Contributors

Saturday, June 30, 2012

Won't Get Fooled Again

A while back, last in line chided me for not talking more about Fast and Furious, the ATF flap that has currently engulfed Congress and now has resulted in the first ever contempt vote for an Attorney General of the United States. Honestly, I should have listened to his advice and started digging into it. In fact, the same can be said for the media who were accused of ignoring the story because they are in the tank for the Obama Administration. Right wing bloggers all over the nation screamed that the media should start reporting more on this topic.

Oops.

I guess they woke up the sleeping giant.

The agents faced numerous obstacles in what they dubbed the Fast and Furious case. (They named it after the street-racing movie because the suspects drag raced cars together.) Their greatest difficulty by far, however, was convincing prosecutors that they had sufficient grounds to seize guns and arrest straw purchasers. By June 2010 the agents had sent the U.S. Attorney's office a list of 31 suspects they wanted to arrest, with 46 pages outlining their illegal acts. But for the next seven months prosecutors did not indict a single suspect.

Why didn't they arrest them? And, if they were purposefully walking guns, how is it that it comes out now that they wanted to arrest these guys?

Quite simply, there's a fundamental misconception at the heart of the Fast and Furious scandal. Nobody disputes that suspected straw purchasers under surveillance by the ATF repeatedly bought guns that eventually fell into criminal hands. Issa and others charge that the ATF intentionally allowed guns to walk as an operational tactic. But five law-enforcement agents directly involved in Fast and Furious tell Fortune that the ATF had no such tactic. They insist they never purposefully allowed guns to be illegally trafficked. Just the opposite: They say they seized weapons whenever they could but were hamstrung by prosecutors and weak laws, which stymied them at every turn. 

Indeed, a six-month Fortune investigation reveals that the public case alleging that Voth and his colleagues walked guns is replete with distortions, errors, partial truths, and even some outright lies. Fortune reviewed more than 2,000 pages of confidential ATF documents and interviewed 39 people, including seven law-enforcement agents with direct knowledge of the case. Several, including Voth, are speaking out for the first time. 

Wait. How can this be? Every single thing that is published on a right wing blog is 100 percent accurate and never retracted. Oh, wait, I see...

How Fast and Furious reached the headlines is a strange and unsettling saga, one that reveals a lot about politics and media today. It's a story that starts with a grudge, specifically Dodson's anger at Voth. After the terrible murder of agent Terry, Dodson made complaints that were then amplified, first by right-wing bloggers, then by CBS. Rep. Issa and other politicians then seized those elements to score points against the Obama administration. 

Amplified, huh...shocking, simply shocking...

Sorry, folks, I really dropped the ball on this one. Had I listened to my regular commenters and dug into this story more extensively we could have been where we are at right now: the truth.

So, I'm very happy to continue to talk about this issue now that all of these facts have come to light.

35 comments:

juris imprudent said...

ATF is fast and furiously spinning this as a failure at DOJ to prosecute. Now that may be the case, or it may not. As bureaucratic infighting, it plays well with Holder being held in contempt. It certainly speaks to failure to coordinate efforts in a very high risk operation. Remember you are the one that is always so sure that govt is the answer. Well this is your govt in action.

Not that you are about to believe that any part of Obamessiah's govt could do wrong.

Larry said...

Yep, the whistleblowing BATFE agents are all liars, the DoJ and Holder haven't been repeatedly caught in obvious lies and having to retract previous statements, and of course the Bureau's agents are being completely honest with the press who of course after failing to bury the story, will now really investigate and not just print government talking points.

And those idiot bloggers. Now after listening to loyal BATFE agents tell their tales of whine and woe to the press about how the DoJ wouldn't prosecute, and how weak gun laws stymied them at every turn, how could those idiots think this massive clusterfuck of an operation's results might've been used to argue for more gun laws? Even as they're doing so indirectly by implication now.

I don't know what the real purpose was, but only the hopeless naive and/or brain-damaged could have possibly believed that the operation as conceived could have achieved the publicly stated goals. By all means, lets turn over even more money and power to them.

It looks to me like the BATFE is just trying to cover its own ass and point fingers at a different part of DoJ.

juris "bully weasel" imprudent said...

only the hopeless naive and/or brain-damaged

It is uncharitable to describe our host thus - accurate as it may be.

GuardDuck said...

A hard hitting expose by errrm Fortune magazine.....


The proof of which lies in the powerful he-said she-said testimony of agents who could be on the hook for felony charges if the do not deny the allegations.....


Oh and a critical survey of 'thousands' of released documents.....all of those being the ones that were indeed released by a AG who is now in contempt for not releasing documents. A critical thinker would hold judgement on the content of the released documents until the true nature of the unreleased ones can be ascertained.


