Is Obama’s “Fast and Furious” Scandal Exposed or Whitewashed?

As all eyes were on Sandy and her path into the East Coast last night, The Washington Times released a story about the BATFE operation, “Fast and Furious.” The story claims to explain what happened in the gunwalking operation and yet it doesn’t explain anything at all.

The Washington Times report says that Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley California Representative Darrell Issa of California, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, “said the Justice Department had taken only ‘limited action’ against lower-level managers.” That sounds bad. Obviously, Grassley and Issa think that the Department of Justice should more “’action’ against lower-level managers.”

Why? On what basis should the Justice Department take any action against the “lower-level managers”? I guess we as readers are supposed to assume that these “lower-level managers” are responsible for releasing untracked and untraceable weapons (until found with the dead bodies) that were used to kill Americans and many others.

But this is where the whole case seems completely insane. Where has anyone ever shown any evidence that these “lower level managers” were deviating from their orders given to them from the upper level managers? Has anyone ever said, “The upper managers of the Justice Department had this great plan for getting weapons into the hands of the drug cartels, tracking them through the Mexican drug cartel organization, and catching all the bad guys; but then the lower-level managers, instead of carrying out this great plan, botched it by not doing what they were told to do.” No one explains in this article how lower-level managers failed those above them.

Setting that aside. Even if there were some ways in which lower-level managers acted to which upper managers claim they did not give approval, the fact that they have refused to punish them and have even promoted some of them, means that they do approve those actions. They are complicit and should be considered accomplices.

Another example of the insanity: How does this paragraph make any sense at all:

“They said failures within the Justice Department happened because of ‘conscious decisions to encourage gun dealers to sell to known traffickers and avoid interdicting those weapons or even questioning suspects, all in the hope that would lead law enforcement to cartel connections and a larger case.’ No drug smugglers were arrested and more than 1,400 weapons are still missing.”

 Explain to me how one makes a “conscious decision” to not follow and yet expects to be led to “cartel connections” or anywhere else. That is not possible. We are asked to believe that the decision makers at the Justice Department decided they didn’t want to know where the guns were going so that they could learn where the guns were going. This is too contradictory to be a “conscious decision.”

It seems a lot more simple and straightforward to deduce from the evidence we are shown in the article that the Justice Department and the BATFE sold weapons to Mexican drug cartels because they wanted the Mexican drug cartels to have more weapons. That may raise more disturbing questions, but at least it would give us an escape from these irrational non-explanations.

[js-disqus]