndicates at the level of the cartels, given that there will always be some criminal underworld -but there is no reason why anyone should live in a country where organised crime is, in effect, a parallel government. After all, some people believe elected governments are not much different.

Stavros, you've once again let informed analysis distract you from the point of the post. The OP doesn't actually care about this issue. It's only interesting as a partisan tool to bash the president and his administration.

And wasn't the OP ranting just the other day about the lack of coverage of this issue by CBS, only to turn around and create a whole thread relying on CBS coverage? The ability to manage dissonance must be herculean.

[Stavros]

Fair point, BluegrassCat. On the other hand, without opening up a major debate on gun control, I am interested in the Mexican situation and its ramifications, The Guardian, more so than other UK papers, has carried a fair amount of in-depth reporting on the drug wars. I would rather onmyknees focused on that instead of Obama-bashing which is inevitable but tedious at the same time.

[hippifried]

Bullshit
Uh oh... There's those hangups again. Better go get a Prozac & some counseling.

[fred41]

Politics aside ...it's perfectly reasonable to bash (criticize) someone in the President's administration (such as Eric Holder) without bashing the President. It has been done in previous administrations. It may , in fact...be time for Mr. Holder to go...we will just have to wait and see.

[Ben]

The always entertaining Alex Jones (albeit I've big disagreements with him) on FAF....

Alex Jones: Operation Fast and Furious - Government / CIA Trafficking Drugs and Guns - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiT1yKCYkuA)

[onmyknees]

Stavros, you've once again let informed analysis distract you from the point of the post. The OP doesn't actually care about this issue. It's only interesting as a partisan tool to bash the president and his administration.

And wasn't the OP ranting just the other day about the lack of coverage of this issue by CBS, only to turn around and create a whole thread relying on CBS coverage? The ability to manage dissonance must be herculean.

You're a whining, sniveling, knee jerk liberal. You're a hopeless excuse for a independently thinking, informed individual. Note that your first comment on this thread, or the matter in general is to blindly run to the defense of Obama, and blame me. It shows a lack of intellectual honesty and curiosity. You state no facts to the contrary, no evidence to defend the program or Holder's Department, or for that matter even Holder. You bring nothing to the table but blind loyalty . Not once did I, Senator Grassley, Rep Issa, Ms. Atkinson, or anyone else suggest Obama's involvement. The evidence is clear, the facts sworn, the body count verified.....and strangely....it's all my fault. Don't you see what you've become ? This is precisely why I label you a sycophant. You can't even allow your self the possibility that this occurred as the facts showed. Or that the August letter to Congress stood for 6 months as public record until it was withdrawn because of what Holder termed "inconsistencies and inaccuracies". You will follow your Dear Leader anywhere he takes you.

And yes....It's a fact. Ms. Atkinson is the only Lame Stream Media person who has had the balls to ask questions. The NYT, WAPO, CNN, ABC, NBC, etc, etc seem to be more enamored with Newt's first wife then they are with 200 dead Mexicans, a dead Border Patrol Agent, and an attorney General who's had to come before Congress 3 times, and leaves more questions unanswered, then answered.




"The 3rd Issue is that if the Obama administration devised this policy and it has failed, they must admit it, and find something else. The Obama administration has less of an impact on the cartel wars than drug users, I feel you are trying too hard to smear the Obama administration with any and every calumny you can think of -even the 'neo-cons' didn't bomb the cartels residences into rubble yet they were indifferent to the rubble left behind in Iraq -on day 1 they blasted a private house into dust because someone told them Saddam was eating dinner there -he wasn't, 25 people were killed, and none of them got any compensation. And Mexico's crime has direct impact on the USA in a way Iraq never has."





Stavros......You need to spend more time watching C-Span ( do you get it over there?) and less time dreaming up defenses for Obama. You're very close to joining the same club Blue Grass Cat is a charter Member of. Your attempt to compare and conflate is foolish....You can do better, although I'm starting to think that might not be the case.

