Page 1 of 2

Why is the MSM ignoring Gunwalker?

Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2011 1:52 pm
by Kythas
Evidence has turned up that the BATFE directly purchased guns for the sole intent of delivery to Mexican drug cartels. In other words, the BATFE purchased firearms from licensed firearms dealers using US taxpayer money, instructed said dealers to make the sales off the books, and directed a BATFE agent to hand the guns over to persons the agent believed would directly send them across the border. There's no way this was not directly approved by Eric Holder with the full knowledge of President Obama.

This is the kind of story that rivals Watergate. At least hundreds of people south of the border have been killed by these guns in addition to at least two members of law enforcement in the United States. Journalists should be all over this and it should be the lead story on every newpaper, website, and news broadcast in the country. Yet, the silence is deafening.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/msm-sheep- ... e-century/

Re: Why is the MSM ignoring Gunwalker?

Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2011 2:08 pm
by speedsix
...the money which controls MSM is part of the problem that's taking us down...why would they publicize it when the "system" screws up???

Re: Why is the MSM ignoring Gunwalker?

Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2011 3:14 pm
by Texas Dan Mosby
Yet, the silence is deafening.
Yea, but, but, what about Michael Jackson!?

Re: Why is the MSM ignoring Gunwalker?

Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2011 3:23 pm
by OldCannon
It's not the media that will fix this, it's our congress. I have trust that Darry Issa et al will bring this issue to justice, although the wheels themselves may turn slowly.

At least CBS is reporting something (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-2 ... 91695.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). To be honest, I'm seeing more and more traction on this story now.

Re: Why is the MSM ignoring Gunwalker?

Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2011 3:24 pm
by The Mad Moderate
1. Hurts Obama
2. Hurts Obama
3. Huts Obama
4. Hurts Obama
5, Anti-gun

Re: Why is the MSM ignoring Gunwalker?

Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2011 9:07 pm
by 74novaman
First thing a media person does when they sniff out a scandal... Check the letter behind the name! They're taught in journalism class that R stands for run it, and D stands for deny all knowledge!

Re: Why is the MSM ignoring Gunwalker?

Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2011 9:19 pm
by OldCannon
Good article just appeared on Forbes on this whole mess. Very detailed about the timeline as well.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/20 ... watergate/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Re: Why is the MSM ignoring Gunwalker?

Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2011 11:15 pm
by The Annoyed Man
lkd wrote:It's not the media that will fix this, it's our congress. I have trust that Darry Issa et al will bring this issue to justice, although the wheels themselves may turn slowly.

At least CBS is reporting something (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-2 ... 91695.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). To be honest, I'm seeing more and more traction on this story now.
Much maligned (by liberals) Fox News reported this two days ago: http://nation.foxnews.com/fast-and-furi ... nd-furious

Re: Why is the MSM ignoring Gunwalker?

Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:43 pm
by A-R
http://cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/cri ... g.cnn.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Re: Why is the MSM ignoring Gunwalker?

Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2011 2:42 pm
by atticus
Although the party roles are reversed, this reminds me more of Iran-Contra back in the 80s. The difference? Well, back in the 80s there were Congressional Republicans willing to participate in a joint committee (both houses of Congress, both parties) to preserve Congressional power over what was perceived as an imperial executive branch. Today, the Democrats would much rather eat bark than stoop to the level of being statesmen. Congressional power be damned, they need to continue to circle the Democrat wagons and protect their own. Eric Holder and his ilk are setting a new standard for callous partisan stone-walling. What a disgrace. :roll:

Re: Why is the MSM ignoring Gunwalker?

Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2011 4:01 pm
by OldCannon
atticus wrote:Although the party roles are reversed, this reminds me more of Iran-Contra back in the 80s. The difference?
How about: No American's were killed on American soil by drug dealers supplied with guns by the US Government? I think that really separates Iran-Contra from this murderous mess (although one can quickly point out that the Contras/Sandinistas weren't angels).

Re: Why is the MSM ignoring Gunwalker?

Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2011 2:11 pm
by atticus
G_d bless Issa and Grassley. They are doing the lion's share of the work. Hope they can get Holder's attention away from suing the states long enough to get him to respond to their requests for documents and information. Being Obama's liar in chief is very taxing work for Holder. So many lies to tell, so little time. ;)

Re: Why is the MSM ignoring Gunwalker?

Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2011 2:49 pm
by 74novaman
lkd wrote:
atticus wrote:Although the party roles are reversed, this reminds me more of Iran-Contra back in the 80s. The difference?
How about: No American's were killed on American soil by drug dealers supplied with guns by the US Government? I think that really separates Iran-Contra from this murderous mess (although one can quickly point out that the Contras/Sandinistas weren't angels).
:iagree: :iagree:

This SHOULD be a FAR worse scandal, but its being swept under the rug.

Re: Why is the MSM ignoring Gunwalker?

Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2011 5:44 pm
by ¿Qué?
Based on the latest documents, Holder and his boss are guilty of murder. Eric Holder didn't pull the trigger himself but neither did Anwar al-Awlaki.

Re: Why is the MSM ignoring Gunwalker?

Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 10:31 am
by blackdog8200
CBS is staying on top of this...

ATF Fast and Furious: New documents show Attorney General Eric Holder was briefed in July 2010


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-2 ... 91695.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Holder might be in trouble if he was under oath.