September 29, 2011
— Ace Is anyone going to cover this?
This just might be the smoking gun we’ve been waiting for to break the festering “Fast and Furious” gun-running scandal wide open: the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives apparently ordered one of its own agents to purchase firearms with taxpayer money, and sell them directly to a Mexican drug cartel.Let that sink in: After months of pretending that “Fast and Furious” was a botched surveillance operation of illegal gun-running spearheaded by the ATF and the US attorney’s office in Phoenix, it turns out that the government itself was selling guns to the bad guys.
Agent John Dodson was ordered to buy four Draco pistols for cash and even got a letter from his supervisor, David Voth, authorizing a federally licensed gun dealer to sell him the guns without bothering about the necessary paperwork.
“Please accept this letter in lieu of completing an ATF Form 4473 for the purchase of four (4) CAI, Model Draco, 7.62x39 mm pistols, by Special Agent John Dodson,” read the June 1, 2010, letter. “These aforementioned pistols will be used by Special Agent Dodson in furtherance of performance of his official duties.”On orders, Dodson then sold the guns to known criminals, who first stashed them away and then -- deliberately unhindered by the ATF or any other agency -- whisked them off to Mexico.
I think it was Dodson who specifically attempted to defy orders and surveil the safe-house where these guns were stored. But he was stopped.
This is the problem here, and this has been the problem from the start: This was not a "botched surveillance mistake" as the Administration is trying to peddle. The ATF goons in charge of this deliberately allowed the guns to be delivered into the hands of narcoterrorists with no surveillance whatsoever.
This is not a case where they watched 2000 guns, but lost 25 guns due to the inevitable problems with 24/7 surveillance. And that, oh bad luck, some of those 25 lost guns were used in crimes, such as the murder of Brian Terry.
They didn't watch any of them. Mexico wasn't even in the loop, so how the hell could they have watched where the guns went on the Mexican side of the border?
They didn't "lose" 2000 guns. They intended to let 2000 guns loose.
Why? This is the question, which the media does not seem interested in at all. And because the media isn't interested in asking why, the Administration gets away with the false cover story that this is just the story of a few guns going missing, while the other 1975 guns were always under the watchful eye of surveillers.
Why were all 2000 guns not lost but rather loosed?
What.
Was.
The.
Goal.
Because the goal was not to suddenly arrest dozens of narcoterrorists. How could they arrest them? They had no idea where the guns had gone.
The writer goes on to speculate about my "Moderate Iranian" theory:
There are two possible explanations. The first is that the anti-gun Obama administration deliberately wanted American guns planted in Mexico in order to demonize American firearms dealers and gun owners. The operation was manufacturing “evidence” for the president’s false claim that we’re to blame for the appalling levels of Mexican drug-war violence.If this is true, then Holder & Co. have got to go -- and the trail needs to be followed no matter where it leads. For the federal government to seek to frame its own citizens is unconscionable.
A second notion is that the CIA was behind the whole thing, which accounts for all the desperate wagon-circling. Under this theory, the Agency feared the los Zetas drug cartel was becoming too powerful and might even mount a coup against the Mexican government. So some 2,000 weapons costing more than $1.25 million were deliberately channeled to the rival Sinaloa cartel, which operates along the American border, to keep the Zetas in check.
That latter theory would not be as bad as the first -- the first theory being essentially a criminal conspiracy against the Second Amendment, American citizens, and a sovereign neighboring nation to boot -- but it would still be plenty bad. Reagan was nearly impeached over Iran/Contra.
But one theory we can discard is the Administration's -- the "just a mistake" theory.
Not a mistake. What was done here -- letting guns loose -- was not a bug. It was a feature. It was the plan from Jump Street.
So if that was the plan, What was the goal?
Oh By The Way: 200 people have been murdered with these same guns, possibly as many as 300.
Two points flow from this:
1) This wasn't "just a few guns." This was all of them.
2) If there was some sneaky, spectacular bust planned... um, me personally? I would have ordered the Big Bust when the bodycount got up to, uh, say 10.
Or maybe last freakin' year when an American border agent got killed.
There is no goal of a Big Bust then.
So:
What.
Was.
The.
Goal?
I'm allergic to big conspiracy theories but here, given what we know, I'm not calling the Big Conspiracy Theory crazy.
I'm just calling it "premature" and "less likely."
But the Administration is lying about the goal of this covert operation with a death toll of 200-300, and no one in the media seems terribly interested in pressing them on this point.
Posted by: Ace at
08:56 AM
| Comments (263)
Post contains 922 words, total size 6 kb.
Posted by: AuthorLMendez (Ban Curious) at September 29, 2011 09:01 AM (yAor6)
I want someone under oath to tell us WHY atf did this.
Posted by: PJ at September 29, 2011 09:01 AM (FlVA8)
Posted by: Entropy at September 29, 2011 09:01 AM (IsLT6)
Posted by: Lemmiwinks at September 29, 2011 09:02 AM (pdRb1)
Posted by: Dr Spank at September 29, 2011 09:02 AM (OGQrv)
Posted by: Harry at September 29, 2011 09:02 AM (IU2XY)
Posted by: IreneFingIrene at September 29, 2011 09:03 AM (JNqU9)
Posted by: alexthechick at September 29, 2011 09:03 AM (VtjlW)
At some point you're going to have to admit the goal was to take down the 2nd Amendment. I know it seems far-fetched, but there is simply no other reasonable justification for this operation.
Mind-blowing corruption executed with criminal incompetence. Why can't it be both?
Posted by: Johnny (John E.) at September 29, 2011 09:04 AM (nRTou)
This will definitely fall under High Crimes if Obama is linked to it.
Posted by: Harry at September 29, 2011 09:05 AM (IU2XY)
Posted by: The Outlaw in the Heavenly Hall at September 29, 2011 09:05 AM (YVHzv)
Treasonous fuckers.
Posted by: Lord Monochromicorn at September 29, 2011 09:05 AM (I3od0)
Maybe in Voth's twisted mind, letting a few more guns cross the border wasn't a big deal since they had already lost track of many, many more.
Posted by: Andy at September 29, 2011 09:06 AM (5Rurq)
Posted by: Dr Spank at September 29, 2011 01:02 PM
The Feds didn't need to provide the weapons for that. There's been mayhem there for years. It was to prove that most of the guns in Mexico come from the US because they could not prove it otherwise, because it is not so.
Posted by: huerfano at September 29, 2011 09:06 AM (263hv)
Posted by: Berserker at September 29, 2011 09:06 AM (FMbng)
Maybe in Voth's twisted mind, letting a few more guns cross the border wasn't a big deal since they had already lost track of many, many more.
When were they tracking them in the first place?
Posted by: alexthechick at September 29, 2011 09:07 AM (VtjlW)
Kind of like when we had to kill Eric Cartman to prove that second hand smoke kills children
Posted by: Rob Reiner at September 29, 2011 09:07 AM (pdRb1)
Posted by: Harry at September 29, 2011 09:07 AM (IU2XY)
We don't have to come up with scenarios anyway. Let the fucking administration answer these questions.
Posted by: Waterhouse at September 29, 2011 09:08 AM (16lYZ)
I suspect the second theory (CIA op against the Zetas) is far more probable than the first (which posits True Evil Actors and is therefore pretty hard to buy -- yes, even for the Obama administration).
Posted by: Jeff B. at September 29, 2011 09:08 AM (kRtDX)
Everyone connected to this operation needs to be arrested.
Posted by: EC at September 29, 2011 09:09 AM (GQ8sn)
Posted by: The Outlaw in the Heavenly Hall at September 29, 2011 09:10 AM (YVHzv)
Posted by: slatz at September 29, 2011 09:10 AM (mE0Rl)
I don't buy the anti-zetas angle. It's possible I suppose.
The alternative does not posit 'True Evil Actors' whatever that is. Whatever it was, I'm sure they all felt fully justified (or that they would be, in the ends).
