wayfriend wrote:You would need to show where Mexico claimed their sovereignty was violated because of a lack of notification about FnF, and that during WR they were satisfied that their sovereignty was not violated because they were notified. Else your claim cannot be substantiated.
...Complaints from Mexico that selling guns violated their sovereignty. Not complaints that failing to be notified violated their sovereignty.
Why does it matter if they are upset about their sovereignty being violated because we failed to notify them, or because the guns went over the border? (And when did that become
my claim? I don't ever remember claiming either position.) The point is the same: F&F resulted in the Mexican government being upset about their sovereignty being violated. Are you really going to stake your disagreement on the slim thread of hair-splitting?
Okay fine, let's split some hairs and apply some logic. There are three possibilities.
A. If we notified them, and they approved of the operation, then there's no possible way they could be upset about their sovereignty being violated. In fact it would be impossible for them to be upset about the selling of guns, because they would have approved it. Possibility A makes both sides of your hair-split impossible (unless the Mexicans are just lying about being upset).
B. On the other hand, if we notified them, and they
didn't approve, and yet we did it anyway, then they certainly have a right to be upset about both sides of the split hair. While it's possible for them to be upset about the selling of guns in this case, it's also clearly a violation of their sovereignty, even if we did notify them. In fact, it would be the same--if not worse--than not notifying them at all, because we would have willfully ignored their disapproval. Therefore, it makes the notification side of your hair-split irrelevant, because notification which is followed by ignoring the refusal is the same as not notifying them at all (it's probably safe to assume that we wouldn't have notified them of our intention to ignore their refusal of our request). The point is that we didn't do it in conjunction with them.
C. Or we didn't notify them at all. Again, in this case, they have a right to be upset about both issues. In fact, it would be impossible to be upset about the lack of notification without simultaneously being upset about the selling of guns .... i.e. the phenomenon of which they weren't notified. With no such phenomenon, there is no absence of notification.
So let's sum up. You asked for evidence that the Mexican government was upset about not being notified and included in F&F as a violation of their sovereignty. We provide you evidence that they are in fact upset at us, and phrased it as a violation of sovereignty. You dismiss this by claiming they're upset about the guns, not the lack of notification/cooperation (as if that matters). But it's illogical to assume that they're upset about the former without simultaneously being upset about latter, because if we did notify them and their government agreed, then it's their government's fault for allowing it to happen, not our fault. It couldn't possibly be a violation of sovereignty if their government knew and approved. The only way it makes sense to be upset about violation of sovereignty is if either B or C is true, either of which are problems with our notification and inclusion of the Mexican government.
Zarathustra wrote:The Obama administration is responsible for these deaths.
Now THERE is something I would like to see you explain. Would you please explain?
You bet. Obama himself personally appointed every single person who is responsible for Fast and Furious, except for one, who was appointed by Holder (whom Obama appointed). Two of them have resigned over this fiasco ... I suppose due to their own choosing (guilt, etc.) or because they were forced out to protect others, the Fall Guys.
wikipedia wrote:
On October 26, 2009, a teleconference was held at the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. to discuss U.S. strategy for combating Mexican drug cartels. Participating in the meeting were Deputy Attorney General David W. Ogden, Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer, ATF Director Kenneth E. Melson, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Administrator Michele Leonhart, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Robert Mueller and the top federal prosecutors in the Southwestern border states. They decided on a strategy to identify and eliminate entire arms trafficking networks rather than low-level buyers.[3][31][32] Those at the meeting did not suggest using the "gunwalking" tactic, but ATF supervisors would soon use it in an attempt to achieve the desired goals.[33] The effort, beginning in November, would come to be called Operation Fast and Furious for the successful film franchise, because some of the suspects under investigation operated out of an auto repair store and street raced.[3]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal
Follow the links for each name, and you'll see Obama or Holder appointed them.
Wayfriend wrote:Or will you claim that the buyers should have been stopped once they had the guns, which the Arizona prosecutors, protecting the gun rights of all us us, said that they could not be stopped?
The weapons were purchased illegally, according to the link I gave above. And the prosecutors (Holder's men) weren't protecting our gun rights, but Obama's election chances. From the same page:
wikipedia wrote:
The tactic of letting guns walk, rather than interdicting them and arresting the buyers, led to controversy within the ATF.[5][35] As the case continued, several members of Group VII, including John Dodson and Olindo Casa, became increasingly upset at the tactic of allowing guns to walk. Their standard Project Gunrunner training was to follow the straw purchasers to the hand-off to the cartel buyers, then arrest both parties and seize the guns. But according to Dodson, they watched guns being bought illegally and stashed on a daily basis, while their supervisors, including David Voth and Hope MacAllister, prevented the agents from intervening.[3]
However, other accounts of the operation insist that ATF agents were prevented from intervening not by ATF officials, but rather by federal prosecutors with the Attorney General's office, who were unsure of whether the agents had sufficient evidence to arrest suspected straw-buyers.[19] According to some reports, many agents insisted they were prevented from making arrests because prosecutors were unwilling to engage in what could become a potentially contentious political battle over Second Amendment rights during an election year, particularly given the difficult nature of prosecuting straw buyers, and the weak penalties associated with it, even if successful.[19] Instead, prosecutors instructed ATF agents not to make arrests, but rather continue collecting evidence in order to build a stronger case. One tactic proposed for doing so was a wiretap of suspected straw-buyers, in an attempt to link the suspects to criminal activities taking place on the Mexican side of the border.[19]
I guess it depends on whom you believe, the agents in the who field are dying fighting this crime, or the political appointees who's careers depend upon Obama's reelection. I know which you choose! You've already made that clear.
Joe Biden … putting the Dem in dementia since (at least) 2020.
