Fast & Furious vs. Iran Contra

How does the selling of arms for American hostages versus the arming of Mexican Drug Cartels stack up in comparison?

Both are illegal.

The U.S. Government denied both operations until they knew the gig was up.

Both Administrations attempted to protect information through certain “legal” means.

So what’s the difference… let’s walk through it.
To call operation Fast & Furious stupid would be a profound understatement if indeed its mission was to “trace” guns heading to drug cartels. Why you ask? Because we did nothing to trace them. But that’s not all!  We also paid for them… And, we made sure they got into Mexico.

The only aspect missing to this brilliant scheme is subsequent weapons training and a thin mint.

To call Iran-Contra stupid is missing the point.  In fact, nobody called it stupid… only illegal and that is what the Left wanted in order to go after one of the most beloved Presidents (to this day) in American history.

Iran-Contra was pretty straight up.  The CIA was selling arms to Iran in the hopes of securing the release of the U.S. hostages.  They were then using the funds generated to bankroll the Nicaraguan Contras (which the Democrat controlled U.S. Congress had made illegal because their guys were Daniel Ortega and the Sandinistas (The Socialist Party of Nicaragua)) in their fight against Socialism.

OK… Iran Contra had a beginning, middle and an end.  Illegal, but comprehensible.

So where did Fast & Furious come from?
I recall being surprised that American guns were a problem in Mexico. Primarily because I stay pretty tuned in and had never heard of the problem prior to it being stated as such during a news conference held by the Obama Administration with the President of Mexico, Calderon. So, surprise… the drug cartels have decided that they needed to replace their crates full of brand new well-traveled AK-47’s and AK 74’s for the far better weapon platforms designed by Eugene Stoner. OK… I could understand that.  Seriously, Colt makes a great rifle.
But the question remained in my mind, why purchase American made semi-automatic weapons and risk getting them across the border when any enterprising drug cartel member could do the job with the plentiful fully automatic Chinese and Russian rifles made to order and moved up through Latin America then dropped right at their doorstep?

There was also another question in my mind, if you were the aforementioned enterprising Mexican drug runner why wouldn’t you just kill the local militia and take their American made assault weapons that we, the U.S., freely sell to the Mexican government every year?
So why?
Well… why not? If someone (U.S.Taxpayer) is going to buy American rifles for you, then “magically” make sure they get across the border without interruption… and then make no attempt to track them… all the while ASKING FOR NOTHING IN RETURN… why not?  They might be drug dealers, but they’re not stupid.

Clearly there must be an explanation.  There must be another reason this Administration had in mind when initiating operation Fast & Furious.  Even I cannot get my mind around these guys being that ham-fisted and moronic.  May be, but doubtful.
But now that the President has evoked executive privilege, it has graduated from a profoundly stupid and sophomoric idea which could be solved by lots of transparency and some very public firing of a great many individuals in the BATFE, into a full-fledged scandal.

This has caused the group of voices asking questions to grow larger.

The real reason, whatever it may be, must be very harmful if it cannot be explained directly to the branch of government IN CHARGE OF THE OVERSIGHT of these agencies, which is the United States House of Representatives.

So, in conclusion, where is the “moral” outrage from the Left we saw with Iran Contra?   Were are the cries’ for heads on pikes?  Is it “circle the wagons” time for the Democrat Party and our homegrown Leftists?

Today we have the U.S. Government sending (not even selling) arms to bad guys… not for the reason of a possible release of Americans being held against their will or fighting the Socialist disease abroad, but instead for… nothing. Nothing. Nada.

At least we got something in exchange for the guns to the Iranians and money to the Contras… but the Left still insisted in shoving the white-hot poker up our collective national rear-ends… with televised hearings and prime-time exposes on how evil and senile Reagan was.  Can’t forget to throw Ollie in there too.

So what are we getting here?
It’s beginning to feel like we’re getting a whole lot of nothing but all the shoving.

We’ll see.


About Mike

Background is in Media with a little History Major thrown in just to be annoying. View all posts by Mike

8 responses to “Fast & Furious vs. Iran Contra

  • David

    dear “drugsandotherthings”, here’s what scares me about your comment: if that box in your house tells you something enough times (the t.v.), you start to believe it. everyone starts to believe it!

    look deeper my friend. i know it takes effort but you’ll be surprised at what you find. don’t be a lemming.


    • Mike

      Since we’re on the topic of scary comments… what strikes me is the left’s idea that Democracy is the end goal. Democracy is not the end goal. Freedom and Liberty of the Individual should always be the end goal. Democracy is a small part it protecting that goal. drugsandotherthings implies that Daniel Ortega should somehow be considered a “good guy” because he was Democratically elected. Well.. so was Stalin, Hitler, Kim Jong Il etc. Democratically voting oneself into tyrrany is as old as history itself.
      “Democracy” is a single cog in the machine that we have designed to pretect the individual from government.
      The formula is: A constitutionally limited democratic republic. None of these words can stand alone.