Posted by: Entropy at September 29, 2011 09:11 AM (IsLT6)
Posted by: Johnny (John E.) at September 29, 2011 09:11 AM (nRTou)
Good point. Unless the CIA has gone full retard, it would have used untraceable guns made somewhere else.
Posted by: Dr Spank at September 29, 2011 09:11 AM (OGQrv)
Posted by: Joejm65 at September 29, 2011 09:12 AM (tpK0A)
Bingo
Posted by: Berserker at September 29, 2011 09:12 AM (FMbng)
Posted by: Jimmah at September 29, 2011 09:12 AM (g9KCn)
Sorry ... that should have been "lost track."
We already know that they planned on "tracking" them through recoveries at crime scenes after they crossed the border.
And by "tracking" I mean pinning Mexican violence on the 2nd Amendment.
I continue to think this was the goal all along.
Posted by: Andy at September 29, 2011 09:12 AM (5Rurq)
The goal was to fabricate a crisis that could only be remedied by cracking down on legitimate US gun dealers
Posted by: Lemmiwinks at September 29, 2011 09:13 AM (pdRb1)
Exactly, unless you actually want to leave a breadcrumb trail to frame somebody, in this case the US.
Posted by: Berserker at September 29, 2011 09:14 AM (FMbng)
29If this was a CIA operation, why not buy the guns from rogue arms suppliers and ship them into Mexico? Why buy from legitimate US dealers?
----
Because Zero wasn't supposed to get caught. Gun dealers were supposed to take the fall.
Posted by: Jimmah at September 29, 2011 09:14 AM (g9KCn)
Posted by: President Obama at September 29, 2011 09:14 AM (usXZy)
Posted by: Joejm65 at September 29, 2011 09:14 AM (tpK0A)
Drudge sometimes is a bit behind the curve these days. Just give him some time.
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at September 29, 2011 09:15 AM (9hSKh)
Posted by: ace at September 29, 2011 09:15 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: Dr Spank at September 29, 2011 09:15 AM (OGQrv)
Posted by: The Outlaw in the Heavenly Hall at September 29, 2011 09:15 AM (YVHzv)
They were attempting to show that "unregulated" things like gun shows and the like were the cause of the problem in Mexico, in an effort to get them more regulated.
"We know for a fact that a lot of the weapons are coming from firearms dealers," Golson said. "They're coming from gun shows and flea markets." Often, he says, private collectors are selling their weapons because "they don't have the same restrictions."
Posted by: lorien1973 at September 29, 2011 09:16 AM (usXZy)
Set gangs against each other AND use U.S. guns so that they can blame the second amendment on the violence in Mexico. Not a bad deal for a dedicated lefty. Hell, if they are REALLY lucky, Mexico may even revolt into a communist country. Now THAT would really be a lefty victory.
Posted by: DewyK at September 29, 2011 09:16 AM (N+Etq)
So if the CIA just wanted the Sianola cartel armed, some smarty-pants got the idea: "Wouldn't it be awesome for gun control if they were specifically armed with American-bought guns?!?"
But that's even more of a far-fetched conspiracy theory. Now you're dragging in another agency into mix that has to keep quiet.
Posted by: Johnny (John E.) at September 29, 2011 09:17 AM (nRTou)
Bu-dum-ka-cha!
Posted by: Bev Perdue, jokin' it up at September 29, 2011 09:17 AM (D5hxK)
Cuz I'm creating American jobs bitch!! Stimulating the economy n shit
Posted by: B to the O at September 29, 2011 09:17 AM (pdRb1)
Sarah Brady claims Obama pushing ‘under the radar’ gun control
Like he's just going to come out and give specifics on everything they have going on "under the radar"?
Posted by: Andy at September 29, 2011 09:17 AM (5Rurq)
Posted by: spongeworthy at September 29, 2011 09:17 AM (puy4B)
So we (the taxpayer) made a profit? Well it's all good then.
Posted by: Bob Saget at September 29, 2011 09:18 AM (F/4zf)
200 people have been murdered with these same guns, possibly as many as 300.
A death toll of 200-300, most of which are Mexican citizens. How is that not an act of war? Arming the enemies of the Mexican government? If you really wanted to take down the Zetas, why the hell would you arm the Sinaloa cartel but not the Mexican federales?
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at September 29, 2011 09:18 AM (4df7R)
No, after CNN came out with the lie that 90% of the guns used to kill civilians in Mexico can be traced to American dealers, and they got debunked, O had to make it true.
Either that, or CNN blew it and released the story early before O could get his ducks in a row.
So were we saved by a rogue ATF agent, or the incompetence of the MFM?
Posted by: brian at September 29, 2011 09:19 AM (y05cf)
That's why he's doing all he can to stonewall Issa and the investigation.
Posted by: EC at September 29, 2011 09:19 AM (GQ8sn)
Yeah.. that's another thing, this isn't quite anything like Iran Contra. The "moderate Iranian" tag for this theory throws me off, because the situations are quite quite different. For one thing we weren't selling guns to the Iranians because they were moderate. We were giving them guns because they wanted under-the-table money to supply the Contras.
The anti-Zetas theory is more similar to our past pre-90's relationship with Saddam Hussein and Iraq.
At any rate, I know we ought not speculate there's Ollie North level competence directed from the Obama whitehouse, but remember the whole point of selling guns to Iran was to get covert cash. The CIA went outside the US and the US government in Iran-Contra. Now they just go the ATF and the FBI? DOJ buys the guns and ATF delivers? That's not exactly maximum cover.
Posted by: Entropy at September 29, 2011 09:19 AM (IsLT6)
Posted by: © Sponge at September 29, 2011 09:20 AM (UK9cE)
That's a solid theory. Obama did say he wanted to cut the deficit in half. Maybe it was a deficit-reduction plan.
Ace, put that up as theory #3.
Posted by: Johnny (John E.) at September 29, 2011 09:20 AM (nRTou)
Possible. Based on everything I've seen on this, I just don't buy any theory that doesn't have a major anti-2nd amendment angle at this point.
I think it's primary, but it may have just been a feature not a bug. Time and a shitload of discovery will tell.
Posted by: Andy at September 29, 2011 09:21 AM (5Rurq)
Posted by: Arms Merchant at September 29, 2011 09:21 AM (kPT11)
Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at September 29, 2011 09:22 AM (cbyrC)
Posted by: Ron Paul!! at September 29, 2011 09:22 AM (OGQrv)
Posted by: lu at September 29, 2011 09:22 AM (IIQIM)
Posted by: Meiczyslaw at September 29, 2011 09:23 AM (bjRNS)
Posted by: rdbrewer at September 29, 2011 09:23 AM (BTPgV)
Posted by: Scott J at September 29, 2011 09:23 AM (/bVuS)
Posted by: rdbrewer at September 29, 2011 09:23 AM (BTPgV)
Posted by: Johnny (John E.) at September 29, 2011 01:11 PM (nRTou)
This.
From the rooftops people. From. The. Roof.
Posted by: © Sponge at September 29, 2011 09:24 AM (UK9cE)
I suspect the second theory (CIA op against the Zetas) is far more probable than the first (which posits True Evil Actors
Here's the thing on that - the actors do not consider themselves True Evil. In their minds, they are True Good and are attempting to Win A Noble Cause. So some Mexican eggs get broken in the process, pffft, whatevs, it's just Mexicans. When the villians of the piece believe they are the heroes, well, that makes it a touch more believable.
I am leaning towards the CIA version because this is incompetent enough to come from the CIA.
Randomly: am I the only one who watched Person of Interest? I quite liked it, not just because of Jim Caviezel shooting people, mainly but not just. What I liked about it was that it was creepy and all that but it has a very definite there are evil people and we are going to shoot them first. We'll see if it keeps that up as the show goes on.
