January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.
June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al Qaeda attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.
October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of "Bali Bombings." No fatalities.
February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.
May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al Qaeda terrorists storm the diplomatic compound, killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.
July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.
December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.
March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. (I wonder if Lindsey Graham or Fox News would even recognize the name "David Foy." This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what's considered American soil.)
September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting "Allahu akbar" storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.
January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.
March 18, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaeda-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.
July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.
September 17, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.
Show me where requests for more security were turned down by higher ups.
Show me how Reagon, or Bush tried to lie to the US citizens by telling them bs about what really happened during the incidents.
You fail to give credence to the fact that Obama is emotionally and intellectually invested in mind fu cking us to believe there is no need for the 'War on Terror'.
January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.
June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al Qaeda attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.
October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of "Bali Bombings." No fatalities.
February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.
May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al Qaeda terrorists storm the diplomatic compound, killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.
July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.
December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.
March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. (I wonder if Lindsey Graham or Fox News would even recognize the name "David Foy." This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what's considered American soil.)
September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting "Allahu akbar" storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.
January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.
March 18, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaeda-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.
July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.
September 17, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.
Show me where requests for more security were turned down by higher ups.
Show me how Reagon, or Bush tried to lie to the US citizens by telling them bs about what really happened during the incidents.
You fail to give credence to the fact that Obama is emotionally and intellectually invested in mind fu cking us to believe there is no need for the 'War on Terror'.
rick, just pointing out how hypocritical the neocons are. Let me ask you a question. Do you actually believe that any of these rightwingers who are trying to make a big stink out of this really care or are they just trying to make Hillary look worse than what she is because they have no one that can give her a run for the money in '16?
rick, just pointing out how hypocritical the neocons are. Let me ask you a question. Do you actually believe that any of these rightwingers who are trying to make a big stink out of this really care or are they just trying to make Hillary look worse than what she is because they have no one that can give her a run for the money in '16?
Agree with most of what you say. There was also another op during the same time calld "Operation Wide Reciever" that did let guns walk.
Agree with most of what you say. There was also another op during the same time calld "Operation Wide Reciever" that did let guns walk.
One other point to make is that the Bush administration worked with the Govt of Mexico on the operation to trace the guns. Under Fast and Furious no such thing happened. They did not work with the Mexican govt or even attempt to trace the guns. F&F was nothing more than an attempt to "prove" their talking points that a lot of the violence by the cartels in Mexico stemmed from weapons that came from the US.
Fail.
One other point to make is that the Bush administration worked with the Govt of Mexico on the operation to trace the guns. Under Fast and Furious no such thing happened. They did not work with the Mexican govt or even attempt to trace the guns. F&F was nothing more than an attempt to "prove" their talking points that a lot of the violence by the cartels in Mexico stemmed from weapons that came from the US.
Fail.
One other point to make is that the Bush administration worked with the Govt of Mexico on the operation to trace the guns. Under Fast and Furious no such thing happened. They did not work with the Mexican govt or even attempt to trace the guns. F&F was nothing more than an attempt to "prove" their talking points that a lot of the violence by the cartels in Mexico stemmed from weapons that came from the US.
Fail.
So retrieval rate makes it ok?
One other point to make is that the Bush administration worked with the Govt of Mexico on the operation to trace the guns. Under Fast and Furious no such thing happened. They did not work with the Mexican govt or even attempt to trace the guns. F&F was nothing more than an attempt to "prove" their talking points that a lot of the violence by the cartels in Mexico stemmed from weapons that came from the US.
Fail.
So retrieval rate makes it ok?
So retrieval rate makes it ok?
Has nothing to do with retrieval rate. Comparing the two programs is easy. The one under Bush ws in conjunction with the Mexican government in an effort to trace guns to the cartels. The Obama operation was without any consult or cooperation with the Mexican government and didn't even try to track/trace any guns. Their goal was to flood Mexico with weapons and blame the gun makers and dealers in the US to aid in their utlimate goal of passing laws in the US to restrict gun makers, dealers and ownership of guns in the US.
So retrieval rate makes it ok?
Has nothing to do with retrieval rate. Comparing the two programs is easy. The one under Bush ws in conjunction with the Mexican government in an effort to trace guns to the cartels. The Obama operation was without any consult or cooperation with the Mexican government and didn't even try to track/trace any guns. Their goal was to flood Mexico with weapons and blame the gun makers and dealers in the US to aid in their utlimate goal of passing laws in the US to restrict gun makers, dealers and ownership of guns in the US.
Appears there wasn't any difference between the 2 ops.
https://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/story/21478828/special-investigation-operation-wide-receiver
Appears there wasn't any difference between the 2 ops.
https://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/story/21478828/special-investigation-operation-wide-receiver
Appears there wasn't any difference between the 2 ops.
https://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/story/21478828/special-investigation-operation-wide-receiver
I disagree. There were major differences. In Wide Receiver, there was a contract between the ATF and the gun dealers, Mexico's ATF and law enforcement were involved. Under F&F, guthere were no contracts with the gun dealers and the Mexican agencies were left in the dark. How do you trace guns that go to Mexico if the Mexico agencies have no idea what's going on?
While the two operations under Bush yeilded very little results, it was a joint effort between the two governments, unlike the Fast and Furious. The kicker is when Obama made statements condeming the gun dealers and US gun makers because US made guns were found at crime scenes in Mexico. Many of these were the guns that HIS admin let go without trying to trace. They only targeted the straw buyers but let the guns go unchecked.
I think there is a huge difference in these programs, especially their intent.
Appears there wasn't any difference between the 2 ops.
https://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/story/21478828/special-investigation-operation-wide-receiver
I disagree. There were major differences. In Wide Receiver, there was a contract between the ATF and the gun dealers, Mexico's ATF and law enforcement were involved. Under F&F, guthere were no contracts with the gun dealers and the Mexican agencies were left in the dark. How do you trace guns that go to Mexico if the Mexico agencies have no idea what's going on?
While the two operations under Bush yeilded very little results, it was a joint effort between the two governments, unlike the Fast and Furious. The kicker is when Obama made statements condeming the gun dealers and US gun makers because US made guns were found at crime scenes in Mexico. Many of these were the guns that HIS admin let go without trying to trace. They only targeted the straw buyers but let the guns go unchecked.
I think there is a huge difference in these programs, especially their intent.

If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.