Was "Fast and Furious" a ploy to discredit the firearm industry/enthusiast community?

[GSLevel9]

Just wondering...

[Hoopla Phil]

1. That's one theory. Another is that it was used to funnel guns into a

rival cartel that was fighting the Zeta's. I find the later much more plausible.

[Iktomiwicasa]

3. I find it plausible...

...that they saw an opportunity to kills two birds with one stone. Arm the Sinaloa against the Zetas, with the bonus of ginning up support for more gun control legislation.

[tularetom]

2. If it was, it was a misfire

So to speak

[Iktomiwicasa]

4. Heh...

...that's an understatement.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

7. It was a major FSCKUP at best

I really wish the administration would own up to it and fire those responsible. Transparency and accountability need to mean something...

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Katya Mullethov]

6. The gang that couldnt shoot straight

There were several hopeful outcomes , many were advertized widely in the press for the last couple of years if you were paying attenton .

I could go into greater detail , but it is not my wish to appear ...... unreasonable .

[iverglas]

13. LOVE YOUR SOURCE!

I wonder whether it's liberal, progressive, democratic, Democratic, all of the foregoing, some of the foregoing ...

antiantiunderground dot com

Another of its offerings:



Oh, I can't resist.




About the "artist":

Erin’s website, “The Anti- Anti Underground” is an archive of her growing collection of political cartoons, animations and paintings. The title refers to a nickname she received in college, the “anti- anti”. This was a result of her disagreements with the prevailing liberal orthodoxy which claims to be anti- establishment and nonconformist.

Currently, she is a contributing cartoonist for AmericanThinker.com and All Right Magazine. ... As a result of the above philosophy, Erin’s artwork uses irreverence and eccentricity to fight against collectivism and statism. She also wants to provide an alternative to unimaginative art that leans left in order to appear “edgy”.

Wow. A heroine for our times, eh?

:rofl:

Forgive them, for they know what they do, they just can't help themselves. ;)

[friendly_iconoclast]

14. Gotta love that genetic fallacy.

One could as easily say that the Anti-Saloon League irrevocably tainted the Volstead Act....

[iverglas]

20. gotta love the oft-noted fact

that no one in this forum has EVER been able to cite anything but right-wing opinion to support their own.

OPINION. Not weirdo "studies". Opinion, like the ones expressed in those oh so funny cartoons.

[friendly_iconoclast]

24. Like those well-known reactionaries the Panthers (White *and* Black), Rob Williams, et cetera, etc..

But ya know what? It doesn't matter as it's an individual right. Only a cultural chauvanist would dismiss those out of hand.

[iverglas]

46. you speak for the dead?

I don't actually think so.

Why don't you tell us what any of them still living SAYS -- NOW -- about gun militants in the US?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Williams
Williams' book Negroes with Guns (1962), published while he was in exile in Cuba, details his experience with violent racism and his disagreement with the pacifist Civil Rights Movement philosophies. It was influential with younger black men, including Huey Newton, who founded the Black Panthers.

It doesn't matter as it's an individual right.

And you know as well as I do that the Black Panthers (and the "pacifist Civil Rights Movement) were fighting for and defending COLLECTIVE RIGHTS. The rights of THE AFRICAN-AMERICAN PEOPLE, as a people, as a group, as a collective.

And only a cultural chauvInist would dismiss those out of hand.

And only an opportunist would try to use their voices to shove their own anti-social agenda.

What kind of cultural chauvinist doesn't know that the word is derived from the name of Mr. Chauvin?

:rofl:

[krispos42]

32. And nobody in the GLBT forum has ever been able to cite anything but LW opinion

to support their own.

:shrug:

When the official position of the left is "gun control: the more the better", there's not a lot left for the gun people to mine for support.

[iverglas]

47. yes .. and your point was ...

And nobody in the GLBT forum has ever been able to cite anything but LW opinion to support their own.

Where would I expect to see this said as if it were a bad thing?

:eyes:

Conversely, those opposed to equality rights for GLBT people don't find many supportive voices on the left ... that being what I'd say is the salient point here.


When the official position of the left is "gun control: the more the better", there's not a lot left for the gun people to mine for support.

Er ... eh?

Does this mean that "the gun people" have to "mine" the right wing for support?

More like "harvest", I'd say ... to the extent that there isn't an identity between the two to start with ...

[krispos42]

77. This presumes that being left is automatically better.

It's not. It's usually better. In fact, it's probably almost always better.

But believing the left is 100% right... that's a stretch.

Does this mean that "the gun people" have to "mine" the right wing for support?

Yup.

[iverglas]

93. "But believing the left is 100% right... that's a stretch"

Not as much of a stretch as your assertion / implication / insinuation that I said I believed any such thing, or suggested that anyone else should.

It's really a pretty simple notion here.

When ALL the support for a particular public policy comes from the right wing, reasonable people assume there is a reason -- a reason why the right wing supports the policy and the left wing does not.

It isn't much of a stretch at all to infer that the left wing generally does not perceive the policy as being consistent with its values / goals.

One then, of course, does what one likes with the conclusion as to where on the political spectrum a particular policy finds itself most at home. Obviously, many people would be of the view that the left is virtually never right, and finding that a policy's natural environment was squarely on the left of the spectrum would not recommend it to them.

Determining why the left likes a policy, and why the right doesn't, is of course the essential step in determining whether one likes it one's self, if one can't figure that out without assistance. If the policy is consistent with left-wing concern for the public welfare and the left's desire to promote the public welfare, and not consistent with right-wing concern for self-interest and the right's desire to eliminate regulation of conduct, that may help assess the policy.

Not sure what it is you ain't gettin here, or what you're gettin at, at all.


typos, typos ...

[krispos42]

102. It's still a stretch.

Of course on the one hand you chastise me for insinuating that you have the opinion, then in the same post you then a) support the insinuation, b) do so with a false statement.

The left in America is far from uniform on this issue, ergo not all of the support for this particular area of public policy comes from the right wing.


Doubtless the professional left wing, the policy wonks and administration officials and such, have hammered out a political theory consistent with their political underpinnings. Okay, that's fine. The left-wing citizens and politicians, however, vary very broadly on the issue, far more than the rank-and-file RWers do.

[Callisto32]

61. Genetic fallacy, now begging the question.

Shirly, you know better than this.

[iverglas]

64. a little internet is a dangerous thing

It makes people think they sound very clever when they read the balled-up nonsense somebody else posted on their favourite ... websites.

It is not petitio principii to point out that ALL gun militant opinion in the world is spewed by the right wing.

"Right wing" is not defined by gun militancy. There actually are many non-gun militant right wingers, I have no doubt at all. Mainly because nobody except some loony hard core is actually a gun militant, any more than Horowitz is a free speech fanatic. It's all just grist for the right-wing mill.

So you'll find right-wingers who aren't gun militants.

But ya won't find gun militants who aren't right wingers.

See how that works?

[SteveM]

69. No true Scotsmen, eh? nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

80. Press 'em hard enough, and the inner inquisitor/zampolit comes out.

I've yet to find a prohibitionist of any flavor that didn't want to run others' lives, to one degree or another.
For their own good, of course...

[PavePusher]

85. "Press 'em..."? Hell you can't keep 'em out with an electric fence and a flamethrower... n/t

[iverglas]

89. what I've yet to see

is a post written by you that actually addresses anything in the post you are "replying" to, and doesn't consist of a bunch of random pseudo-erudite verbiage thrown at your monitor in an attempt to insult someone ...

[PavePusher]

97. Hahahahahaha!!! Whew.......

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Mirror, mirror.....

[PavePusher]

84. Thankfully, we have your voice of authority to sort these things for us.

But I have to wonder.... where does that authority flow from?

I have several non-mutually exclusive guesses...

[iverglas]

90. "authority"?

Try "experience".

You know ... that "evidence-based" stuff ...

[Katya Mullethov]

19. No need to yell

Did you think that unreasonable ?

[Callisto32]

60. "Father, forgive them, for they apparently are not well educated enough...

(despite their constant assurances to the rest of their group that they are in fact smarter/better educated/generally superior) to recognize their owns use of the genetic fallacy."

...bet you can't guess who "they" are.

[Katya Mullethov]

63. And despite all the obfuscation ,stonewalling ,and attempted manipulation

Once this makes it on South Park , the jig is up .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecrD3pzIH4o
That's a Blackwater dig .

[iverglas]

65. ... to think they can pass of shit as sugar

Funny how little education it actually takes to recognize a pile of steaming stinking right-wing shit when you see it!

Why ... I'll bet ... you can do it too!!!

[PavePusher]

86. And how would we ever recognise "a pile of steaming stinking right-wing shit"...

without your benevolent assistance....

It's certainly good fortune for us that we have our betters to guide us in these matters.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

94. just for the record

-- that wasn't a reply from me that was deleted. Just another rule-breaking bigoted personal attack aimed at me by someone claiming to have me on ignore, thus breaking dog knows how many rules at once ...

But to your question:

And how would we ever recognise "a pile of steaming stinking right-wing shit"...
without your benevolent assistance....
It's certainly good fortune for us that we have our betters to guide us in these matters.

Evidently.

[PavePusher]

96. Do you own a smelter?

'Cause the irony is strong with you...

[ileus]

51. It wasn't for a lack of trying...we're just lucky the 2A wasn't hit....yet.

[ileus]

9. I believe it was going to be a desired side effect to gather support for the AWB.

[DissedByBush]

10. I go by what the pols and pundits are saying

They were constantly harping on the issue of guns going into Mexico and calling for tighter regulations because of it.

Then this was exposed.

Now, crickets.

I think it's obvious.

[ileus]

11. Well put.

[SteveM]

70. Yes, even the windage from WaPo has become a mere zephyr. nt

[DonP]

12. I wonder if they are still "working on something (for gun control) under the radar"?

Or was F&F the under the radar idea?

[Glassunion]

15. Personally I don't think so... However, when it first started to unravel

and the gun shops were showing up in the firearm traces, there were some who saw it as an opportunity to enact bans and de facto registration on certain types of firearms.

[DanTex]

16. F&F conspiracy theories

I can understand why nobody here wants to link to any sources in the media or blogosphere supporting this conspiracy theory. It's because you'd have to cite the likes of
Wayne LaPierre or Ted Nugent. In fact, the origin of a lot of this stuff is a right-wing nutcase named Mike Vanderbough, you know, the guy who proudly incited vandalism against Dem offices after the HCR vote. Hates the government but lives on government disability. Still angry about Waco and Ruby Ridge. You get the idea.

So far, F&F conspiracy theories are largely confined to the darkest right-wing corners of the internet. Although Fox is trying to push this Vanderbough guy to the forefront, with everything else going on, even average right-wingers don't seem to have enough energy to try and turn an ATF operation gone awry into some secret Obama ploy to take away guns.

Outside of this board, many Dems or liberals are not even aware of F&F. But from time to time, I'll explain it to someone, along with the gun-net theory that it was all an Obama conspiracy to "pump up the numbers" and justify stronger gun laws. It always gets a good laugh, followed by perhaps a comment about how we still live in a country where more than half of the people think creationism should be taught in schools.

Of course, the number of people who believe things like this F&F conspiracy theory is much smaller, but in a way I kind of hope it grows. Because if this becomes a mainstream teabagger rallying point, then, like birtherism, it will reaffirm to moderates how crazy the far right is. And it will put Republicans in the uncomfortable position of having to placate their loony base, while trying not to drive away independent voters.

We'll see what happens.

[gejohnston]

17. You need to come by more often

Outside of this board, many Dems or liberals are not even aware of F&F. But from time to time, I'll explain it to someone,

Interesting. CBS was the first (to my knowledge) MSM source to break the story, and even made it to a Jon Stewart episode. Does that make CBS equal to Fox? If these same liberals get all of their news from Think Progress or Crooks & Liars, I bet they think you can buy a machine gun at any gun show with no questions asked (because Al Qaida said so. Neither source researched it, and copied and pasted the article from someplace else.)
So what if they never heard of it?

[friendly_iconoclast]

25. Mentioning non-Fox sources of F&F info wrecks the genetic fallacy

Frankly, I think that's why certain posters like to pretend all accounts of Fast And Furious's various and sundry fuckups
originated from either Roger Aisles or Rupert Murdoch. Which brings up a question:

What's worse for the gun prohibitionists: The fact that Fast And Furious was a trainwreck of TGV-meets-Shinkansen proportions,
or that the rude toters are now righteously and energetically beating BATF about the head and shoulders for it? I suspect the latter-which doesn't speak well of "the ends justify any means" crowd.

[DanTex]

26. Are there any non-Fox sources peddling the conspiracy theory?

We all get that the ATF messed up. Nobody disagrees. But only in the Fox/gunner world is this a conspiracy to take away your guns. In the world of sane people, the ATF lost track of some guns, which is bad, but compared to the overall flow of guns into Mexico, the ATF guns are a drop in the bucket.

And this is why people other than gun militants don't care so much. There's too much other stuff going on in the world to try and get excited about birtherism volume 2. Like I said, I would personally like it if some higher-profile teabaggers got all riled up about this. Maybe we could get Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann or Rick Perry or someone like that to start making a lot of noise about the F&F conspiracy. Then the rest of the Republicans would have to choose between alienating independent voters with wild conspiracy theories or alienating their gun-crazed wingnut base.

[friendly_iconoclast]

28. See post #27 for a few. Then again, you may be correct about its importance.

After all, F&F could be just another third-rate burglary....

[DanTex]

30. Link please.

Post 27 has no links in it. Did you notice that? What is it with gunners and their inability to provide any evidence backing what they say?

Just one link, from a non-right-wing source, that lends credence to the conspiracy theory that F&F was all a ploy to increase support for gun control.

Like I said, I get that the ATF messed up. The conspiracy part is where we differ.

[gejohnston]

34. It is a what if session

not a conspiracy theory (that I know of). You have this obsession with Fox, is Fox even talking about it? I don't watch Fox. I don't even have cable and I rarely watch TV, so I honestly don't know.

[DanTex]

35. Umm... yes, it's a conspiracy theory.

And yes, Fox is talking about it.

It's good that you don't watch Fox. But you should still probably be aware that there is this thing called "Fox News" that consistently delivers right-wing misinformation. It's kind of an important think to know when it comes to US media outlets.

[gejohnston]

38. Yes I know

Fox is a disinformation machine. I do know about it. I am also skeptical, if not cynical, of all media. That is the nice thing about private intelligence services, the people who pay big bucks for their analysis, are not going to renew their subscriptions if it turns out to be bullshit (and they lose a lot of money on whatever.)

[gejohnston]

36. where do you base the

guns lost are a small percentage of guns from the US civilian market? A small portion of all guns certainly.

Maybe we could get Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann or Rick Perry or someone like that to start making a lot of noise about the F&F conspiracy. Then the rest of the Republicans would have to choose between alienating independent voters with wild conspiracy theories or alienating their gun-crazed wingnut base.

I take it the right wing is quiet about it. Since I don't listen to any of them, I honestly have no idea. There is a difference between a conspiracy theory and a what if bull session. This is the latter. That said:
If someone told you that the JCS thought up a false flag operation, complete hiring with hiring mercenaries to make terrorist attacks to pin on Castro, to manufacture reason to invade Cuba? Did I first hear about it on Fox? No. Pacifica? Yes. Was the plan real? Yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

Something else I first heard on Pacifica: (When I was in California, my office was in a vault and the local Pacifica station was the only signal, for some reason, that could get through.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_and_Contras_cocaine_trafficking_in_the_US

[iverglas]

45. do you work hard not to grasp points?

Interesting. CBS was the first (to my knowledge) MSM source to break the story

The STORY.

Not the CONSPIRACY THEORY.

There really is not much point in responding to a post if you don't address the subject matter of the post.

[gejohnston]

49. Oh I was thinking of the time

someone claimed it never happened.

[SteveM]

71. I note also the L.A. Times has for some odd reason persisted with coverage. nt

[Katya Mullethov]

18. No conspiracy is complete

Without some mention of the Jews .
http://jpfo.org/articles-assd02/david-and-goliath.htm

[iverglas]

23. "Without some mention of the Jews"

Rather oddly and misleadingly framed, no?

I think you meant:

No loony right-wing conspiracy theory is complete without some mention by some particularly loony extreme right-wing Jews.

"Jews" not even being one of the operative words there.

Cute, though:

Larry Pratt of Gunowners of America also deserves a hearty thanks. Larry took Mike V. and Codrea to the people in the U.S. Senate and Congress who could actually do something about this atrocity. The story is long and convoluted, but Mike Vanderboegh and David Codrea, when history is written, will make Watergate’s Woodward and Bernstein look like thumb suckers in diapers.

Snork. One's work is done for one, isn't it?

[iverglas]

21. I knew there were good reasons

why I don't even bother reading 9 out of 10 of these threads at this place. ;)

Thanks for clarifying it!

[iverglas]

22. the cartoon in post 6

Straight from the script, then. ;)

http://mediamatters.org/research/201109290007

NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre

LaPierre: "Massive Obama Conspiracy" To "Deceive" Gun Owners, Repeal Second Amendment. In a September 23 speech at Florida's Conservative Political Action Conference, LaPierre said:

... It's all part -- it's all part of a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and hide his true intentions to destroy the Second Amendment in our country.

... We see the president's strategy crystal clear: get re-elected, and with no other re-elections to worry about, get busy dismantling and destroying our firearms freedom. Erase the Second Amendment from the Bill of Rights and exorcise it from the U.S. Constitution. That's their agenda.

[gejohnston]

29. Media Matters

provides no evidence other than links to some other MM article. They Poo Pooed the Wikileaks dump showing that many of the weapons enter through Mexico's southern border, even after McClatchy put the cables online. But then, Joyce Foundation gave them $400,000.

In case you did not know: Media Matters was founded by a smear artist named David Brock. Before forming MM, he used to write for a right wing rag called "American Spectator" magazine. Among his best known works including smearing Anita Hill including describing her as "a little slutty, a little nutty." That was when she came out about being sexually harassed by Clarence Thomas. Many of the absurd and despicable rumors and stories about the Clinton family came from his imagination.
Although he did apologize to the Clintons, I wonder if it was a true change of heart or his reactionary employers freaked when he came out and he is simply getting even. Either way, a sleazy propagandist is a sleazy propagandist.

[DanTex]

31. Media Matters is biased...

Washington Post is biased...
NYTimes is biased...
MSNBC is biased...

But Fox News, Wayne LaPierre, Mike Vanderbough! That's where I turn for some truthiness!

[gejohnston]

33. want to see the list again?

we have listed links of the links you seek several times, each time you asked. You know that. You either ignore them or you have this unhealthy obsession with Fox. I have provided them several times personally. It is getting quite old and says more about you than it does us.

[DanTex]

37. Just one link will do.

One link from a non-right-wing source that actually gives credence to the theory that F&F was a deliberate plot to build support for gun control by increasing the number of guns that are trafficked to Mexico.

For example, something like this from Fox's Martha MacCallum:

So we are now awaiting the official release of this report from the House Oversight Committee on what was called the Operation Fast and Furious. Now, the program's aim was to try to track gun sales in Mexico, to Mexico, rather, and to build up evidence that would blame cartel violence on gun stores and owners and lax U.S. gun laws, OK?

http://mediamatters.org/embed/clips/2011/06/15/17645/fnc-al-20110614-atf

As I've said many times, I know the F&F story, I get that the ATF messed up. But, as far as I can tell, only right-wing sources like Fox have been pushing this conspiracy theory. But if you have some other source for this, then I'd love to see it.

[gejohnston]

39. I was never aware that

Fox or anyone else came up with a motive other than ATF incompetence. I have been following the issue closely for my own reasons. I am more concerned about where the guns are coming from in general. I will see if I can find such a source. It is more important that the ATF agents involved be extradited to Mexico to face the music. Motivation is secondary. Mexican officials had no clue, the ATF violated US, Mexican, and international law. It is possible MacCallum may be correct, but I tend to think it is improbable. Since there is evidence the same thing happened during the Bush years, that makes it even less probable.

[friendly_iconoclast]

41. Don't you know the fact that Fox is pushing it invalidates it?

Like the Klu Klux Klan's support for Prohibition and Dick Cheney's support for same-sex marriage means that both were invalid.

Seriously, our interlocutor has only got the genetic fallacy to support his contention that the Fast And Furious brouhaha
was ginned up by Fox.

[friendly_iconoclast]

40. A $25 dollar donation to DU will allow you to search, you know..

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/furious_revelation_OhK6TBqPlEpRglHjsSbiBI

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20114184-10391695.html

http://cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/bestoftv/2011/09/28/ac-babeu-fast-and-furious.cnn.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20112834-10391695.html

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-atf-guns-20110929,0,201277.story



http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/pdf_64.pdf?tag=contentMain;contentBody2010

http://www.wtov9.com/news/29398782/detail.html

http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-07-23/news/29806026_1_operation-fast-and-furious-director-kenneth-melson-atf

http://www.fas.org/asmp/campaigns/smallarms/IssueBrief3ArmsTrafficking.html

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110209-mexicos-gun-supply-and-90-percent-myth

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/04/21/112595/cable-lax-honduran-controls-on.html

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090708_mexico_economics_and_arms_trade

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/04/21/112594/cable-guatemalan-military-selling.html

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/04/21/112616/drug-gangs-help-themselves-to.html

http://www.laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=390473&CategoryId=14091

http://www.elpasotimes.com/communities/ci_18465182

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-mexico-arms-race15-2009mar15,0,229992.story

[friendly_iconoclast]

42. And then there's "Obama Looking For Ways Around Congress On Gun Policy"

For what it's worth:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/15/obama-gun-laws-congress_n_836138.html

Obama Looking For Ways Around Congress On Gun Policy

First Posted: 03/15/11 04:33 PM Updated: 03/23/11 09:09 AM

With Reporting By Lucia Graves

WASHINGTON -- Faced with a Congress hostile to even slight restrictions of Second Amendment rights, the Obama administration is exploring potential changes to gun laws that can be secured strictly through executive action, administration officials say.

The Department of Justice held the first in what is expected to be a series of meetings on Tuesday afternoon with a group of stakeholders in the ongoing gun-policy debates. Before the meeting, officials said part of the discussion was expected to center around the White House's options for shaping policy on its own or through its adjoining agencies and departments -- on issues ranging from beefing up background checks to encouraging better data-sharing.

Administration officials said talk of executive orders or agency action are among a host of options that President Barack Obama and his advisers are considering. “The purpose of these discussions is to be a productive exchange of good ideas from folks across the spectrum,” one official said. “We think that’s a good place to start.”

Earlier in the day, House Democrats joined New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to offer another possible starting point, announcing legislation that would make fundamental changes to the nation’s gun background check system. Sponsored by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), a longtime gun control advocate, the bill mirrors one introduced late last month by another New York Democrat, Sen. Chuck Schumer.....

Having Mike Bloomberg in there was a nice touch- he's always been known for his concern for the less fortunate.
That, or he hates armed peasants...

[DanTex]

43. Lordy! Are you even paying attention?

Did I stutter? Let me try typing it more slowly, see if that helps.

I'm looking for
(a) one link
(b) from a non-right-wing source
(c) that actually gives credence to the theory that F&F was a deliberate plot to build support for gun control by increasing the number of guns that are trafficked to Mexico.

Pay special attention to (c). I'm not looking for a dump of all the stories you can find related to F&F. We all know F&F has been discussed in the media. My point is that this conspiracy theory is right-wing nutcase territory. That's why I'm asking specifically for something like the Fox segment I linked to above, where they suggest that the purposes of F&F was "to build up evidence that would blame cartel violence on gun stores and owners and lax U.S. gun laws". Except I'm asking whether this has ever appeared in non-right-wing sources.

I didn't realize this was so complicated for you. Thanks for trying to bear with me...

[iverglas]

48. "Was 'Fast and Furious' a ploy to discredit the firearm industry/enthusiast community?"

Maybe reminding them of the actual subject of the thread will help ...

[Atypical Liberal]

62. There is no evidence. Simply well-founded speculation.

The simple fact is, all the facts are not yet known on these operations. It seems very probable to me that the driving motivation for all three of the gun-walking operation I am aware of has been to arm drug cartels rival to the Zetas, to prevent a further destabilization of the Mexican government. This is in keeping with similar operation we have had supporting the Mujahedin, Noriega, the School of the Americas, and our dealings with warlords in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Were there other motives? It is all speculation.

But pro-gun people are quite educated on their government's position on firearm issues.

They know, for example, that gun control measures aimed at further restrictions on small arms trade are being attempted through international treaty (SIFTA), and that the United States has become more receptive to these treaties since President Obama has been elected.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/international%2Dgun%2Dban%2Dtreaty/

"Since President Obama took office, though, the U.S. has been more receptive to the notion. In mid-October, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued a statement saying: "The United States is committed to actively pursuing a strong and robust treaty that contains the highest possible, legally binding standards for the international transfer of conventional weapons.""

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_sifta_arms_treaty

"This treaty is both brief and deeply complex. It implies a potential requirement for full gun registration, not just of weapons, but of transfers of ammunition (which would include ammo for weapons in the US that are not currently under any rigorous form of gun control, e.g. .22 rifles that use ammo that can be used in handguns, shotguns, etc.).

...

This, like many other international laws that are wide in scope, is intentionally brief in wording. This means that the law itself says little of use in a trial context. Only once (and if) the law comes into effect (it was already defunded once by Congress), will we ever know the actual shape of this law. SIFTA will solidify once case law is established, and not before."

Now depending on who you listen to (as the links above demonstrate), this treaty is interpreted as back-door gun control or relatively harmless to US citizens.

However, given the known anti-firearm background of President Obama and Eric Holder, and the enthusiasm with which the current administration is embracing the treaty, it's not surprising that people are skeptical of what this treaty might actually do to impact the individual right to keep and bear arms in this country.

People knowledgeable about firearm policy issues know that President Obama has given lip-service to the Supreme Court decisions confirming that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, incorporating them to the states. But they also are well aware of his track record prior to taking office, and comments like this after taking office:

"Obama, April 16: I think none of us are under any illusion that reinstating that ban would be easy. And so, what we’ve focused on is how we can improve our enforcement of existing laws.{

Note that the President does not say that reinstating the ban would be a "bad idea". The implication here is that he would prefer to reinstate it but it just would not be "easy".

I think everyone, pro and anti-firearm agrees that President Obama has not made any anti-firearm moves during his administration not because he doesn't want to, but because it is politically impossible to do so right now.

Moreover, even if this treaty only restricts the international trade of small arms, this will almost certainly affect what the price and availability of imported firearms in the United States.

So, given that the current administration is more favorable to international small arms treaties than past administrations, and President Obama's past history, and given events like this:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=292025#ixzz1a6FzMJW9

""I just want you to know that we are working on it," Barack Obama reportedly told Sarah Brady regarding gun control. "We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar."

This interesting bit of news was reported in an April 11 Washington Post Lifestyle section story about Obama's gun-control and regulatory policy wonk Steve Croley. Toward the end of the article the writer, Jason Horowitz, mentions a March 30 meeting between Jim and Sarah Brady and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney during which the President "dropped in."

Horowitz quotes Sarah Brady relating how President Obama gave his personal assurance that he and his administration were working hard on a gun-control agenda. Brady reported that Obama then told them about advancing the agenda "under the radar.""

You can see how when the AFT botches a supposed gun-tracking operation where they don't even bother to attempt to track the firearms once they cross the border how it would be completely logical to speculate as to what the real motives are behind such an operation. You don't have to wander far off into conspiracy theory territory to wonder if maybe this was all simply an attempt to make international arms smuggling from the US look like a big problem to make the case for a treaty to solve the "problem".

