Operation Fast and Furious has long been an outrage, albeit a barely reported one. That has changed with President Obama's assertion of "executive privilege" over the documents related to the scandal by the Department of Justice, effectively bringing attention to the idea that the executive branch may be involved in the ill-advised operation.
Conspiracy theories abound and evidence is mounting that the rationale for this criminal and fatal program had an ulterior motive: to justify gun control. Last week on his radio show, Rush Limbaugh raised eyebrows when he said, that Fast and Furious was simply a way to get assault weapons banned. He stated, "Politically, a ban on assault weapons wouldn't work," and therefore the stakeholders needed to "create a crisis," using Fast and Furious to ultimately justify a ban on assault weapons.
Steven Colbert mocked this theory, stating that it was "the fevered ramblings of a syphilitic brain..." Watch here:
The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive
It certainly sounds like a silly conspiracy theory...but consider...
The investigation by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee under House Republican Darrell Issa has been going on for 16 months, with little satisfaction.
No documentation has been provided that explains:
- why 2,000 guns would be allowed to "walk" into Mexico.
- how the guns would be tracked.
- who authorized this ill-advised program.
These seem to be the most important issues facing this investigation. After all, two border patrol agents have been killed and one has been injured. These weapons have been found at 100 bloody crime scenes. How many innocent Mexicans died because of this program?
In July of 2011, Issa told Fox News that under the Obama administration:
"...there seems to be a 'don't bother to enforce at all' policy, so that disturbs us — that there's less gun enforcement about illegal gun transactions under an administration that theoretically is more for gun control, and George W. Bush went out of his way to try to help the Mexicans by having a zero tolerance to illegal guns sales that could end up in Mexico."
Fast forward to April 2012, when Darrell Issa, after a year of being stonewalled by the Justice Department, stated that, if there "is no explanation that makes good sense, there can only be an explanation that makes the sense of ulterior motives of unthinkable proportions."
"Back in February 2011, Assistant Attorney General Ron Welch, in response to the investigations by Rep. Issa and Sen. Chuck Grassley of the Fast and Furious gun-'walking' program run out of ATF's Phoenix office, wrote a letter stating that the 'allegation that ATF "sanctioned" or otherwise knowingly allowed the sale of assault weapons ... is false.'" It actually was true. "In December the department formally withdrew the Feb. 4 letter, and Holder lamely told Congress that the officials responsible for the false claims 'did not know at the time that the information that they provided was inaccurate.'" Credibility is already deteriorating at this point for the DoJ.
Katie Pavlich has been on this case for quite a while. In July of 2011, she wrote a piece for Townhall saying that Fast and Furious was designed to promote gun control. Her article is a must read, as it is comprehensive and difficult to ignore. Sadly, the mainstream media did ignore her, and the scandal in general, until they were forced to report it.
CBS News reporter Sharyl Attkisson declares that the ATF used Operation Fast and Furious to "argue for controversial new rules about gun sales." The article states that "emails show they [ATF officials] discussed using the sales, including sales encouraged by ATF, to justify a new gun regulation called 'Demand Letter 3.'"
Consider the following quotes from President Obama, Eric Holder, and Hillary Clinton in 2009, the year Fast and Furious was implemented. These statements seem to be laying the framework for future policy changes and they all claim that weapons purchased in the United States make their way to Mexico:
President Obama on a visit to Mexico in April 2009 said, "This war is being waged with guns purchased not here but in the United States...more than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States, many from gun shops that lay in our shared border."
Eric Holder said in February 2009, "Putting the ban back in place [on assault weapons] would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border."
Hillary Clinton said in April 2009, "The guns that are sold in the United States, which are illegal in Mexico, get smuggled over our border and arm these terrible drug-dealing criminals so that they can outgun these poor police officers along the border and elsewhere in Mexico."
Hillary Clinton said in March 2009, "Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the deaths of police officers, soldiers and civilians."
An interesting insight into Eric Holder can be found from 1995 (CSPAN): He states, "We have to be repetitive about this, it is not enough to have a catchy ad...we need to do this every day of the week and just really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way [around the 3:00 minute mark]."
If one simply puts two and two together, Mr. Issa's allegations certainly have more credibility. Hopefully, the president will reverse his decision to withhold these documents, which can provide insight into this program; if not, the idea that this program was put into place to justify gun control will take on a life of it's own. After all, President Obama did state in 2008, "The use of executive power or executive privilege is subject to abuse."
It is time to allow the elected representatives to do their job.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 90
There is nothing, NOTHING, about this program that doesn't fit the criteria for sheer insanity.
Probably time for Ron Paul to grab a Democrat membership. If Obama doesn't throw Holder under the bus, and fast, he'll open the floor like Johnson.
Any of those gangs on the terrorist watchlist? They're certainly recognized and known enemies of the Mexican state. We shot 'em 1700 assault rifles.
If Canada did the same for Al Queda, would it be an act of war?
Holder has 2 weeks, tops.
From DHS in 2009:
In addition, CBP and ICE officials have seen significant success in confiscating illegal weapons and cash headed Southbound at the Southwest border.
WWND... LOL.
Did he get that info from Debbie "Wasserman-test" Schultz?