Yup...this one fortune story is obvious proof that Mark has dug deep into this story. He searched round and round to find one that matched his preconceived notions......

Larry said...

I see your point, juris, but it wasn't aimed at Mark, though I see now it could be read that way. No, I was speaking of those who planned and approved this SCOAMF of an op.

Mark Ward said...

how could those idiots think this massive clusterfuck of an operation's results might've been used to argue for more gun laws?

Well, I was waiting for this little gem to pop up. So, it's all just a secret plot by the government to take away your guns, eh Larry? I find it highly amusing that after a nearly full term of relaxed gun laws, you are completely convinced that Barack X still wants to take away your guns.

The fact that neither he nor Eric Holder is conforming to your paranoid fantasy has obviously made it worse. With this new information, I suspect the rants are going to only get more irrational and delusional from here on out now that you have been proved wrong.

juris imprudent said...

Well, I was waiting for this little gem to pop up.

As I recall it was CBS that brought it up. I guess they are part of the right-wing fever swamp, eh?

Nope, you aren't going to consider for one second that this is govt in all its splendor. Govt can never be that fucked up. Give us another sermon Preacher and warm up the choir at Leftboro Baptist.

Larry said...

CBS News: Documents: ATF used "Fast and Furious" to make the case for gun regulations

Only an idiot would believe that the ATF and the anti-gunners have changed their goals one iota simply because they've been losing for a decade. Take a look at Bloomberg and the NYPDs antics. Simply because for the last decade, enough politicians have come to recognize that gun-control is a losing proposition and have chosen not to die upon that particular hill doesn't mean they still don't want to advance that agenda. Perhaps you simply haven't noticed or are choosing to ignore that victories for pro-2nd Amendment legislation have mostly been hard-fought legislative battles, and that some have been lost? So are you merely ignorant or are you lying again? It's really hard to tell sometimes.

Mark Ward said...

So, CBS is now a reliable source of information when they are feeding you want you to hear? That certainly wasn't the case back during the whole Bush=AWOL flap.

But hey, let's assume that the CBS report was true. And let's place it next to the Fortune magazine report. Now what do you think? Your link is 7 months old and there has been quite a bit of information that has come out since that time. There are now multiple sides to this story and you are focusing on one of them as the rock solid truth.

And, in looking at your link, the ATF was unhappy about the ease at which guns could be purchased from certain dealers. From your link...

On one side, ATF officials argue that a large number of semi-automatic, high-caliber rifles from the U.S. are being used by violent cartels in Mexico. They believe more reporting requirements would help ATF crack down. On the other side, gun rights advocates say that's unconstitutional, and would not make a difference in Mexican cartel crimes.

That's hardly coming to your house and taking your guns away. Not to mention the fact that the program has been shut down because it obviously was a failure and too dangerous.

Larry (and everyone else), I'm going to ask you a simple question: do you think that Barack Obama, if he had the chance and political backing, would come to your house and take away your guns?

Larry said...

I'm linking CBS because it's a source you're supposed to approve of. One you're not supposed to dismiss with an airy wave of the hand as "typical right-wing nonsense and fear-mongering." Yet there you go...

Mark Ward said...

Every source is biased, Larry, in some sort of way. I'm interested if you think the CBS source is accurate and, if so, how it fits in with the Fortune story.

Moreover, I'm very interested if you, Hap, juris or Guard Duck think Barack Obama is coming to take away your guns...if he had the power to do so.

juris imprudent said...

If Obama believed there was a political upside to tightening gun laws - yes, he would do it in a heartbeat. He and other Democrats have avoided it only because with few exceptions it is very detrimental to their electoral health. That they won't tighten them, let alone propose confiscation doesn't mean they wouldn't consider it. Oh, and just to be clear - Obama wouldn't do that, he'd let the flunkies like Brian Terry risk their lives doing so.

And, in looking at your link, the ATF was unhappy about the ease at which guns could be purchased from certain dealers.

That is absolute fucking bullshit and only an asshole like you could swallow it. It was documented that dealers were complaining about obvious straw-purchases being green-lighted.

And fuck you for dismissing CBS when it is convenient for you to do so. You pissant partisan punk.

Mark Ward said...

My oh my, such emotion and feeling! People hate in other what they fear in themselves, juris.

I'm not dismissing CBS either. I assumed that the report is accurate. Now how does that jibe with the report from Fortune? And how do YOU justify your acceptance of this CBS report after you and all the rest of the Bakerites went berserk about CBS during the Bush flap?

a political upside to tightening gun laws - yes, he would do it in a heartbeat.

So, you think he would tighten gun laws but not come to your house and take them away, correct? No one has answered my question yet but at least you gave me something. What form of "tightening" do you think he is interested in? Personally, I think that given all the other issues he has on his plate, this one ranks at or at least near the bottom. But, hey, I don't want to spoil your fantasy about the Democrats and the federal government.

juris imprudent said...

Actually M I'm angry at myself for ever believing you capable of honest, intelligent discussion. That just isn't your thing and I really should understand that.

Now how does that jibe with the report from Fortune?

I already told you.

So, you think he would tighten gun laws but not come to your house and take them away, correct?

I do believe that most Democrats, particularly the urban/left - would be more than happy to ban all private gun ownership. They cannot because they can't sell even the rest of their party let alone the rest of the electorate on it. If you want to live in a fantasy world that no one wants to limit the RKBA, by all means - consume all of the oxygen inside that bubble.

Philosophoraptor said...

The CBS story links to verifiable internal ATF memos, so I trust those a lot more than their public statements and press releases. As would any thinking creature.

Would Barack Obama want to come to my house to take my guns? No, he's too much of a coward. He'd send a SWAT team, watch video coverage from the White House, then claim credit for a "gutsy decision" afterwards. Not that that would ever happen since it would be political suicide. It would be the slow strangle like in Britain and Australia, not the sudden strike.

And Mark, while people can hate what they fear, they can also hate that which is stupid, obnoxious, and dishonest. Actually, though, I think you mistake being despised for being hated.

Mark Ward said...

I do believe that most Democrats, particularly the urban/left - would be more than happy to ban all private gun ownership.

That's completely preposterous but I know you need your paranoid fantasy to cling to so, obviously, there aren't any facts I could present to you to change your mind.

I guess they's will always be a comin'!!!

Anonymous said...

That's completely preposterous but I know you need your paranoid fantasy to cling to so, obviously, there aren't any facts I could present to you to change your mind.

Really? I wonder how all the handgun bans arrived? Weird....as if they just materialized. Weird too that Americans need a gun lobby to keep politicians in check from INFRINGEMENT all the live long day.

Maybe you are right, M. I guess the NRA can disband now that the calls for gun bans and more legislation no longer exist! I feel so much better about government now.

What world do you live in?!!

juris imprudent said...

Let me amend my statement - it should not read "most Democrats", but "many".

Am I still nuts M? Or are you the one that is so deluded about why there is no current push for more gun control?

And stop telling me what I say/think - just shut the fuck up and LISTEN to what I say.

GuardDuck said...

That's completely preposterous but I know you need your paranoid fantasy to cling to so, obviously, there aren't any facts I could present to you to change your mind.


Are you fucking serious Mark?

You are really that completely out of touch with your own party?

OR are you just a lying asshole like normal?

Mark Ward said...

I am completely serious. You know what this whole conversation (and the other about taxing broccoli) reminds me of right now?

1. Panic Mongering. This goes one step beyond simple fear mongering. With panic mongering, there is never a break from the fear. The idea is to terrify and terrorize the audience during every waking moment. From Muslims to swine flu to recession to homosexuals to immigrants to the rapture itself, the belief over at Fox seems to be that if your fight-or-flight reflexes aren't activated, you aren't alive. This of course raises the question: why terrorize your own audience? Because it is the fastest way to bypasses the rational brain. In other words, when people are afraid, they don't think rationally. And when they can't think rationally, they'll believe anything.

Essentially, you are telling me that if I'm not as paranoid as you are, then I must be an idiot. Sorry, GD, but you are the idiot for completely buying a bill of goods that is never going to fucking happen. Never. Your guns are not going to be taken away by the Democrats. Start believing it because it's a fact.

juris imprudent said...

Your guns are not going to be taken away by the Democrats.

Of course they aren't - because the American people won't support the moron Democrats that still want to do that. What fucking planet do you live on where not one single Democrat wants to eliminate or radically reduce the RKBA? Jaysus fuckhead - does Carolyn McCarthy not ring a bell?

GuardDuck said...

Ditto juris.

GuardDuck said...

Congress’ 20 Biggest Gun Control Advocates

When Gun Owners of America gives you a grade of F- and The Brady Campaign scores you 100 out of 100 you are, by any measure, an anti-gun politician.

Twenty Mark, twenty who are so completely anti-gun that they get perfect scores from both sides of the debate.

That leaves out those whose scores are less bad - from straight F to C-.

And you think I'm paranoid and you aren't contemptibly delusional.

Larry said...

Oh come on, people. Don't you know the Democrats have completely changed? What's the matter? Don't you trust them?

Mark Ward said...

Actually, you are correct. They have never changed...as in, they have never taken away your guns. I'm not sure how old you are, Larry, but have you ever in your lifetime had to surrender your guns? Do you still continue to buy guns as you see fit? Were you one of those people that rushed out to buy guns after Barack Hussein Obama was elected in the delusion that he was going to seize your guns?

I don't own any guns but many of my friends and family do. Many of my older family members have had guns for more than 8 decades. They continue to buy hand guns, rifles, shotguns, and all sorts of related weaponry and accessories. Many of them are Democrats and support Democrats who also own guns and are pro guns rights. Harry Reid would be one of them.

So, I don't have a fucking clue what you are talking about here...unless, of course, we're dealing with some sort of emotional issue. Like maybe, you have to always have a bad guy comin' to gin ya! Is that your blankey?

juris imprudent said...

I'm not sure how old you are, Larry, but have you ever in your lifetime had to surrender your guns?

What prompted you to go total retard M - I'm curious. It isn't the intent of people in the case where they haven't fully succeeded? Since when do results ever fucking matter to you? CA banned evil black guns - yes, people had to turn them in or take them out of the state. It wasn't CA Republicans that were to blame for that you fuckhead. Please just shut up - I'm feeling sorry for you.

GuardDuck said...

yes, people had to turn them in or take them out of the state


Just need to repeat this for the edification of the terminally stupid.

6Kings said...

Apparently in M's world, if it isn't outright confiscation and bans, there is no infringement. Geez, talk about complete denial but I guess that is par for the blog.

Mark Ward said...

All of you are avoiding the question. Have your gun rights been significantly altered for the worse in the years you have been on this planet or has it gotten better?

CA banned evil black guns

What law are you speaking of, juris? Be more specific and (ahem) try to be honest in your description.

Larry said...

Mark, you remind of the local national engineers at a chemical plant in Peru who scoffed at the safety rules laid down by the American parent company's management. "Why are you so paranoid?" they'd say as they smoked in a hazardous area. "Nothing's ever happened here. Come on, relax, don't be such hard-ass." Needless to say, no one (American) was terribly surprised by the blow-up and fire a couple years later. Also needless to say, the American company was blamed for deaths and destruction, not the local nationals who actually ran the place.

Do you honestly believe that the same people responsible for the draconian gun laws of Chicago, New York, and Washington D.C don't want to take them national? And haven't been trying to do that? And haven't been fighting bitterly against every victory of the pro-rights movement?

You're either colossally ignorant of recent history or are a shameless liar. Hmm, the same old question about you. Is Mark just stupid or is he a lying asshole? Or more likely both?

juris imprudent said...

All of you are avoiding the question. Have your gun rights been significantly altered for the worse in the years you have been on this planet or has it gotten better?

Eat shit and die you fucking lying loser. It isn't your precious motherfucking Democrats that have done jack to improve "gun rights" - they have fought it every step of the way. They've had their asses handed to them in elections - and by gawds they aren't as stupid as you.


What law are you speaking of, juris?

Your favorite research site - though it does not include the history (registration preceding banning). You can find that yourself if you are interested... hahahahahaha. And note that if you have a prohibited weapon you not only lose it, but all other guns you own.

Mark Ward said...

So, Larry, are saying "if my fight-or-flight reflexes aren't activated, I must not be alive?" :)

Once again, a false equivalency. Comparing the safety regulations at a chemical plant to gun control...tsk tsk...only someone who is truly irrational and paranoid about government could come up with that one. But this is what I mean when I say "Managing Fantasies." Years and years of evidence and relaxed guns laws will not sway you. Having this enemy on the horizon is what defines you. Without it, what are you? They will always be a comin'!!

Larry said...

I know it' hard for you, Mark, but please don't be such a deliberately obtuse ass.

Why in the world do you think pro-gun rights legislation has advanced in the last several years? I'll give you a hint: it's not because pro-gun rights people have been sitting on their asses "trusting government to do the right thing." It sure as fuck isn't because most Democrats (and a few RINOs) have changed their ways, it because they've been defeated in public debates, defeated in elections, and defeated in the various legislatures and in Congress. And they haven't always been defeated. There's been lots of public education about the issues, debates, and stiff legislative fighting most of the way, and most of your buddies have historically been on the wrong side the entire time.

Meanwhile, you softly sing, "Go to sleep, go to sleep... Your fears are groundless, so go to sleep..." As if the gun-control freaks like Feinstein, Boxer, Schumer, Nadler, etc., etc., ad nauseum will then go away. Yeah, sure they will. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

Since I sincerely doubt that you're really so stupid as to not see the connection, why don't you pull your head out of your ass long enough to go fuck yourself?

Mark Ward said...

I have no problem giving credit to people that have worked hard, Larry. But you are missing one very salient point. Violence around the country (in fact, the world) has been dropping. At the same time this has been happening, gun rights have been looser and laws relaxed. These are both undisputed facts.

What this says to me is that gun control advocates have no facts on which to base their arguments. If violence continues to go down (and I believe that it will for a number of various reasons), how can they possibly take away guns or rights?

Anonymous said...

Which has absolutely nothing to do with you line of argument throughout this thread.