FactCheck rebuts the claim made recently by El Presidents Obama and Calderon that 90% of guns in Mexico come from the United States. The LA Times even joins in.
Reason was on this yesterday, as was yours truly.
« Wood Burns (II) | Main | Summoning The Inflation Genie »
The comments to this entry are closed.
Quite a week for the Obama Administration's propaganda machine. Watch out for the terroristic tendencies of military veterans, greenhouse gases are pollutants, and 90 percent of Mexican guns come from the US. The sad thing is that, because most of MSM accepts this nonsense, many folks who might be persuaded to vote GOP in 2010 will still vote for the Dem-Statists.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | April 18, 2009 at 11:17 AM
Factcheck makes a glaring error here (in an effort to dispute Fox's 17% claim):
They're clearly assuming 100% of guns submitted are successfully traced . . . which obviously isn't so.I tried to run down the actual stats, but was stymied by a remarkably opaque set of claims from BATF (in an otherwise stat-rich site). They cite a couple numbers from successful traces (i.e., 2514 from CA, AZ, and TX in FY08; and 1053 in the other forty-seven states in FY07) . . . but they're useless for extrapolating. Throw in the old claim from the NY Times article (2400 total in FY07, 1800 from four states along the border), and it requires serious contortions to make 'em add up. Seems to me there might be a little politickin' going on in the BATF stats division . . . or some of the sources there are full of it.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | April 18, 2009 at 11:26 AM
Seems to me there might be a little politickin' going on in the BATF stats division . . . or some of the sources there are full of it.
Historically, BATF has operated as if it's sole purpose was to eliminate all three of its reasons for existence.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms should be the name of a convenience store, not a government agency."
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | April 18, 2009 at 11:48 AM
Surely you gest, Charlie, the ATF who grandstanded at Waco, in part over budgetary pressures, creating a whole sequence of consequences, they wouldn't make things up.
Posted by: narciso | April 18, 2009 at 11:52 AM
Hey, narciso, como se dice "goddamn idiot"?
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | April 18, 2009 at 12:04 PM
"Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms should be the name of a convenience store"
I would certainly shop there.
Posted by: ben | April 18, 2009 at 12:17 PM
That was a tad harsh, Charlie, don't you think, I do remember those details from a background piece in the Spectator from Byron York. BTW, don't we call that store, Walmart.
Posted by: narciso | April 18, 2009 at 12:22 PM
Andrew Sullivan says that they are all a bunch of anti-gay liars, making up data to make the Good and Great One from Chicago look bad.
Posted by: Abner | April 18, 2009 at 12:27 PM
ChaCO!!Smooches--
Posted by: clarice | April 18, 2009 at 12:37 PM
Andrew "Conservative" Sullivan?
Posted by: ben | April 18, 2009 at 12:42 PM
Happy Belated Birthday to your Mom, narciso.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | April 18, 2009 at 12:55 PM
would love to see the stats on what guns they are tracing. Must be all of those "military style" assault weapons with the 3 round and full auto selector switches that you can buy at "Toys R Us" according to ATF.
My bet is that there are a lot of semi auto pistols in oddball calibers. If you get caught in Mexico with certain military calibers, the penalties are even more severe.The other factor is that in the machismo culture guns are a fashion item, so I will bet a lot of those guns were seized in ordinary crimes and crimes of passion and have nothing to do with the drug trade.
Posted by: matt | April 18, 2009 at 12:55 PM
Actually, I suspect her birthday wasn't at all belated, but was right on time; it is my greeting that is belated. Happy Birthday to her anyway!
Posted by: Thomas Collins | April 18, 2009 at 12:58 PM
That was a tad harsh, Charlie, don't you think,
For Obama? For Chavez?
Sorry, did you think I was referring to you? Profuse apologies if so.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | April 18, 2009 at 01:11 PM
Matt-up until about 2 yrs ago, there was a booming mexican hunting business(mainly birds like Dick Cheney likes to hunt)Very high dollar guide services, until the authorities started seizing the hunters guns and charging huge amounts to retrieve them. Happened to my Dad about 5 years ago.
He got his back, but about 4 of his fellow hunters just wanted to get out of Dodge and forfeited their guns. Kinda like the bandits used to do with horses and cattle--which still happens along the border--a reason many landowners patrol their USA lands with their private arsenals.
Posted by: glenda | April 18, 2009 at 01:24 PM
Sorry for misunderstanding, their Charlie, pronoun or sometmes noun trouble can obscure
understanding. That being said, you're being too charitable toward our dear leader.
Posted by: narciso | April 18, 2009 at 01:27 PM
OT:
Stealing Minnesota:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124000875842430603.html
Posted by: clarice | April 18, 2009 at 01:47 PM
BTW, thanks Tom, I know not everyone is always apprised of such details. I do need
to know where the secreT JOM birthday list is though.
Posted by: narciso | April 18, 2009 at 02:00 PM
That being said, you're being too charitable toward our dear leader.
It was a serious question, though: I'm trying to revive my childhood Spanish.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | April 18, 2009 at 02:05 PM
"Andrew Sullivan says that they are all a bunch of anti-gay liars, making up data to make the Good and Great One from Chicago look bad."
Is Andy Pandy implying Obama is gay?
Posted by: PeterUK | April 18, 2009 at 02:25 PM
I'll bet a large percentage of those illegal guns are smuggled into Mexico by illegal immigrant gang members. Members Of Violent Latino Gang Thought To Be Connected With Recent Murder
Posted by: Rocco | April 18, 2009 at 03:05 PM
Clarice, Excellent article on "Stealing Minnesota".
I understand it was Stalin, who said, something to the effect that "it is not the voters who count, it is who counts the votes".
We see it more and more. A known factor in most of them seems to be ACORN and voter fraud, but Obama and the Democrats appear to be shoveling money at ACORN. I wonder why?
Posted by: pagar | April 18, 2009 at 03:16 PM
"A known factor in most of them seems to be ACORN and voter fraud, but Obama and the Democrats appear to be shoveling money at ACORN. I wonder why?"
Because the Democrats aren't democrats?
Posted by: PeterUK | April 18, 2009 at 03:24 PM
Nothing the Obama administration does is about truth. They are conniving. This is about 2 things. Sucking up to Mexico so Obama can get praise in the media and 2, it's about Liberals hate of the 2nd amendment. You see Mexico is a lawless shithole, so naturally all Americans need have our rights taken away,
It's patently obvious what is going on.
It's no different at the EPA. Libs hate cars and oil, so naturally cars and oil are killing us, and because cars and oil are killing us, they need to take more of our rights away.
Posted by: gus | April 18, 2009 at 03:29 PM
I'll bet a large percentage of those illegal guns are smuggled into Mexico by illegal immigrant gang members
Maybe a large percentage of the small percentage that are actually being smuggled into Mexico from the US. I wouldn't want to even bet on that though: guns have been crossing that border for a hundres years.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | April 18, 2009 at 03:44 PM
Hi Clarice. Smooches to you too.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | April 18, 2009 at 03:45 PM
Also
Members who smuggle illegal immigrants across the U.S. border are known as "Coyotes," according to Lt. Simpson.
People who smuggle illegal immigrants south have been called "coyotes" for a lot longer than that.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | April 18, 2009 at 03:46 PM
Duh, I mean "north".
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | April 18, 2009 at 03:46 PM
Is Andy Pandy implying Obama is gay?
PUK, I'm sure he was just implying "on the down low" rather than "gay."
Posted by: bad | April 18, 2009 at 04:47 PM
When is a poll showing Americans oppose something 55% to 39% indicating the issue is a close one? When it's the Washington Post dealing with a poll showing Americans oppose same sex marriage by a 19 percent margin.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/17/AR2009041703193_Comments.html>WaPo takes math lessons from the NYT
Posted by: clarice | April 18, 2009 at 04:58 PM
glenda;
I remember those trips down on the lagoons. Didn't know the federales were playing games. Usually you can register one shotgun,maybe 2 beforehand through the outfitter, but they had better be registered or you're in deep trouble.
Posted by: matt | April 18, 2009 at 05:03 PM
bad,
I wouldn't want to spoil a girl's dream.
Posted by: PeterUK | April 18, 2009 at 05:06 PM
A 100th birthday toast to Rita Levi Montalcini , nobel prize winner and Italian Senator for life!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090418/ap_on_re_eu/eu_italy_people_levi_montalcini>L'Chaim, Rita
Posted by: clarice | April 18, 2009 at 05:19 PM
This is entirely off-topic, but I hope TM and the JOMers will forgive me. Unfortunately I can't vouch for the accuracy or even the authenticity of the account below; it is simply something that is making the rounds on the web in some military circles. I think many of the points of controversy will either be confirmed or refuted in the months ahead.
"Having spoken to some SEAL pals here in Virginia Beach yesterday and asking why this thing dragged out for 4 days, I got the following:
"1. BHO wouldn't authorize the DEVGRU/NSWC SEAL teams to the scene for 36 hours going against OSC (on scene commander) recommendation.
"2. Once they arrived, BHO imposed restrictions on their ROE [Rules of Engagement] that they couldn't do anything unless the hostage's life was in 'imminent' danger.
"3. The first time the hostage jumped, the SEALS had the raggies all sighted in, but could not fire due to ROE restriction.
"4. When the navy RIB [Rubber Inflatable Boat] came under fire as it approached with supplies, no fire was returned due to ROE restrictions. As the raggies were shooting at the RIB, they were exposed and the SEALS had them all dialed in.
"5. BHO specifically denied two rescue plans developed by the Bainbridge CPN and SEAL teams.
"6. Bainbridge CPN and SEAL team CDR finally decide they have the OpArea and OSC authority to solely determine risk to hostage. 4 hours later, 3 dead raggies.
"7. BHO immediately claims credit for his 'daring and decisive' behaviour [sic. Is this source a Brit?]. As usual with him, it's BS."
There's a great deal more editorializing in the e-mail I received, but I think you can imagine the drift.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 18, 2009 at 06:11 PM
I'm trying to remember, DoT, if the SEALs were there at the time of the first jump by Phillips.
Posted by: bad | April 18, 2009 at 06:23 PM
"1. BHO wouldn't authorize the DEVGRU/NSWC SEAL teams to the scene for 36 hours going against OSC (on scene commander) recommendation."
Well, those guys have been known to actually carry and use assault weapons. Piracy, like terrorism, is essentially a law enforcement problem requiring the use of minimum force to subdue the poor misguided souls, forced by economic injustice to perpetrate acts for which they should never be held accountable.
"5. BHO specifically denied two rescue plans developed by the Bainbridge CPN and SEAL teams."
Of course he did. His "first test" was supposed to end with the surrender of the poor, misguided, economically oppressed black teenagers to the FBI hostage negotiators thereby assuring that the "law enforcement" meme could grow and prosper.
If Rahm Emanuel had used a better translator when explaining the "test parameters" to the Kenyan businessmen who run the Somali piracy business, this would never have happened. Alternatively, had the Somali "elders" sent just one adult along to supervise the expendable rabble chosen to take the fall, the negotiations might have been concluded as planned - in time for the Easter Sunday morning papers.
President Ogabe needs to get political commissars assigned to every military unit as soon as possible if he's going to try more of this type of theater. Our military obviously respects their oaths and their mission far too much to ever be really trustworthy to the (D)irty Socialist in Chief.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | April 18, 2009 at 06:40 PM
WOW, Dot. I hope we can confirm this..
Posted by: clarice | April 18, 2009 at 07:03 PM
As usual with him, it's BS
He said his middle name is Steve and reaps the whirlwind: BS Obama.
