Fox News is reporting a congressional report on how ATF's Fast and Furious was arming the Sinaloa Cartel in Mexico while telling its own attache in Mexcio City that things were "under control."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/26/atf-accused-in-congressional-report-arming-cartel-for-war-through-operation/
"By Feb. 27, 2010, Lanny Breuer, the head of the Criminal Division of the Justice Department in Washington, D.C., was allegedly told that the ATF had successfully helped sell 1,026 weapons worth more than $650,000 to members of the Sinaloa cartel. The briefing included all top ATF officials, including the agents in charge in Los Angeles and Houston, as well as a half dozen top Justice Department attorneys."
But in May of this year, Eric Holder testified under oath in front of Congress that he had first learned of Operation Fast and Furious "probably in the last few weeks".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NqH88cSBqI&feature=youtu.be
"The precise number of casualties in Mexico isn't known, but ATF officials confirm the murder of Mario Gonzales Rodriguez, brother of the Chihuahua attorney general, with a Fast and Furious gun."
I think it is time to put Mr Breuer under oath and tell us what he knew and when he knew it. Then Mr Holder can be called again to explain why, if his head of the Criminal Division knew about it in February 2010, why he (Holder) didn't learn of it until a few weeks prior to May 3, 2011.
One begins to wonder how anyone knows with such precision which shootings were performed with which "Fast and Furious" gun? If this information is available at all, there must have been some meticulous record keeping. If this has identified the entire flow of weaponry, and leads to significant interdiction, it may well have been worth it. On the other hand, maybe nobody really knows and it is all being made up on the run because it sounds good.
ReplyDeleteOnce again, it is highly unlikely that any of these killings would have been prevented by the absence of the particular gun used. The cartels have been better armed than the Mexican police for many years, as many resident have taken note. They've been getting a lot of their weapons from U.S. dealers, who have proved incredibly slippery to pin down as to knowledge of the ultimate buyer.
Has anyone ever O.D'ed on a batch of heroin allowed to move to its destination for investigation purposes? I bet that's inevitable -- and probably not so meticulously tracked.
Siarlys,
ReplyDeleteAs usual, you make no sense.
Your one-liners are the ultimate refuge of the advocate who has nothing to say. I don't credit you with sufficient stupidity to be unable to read what I wrote. You simply have no answer for it.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, reading the news coverage on this subject, it is evident that "Fast and Furious" was about TRACKING guns in illicit commerce, not about ATF actually putting or selling guns in commerce. There are ATF agents who thought that straw buyers should have been arrested sooner. Some of their supervisors thought there would not be a case that could be proved in court if they closed in too soon. And you KNOW what the NRA would have said...
I don't care what the NRA would say. I have spelled out as a former fed who tried to get dope off the street as opposed to illegal guns what the ramifications are. Once those guns entered Mexico, the tracking ended and only resumed when the guns allowed to walk showed up at murder scenes-including the brother of the AG of Chihuahua.
ReplyDeleteYou don't know what you are talking about and frankly you are in over your head in this debate. I suggest you light up a toke, throw on some Amy Winehouse tapes and rock yourself to sleep.
I'm too old to know anything about Amy Winehouse, young man. (Actually, based on your years of military service, you are older than me, but save your tired cultural cliches for someone who spends a lot of time glued to the boob tube. I don't have cable, and didn't bother to get a converter for the TV set I picked up at a rummage sale six years ago for $15).
ReplyDeleteIf you had anything of substance to say, you might be able to make a case that I am in over my head. Unfortunately, you continue to substitute ad hominem remarks for substance, in hopes that I will go away. Tell me something I don't know, and perhaps it could make your point for you. But I doubt it.