Too Fast, too Furious

Wehrwolfen

Senior Member
May 22, 2012
2,750
340
48
Too Fast, too Furious​


By John Griffing
January 24, 2013



Why is it that with all the talk of preventing gun violence with unconstitutional gun control directives, the president and his odious band of weapons dealers have not been called to account for their illegal arms shipments south of the border, or their giving of arms to al Qaeda resulting in the effective murder of U.S. diplomatic personnel in Libya?

The hypocrisy is breathtaking. But this is an all too familiar pattern for Obama. The fox has taken charge of the henhouse.

President Obama sent weapons, untraced and untracked, to drug cartels in Mexico. American citizens, including U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, have been killed by just these kinds of criminals, with just these kinds of weapons.

And before the pathologically anti-Bush zealots begin to sing in unison that this act was no different than a similar program during the Bush years, it should be noted that President Bush's program, called Operation Wide Receiver was designed to track gun shipments so as to readily identify the biggest enclaves of cartel activity. Obama simply gifted Mexican cartels with weapons, in much the same way that he recently gifted Egypt, led by the virulently anti-American Muslim Brotherhood, with 20 new sophisticated F-16 fighter jets.

There are known, documented Hezbollah outposts in Mexico. It is entirely possible that Islamic terrorists camping south of the border have weapons courtesy of the Obama Administration. Iranian dictator Amadinejad -- who may now possess nuclear warheads -- has boasted that he has armies of Iranian Hezbollah agents stationed in Mexico waiting for the order to flood across the border, a process which, thanks to our president, is now easier than ever.

And now President Obama claims the moral ground to lecture Americans -- clinging to God and guns -- about gun violence? Something is wrong with this picture.

Our president is arming our enemies while he threatens to disarm his own citizens.

Throughout history, tyrants have used manufactured crises to rationalize the confiscation of citizens' lawful firearms, eliminating citizens' ability to defend themselves against the tyranny of their own governments. Obama is just the latest in a long line.

Perhaps it's stating the obvious, but if President Obama takes weapons from law abiding citizens, then only criminals -- and Obama -- will have weapons.

Those who oppose gun control and dare to question the efficacy of making it harder to acquire and own defensive weapons are portrayed as the lunatic fringe.

What is the reality? One of the provisions of Obama's proposed gun control measures is to appropriate federal money to collect data on gun-related violence. What few seem to realize is that the Department of Justice already does this and has been doing it for years. From National Crime Victimization Survey figures, it is known that guns are used 3 to 5 times more in self-defense by licensed gun owners than in the commission of violent crimes.

It is also known that criminals do not walk into gun stores or attend gun expositions and submit to background checks, obtain licenses, and expose themselves to criminal investigations. Criminals are criminals because they have an innate disdain for the law. Why would they voluntarily submit to background checks?

If President Obama really is the Harvard genius we've been led to believe, we can deduce that he knows that tougher background checks and licensing requirements will do nothing to reduce criminal use of guns in the commission of violent crimes.

[Excerpt]


Read more:
Articles: Too Fast, too Furious
 
American Thinker proves once again that it's writers don't think. The President was not sending weapons to the drug cartels in Mexico. The ATF however has been called to account for another of it's failed gun walking operations. Why is it that the ATF has not had a director for 6 years? Could it be that the Senate has never confirmed an ATF director, ever! Why is that?
 
American Thinker proves once again that it's writers don't think. The President was not sending weapons to the drug cartels in Mexico. The ATF however has been called to account for another of it's failed gun walking operations. Why is it that the ATF has not had a director for 6 years? Could it be that the Senate has never confirmed an ATF director, ever! Why is that?

So your saying Maobama is responsible for the executive branch, except when he isn't?
 
American Thinker proves once again that it's writers don't think. The President was not sending weapons to the drug cartels in Mexico. The ATF however has been called to account for another of it's failed gun walking operations. Why is it that the ATF has not had a director for 6 years? Could it be that the Senate has never confirmed an ATF director, ever! Why is that?

So your saying Maobama is responsible for the executive branch, except when he isn't?

Who the fuck in Maobama and why would that person be responsible for the Presidency?
 
American Thinker proves once again that it's writers don't think. The President was not sending weapons to the drug cartels in Mexico. The ATF however has been called to account for another of it's failed gun walking operations. Why is it that the ATF has not had a director for 6 years? Could it be that the Senate has never confirmed an ATF director, ever! Why is that?

So your saying Maobama is responsible for the executive branch, except when he isn't?

Who the fuck in Maobama and why would that person be responsible for the Presidency?

That would be the little commie slime ball who occupies the oval office at this point in time, as if you didn't already know that.
 
American Thinker proves once again that it's writers don't think. The President was not sending weapons to the drug cartels in Mexico. The ATF however has been called to account for another of it's failed gun walking operations. Why is it that the ATF has not had a director for 6 years? Could it be that the Senate has never confirmed an ATF director, ever! Why is that?

So your saying Maobama is responsible for the executive branch, except when he isn't?

Who the fuck in Maobama and why would that person be responsible for the Presidency?

I will ask it in a way where you can not divert from the question by criticizing the question itself...

If the President is responsible for the executive branch of government...and he is...and the DoJ falls under the executive branch...

Are you saying that the President is only responsible for the executive branch when he is...and he is not when he is not...and you get to decide when he is and when he is not......or does he get to decide that.....
 
So your saying Maobama is responsible for the executive branch, except when he isn't?

Who the fuck in Maobama and why would that person be responsible for the Presidency?

I will ask it in a way where you can not divert from the question by criticizing the question itself...

If the President is responsible for the executive branch of government...and he is...and the DoJ falls under the executive branch...

Are you saying that the President is only responsible for the executive branch when he is...and he is not when he is not...and you get to decide when he is and when he is not......or does he get to decide that.....
By the way...the ATF falls under the DOJ..

So the Pres who has a department of justice beneath him is not responsible for that departemnt.....and an agency that falls under the department of justice is not overseen by the DOJ...

So then no one really is responsible for anything.

Maybe that explains the 16.5 trillion debt.....seeing as the only ones who lose their jobs in government are those that cant keep their pecker in their pants.
 
Last edited:
So your saying Maobama is responsible for the executive branch, except when he isn't?

Who the fuck in Maobama and why would that person be responsible for the Presidency?

That would be the little commie slime ball who occupies the oval office at this point in time, as if you didn't already know that.

There is no commie in the Oval office. But then again you knew that too didn't you?
 
So your saying Maobama is responsible for the executive branch, except when he isn't?

Who the fuck in Maobama and why would that person be responsible for the Presidency?

I will ask it in a way where you can not divert from the question by criticizing the question itself...

If the President is responsible for the executive branch of government...and he is...and the DoJ falls under the executive branch...

Are you saying that the President is only responsible for the executive branch when he is...and he is not when he is not...and you get to decide when he is and when he is not......or does he get to decide that.....

American Thinker stated that our President "sent weapons, untraced and untracked, to drug cartels in Mexico". He did not. The acting deputy Director of the ATF (since 2007) was in charge of Fast and Furious and did not inform the Whitehouse of the operation.
 
Who the fuck in Maobama and why would that person be responsible for the Presidency?

I will ask it in a way where you can not divert from the question by criticizing the question itself...

If the President is responsible for the executive branch of government...and he is...and the DoJ falls under the executive branch...

Are you saying that the President is only responsible for the executive branch when he is...and he is not when he is not...and you get to decide when he is and when he is not......or does he get to decide that.....
By the way...the ATF falls under the DOJ..

So the Pres who has a department of justice beneath him is not responsible for that departemnt.....and an agency that falls under the department of justice is not overseen by the DOJ...

So then no one really is responsible for anything.

Maybe that explains the 16.5 trillion debt.....seeing as the only ones who lose their jobs in government are those that cant keep their pecker in their pants.

It is the above hyperbole that makes your side look more and more ridiculous everyday.

The former deputy director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has left the agency in the wake of the fallout from the Fast and Furious gun walking scandal. William Hoover was no longer employed at the agency as of Aug, 1, 2012, according to an ATF spokesman. Officials declined to comment further, citing the Privacy Act.

Hoover had served as the deputy director of the bureau since February 2007 and was in that position during the Fast and Furious gun-running scandal. Prior to being the No. 2 at the ATF, Hoover had served as the assistant director for field operations. He joined the ATF in 1987 after having worked in Virginia at several law enforcement agencies. He had also served as special agent in charge of Boston and Washington field offices before going to ATF headquarters.

Under Fast and Furious, ATF agents recorded and tracked straw purchases of weapons, which eventually “walked” across the U.S. border into Mexico. ATF agents were tracking the purchases in a failed effort to locate major weapons traffickers, rather than catching low-level buyers. The ATF operation took a tragic toll when two guns linked to the operation were found near slain U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry on Dec. 14, 2010.

Hoover had been briefed on Fast and Furious by ATF agent William Newell, the special agent in charge overseeing the case. In March 2010 Hoover became concerned about the number of guns involved in the case and ordered ATF agents in Phoenix to wrap the case up in 90 days.


Fast and Furious Fallout: Former ATF Deputy Director Leaves Agency - ABC News
 
Considering the money the ATF would need for any operation, there is no way they took it upon themselves without consulting those higher up. More likely, they follow orders from the top and I believe some of the ATF agents came forth because they didn't want to follow such destructive order. DOJ first told them to remain silent and Holder would handle it. They saw they were being blamed and lies were being told, so they decided to break their silence.

Amazing that the left wants to accuse Repubs of being responsible for what the lowest level person in the tea party says or holds them responsible for decisions by FEMA, but yet excuses Obama and claims he is completely ignorant of a large scale gun operation being carried out by the ATF.

With only a temporary person as director, there is no way the ATF launched this idiotic plan on their own. It clearly wasn't about tracking guns as there were no tracking devices. It was merely a plan to allow drug cartels and terrorists to purchase what they needed with no questions asked. The ATF would have no reason to do that. Someone sympathetic to the terrorists and someone wanting to create a crisis to further their agenda would do that.


What the hell is it with the left that they jump to Obama's defense and claim he knows nothing about anything that ever went wrong, whether it's Fast and Furious or Benghazi, and they viciously attack anyone who believes that he knows exactly what happened in both instances. He damn well should know what is going on when the ATF launches a plan of that magnitude and manages to arm a whole lot of bad guys. It was the agents who leaked this or it would still be going on.
 
Last edited:
Who the fuck in Maobama and why would that person be responsible for the Presidency?

I will ask it in a way where you can not divert from the question by criticizing the question itself...

If the President is responsible for the executive branch of government...and he is...and the DoJ falls under the executive branch...

Are you saying that the President is only responsible for the executive branch when he is...and he is not when he is not...and you get to decide when he is and when he is not......or does he get to decide that.....

American Thinker stated that our President "sent weapons, untraced and untracked, to drug cartels in Mexico". He did not. The acting deputy Director of the ATF (since 2007) was in charge of Fast and Furious and did not inform the Whitehouse of the operation.

I have little interest in opinion pieces. Mostly from those that think as I do. I learn nothing from them. I just learn about the person writing them.

I do not have an issue with the President not knowing about Fast and Furious.

But when you think of the actual details of the operation.....the securing of arms in the hands of the enemy of an ally...and without the government of the ally knowing.....that is considered an act of war. Now, of course, Mexico would not truly cosider it an act of war. To be frank, I am surpirsed they are not more upset about it. But that aside......

are we, the people supposed to believe that the ATF did not inform the DOJ and the DOJ did not inform the White House about an operation that included the furnishing of arms to the enemy of our ally without the government of that ally knowing?

ANd if they were NOT informed...what subordinate made the decision to keep something that could be deemed an act of war from people higher up? why did he/she feel he/she had the right to make that decision? What supervisor gave him that authority? What manager gave the supervisor the right to give such authority?

Why is no one interested in finding this out?

I mean....dam.....we were selling arms to the enemy of an ally and no one above the ATF diirector knew? And no one was fired? No one was at fault?
 
The secret to Obama's successful criminal career is the unquestioning loyalty of the mainstream media. The president can commit any type of treason and cover up of criminal behavior if the media ignores it and criticizes republicans for trying to get to the bottom of issues like Fast/Furious. We might as well live in an era of fascism as long as the democrat majority continues to defend the administration rather than support the Constitution.
 
Who the fuck in Maobama and why would that person be responsible for the Presidency?

I will ask it in a way where you can not divert from the question by criticizing the question itself...

If the President is responsible for the executive branch of government...and he is...and the DoJ falls under the executive branch...

Are you saying that the President is only responsible for the executive branch when he is...and he is not when he is not...and you get to decide when he is and when he is not......or does he get to decide that.....

American Thinker stated that our President "sent weapons, untraced and untracked, to drug cartels in Mexico". He did not. The acting deputy Director of the ATF (since 2007) was in charge of Fast and Furious and did not inform the Whitehouse of the operation.

Who appointed Eric Holder to the position of Atty General? Your last statement is an outright lie. "Holder was formally nominated on January 20, 2009 and was overwhelmingly approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee on January 28 with a bipartisan vote of 17 to 2.[30][31] He was officially confirmed by the entire Senate on February 2, 2009 by a vote of 75 to 21.[32] becoming the nation's first African-American Attorney General". (Eric Holder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
Operation Fast and Furious only came into being under Holder.
 
Considering the money the ATF would need for any operation, there is no way they took it upon themselves without consulting those higher up. More likely, they follow orders from the top and I believe some of the ATF agents came forth because they didn't want to follow such destructive order. DOJ first told them to remain silent and Holder would handle it. They saw they were being blamed and lies were being told, so they decided to break their silence.

Amazing that the left wants to accuse Repubs of being responsible for what the lowest level person in the tea party says or holds them responsible for decisions by FEMA, but yet excuses Obama and claims he is completely ignorant of a large scale gun operation being carried out by the ATF.

With only a temporary person as director, there is no way the ATF launched this idiotic plan on their own. It clearly wasn't about tracking guns as there were no tracking devices. It was merely a plan to allow drug cartels and terrorists to purchase what they needed with no questions asked. The ATF would have no reason to do that. Someone sympathetic to the terrorists and someone wanting to create a crisis to further their agenda would do that.


What the hell is it with the left that they jump to Obama's defense and claim he knows nothing about anything that ever went wrong, whether it's Fast and Furious or Benghazi, and they viciously attack anyone who believes that he knows exactly what happened in both instances. He damn well should know what is going on when the ATF launches a plan of that magnitude and manages to arm a whole lot of bad guys. It was the agents who leaked this or it would still be going on.

In case you didn't realize the Mexican cartels get most of their weapons from the Mexican Military. Guess where the Mexican Military gets most of their weapons. :eusa_whistle:

What type of conspiricy, or agenda, do you think was involved? :eusa_drool:
 
I will ask it in a way where you can not divert from the question by criticizing the question itself...

If the President is responsible for the executive branch of government...and he is...and the DoJ falls under the executive branch...

Are you saying that the President is only responsible for the executive branch when he is...and he is not when he is not...and you get to decide when he is and when he is not......or does he get to decide that.....

American Thinker stated that our President "sent weapons, untraced and untracked, to drug cartels in Mexico". He did not. The acting deputy Director of the ATF (since 2007) was in charge of Fast and Furious and did not inform the Whitehouse of the operation.

I have little interest in opinion pieces. Mostly from those that think as I do. I learn nothing from them. I just learn about the person writing them.

I do not have an issue with the President not knowing about Fast and Furious.

But when you think of the actual details of the operation.....the securing of arms in the hands of the enemy of an ally...and without the government of the ally knowing.....that is considered an act of war. Now, of course, Mexico would not truly cosider it an act of war. To be frank, I am surpirsed they are not more upset about it. But that aside......

are we, the people supposed to believe that the ATF did not inform the DOJ and the DOJ did not inform the White House about an operation that included the furnishing of arms to the enemy of our ally without the government of that ally knowing?

ANd if they were NOT informed...what subordinate made the decision to keep something that could be deemed an act of war from people higher up? why did he/she feel he/she had the right to make that decision? What supervisor gave him that authority? What manager gave the supervisor the right to give such authority?

Why is no one interested in finding this out?

I mean....dam.....we were selling arms to the enemy of an ally and no one above the ATF diirector knew? And no one was fired? No one was at fault?

So then you agree that the line that the president sent weapons, untraced and untracked, to drug cartels in Mexico is pure BS?

I think one of the reasons the Mexican Goverment is not more upset than it is is because the number of guns involved in F&F is a very small percentage of what the Cartels have in their arsinals.

Mexico is seeking the extradition of six citizens of the United States implicated in the scandel, and the Mexican Senate condemned the actions of the ATF.
 

Forum List

Back
Top