[Stavros]

I don't have access to the daily news feeds from various sources you have there, which gives you as an American a greater opportunity to weigh up the arguments within the USA, but I think if you look at this whole issue in structural terms, the intensification of the conflict in Mexico pre-dated the Obama administration, and the key links -the links that matter most- that the cartels have to the USA are through the supply chains for the customers that buy the dope the cartels have to sell. How does anyone on the streets of San Francisco or New York get their coke for the weekend party? Is it on sale in the drug store?

From that perspective, the Obama administration looks more like a sideshow than major players -unfortunately in Mexico's case even the sideshow is responsible for too many grisly deaths. But the stats and evidence also prove that weapons are being purchased in Texas by US passport holders on behalf of the cartels, and you can't deny that. yes, some shop owners are tipping off the police about suspicious purchasers, but it is happening, and your laws enable it to happen, and Obama, Holder and Congress seem incapable of limiting access to a whole range of weapons of mass destruction, which is what these things become over time. The bitter irony must be that a law designed to provide citizens with protection from a foreign enemy, is empowering cartels who are, in my distant estimation, enemies of democracy in America North, Central and South.

What are you doing about it?

It looks to me like nobody is emerging from this mess with any claim to the moral high ground -whatever Holder was doing doesn't seem to have worked; the same is true of Calderon.

My primary focus is on the root causes, which are supply and demand for marijuana and cocaine; the two principal products at issue. That guns are in the mix is reminiscent of the Reagan administration's involvement in the illegal narcotics and arms trades in Central America and the Middle East - a notorious figure called Oliver North comes to mind, and to compare and conflate, is he worse or better than Mr Holder?

[hippifried]

Root cause? The root cause of all drug related crime is one group of self righteous assholes dictating what type of recreation others can enjoy.

[Stavros]

Dictating? As in: Hippifried, yo Hernandez, I insist you snort cocaine tomorrow and pay my boys $100. How does Cocaine become today what Opium was in 1900?

[fred41]

Dictating? As in: Hippifried, yo Hernandez, I insist you snort cocaine tomorrow and pay my boys $100. How does Cocaine become today what Opium was in 1900?

Don't want to put words in his mouth..but I believe he is speaking about legalization.

[onmyknees]

I don't have access to the daily news feeds from various sources you have there, which gives you as an American a greater opportunity to weigh up the arguments within the USA, but I think if you look at this whole issue in structural terms, the intensification of the conflict in Mexico pre-dated the Obama administration, and the key links -the links that matter most- that the cartels have to the USA are through the supply chains for the customers that buy the dope the cartels have to sell. How does anyone on the streets of San Francisco or New York get their coke for the weekend party? Is it on sale in the drug store?

From that perspective, the Obama administration looks more like a sideshow than major players -unfortunately in Mexico's case even the sideshow is responsible for too many grisly deaths. But the stats and evidence also prove that weapons are being purchased in Texas by US passport holders on behalf of the cartels, and you can't deny that. yes, some shop owners are tipping off the police about suspicious purchasers, but it is happening, and your laws enable it to happen, and Obama, Holder and Congress seem incapable of limiting access to a whole range of weapons of mass destruction, which is what these things become over time. The bitter irony must be that a law designed to provide citizens with protection from a foreign enemy, is empowering cartels who are, in my distant estimation, enemies of democracy in America North, Central and South.

What are you doing about it?

It looks to me like nobody is emerging from this mess with any claim to the moral high ground -whatever Holder was doing doesn't seem to have worked; the same is true of Calderon.

My primary focus is on the root causes, which are supply and demand for marijuana and cocaine; the two principal products at issue. That guns are in the mix is reminiscent of the Reagan administration's involvement in the illegal narcotics and arms trades in Central America and the Middle East - a notorious figure called Oliver North comes to mind, and to compare and conflate, is he worse or better than Mr Holder?


