who defended them?
No.
Also, I take issue with your conclusion...F&F being a vehicle designed to deliver demand letter legislation.
No doubt that the ATF felt like where were issues with illicit weapon sales. It doesnt follow that Fast and Furious existed to create demand letters. Could they be tools they might benefit from? The notion thst "Hey. We need to find a way to determine who`s selling long guns and how many." is not exactly the definition of nefarious.
Yoni's strawmen.
Yoni offered his interpretation of the e-mails in the OP detailing the fact that the Justice department wanted the fast and furious data to back up their desire for stronger gun control laws. That was hardly a giant leap in logic but y'all dogpiled him for it. Is it your contention that they were unrelated and just cir stantial?
LE wanting stronger gun control laws isn't new and isn't forbidden. Pinning hopes on the operation wasn't corruption either. Politically objectionable, perhaps, but not illegal or even unethical imho.
Nope.
Neither were they the building blocks of F&F.
And that's not criminal?
It's already been admitted...they just won't answer the question of why they intentionally allowed the guns to walk without any checks or tracking capabilities.
300+ murders, facilitated by your government, and you don't want heads to roll today?
Fast and Furious was a dangerous, stupid and massively incompetent operation. calling it a crime seems a bit of a reach tho.
The strawman purchases alone, were a crime.
The strawman purchases that were then intentionally allowed to be carried across an international border, without notifying the receiving government, where they were then used to murder more than 300 people, could almost be construed as an act of war on Mexico.
I said I do. Can't you take yes for an answer?
Based on the few actual facts/memos that have been released to date that would be a rational assumption.
I really have to wonder, though...we had Obama, Janet Incompetano and President Calderon really pushing in the media for stronger gun control laws back when F&F was in full bloom...based on all the ducking and covering going on at Justice it really isn't a huge leap of logic to at least wonder if they were actually related...
The same people that were the architects of Fast and Furious were the ones suggesting the sales be used as a pretext for the gun control measures.
You characterize it as though one arm of the government was willing to use an "ill-conceived," "laughably stupid," program, undertaken by another arm of the government, in order to justify initiating more controls on the sale of guns when, in fact, the memos and e-mails show the two ideas have the same origins in the ATF.
Crimes against Mexico are presumably subject to Mexican law. The strawman purchases, I'm not so sure. Could the states have anything to say about them?
not if you've already made up your mindit really isn't a huge leap of logic to at least wonder if they were actually related...
It's not a crime for LE to want gun control.
we killed thousand of innocent Iraqi civilians... and no outrage...
I guess you'd consider those folks as being better off..
it's actually a large leap... typical of you though
Please, there's been nothing but full-throated condemnation, calls for impeachment, war trials, and assassination from every quarter that disagreed with our actions in Iraq.
No, they're still dead but, the difference is, right or wrong, it's been reasonably argued we were engaged in a legitimate military action in which, unfortunately, innocent people are killed and injured.
What's the Obama administration's excuse for the innocents murdered in Mexico?
moving the goal posts. you said they intentionally abetted murder. there's a step or two missing in your syllogism.
The obama administration didn't murder innocent Mexican citizens.
in the courtroom of semantics of course the DOJ has already been charged, convicted and sentenced
I said they were complicit in murder by intentionally allowing the guns to walk over the border in the hands of drug cartels.
But, if you want to make that leap, I won't stop you. I think it's reasonable to assume the cartels intended to use the weapons -- acquired through the U. S. Government's deliberate actions -- to kill people.
Their deliberate actions led to the murder of innocent Mexican citizens when it was reasonable to conclude it would.
that's essentially semantic. legally, it's nonsense.
ciao!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote