Published: Sunday, May 19, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
It's repugnant that President Obama would stand before a crowd of students in Mexico and lie to them about the origin of firearms that contribute to Mexico's gun violence.
“We recognize that most of the guns used to commit violence here in Mexico come from the United States,” the gun-grabber in chief said — and without a single reference to Fast and Furious, the Obama administration's gun-running initiative into Mexico.
Mr. Obama's assertion repeats the now-debunked claim that more than 90 percent of guns recovered in Mexico originate in the U.S. Wrong. For tracking purposes, Mexican authorities sent to the U.S. only guns that they thought originated from the U.S., according to Fox News. Guns suspected of originating from foreign countries were not sent to the U.S. for tracking. Nor were weapons from army deserters or those stolen from Mexican armories, according to Investor's Business Daily.
So, out of 29,000 guns recovered at Mexican crime scenes in 2006-08, 68 percent were never even submitted for tracking.
And while blaming America for Mexico's gun violence, Obama neglected to mention the deaths of hundreds of Mexicans, along with U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, as a direct consequence of the Fast and Furious fiasco, which sent U.S. guns into Mexico but failed to trace them. And for what conceivable purpose, unless to expand the U.S. gun-origin shibboleth?
Such aversion to the truth for political expediency is no longer shocking. For Obama, it's become typical.
Show commenting policy
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 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.
- Nelson Mandela: The real legacy
- Detroit’s bankruptcy: An object lesson
- ‘China City’
- PSERS time bomb: Tick, tick, tick, tick ...
- Anti-fracking scandal: More junk ‘science’
- Sunday pops
- The Box
- ‘Racism’? No
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday Takes
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes