Republican Next Move: Special Prosecutor

Brilliant idea. Let's give the bad guys guns, then when they shoot us with them we can catch them. What genius came up with that?

Brilliant idea. Let's give the bad guys guns, then when they shoot us with them we can catch them. What genius came up with that? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Do you understand the concept of the big picture? Supply and demand?

This war on drugs is not working.

What this program shows is the utter stupidity of how we fight the war on drugs.

This is a huge industry in Mexico because of our demand for drugs in this country.

Study Prohibition...the similarities are there for all to see, yet we keep repeating history expecting different results.

Almost all these guns the Mexicans have, have come from the USofA. Not this ill concieved, good intentions program but from guns bought in this country from gun shows and the like. There is a cottage industry of folks selling legally bought guns in this country to bad guys.

That is the price you pay with our current gun laws.

Do you suggest we quit selling guns in this country?

Look at the big picture and quit focusing on this stupid program the government set up.

The big picture is to treat this just like we did probibition, repeal these stupid drug laws and quit putting border agents in harms way!

Except Fast and Furious was a political scheme cooked up to attack the Second Ammendment !

Except Fast and Furious was a political scheme cooked up to attack the Second Ammendment ! Originally Posted by Whirlaway

If that is the case and I highly doubt it but if true...they(Holder) need to be shot!

At the time, the Obama administration was trying to make the case that the violence in Mexico was a direct result of weak gun control legislation in the US; particulalrly multiple gun sale transactions to a single buyer...........

The Holder DOJ needed to prove the nexus; thus Fast and Furious!

Except Fast and Furious was a political scheme cooked up to attack the Second Ammendment ! Originally Posted by Whirlaway

+1 The U.S. has no authority to make arrests in Mexico; so the current “official” explanation for “Operation Fast and Furious” makes no sense. The current “excuse” by Holder, et al, suggests the U.S. was formulating a “list” of cartel leaders who received heavy weapons (semi-auto assault rifles) by way of a U.S. anti-drug program. Evidently, if you accept Holder’s, et al, excuse, the U.S. would then give the Mexican government a copy of that “list” as the U.S. officials explained they know these cartel leaders are heavily armed because the U.S. facilitated the purchase of those weapons. After all, of what use is such a list to U.S. authorities? The U.S. has no jurisdiction or authority in Mexico to affect any arrests. Furthermore, Mexico probably has already identified most, if not all, of the cartel leaders it is at war with.

There was that one memo that said "AS EXPECTED gun violence has increased since the start of Fast and Furious." Someone knew that violence would increase because of this so why did they do it. Go back to last year when Obama made a speech about how the gun shops were responsible for the increase in violence. Now we know that the Fast and Furious was in play before Obama made this speech.

WTF, I agree with you that the war on drugs isn't working. That doesn't make Fast and Furious any less impeachable.

Sold guns across an international border in violation of international law. That has always been a problem with working uncover, not committing criminal acts, serious criminal acts, while maintaining a cover. Now the democrats demanded and got a special council back in the 80s to investigate Iran-Contra. Is this any different? We didn't recognize the government of Iran back then as a legitimate government. The drug cartels are recognized as Mexican organization that commits murders such as the Tamil Tigers, Hamas, Shining Path, and Al Quieda. Would a demand be forthcoming if it was found that a private company was sending weapons to them? "High crimes and misdemeanors"

Sounds like holder is the new ollie north. You guys on the right should love him then. Maybe he can get a job on fox news!

Sounds like holder is the new ollie north. You guys on the right should love him then. Maybe he can get a job on fox news! Originally Posted by WTF

Surely you jest. Would you care to elaborate?

What does Reagan have to do with this? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Here is a little history for you. What do you have to say about what Bush did.

The most well-known and politically damaging of the scandals came to light in November 1986, when Ronald Reagan conceded that the United States had sold weapons to the Islamic Republic of Iran. It was disclosed that the money from the arms deal with Iran had been covertly and illegally funneled into a fund to aid the right-wing Contras counter-revolutionary groups seeking to overthrow the socialist Sandinista government of Nicaragua. The Iran-contra scandal as it became known, did serious damage to the Reagan presidency. The investigations were effectively halted when President George H. W. Bush (Reagan's vice president) pardoned Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger before his trial began.

Here is a little history for you. What do you have to say about what Bush did.

The most well-known and politically damaging of the scandals came to light in November 1986, when Ronald Reagan conceded that the United States had sold weapons to the Islamic Republic of Iran. It was disclosed that the money from the arms deal with Iran had been covertly and illegally funneled into a fund to aid the right-wing Contras counter-revolutionary groups seeking to overthrow the socialist Sandinista government of Nicaragua. The Iran-contra scandal as it became known, did serious damage to the Reagan presidency. The investigations were effectively halted when President George H. W. Bush (Reagan's vice president) pardoned Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger before his trial began. Originally Posted by BigLouie

Please explain what the Obama administration was trying to accomplish by selling weapons to Mexican drug cartels. Was the Obama administration seeking the overthrow of the socialist government in Mexico?

Please explain what the Obama administration was trying to accomplish by selling weapons to Mexican drug cartels. Was the Obama administration seeking the overthrow of the socialist government in Mexico? Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You are wrong on a number of points. You indicate that the administration was specifically selling weapons to the drug cartels which is not correct.

Operation Fast and Furious was a sting run by the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) between 2009 and 2010 as part of Project Gunrunner in its investigations into illegal gun trafficking . The stated purpose of the operation was to permit otherwise-suspected straw purchasers to complete the weapon's purchase and transit to Mexico, in order to build a bigger case against Mexican criminal organizations suspected of being the ultimate buyer.

In the Iran-Contra situation the Reagan admin was selling weapons to raise money for illegal activities. There is a huge difference between the two.

You are wrong on a number of points. You indicate that the administration was specifically selling weapons to the drug cartels which is not correct.

Operation Fast and Furious was a sting run by the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) between 2009 and 2010 as part of Project Gunrunner in its investigations into illegal gun trafficking . The stated purpose of the operation was to permit otherwise-suspected straw purchasers to complete the weapon's purchase and transit to Mexico, in order to build a bigger case against Mexican criminal organizations suspected of being the ultimate buyer. Originally Posted by BigLouie

So you do recognize that the U.S. government thwarted local, federal and international laws by overseeing and encouraging local, U.S. gun shops to illegally sell weapons to "mules" who worked for the cartels. ATF agents watched the mules make the purchases and assured the gun stores the weapons would be seized before they could be used in any criminal activity. However, the “mules” were not busted. Instead, the weapons were allowed to “walk” into Mexico where the ATF has no authority, and where the ATF cannot make arrests. Subsequently, the weapons were used in the murders of scores of Mexican nationals.

Once the guns entered Mexico, the ATF had no case at all.

Please, cite the U.S. law that prevents one Mexican national selling or giving a weapon to another Mexican national in Mexico. The ATF’s authority ended at the border. So what bigger or better case could the U.S. build against the Mexican cartels?

In the Iran-Contra situation the Reagan admin was selling weapons to raise money for illegal activities. There is a huge difference between the two. Originally Posted by BigLouie

So now you are saying these two incidents are not alike. Unlike the Iran-Contra situation, in the Fast and Furious situation the Obama administration was conducting illegal activities so that Mexican narco-terrorists can buy weapons to suborn the authority of a friendly government – Mexico – and so that these narco-terrorists can continue to raise money by selling illicit drugs in the U.S. It makes perfect sense. The Reagan administration as seeking to give aid to an ally, the Obama administration was seeking to give aid to the enemies of an ally.