The Fast And Furious “Smoking Gun”

Laura Curtis reports on Hot Air’s recent Fast And Furious article that the ATF sold guns directly to the narco-terrorists and deliberately refused to track them. I previously reported on Fast And Furious and the mainstream media’s reticence to report it for the epic scandal that it is. And I gave a “barely scratching the surface” listing of New Media coverage, showing the New Media has been covering the epic scandal for the epic scandal it is.

Mr Morrissey begins his Hot Air article:

The New York Post’s Michael Walsh wonders when the media outrage will arrive in the aftermath of the disastrous and deadly Operation Fast and Furious. The latest revelation shows that the ATF wasn’t really interested in stopping illegal gun sales or stopping the movement of guns across the border, Walsh writes, but something else entirely. And until the national media exposes the “lies” coming from the Department of Justice, Americans simply won’t get answers as to what purpose the ATF and DoJ really intended[.]

But Laura Curtis takes a different track.

Oh, sure, it’s a smoking gun showing that the Obama administration deliberately sold guns to narcoterrorists and deliberately failed to track them. That is a huge story. Watergate pales in comparison, if for no other reason than the body count, which currently stands at over 200 people.

It is also a smoking gun for the biased media, which is roundly refusing to cover the story.

She goes on to recount the outrageously outraged and shockingly shocked mainstream media’s hyperventilating reporting of George W Bush’s completely legal activities that saved American (and other) lives. Day after day, legal action after legal action, all which saved lives, hyperventilatingly covered in the major newspapers and on the TV news outlets.

But the Obama regime’s corrupt, illegal activities that have cost over 200 innocent American and Mexican lives? Meh. American public, the mainstream media’s “not that into you.” Laura Curtis finishes her article:

If you ever wanted definitive proof that the press operates as an appendage of the Democratic party, I give you Fast and Furious. Q.E.D.

In slightly modified trucker lingo, “you got that stuff right.”
________
Cross-Post

8 Comments

  1. IMO: It seems BO has no regard for law or the Constitution To get what he wants. I think he’s heading for Dick-Tater

    Mexican attorney general: “Obama more involved in Fast & Furious than admitted!”

    Jim Kouri, Law Enforcement Examiner
    September 28, 2011 – Like this? Subscribe to get instant updates.

    President Barack Obama appears to be getting it from all sides regarding a government snafu dubbed Operation Fast and Furious. Besides both houses of the U.S. Congress and a number of public-interest groups investigating what is being characterized as a rogue federal law enforcement operation, Mexico’s attorney general is infuriated over the allegations that the U.S. was behind the smuggling of weapons into Mexico that ended up killing her countrymen.

    In a statement released by Mexican Attorney General Marisela Morales, she called Operation Fast and Furious “an attack on Mexicans’ security.”

    Morales told Mexican reporters that she is demanding a full and honest explanation from the United States government especially since evidence is being gathered that reveals the Obama administration was more involved in Operation Fast and Furious than top officials admitted in their sworn statements.

    More of this scandal here: http://www.examiner.com/law-enforcement-in-national/mexican-attorney-general-obama-more-involved-fast-furious-than-admitted

  2. ??? This is a curious complaint — I bring up Google, and enter in the search box

    site:www.washingtonpost.com “fast and furious” Mexico

    and get 2,220 articles. Latimes.com yields 444 articles, nytimes.com gets only 73 articles.

    That’s just three big news sources.

  3. burninbush says:
    29 September 2011 at 22:54 (Edit)

    ??? This is a curious complaint — I bring up Google, and enter in the search box

    site:www.washingtonpost.com “fast and furious” Mexico

    and get 2,220 articles. Latimes.com yields 444 articles, nytimes.com gets only 73 articles.

    That’s just three big news sources.

    Where are you headed with this remark??? The LSM seems to react as if this was a hot potato and leave it alone

  4. The guy who runs Beers with Demo would have had to have written one article on Fast and Furious each day for 6 years, 8-1/2 months solid for that to be the case. Or three articles each day for nearly 27 months solid. Do you see, yet, how utterly ridiculous the point you were trying to make was?

  5. Yes, and I google “fast and furious site:http://beerswithdemo.blogspot.com/” and get 2,450 results. How much you wanna bet the guy who runs Beers with Demo has not actually written 2,450 articles on the subject? Your attempt at a point is invalid due to your completely flawed premise, burninbush. >John Hitchcock

    ++++++++++++++++++

    ??? Maybe my premise is flawed — I thought your point was that the MSM was ignoring the F&F story? But they did not.

    Maybe you don’t understand the Google search? The “fast and furious” term must be in quotes for it to be recognized as a term that must appear in just that form, and then including Mexico prevents a lot of references to car chase movies. Without quotes, you’d get all pages that have just ‘fast’ or ‘furious’. Site:www.washingtonpost.com tells Google to confine searches to just hits from that one site.

    I scanned a bunch of the hits, and they all seemed to be the gun story. Please try it for yourself, just as I posted the terms. For example,

    http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=site:www.washingtonpost.com+%E2%80%9Cfast+and+furious%E2%80%9D+Mexico+&pbx=1&oq=site:www.washingtonpost.com+%E2%80%9Cfast+and+furious%E2%80%9D+Mexico+&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=s&gs_upl=3024l3024l0l5903l1l1l0l0l0l0l190l190l0.1l1l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=8ded67b18f2c031f&biw=1185&bih=963

    Now, I scanned the 10th page, and it was still about the guns story. What have I missed?

  6. I don’t remember if you’re old enough to remember Watergate. How much media coverage did Watergate get? And that didn’t cost human life. How much media coverage does Fast And Furious get? And that has resulted in over 200 dead human bodies.

    There is no way you’re going to tell me the US tracking terrorist money or the US wiretaps of foreign terrorists was not constantly being reported loud and clear.

    There is no way you’re going to tell me you can’t pick up a newspaper without Fast And Furious plastered all over the front page every single day. There is no way you’re going to tell me you can’t watch CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS without being inundated with wall-to-wall coverage of Barack Obama’s Administration and the criminal and corrupt and deadly Fast And Furious scandal that is rocking the administration to the core.

    The mainstream media is ignoring this 50-times-greater-than-Watergate scandal to the best of its ability.

Comments are closed.