danivon wrote:And the point about crossing points is pretty important. Yes, Doc, they do search everyone at an airport. Well, everyone getting on to commercial flights. Not so much private flights, and not at all airfields. But there's also the point that people are already having to get to an airport with a limited amount of stuff some time before the flight goes, so the security checks don't add an awful lot to the time or have any impact beyond the airport.

Um, yeah, the TSA adds a lot of time. Having flown an unusually high number of times this year, I've taken a long look at the set up. They are way overstaffed. Furthermore, if they weren't there, I would be able to cut anywhere from 15-30 minutes off my time at the airport. If you fly a lot, that's significant.

The border will always have holes. You can spend lots of money trying to close them up, but the law of diminishing returns applies, and an obsession with the land border ignores the two large bodies of water either side.

Sure, it will have holes. The question is how quickly can you close them. If it is relatively quickly, then it's not a significant problem. The bad guys will have to have better tech and better mobility than the US government. If we're serious about it, we can make life very difficult for them--and expensive.

Any smuggler with brains will figure an easy way to beat heavy presence on the boundary, but the impact on legitimate road freight trade would be pretty high. Not to mention the tax bill.

Says you. But, it's all hypothetical. It's never been tried.

rickyp wrote:Debunked is a hell of an over statement. The data still has merit...As I said before regarding the information:
You'll note that it makes a few invalid assumptions. The first is the assumption that if a gun has not been submitted for tracing that the gun came from other sources. The problem with this is that the facility to trace guns was limited, and not all Mexican enforcement participated in the program. There is no way of knowing what percentage of the weapons not submitted were US origin or not.
And yet, the claim is "other sources:" Simply false. .

"Simply false" is simply false.

And, that's based on your own, er, logic. You say, "There is no way of knowing what percentage of the weapons not submitted were US origin or not." Skipping over the nearly-impenetrable style with which you write, that directly contradicts your statement that "The data still has merit."

How does one establish its merit when "There is no way of knowing what percentage of the weapons not submitted were US origin or not?"

Your own statements refute your assertions. Well done!

Then the study isolate the 7,200 submitted for tracing... Again the erroneous assumption is that if a gun can't be traced, and 3,200 couldn't, that the origin is then defnitely NOT the US. Not true. All we know is they can't be successfully traced.

Which could mean they are not from the US.

They are right when they say that of those that are successfully traced 90% came from the US.

Which doesn't tell us much except that US law requires certain identifying marks that others may not.

I think critics that say no, have ground to stand on that it doesn't. It is likely that if authorities know the source of guns are South American armed forces, or Mexican armed forces, they are not likely to submit for tracing....

That is, of course, pure hypothesis. You have submitted no evidence that those are the sources for any of the weapons. You simply want to blame it on America.

However the study also doesn't invalidate the claim that the US is the main source for guns used in Mexican drug cartels.

Once again, nicely written! Let's see . . . "doesn't" is a negation of "does," and "invalidate" is a negative form of "validate," so we have . . . a double negation!

Now, back to the topics.

Will there be a special prosecutor for the leaks? If not, why not?

Will AG Holder be held in contempt of Congress? Will any Democrats vote with the GOP? Will the President cave and give the documents? if not, why not?

The truth about the Fast and Furious scandal.

http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2 ... ous-truth/

A Fortune investigation reveals that the ATF never intentionally allowed guns to fall into the hands of Mexican drug cartels. How the world came to believe just the opposite is a tale of rivalry, murder, and political bloodlust

deleted

rickyp wrote:The truth about the Fast and Furious scandal.

http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2 ... ous-truth/

A Fortune investigation reveals that the ATF never intentionally allowed guns to fall into the hands of Mexican drug cartels. How the world came to believe just the opposite is a tale of rivalry, murder, and political bloodlust

Oh brother.

Look, even if true, please explain how that justifies the cover-up?

Anyway, she relies a lot on Voth. We'll see if he stands up to the scrutiny. He's got a few skeletons in his closet. Finally, it's fascinating that the MSM didn't give a fig about F and F until now, isn't it?

how that justifies the cover-up

How do know for sure anything is being covered up?

Finally, it's fascinating that the MSM didn't give a fig about F and F until now, isn't it?

You're saying the msm hasn't covered the issue of gun smuggling into Mexico?
Why wouldn't they be covering that issue?

rickyp wrote:

how that justifies the cover-up

How do know for sure anything is being covered up?

Good point. We can only know if Holder releases the documents--or someone blows the whistle.

However, IF it was for benign separation of powers purposes, why wait until the 11th hour?

Finally, it's fascinating that the MSM didn't give a fig about F and F until now, isn't it?

You're saying the msm hasn't covered the issue of gun smuggling into Mexico?
Why wouldn't they be covering that issue?

No, not until the last 10 days or so. It doesn't make Obama look good--which is their reason for existing these days.

fate
No, not until the last 10 days or so. It doesn't make Obama look good--which is their reason for existing these days.

What doesn't make Obama look good? The laws (or lack thereof) in Arizona regarding gun purchase and transfer? (Which are the core reason it is so easy for mexican drug lords to hire straw purchasers who legally buy weapons for them.)
What do you think Obama is suppossed to do about them?

rickyp wrote:What doesn't make Obama look good?

At the very least, his lack of institutional control. At worst, the plan of smuggling non-chipped weapons into Mexico, resulting in the death of a Border Patrol agent.

The whole F and F thing isn't really good for his look.

NBC never mentioned F and F until June 12th.

That's fairly amazing since Holder had testified about it several times before this.

It might not surprise you, but then again, if Holder actually broke the law, you would not care. If you were any further in the tank for Obama, you'd need a pressurized suit.

fate the longer the issue stays in the public, the more chance that the actual issue of straw purchases and gun running into Mexico will surface. The best investigation into F&F wasn't done by Issa and his crew. Fact is they only focussed on Holders mistake.
But the fourth estate was doing Issa's job... and that is likely to eventually become wewll known by the electorate....
Whats more likely to be seen as an important issue? The ease with which Mexican drug lords have straw purchasers in Arizona arm them? Or Holder perhaps covering up something embarressing?
Especially since Eban directly contradicts the allegations of a DOJ program delivering guns to Mexico.

Wednesday night on Politics Nation, Katherine Eban of Fortune magazine threw a major stumbling block into the GOP’s much-ballyhooed Fast and Furious investigation, in which Republicans are seeking to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt.
For her Fortune story, published Wednesday, Eban reviewed 2,000 pages of confidential documents and interviewed 39 people who could shed light on allegations that guns bought by ATF-surveilled "straw purchasers" wound up in the holsters of Mexican drug lords.
“There was no effort to get more guns to the straw purchasers,” Eban said in an interview with host Al Sharpton, summarizing her findings. “The ATF agents in question did everything that they could to seize guns, and basically prosecutors determined that they didn’t have grounds under the laws as written to seize most of the guns that wound up flowing ultimately to criminals; that is a far cry from guns being walked.”
Eban told Sharpton that the only ATF agent who deliberately conducted a gun-running operation was John Dodson, who acted as the prime whistle-blower and witness in Republican hearings on the program.
“The agents and the prosecutors say they were following the laws as written," Eban added. "It’s not a question of throwing the laws aside. That’s not what occurred. Nor was it the case that there was actually a tactical plan to let the guns walk

http://leanforward.msnbc.msn.com/_news/ ... asers?lite

rickyp wrote:fate the longer the issue stays in the public, the more chance that the actual issue of straw purchases and gun running into Mexico will surface. The best investigation into F&F wasn't done by Issa and his crew. Fact is they only focussed on Holders mistake.

Holder's mistake. Hmm, what was that? Oh yeah, lying, er, misrepresenting the truth to Congress and then stonewalling the investigation.

But the fourth estate was doing Issa's job... and that is likely to eventually become wewll known by the electorate....

Based on one article that came out . . . yesterday or the day before? You're funny--unintentionally, of course.

Whats more likely to be seen as an important issue? The ease with which Mexican drug lords have straw purchasers in Arizona arm them? Or Holder perhaps covering up something embarressing?

No, I think it's the government allowing guns to cross the border, supposedly to track them, without any means of tracking them, resulting in the deaths of many people. That's flat-out wrong. The cover-up? Probably worse.

Especially since Eban directly contradicts the allegations of a DOJ program delivering guns to Mexico.

You're really betting the farm on one article?

You know what?

1. Holder had no right to lie to Congress. They went after Clemens for doing it, but the AG gets to walk?

2. If the ATF is as innocent as you (and Eban) make it out to be, then why not release the documents pertaining to the operation before the cover-up? At least that way they could prove this is just about lying to Congress and reduce it to a fight between branches of government.

As it is, we have a liberal journalist's word for what you said. She seemed to have what, one or two heavily compromised sources? Can we get some objective info from actual documents--especially if they did nothing wrong?

Thanks.

Oh, and please, no more "Eban says." If it's as easy as you say, we should see a flood of explanatory articles.

And, stop saying "the fourth estate" did oversight. There was nothing until two days ago from the liberal media. Nothing.

fate

No, I think it's the government allowing guns to cross the border, without any means of tracking them, resulting in the deaths of many people. That's flat-out wrong

I agree with this.
But, it happens every single day in Arizona and Texas without government involvement. The law allows it, and the authorities are virtually powerless to stop straw purchases...
What would you do about it?


According to the ATF agents in Arizona, who Issa never called to testify in his quest to get to the facts.... there was no F&F program as described by Issa. It was made up by the one guy Issa relied on for evidence... The only attempt to "walk guns" was actually conducted by Issa's whistel blower...
Who you gonna beleive the cops on the ground in Arizona or Issa's one sore head?
Why didn't Issa call all the ATF personnel suppossedly involved to testify ?

fate

You're really betting the farm on one article?

Watergate started with one article.
Consider the validity of Issa's actions if the article is correct. And why wouldn't it be? Eban reviewed 2,000 pages of confidential documents and interviewed 39 people who could shed light on allegations that guns bought by ATF-surveilled "straw purchasers" wound up in the holsters of Mexican drug lords.
What actual investigation did Issa do on gun smuggling?

He's decided to centre on trying to compromise Holder when his committee had the power to investigate the reality behind thousands of deaths by criminals active in the US. Here's what happens. Holder stonewalls...the issue becomes loose gun laws that are used to arm narcotics gangs.
Who's the winner?

I notice no one has come forward to correct the article'\s veracity since it was published. If it was so wrong why isn't it being challenged? Why has the issue of Arizona gun laws not been discussed?
Or is the response "She's so liberal...."

Well, then they go to her sources for corroboration of what she quoted . Will the sources back her up? For instance:
The article quotes Linda Wallace, a now retired Special Agent with the Internal Revenue Service’s criminal investigation unit. No progressive reactionary, Wallace is a self-described gun-rights supporter. Her statement sums up the whole unseemly political medicine show that is Issa’s House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Here’s how she characterized the committee’s actions; “The ATF’s accusers seem untroubled by evidence that the policy they have pilloried didn’t actually exist.”

rickyp wrote:fate

No, I think it's the government allowing guns to cross the border, without any means of tracking them, resulting in the deaths of many people. That's flat-out wrong

I agree with this.
But, it happens every single day in Arizona and Texas without government involvement. The law allows it, and the authorities are virtually powerless to stop straw purchases...
What would you do about it?

Have you read anything I've said?

Close the border.

You have no right to transport guns illegally into another country. Vehicles are searched going in and out from Mexico every single day.

That said, the government has no right to purposefully allow guns to go to Mexico.

According to the ATF agents in Arizona, who Issa never called to testify in his quest to get to the facts.... there was no F&F program as described by Issa. It was made up by the one guy Issa relied on for evidence... The only attempt to "walk guns" was actually conducted by Issa's whistel blower...
Who you gonna beleive the cops on the ground in Arizona or Issa's one sore head?
Why didn't Issa call all the ATF personnel suppossedly involved to testify ?

Hmm, gee, maybe you should provide a source. Wait. I'll give you one:

WASHINGTON - Federal agent John Dodson says what he was asked to do was beyond belief.

He was intentionally letting guns go to Mexico?

"Yes ma'am," Dodson told CBS News. "The agency was."

An Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms senior agent assigned to the Phoenix office in 2010, Dodson's job is to stop gun trafficking across the border. Instead, he says he was ordered to sit by and watch it happen.

Investigators call the tactic letting guns "walk." In this case, walking into the hands of criminals who would use them in Mexico and the United States.

You act like Issa cooked the whole thing up. Something made him start the investigation and it was not his fertile imagination. Maybe there was a reason . . . let's consult Issa's hometown paper, the Los Angeles Times:

Reporting from Washington — Senior Justice Department officials were aware that ATF agents allowed firearms to be "walked" into Mexico, according to a series of emails last year in which they discussed two undercover operations on the Southwest border, including the failed Fast and Furious program.

In the emails that the department turned over to congressional investigators, Justice Department officials last October discussed both the Fast and Furious gun-trafficking surveillance operation in Phoenix and a separate investigation from 2006 and 2007 called Operation Wide Receiver. In Wide Receiver, which took place in Tucson, firearms also were acquired by illegal straw purchasers and lost in Mexico, the emails say.


The term "gun walking" is central to the failure of Fast and Furious. Agents with the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives purposely allowed licensed firearms dealers to sell weapons to illegal straw buyers, hoping to track the guns to Mexican drug cartel leaders and arrest them. But they lost track of more than 2,000 weapons, and the Mexican government says some of them have turned up at about 170 crime scenes there. Two were recovered at the scene of a U.S. Border Patrol agent's slaying in Arizona in December.

Justice Department officials have said repeatedly that they knew nothing of Fast and Furious tactics until ATF whistle-blowers went public this year with allegations that guns were being illegally purchased with the ATF's knowledge.

You read one article, wet your pants with glee, and figured it was all over. The truth is a bit more complicated.

Watergate started with one article.
Consider the validity of Issa's actions if the article is correct. And why wouldn't it be? Eban reviewed 2,000 pages of confidential documents and interviewed 39 people who could shed light on allegations that guns bought by ATF-surveilled "straw purchasers" wound up in the holsters of Mexican drug lords.
What actual investigation did Issa do on gun smuggling?

Watergate is an interesting parallel. I think you're onto something.

Let's just have it out. Holder can release the documents and, if they show nothing, let's put Issa in jail for abuse of power. Deal?

I notice no one has come forward to correct the article'\s veracity since it was published. If it was so wrong why isn't it being challenged? Why has the issue of Arizona gun laws not been discussed?
Or is the response "She's so liberal...."

Wow! It's been 48 hours! But, wait . . . ask and you shall receive! (2 personal notes: 1) do they really not allow google in Canada? 2) Don't you know the first rule of lawyering? Don't ask a question unless you know the answer).

Not surprisingly, the article is receiving widespread coverage on the left side of the blogsphere, largely because it reinforces the belief that they have had about this matter from the beginning that it was much ado about nothing. The right, meanwhile, is largely ignoring the story today. Of course, with tomorrow’s impending Supreme Court news and the contempt vote against Eric Holder this report is likely to be buried in the news cycle for at least a few days. Nonetheless, it deserves to be given attention, although it’s worth mention that CBS News reporter Sharryl Attkison, who has been reporting on this story for more than a year now, has come to very different conclusions than the Fortune reporters. So, anyone who accepts this report as the final answer without considering the other work that has been done is missing out on at least half the story.
National Review’s Robert VerBruggen points out some inconsistencies between the Fortune story and what we actually already now:

For starters, several ATF officers, including Dodson, have come forward saying that they were told to let guns go when they could have interdicted them. (Fortune presents this as the result of grudges among ATF staff.) Also, while the Justice Department denied in February of last year that “gunwalking” had happened in Fast and Furious, it retracted the claim in December — it’s hard to imagine why they’d concede something like this if it isn’t true, especially when the administration is expending so much effort to fight the congressional Fast and Furious investigation in other ways. (Fortune says the administration is trying to avoid a fight over guns in the run-up to an election.) Further, there is an e-mail exchange between Justice officials about Fast and Furious containing the lines “It’s a tricky case given the number of guns that have walked” and “It’s not going to be any big surprise that a bunch of US guns are being used in MX, so I’m not sure how much grief we get for ‘guns walking.’” While the wiretap applications from Fast and Furious are not public, those involved in the congressional investigation say that they, too, discuss “reckless tactics.”
And gun dealers who cooperated with the ATF report a shift in policy that coincided with Fast and Furious — from stopping sales and questioning customers, to telling store owners to just go ahead and sell the guns. While Fortune reports that the ATF had no chance to interdict the guns that killed Border Patrol agent Brian Terry — the shop that sold the guns informed the ATF that the transaction was suspicious, but it was a holiday weekend and the fax wasn’t seen for days — the gun store’s owner has said he was told in advance to go ahead and sell guns to people he normally wouldn’t. The entire Fortune piece seems to neglect the distinctions between probable cause for an arrest, the act of at least questioning people who are trying to buy guns illegally, and the ATF’s advice to store owners that they refuse to make any sale that they “doubt” is legal. A big part of Fast and Furious is that store owners were told to make illegal sales when the ATF couldn’t follow up on them or chose not to.

Adding to that, there is the not insignificant point that even if gunwalking was not part of the Fast & Furious investigation then it at least occurred during the operation and, for reasons that may still debatable were not pursued. So, there are still plenty of questions that need to be answered here. Nonetheless, it’s good to see the media finally paying attention to this story, no doubt solely because of the impending contempt vote and the ongoing conflict between the Legislative and Executive Branches. It would have been nice if they had paid some attention to it before now, though.
Nonetheless, this is a new light on a story that remains shrouded in mystery, bureaucratic cover-up, and political hyperbole. It would be nice if the American people could learn the truth.

Since reading more than one article seems to difficult for you, maybe a video will help?

1. Who authorized Fast and Furious?
2. Why were the weapons not equipped with tracking devices?
3. Why did anyone think this would work after Wide Receiver failed?

Those are all valid questions. So far, Holder has danced.

I know, I know--now you have to go to the dailykos and receive new directions.

Meanwhile, I have a limitless supply at this strange place we Americans call "google." Check it out.

I've only been skimming this one, but it looks like Ricky has been checkmated.