The bottom line is this:

No one knows yet exactly what was going on in the three gun-walking operations that we know about ("Project Gunrunner", "Operation Castaway", and "Operation Fast and Furious"). It does seem pretty clear that these were not botched sting operations, because there was no attempt to track the firearms once they left the country, nor was the Mexican government informed about the operations, nor were ATF branch offices in Mexico informed of the operations. It is possible that this is the result of colossal ineptitude, but this is seeming to be less likely as the scandal unfolds. These operations, from congressional testimony, involved numerous federal agencies, including the CIA, DEA, IRS, DHS, ICE, and the Department of Justice. To think that such a massive operation was out to do something very specific like track firearms but did not bother to track them seems preposterous. I think these agencies were out to do something very specific, but we don't know yet what they were actually trying to do.

[SteveM]

73. Nicely done exposition. If anyone is serious about determining...

"...what they were actually trying to do" would be well-advised to obtain sound and credible information from whatever source is available, not just from ideologically-approved gate-keepers.

[DanTex]

78. Oh I get it! This is another one of those "#IDontHaveFactsToBackThisUp" twitter jokes...

Here are a few other good ones:

--Thomas Edison invented the ShamWow
--Nebraska's state bird is the turtle
--The human body is 125% helium
--Lobsters and humans are the only animals that hire babysitters
http://twitter.com/#!/search/%23idonthavefactstobackthisup

And then there's the original by Hermain Cain:

"These demonstrations are planned and orchestrated to distract from the failed policies of the Obama administration," he noted the other day. Now, of course, he conceded as how "I don't have facts to back this up"

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/jon-stewart-on-herman-cain-i-dont-have-the-facts-to-back-this-up-20111006

Gotta love the right-wingers and their fact-free conspiracy theories...

[Atypical Liberal]

82. A stunning intellectual rebuttal, Dan.

You didn't address a single point I raised.

The speculation we are seeing is not without cause.

[Katya Mullethov]

83. Arming an insurgency to prevent further unrest ?

That's crazy enough... it just might work .

[Atypical Liberal]

88. Can't tell if you are agreeing or disagreeing.

But the United States has a history of doing just this very thing.

[Katya Mullethov]

95. A history of saying A , while doing B ....yes

Explain the mechanics of how arming an insurgency will placate it and compel it to give up and roll over .

[Atypical Liberal]

98. Not sure what "it" is...

Explain the mechanics of how arming an insurgency will placate it and compel it to give up and roll over .

This is not an issue of saying A while doing B.

This is an issue of the United States having a long history of funding one set of people to fight another set of people.

In this case, according to a CIA informant the gun-walking program is intended to provide arms to the Sinaloa cartel not to placate "it" (the Sinaloa cartel) but to allow them to stand against the Zetas cartel which is growing so powerful it may achieve a coup d'etat over the Mexican government.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/11/was-cia-behind-operation-fast-and-furious

The US has a long history of doing this sort of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" sort of thing, and it usually comes back to bite us in the butt. For example, the Mujahedin, Noriega, Saddam Hussein, and others.

The difference in this case is that the people we are propping up are supplying the very things we are imprisoning US citizens for using and selling here at home.

[Katya Mullethov]

103. The old game was arm whomever was killing Commies

The Zetas aren't threatening to topple the Mexican Govt , they are threatening to break Chapo Guzman's vise like grip .....on the Mexican Gov't . What possible positive outcome could one hope for by arming these monsters up ? They kill everybody , not just commies . And now they make Pozole out of em .




http://www.google.com/search?um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=np&q=narco%20pozole&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&biw=1680&bih=911&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=iw

[iverglas]

92. this really is quite astounding

From your post:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=292025#ixzz1a6FzMJW9

""I just want you to know that we are working on it," Barack Obama reportedly told Sarah Brady regarding gun control. "We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar."

This interesting bit of news was reported in an April 11 Washington Post Lifestyle section story about Obama's gun-control and regulatory policy wonk Steve Croley. Toward the end of the article the writer, Jason Horowitz, mentions a March 30 meeting between Jim and Sarah Brady and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney during which the President "dropped in."

Horowitz quotes Sarah Brady relating how President Obama gave his personal assurance that he and his administration were working hard on a gun-control agenda. Brady reported that Obama then told them about advancing the agenda "under the radar.""

Now to start off, this is WORLD NET DAILY we're reading here.

It isn't actually difficult to find the source referred to.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/over-a-barrel-meet-white-house-gun-policy-adviser-steve-croley/2011/04/04/AFt9EKND_print.html

And here's what it says:

On March 30, the 30th anniversary of the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan, Jim Brady, who sustained a debilitating head wound in the attack, and his wife, Sarah, came to Capitol Hill to push for a ban on the controversial “large magazines.” Brady, for whom the law requiring background checks on handgun purchasers is named, then met with White House press secretary Jay Carney. During the meeting, President Obama dropped in and, according to Sarah Brady, brought up the issue of gun control, “to fill us in that it was very much on his agenda,” she said.

“I just want you to know that we are working on it,” Brady recalled the president telling them. “We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”

In the meeting, she said, Obama discussed how records get into the system and what can be done about firearms retailers. Her husband specifically brought up the proposed ban on large magazine clips, and she noted that even former vice president Dick Cheney had suggested that some restrictions on the clips might make sense.

This is Jason Horowitz reporting the alleged words of Sarah Brady -- Horowitz does not state whether Brady spoke to him or he is retelling what someone else says she said to them or what someone else says someone else says she said to them -- recounting what Obama allegedly said to Brady.

Ye gods.

The WND scribe says:

Horowitz quotes Sarah Brady relating how President Obama gave his personal assurance that he and his administration were working hard on a gun-control agenda. Brady reported that Obama then told them about advancing the agenda "under the radar."

Look how that isn't even what the nth-hand account itself actually said.

What it said was:

During the meeting, President Obama dropped in and, according to Sarah Brady, brought up the issue of gun control, “to fill us in that it was very much on his agenda,” she said.
“I just want you to know that we are working on it,” Brady recalled the president telling them. “We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”

See how they're NOT THE SAME? See how they're DIFFERENT?

See how nobody even in that chain of Chinese whispers said anything about a "gun control agenda"? See how nobody said anything about "advancing that (non-existent) agenda under the radar"?


What are you doing even READING this piece of crap right-wing mouthpiece -- or any website that quotes it?

More to the point, what are you doing flinging it at the membership of Democratic Underground?

While I'm at it: what are you doing reproducing an opinion from "wiki answers" as if it were some kind of gospel and anyone should pay any attention to it at all?

If I want to know what the Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of And Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunitions, Explosives, And Other Related Materials says, I'll read it.

Have you considered doing that yourself?
http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/treaties/a-63.html
(You're the one who quoted the nonsense in the "wiki answer". Now go to the source and substantiate the allegations you adopted. And good luck with that.)

You may be content with fifth-hand garbage as appropriate sources on which to base your own opinions.

They are NOT appropriate sources to use in attempts to influence opinion at this website.

Just in case you actually hadn't figured that out.

[SteveM]

72. So, if a "lefty"-type speculates there is a plot, you'll buy it?

Sounds like a continuation of you're old post about "noted" or "recognized" progressive commentators, editorialists, academicians and such.

Hey, check out Eugene Debs on the Second!

[DanTex]

74. Since there are no sane people who believe in this F&F conspiracy...

...then this hasn't come up. I open-minded and evidence-based. If something is reported by a credible news source, or by someone I find to be intelligent and trustworthy, I'll pay attention.

But so far this is pretty much "birtherism part 2", with the same amount of lunacy, the same lack of any credible evidence, and the same cast of conspiracy-mongers (Fox, WorldNetDaily, etc.)

[SteveM]

75. Oh! Thank god! I'm merely speculating. Thought I was insane for a moment. nt

[gejohnston]

54. and your point is what

But Fox News, Wayne LaPierre, Mike Vanderbough! That's where I turn for some truthiness! Who in the hell is Mike Vanderbough?
Of course MM is biased because it has a political viewpoint. My problem with MM (other than some piss poor writing and research) is that I am suspicious of leopards claiming they changed their spots. In other words, Mr. Brock was a sleazy smear artist when he worked for the American Spectator (he was the one that described Anita Hill as "a little nutty and a little slutty) so I have a hard time taking him seriously even after he switched sides.

[gejohnston]

91. joking right?

Of course MM is biased. That state as much.

To the best of my understanding, MSNBC is not news but a channel of different pundit opinion shows. To call it news, you would be putting "Morning Joe" in the same category as Rachel.

As for the rest of the media:
the right claims that the MSM has a liberal bias
The left claims that the MSM has a corporate, if not conservative, bias
I tend to think it has a bias towards: wealthy, urban, cosmopolitan, and anti union
and a bias against: rural, working class, union, provincial

Cenk shows this example of CNN bias against the Wall Street occupation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCiAG7LF7Q4

I am sure you are familiar with the usual suspects that claim liberal bias. Here is some books about conservative bias in the same media

Eric Alterman wrote What Liberal Media? The Truth About Bias and the News, (2003) in which he disputes the belief in liberal media bias, and suggests that over-correcting for this belief resulted in conservative media bias.<43>
Al Franken wrote Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, (2003), in which he argues that mainstream media organizations have neither a liberal nor a conservative political bias, but there exists a right-wing media that seeks to promote conservative ideology rather than report the news.<44>
Jim Hightower in There's Nothing in the Middle of the Road but Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos (1997; ISBN 0-06-092949-9) uses humor to deflate claims of liberal bias, and gives examples of how media support corporate interests.
David Brock wrote The Republican Noise Machine (2004).
Amy Goodman wrote Standing up to the Madness: Ordinary Heroes in Extraordinary Times.
Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky wrote Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (1988, 2002).
Robert W. McChesney and John Nichols (journalist) wrote Our Media, Not Theirs: The Democratic Struggle Against Corporate Media (2002).
Michael Parenti wrote Inventing Reality: the Politics of News Media (1993).

There are more biases, or claims of, here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_States

Edit to add: "truthiness" is clever only when Steven Cobert does it.

[iverglas]

44. um

I quoted what the raving right-wing gun-head said, not what Media Matters said.

What the raving right-wing gun-head said was the same as what was being said in the cartoon posted in post 6.

None of that has anything to do with Media Matters. I'd just followed a link that showed me what Lapierre said. Do you really suggest that Media Matters made that up or something?

[gejohnston]

50. to answer your question

I don't watch Fox, and I don't read MM very often. So, I have no idea. I have found some really piss poor writing there. Given some of the crap Mr. Brock made up about the Clintons when he worked for the American Spectator, can a leopard really change his spots?

[iverglas]

52. what are you yammering about????

Given some of the crap Mr. Brock made up about the Clintons when he worked for the American Spectator, can a leopard really change his spots?

Are you claiming that he MADE UP the quotations from the speech given by LaPierre?

If not, what the fucking fuck is your point supposed to be????


What I posted had NOTHING TO DO WITH MEDIA MATTERS.

Media Matters happened to be the link I followed to read what LaPierre said.

I could possibly find a transcript of what he said on the NRA-ILA website. If I had done that, I would have posted it with that link. I DON'T CARE who reported what he said, as long as the report is accurate.

Are YOU saying it wasn't?

If not -- why don't you try addressing WHAT HE SAID, instead of carrying on and on about WHO REPORTED WHAT HE SAID???

