What they're talking about is something called 'Wide Receiver'. CBS reporter Sheryl Aktinson is one of the few dinosaur media reporters even covering Fast and Furious, and alleged that Wide Receiver also had some of the same 'Gunrunner'aspectd Fast and Furious did.
Well it did, and it mostly didn't. Jim Shepherd in The Outdoor Wire reveals just how different the admittedly botched Wide Receiver was from Fast and Furious:
In Operation Wide Receiver, Tucson agents allowed the sales of more than 500 firearms to known straw purchasers. Like Gunrunner/Fast and Furious, the operation apparently backfired.
Some firearms in Wide Receiver were equipped with RFID tracking devices. In Wide Receiver, it seems the illegal purchasers seemed more than slightly knowledgeable of the ATF and how to take their aerial and electronic tracking procedures down.
Knowing the time aloft numbers for virtually all planes used in government surveillance, the buyers had a simple method of getting their purchases across the border undetected. They simply drove four-hour loops around the area.
As surveillance planes were forced to return to base for refueling, the smugglers simply turned and sprinted their cargo across the border.
The RFID tags also turned out to be problematic.
Rather than making large enough holes for the tags to be laid out inside weapons, agents force-fit them into the rifles.
That cramming caused the antennae to be folded, reducing the effective range of the tags. And an already short battery life (36-48 hours maximum) meant that should purchasers allow the firearms to sit, the tracking devices eliminated themselves.
Let's summarize the differences, shall we? Wide Receiver actually made an attempt at surveillance, but was stymied by equipment problems and the resourcefulness of the cartels.
In addition, Wide Receiver was conducted in cooperation with the Mexican government - not kept secret from them as Fast and Furious was.
Fast and Furious made no use of tracking devices, prevented local law enforcement from interfering with the smugglers, on multiple occasions, and federal agents were not allowed to stop the flow of weapons. The whole idea behind Wide Receiver was to nab the smugglers and cut off the traffic.
Wide Receiver allowed something like 450 guns into Mexico before the Bush Administration and the Mexican authorities realized it had failed. Fast and Furious allowed over 2,000 weapons into the hands of the cartels without any intention of arresting the straw buyers and smugglers. And this might just be the tip of the iceberg. CBS News’ Attkisson mentions allegations of “at least 10 cities in five other [Mexican] states”, which means that Holder’s Department of Justice may have intentionally sent more than 12,000 weapons into the hands of the cartels.
Of course, the most important difference, aside from the death toll is that Holder and the DOJ already knew that Wide Receiver had been a failure.They had the advantage of hindsight and went ahead and did this anyway.
And that, frankly, amounts to criminal negligence.As opposed to a botched law enforcement program.
3 comments:
It really does not matter whether or not Bush did it to. When Bush left office, he was the most hated and most univerisally despised man to ever hold that office. Given the hatred the American people still hold toward him and his team today, any time the Democrats wish to prosecute him, convict him, throw him in jail, and throw away the key the American people will suppor them wholeheartedly and without reservation. In order to avoid political extinctions, the Republicans will have to go along with this prosecution.
The reason Barack Obama was hired as President by the American people was to change the Bush policies. In this case, Bush did it to will not work.
It is in America's interests to do a fair and complete investigation of this. I'm sure the Mexicans will want a complete and honest report of what happened and will want assurances that this will not happen again. If this does not happen, I'm sure the ICC or other international bodies will be more than happy to take this case. In any of these bodies, it is unlikely America or its officials can get a fair trial. As such, we should be highly motivated to get to the bottom of this ourselves.
Hi Poster,
Ummmm, the United States does not recognize the jurisdiction of the ICC. Neither do a number of other countries.
Even if the ICC did get a verdict and issue a warrant, do you seriously think any country is going to be stupid enough to risk war and retaliation by arresting a sitting or ex-president?
There won't be a fair examination of this because the trail leads too far up the Obama Administration food chain.
"Ummm, the United States does not recognize the jurisdiction of the ICC. Neither do a number of other countries." I'm well aware of this. Actually this works out quite well for any country wishing to pursue this. If the US does not recognize the juristidiction of this court, its going to be hard for the US to respond to the allegations. This means those wishing to bring charges can do so without any defense and the harm to America's interests could be devestating!!
"Even if the ICC did get a verdict and issue a warrant, do you seriously think any country is going to be stupid enough to risk war and retaliation by arresting a sitting or ex-president?" In summary, yes they would. Doing so has nothing to do with being stupid.
They will calculate the benefits to do soing and weigh the costs. An obvious benefit would be the public relations boost someone would get from taking down a US President. Mr. Obama is quite popular around the world or so we are told by the media. If this is so, this is likely because America is hated around the world and world leaders believe having Mr. Obama is in his current position provides them the best opportunity to further undermine America. As such, they may conclude leaving him where he is works better for their interests and, as such, they choose not to make the arrest or the prosecution.
As for war, should it come to tha, who ever chooses to go to war over this will likely have the support of most of the world. After all there are about 200 or so countries on earth and about 190 or them will celebrate harm coming to America. At the least, their leaders would do so in private. This could provide an excellent opportunity for them to give America what "it has coming." At least, this is how it will be sold. As for Mexico, such a scenario could provide an excellent opportunity for them to take back Texas, as well as lands it lost in the Mexican-American war.
Instead of asking if another country is stupid enough to risk war with America over this a better question would be is America willing to risk war and retalliation from other parties should it choose to defy the ICC should the ICC or other international bodies choose to get involved.
I tend to agree a fair examination of this is not likely in the US. The media and the government beurcrats who would be charged with much of the investigation have to much invested in Mr. Obama. Also, the American people have a great deal invested in the success of the first African-American president and this makes it difficult to challenge him in a meaningful way.
If Mexico and others deem it in the best interests to leave Mr. Obama where he is, then there will likely be little to no pressure of the ICC to get involved. If they deem his removal better serves their interests, then we should expect more movement on this front.
Fear of war with America or some other retaliation is not a concern of theirs and will not figure into their analysis of what to do. In fact, war with Aemrica might be seen as a good thing by Mexico's leaders. The will have most of the world on their side and it would provide a great opportunity for them to recapture territories lost to America.
Its profoundly in America's best interest to conduct a fair and honest investigation of all of this. At least by doing so, we have a fighting chance to avoid such dire scenarios as laid out above. Unfortunately protecting Team Obama appears to trump all with the news media and the government bureacracy and America continues to suffer.
Post a Comment