Republican theory on Fast and Furious roundly debunked

An investigation by Fortune magazine, which is hardly a leftist journal, reveals that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms “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.”

Read the whole thing HERE:

[Rep. Darrell] Issa’s claim that the ATF is using the Fast and Furious scandal to limit gun rights seems, to put it charitably, far-fetched. Meanwhile, Issa and other lawmakers say they want ATF to stanch the deadly tide of guns, widely implicated in the killing of 47,000 Mexicans in the drug-war violence of the past five years. But the public bludgeoning of the ATF has had the opposite effect. From 2010, when Congress began investigating, to 2011, gun seizures by Group VII and the ATF’s three other groups in Phoenix dropped by more than 90%.



  1. Panic and desperation will soon descend on Issa’s fantasy island investigation giving way to yet another round of birtherism to appease the extremist.

  2. Pat. Intent vs. Result.
    Democrats anti-gun. Check. ATF a bunch of bungling idiots (just ask the Branch Davidians if you can find one that wasn’t burned alive). Check. The Attorney General of the United States of America a “World Class” BSer. Check. ATF keeping a low profile after yet another embarrasment. Check. Most of the Government propellerheads becoming completely un-disciplined and untrustworthy (GSA, ATF, SEcret Service) under the Current Presidents watch…CHECK CHECK and Double Check….. Oh and Steverino…NIce comment….bet you spent all morning thinking that one up…

  3. Ed: Let us know when you can specifically refute anything in the article to which I linked (if you even bothered to read it).

    Until then, spare us the wingnut rhetoric.

  4. By the way, Ed, when I predicted two years ago that the Arizona immigration law wouldn’t pass muster with the Supreme Court, you disagreed.

    How did that work out for you?

  5. Ohhhh I see…..They Didn’t INTEND for the Guns to get into the wrong hands or have thing go wrong. Guess they must have thought they were going to “Toys for Tots”…. What they AREN”T doing is stepping up and taking responsibility for the bungled operation and the DEAD Border Patrol Agent BECAUSE OF IT!!! That isn’t wing nut, left nut or anything else PAT…. The Attorney General is lying about it…and anybody that is remotely consious alert and oriented KNOWS IT….all these fools need to say is “we screwed up”…. But the CYA mentality won’t allow that….even if it is the right thing to do….. By the way…the wingnut thing is getting old….you need some new material….. Your ship is taking on water and you know it…..

  6. Ed: You say “The Attorney General is lying,” but you offer no proof. All you’ve got is wingnut rhetoric that you’ve picked up from who knows where (probably Limbaugh or some such raving looney).

    Oh, and cool it with all the capitalized letters. We don’t allow shouting here.

    And one other thing: Do you subscribe to the wacky theory that Fast and Furious was part of some evil plot to take guns away from Americans in general?

    Don’t disappoint me and say you don’t believe in that crap.

  7. Blinky

    Wait….. based on teh tesimony of those who were actually **involved** and would be guilty of wrongdoing if F&F was as reported up until this point — we’re supposed to simply drop the issue?

    Wow…. with that kind of thinking, I bet y’all are waiting for OJ to find the “real killer”.

  8. “By the way, Ed, when I predicted two years ago that the Arizona immigration law wouldn’t pass muster with the Supreme Court, you disagreed.

    How did that work out for you?”

    Ed – you opened yourself up to Pat’s ridicule by only making one prediction on the Arizona immigration law. Pat knows better so he hedges his bets. Regardless of tomorrow’s decision on the PPACA, Pat will be able to tell us what a great prognosticator he is:

    3/26/2012 – “My own sense of the matter is cautious optimism that the ACA will be upheld. I wouldn’t bet the farm on it, but I’d be willing to wager a farthing or two.”

    3/30/2012 – “My own view is that the court probably will overturn the act, or at least the individual-mandate provision, but I wouldn’t bet the farm on it.”

  9. Nice try, Jaybo, but the first of those two predictions was just before the court heard oral arguments on ObamaCare. The other one was just after.

    I was just one of many observers who changed their predictions when the oral arguments seemed to go against the ACA. Even separate polls of a panel of former Supreme Court clerks before and after the arguments showed a shift.

    Some observers have even hedged their bets in the past few days in the wake of the court’s ruling on the Arizona immigration law. One theory I read this morning said that Scalia’s especially snarky dissent in the Arizona case might indicate that he’s not happy with the coming decision on health care.

    In short, there has been a lot of shifting one way or another among court watchers over the past three months.

    I’ve held pretty steady on the matter in recent weeks. Just last week I wrote this:

    “My guess, but a not a sure bet, is that the mandate will be voided by a vote of 5-4. I rate that outcome as a 6-5 likelihood. If the act is upheld, I expect the vote to be 6-3, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing the majority opinion.”

    As for my tweaking our friend Ed on the Arizona case, I couldn’t care less whether you like it or not.

  10. Incidentally, Jaybo, you may have missed this prediction from the publisher of SCOTUSblog:


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *