NPR Plays “Blame Bush” Card
How does the mainstream media – especially the extreme left leaning outlets – attempt to report on Fast and Furious? First, they either ignore it completely, or when possible, they use the “Blame Bush” tactic. This was notable last week when NPR offered a story titled, “Documents Suggest Bush Administration Used ‘Fast And Furious’ Tactics,” and noted:
The Justice Department sent nearly 500 pages of documents to Republican lawmakers Thursday that suggest the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives may have used questionable tactics and lost track of American-made weapons in a gun trafficking investigation on the Mexican border as early as 2006.
While this is true, and the operation was known as “Wide Receiver,” this is first hardly breaking news and second does it really resolve the outrage over Fast and Furious? Brian Terry, the border control agent killed by a Fast and Furious gun that was allowed to walk, is still dead, and the violence in Mexico has only increased.
But apparently if the media can “Blame Bush” that is enough for them!
Huff and Puff Tries to Argue with Numbers
This week in a piece titled, “Obama Gun Control Policy: President Stays Virtually Silent On Issue,” the Huffington Post argues that gun control is an issue that won’t be much of an issue in the election – almost to the point of frustration. And at one point in the article, the writer even attempts to argue with the numbers:
For gun control advocates, it adds up to frustration with Obama and the Democrats. The group Mayors Against Illegal Guns argues that polling shows voters support certain gun safety measures like stronger background checks – although a recent Gallup poll also finds more support for enforcing current laws than for passing new ones.
This isn’t entirely true that Gallup poll numbers call for more support for enforcing current laws, but it the Gallup poll did show that more people are against gun control. So why is data from an anti-gun group such as Mayors Against Illegal Guns cited as well? That seems like clear-cut bias to make a point.
The article then adds this bit:
But the NRA outspends gun-control groups by a wide margin, and analysts say that when it comes time to vote, the gun issue is more likely to motivate gun rights activists than gun control supporters.
Since becoming president, Obama has been extremely cautious on the issue. In his 2004 Senate race, for example, Obama said it was a “scandal” that then-President George W. Bush didn’t force renewal of the assault weapons ban. But Obama himself has done nothing to promote that issue since becoming president.
Once again the NRA is painted as some nefarious and sinister cabal that secretly is out to destroy America. And then the author tries to paint Obama as neutral on the issue, and as with so many other stories failing to note this is the same man who said he was working on gun control but “under the radar.”
Post and Courier Notes “Fast and Furious confusion”
This week The Post and Courier had a story titled, “Fast and Furious confusion,” which notes some significant differences between the gun running operations that occurred under President Bush and those that happened under President Obama. The piece had this to say:
…it is hard to believe that any office of the Holder Justice Department would undertake a sensitive operation involving the nation of Mexico without first seeking Mexican cooperation. If contrary to policy such an operation was contemplated, it is hard to believe that any senior official in the department would have allowed it to proceed.
And yet Fast and Furious had a two-year run while Mexican officials were allegedly kept in the dark.
Where were Mr. Holder and his top aides during this time?
And yet it seems like Eric Holder will continue to dodge the issue and the media might likely continue to blame Bush.
Media Matters Plays “Blame Bush” Card Too
In a story titled, “Fox Tries to Defend Bush-Era Gun Walking Operation,” Media Matters for America attempted to suggest that right wing blogs and news outlets are saying that Fast and Furious and Wide Receiver are very different. While we maintain that the operations were similar, but with a difference in that U.S. agents were victims of the guns from Fast and Furious, we also note that this shouldn’t let Eric Holder or President Obama off the hook.
And this is the twist with Media Matters. In trying to suggest that Wide Receiver is just as bad, they still don’t point the blame at Holder for Fast and Furious. This essentially tries to suggest that Bush is at fault for both operations. Amazing twist of logic in this one!
ABC News Blog Plays Blame Bush While Noting NRA Calls for Holder’s Termination
The story could be very simple, the NRA wants to see Eric Holder go. But today ABC News, via blog post, actually noted far more details about Fast and Furious. Perhaps this is because the news organization has been so silent on the issue that they felt the need to inform readers. But instead of just noting the facts about the NRA’s calls, the story goes much further. It begins:
The National Rifle Association is turning up the heat on Attorney General Eric Holder, running television ads charging that he committed perjury in congressional testimony about the controversial “Fast and Furious” undercover, gun-running operation. The ad calls on President Obama to fire Holder.
That pretty much sums up the situation, but ABC News later adds:
The investigation into Fast and Furious has also revealed previous instances of guns going into Mexico from other ATF operations in Arizona. Operation “Wide Receiver” pre-dated Fast and Furious and spans back to March 2006 during the Bush administration.
This is also old news, so why is it mentioned now? Once again we have a feeling this is turning into a “blame Bush” scenario, where Holder should be let off the hook because this style of operation took place before.
NY Times Editorial Calls for Gun Control in Light of Fast and Furious
This week The New York Times offered an editorial titled “Gun Walking the Mexican Border” and used this as an excuse to call for more gun control, while also playing the “blame Bush” card. The article noted:
“It turns out that Fast and Furious, the foolhardy government operation that allowed high-powered weapons to cross the border to Mexican drug cartels, was not a one-off. The Bush administration used the same improper tactic in Operation Wide Receiver in 2006-7.”
This is akin to saying two wrongs make a right, and yet fails to note that there is a huge difference between Wide Receiver and Fast and Furious. Just ask Brian Terry’s family.
The editorial adds:
“Congressional Republicans have rebuked the Obama administration for the Fast and Furious fiasco. That this tactic — which ranges so far from proper law enforcement — was used in the Bush years is equally disturbing. Congress should bring responsible officials to account, but it cannot duck the need for far stronger laws to control gun trafficking.”
How can this not be President Obama’s fault? He is still the POTUS now, and whether a similar program operated during President Bush’s administration isn’t the point. But calls for stronger laws to control gun trafficking could also mean stronger gun control, which is what the Times is really saying. This is a situation where law abiding gun owners could suffer as a result. And yet the Times doesn’t see it this way, writing:
“Mr. Breuer said in the past five years, 94,000 weapons have been recovered in Mexico and 64,000 were traced to American sources. ‘We need more tools,’ he said. To which Senator Charles Grassley, Republican of Iowa, predictably responded, ‘The answer isn’t to clamp down on law abiding-citizens or gun dealers.’ There is no problem with law-abiding citizens. It’s Congress’s failure to ban sales of assault weapons that is feeding the drug wars.”
How is it not clamping down on law-abiding citizens if there is a ban of any additional guns? This further fails to note that many of the guns being used in Mexico aren’t coming from gun shops, nor are the grenades and grenade launchers – which are clearly coming from the military.
Any cry for gun control in this matter does clamp down on the law-abiding as the criminals will simply find another source.
Huff and Puff Plays Blame Bush Card
What’s the best way to let Eric Holder and President Obama off the hook for Fast and Furious? Why Blame Bush. It is the way to pass the buck on the economy, on unemployment and just about everything else… so why not Fast and Furious.
Today the Huffington Post offered this headline, “Fast and Furious-Like ‘Gun-Walking’ Probe Mentioned in 2007 Bush Administration Memo.” Well, there you have it, the smoking gun. Except maybe Huff and Puff didn’t get the memo that this is actually old news. No one is disputing this fact.
There are some differences. For one Brian Terry, the border control agent who was killed with guns from Fast and Furious. So far nothing this significant happened with the guns in Wide Receiver.
But that’s beside the points for the liberals, because somehow in their world two wrongs can make a right as long as they can blame Bush!
Fast and Furious Conspiracy: Facts or Fiction
There have been a number of editorials recently suggesting that Fast and Furious could be a conspiracy. The liberal media, and many liberal bloggers have dismissed this as nonsense. While we at FirearmsTruth.com are not endorsing or even supporting the theories, we wanted to offer a recap.
90 percent
Much of this ominous sounding number is fiction. The 90 percent number has been around for a while, and used by the media as in “90 percent of guns used in Mexican cartel related crimes can be traced back to the United States.” This number was widely circulated throughout 2009 and even throughout 2010. Occasionally the numbers are cited again, as low as 70 percent and more often 80 percent.
Fact: The truth is that only 17 percent of guns recovered at crime scenes were even sent to the United States, and of those 90 percent were traced back to being purchased north of the border. But 90 percent of 17 percent is a far cry from 90 percent. Read more
Clarion Ledger Calls Out “Control of guns reason for F&F?”
Daniel L. Gardner writing for the Clarion Ledger in an op-edit titled “Control of guns reason for F&F?” notes that “conspiracy theories abound.”
He makes a couple of key points the mainstream media continues to ignore:
“You may have heard the Obama administration or the Bush administration saying 90-percent of guns going to Mexican drug cartels come from U.S. gun store sales. Officials in the Bush administration routinely quoted this figure to justify any number of law enforcement operations. Officials in the Obama administration continue using the same figure even though actual documented figures show no more than 20-percent of these guns come from U.S. gun stores.”
We have been tracking the use of that 90 percent figure for years, and do note that the Obama administration has continued to cite it. Gardner then adds:
“But that’s not the story worth pursuing. On Dec. 14, 2010, a killer used an AK-47 – one of the F&F guns – to murder Brian Terry, a U.S. Border Patrol agent. Why would anyone in Washington approve an operation not only to facilitate sales of guns to cartels in Mexico, but also to use taxpayer money to purchase these guns? Thousands of guns have ‘walked’ into Mexico from the U.S. as a result of Operation Fast & Furious. Wouldn’t someone know that sales of assault weapons to criminals would escalate crime and violence? Some have speculated that F&F was a political plot ‘to prove’ lax gun laws in America contribute to drug violence on our border with Mexico. Such proof could be used to justify stricter gun control laws.”
Clearly we aren’t the only ones who see that the mis-cited 90 percent number, added up with the approval of Fast and Furious, coupled with calls for gun control could add up to a conspiracy. We’re not saying we believe this to be the case, but it is does make you wonder.
Factor in that President Obama uttered the words “under the radar” when he said he was working on gun control, and add in the calls for an assault weapon ban by three Democratic Senators including Charles Schumer, Dianne Feinstein and Sheldon Whitehouse and the conspiracy theory doesn’t sound so farfetched.
Media Matters to the Rescue of Eric Holder
Liberal leaning media watchdog Media Matters for America took aim at The Washington Examiner for calling for DOJ firings. We have making the same argument for months, noting that someone at DOJ has to go. But Media Matters seems to think this is wrong writing:
“In an editorial this morning, The Washington Examiner claims that Attorney General Eric Holder ‘should fire his aides — or get fired himself’ due to what the editorial suggests is either incompetence by the aides or a lack of candor about what Holder knew about the failed ATF sting Operation Fast and Furious and when he knew it.”
The post then adds:
“But according to DOJ, Weinstein’s references to ‘guns that have walked’ wasn’t to Operation Fast and Furious, but rather to ‘Laura’s Tucson case,’ which Justice Department sources identified as the Bush-era Operation Wide Receiver. According to DOJ, as in Fast and Furious, Wide Receiver involved ATF allowing guns to be trafficked in hopes of tracing them and taking down a trafficking network. DOJ says Trusty and Weinstein did not know that guns had been walked in Operation Fast and Furious at the time of their email exchange.”
This is again a twist on the “Blame Bush” strategy, which basically says that since Bush did it, than Fast and Furious should be his mess. But let’s consider another point as in “according to the DOJ,” which basically means that we have to trust the DOJ as a source for the mess that the DOJ is in. If Eric Holder and DOJ say, “we knew about Wide Receiver” but “never heard about Fast and Furious,” are we just supposed to believe them?