Posted by: alexthechick at September 29, 2011 09:24 AM (VtjlW)
Posted by: Dr Spank at September 29, 2011 09:24 AM (OGQrv)
Reagan was NEARLY IMPEACHED over arming the Contras. The only 'non-evil-actor' theory in play right now is the 'arming the other cartel' theory.
Is anyone going to say a word about this?
Posted by: Washington Nearsider at September 29, 2011 09:24 AM (wnbjH)
They were saying that US. guns was the problem before the whistle was blown. Also they are still using this to make the gun dealers report sales of more than one gun by one person. Its clearly a anti gun scheme gome bad.
Posted by: kennyg at September 29, 2011 09:24 AM (EbX5i)
Whatever the main goal was, the attack on the 2d Amendment was pure gravy to them and should be enough to bring down this administration.
Posted by: real joe at September 29, 2011 09:25 AM (xovnt)
Posted by: Dennis at September 29, 2011 09:25 AM (5XelG)
So this agent comes in for four of these to use in his 'duties', but you would never see a Federal Agent defend himself with a weapon like this. Not that we didn't already understand that, but it's good to understand the weapons.
Posted by: Dustin at September 29, 2011 09:26 AM (fF625)
If I recall correctly from many years ago the "stained blue dress" started out this way as well. But at least Monica's blow jobs and Clinton's perjury didn't kill anybody.
Posted by: Vic at September 29, 2011 09:26 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: Meiczyslaw at September 29, 2011 09:27 AM (bjRNS)
Posted by: dogfish at September 29, 2011 09:27 AM (NuPNl)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at September 29, 2011 09:28 AM (8y9MW)
/ATF
Posted by: Andy at September 29, 2011 01:25 PM (5Rurq)
Out of context!!!!
Posted by: © Sponge at September 29, 2011 09:28 AM (UK9cE)
It's not our fault. It was a botched sting operation intended to put a corrupt Leftist puppet into the White House. We were going to track the rogue President and find out who showed up at his crime scenes, but he slipped the leash and got away from us. That 747 of his flies fast and furious, don't you know.
Posted by: Special Agent Hussein Soetoro, B.A., J.D., B.F.D. at September 29, 2011 09:28 AM (w41GQ)
Whatever actually happened.
This isn't a legal case or a movie plot or something. It's just life. Where means are ends and "goals" are rationalizations of what actually, knowably, foreseebly gets done.
They wanted to sell guns to killers, for killers to kill people with. So they did it.
Posted by: oblig. at September 29, 2011 09:28 AM (xvZW9)
These guns were sold out of context
It was hyperbole.
You know... hyperbolizing the extent to which US guns cause Mexican drug crime.
Posted by: Entropy at September 29, 2011 09:28 AM (IsLT6)
Posted by: Dr Spank at September 29, 2011 01:26 PM (OGQrv)
Bush didn't do it.
Posted by: © Sponge at September 29, 2011 09:29 AM (UK9cE)
Posted by: RioBravo at September 29, 2011 09:29 AM (eEfYn)
It's the administration use of its own gunrunning to smear law-abiding merchants, and by extension all law-abiding gun owners, that reeks to high heaven. The assholes who planned and carried this out deserve to go to prison.
Posted by: Brown Line at September 29, 2011 09:29 AM (VrNoa)
Feinstein, Schumer, Whitehouse Report Calls for Stronger U.S. Response to Firearms Trafficking to Mexico
They're so brazen that they keep on fucking this chicken even with F&F having been exposed.
Posted by: Andy at September 29, 2011 09:29 AM (5Rurq)
Posted by: Scott J at September 29, 2011 09:29 AM (/bVuS)
Posted by: Entropy at September 29, 2011 09:30 AM (IsLT6)
I watched it and liked it. It's kind of like Batman split into two different characters. One is a smart, rich guy with the money and connections. The other is a human weapon, able to hand out ass-beatdowns.
Posted by: EC at September 29, 2011 09:30 AM (GQ8sn)
Those two things are inversely proportionate.
I'm just calling it "premature" and "less likely."
Why is it less likely than the CIA theory? Especially considering the CIA has other ways to front weapons to people it wants to have weapons.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at September 29, 2011 09:30 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Scott J at September 29, 2011 09:30 AM (/bVuS)
Posted by: cherry pi, terrorist hostage taking SOB at September 29, 2011 09:30 AM (OhYCU)
All joking aside, what was the goal? I don't get it.
No one does. The Underpants Gnomes would have laughed at this plan. There is no discernable earth logic behind what was done.
Posted by: alexthechick at September 29, 2011 09:31 AM (VtjlW)
It can't have been a CIA operation, because the ATF repeated the same activities in Indiana and Florida. Even if you buy the CIA involvement in Arizona, why duplicate it in Indiana and Florida, when the guns aren't even going to reach the anti-Zeta cartel?
Posted by: Meiczyslaw at September 29, 2011 09:31 AM (bjRNS)
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at September 29, 2011 09:32 AM (9hSKh)
Posted by: Dr Spank at September 29, 2011 01:26 PM (OGQrv)
Bush didn't do it.
But those terrorist Tea Baggers probably did.
Posted by: Jumpin Joe Biden at September 29, 2011 09:32 AM (pdRb1)
Posted by: weft cut-loop at September 29, 2011 09:32 AM (s1vtf)
The problem, simply put, is that those who are covering the story are unwilling (for reasons of "optics," I suppose) or unable to connect the dots.
It strains credulity to believe Holder and the rest of the stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure's lackeys were doing this on their own, expecting the SCoaMF to not notice or something. I would put the odds that Osama Obama his own treasonous self suggested/ordered/approved F&F at 100%.
For the "Poppin' Fresh" crowd, admitting this means actually having to voice a forceful opinion and take a stand. That's as foreign a concept to the "in fairness..." crowd as you can find.
This timidity on the part of people who claim to be "reporting" and anal-yzing the news is why the Traitor-in-Chief gets away with the felonious shit he pulls, and why he is likely to continue doing so.
Posted by: MrScribbler at September 29, 2011 09:33 AM (YjjrR)
Posted by: real joe at September 29, 2011 09:33 AM (xovnt)
I'd like to look into the finances of both David Voth and William Newell, who seem to be the 2 key players in this clusterfuck, for just that reason.
Posted by: Andy at September 29, 2011 09:33 AM (5Rurq)
200 or 300 mexicans killed with these guns is irrelevant. It's not like the cartels had a backlog of people to kill and were waiting on a gun in order to complete the task. What is relevant is stuttering clusterfuck apparently broke the law.
Posted by: Jimmah at September 29, 2011 09:33 AM (g9KCn)
Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at September 29, 2011 09:33 AM (cbyrC)
Posted by: rdbrewer at September 29, 2011 09:33 AM (BTPgV)
Why were all 2000 guns not lost but rather loosed?
...
What. Was. The. Goal.
[unquote]
As has been posted before:
The guns "loosed" point supports the "90% of all guns in Mexico come from the US" claim of Hillary and the Ds --> a torpedo aimed at the 2nd amendment.
The Goal, I suspect, was never very clear. I still think the original plan was cooked up by some idiotic political activists and sold to Jarrett, Holder, or maybe even JEF himself.
Perhaps instability in Mexico really is The Goal. It encourages emigration, and the US is the most likely destination ... the D's get more voters.
More importantly, it creates an area of armed violence along the US border, that really can only be controlled by the Federal government, and probably via quasi-military control ... and this area isn't some 10- or 20-mile deep zone. It stretches north to at least LA, Phoenix, San Antonio and Houston. Maybe even farther, depending on political suitability.
Quasi-military control strikes me as more along the lines of assuming control of the various state law enforcement agencies, and implementing investigation / item seizure / prosecution policies of a political nature, maybe even checkpoints for security, etc., rather than deploying the US military for the same purposes. The US military is clearly loyal to the American people.