Posted by: Elliott | April 18, 2009 at 07:11 PM
With respect to "6," the initial statements from the military strongly emphasizing the imminent threat to the Captain indicated to me that the folks on the scene knew how to "book" the transaction to avoid second guessing. I am very pleased by this, because, unfortunately, for the military to protect the USA under the Obama Administration while avoiding second guessing, a lot more "booking" will probably be necessary.
By the way, by "pleased," I mean pleased that our military recognizes the necessity for "booking," not that they need to do it in the first place because of the mentality of the current Administration and the Congresscritters in power at the moment.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | April 18, 2009 at 07:14 PM
Bad
IIR, the SEALs were there, because there was lots of speculation about why they disn't take out the pirates when Phillips went into the water.
Posted by: Uncle BigBad | April 18, 2009 at 07:16 PM
Bad and UncleBB--Very good question, and as best I can reconstruct it the jumping incident occurred late in the day (local time) of Friday the 10th, and the SEALs didn't arrive until around dusk on the 11th.
Thaat would seem to blow this account sky-high.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 18, 2009 at 07:23 PM
If DOT's account proves true, I will have to take back the only nice thing I ever said about Admiral Zero, since I did compliment all involved for a successful outcome.
Nothing but a "y'all be careful and God Bless You" message from the CIC was indicated, even assuming it was a law enforcement operation. Our Navy, among other things, enforces the Law of the Seas. This was no different than a bank robbery with a hostage. I don't remember President Roosevelt (who probably exercised more presidential power than any other president but Lincoln) taking any part in the enforcement operations against Bonny and Clyde, Baby Face Nelson, Machine Gun Kelley, Ma Barker or John Dillinger, even when hostages were involved.
If he interfered that much on this operation, we are in deep trouble.
Posted by: Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet | April 18, 2009 at 07:26 PM
People who smuggle illegal immigrants south
For a moment I thought you were describing a new phenomenon (LOL). One day soon it might come to pass for people the administration classify as "rich".
Posted by: Barry Dauphin | April 18, 2009 at 08:07 PM
"4. When the navy RIB [Rubber Inflatable Boat] came under fire as it approached with supplies, no fire was returned due to ROE restrictions. As the raggies were shooting at the RIB, they were exposed and the SEALS had them all dialed in."
This is utter cultural insensitivity.Anyone acquainted with the custams of Somalia would know that the teenagers were simply celebrating the arrival of supplies by the traditional,exuberant firing of their AK 47 assault rifles in the air.
Unfortunately,the Americans were displaying their customary lack of cultural understanding by shooting the teenagers in the head.
Perhaps a Somali/SEAL encounter group could be established to iron out these little differences.
Posted by: PeterUK | April 18, 2009 at 08:24 PM
Clarice,
Love your writing whether its JOM, AT or Gourmet.
Posted by: jfh | April 18, 2009 at 08:26 PM
Instapundit has a commentary on CNN linked by David M. Walker who served as comptroller general of the United States and head of the Government Accountability Office from 1998 to 2008.
He says our tax burden is likely to double at the rate things are going.
LUN
Posted by: bad | April 18, 2009 at 08:37 PM
DOT, for what it's worth, reading between the lines, that's more or less what I figure happened. My nephew is a SEAL - he may have been there but I will likely never know, and won't ask. There may well have been more SEALs than the ones we know about who air dropped - it was kind of hard to hide them after they took out the pirates.
Probably the only way I'll ever hear is if the FBI presses charges against the SEALs for mussing up the pirates hair. Interesting post at DirectorBlue allegedly from a Navy guy. LUN
Posted by: Bill in AZ | April 18, 2009 at 08:40 PM
Powerline: LUN
The voters are catching on but can we vote out the stupid politicians before our economy is forever screwed?
Posted by: bad | April 18, 2009 at 08:46 PM
The LAT link shows the importance of diversity in our newsrooms -- political diversity, that is. The person who noted Obama's mistake is Andrew Malcolm -- who was once Laura Bush's press secretary.
