Obameagan and the Republicrats

Barack Obama: Reagan Redux

Yesterday, I wrote about the grotesque stupidity of the American Government in, essentially, giving thousands of weapons to drug dealers to "see where they go" - a plan (?) now well known as Operation Fast and Furious.

The scandal just now is beginning to gain traction, even though evidence began to leak out that guns provided to Mexican gunrunners were sourced to the ATF operation within a couple of weeks of the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry on December 14, 2010.

On January 27, 2010, Senator Chuck Grassley wrote a letter to the Director of the

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives stating:

Members of the Judiciary Committee have received numerous allegations that the ATF sanctioned the sale of hundreds of assault weapons to suspected straw purchasers,who then allegedly transported these weapons throughout the southwestern border area and into Mexico. According to the allegations, one of these individuals purchased three assault rifles with cash in Glendale, Arizona on January 16, 2010. Two of the weapons were then allegedly used in a firefight on December 14, 2010 against Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents, killing CBP Agent Brian Terry. These extremely serious allegations were accompanied by detailed documentation which appears to lend credibility to the claims and partially corroborates them.

These allegations and concerns were then published widely in the news media - however, little concern was raised until more recently when ATF agents came forth and corroborated that not only were weapons entering Mexico under the operation, but that, in fact,in an extremely disturbing disclosure, AFT Agent John Dodson has now given evidence that he was ORDERED by his superiors to allow the guns to go to Mexico.

Curious.

Why would this happen?

Why would the Department of Justice permit, reportedly, thousands of weapons to enter Mexico and go into the hands of Mexican drug cartels, only to then be used to murder American Border Patrol agents?

Well.

It is no secret that Barack Obama has been a big proponent of stricter gun control legislation, and in that regard, has often suggested that the availability of weapons in the United States has in fact armed drug cartels in Mexico. When meeting with Mexican President Felipe Calderon in April of 2009, President Obama urged support for his gun control efforts, stating at the time:

“I will not pretend that this is Mexico’s responsibility alone. The demand for these drugs in the United States is what’s helping keep these cartels in business,” Mr. Obama said at a joint news conference with Mr. Calderon. “This war is being waged with guns purchased not here, but in the United States. More than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States, many from gun shops that line our shared border.”

Little did we know, at the time, that thousands of these guns were knowingly being supplied, intentionally, by the Obama administration to the drug cartels.

Did Barack Obama know that his administration was supplying weapons to the drug cartels when he made this statement?  Certainly he is now denying any such knowledge, stating, in response to the direct question of whether he was informed of the operation, "Absolutely not, this is a pretty big government, the United States government. I got a lot of moving parts."

"A lot of moving parts?"  I'm sure, Mr. President.  I'm sure that when you are meeting with the President of Mexico, and are quoting numbers respecting weapons coming from the United States, and demanding support for your gun control policies - you never even remotely inquired of your Attorney General or the Director of the ATF, "Hey, how are we dealing with the whole issue of trafficking guns into Mexico?"

Of course you are denying any such knowledge.

But then so did another President when faced with allegations of weapons being supplied to enemies of U.S. interests in the past - namely, Ronald Reagan.

Is Barack Obama today's Ronald Reagan?

It would appear so.

As was the case once the dust settled on the investigation of the Iran/Contra affair, we will most certainly be left with a dilemma of choosing only one of two possible explanations:

a) That the Commander in Chief was aware of laws being broken, and lives being put at risk to support his own political agenda; or

b) That the Commander in Chief was a commander in name only - an ignorant figure head who allowed his subordinates to take the law into their own hands to the detriment of the American people.

Time will tell.

But either way, the answers will not flatter Barack Obama.

While our recollections of Ronald Reagan may have mellowed with time and his passing, one is reminded of the conclusions of the Congressional Report on the Iran-Contra affair:

"Fundamental processes of governance were disregarded, and the rule of law was subverted,” the majority report of the committees asserted. “If the president did not know what his national security advisers were doing, he should have.”

How does that saying, go, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it?"

Change you can believe in?

More like, "Here we go again."