Sunday, November 27, 2011

David's take on Arizona Republic article posted earlier today.

Gun Rights Examiner earns Sunday headlines in Arizona Republic and WorldNetDaily

Wagner got our sentiments generally right, although something was apparently misunderstood or lost in translation, as neither Vanderboegh nor myself believe that legal multiple purchasers should be arrested as this story seems to imply. Also, the significant differences between Fast and Furious and Operation Wide Receiver have been pointed out numerous times in this column and elsewhere, and much of our argument corroborating evidence of a “gun control” motive as opposed to the “botched sting” theory did not make the final cut.

That said, there’s a lot of good information—we have been in off-and-on contact with Wagner behind the scenes since early January, and the interview upon which this report is based took place in mid-October. All in all, getting major press—and essentially fair press, because despite any differences in interpretation I’ve found Wagner to be sincere and serious—is a good thing.

(My original post on the subject is here.)


rdf67 said...

This article deserves a C+ because it gets a lot of good debate out there without giving an opinion on who is right and who is wrong. At least now there is some truth mixed in with the fiction.

Wagner starts out with the "hopes of catching Mexican drug kingpins" but fails to explain how that hope had a chance of success and without any plan, you must dismiss that the hopefulness expressed.

The purchases were not legal - they must be made for personal use and when buyers with no assets pay cash, the ATF has the right to interdict. Stop the man who spent the cash with the weapons, confiscate them, and he is out of business with the cartel. Allowing him to buy and buy and buy is a loser.

I have not found a loathing for ATF here - but I have found a loathing for mismanagement. He does make that point later on.

Once again, the media makes a connection between Fast and Furious (Gunwalker)and Wide Receiver. They have little in common other than the guns walked. When the trace didn't work in WR, it was stopped.
Gunwalker didn't have a trace.

Investigators had a way to go after the straw buyers - for months their acquisitions were showing up at crime scenes in Mexico.

What lawyer in the DOJ "became alarmed" early on? Missed that guy or gal.

The worst infraction here is the failure to mention the Kalishnikov rifle that was found at the Terry crime scene and disappeared by the ATF. He must not have listened to the Lone Wolf tape with Hope MacAllister, giving assurance that the rifle had not been purchased at Lone Wolf. What rifle you say? That one!

AUSA Hurley also let grenades walk to the Sinaloas and prevented the arrest of the supplier 18 months before he was finally arrested.

The amount of guns allowed to walk is ludicrous by any stretch of any imagination.

No mention in the article that the ATF alerted gun dealers in 2009 to boost inventories in anticipation of straw buyer sales. No mention of the million in cash used from the cartel and from ATF to purchase these weapons.

No mention that in WR, the Mexicans were part of the plan but in Gunwalker, agents were forbidden for telling their Mexican counterparts about their hope to get the bad guys.

No mention of the fact that Obama told critics "We have a plan under the radar." If this wasn't it, what was?

No mention that DOJ planted "an ATF botched sting where the trace supposed to be aimed at the kingpins went awry" with the MSM.

Lots of good stuff mixed with lots of spin - but at least, there is progress in AZ.

We'll see if they print my letter to the editor.

Dedicated_Dad said...

Examiner SUCKS.
For some reason it seems I can NEVER comment there - since I don't (WON'T) use facebook.

AZR is - arguably - WORSE, as they run their own comment system which will never send the e-mail necessary to complete registration.

Clearly they don't WANT to know the truth...

Anonymous said...

I agree with Dedicated Dad about the Examiner's comment policy.

I love David Codrea's columns and read them religiously, but don't comment on any because I refuse to get a Facebook account.

Because of their comment policy, I think a lot of lively post-column discussion is potentially suppressed, to the detriment of the Examiner and its readership - it makes it look like the articles are less popular than they really are.

Anonymous said...

I agree wholeheartedly with the two previous posts about Examiner's comment policy supressing discussion of David Codrea's posts. Look at his posts from before Examiner effectively banned posts from those who wouldn't or couldn't sign in. He used to have ten times the discussion that he has today. It has the effect of making it look like no one is reading his blog.

"Who cares waht Codrea says! No one reads his babble anyway!" -- MSM