Far worse than Watergate. Why doesn't anyone know?

[jmervyn]

I refer, of course, to the operation now-turned-scandal known as "Fast and Furious" (hereafter "F&F"). In some ways I'm surprised nobody has brought this up previously, but there's a lot of you who only see a very slanted, distorted version of America, and as I mention below, this is already a desperate cover-up. There's an explanatory video that I'll add once I get home that sums it all up nicely.

The New Left and their media brethren are pulling out all the stops to cover this up; to the enormous credit of CBS, they're refusing to drink the fellow-traveler kool-aid, and are actively pursuing the story. "Bush did it first!" Chairman Issa is a dirtbag/isn't squeaky clean! This is all about voter suppression! Plus <my> personal all time favorite, RAAAAAAAACIIISSSTTT!!!!!!! The "Right" doesn't really have as much interest in covering it as might be imagined; it will be called as a political stunt by the Left and distract from their one-note "economy" message in the election.

The underlying truths are as follows:

1. The traditional Democrat claim that 90% of Mexican narco-terrorist's guns come from the U.S. is an open lie. Furthermore, such a claim relies on disingenuous reading; "come from the U.S." is interpreted as being sold by American gun stores while the actual determination is tracing whether the gun was originally manufactured in America and where it was sold to subsequently. Foreign guns coming through the U.S. would be identified by serial number if possible.
2. The number of guns bought from America by narco-terrorists is quite limited; they use international arms dealers and low cost is not a major concern of theirs. The "American" guns involved in the Mexican drug wars are largely those stolen from Mexican Army armories, including those of the infamous "Zetas". While M-16's and M-60's are used by the narco-terrorists, AK-47's and similar weapons are preferable.
3. The sting operations carried out under Bush, code named "Linebacker", were nearly disastrous and were discontinued because of the risk potential versus criminal charges payoff.
4. Operation "Linebacker" attempted to place RFID tags in guns, and it failed. The operation was also a different mechanism; the targets were sold guns and the guns immediately seized after the border crossing.
5. Mexico was informed about "Linebacker". Not the case with F&F.
6. F&F plus the other operations were started under the Obama administration, and the Executive Branch was fully informed - to the point that they boasted about it during press briefings!
7. When gun store owners contacted the Gov't about suspicious sales (i.e. the self-policing system worked) the were instructed to sell the weapons by the ATF and others regardless.
8. No attempt to trace the weapons was made. They were sold, even directly by Gov't agents, to known narco-terrorists.
9. DoJ documents discussed the interest by the Executive in substantiating the 90% claim from item #1.
10. The ATF, FBI, and DoJ have engaged in reciprocity on whistle-blowers, which is illegal under Gov't regulations.
11. Chairman Issa was officially lied to by the DoJ, claiming there was no knowledge of the 'rogue' F&F operation. DoJ later retracted the lie. Issa is demanding "what was known and when did they know it" information. The information provided by the DoJ is roughly 4% of what was asked for, and is very heavily redacted (blacked out pages).
12. Pelosi and others' spurious claims about voter suppression made on behalf of Holder would require a time machine to be true; F&F was under investigation long before the voter "suppression" (removing deceased voters from the rolls) was an issue.
13. The Executive Branch explicitly supported the inference made by #1 because it knew about F&F. In other words, American gun sales were blamed for Mexican violence because we were deliberately selling them guns to increase the violence.
14. The Executive Branch denies any prior knowledge of F&F, despite item #6 and #13. They maintain that gun control is only the logical conclusion to #13.
15. Obama invoked executive privilege over Holder's documents. This means #14 is a lie on one of two grounds, depending on how the determination is made.

In the interim, I'll cite the most trusted name in Leftist N00z, Jon Stewart, to examine just how bad this is. Even though Stewart can't bring himself to differentiate between running guns to narco-terrorists from having private meetings with oil tycoons to set energy policy.

[krischan]

TL;DR while being at work and I already spent too much time on our argument about dignity.

Is it the deasater about the DEA, CIA or whatever trying someting on the Mexican drug mafia which led to the Mexican mafia having lots of high-tech weaponry now? I agree, that was one of the greatest screwups I ever heard of on the last 10-20 years.

There are people who are willing to produce damage of billions of dollars if they can gain a million for themselves by it. That seems to be the motivation of many criminals and not that few politicians.

I agree that it's not an argument for stricter regulations on arms. The only reason for me would be if a majority of people wants them seriously enough to make it an important issue for their decision at the next election.

[jmervyn]

Is it the deasater about the DEA, CIA or whatever trying someting on the Mexican drug mafia which led to the Mexican mafia having lots of high-tech weaponry now? I agree, that was one of the greatest screwups I ever heard of on the last 10-20 years.

Yes, this is that scandal. What's worse is that there are several indications that it wasn't a screw-up. The operation itself went perfectly, which leads to the question, "why in God's name was the U.S. arming narco-terrorists"? Nobody has an answer.

It certainly wasn't about catching the terrorists; if your Feds dumped cyanide into the German reservoir system with the expressed intent of measuring how much cyanide made it into the drinking water, what sort of criminal charges would be forthcoming?

There are people who are willing to produce damage of billions of dollars if they can gain a million for themselves by it. That seems to be the motivation of many criminals and not that few politicians.

At this stage, no graft or bribery has emerged.

I agree that it's not an argument for stricter regulations on arms. The only reason for me would be if a majority of people wants them seriously enough to make it an important issue for their decision at the next election.

There are indications that this was an active goal of the operation. How someone could be this arrogant and stupid is questionable; it remains to be seen what sort of "chicken vs. egg" was involved.

[stillman]

"Why doesn't anyone know?"

I guess even Mexico is too peripheral to matter in the sated minds of US citizens.

[LozHinge the Unhinged]

Mexico, that's part of Texas, right?

[jmervyn]

That's right, laugh it up you two. I would do a mean Basil Fawlty imitation of your gloating if I could...

Even if the hundreds of Mexican dead that have resulted from this were ignored, there's also two U.S. Border Patrol agents that were killed with these weapons.

[stillman]

I'm not trying to downplay anything, jmervyn. But it does seem like we live in times where people shrug off any murderous tragedies beyond their mailboxes. We expect this sort of big time corruption. It's engrained into the systems, encouraged even. A cover up? Why, that's what I and any smart person would do in this establishment. It's what we pay for with our taxes. And it's a great reason to join me in antitraditionalism.

[BobCox2]

I can think of worse.

Bob Diamond apologises for Barclays Libor fixing

The former Barclays CEO says the fixing of Libor rates by Barclays traders was "wrong"


Just for a start.

Stole from you and me and they are still rich now and safe in mansions while we suffer.- why again?

[jmervyn]

We expect this sort of big time corruption. It's engrained into the systems, encouraged even.

Maybe I'm just a romantic, then. When DA EBIL BUS-HITLER!!@!ONE! had Cheney formulate energy policy, the shrieks of hate-filled outrage blanketed the n00z for several weeks. Same with firing the U.S. Attorneys; what had been standard practice (sweeping out the previous political appointees that didn't kowtow in the proper direction) was suddenly OMGCRIMINALKONSPIRACY!!!

Yet what appears quite likely to be actively arming enemies of the U.S. in an effort to falsify a link between weapons sales and terrorism kills hundreds of Mexicans and two U.S. officers - to date - and the crickets chirp frantically.

You know what? I was going to save this for the 4th of July thread, but it's better used here:

Spoiler

Reagan on a velociraptor. Your argument is invalid.

Stole from you and me and they are still rich now and safe in mansions while we suffer.- why again?

I disagree. While I'd love to see people like that strung up by their genitalia and beaten with bamboo rods, it doesn't rise to the same level as treasonous misconduct by Gov't officials that results in death.

[BobCox2]

I disagree. While I'd love to see people like that strung up by their genitalia and beaten with bamboo rods, it doesn't rise to the same level as treasonous misconduct by Gov't officials that results in death.

LIBOR Banking Scandal Deepens; Barclays Releases Damning Email, Implicates British Government.


and this kind of thing destroys lives indirectly.

Most intriguingly, or perhaps disturbingly, there were revelations last week that Bank of England deputy Governor Paul Tucker had a conversation with Diamond at the peak of the crisis in 2008. The conversation reportedly left Diamond, and subsequently his traders, with the impression that the bank had carte blanche to rig LIBOR downward in order to help allay spiraling public fears about the banks’ poor financial health.
British officials, and Tucker individually, deny that Tucker gave Diamond permission to rig rates. But a report by British regulators did conclude that the two were talking about Barclays LIBOR submissions on October 29, 2008, and that as a result of that conversation, Diamond came away with a “misunderstanding.” The Daily Mail quotes the Financial Services Authority report:

However, as the substance of the telephone conversation was relayed down the chain of command at Barclays, a misunderstanding or miscommunication occurred.
This meant that Barclays’ submitters believed mistakenly that they were operating under an instruction from the Bank of England (as conveyed by senior management) to reduce Barclays’ Libor submissions.

That is explosive stuff. Members of Parliament will be grilling Tucker tomorrow about those events in what is sure to be a far more combative and entertaining legislative inquiry than the Jamie Dimon dog-and-pony show we just went through here in the states in recent weeks.
The implications of that part of the story should be particularly chilling to Americans, who in recent years have been party to a number of revelations about strange and seemingly inappropriate contacts between senior regulatory officials and big bankers during the heat of the crisis.
We know that American officials in 2008-2009 were extremely concerned about the appearance of weakness in the financial markets, so much so that they may have resisted pursuing criminal prosecutions against big banks, and we also know that they spent a lot of time commiserating with Wall Street figures before and during the crisis.
If Bob Diamond and Paul Tucker were having these talks about LIBOR, is it fair to wonder what else Hank Paulson and Lloyd Blankfein were talking about in the 24 discussions they had in the six days following the AIG disaster? When Paulson had a secret meeting with the entire board of Goldman Sachs in, of all places, his hotel suite in Moscow, in June of 2008? Or what other material nonpublic information was exchanged when Paulson met with a gang of hedge fund chiefs at the offices of Eton Park management in July 2008, and laid out for them a possible scenario for putting Fannie and Freddie into receivership?
Anyway, the LIBOR story is leading the front pages of most of Britain’s dailies, it’s on TV, and it’s producing blistering editorials and howls of outrage amongst politicians and activists. But as compadre Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism put it, where’s the outrage here in America?