But I have always wondered, why she kept the hyphenated name, since he is the most famous person to carry that name.
Not that she should be ashamed of it at all – he was apparently a great man – but ….. does it help her politically???
This information is so top secrect apparently that even the President himself is not privy to this information, yet he can claim executive priviledge. The President wants it both ways.
We do not want an agreement...We want to know the truth...
Lame.
It is the Democrats that claim if the source of guns is eliminated then we would have less gun violence. Republicans want to prosecute criminals who you use weapons of any sort to the fullest extent of the law. Republicans also want to promote the safe use of guns. Democrats want to eliminate guns.
Pretty ironic, Lee, thanks for making that point. It has been made clear that our friend Rory is blinded by partisanship, and not even ideology.
The point is that in every other case of gun violence EVER Republicans have argued that responsibility for the crime stops at the person who fired the gun. The source of that gun is meaningless to the crime, according to your narrative. The gun dealer, the gun manufacturer, the private citizen who re-sold it are all completely uninvolved from what you constantly say whenever the insane level of gun violence is discussed (17,000 murders annually in the US, far more than anywhere else in the world). Suddenly you've found an issue you think you can pin to Obama and that entire principle is tossed out the window in the blink of an eye and now the SOURCE of the guns is of primary concern. Suddenly the idea of tracking the guns (something you normally consider a violation of privacy rights) is a national security issue.
Yes, people died as a result of these guns being allowed to "walk". Yes, some of them were law enforcement officers. How exactly is that different from the thousands of other people who died due to gun violence and the dozens of other law enforcement officers who were killed by guns? Different because you imagine Barack Obama sitting up in the Oval Office engineering this in order to gin up public outrage over gun violence so he can pass legislation to confiscate your arsenal. It makes no sense at all, and a clear minded person would see that immediately. The chances of this thing resulting in public support for gun control were nil from the outset, and the chances that this was ever part of the intent by anyone were also nil.
This appears to be a failure of law enforcement, not of anyone at the political level. A poorly conceived plan to identify criminals by tracking planted guns to them backfired. If you think Obama planned the thing you have no idea how far above this sort of planning Obama's pay grade is.
It may be a witch hunt, Rory. I tend to doubt it, I think the committee is frustrated that it is being stonewalled. But hey, there may be a level of grandstanding. I would not put it past politicians of any stripe.
Rep. Darrell Issa Admits There Is No Evidence Connecting White House To Fast & Furious Scandal
He states that Holder became the "custodian of the documents", which implies Issa doesn't think he (Holder) had anything to do with it let alone Obama.
I'd like the truth as well Renee but I wouldn't be too quick with hyperbolic speculation.
I agree with you about getting to the bottom of it and have from the beginning. I'm just pointing out that there is no need to get too far ahead of ourselves at this stage, as the tone of Issa's rhetoric betrays the level of alarm shown by some of your readers.
While on the subject of speculation, which way do you guys think the Supreme Court decision will go this week?
We don't know exactly what this is about, save for the Leftist desire to steal from us our Right to carry Firearms...but I can assure you that this is deadly-serious.
He knows what we do not...and he is in deep bother because of it...
I've another bombshell to put you onto...but I'm not sure I'd want to put you through it...
Renee, just because I don't buy your interpretation of events does not mean I am indifferent to the death of anyone, no matter how much phony outrage you want to express. Once again you need to rein in your hyperbole.
You try to present yourself as a fair arbiter but you do not actually behave as one in my view.
For all I know you are a very nice person. You may even be doing the things I am talking about unknowingly, showing a subconscious bias towards those you are inclined to agree with. We are all susceptible to that sort of thing. But usually, in my experience, people of strong intellect are less susceptible to an unconscious or reflexive prejudice of this sort. You are clearly an intelligent person, so I suspect this is a deliberate tactic.
Whoa!!! My Goodness!!!! EUREKA!!!!!!!!! Saints be Praised!!!
Wow...I simply can't get over it!!! Woweeee!!!!!! That is so utterly fascinating!!!!!! WOOOOHOOOOO!!!!!!!!!
Wowowowow!!!! Hokie Smoke!!!!! By God!!!!!!!!!!
....... :(
Hyperbolic speculation.
It makes me want to play scrabble.
The tribal wisdom of the FLATHEAD NATION, passed on from generation to generation, says that; "When you discover that you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount."
However, in government, more advanced strategies are often employed, such as:
Buying a stronger whip.
Changing riders.
Appointing a committee to study the horse.
Arranging to visit other countries to see how other cultures ride
dead horses.
Lowering the standards so that dead horses can be included.
Reclassifying the dead horse as living-impaired.
Hiring outside contractors to ride the dead horse.
Harnessing several dead horses together to increase speed.
Providing additional funding and/or training to increase dead
horse’s performance.
Doing a productivity study to see if lighter riders would improve
the dead horse’s performance.
Declaring that as the dead horse does not have to be fed, it is less costly carries lower overhead and therefore contributes substantially more to the bottom line of the economy than do some other horses.
Rewriting the expected performance requirements for all horses.
And of course....
Promoting the dead horse to a supervisory position.