July 11, 2011
Re: Who Is Pulling the Trigger?
Further to Justin's post, perhaps the most exasperating aspect of the mainstream media's studious disinterest in Operation Fast and Furious is the patent lack of consistency. If this had been an operation initiated by the ATF under a Republican president, the coverage would have been wall to wall. Assuredly, more than one MSNBC program host would have required a paper bag and then sedation to ease the hyperventilating.
One exception, however, was the Daily Show. Jon Stewart pretty thoroughly shredded the operation. Check out minute 1:20, for example, to learn about the ATF's cringe-making explanation as to how the tracking of the guns into Mexico got botched - hint: it involves Radio Shack. (You heard that right: Radio Shack.) He also points out (minute 5:15) the ... er, cooperation demonstrated by the Department of Justice - i.e., Attorney General Holder, whose "resignation" Justin is correct to call for - to the Congressional committee investigating the operation.
"If this had been an operation initiated by the ATF under a Republican president, the coverage would have been wall to wall."
I'm not so sure of that, when you take away the conspiracy-theory chatter, this sounds like what may have been an alright idea gone wrong. I'm sure there are 'inside agents' acting as cartel members tainting drugs along their path northwards with chemical markers so they can be tracked once they get here, this is a logical extension of that.
I know I'm considered a 'liberal' here on AR, but I'm considered 'conservative' on RIFuture, and I find the mainstream media pretty-much useless these days.
Posted by: mangeek at July 12, 2011 8:05 AMThere are critical differences between "Fast and Furious" and the hypothetical anti-narcotics operation described above:
Firstly, if U.S. agents are tagging drug shipments before sending them north, it is obviously being done with the knowledge of the U.S. government. The Mexican government was kept completely uninformed about the guns being shipped south by the ATF. Secondly drugs don't harm innocent victims, only those who choose to take them. Mexico is in the middle of an epidemic of drug violence that amounts to a civil war. Statistically the guns sent to Mexico by the U.S. government are probably responsible for countless deaths and injuries to law enforcement officers and civilian bystanders.
At the very least the stonewalling by the DOJ indicates they think they have something to hide.
Posted by: David P at July 12, 2011 9:13 AMThis is Watergate - the Sequel. Unfortunately the conspirators in the old mass media will not rise to the demands of their "profession", but are circling the wagons around their leader. I see an impeachment in the near future.
Posted by: BobN at July 12, 2011 10:12 AMI watch little MSM, but this story is old news to me. Ever since I heard it, I sort of shrugged and thought more bureacratic incompetency (sort of like the stun gun found on an airplane yesterday).
The whole "war on drugs' seems misguided to me. I wonder about the focus on Mexico. Mexico produces hardly any drugs, what Mexico does is transport Columbian drugs. "Fighting" drugs in Mexico is sort of like fighting the "War on Terror" soley at Ground Zero in New York. It seems obvious that we should attack the source of supply. I also suspected that part of ATF's motivation was to show that purchase of guns in the U.S. is "too easy", requiring further regulation.
Adding to the complexity, in the last few days the DEA has announced that marijuana has no "medicinal value" and that it will continue to be proscribed by federal law. Meanwhile, 16 states have OK'd the sale for medicinal purposes. I suppose wars are always like that.
Posted by: Warrington Faust at July 12, 2011 10:47 AM