I almost posted myself on this, I have the same question. People die all the time because of what these people do. I don't get the incongruity either.

I would say we need to find out why those guns were allowed to cross the border, no?

Of course we need to.

... that the drug cartels would have found another gun without the Fast and Furious program. The border agent would have been killed anyway.

How long you gonna burn?

A long time buddy. A long time. I get the games, and the players.

OK, but if you think i was responding to you, I wasn't.

My bad??? Who or what in the thread were you responding to then? Do tell... chirp chirp chirp

look closely at this post. see where my username is at? Now look to the right edge of the page. See that part that says "Response to xxxxxx" where xxxxxx is a username?

Now, go back and look at the first post of mine that you responded to and read theb username that is listed there.

K. NP. I still don't get your comment. No biggie.

If you notice, the page layout of this site is actually something readable and designed in hte current century, unlike some other sites. The "re: ...." stuff is unnecessary.

as a result of the F & F debacle. This absolutely needs answers.

it's like that really don't count as people.

Imagine that pain that their families are suffering.

edited to add comment

on the whole. But, you rarely hear about the Mexican victims at all, or about Mexico's anger over this matter.

From what I understand, the guns were allowed to walk and the Mexican government was supposed to intercept them on the other side. This is a failing of the Mexican government. The guns were sold in the first place because both governments thought it might be a good way to shut down the drug cartel operations. The cartel members were supposed to be caught by Mexican officials taking possession of the guns from the straw buyers and the guns returned. Somehow, (corruption?) Mexican officials dropped the ball, let the guns through and one day a border agent was shot and killed by someone that possessed one of the guns.

It was crickets when Servicemen were electrocuted due to shoddy work by KBR.

Wasn't it though. It's bad when anyone dies becasue of these depraved idiots.

...then the legit questions can be asked and answered. This is a real issue and the dems on panel wanted to call the former AG, aft agents, and several other people i can not recall at this time. The gop said no, because they wanted an issue. And now the president has given them executive privilege and there goes the who melodrama.

Yeah it is a real issue. I recall the program was not official (and there were multiple programs) or something like that, there was some disconnect there..., some of these things were decided at the DOJ and state level, Just reading wikipedia on these various operations it seems the idea to do something came from the DOJ but then ATF supervisors are the ones that authorized the 'gun running', er 'gun walking' operations, does an ATF Supervisor have this much power? I don't think so. I need to dig into this again, but I'm just not bothered to look further at the moment.


Though again I ask my question out loud: How is it rational to insert more weapons into a conflict where both sides are so heavily armed? Oh I read the explanation for this but it still just does not make sense to me. Who in the hell decided this when the program was implemented? That's my question. Were we trying to 'help' Mexico by killing more Mexicans? I don't get it.

to invade Iraq. See http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:H.J.Res114:

The following were part of that Joint Bill:
1. Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.
2. Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
3. Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
4. Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
5. Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
6. Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.
Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
7. Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.
8. The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them.
9. The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
10. The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power.
11. Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

Of the above 11 items, 2 and 6 are the ones most in question and discussed. As it turns out, no significant caches of WMD were found. 6 was carefully worded, it does NOT say Iraq conspired with Al Qaeda to bring about 9/11, merely that there were Al Qaeda members in Iraq (probably true) and that Iraq supported other terrorist organizations which is true.

Additionally every time Congress authorized a Special Spending Bill for military operations that constituted further permission for military action.

And, I am not devaluing the agents life, but my point is I keep hearing how one death demands such investigations and I won't argue that point but I felt 4000+ deaths also demands accountability too.

I am tire of the double standard. I am tired of witch hunts by Republicans every time they have the house or senate and there is a Democratic President.

Just for clarification did you support the war with Iraq or were you explaining why congress didn't investigate the war. I am not sure and don't want to jump to conclusions.

As to the invasion of Iraq, I would have greatly preferred an alternative to the invasion. However long term it will probably lead to the a more stable Middle East, presuming of course that Iraq can solve it's internal political problems.

The Iraqi population is broken down according to the following approximate %:
Iraqi Arabs 75%-80% (split 55% Sh ia and 40% Sunni), Kurds 15%-17%, Assyrians 3%, Turkmen 2%.

Of that group, I would say that all of them except the Sunni 40%, most of whom were Saddam supporters, are probably better off now, then they were before the invasion.

What's this Bologna? 1? Known bullshit 2. There be none, never were any 3. Yeah so when has that ever bothered the United States before? 4. Who gave them those weapons, need a hint? 5. Hostile baby hostile 7. Linkie linkie please 8. The Terrrasists Terra Terra boo blah blah blah. wtf your post even have to do with ATF 'gun running'? What is the purpose of your little list lol.

which was "President Bush's war with Iraq which as far as I know did not find even one WMD or prove that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11 which is why we went to war cost our country over 4000 service members their lives plus the lives of over 100,000 Iraqi civilians not to mention the trillions of dollars, yet no contempt of congress or impeachment of the president."

The bold is my own to emphasize the question.

As for the rest, that's what CONGRESS voted on, take your issues up with them, a majority in the House believed it enough to vote 296-133 to approve it and a veto proof majority in the Senate believed it enough to vote 77-23 to approve it.