Rep. Darrell Issa has come right out and said that he suspects Fast and Furious was intended to create an atmosphere for the Obama administration to push for more gun control. Powerline’s Paul Mirengoff is unpersuaded.
Eric Holder’s claim that he knew nothing about Fast and Furious is implausible. But this doesn’t mean that he and/or the president came up with the idea. As far as I know, there is no evidence as of now that either did.
Second, Obama and Holder probably would not have believed that increased violence in Mexico could lead to tougher regulation of guns in the U.S. Americans simply don’t care enough about Mexico to alter domestic policy based on what occurs there, especially when it comes to an issue as passionately and endlessly argued as gun control. Americans view violence in Mexico the way they viewed violence in Colombia – unfortunate, typical, and not our problem at any fundamental level.
He’s right, no amount of drug war violence could conceivably lead to Americans voluntarily dropping our own Second Amendment rights, but so what? Reading the American people isn’t the central question here; reading Obama and Holder is fundamental. What do they think, and to what lengths are they willing to go to pursue their policy preferences? Neither seems to think very much of any American who opposes or even questions them. We’ve already seen them push through massive bills over the objections of the majority of the voters, the 2009 stimulus and ObamaCare. Obama promised the Brady gun grabbers that he was working on some kind of gun control measure “under the radar.” What was that?
Where is the evidence that either Obama or Holder, and especially Holder, understand the American people well enough to read us in the way Mirengoff suggests? Obama/Axelrod ran a great if vague campaign in 2008 (and were abetted by the financial collapse and McCain’s lame effort), but since then Obama has embarked on one unpopular policy after another. Obama and Holder have both consistently dug themselves into holes with the American people over things that come out of their mouths — Holder, “nation of cowards”; Obama, “punish your enemies” and so forth. It’s clear from Obama’s campaign now that he has abandoned uniting the country in favor of winning by provoking his opponents into reacting in ways he can use to demonize and divide. The mid-term shellacking didn’t force him into a Clintonian rightward tilt. He has tacked hard left to keep his base motivated.
But if Mirengoff is right, then why at the time Fast and Furious was going fast and furious, did the administration trot out talking points about America’s gun rights guilt when it came to the war in Mexico? What was the point of that rhetoric, if not to get the American voter to care enough about violence in Mexico to surrender our gun rights? What. Was. The. Point?
April 2009, President Barack Obama: “This war is being waged with guns not bought here (Mexico) but in the United States.” The president stood there in Mexico, blaming US gun rights for the carnage around him. Why? I don’t mean to pick on Paul here, but it’s a question worth getting an answer to.
2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: “How could anybody conclude differently? Our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade. Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the deaths of police officers, soldiers, civilians. So yes, I feel very strongly that we have a co-responsibility.” Does not a “co-responsibility” require us to do something about it? What would that something be?
She left out the possibility that it could get American government agents killed. Perhaps genius mind-readers Obama and Holder didn’t foresee that possibility.
But why did say what she said in the clip? Was it political battle space prep? Did the administration’s words lead to media outlets like the Washington Post trying to use Mexico’s drug violence to get Congress to re-instate the Assault Weapons Ban?
If Obama and Holder knew, as Mirengoff asserts, that there was no way to turn Mexican violence into restrictions on American gun rights, then why were they explicitly connecting our gun rights to that violence at the time Fast and Furious was going on? What was the point? Mirengoff tries explaining the cover-up:
The administration may be motivated by the desire to cover up evidence that the Attorney General knowingly and deliberately lied to Congress.
Which begs the question: If Fast and Furious was really just a Phoenix operation, why lie to Congress about it once it unraveled? Aren’t Obama and Holder smart enough to know that it’s often not the crime, but the cover-up, that gets you? Why bother exposing yourself with a cover-up over a crime you didn’t even commit? And if Obama didn’t know anything about it, why tie himself to it via executive privilege? And what are we to make of Obama claiming to know about Fast and Furious before Holder even supposedly knew about it?
The thing about telling the truth is, you don’t have a story that you have to keep straight. Obama et al are failing at keeping their story straight.
In the early stages of Fast and Furious’ unraveling I was skeptical that the Obama administration could possibly be so evil and devious as to come up with a murderous plan to wreck the Second Amendment. But that was before their own actions started betraying them. Obama hemmed around it while Holder misled Congress and stonewalled on documents for about a year. Then DOJ out and out lied in an official letter to Congress in February 2011, and now Obama and Holder are hiding discovery on that lie via executive privilege. That’s what is driving the contempt vote. Meanwhile, neither say very much about Mexico’s violence anymore.
What’s up with that?
Bill Whittle got it right.
Follow the ideology.
Mr. Whittle linked Barack Obama’s attempt to ‘generate’ a green economy with “investment” money, as the President called it, to create a green economy. We got Solyndra and other green technology companies that are evidence of Team Obama’s attempt to generate a green economy by direct federal intervention.
As Mr. Whittle points out most logically if the President is willing to generate a green technology sector of energy production to rival coal, gas and fossil fuels by direct federal intervention without the consent of the American people to spend our money on now bankrupt companies why not generate a assault weapon crisis using federal resources like the ATF.
Operation Fast and Furious was a deliberate attempt at increased gun control, increased government regulation and increased federal power over American citizens.
“Never let a crisis go to waste.” Now where did I hear that before?
ATF used the multiple straw sales of long guns, which they forced FFLs in Arizona to make, as the reason for “Demand Letter 3.” Demand Letter 3, which was issued without any legal authority granted by Congress (and is the subject of a law suit by NRA), requires the reporting of multiple sales of long guns by FFLs in eight southwestern states. Hence, they are already using the “crisis” they created to exceed their mandate under the law. Indeed, Holder and his Congressional allies from the Democratic Party were still pushing for more gun control in his appearances before both House and Senate hearings on Fast & Furious. A created crisis indeed.
Although the arguments regarding the Second Amendment are likely true, I do not believe it is necessary or desirable to bring up motive for Fast and Furious. Rachel Maddow spent virtually all of her time on this issue discussing the Second Amendment motive as only fit for whack jobs.
Instead, simply state the facts about F&F. Repeatedly, especially that Wide Receiver ended in October 2007 and F&F started in October 2009. Do not get drawn into motive. Ask the liberal of your choice to figure out what motivated the Obama Administration to provide the means to murder 200-300 Mexicans and 2 or 3 federal employees. Let them twist in the wind on that question, there is no good answer.
Precisely. Shout the facts; force them to state and restate their narrative until they have no credibility left.
Dear Leader not only knew about Fast & Furious, but he also condoned and encouraged the operation, with one big, heretofore unmentioned caveat: He lied to President Calderone’s face when the Mexican head of state asked him about the operation; Mao Obama is up to his Curious George-looking ears in this mess. While I’m on my soap box – I’m tired of this affair being referred to as ‘botched’. Their was nothing ‘botched’ about it, except getting caught in lie after lie following the tragic MURDER of Agent Brian Terry (and possibly ICE Agent Jaimie Zapata), not to mention hundreds, maybe thousands, of innocent Mexican nationals caught in the crosshairs of murderous narco-thugs doing their best to undermine the duly-elected CALDERONE GOVERNMENT of Mexico…..yep, our home-grown Fidel and his little Che have some explaining to do.
Every American who loves our country – REGARDLESS OF PARTY AFFILIATION – should stand together and DEMAND the truth be revealed to the public. There are going to be those scumbags that are ‘all in’ with Barak and Michelle that will resist the truth being revealed with their ‘collectivist’ last breath (C.Matthews-S.J.Lee-E.Cummings-Pelosi-Reid-MSNBC-CNN-Maher-Hanks-NYT-et al) and we should remember who these individuals are that stood against our country’s honor when She needed us.
If you are a progressive democrat, and desire to save any shred of your political future, jump ship NOW, before it becomes obvious even to those that do not pay close attention to current events (you’re usual constituency) that you are really just a self-preserving rat. Even the stupid will eventually learn the truth because this is the most heinous scandal in American history. This is Murdergate, not Watergate. You do not want to be on the wrong side of history this time; but, I sincerely hope you are, so we can be rid of you forever.
Everything explained in less than 4 minutes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YtBxoQEkZ0
There is a 1995 C-SPAN interview with Holder available on YouTube where he states flat-out that he has plans to “really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNE5vuI9TNo
I don’t know how anybody / everybody seems to have missed this but the ONE CBS reporter following this story back 6 months ago reported about emails between DOJ workers explicitly talking about using the gunwalking in F&F to support calls for gun control…
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-57338546-10391695/documents-atf-used-fast-and-furious-to-make-the-case-for-gun-regulations/
They absolutely were using this “sting” to bolster their gun control case!
Ive been a fan of Powerline from before Rathergate but it seems as if Mr Mirengoff has been suffering from PTSD since he had to suspend blogging as a result of his criticism of the goings on at the Gifford et al memorial service. I’m inclined to follow Whittle in this matter.
Never mind Mirengoff and never mind Powerline. These folks are RINO-tastic to the nth degree.