"Walking Guns" Programs Started Under Bush!

The question was answered. Poor people tend to have slower computers. Perhaps you should contribute more?

 

Nice deflection, but post a link to federal agents being killed by "wide receiver " guns.

Why would we, "operation wide" receiver guns never killed any federal agents like "fast and furious" have proven to. If you want me to condemn the Bush administration like I do the Obama administration, the situations have to be the same. So again, post a link to federal agents being killed by "wide receiver " guns. If you can't consider your argument defeated.

 

The answer was clear, Wide Reciever didn't get any US agents killed, seems Obama's plan did.

 

I directly answered your question. You must be panicking to have to delete the rest of it. To bad I'm reminding everyone to go back and read my entire post that you were to scared to address.

The funny part is it is ONLY because of the transparency of the Obama administration do you even know about this story. You had NO CLUE that operation Wide Receiver was even going on.

 

How is a program from the Bush administration a Current Event? That was years ago. Try following the rules sometime.

 

You are mistaken. But let's assume for the sake of argument that you are correct.

If that is true then why did the Obama administration continue the program and sell 1,500 assault rifles to the Mexican cartels since January 2009?

 

So you have no link to any "wide receiver" guns killing federal agents?

So again, post a link to federal agents being killed by "wide receiver " guns. If you can't consider your argument defeated.

 

Does a picture make it a current event? I thought not.

 

I'm absolutely correct. You are mistaken in your assumption that every single governmental program ends as soon as a new president takes office.

 

How could Obama and Holder not know this was going on since it's been revealed that there were similar operations prior to the Obama Administration? People involved with the Bush era operation have been prosecuted under the Obama administration....

 

This is indeed a different program, hence the different name. Are you really that slow? Either way, still not a a current event.

 

The policy is what killed the agents not the guns. As usual you don't understand the issue.

Remember your conservative instructions: "guns don't kill, people do".

 

If you are correct then explain why Attorney General Eric Holder continued the program after he was aware of it, and continued to sell assault rifles to Mexican drug cartels?

 

So are you also placing blame on the Bush administration?

 

Do you realize that you have just reduced yourself to making the same argument that gun advocates make? Do you see the contradiction?

 

I am correct. NOT every single government program ends simply because a new president takes office.

 

It's called sarcasm.

Here's a helpful link. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sarcasm

 

There is a difference between a program and an operation. It was the operation Fast and Furious that got US agents killed, that is a current event. The operation Wide Receiver did not get any US agents killed and ended years ago, which is why its not a current event. You see how that works, the liberal understanding of time and current/past events may reject things like calendars and common sense, but the rest of the world doesn't.

 

US Agents died in the Iraq Operation. Where's your convenient outrage?

 

I read your article. There's no smoking gun. The article refers to statements not made under oath by two Obama administration appointees. That's not evidence. That's inadmissible in a court of law.

Contrast that with the fact that House Republicans have copies of five memos addressed to Attorney General Eric Holder notifying him of the Gunwalker program.

You got nothing. It's hearsay.

But if you did, let's investigate Bush too. Let Bush and Obama swing from the gallows together.

 

I'm eating your lunch. Get serious and deal with the questions I'm posing for you.

 

No, we're talking about separate occasions. Would I agree with "walking" under any Administration? No. It's an incredibly stupid idea.

But the question is how on earth another separate operation, one that's turned out to be far more consequential none the less, could occur under the same Admin that is prosecuting people from another Admin for the same thing. The question is how people beyond the ATF could allow the same thing to happen again... how they could be unaware.

 

Objection. Lack of relevance.

 

You should read harder:

And don't get me started on a long explanation of hearsay. It's just going to be long winded, boring for me and embarassing for you.