Thursday, September 29, 2011

A Fast-and-Furious Smoking Gun: Were Obama and Holder Trying to Touch Off a Civil War in Mexico?

Hot Air points us to an article by Michael Walsh in the New York Post.

After months of pretending that “Fast and Furious” was a botched surveillance operation of illegal gun-running spearheaded by the ATF and the US attorney’s office in Phoenix, it turns out that the government itself was selling guns to the bad guys...

...Agent John Dodson was ordered to buy four Draco pistols for cash and even got a letter from his supervisor, David Voth, authorizing a federally licensed gun dealer to sell him the guns without bothering about the necessary paperwork... On orders, Dodson then sold the guns to known criminals, who first stashed them away and then — deliberately unhindered by the ATF or any other agency — whisked them off to Mexico.

...There are two possible explanations. The first is that the anti-gun Obama administration deliberately wanted American guns planted in Mexico in order to demonize American firearms dealers and gun owners...

...A second notion is that the CIA ... feared the los Zetas drug cartel was becoming too powerful and might even mount a coup against the Mexican government. So some 2,000 weapons costing more than $1.25 million were deliberately channeled to the rival Sinaloa cartel, which operates along the American border, to keep the Zetas in check.

I completely reject scenario #2.

Walsh seems to have forgotten that the State Department is alleged to have armed the Zeta Cartel.

Phil Jordan, a former CIA operative and one-time leader of U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration’s El Paso Intelligence Center, claims that the Obama administration is running guns to the violent Zetas cartel through the direct commercial sale of military grade weapon...

The U.S. Direct Commercial Sales program is run from the U.S. State Department’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls. It regulates and licenses private U.S. companies’ overseas sales of weapons and other defense materials, defense services, and military training. This does not include the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program, which authorized sales to foreign governments...

An El Paso Times article – as of now ignored by mainstream media — went into much more shocking detail:

“They’ve found anti-aircraft weapons and hand grenades from the Vietnam War era,” Plumlee said. Other weapons found include grenade launchers, assault rifles, handguns and military gear including night-vision goggles and body armor."

Scenario #3:

• The ATF arms the Sinaloa cartel

• The State Department arms the Zetas

• The combination helps fuel a full-blown civil war in Mexico

• Civilians start streaming north to safety

The resulting humanitarian crisis is used as a lever for a mass immigration event with hundreds of thousands of undocumented Democrats entering the U.S. seeking asylum.

It's as good an explanation as any I've heard -- and certainly consistent with the mindset of the Holder and Obama duo: the ends always justify the means.

Walsh closes with words of wisdom: Time for a special prosecutor, who’s both fast and furious.


Anonymous said...

This theory really makes sense.

I wish Mexico would start to publicly demand some answers to a lot of unanswered questions.

Anonymous said...

Mexico isn't going to say anything because after
"The resulting humanitarian crisis is used as a lever for a mass immigration event with hundreds of thousands of undocumented Democrats entering the U.S. seeking asylum."
The US federal government will have two very visible targets fighting it out on the streets of Mexico that Mexico wants GONE. These drug gangs virtually RUN Mexico, and the government system there is corrupted on every level. The US would move south in the wake of a big enough conflict, secures certain major cities, and establishes a military presence south of the border, where those who are looking to penetrate our southern border can be monitored and intercepted. This action would be far more effective in combating terrorism than any simple "sealing" of the US borders on our side. Plus, sealing the borders does NOTHING about the lawlessness and constant penetrations that occur on a daily basis by Cartel members. As can be seen here: cartel members of both factions completely control some areas of the Mexican border. Due to the links between Mexican government and cartel members, outright attack on the cartels would be very un-pc. They have to be dealt with using this work-around were the violence spills across the border and we are justified in reacting.

Where has our military action been happening for the last 30+ years? Arid, middle eastern regions. The types of areas that we are adapting to and fighting in are almost the same as the desert regions where drug cartels operate to the south. This major military action would provide combat data and training, just as the actions in the middle east provide regular combat data and training. "What will domestic terrorists do if we come at them with this? What will they do if we do that?" These action-reactions are how the military learns to deal with threats. After enough time in the field, kill ratios are increased, and casualties are decreased from learning how the areas work, and what kinds of improvised and conventional weapons will be used by the enemy TODAY.

So yes, all signs point to the US going south of the border sometime in the next decade, because even "closing the border" is not going to resolve the issue of the weeping, infected boil known as Mexico. After the fact, the mass immigration event and legalization of Mexicans, Obama would have lionized in a way that hasn't been seen since Andrew Jackson after the victories of the Texas Revolution.

Too bad for them they got found out before any of this even got a little of the way past the gate. Don't worry, most of the evidence is burned, shredded and gone by now. No one is going to jail over this.