      • gpug

        Stalin was not Democratically elected, Hitler’s ascent to power was through a deal with the majority party that backfired when they realized they could control him, Kim Jong was not Democtatically elected. Where do you come up with this?


        • gpug

          Excuse me, they couldn’t control Hitler. BTW we wouldn’t have had to sell arms to Iran if Eisenhower hadn’t given approval to Allen Dulles to overthrow the only democratically elected government in the history of Iran. Truman had turned down Dulles a few years earlier because of the reason that it was a true demncratically elected government. The reason behind all this…..English interests owned the oil companies in Iran before election. The new democratically elected government threatened to nationalize the oil fields and England used Dulles. How do you feel about Reagan arming Al Qaeda in Afghanistan? We saw how good that worked out.


          • Mike

            I’m familiar with the history of Iran and our involvement.
            I have found that sometimes individuals will miss the point… intentionally. They tend to do this because the point makes them uncomfortable. In other words it hits a little too close to home, causing them confusion when trying to reconcile it with something they have been told is true. Thus, if they were to accept the point being made it leaves them having to question their long held position.
            So let’s review the point of this post…

            So, in conclusion, where is the “moral” outrage from the Left we saw with Iran Contra? Were are the cries’ for heads on pikes? Is it “circle the wagons” time for the Democrat Party and our homegrown Leftists?

            I’m pleased to see that you continue to harbor “moral” outrage over U.S. actions in the 1950’s and our actions or arming the Mujahadeen… not Al Qaeda (but your were close), in Afganistan when the Russians had rolled in their tanks. What I don’t understand is why that same outrage is not focused on the arming of the Muslim Brotherhood and direct intervention in the Entire Middle East facilitating the Melt Down we are witnessing today.
            It’s OK… I do not expect you to be able to provide an answer for me as you would need to provide one for yourself first.
            That will take time if it happens at all.
            Thank you for visiting. Please keep reading, it can’t hurt.

            Liked by 1 person

        • Mike

          Let’s assume that this comment was directed at the correct post.
          All of these men would have considered themselves democratically elected (or approved of) at some point in their tenure.
          I’m sure you noticed the name of this blog.
          While it is not a scholarly device it is scholarly. I will not lead you directly to the information which explains what I’m talking about as I had to spend countless hours and much treasure having it explained to me. If the time ever comes that I do it will certainly not be for free. So, at this point, it leaves only you to Make An Effort. I will only say that referring to the prolific writings of the individuals mentioned in the post as well as looking into one of the most overexplored era’s in the history of the world (WWII) begining with Shirer would be a good start. It would also benefit you to learn the difference between a majority vs. a plurality. (Bill Clinton was elected twice by a plurality of the vote… not the majority of voters.) Anyway… Lenin, Stalin and Mao wrote endlessly on Demcratic Socialism. Hitler spelled out the requirement for public approval in Mein Kampf… (the book every German citizen was expected to read and was required to have prominantly dispalyed in their home at all times). The idea of Democracy varies widely from what we here in the U.S. believe it to be. To underdstand what these men saw it to be will require your reading their words. Unlike Speaker Pelosi, You’ll have to read these things to know what’s in them.
          I appreciate your visitng and look forward to your return. I hope you can see through the trees and find the point of each blog. I’m far more concerned with my ability to communicate concisely than my ability to write your middle school papers for you, or your children as the case may be.
          It’s all about the ideas. It always will be. Cheers – Mike

          Liked by 1 person

  • drugsandotherthings


    So let’s see. Reagan and his band were arming both sides in the Iran/Iraq conflict- giving Saddam Hussein weapons of mass destruction and the Iranians conventional weapons.

    And yes, those evil, democratically elected sandinistas. And Ortega- who once again has been elected, by the people, the president of Nicaragua. Ortega- whose policies as president in 1985-1990 threatened the interests of US fruit companies in the country. So goold old Ronnie helped the contras move cocaine, and also funded them by selling arms, in violation of international law- to the Iranians. The Contras who committed atrocitities- raping, torturing, and killing tens of thousands of civilians.

    And oh boy- good old Ollie North. Who set up a “defense fund” that took in tens of thousands in donations- despite the reality his legal costs were being paid by the taxpayer. Ollie North- who then went on to found a company selling weapons and torture devices to dictators around the world.

    And you dare compare this to fast and furious- an operation even the inquisitor himself darell issa admitted this week, on fox news no less, that there is no evidence that Obama or any higher ups in the administration had any knowledge of.

    No wonder america is so *******


    • Mike


      So you’re on the side of American Fruit Companies in Nicaragua?

      And, I didn’t think Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction…

      Like I said in the post… where is the outrage (which you illustrate for me) regarding Fast & Furious?

      Excellent comment. Thank you.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: