Sunday, June 24, 2012

Follow the ideology

From Samizdata:  Fast & Furious: why 'Bush started it' will not save Obama
One of our commenters has made what I think is a very important point about the rapidly snowballing 'Fast & Furious' scandal that may well consume the Obama presidency:
The (vitally important) difference, however, is that 'Wide Receiver' (the Bush administration program) was carried out in cooperation with the Mexican government, and actually attempted to track the weapons crossing the border. 'Fast & Furious' was carried out in complete secrecy from the Mexican Government, and attempted to basically funnel weapons illegally to Mexican drug runners, so that the guns left at crime scenes could then be traced back to US gun dealers. As someone on NRO (I think it was Andrew McCarthy) pointed out, this operation REQUIRED the deaths of Mexican nationals. How this is distinguished from an act of war against Mexico is not at all clear to me. But then, I didn't go to Harvard.
- Samizdata commenter 'Disillusionist' making a very germane point about the 'Fast & Furious' scandal.


10 comments:

  1. Ironically, B.O. has been the best thing for firearm sales since Slick Willy.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I have always well not always but every since I was introduced to Bill Whittle, I have liked him and his comments. I used to get a weekly notice when "Afterburner" had been updated, but for some reason I quit getting them and I do not know why.

    He is "spot on" here. That is what the Brits would say.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "so that the guns left at crime scenes could then be traced back to US gun dealers."


    I may have asked this question before but I still don't understand. Why would anyone leave weapons at the "crime scene" to begin with?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm supposing that's really a rhetorical question, JB. If not -- then, to prove several points: we can go anywhere we want to go and do anything we want to do, we're even bigger than the Mexican government because the government's been bought and sold, we kill Mexican officials every day; killing gringos makes a special point, to show we can get our weapons from any source... and more, but I'm tired.
      Now, for my question.
      Why is it the duty of the U.S. to keep weapons from crossing the Mexican border (or, any border, for that matter?) Last time I looked, a border had two sides. It seems logical to me that Mexico would bear the burden of keeping weapons from entering their country, if they're so hung up about it. Sorta like, I haven't seen the Mexicans going out of their way to keep their nationals from crossing into our space. Samey same, to me. Oh yeah, I forgot... that would be logical.

      Delete
  4. OK, this may sound conspiratorial but are we absolutely, 100% certain that it was the Mexican Drug Cartel that assinated Agent Terry? It most likley was but are we positive?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I heard an interview with Katie Pavlich. She says it is unclear that Agent Terry was killed by a Mexican. She says it is possible that he was killed by someone else. She was unclear, but that is because the information from the scene has been sealed and while the Judge wrote out the reasons for sealing the info, even the reasons have been sealed. If we could just get transparency that at least would be a recognition of equality.

      Delete
    2. That is a lot of seals. Where is PETA when you need them /s

      Delete
  5. JB... with the present administration, I'm assuming that this is another rhetorical question.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Rhetorical, yes but questions nevertheless.

    ReplyDelete

All points of view are welcome, but comments with excessive bad language and/or personal attacks will be deleted. Commenting on posts older than 5 days has been disabled.