[gejohnston]

55. Either made it up or

copy and pasted from someplace that did. Yes, I am doubting the accuracy. Did you look on the NRA website? Or the Faux news archives?

[iverglas]

56. omg you are unbelievable

You are actually saying that someone made up the statements attributed to Wayne LaPierre.

Do you not have a google machine that would spare you this public embarrassment?

http://www.google.ca/search?complete=0&hl=en&source=hp&biw=1024&bih=640&q=%22his+true+intentions+to+destroy+the+Second+Amendment+in+our+country%22&btnG=Google+Search

Search results for
"his true intentions to destroy the Second Amendment in our country"
About 1,550 results (0.30 seconds)

Let's pick one I recognize that will likely get up your nose.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/30/1021514/-Jon-Stewart-blasts-NRAs-loony-Obama-conspiracy-theory

Fri Sep 30, 2011 at 05:00 AM PDT
Jon Stewart blasts NRA's loony Obama conspiracy theory

Okay, this one links to

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/09/26/328300/paranoid-nra-chief-obama-leaving-gun-owners-alone-is-conspiracy-to-take-away-guns/

and there is fucking VIDEO of him.

What's that, somebody in a Wayne LaPierre suit??

This is the line: "It’s all part of a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and hide his true intentions to destroy the Second Amendment in our country."

The conspiracy exists, and Fast & Furious is their serendipity: they now have evidence of this conspiracy in the form of actions by federal agents that are obviously designed to further the conspiracy.

:eyes:

[gejohnston]

58. No what I said was

He may have. What I did say is that Brock was paid by the right to make shit up about Anita Hill and very vile things about the Clintons, I would not be surprised if he would do the same for (what passes for) the left for the right price.
I stand by the quality of their writing.
Me use the Google machine? You picked the source that had nothing to back it up, it is not my responsibility.

What I got out of the video is that LaPierre basically said is that Obama and his political advisers decided that pushing for any new gun laws in his first term would be a bad idea if he wanted to reelected. It would be better, politically, to wait until his second term. He should have used words to that effect.
LaPierre's choice of words was very poor, and made him sound like a lunatic. But then, LaPierre has a habit of not only saying stupid shit, he also has the habit of saying smart shit in a very stupid way.

Edit to ask: what the hell does that have to do with F&F?

[iverglas]

68. "You picked the source that had nothing to back it up"

Man ... it had one of those link things to one of those video things ... of Wayne Lapierre, like, with sounds coming out of his mouth that, like, sounded just like what those pixels on the screen said ...


LaPierre's choice of words was very poor, and made him sound like a lunatic. But then, LaPierre has a habit of not only saying stupid shit, he also has the habit of saying smart shit in a very stupid way.

Wowsers.


Edit to ask: what the hell does that have to do with F&F?

Hmm. Did you read the subject line of the opening post at all?

Hard to miss ... the post itself has no content ...

[gejohnston]

76. I did not see

any video in the MM page, but then I was away and was using dial up. That was the original source IIRC. At least Kos and TP included the video.

Wowsers?

[ileus]

57. Now you stop that yammering.

:)

[gejohnston]

99. But yammering is what I do best

and it is fun.

[oneshooter]

100. And admittedly you are very good at it. n/t

[gejohnston]

101. gee thanks, I guess? nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

27. Oh, I'm sure your explanations of F&F are *entirely* disinterested.

With references to such non-Murdochian sources of information on it such as Wikileaks, McClatchy newspapers, the LA Times, the
El Paso Times, CBS News and the Washington Post, no doubt.

After all, it would just be very, very wrong of me to believe that you would selectively withold mention of the sources I listed....

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

66. Alice, cupidity, alice, cupidity, loves me, loves me not

You KNOW that what is being discussed is not "F&F", it is the conspiracy theory stated IN THE SUBJECT LINE OF THE OPENING POST IN THIS THREAD.

But here you are, playing let's pretend. Let's pretend the references to the media's lack of interest were to a lack of attention paid to the operation itself, and not a lack of attention to the insane ravings of the raving right wing and its wackoid gun militant fring.

I too am waiting for someone to point us in the direction of any discussion of THAT in which any non-loony-right-wing media source treats it seriously. Were you going to respond to that request elsewhere in the thread (not by me)?

The whole thing doesn't interest me all that much, but it's always fun to watch the loony right-wing media and their hired guns at play ... or are those media the hired guns ... dang, it can be hard to tell the players without one of those scorecard things, eh? Eh?

[rl6214]

59. Can you come up with a more biased source to link to?

[iverglas]

67. So that video of the appalling person ranting in front of an adoring crowd ...

... that really WAS some guy in a Wayne LaPierre suit??

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

79. F & F was...

...an attempt at distraction.

If you are faced with a problem, real or perceived, it is often easier to change the perception of the problem to fit a ready solution than to find a real solution.

How odd and ironic that this straw-man argument was employed in part to justify additional interference with individual rights in order to curtail straw purchasing.

[gejohnston]

81. now that we have the far right's theory

let's check out what the far left is saying. It is very interesting. I read it as a really bad case of the right hand not knowing what the left is doing.

http://pacificaupdate.com/www__Dindybay__Dorg/_On-air-From-New-York-Narco-News-on-the-Expert-Witn.php
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/09/15/18690433.php
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/07/11/18684435.php
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/bill-conroy/2011/09/court-pleadings-point-cia-role-alleged-cartel-immunity-deal

Here is a good non ideological article on F&F
http://www.iwatchnews.org/2011/03/03/2095/atf-let-hundreds-us-weapons-fall-hands-suspected-mexican-gunrunners

To answer the OP's question, I don't think so. It really looks like a typical Bush era fuck up that keeps giving. That is not to say that some opportunist like Brady wouldn't try to spin it for their cause.