The various state and federal law enforcement agencies are just as loyal, but they are much smaller, and generally self-contained and all their personnel (and families) are local ... political appointments, department shufflings and re-organizations, and an establishment of a new chain-of-command in, say, the Tucson PD, is much easier than doing the same in a military unit at Ft. Sam Houston.
Posted by: Arbalest at September 29, 2011 09:34 AM (zOyi0)
The CIA theory makes no sense. If they wanted to arm a gang in Mexico, they'd find easier and better ways of doing it than via purchasing guns at border gun shops. The fact that guns were bought in those shops, or permitted to be bought there, strongly suggests that the administration had a purpose that went beyond simply trying to maintain some sort of balance of power among Mexican criminal gangs.
Exactly. If the CIA wants Sinaloa to have guns, where the hell do the ATF, FBI, DOJ, licensed gun dealers and Cartel straw-buyers come into this?
The CIA wants to covertly arm the cartel so they pick the least covert, most official and highly convoluted route possible, just because they love to cooperate with and involve other (domestic) agencies in their international arms smuggling. WTF?
Posted by: Entropy at September 29, 2011 09:34 AM (IsLT6)
One is a smart, rich guy with the money and connections. The other is a human weapon, able to hand out ass-beatdowns.
Yup. I'm still pondering if Reese was at the suicidal point to accept that glass from the cop because he had to know that she would get prints or if he was just too drunk to care.
The bit with he and the gf in Mexio and the "Was there a plane crash? Two plane crashes?" was gutwrenching.
Posted by: alexthechick at September 29, 2011 09:34 AM (VtjlW)
Posted by: Heorot at September 29, 2011 09:35 AM (Nq/UF)
115, also the thought of us "icky" gun nutters actually being right doesn't sit well with many.
I've been a guncrank for 20 years now so I'm a bit bitter at being told to take a back seat on the conservative bus.
Posted by: Scott J at September 29, 2011 09:35 AM (/bVuS)
Posted by: runningrn at September 29, 2011 09:35 AM (0fUOB)
Posted by: joeindc44 at September 29, 2011 09:35 AM (QxSug)
Over. Whelming.
Posted by: real joe at September 29, 2011 09:36 AM (xovnt)
Posted by: Captain Hate at September 29, 2011 09:36 AM (OGZqf)
The Administration wrote an op-ed that tried to place the blame on Darrell Issa and then floated it to a bunch of major newspapers. The NYT, LAT and Boston Globe all thought it was too ridiculous to post. The Washington Post happily published it.
Posted by: Johnny (John E.) at September 29, 2011 09:36 AM (nRTou)
Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at September 29, 2011 09:37 AM (+lsX1)
Wait, what? There's a competent sheriff in Arizona?
How did that happen?
Posted by: Meiczyslaw at September 29, 2011 09:37 AM (bjRNS)
Posted by: cherry pi, terrorist hostage taking SOB at September 29, 2011 09:38 AM (OhYCU)
Posted by: Dennis at September 29, 2011 09:38 AM (wwok4)
Posted by: cherry pi, terrorist hostage taking SOB at September 29, 2011 01:38 PM (OhYCU)
finally something I can agree w/ you on
Posted by: AuthorLMendez (Ban k1rwm) at September 29, 2011 09:38 AM (yAor6)
While slipping guns to cartels, they facilitated our borders being porous, they wouldn't allow states to have their own security and send illegals caught, home. the Federal GVT went after states trying to slow the traffic and put in place laws that would help secure themselves.
it's lawless and malicious folks.
Posted by: willow at September 29, 2011 09:39 AM (h+qn8)
Posted by: Bev Cloggenstein From Raleigh at September 29, 2011 09:39 AM (9CpdA)
Posted by: Bosk at September 29, 2011 09:39 AM (n2K+4)
Yup. I'm still pondering if Reese was at the suicidal point to accept that glass from the cop because he had to know that she would get prints or if he was just too drunk to care.
The bit with he and the gf in Mexio and the "Was there a plane crash? Two plane crashes?" was gutwrenching.I don't think Reese knew the cops were going to run his prints until the smart black cop (who has to become an ally late in the season!) deduces his fighting prowess was far, far beyond anything from the streets. Right then, you see him sigh and realize he's been made. They've got him now!
I have a feeling we're going to be seeing his gf's SSN pop out of Finch's machine later on. That'll be the season cliffhanger.
Posted by: EC at September 29, 2011 09:39 AM (GQ8sn)
Posted by: runningrn at September 29, 2011 09:40 AM (0fUOB)
Are we positive they have immunity? And if they do and are not prosecuted, that eliminate the whole inconvenient "discovery" aspect of a court case.
Posted by: real joe at September 29, 2011 09:40 AM (xovnt)
Posted by: Bev Cloggenstein From Raleigh at September 29, 2011 09:40 AM (9CpdA)
It can't have been a CIA operation, because the ATF repeated the same activities in Indiana and Florida. Even if you buy the CIA involvement in Arizona, why duplicate it in Indiana and Florida, when the guns aren't even going to reach the anti-Zeta cartel?
Another cloying question with this CIA theory.
Where were the guns in Florida going again? Not Mexico...
Posted by: Entropy at September 29, 2011 09:40 AM (IsLT6)
Gee. What was the goal? What was the goal?
Alternative 1. Bad.
Alternative 2. Worse.
What does it add up to? Just the biggest political scandal in American history. So, the MSM ignores it.
Posted by: Gun Dick Stroking Nutter at September 29, 2011 09:40 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: The Q at September 29, 2011 09:41 AM (CJIam)
Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at September 29, 2011 09:41 AM (cbyrC)
and why did they clap and hoot when Calderon came into our house and yell about american guns?
while sending guns to cartels , gangs, and drug runners?
Posted by: willow at September 29, 2011 09:41 AM (h+qn8)
Posted by: cherry pi, terrorist hostage taking SOB at September 29, 2011 01:40 PM (OhYCU)
i'm a man. I don't get sammwhiches 
Posted by: AuthorLMendez (Ban k1rwm) at September 29, 2011 09:41 AM (yAor6)
Have a link for this? I don't suppose it'd be enough to tip the scales, but sure as hell couldn't hurt.
I'd love to see Ace go full-Weiner on this.
Well, not literally see....
Posted by: MrScribbler at September 29, 2011 09:42 AM (YjjrR)
Posted by: dogfish at September 29, 2011 09:43 AM (NuPNl)
Posted by: How Ironic at September 29, 2011 09:44 AM (rZZA3)
I posted this question at HotAir but I got no answer. Brian Terry's family already has a lawsuit going and at this rate beats Bart Simpson's 2 to 1. Then there's the Issa investigation leg.
If Issa's investigation goes nowhere, then the family files their lawsuit? What if Issa gets to the nitty gritty and there's more than this? I think one way or the other, the family will claw ATF and pounce on them. This can't be postponed, F&F must get traction NOW. Us bloggers can do so much!
Posted by: PPF at September 29, 2011 09:44 AM (uW+NQ)
Theory #6
There aren't enough Mexican competitors on "Top Shot" so we had to do something for diversity.
Posted by: Lemmiwinks at September 29, 2011 09:45 AM (pdRb1)
I'll look. I'll also try to find the clip of Kirstin Powers on Baier referencing the Washington Post story and Kraut dismissing it as admin propoganda. She responds, "I don't know, it's right here in the Washington Post"
Posted by: Johnny (John E.) at September 29, 2011 09:45 AM (nRTou)
I have a theory: Everyone involved thought everyone else know what the f*ck they were doing. Kind of like an Abilene paradox situation.
LOL- sadly, that's possible.
Posted by: jewells45, teapartyterrorist at September 29, 2011 09:45 AM (l/N7H)
20? Newbie!
Posted by: Andy at September 29, 2011 09:45 AM (5Rurq)
Holy carp. I've been following this, and I still missed that. Insane!
Posted by: Meiczyslaw at September 29, 2011 09:45 AM (bjRNS)
Posted by: Dennis at September 29, 2011 01:25 PM (5XelG)
Excellent point. We didn't raid the gun shops to equip the Afghan rebels.
Posted by: Gun Dick Stroking Nutter at September 29, 2011 09:45 AM (OlN4e)
what happened to defending the citizens of the US, that is supposed to be an actual part of their JOB criteria!
Posted by: willow at September 29, 2011 09:46 AM (h+qn8)
Yo! What about me!
Posted by: Sheriff Joe Arapaio at September 29, 2011 01:46 PM (0fUOB)
You're a corrupt sleaze who should've been kicked out of office years ago.
Posted by: Meiczyslaw at September 29, 2011 09:47 AM (bjRNS)
http://tinyurl.com/65s46f7
Posted by: The Q at September 29, 2011 09:47 AM (CJIam)
Posted by: Bill Mitchell at September 29, 2011 09:48 AM (uVlA4)
I'll also try to find the clip of Kirstin Powers on Baier referencing the Washington Post story and Kraut dismissing it as admin propoganda. She responds, "I don't know, it's right here in the Washington Post"
I think we just need to keep digging! I just know there's a unicorn somewhere in here!
Posted by: Kirsten Powers, Madly Shoveling Shit at September 29, 2011 09:48 AM (0fUOB)
Wheels within wheels, people.
Posted by: weft cut-loop at September 29, 2011 09:48 AM (s1vtf)
The international arms market would have been far cheaper and less risky for much better product. And by far cheaper and less risky, we're talking an order of magnitude or more.
Yes, but that's true no matter what.
Apart from "Because the DOJ/ATF/FBI was paying for them to be delivered to the cartel", why the hell would the cartel even want a bunch of semi-automatic Draco's when South America is flooded with genuine AK-47's and AK-74's, and the cartels probably have the resources and connections to buy them by cargo container from North Korea and other bad actors.
Posted by: Entropy at September 29, 2011 09:49 AM (IsLT6)
164, well I didn't have a parent encouraging me like my boy does: http://tinyurl.com/3cn9qq4
Posted by: Scott J at September 29, 2011 09:49 AM (/bVuS)
That's not quite true. CBS and CNN are both starting to cover this. I think the thing that's kept them away from it is the Reichstag Fire angle -- even I have a hard time believing it -- but the evidence that something is going on is so strong that they've been dragged, kicking and screaming, to the story.
Posted by: Meiczyslaw at September 29, 2011 09:50 AM (bjRNS)
"Agent John Dodson was ordered to buy four Draco pistols for cash and even got a letter from his supervisor, David Voth, authorizing a federally licensed gun dealer to sell him the guns without bothering about the necessary paperwork."
A letter from the ATF that says, "make the sale and don't worry about the 4473" would make it pretty hard to prosecute for not filing the 4473. And if the objective is to point out that these guns were coming from the US, they would have to be traced back to a US point of origin, right? What would happen when you traced it back to the dealer and he produced the letter? The whole operation would be exposed - which is exactly what happened. Again, it's just too stupid to make sense.
Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at September 29, 2011 09:50 AM (+lsX1)
This little inconvenient truth hampers the anti-second amendment Dems, so Mexico!!!
Posted by: Andy at September 29, 2011 09:50 AM (5Rurq)
Here's the link on that State/Zetas connection - it takes you Pajamas
WTF? I had not heard of that.
We're just arming everybody apparently.
Posted by: Entropy at September 29, 2011 09:51 AM (IsLT6)
Posted by: Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Michelle Bachman, RON PAUL!, Herman Cain, Jon Huntsman at September 29, 2011 09:51 AM (zF6Iw)
So many scandals, so little front page ...
Posted by: Brown Line at September 29, 2011 09:51 AM (VrNoa)
177, Dodson only had the letter from Voth because the FFL insisted on having it.
Said dealer added a note "paid cash" and underlined it along with the date.
Posted by: Scott J at September 29, 2011 09:52 AM (/bVuS)
Posted by: Mr. Easy Street at September 29, 2011 09:53 AM (NFWtf)
Posted by: Brad at September 29, 2011 09:54 AM (zTZGo)
I think it was Dodson who specifically attempted to defy orders and surveil the safe-house where these guns were stored. But he was stopped.
Ace, from a FOX news story (which may have been ripped off from other sources):
According to sources directly involved in the case, Dodson felt strongly that the weapons should not be abandoned and the stash house should remain under 24-hour surveillance. However, Voth disagreed and ordered the surveillance team to return to the office. Dodson refused, and for six days in the desert heat kept the house under watch, defying direct orders from Voth.
A week later, a second vehicle showed up to transfer the weapons. Dodson called for an interdiction team to move in, make the arrest and seize the weapons. Voth refused and the guns disappeared with no surveillance.
Posted by: arhooley at September 29, 2011 09:54 AM (xfbCj)
Posted by: taylork at September 29, 2011 09:54 AM (5wsU9)
Theory 7: The triggers were all coated with weapons-grade LSD to incapacitate the cartel goons in advance of a Federale raid.
But the cartels got wind of the plot and wiped them off with a rag and some rubbing alchohol.
Either that, or maybe no one touched their mouth or took a lunch break without washing their hands...
Posted by: Entropy at September 29, 2011 09:54 AM (IsLT6)
I suppose this is how FDR was able to send the Japanese Americans to internment camps, he was a Democrat, so nobody cared.
The MSM has really become a complete and total failure. Imagine if a Republican administration had done this?
Well.....that's the way it SHOULD be being covered. There are many dead bodies here, and maybe more to come. There is a dead US LEO here, and maybe more to come.
Doesn't that rich Mexican guy (Slim? Sin?) own the NY Times? Maybe he should drop a hint to his employees, they are missing an important story.
And I think we all need to realize this is a sad lesson for us, the alternative media STILL does not have the power of the MSM. The NY Times STILL controls the media narrative.
Posted by: jocon307 at September 29, 2011 09:55 AM (QDPDH)
SCFOAMF-gate?
Posted by: taylork at September 29, 2011 09:56 AM (5wsU9)
Posted by: Jerky at September 29, 2011 09:56 AM (VqDuC)
Like Ace said, Solyndra is an easy schedule to cover - and while it's an example of corruption, it's not in the top 100 of presidential scandals.
This gunrunning thing is one of the worst scandals in the history of the country. This is "immediate impeachment necessary" type bad
Posted by: The Q at September 29, 2011 09:56 AM (CJIam)
Dodson only had the letter from Voth because the FFL insisted on having it.
That's kind of the whole point. It is difficult to claim that gun laws are too lax when you have to instruct the FFL to deviate from the law and then provide documentation that will protect him from prosecution. It blows the entire effort out of the water and it does it in the most predictable way possible.
Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at September 29, 2011 09:57 AM (+lsX1)
Posted by: PPF at September 29, 2011 09:59 AM (uW+NQ)
Hmm, I'm liking the cut of Sheriff Babeu's jib! From Fox News:
An outspoken Arizona sheriff has responded to a letter from the mayors of three border cities who asked him to tone down his comments on border security problems...In a letter dated Feb. 14, Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu said his jurisdiction is the "number one pass through county" nationwide for smuggling people and drugs."The threat from an unsecured border is real, where 241,000 illegals were apprehended last year by the border patrol and an additional 400,000 got away just in Arizona alone!" the letter reads. "These are failing grades by anyone's score card."
Babeu's letter is in response to a Feb. 9 letter he received from the mayors of Nogales, San Luis and Douglas that asked him not to "cultivate a culture of fear" regarding border security.
"While your misstatements about efforts to keep communities along the U.S.-Mexico border may keep national media coming to Arizona, at the same time your consistent inaccuracies hurt cities and towns like ours by causing those who live and travel to the border to fear for their safety when in our communities," reads the letter signed by Nogales Mayor Arturo Garino, San Luis Mayor Juan Escamilla and Douglas Mayor Michael Gomez.
The letter to Babeu acknowledged "more work to do" along the 2,000-mile border, but cited significant progress being made daily and additional forthcoming efforts by federal authorities to strengthen security.
"The facts show that violent crime is down or remains flat in our border region as we are sure it is in your area as well," the mayors' letter continued. "In 2002, it peaked at 742 per 100,000 residents, but has since drastically dropped to 219 per 100,000 in 2009 (per the FBI Uniform Crime Reports Program)."
The letter also called on Babeu to focus on "building strong relationships" with local, state and federal governments to further secure the nation's border with Mexico.
"We say as one voice, 'Creating panic where only vigilance is warranted helps nobody,'" the letter concludes.
Babeu, however, cited a rise in the amount of marijuana seized in his county, vehicle pursuits and calls to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection in 2010 compared to those figures four years ago. In 2007, for example, 28,093 pounds of marijuana was seized in Pinal County, compared to 44,819 in 2010. Likewise, the number of vehicle pursuits in the country reached 340 last year, up from 142 in 2007.
"Feel free to 'drink the Kool-Aid' of Janet Napolitano, Dennis Burke and Barak [sic] Obama all day long, yet this threat to America remains, until our border is secured," Babeu's letter continued. "Their agenda is clear -- they want 'immigration reform' and must convince the public that everything is just fine."
Babeu recommends implementing a 10-point border security plan announced last April by Republican Arizona Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl. He also took issue with the mayors' attempt to begin a discussion on the issue.
"If your intent was to establish dialogue with me, you would have called, or at least waited for your letter to arrive by mail at my office, prior to releasing it to the media," Babeu's letter concludes. "You have done the very thing they accuse me of doing. I do not represent you, or the citizens of your community, yet I do represent the nearly 400,000 citizens of my county and the viewpoint of the solid majority of Arizonans, who laugh at Secretary Napolitano's suggestion that our border is more secure than ever."
Douglass Mayor Gomez responded late Wednesday by saying that Babeu "misses the point."
"No one is against border security or for drug/human trafficking," Gomez said in a written statement. "It is bad news to be predicting gun battles. He should appreciate our cityÂ’s law enforcement in preserving a peaceful environment at our bi-national border cities."
In an interview with FoxNews.com, Babeu said he has recently increased enforcement near the border with "constant patrols" by SWAT team officers armed with AR-15s and night vision goggles.
"I'm sending out deputies to meet these armed cartel members," Babeu said Wednesday. "And we will not use less than lethal force."
Babeu said the letter he received from the three mayors was an attempt to silence his stance on border security overall, rather than how he advocates for improving it.
"They want us to sit and shut up," he said. "Well, that's not going to happen. This isn't a time to sit on our hands and ignore the issue. It's a time for action."
Posted by: runningrn at September 29, 2011 09:59 AM (0fUOB)
I hope I am wrong, but the silence from the candidates and the sitting "GOP leadership" is sickening. I fear phone calls and threats have been made.
I want people put behind bars for this fiasco. I don't care who they are.
Posted by: sifty, Son of LiberTea at September 29, 2011 10:01 AM (4CSeG)
Posted by: cherry pi, terrorist hostage taking SOB at September 29, 2011 10:01 AM (OhYCU)
Did Obama Just Blame the Fast and Furious Failure on Budget Cuts?
“Part of the problem is budgetary [and] … we are going to have to figure out ways to operate smarter and more efficiently in investigations without a huge expansion of resources because those resources are aren’t there.”
Yes, yes he did. See if you'd given him enough money, hundreds of innocent people wouldn't have to die; but you didn't pony up enough cash and now some hostages are dead. So you'd better pay up this time or even more innocent civilians might lose their lives...
Obama, all the tact, logic, and economic businesses sense of a guy holding hostages for ransom (and killing any when he feels like it). What do you call that? Presidential?
Posted by: gekkobear at September 29, 2011 10:02 AM (X0NX1)
Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at September 29, 2011 10:02 AM (cbyrC)
What if the CIA was supplying untraceable guns to the drug cartels to keep the Zetas in line?
And then some Alinsky type Obama type saw this and recognized the potential for subverting the 2nd amendment via the following method:
Bring in the ATF to obstensibly support the CIA, but by having them funnel the guns from domestic gun dealers. More guns to fight the Zetas.
However the real goal was, when the body count rises, and public outrage starts to build, to downplay the ATF involvement, and to focus on the fact that it was U.S guns from U.S. gun dealers that were being picked up at these crime scenes.
Thus leting Obama lecture us about how we needed more gun control because something like 90% of the guns recoved at these scenes were traced back to U.S. gun dealers, or some such shit.
Posted by: ed at September 29, 2011 10:02 AM (Y2WVW)
164, well I didn't have a parent encouraging me like my boy does: http://tinyurl.com/3cn9qq4
TOO CUUUUTE! AARRGGHH THE CUTENESS ICAN'TTAKE THE CUTENESS, GAAAHHHH!!!
Posted by: PPF at September 29, 2011 10:03 AM (uW+NQ)
Fast and Furious: framing legitimate gun dealers (US citizens) and killing Mexicans (our friends). Lose-lose unless you are a commie journalist.
Posted by: Lemmiwinks at September 29, 2011 10:04 AM (pdRb1)
I suppose this is how FDR was able to send the Japanese Americans to internment camps, he was a Democrat, so nobody cared.
Weirder still, all my uncles and aunties were interned by FDR (until some of the men got out by joining the military, interpreting for the army). They and all of their kids are almost all Democrats (and some of them pretty far left wing nutters). My mom (1 of 9 children that lived to adulthood) and my dad (1 of 5 kids) are the only ones besides my mom's one brother and one sister who were conservative.
Posted by: runningrn at September 29, 2011 10:05 AM (0fUOB)
Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at September 29, 2011 10:08 AM (cbyrC)
Posted by: runningrn at September 29, 2011 10:08 AM (0fUOB)
Why should anyone cover this when the Michael Jackson trial is going on? I mean come on, where are your priorities?
Posted by: Kotter at September 29, 2011 10:09 AM (hocCa)
Let's all hope that one of the crooked bastards involved with this gets caught in a Motel 6 with a suitcase full of coke and a nekid donkey wearing fishnet stockings.
Such a person could be convinced to rat on his accomplices to make such things go away.
Posted by: sifty, Son of LiberTea at September 29, 2011 10:12 AM (4CSeG)
Richard Serrano at the LA Times is the only reporter in the MSM covering this.
Nope. Sharyl Attkisson of CBS broke it and she's doing great work. She did the first interview with John Dodson.
Posted by: arhooley at September 29, 2011 10:15 AM (xfbCj)
203, thanks.
I never wanted to spend much time with my dad because he was a verbal abuser with an explosive temper.
I'm trying to undo that error with my own son: http://tinyurl.com/3g97u4m
Posted by: Scott J at September 29, 2011 10:16 AM (/bVuS)
Posted by: cherry pi, terrorist hostage taking SOB at September 29, 2011 10:17 AM (OhYCU)
Here's the Breitbart clip of Sheriff Babeu. He is so effective in clearly and concisely communicating exactly what happened and what's at stake. It's absolutely damning and it makes it very clear that the DOJ is culpable.
Posted by: runningrn at September 29, 2011 01:40 PM
Holy carp, thanks. I had no idea CNN was onto it. This just might fly. I've been monitoring Kos of course, and they have a small "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" group that's aware of it.
Posted by: arhooley at September 29, 2011 10:19 AM (xfbCj)
Did Obama Just Blame the Fast and Furious Failure on Budget Cuts?
Yes, yes he did. See if you'd given him enough money, hundreds of innocent people wouldn't have to die; but you didn't pony up enough cash and now some hostages are dead. So you'd better pay up this time or even more innocent civilians might lose their lives... gekkobear
Pony up more cash for more faster 'n furiouser guns. There just wasn't enough spent arming the cartels yet to make a difference. They'll cull the population soon enough. Those with eyes to see, not for long. Those with a voice to speak, stfu.
What's easier than coercing the Constitution's revisionist interpretation through uniform judicial activism that would limit gun ownership to government/military agents who just so happen to have the "right sort" of cartel connections? Martial Law, Obama's wet dream. Change me. I stink!
Posted by: think twice at September 29, 2011 10:20 AM (lpWVn)
Posted by: arhooley at September 29, 2011 02:19 PM (xfbCj)
Mike Rowe? Is that you?
Posted by: Gun Dick Stroking Nutter at September 29, 2011 10:21 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: Gun Dick Stroking Nutter at September 29, 2011 10:22 AM (OlN4e)
Not that it matters, really, but under scenario 2, why would the CIA insist on American-bought guns?
I know this has been addressed, but there is absolutely no way CIA would run an operation like this. They could have gotten the Sinaloa Cartel boatloads of guns from anywhere else in the world, and buying them from American gun dealers would be such piss poor tradecraft that even hack writers like James Patterson wouldn't put it in a novel.
Plus, what advantage is there to arming another cartel? They're all destructive and evil, why pick one side over the other? Say the Sinaloa destroys the Zetas; anyone think Sinaloa won't end up being just as bad?
Posted by: UGAdawg at September 29, 2011 10:24 AM (mwctc)
Mike Rowe? Is that you?
Posted by: Gun Dick Stroking Nutter at September 29, 2011 02:21 PMDon't know no Mike Rowe.
Posted by: arhooley at September 29, 2011 10:24 AM (xfbCj)
F&F was an attempt to control illegals from crossing into the US. Zero figured if they were all dead, they wouldn't come across.
Posted by: Gun Dick Stroking Nutter at September 29, 2011 02:22 PM
There's another theory. They'd flee north like crazy as violence engulfed the land. MOAR DEMOCRATZ.
Posted by: arhooley at September 29, 2011 10:26 AM (xfbCj)
FIFY
It never happens. Not with the Taliban. Not with al-Qaeda. Not with Mexican Cartels. American foreign policy never errs. But if it did, the bureaucrats would rather err on the side of flip/flop. So as you state, it would never happen. "Reset" to the rescue.
Posted by: think twice at September 29, 2011 10:35 AM (lpWVn)
This is too much unnecessary drama for people who arm insurgencies as a way of life.
I have to going cluster with the Hillary/Barry/Eric paradigm.. These ARE bumbling incompetent clusterfucks and this would fit them like a glove. Arrogant incompetence defined
Posted by: Wayne at September 29, 2011 10:35 AM (y0VOX)
Posted by: long toss at September 29, 2011 10:37 AM (dlwyQ)
Posted by: Jean at September 29, 2011 10:39 AM (WkuV6)
Damn! Can't beat those "sources close to the investigation," can you?
The WaPoo, NY Slimes and the rest of the misbegotten Osama Obama-suckers in the media love them some reporters who can make up find the really good shit. If they could ever attach, you know, real names to their sources, they might be (almost) half-believable.
Posted by: MrScribbler at September 29, 2011 10:40 AM (YjjrR)
Posted by: PPF at September 29, 2011 10:41 AM (uW+NQ)
Posted by: Jean at September 29, 2011 10:41 AM (WkuV6)
Jean at September 29, 2011 02:39 PM (WkuV6)
Hi Jean. The ATF / American dealer guns weren't supposed to be traceable. Just the opposite. They were intended to be very traceable. Traceable to the U.S. gun dealers that is. Not the ATF.
That's my hypothesis.
Posted by: ed at September 29, 2011 10:42 AM (Y2WVW)
Jean at September 29, 2011 02:41 PM (WkuV6)
Almost certainly. I don't think I mentioned this in my above comments, but I think it is possible that the whole CIA/spook thing never actually got of the ground, meaning it never got past the concept/brain storming phase.
But that doesn't mean some Obama/Alinsky type didn't see the potential in the concept, but switched it to the ATF with the above discussed changes.
Posted by: ed at September 29, 2011 10:45 AM (Y2WVW)
Posted by: mueller at September 29, 2011 10:50 AM (QO+2f)
Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of The SITH Baby! at September 29, 2011 10:52 AM (bxiXv)
The feds have a hankering to monopolize firearms within law enforcement and active military abroad. But even the PC policy for military personnel on home bases is to not carry firearms. Hence the Ft. Hood massacre. And of course, there's DHS Napolitano's memo targeting military veterans for special surveillance as terrorist threats to national security.
For whatever reason, in the end, all is chaos. Shovel ready. Not to worry, all is going accordingly.
Posted by: think twice at September 29, 2011 10:53 AM (lpWVn)
Posted by: steevy at September 29, 2011 11:00 AM (fyOgS)
CIA was Panetta Feb.2009-Apr.2011. This lunacy is just up his ally.
Of course Panetta went into CYA mode, so Petraeus' installation assured the public trust in professionalism--just in time for Panetta to muck up the Pentagon (as if the Brass/lobby-prostitutes need any help with that).
The organization is only as good as its people; and the CIA functions top down, as does the Military. There are no loose strings that aren't attached from above. Such is the network.
Posted by: think twice at September 29, 2011 11:07 AM (lpWVn)
The "arming Sinaloa to counter the Zetas" theory has one gigantic hole in it. There is evidence that the State Dept was at the same time selling arms to the Zetas:
"From the intel, it appears that a company was set up in Mexico to purchase weapons through the U.S. Direct Commercial Sales program, and that the company may have had a direct link to the Zetas."
Could State have been duped by the Zetas? Maybe. But that would take an even bigger clusterf**K. Nothing is beyond the Obamatons, which also brings Cloward-Piven type explanations into play. CHAOS!
Wait, wasn't that Maxwell Smart's nemisis? It's an Obama world.
Posted by: Alec Rawls at September 29, 2011 11:08 AM (kTTUz)
"I'm allergic to big conspiracy theories but here, given what we know, I'm not calling the Big Conspiracy Theory crazy." ~ posted by Ace
----------
I am still trying to figure out how the appointments of Petraeus and Panneta figure into this.....in the big picture.
Posted by: ConservativeMenAreJustHotter at September 29, 2011 11:08 AM (6n8mm)
This administration was attempting to appeal to anti-gun voters,,,see their chatter in the spring of 2009: Hillary, Feinstein, AG Holder, Mexican officials, all had the same "90% of guns in Mexico are from USA" message at about the same time. I believe this, conspiracy or not.
What they did not consider was the deaths of Mexican citizens eventually being blamed on the USA (that is pretty quiet, no? How much have we paid off Calderone?). The Meridia Initiative= 1.3 billion to Mexico to help Mexico against drug cartels. An extra more recent billion "loaned" for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico (yet our own companies are going offshore, costing thousands jobs). Something is, so far, keeping Mexico from boiling over since Fast and Furious came to light.
I don't believe this was the CIA.
Posted by: ChristyBlinky at September 29, 2011 11:09 AM (baL2B)
Posted by: Jean at September 29, 2011 11:11 AM (WkuV6)
Posted by: PJ at September 29, 2011 11:12 AM (FlVA8)
The agents involved weren't funding F&F out of pocket. Since when have those running the federal government paused to balance a budget? As if idiots with unlimited access to debt/spending ever cared if the taxpayers are fined to cover 5-10X the going rate for anything, especially when the idiots are acting on "good authority" to obey an order or facilitate/implement a policy.
Even medicare/medicaid is rife with fraud, paying 5-10 times the going rate for prescriptions and treatments, because the government employees are writing checks funded by all of us, not simply from their own taxed personal bank account.
Posted by: think twice at September 29, 2011 11:15 AM (lpWVn)
The policy for military personnel on home bases to not carry firearms has been around for many decades. We see it is now a major liability.
That thewant onopolize firearms within law enforcement and active military is also not a surprise, but it needs to be esearched a bit.
