Translate

Monday, March 19, 2012

The Motive Behind Fast and Furious




Hat tip to PJ Media

Bob Owens, writing in PJ Media, provides what is, sadly, a very logical explanation behind the motive behind the ATF's Operation Fast and Furious

http://pjmedia.com/blog/why-doj-released-the-top-fast-and-furious-suspect/

Owens is absolutely correct that allowing guns purchased by straw buyers in the US to cross over into Mexico without any attempt at interdiction, control or surveillance would never result in building a case against the leaders of the Mexican cartels, who likely would never touch said guns-just as they have no need to ever touch the drugs they are responsible for sending into the US. The only thing that could be obtained would be intelligence that these guns came from the US when they showed up at the scenes of shootings. Thus, the only explanation that makes sense is what was originally just a conspiracy theory-that the administration wanted to make a point that their statements about 90% of Mexico's guns having come from the US was correct, thus, making the case for tighter gun control here at home. As a result they used, abused, and subverted the ATF to their own political ends.

What other logical explanation exists?

ATF agents at the street level in Arizona were charged with conducting an operation that could not be described as an enforcement operation, rather an intelligence operation that went against everything they had been taught. Their mission in ATF was to get illegal guns off the streets and out of the hands of criminals, just as a DEA agent's mission is to get drugs off the street and dealers into jail. While there is a legitimate need for intelligence, the agent's job ultimately is not to write history.

Aside from the blown seizures and arrests, the end result is some 300 deaths in Mexico and the killing of two US agents, Brian Terry and Jaime Zapata, both of whom worked under Janet Napolitano, who, to this day, has not even (according to her sworn testimony) spoken to Attorney General Eric Holder about it.

16 comments:

Siarlys Jenkins said...

"What other logical explanation exists?"

You really ARE obtuse Gary. As with any detailed, comprehensive investigatory intelligence work, if one wishes to know the entire flow of the contraband, one must observe where it travels, from beginning to end.

The fact that someone took their eye off the ball is a significant criticism of the quality of supervision -- but that sort of detail is not normally the job of the Attorney General, or even any of the assistant attorneys general.

Your arcane search for a conspiratorial "motive" is laughable, and always has been. The government of Mexico has been, with good reason, blaming the appetite for cocaine in the U.S., and the flow of guns from the U.S., for the violence and actual threat to government authority in Mexico. The government of the United States was duty bound to try to get its own house in order.

Gary Fouse said...

Siarlys,

You destroyed your argument in the first paragraph. There clearly was no intent to follow this from purchase to its ultimate end. They didn't involve the Mexican cops. Once the guns crossed the border there was no surveillance-in most cases even past the gun shops in Arizona.

On this one Siarlys, you are in over your head and trying to debate a topic with someone who has been there and done that (albeit with a different contraband-drugs.) Keep in mind, I also worked occasionally with ATF. I know their mindset.

Squid said...

What jumps out at the reader, from the PJM article, is the statement that the Obama Administration has been part of the Fast and Furious deadly plan to "walk" weapons across the Mexican border to support the President's 90% statement. I would certainly like to know what Owen's knows about this case for him to be almost strident in his statement. The question is: Will the Obama Administration ask for a retraction and apology?
And, what will Owen's say to the White House if they do ask this question.

Squid

elwood p suggins said...

As I may have observed before, even the "90% statement" is false. It may be true that 90% of the guns seized in Mexico which were traceable came from the U.S. This does not, however, take into account that many of the guns in Mexico are not traceable as to country of origin.

While I do not have exact numbers, as an example, if only 50% of guns are tracable, and 90% of that 50% came from the U.S., then "only" 45%(bad enough)could be shown to be of U.S. origin. Thus, the "90% statement" is a gross misrepresentation, most likely for the reasons put forth by Gary and others.

Squid said...

@ elwood p suggins

Good point elwood. Let us take this thought a bit further. If one checks the price of semi-automatic "Black" tactical rifles, the price runs in the $1000 to $2500 range. Now we have to look at the fact that the Cartels like fully automatic rifles. The U.S. Federal govrnment has very strict control over these rifles through "FFL- Level lll" licenses. These licenses are usually given to operators who provide weapons to Movie Studios (90% of them).
The Cartels can get their fully automatic rifles from foriegn countries at a cost of $500.00 per rifle. Do the math!
So, do we conclude that 90% of the rifles held by the Cartels are from the U.S.? I do not think so!

Squid

Miggie said...

It all fits together. There is no denying the liberal abhorrence to guns but compassion for those who use them. I don't think it is a deliberate attack on the Constitution, it is just that they don't respect it that much. (They know better.)

It doesn't surprise me at all that they would concoct this scheme to create a "crises" to justify support for anti-gun legislation. It is their orientation and the tactics they use so often. (i.e. the healthcare "crises", the contraception "crises" etc., etc.

Another aspect is the incompetence in the execution of the operation and the subsequent cover-up. That incompetence had been amply demonstrated in both foreign (i.e. Iran, Egypt, Afghanistan, etc.) and domestic policy. (i.e. the economy, the gas prices, the joblessness, OWS, over-regulation, taxes, etc., etc.) They can't deal with REAL crises... they only have solutions to the crises they create.

No doubt in an operation of this size had to have assent at least from Obama and much more involvement by Holder.

When the DOJ withholds discovery documents, one must take negative inference. If they were innocent, they would rush to provide the documents requested. It they were guilty, they would stall them as long as possible. (Even UCI and the OC Federation know this fundamental tactic when they are served FOI requests. For one example, (used on my FOI request)to excuse one long delay, in the matter of Galloway raising money for Hamas on a MSU fundraiser at UCI, UCI claimed that it needed time to collect relevant information from OTHER UC campuses first. What a surprise, there was none.)

Everything fits.

elwood p suggins said...

Upon further thought, even if this ill-conceived, half (more like 15/16ths)-baked goat rope was indeed a genuine enforcement/intelligence operation (which it almost certainly was not), it was hardly detailed and/or comprehensive.

I believe it was Sherlock Holmes who figured out something to the effect that once you remove the impossible from an equation, whatever remains, no matter how improbable it may seem to you, must be the solution.

In that regard, I have heard Obama, Holder, et al, accused of any number of shortcomings, but stupidity is not normally among them. Wherever along the chain of command structure, it would take absolute idiots to conclude that weapons handled in this way would produce anything but the poor results which occurred. While I believe that Obama and most if not all of his administration, appointees, etc., are fairly radical or worse, they surely are not dummies. I fail to see how anyone, repeat anyone, could fail to figure this out in advance.

Throw in tens of thousands of pages of subpoenaed documents which have not yet been provided (and probably never will be). It is impossible to now know what is in them. This is precisely why Gary, and I, and a lot of other people have concluded that somewhere in those documents is the real basis for this operation. And if we should be correct, and I believe that we are, it becomes apparent that there was advance knowledge of this from the top down from the get-go.


There is a principle in the law which involves whether individuals “knew” or “should have known” (often used interchangeably) what the results of their actions/inactions would be, and they may also be held responsible for actions of their subordinates on this basis. And if someone “took their eye off the ball”, the oversight of, and accountability for, such error is, depending on who took their eye off, most definitely the job of the AG and/or the various deputy/assistant AG’s. If that is not the case, there is then no need to have them at all, no??

What is most chilling about all this is that the end (domestic gun control) appears to have justified the means (deaths/injuries of hundreds of Mexican citizens, at least two U.S. law enforcement officers, and possibly other U. S. citizens).


Call us conspiracists if you must, but this is in some respects not totally different from the JFK assassination. Originally, it was apparent to many if not most people that the lone gunman theory was not viable, but that was what the FBI, the Warren Commission, the Congress, etc., quite possibly understandably under the circumstances,were going to come up with, no matter what.

Books were written, movies were made. With the passage of time and the settlement of dust, a legitimate Congressional committee concluded much later that shots were indeed almost certainly fired from the “grassy knoll”. And if they were, then at least one conspiracy, and less probably but possibly two, did in fact obviously exist. So you never know until you know.

Gary Fouse said...

All I know is that Mexico has always had plenty of guns in spite of a tough law against them. That goes back to when- Mximillian and Zapata?

Gary Fouse said...

Elwood asks why intelligent men like Obama and Holder would engage in F and F.

Why woulkd an intelligent man like Obama cut down on our military while we are in Afghanistan and the world is going to hell?

Why would an intelligent man like Obama reject a pipeline at a time when oil prices are going thru the roof and the ME has never been more unstable?

Why would an intelligent man like Obama think the govt can run the banks, insurance, health care, auto industry, etc?

Maybe it's all a case of intelligent design.

Squid said...

Make no mistake! The Obama Administration is out to collect your guns. Obama is an anti-gunner from the beginning and so is his head of the DoJ. In a 1995 video which is on Youtube, Holder wants to "brainwash" the U.S. public against guns. This means that they will stop at nothing to wipe-out the 2nd Amendment. Fast and Furious is a manifestation of this ideology. Holder will probably fall on his sword and commit "contempt of Congress" to protect the President. I am reading David Limbaugh's well documented book "Crimes Against Liberty" and it is one of the best volumes on Obama's efforts to ignore the Constitution. Here is a link to a picture by a now famous artist that tells is all: http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/03/20/controversial-painter-depicts-obama-with-burning-constitution/#.T2n1UbfmEiw.email

Squid

Siarlys Jenkins said...

Yes, you worked with contraband drugs, and let shipments go through so you could trace them.

I am willing to listen to an expert opinion, but only liberals expect a citizen of a republic to accept a sorry line like "I'm an expert, take my word for it, it is too complex for you to understand."

Further, you are not speaking as an expert, but as an ideologue looking for a hook to hang your argument on.

Squid's last statement is paranoid, delusional, and, most important, utterly without any evidence to sustain it. However, it makes a good talking point for a well financed sound byte.

Squid said...

@ Siarlys

"Le jeu ne vaut pas la chandelle."

Squid

Siarlys Jenkins said...

Well then, bow out of the game Squid. Nobody is forcing you to play.

Maximilian was installed as Emperor of Mexico by French troops, dispatched by Napoleon III. He was executed by Mexican nationals in 1867, after the United States wrapped up suppressing a rebellion and impelled France to withdraw.

Emiliano Zapata was active in a revolution that began circa 1910, over forty years after Maximilian was executed, against the governments of Porfirio Diaz, and later, Victoriana Huerta.

Talk about being over your head...

elwood p suggins said...

Siarlys--you are confusing "trace" with "track", not the same things at all.

elwood p suggins said...

Gary’s questions for me, semi/quasi-rhetorical or otherwise, coupled with everything else going on with Obama, et al, have unfortunately caused me to think further about this.

I have never to date put any stock in, or for that matter had any truck with, those who are a little bit far to the right who maintain that Obama is intentionally out to destroy the U.S., and then save it by creating some sort of socialist paradise out of the wreckage. This is at least possibly his “intelligent design”.

When it comes to just how arrogant, egotistical, and cynical professional politicians are/can be when it comes to power, influence, money, and particularly the “God-complex”, there is no better example than Bill Clinton (and perhaps Obama, time will tell).

During the 2000 presidential election boondoggle, it is entirely possible, maybe even probable, that we could have faced our most serious constitutional crisis since the Civil War, if not of all time. If the nonsense continued until Inauguration Day, what would/could we have done?? We would have had a President (either Bush or Gore) who would have been, depending on your political view, fully capable of taking office. We just would not have know which one it should be.

Just for fun, in a passing little flight of fancy, I was able at the time to actually visualize Clinton, including his speech cadence, finger waving, etc., taking the position that he would save the country by refusing to step down (first time in our history we would not have had a peaceful transfer of power) until the issue was resolved, probably inaccurately citing the 22nd Amendment as his authority.

This became somewhat more serious to me a couple of years ago. I happened to read a book (forget when it was published) which was written by one of Clinton’s friends/colleagues, and which was generally very favorable to Clinton. The author ddocumented , I believe on tape, that toward the end of his second term, Clinton actually tried to find a way to circumvent both the 12th AND the 22nd Amendments and somehow return to the Presidency via becoming the Vice President and then succeeding to the higher office, but was fortunately unable to figure out exactly how to do it. People who did not read this book probably don’t know this.

This is no joke, and is both pretty sorry and pretty scary stuff. Both Clintons (you know they talked about this) are not only lawyers, I believe (but am prepared to be corrected) they were both also law professors for some period of time or other, and probably taught constitutional law; they were certainly essentially continuously exposed to it. Further, this only reinforces the probability of a Clinton refusal to give up the presidency, or at least an attempt not to, in 2000 under the right (or wrong) conditions.

The point, I guess, is that Obama is considerably more radical than either Clinton. Again, call me what you will, but if Clinton can try to cook up a scheme like this, you know that Obama can, and I have to take somewhat seriously the possibility that he might. I can certainly see parallels. I fully expect Obama to be re-elected this year, so there should be no problem, but 2016 may be interesting.

Siarlys Jenkins said...

elwood's law: the volume of rhetoric will be inversely proportional to the square of the rational basis for offering it in the first place.