Stung by a gun-running sting
A federal gun "sting" that was supposed to track weapons bought in the United States and headed to Mexico instead has stung government officials.
Never mind that the supposed "point of origin" for illegal weapons is dead wrong. Now nobody wants to 'fess up as to how these operations sent an estimated 1,700 weapons to Mexican thugs.
Under Operation Fast and Furious and Project Gunrunner, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives encouraged U.S. gun dealers to sell to certain people suspected of working for Mexican drug cartels, according to accounts first reported by CBS News. The weapons, including hundreds of AK-47s, were supposed to be intercepted at the border.
Instead, some have been identified in the deaths of a Border Patrol agent and a U.S. immigration official, along with at least 150 Mexicans, officials say.
President Obama acknowledged that Fast and Furious was maybe "a serious mistake" but one that he didn't authorize. Ditto from Attorney General Eric Holder.
So, the buck stops where?
The operations themselves are questionable in that most illegal arms entering Mexico come from Latin America. And a whistle-blower alleges that the feds intentionally allowed the illegal gun trafficking.
So, who's behind this mess• Congressional subpoenas would be a good start in tracking down the answers. For the recoil from what has all the makings of a rogue operation has been deadly and, possibly, criminal.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.