Chris Brown on Wayne La Pierre and the Fast and Furious Scandal

[mikeb302000]

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201109200016">Chris Brown wrote a wonderful article for Media Matters about the NRA and the Fast and Furious scandal.

The pattern from National Rifle Association (NRA) executive vice president Wayne LaPierre is getting pretty clear: ad hominem name-calling, a slew of conspiratorial misinformation, and a call for gun owners to align with the NRA's political agenda and defeat President Obama based on those ginned-up grievances.

Getting back to his roots, LaPierre starts by throwing around insults, referring to people to who disagree with the NRA about the role of U.S. guns in Mexico as "ghouls":

One minor point, which I find absolutely hysterical, is the word "ghoul" used by La Pierre. Not too long ago some of my commenters started calling me that particular name. Now I see where it came from. You see, in the gun-rights movement there's very little thinking going on, there's just repeating the NRA talking points right down to the name-calling. These guys are a riot.

Chris debunks the two major lies which Wayne La Pierre has been pushing. The downplaying of the role of gun dealers along the border in supplying guns to Mexico is answered by this:

As Media Matters reported in August:

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives' (ATF) has seized more 10,000 firearms and more then 1.1. million rounds of ammunition headed to the southwest border since 2006. On the Mexican side of the border, 20,504 or 70 percent of the total firearms seized and submitted for tracing in the last two years were from the United States.

The other lie was that the Fast and Furious botched sting operation is responsible for a significant number of the smuggled guns. It was handled like this:

Nor do the numbers back up the contention that Fast and Furious fueled a large spike in Mexican cartel crime guns traced to the United States. The Washington Post reported in July that 227 guns related to Fast and Furious had been recovered in Mexico. If all of those guns were part of the trace data it would account for only 1 percent of U.S. sourced guns traced in the last two years.

What's your opinion? If the ability to own a gun were really the civil right they say it is, why would they have to resort to so much distortion and misdirection to protect it? Why would the gun-rights advocates so often resort to name-calling and general nastiness? Why would the issue be so controversial?

I'll tell you why. Because they're wrong. Gun rights, which leads to gun availability to those who are unfit to responsibly handle guns, is a plague on our country. Reasonable people know this, even reasonable gun owners. It's the small, very vocal and very well financed minority, led by unscrupulous men like Wayne La Pierre who are responsible for the controversy as well as the gun availability itself.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/">(cross posted at Mikeb302000)

[Common Sense Party]

1. Gun rights are a "plague on our country"?

Disagree.

CRIMINALS are a plague on the country.

"in the gun-rights movement there's very little thinking going on, there's just repeating the NRA talking points"

Pot. Kettle. Black.

[ileus]

70. I suppose he's talking about Italy...or the UK.

[MADem]

2. Who is Chris Brown? We aren't talking about that little punk who beat up his girlfriend, the singer

are we?

[Common Sense Party]

5. That was my first thought. n/t

[MADem]

19. Glad I wasn't the only one! nt

[petronius]

23. There were at least three of us, then.

Actually, imagining it was that Chris Brown made the article a lot more entertaining... :)

[MADem]

24. Ha ha!! nt

[Kennah]

3. 20,504 of 300,000+ is less than 7 percent

How did that little fact stay out of your post?

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

"Weapons seized in Mexico and submitted to the ATF for tracing represent only a small fraction of the 300,000-plus confiscated weapons that Mexican authorities keep locked up in a vault, Grassley said in a June 16 letter to ATF acting Director Kenneth Melson."

[ProgressiveProfessor]

4. Our country?

Last I read, you don't live in the US.

There is more to making it your country than just a passport.

[pipoman]

6. Who's lying and being deceptive?

On the Mexican side of the border, 20,504 or 70 percent of the total firearms seized and submitted for tracing in the last two years were from the United States.

What a joke.

Unrec as usual for spanking your blog..

[Tejas]

7. "Why would the gun-rights advocates " Well, you live in Italy

"Why would the gun-rights advocates so often resort to name-calling and general nastiness?"

Here in the US, we use the 1st Amendment to remind those afflicted with authoritarianism and other diseases that we also have the 2nd Amendment. Those authoritarians that don't like the message we convey via the 1st are free to live somewhere else...such as Italy.

[Tejas]

8. You just caused some NRA-haters heads to explode.

"It's the small, very vocal and very well financed minority, led by unscrupulous men like Wayne La Pierre who are responsible for the controversy as well as the gun availability itself."


Thank you for endorsing the truth when it comes to the common lie about the NRA's physical presence in numbers. The NRA is often misrepresented (imagine that) as legions of blood thirsty bubbas when in reality there are only 4 million NRA members vs 80 million gunowners.

Antis hate it when the actual numbers are posted, but they really blow a gasket when one of their own (that would be you) reinforce those numbers.

:rofl:

[mikeb302000]

11. I think you've got something confused.

Are you saying gun control folks like to pretend the NRA is bigger than it is?

That's not my experience. I'm always pointing out that most of the 80 million are either apathetic or actually on our side (the gun control side). It's fringe groups really that make up the NRA and even more fringy the gun-rights extremists, and the fringiest of all is the group of democratic and liberal gun-rights advocates.

You've got a few people posting here, but you're practically invisible, not to mention your terrible dilemmas of always being associated with the NRA and the righties.

[Atypical Liberal]

13. Big, small, medium, doesn't matter. What it is is EFFECTIVE.

The bottom line is the NRA is the single most powerful pro-firearm rights advocacy group out there, and I'm happy to send in my dues every year to keep the pressure on politicians to respect the right to keep and bear arms or risk losing their jobs.

And it works.

[spin]

21. Strange, I know a large number of NRA members ...

and I wouldn't describe them as members of a fringe group. Of course you may consider doctors, lawyers, teachers, ministers, nurses, engineers, electronic technicians, carpenters, police officer, plumbers, small business owners, restaurant and bar owners, taxi cab drivers etc, etc to be members of a fringe group if they own firearms.

In general, most members of the NRA are firearm owners who shoot on a regular basis. Many members of the fringe groups you mention avoid belonging to organizations such as the NRA as they are very paranoid about the government and wish to hide the fact that they own firearms.

When you live in a foreign nation, you can easily form misconceptions about people in the United States.

Admittedly, the NRA does often produce propaganda in order to generate contributions just as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence does. This is a double edged sword as the propaganda often chases off members as much as it attracts new members or generates contributions.

However, the NRA also does a lot of good for firearm owners in my nation. They offer safety and training programs and promote shooting competitions. The NRA also publishes a number of books on firearms and subjects such as reloading ammunition. The monthly magazines it publishes has articles of interest to the shooting public on firearms and the history of firearms.

There is absolutely no denying that the NRA is a powerful lobby. Its efforts have changed firearm law in our land and the NRA has fought to allow all members of our society to be able to own and use firearms for sport and for self defense. One example is the spread of "shall issue" concealed carry that has swept across my nation. Without the efforts of the NRA, this would have never happened. Many lives have been saved and many crimes stopped because of this very successful program.

[SteveM]

34. Your "fringe:" 75% of Americans think 2A recognizes an individual RKBA. nt

[mikeb302000]

42. Yeah, right. You'd have to do some

serious cherry pickin' to justify that one. Go ahead, I know you can do it. Give us a link.

[X_Digger]

52. Gallup good enough for you? 'cherry picking' my ass..

http://www.gallup.com/poll/108394/americans-agreement-supreme-court-gun-rights.aspx

[We_Have_A_Problem]

53. You're the one who seems...

...to have cherry juice all over his fingers my friend.

Perhaps you could use actual facts rather than the blather you post?

[Tejas]

47. I think you've never been to a gunshow.

In this country...one can buy an NRA membership at the door of a gunshow, you will recieve a 'goodie bag' of NRA stuff. Go to one of these shows and get back to me about how many NRA goodie bags (much less people wearing the NRA ball cap included in the bag) that you see being worn inside the show.

Not ragging on the NRA, just putting things into perspective instead of pulling BS 'facts' out of my ass.





"Are you saying gun control folks like to pretend the NRA is bigger than it is?"

You could easily find the answer to that question if you ventured outside of your own threads.

[jmg257]

9. Seems NRA members are getting their money's worth. Helping to secure the right to arms

No matter what.

Considering the pro-gun gains in the last decade, court cases won, laws expired and passed etc., certainly seems the 'whatever it takes' attitude you suggest along with a bunch of cash has done them well.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

29. Does it bother you...

...to know there are people who support and defend the right to keep and bear arms?

[jmg257]

32. Not in the least. nt

[ileus]

10. Is it true you work for the UN?

[Atypical Liberal]

12. On Operation Gunrunner...

What's your opinion? If the ability to own a gun were really the civil right they say it is, why would they have to resort to so much distortion and misdirection to protect it? Why would the gun-rights advocates so often resort to name-calling and general nastiness? Why would the issue be so controversial?

I'll tell you why. Because they're wrong. Gun rights, which leads to gun availability to those who are unfit to responsibly handle guns, is a plague on our country. Reasonable people know this, even reasonable gun owners. It's the small, very vocal and very well financed minority, led by unscrupulous men like Wayne La Pierre who are responsible for the controversy as well as the gun availability itself.

The simple fact of the matter is, it doesn't matter how many people abuse a Constitutional right, it is still a Constitutional right. Even if drug cartels were able to illegally buy truckloads of firearms every single day, this would have no bearing on the rights of people like me to keep and bear arms, nor would it be a justification for restricting my rights.

The actions of criminals are not a valid excuse for restricting the rights of non-criminals.

-----------------

The fact of the matter is, the United States Government, in at least three states (Indiana, Florida, and Texas), facilitated the illegal sale of arms to drug cartels in both Mexico and Honduras, through the programs "Project Gunrunner", "Operation Castaway", and "Operation Fast and Furious".

Ostensibly, this was done so that firearms could be "traced" to drug cartels. However, this makes little sense at face value. The government has little success tracking drug shipments in route, so it is hard to believe they thought they could track firearm shipments in route. Thus the only way these firearms would be "traced" is if they show up at a crime scene, at which time, it's likely the firearms have already been used. We also know that the BATFE stopped tracking the firearms as soon as they reached the border. So it seems hard to believe the official story on why these firearms were allowed to be sold.

Congressional testimony by ATF agent William Newell, who was in charge of field operations in Phoenix, indicates that there was involvement by the FBI, the DEA, the CIA, the IRS, and Immigration and Customs in these operations.

There has been a lot of speculation going on as to the true aims of these programs, and it is unlikely that all the information about them is known. It seems unlikely at this point, however, that the stated goals of the programs are legitimate.

It has been said by "a CIA informant" that the CIA has been behind this operation. The actual motives appear to be to provide support for the Sinaloa drug cartel, to undermine the power of the Los Zetas cartel. It seems that the Zetas have become so powerful that there is a real chance of the Zetas cartel achieving a coup d’etat against the legitimate Mexican government. In addition to allowing arms to flow to rival cartels, the CIA has also, according to testomony, allowed the Sinaloa cartel to fly in a 747 of cocaine into US airspace unmolested.

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

Before you scoff at such dealings, people should be aware that we have these kinds of dealings with warlords and tribal leaders in the Middle East all the time. There are fields upon fields of poppies growing in Afghanistan that could be irradiated with simple over-flights of Roundup but we allow them to flourish so as not to destabilize the region and make it even more hostile to our interests there.

It's also known that because of the failing to achieve gun control here in the United States, some anti-gun advocates have worked to achieve it through international treaty. Now a lot of this is hype, but the fact is that since President Obama was elected the US has signaled it is more receptive to treaties designed to regulate the global trade in conventional arms. Now there are a lot of hurdles, namely the US Constitution, that make it unlikely that such treaties could directly affect US citizens. And so in that regard one can consider the NRA position on this to be hype. But the fact is we live in a global economy. Restrictions on the global sale of small arms thus probably will affect what US citizens are able to buy from the global market place. Already President Obama blocked the re-importation of US-manufactured M1 Garands owned by South Korea.

Operation Gunrunner and the rest probably have nothing to do with this issue. But it certainly reinforces the conspiracy theorists ideas that these guns were allowed to be illegally transported out of the country to help gin up support for such treaties.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/international-gun-ban-treaty/

The NRA may or may not be right on the implications of Project Gunrunner and the like. But the US government has taken a huge credibility hit and as a result it allows the NRA to use speculation to garner support.

It's the small, very vocal and very well financed minority, led by unscrupulous men like Wayne La Pierre who are responsible for the controversy as well as the gun availability itself.

One of the tenets of being progressive and/or liberal is to defend the rights of the weak against abuse by the strong. I strongly believe in the right of people to organize to protect their interests, even interests I don't support. I support labor unions because they allow workers who individually would not be able to stand up against corporate interests to band together and thus have the power to do so. I support the efforts of groups that advocate for racial, ethnic, or sexual orientation minorities so that their rights are not trampled by the majority.

Likewise, the NRA provides a means for pro-firearms people to pool together their resources and combine their voices in a way that gives us real power in protecting our interests.

[DWC]

14. Extremely well stated. Thank You! n/t

[Hoopla Phil]

18. WOW! What a great reply. Thank you.

[spin]

22. Great post. (n/t)

[ileus]

25. This is the best post in the whole thread...

[mikeb302000]

43. When all arguments fail

"It's my Constitutional right," they cry.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

54. That is really all the argument which is needed.

Regardless, there is no "failure" in the pro-gun argument. The failure is on your end my friend.

[Atypical Liberal]

65. Why argue at all with an admitted firearm criminal?

[Tejas]

71. You know, that sparks another interesting question.

Is it possible that some anti-gun posters are actually felons that would like law-abiding citizens disarmed? Even more so than law-abiding anti-gun posters? Stranger things have happened around here.

[Abq_Sarah]

72. Obviously, the constitution isn't important to you

Given that you bailed from this country to live in the land of bread and circuses.

[X_Digger]

15. Media Matters, who took 'gun control' funds from the Joyce Foundation?

http://www.joycefdn.org/content.cfm/program-grants-list-3?rr=1&OrderBy=GrantDate&OrderAsc=0&pageNum=3

Media Matters for America
DC Washington $400,000.00 07/20/2010

Yeah, I give them about as much credence as I do VPC or Brady.

[petronius]

17. That's probably the source of Chris Brown's salary at MM... (nt)

[mikeb302000]

44. What about the NRA or the GOA?

do you give them credence?

[X_Digger]

51. GOA? Never. NRA? Not until I check their facts..n/t

[GreenStormCloud]

16. The SCOTUS has already decided that RKBA IS a civil right.

You can quit beating that dead horse. It won't run for you. Your side lost. Live with it.

[Common Sense Party]

20. I'm sure the SCOTUS will reconsider, now that they have been informed

by someone in Italy that gun rights are "a scourge on our society".

[ileus]

26. When in Rome...

[mikeb302000]

45. Is that what they said? A civil right?

I thought they said it was a right that can be subject to "reasonable restrictions." What kind of civil right is that?

And, what does that say about the "shall not be infringed" bullshit?

[hack89]

48. Every civil right can be subjected to "reasonable restrictions."

every right has boundaries.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

74. Of course rights have boundaries

With the right to do something comes the responsibility to not violate the rights of another in the process.

Those should be the ONLY boundaries though, and when it comes to every right except RKBA, that is the case.

The argument that you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater is not really valid as you most assuredly can do so. The issue is, if there is no fire, you have violated the rights of others and must be held accountable.

So it should be with arms. As long as I do not violate anyone's rights by my use of them, there should be no restrictions on ownership or carriage.

Those of you who think the mere presence of a firearm where you don't want to see one is a violation of your rights really need to think a little more. It isn't a violation of your rights anymore than the display of a cross by a Christian is a violation of your rights. You may not LIKE it, but that's a different story.

[GreenStormCloud]

49. All rights are subject to reasonable restrictions.

Your desire for a complete, or near complete gun ban is NOT a reasonable restriction. The current restrictions that states such as VT, AK, AZ, WY have are reasonable. We are working to remove the unreasonable restrictions in those states that have them, such as CA and IL.

[MicaelS]

27. The most ironic thing about your NRA hate

Is that people like you created the modern NRA. Before the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the rise of Gun Prohibitionist movement, the NRA was about teaching firearms safety, marksmanship and conservation. The political side of the NRA was only a shadow of what it is today. After GCA 1968, Pete Shields, and other like him, the NRA-ILA was born (1975). With the Cincinnati Revolt of 1977, the modern NRA was born. When Morton Grove, Il passed their Handgun Ban in 1981 things really started rolling.

Yes, I know GCA 1968 was passed in reaction to assassinations of the 1960s. But answer these questions.

Were the assassinations of JFK, MLK, and RFK really the work of lone nuts with guns?

Or were they the work of vast conspiracies?

If they were the former, then in view of the times GCA 1968 had merit. But that view means that as all three men as the victims of CIA / Military / Big Business / Mafia has to vanish.

If the latter, then the conspirators could have gotten any guns they wanted to murder those three.

[ileus]

28. When you say "plague on our country" what country do you speak of?

[Atypical Liberal]

30. Why the United States, of course!

You know - that place that is on the opposite side of the planet from where he has lived for 20+ years.

[ileus]

31. I find it odd the OP never posts in threads he doesn't start.

selective moral outrage....or is that poutrage?

[jmg257]

33. Can you say A G E N D A? (And it ain't gun control!)

Can you say B L O G?

It's like the monkies in The Jungle Books...blatantly irritate enough people with goofy insults in hopes they look at you.

[ileus]

38. it hasn't worked I don't even click the links he doesn't make money off of.

[jmg257]

39. There are links? ;) Just lead to more chattering, I figure. nt

[mikeb302000]

46. your knowledge of the planet is poor?

Besides, my little bio could be made-up bullshit that you should not take seriously. Do you always believe everything you read on the internet, or just when you can use it to attack people?

[burf]

55. You mean stuff like the claims you make on nearly

every post you author?

[RSillsbee]

56. I never believe anything I read on the internet

Doubly so if you wrote it

[jmg257]

57. Blog, bio..all bullshit it seems. nt

[Iktomiwicasa]

59. Well...

...your anti-gun screeds are made up bullshit, so yeah, your bio could be too...

[jmg257]

61. Based on your comments opinions writing & vileness, it IS hard to believe you are almost 60 yrs old.

Unfortunately it seems that at least is true.


I'm embarrassed, as when reading your anti-gun blurbs, it seems you are much much younger - much more...immature?


Easy to call it bullshit, but I think it is also important to keep in mind that when reading musings on the internet, one must always remember that 1/2 the population has below average intelligence.

[ileus]

62. what about your blogger.com profile? lies also?

http://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933

[Atypical Liberal]

64. Maybe his blog really does contain lies. n/t

[Atypical Liberal]

63. If you are going to say that some of the stuff on your blog is actually bullshit...

your knowledge of the planet is poor?

OK, only a quarter of the way around the planet, then.

Besides, my little bio could be made-up bullshit that you should not take seriously. Do you always believe everything you read on the internet, or just when you can use it to attack people?

Until you say otherwise, I'll assume that you have in fact been living in Italy for the last 20+ years, as you said on your blog.

Of course, if you are going to tell us that some of the stuff on your blog is actually bullshit, you won't get any argument from me.

[ileus]

60. I don't know but his hotmail account is a .uk

[rl6214]

73. He posts from a United Nations account located in Rome

United Nations world food program

[SteveM]

35. ...Lesser Snow Goose overpopulation has resulted in a Conservation Order..."

[gejohnston]

36. Chris debunks nothing

This issue came up before, McClatchy and Wikileaks debunks Chris and backs up everything La Pierre said. Do you know what David Brock, the founder of Media Matters, did before? He was a right wing smear artist for a rag called "The American Spectator". While working for them, he called Anita Hill "a little nutty and a little slutty" and a laundry list of despicable things about the Clinton family.
First the American Spectator now the Joyce Foundation. Just another smear job for hire, he just changed sides.

[gravity556]

37. Not going to click either of your links.

If you think the author of the article is correct and providing unspun and factual information, it confirms my suspicions that you know absolutely nothing about what you "write" about beyond the talking points of the idiots at Brady, VPC and whatever other clueless windbags catch your fancy as they pontificate as to why "the people" in the first amendment means "everybody", but "the people" in the second means the national guard.

That 70% is a bullshit spin number-the key part of the sentence is the "siezed AND TRACED". Meaning of the guns that had serial numbers (not the AKs they get from Guatemala and other points south and the grenades from Korea) that the ATF traced, 70 percent came from the US. No differentiation as to how many of *those* were supplied to the Mexican army by the US government. Guns that are real machine guns. Guns that drug cartels purchase from corrupt Mexican army personnel. The actual number of that 70% added up to all of 10-15% of the TOTAL NUMBER OF GUNS SIEZED. If your author were interested in accuracy, the number would have been stated as the actual 10-15% of total guns seized as having come from the US. Loses a good deal of impact, doesn't it.

As to "most gun owners think like me", you have GOT to be kidding. I don't believe that in Italy you're interacting with very many American gun owners at all. And pointing to the hypocritical gun banners that own guns on this site as representative of the average gun owner is laughable, and again highlights your astounding lack of knowledge.

The plague on our country are the fools who think that appeasment of violent criminals is a workable solution. People who blame guns for how whackjobs sometimes use them. People who view those who take responsibility for their own safety as somehow more dangerous than criminal assholes. People who have no problem abrogating rights that they don't like. People who refuse to stand up to those in society that prey on those percieved as weak. People who think that stealing, by stealth or force, is something to brag about. Those are the problems that constitute the plague. Not law abiding people who are willing to fight to protect themselves.

[gejohnston]

40. I think this rewrite is better

Chris debunks the two major lies which Wayne La Pierre has been pushing. The downplaying of the role of gun dealers along the border in supplying guns to Mexico is answered by this:

So how does Brown do this? He provides no links, other than back to MM (did you learn from them?) How does that compare to what I offer to debunk Brown?

http://www.fas.org/asmp/campaigns/smallarms/IssueBrief3ArmsTrafficking.html
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110209-mexicos-gun-supply-and-90-percent-myth
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090708_mexico_economics_and_arms_trade
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/04/21/112595/cable-lax-honduran-controls-on.html
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.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-mexico-arms-race15-2009mar15,0,7497626,full.story
http://www.elpasotimes.com/communities/ci_18465182
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-mexico-arms-race15-2009mar15,0,229992.story

What's your opinion? If the ability to own a gun were really the civil right they say it is, why would they have to resort to so much distortion and misdirection to protect it? Why would the gun-rights advocates so often resort to name-calling and general nastiness? Why would the issue be so controversial?

I'll tell you why. Because they're wrong. Gun rights, which leads to gun availability to those who are unfit to responsibly handle guns, is a plague on our country. Reasonable people know this, even reasonable gun owners. It's the small, very vocal and very well financed minority, led by unscrupulous men like Wayne La Pierre who are responsible for the controversy as well as the gun availability itself.

What's your opinion? If private ownership of firearms and "lax" gun laws were such a scourge to society, why would they have to resort to so much dishonesty, regional bigotry, and over use of logical fallacies in order to push their agenda? Why would the gun control advocates so often resort to sophomoric references to penis size, regional bigotry, name calling and general nastiness? Why would the issue be so controversial?

I'll tell you why. Because they are wrong. They are a very small minority lied to by astro-turf organizations, financed by a couple of celebrities and foundations, led by unscrupulous people like Josh Sugarmann, the criminal safety lobby pushes a distorted and perverse vision of "civilization" while doing and caring nothing about real problems in the US.

[DissedByBush]

41. Media Matters lies very well

"On the Mexican side of the border, 20,504 or 70 percent of the total firearms seized and submitted for tracing in the last two years were from the United States."

Notice SUBMITTED FOR TRACING.

Only a small percentage of all firearms seized were submitted for tracing, only those ones they thought had a good possibility of being from the United States.

Thus, a tiny percentage of all firearms seized in Mexico were from the United States.

The best lie is the truth, twisted, relying on the ignorance of the audience.

It is a common tactic of the anti-rights movement, because the truth exposes them.

[Katya Mullethov]

50. Major OPSEC violation

Pasting the words Fast and Furious in the same sentence with scandal !? Across the top of a DU forum !? Apparently you missed the memo that indicates clearly to never even MENTION it in passing .

If this is ignored long enough , it will just go away .

[rl6214]

58. Media matters? Really?

[Tejas]

66. ATF facilitated giving 26 (TWENTY-SIX) 50BMG's to the cartels.

Twenty-six 50cal BMG's.

Care to "downplay" that?

[Katya Mullethov]

67. They hit a helo with one of them too , and forced it down

That was downplayed quite well I thought .

I just knew the fify Caliber Terror lady was gonna be all over that one like flies on shit , and then...... NOTHIN' ! Maybe she knows something I don't . Top Secret, under the radar, kinda stuff.

[Katya Mullethov]

68. Here's another one you would have missed

Had you blinked today

http://www.drudgereportarchive.com/drudge/2011/09/26/41333e6981ad4ad62fbbbea61809f095/headlines/snapshot/

[burf]

69. It looks as though the Sinaloa

cartel is the drug dealer of choice of the DOJ.

Again, I ask what did the AG and the POTUS know and when did they know it?