Well we don't know yet. This investagation is far from over. Let's deflect to something that occured back in the 80's...shall we???....that should buy you enough time to piece together a little bit better defense of Holder/Obama

As I've told Trish ( who attempted the same bait and switch argument) while I don't condone the illegalties of Iran Contra, ( there were multiple convictions) at least the mission was understandable...to free American hostages where all other attempts had failed. And you may recall.......Reagan ultimately went before the American people and took full responsibility. How refreshing compared to the blame game crowd we currently are burdened with. I also don't overlook the evidence that the Contra's were involved in trafficing. But that's a good history lesson for another day. How about your libs deal with the here and now for a change?

[trish]

Fast and Furious
Project Gunrunner
Wide Receiver
Iran Contra

Four fucking sides of the same crazy trapezoid.

[Faldur]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_35kDzNt-gTQ/TSzUXJw7RKI/AAAAAAAAEQw/VXIXF5rO-lo/s1600/profiles_LiberalPlaybook_4124_515214.jpeg

[trish]

1. Fast and Furious is a despicable gun running program run by Obama's justice department. No facts being ignored there. But what is it that [you] are ignoring? Not even acknowledging? The existence of the precedents for Fast and Furious, namely Iran-Contra, Project Gunrunner and Wide Receiver. Gee why would you want to ignore the facts?
2. So since you don't think we should ignore the facts let's mention the precedents. Iran-Contra, Project Gunrunner and Wide Receiver. Oops! Am I blaming Bush? Can I help it if Bush is the source of so many of our more idiotic policies? No and no. I'm just recognizing the facts.
3. Oh, and this is weird. You just played the race card. WTF???

BTW, cartoons do the level of your thought a certain justice.

[Erika1487]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_35kDzNt-gTQ/TSzUXJw7RKI/AAAAAAAAEQw/VXIXF5rO-lo/s1600/profiles_LiberalPlaybook_4124_515214.jpeg

Pulling one from my playbook :cheers:

[Stavros]

Don't want to put words in his mouth..but I believe he is speaking about legalization.

Point taken, sometimes subtle comments pass unnoticed in this section of the board.

Onmyknees -realpolitik leads governments to do all sorts of things which they try to hide from the public, which bend or break domestic and international law -but it is noticeable that instead of discussing the key issue of illegal drug use, its manufacture and supply, and the criminal activities associated with it, your primary aim is to undermine the Obama administration. I am not suggesting it be exempt from criticism, but there are larger issues, and I don't know what the Republican contenders for the White House next year have to offer to deal with this problem, but that could just be lack of awareness on my part.

[BluegrassCat]

You're a whining, sniveling, knee jerk liberal. You're a hopeless excuse for a independently thinking, informed individual. Note that your first comment on this thread, or the matter in general is to blindly run to the defense of Obama, and blame me. It shows a lack of intellectual honesty and curiosity. You state no facts to the contrary, no evidence to defend the program or Holder's Department, or for that matter even Holder. You bring nothing to the table but blind loyalty . Not once did I, Senator Grassley, Rep Issa, Ms. Atkinson, or anyone else suggest Obama's involvement. The evidence is clear, the facts sworn, the body count verified.....and strangely....it's all my fault. Don't you see what you've become ? This is precisely why I label you a sycophant. You can't even allow your self the possibility that this occurred as the facts showed. Or that the August letter to Congress stood for 6 months as public record until it was withdrawn because of what Holder termed "inconsistencies and inaccuracies". You will follow your Dear Leader anywhere he takes you.

And yes....It's a fact. Ms. Atkinson is the only Lame Stream Media person who has had the balls to ask questions. The NYT, WAPO, CNN, ABC, NBC, etc, etc seem to be more enamored with Newt's first wife then they are with 200 dead Mexicans, a dead Border Patrol Agent, and an attorney General who's had to come before Congress 3 times, and leaves more questions unanswered, then answered.


Awww look who got butthurt. I guess I hit a little too close to home. lol. If you can't handle the heat of the politics section you better move on. But let's be real, as the whole board is well aware, you're a pinhead, a clown and worst of all a liar. Exhibit A: I "ran to the defense of Obama". Nope, never happened, you made it up. I won't defend this program because I think it's terrible. My point is that you don't give a fuck about the program, you just want to bash the prez. You're so concerned about 200 dead Mexican citizens? Where's your thread about the hundred thousand dead Iraqis? Your approach to politics is based entirely on which team it helps or hurts. You don't understand or even attempt to understand the issues, just repeat the talking points that FNC shovels your way. You breathlessly report back here every little bit of partisan ammunition you pick up in your echo chamber like a toddler picking up trash in a playground to show her mommy. You play at politics, aping the speech and sound of people with actual thoughts, but with you, there's no there there.

[onmyknees]

Awww look who got butthurt. I guess I hit a little too close to home. lol. If you can't handle the heat of the politics section you better move on. But let's be real, as the whole board is well aware, you're a pinhead, a clown and worst of all a liar. Exhibit A: I "ran to the defense of Obama". Nope, never happened, you made it up. I won't defend this program because I think it's terrible. My point is that you don't give a fuck about the program, you just want to bash the prez. You're so concerned about 200 dead Mexican citizens? Where's your thread about the hundred thousand dead Iraqis? Your approach to politics is based entirely on which team it helps or hurts. You don't understand or even attempt to understand the issues, just repeat the talking points that FNC shovels your way. You breathlessly report back here every little bit of partisan ammunition you pick up in your echo chamber like a toddler picking up trash in a playground to show her mommy. You play at politics, aping the speech and sound of people with actual thoughts, but with you, there's no there there.



You're despicable. You "think the program is terrible" , but immediately pull the liberal bait and switch. It's a throw away line to you. You could have/should have ended your post there, and in that way perhaps not be seen as the dupe you are. But you couldn't resist the inclinations of your dogma....change the subject, conflate, compare, blame on others, try to justify this incident with other dissimilar incidents.. First off.....what the fuck does a UN approved, US, Congressional approved , Coalition approved military action in Iraq have to do with Mexican drug dealers shooting civilians with guns obtained with the blessing of the ATF?
Yes there were civilians killed in Iraq. There were civilians killed in London in 1941-45, and in Germany, and in every country in Europe, so for you to use that as some justification for what you perceive as my indifference to Mexican deaths is deplorable, but that's what you liberals do. Yes..this is about the Obama Administration, it's about incompetence, and the overwhelming political urge to sway public opinion about second amendment rights. It's about how they've handled the aftermath.

Is your inference that US troops and or the US Government had a hand in 100,000 deaths? And where are you getting this 100,000 figure. Media Matters ? Go back and do your homework and breakdown that 100,000 figure before I think of you as a bigger fool than you've displayed to date. Then tell me how many US soldiers were killed or wounded because of the historically stringent rules of engagement they were under in Iraq in an attempt to protect civilians. Tell me about this 100,000 figure....do you recall Haditha? A total of 15 ( fifteen) Iraqis were killed by US Marines, and it was news for months. Set aside who you believe, that according to Time magazine was the worst US incident involving civilians of the war. That was 15 people, and your number is 100,000. How many of that 100,000 were killed by suicide bombers?...how many killed by insurgents? Surely if 100,000 were killed there must be multiple incidents of multiple deaths at the hands of US bombs...where are they? Show me.

Now...can we get back to Fast and Furious, or should we discuss the civilian deaths in Dresden in 1944 or the siege at Stalingrad ?? Can you see how absurd you are? I can understand defending your guy, but to use Iraqi deaths in doing so says a lot about who you are.

[loth17]

Fast and Furious is another plate of steaming shit that the ATF has come up with. Hopefully all firearms related crimes will be switched back to the FBI and the ATF can just deal with permits like SBRS. Now as far as gun control goes these buyers could never have gotten the guns if the ATF had not told the FFLs to sell the weapons anyways. What I don't get is why the cartels were interested in the weapons in the first place, lets face it in Mexico the cartels can get AK 47s that are select fire and cost 100 or so dollars, AKMS bought from us stores are going to cost around 500 and be semiautomatic. And if you look at the states with less gun control they have fewer crimes. Remember if someone has the right to live than they have the right to self defense. If they have the right to self defense than they have the right to the most effective means of self defense. If you take away the means you take away the right.