Surprisingly, they come down on Holder much harder than many other media outfits, and suggest it’s time for the Attorney General to be more forthcoming about how this happened, and this is the real shocking quote coming from the Inquirer, “Finally, [Holder] needs to explain how the administration went from wanting to ban assault weapons to supplying them to drug lords.”
In the mean time, the Washington Post and the New York Times are both busy carrying the water for the Administration, and trying to turn this into a discussion about our gun laws. I noticed the media is now more willing to come down on Fast and Furious, now that I think it’s clear who they plan to make the scapegoats. It seems unbelievable that an operation like this was concocted at lower levels, rather than directed from above, but both the WaPo and the Times don’t seem to want to acknowledge it. It’s rare that I offer kudos to the Philadelphia Inquirer, but in this case they deserve it.
Quoting the WaPo article, this statement is actually not true:
“…Operation Fast and Furious was a response to — and not the cause of — the flow of illegal guns from the United States into Mexico…”
ATF’s Mexican Attache, Carlos Canino, became aware of the operation because of the huge number of traced guns from Mexican crime scenes that got traced back to the operation. It wasn’t a case of, as the WaPo says, adding an eye-dropper of water to the ocean–the Fast & Furious operation resulted in a noticeable increase in the number of guns crossing the border. This is specifically the case for weapons like .50 cal rifles that have been used so effectively to take out Mexican police & army helicopters. Prior to F&F, the cartels did not have these weapons.
The Washington Post got it wrong: Fast & Furious DID arm the cartels, and it was the cause of the increase in the cartels’ effectiveness against the Mexican police and army, not to mention the U.S. border patrol. Way past time to disband the agency.
Markie Marxist sez: “How the administration went from wanting to ban assault weapons to supplying them to drug lords? Uh, we still want to ban all private gun ownership, and arming up the Reconquista is just common communist sense. Now that the good ol’ Soviet Union isn’t around anymore, someone has to take up the slack in supplying AK’s to nefarious types, don’t they? So, we haven’t gone from anywhere to anywhere, we commies are still where we’ve always been. Guns for the bad guys, none for the good guys – it’s always been just common communist sense like that.”