But:
While F&F was in full mode, agents went door to door in Houston asking residents if they owned guns, and DHS was posting signs in Austin to the affect that gun shows were illegal in Texas, using local law enforcement to close gun show doors to the public. [Chronicle archive]
[unquote]
This needs a lot of research. Who directed the agents (FBI? DHS? BATFE? other?) to go door-to-door asking about guns? Who's idea was it?Are gun shows illegal in Texas? When did this happen? Who made the decision?
The DHS posting signs in Austin ... this points to another link.
The DHS ... using local law enforcement to close gun show doors to the public ... when did DHS get such authority over local law enforcement?
Posted by: Arbalest at September 29, 2011 11:20 AM (zOyi0)
Posted by: Texan Economist at September 29, 2011 11:24 AM (rla6e)
Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of The SITH Baby! at September 29, 2011 11:27 AM (bxiXv)
Nip Holder, Obama, Napolitano and Panetta, the authorities. Impeach. What good is the DHS at all, or any top official who isn't held accountable for his department? Blaming the asshats who implemented orders/policy doesn't solve the root problem.
btw, the judicial system prefers precedence to the Constitution, rule of law, or logic. Regarding convicting evidence, during the Reagan era, Angela Davis was found "not guilty" though she supplied the killers with their guns and wrote them letters before their murderous escape from a courtroom. The jury wanted a written letter that specifically stated the plot to escape, and the prosecution couldn't produce those exact words from her letters to the prisoners that were found. Sure, that was CA. But what CA was then is America now, only much worse given Obama.
Dragging the bumpkin thugs into court to take the fall for Obama/Holder/Napolitano/Panetta will simply serve the media with more distracting fodder while those in charge do worse. Tie them all together, and drag them all down.
Posted by: think twice at September 29, 2011 11:31 AM (lpWVn)
# 47: Where were the guns in Florida going again? Not Mexico
Rumor has it they were going to Honduras. Honduras? What could we the Obama administration want to do there? Why it's almost as if they wanted to change the government.
Saw a guys post re: F&F and its' scope at another website. I found it interesting, you might too:
First of all, it wasn't limited to Arizona, but rather, appears to have been implemented in several other states. Second, it was an inter-agency and inter-departmental operation. Not just some rogue ATF agents. This means that, at a minimum, direct reports to the AG and the secretaries of Homeland Security and State were complicit, and most likely, instrumental. Third, members of the President's National Security staff in the White House were made aware of the operation. Fourth, federal funds were used to buy weapons that ultimately ended up with that favored Mexican cartel. Fifth, the FBI immediately, within hours of the death of the border agent by guns from this operation, started a cover up. Sixth, the AG is stonewalling like crazy.
Posted by: TheThinMan at September 29, 2011 11:55 AM (X6O1T)
Posted by: Ken at September 29, 2011 11:59 AM (7yb9x)
Posted by: LiveFreeOrDie at September 29, 2011 12:12 PM (ynD8d)
Posted by: Iblis at September 29, 2011 12:18 PM (9221z)
Why would the CIA need to have the ATF purchase firearms from regular-Joe dealers? Presumably, the CIA could easily source real-deal-Holyfield automatic weapons from any third-world shithole (Hell, I'm sure we rounded up metric assloads of AKs in Iraq and Afghanistan) and funnel them to the cartels, without having to loop Joe's Gun Shop and the "Beat cops" in the ATF into their cunning plan.
Just seems like an unnecessary complication when you're trying to run a covert operation such as this one.
Posted by: Broseidon, Lord of the Brocean at September 29, 2011 12:29 PM (XwdrA)
The insidious thing about this is that the dealers were actually going above and beyond the law in getting the ATF involved. A straw purchaser is, by definition, someone with a clean criminal background who buys the firearms and then transfers them to another person who could not legally buy the weapons. The dealers initially called the ATF to alert them that they had people in their stores buying lots of weapons favored by drug cartels and that they suspected straw purchases. The ATF instructed the dealers to complete the sale, against the dealers' better judgement.
Ace is coming around slowly to the reality that F&F is a Reichstag Fire operation, but I don't believe he keeps up with the sordid history of the ATF like I and others do. There is literally nothing that would surprise me about the ATF.
Posted by: The Packetman at September 29, 2011 12:31 PM (QZNEr)
Posted by: Pro-Naif at September 29, 2011 12:55 PM (FCHPE)
Posted by: kennyg at September 29, 2011 01:24 PM (EbX5i)
Two words: Gun Control
This operation was contrived to deprive legitimate law-abiding Americans of their gun rights under the second amendment.
Posted by: Bill R. at September 29, 2011 02:36 PM (lM4JO)
Sucks it has to be that way but you have to provide the proper incentives for these schmucks. If the blogs can take down a sitting congressman they can herd a bunch of recalcitrant journalist into order.
Posted by: Voluble at September 29, 2011 04:31 PM (JKX4x)
Posted by: yakima o' canutt, in below the sexy shoes at September 29, 2011 07:43 PM (VJzjC)
How I loathe Saul Alinsky and all his filthy spawn. Commies say they're all about caring for the oppressed -- in reality, they're the coldest motherfuckers on earth.
Posted by: Kathy from Kansas at September 29, 2011 09:31 PM (2AfqM)
Posted by: Kathy from Kansas at September 29, 2011 09:35 PM (2AfqM)
brian@58: "So were we saved by a rogue ATF agent...?"
Actually, yeah. If one man, John Dodson, had not decided to blow the whistle (after the death of Brian Terry), we really might not know anything. Dodson's defection was what started the ball rolling.
http://tinyurl.com/3kva47a
Posted by: Kathy from Kansas at September 29, 2011 09:54 PM (2AfqM)
willow@152:
Calderon is in on it, you can be sure. We haven't heard a peep out of him about Fast & Furious, at least not that I know of.
I read somewhere that Calderon's whole push to shut down the drug cartels is actually an effort to shut down some cartels and not some other one, the assertion being that Calderon himself is in with one of the cartels (sorry, can't remember which one)
Will we ever get to the bottom of this mess?
Posted by: Kathy from Kansas at September 29, 2011 10:50 PM (2AfqM)
@198: I hope I am wrong, but the silence from the candidates and the sitting "GOP leadership" is sickening. I fear phone calls and threats have been made.
Remember, the Obama people are Alinskyites. Back in the day, Saul Alinsky "apprenticed" with mafioso Frank Nitti, who was Al Capone's right-hand man, his "enforcer" - and was even the acting head of the Chicago mob when Capone was in prison.
Remember how Obama said back in 2008 that his favorite movie is "The Godfather"? That's pretty telling, unfortunately.
There's little doubt in my mind that death threats have been made. People have been killed for much less. Say what you want about Darrell Issa (and I have my suspicions about him) but you gotta admit, the man has balls of steel to be refusing to back down on all this. Have you watched him bulldog those witnesses in the hearings? He's fierce. I just hope he's got awesome personal security at all times.
Posted by: Kathy from Kansas at September 29, 2011 11:24 PM (2AfqM)
Jean@240:
My solution - all major Republican candidates issue a joint statement saying they will not contest the extradition to Mexico for F&F related murder charges for any US official that is not fully cooperating with Issa's investigation.
THIS.
Posted by: Kathy from Kansas at September 30, 2011 04:09 PM (2AfqM)
@253:
Ground Zero on reporting on F&F is Mike Vanderbeogh and David Codrea.
Got that right. I would only add, Bob Owens and others at Pajamas Media.
Also, along with Dave Codrea's War on Guns blog, he writes for Examiner.com (Gun Rights Examiner), and is joined there by others from around the country, such as Dave Workman from Seattle.
Posted by: Kathy from Kansas at September 30, 2011 05:35 PM (2AfqM)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.206 seconds, 391 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
They wanted improv versions of the last scene from Scarface all over Mexico?
Posted by: Rick Perry at September 29, 2011 08:58 AM (usXZy)