Posted by: Jim Miller | April 18, 2009 at 09:04 PM
The voters are catching on but can we vote out the stupid politicians before our economy is forever screwed?
Sure. It's not dead yet. What's more, the more this kind of thing happens, the more likely it is to become difficult to make more damnfool moves even before the 2010 election.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | April 18, 2009 at 09:07 PM
Breaking news:
"'Launch codes' for small-arms fire & hostile looks added to SIOP options contained in the Presidential Emergency Satchel, AKA 'the football', carried by the President's Military Aide, following the successful rescue of Captain Phillips."
Posted by: Mustang0302 | April 18, 2009 at 09:10 PM
Help, what is SIOP and hostile looks?
Posted by: glenda | April 18, 2009 at 09:25 PM
Something off topic and just a suggestion (or a question).
Is there any way to make it clear to pundits and politicians that they need to speak up in whatever television appearances they make over the next week. They need to stop in the middle of what ever topic they are discussing and say, "...wait a minute, before we to on. Last week your network was engaged in sophomoric sexual innuendo and mockery of people who did nothing to deserve it. Are you proud of that behavior?" If they get no answer they should leave.
Posted by: Mark_0454 | April 18, 2009 at 09:37 PM
SIOP: Single Integrated Operation Plan . . . the overall outline for how to use strategic weapons (read: nukes) in an end-of-the-world scenario. It's basically the most sensitive/classified thing we have.
Mustang's joke is that the Commander-in-Chief is apparently interfering with military operations at the nitnoid level, making decisions better left to those in the field (and imbuing ridiculously low-level operations with the importance normally reserved for actual strategic issues).
Posted by: Cecil Turner | April 18, 2009 at 10:08 PM
Thanks, Cecil....do you think anyone in the military will start to publicly speak out on his incompetence? A respected retired General, or bureaucrat? Politics cannot override common sense, anymore! Where are the patriots in government?
Posted by: glenda | April 18, 2009 at 10:25 PM
Like I still believe this country at it's heart is not like South or Central America. although we seem to be drifting to some of the balmier parts of Western Europe. We don't have a history of really agregious
civil/military relations.The moves targeting
veterans as possible terrorists seems remarkably ill advised. He is not Chavez and he is not Fidel, despite his affinity
to both (I have a copy of Open Veins, and the closest thing I can compare it to, is
Reverend Wright's sermons in Spanish) it's that laden with dependency theory.
Posted by: narciso | April 18, 2009 at 10:40 PM
Glenda, I don't see such a thing happening for quite a while. Concerning the sniper incident, I think it's going to be months and months before we have anything like the true picture of what happened.
Note the spelling of "behaviour" in paragraph 7 of the item re the SEALs--a typo, or a Brit doing the reporting?
If you spend a few hours in a bar where SEALs hang out, there's not telling what you'll overhear, and a lot of it is stuff you won't understand.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 18, 2009 at 10:45 PM
If you spend a few hours in a bar where SEALs hang out, there's not telling what you'll overhear, and a lot of it is stuff you won't understand.
And a lot more if you hang out in a bar listening to an SAS guy telling you a story that starts "this is no bullshit". Or whatever Brit is for that.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | April 18, 2009 at 11:04 PM
as best I can reconstruct it the jumping incident occurred late in the day (local time) of Friday the 10th, and the SEALs didn't arrive until around dusk on the 11th
I think that is right. Here's the LAT piece:
Posted by: Elliott | April 18, 2009 at 11:07 PM
Just to be clear on that, though, that story is a lot like one I heard via another source -- but not a source that would know firsthand.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | April 18, 2009 at 11:07 PM
The first small contingent of SEALs parachuted into the waters around the destroyer Bainbridge at 5:10 a.m. on Saturday.
Showoffs. No one had a helo?
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | April 18, 2009 at 11:08 PM
RUSH may have pegged Garafalo as a liar.
LUN
Posted by: bad | April 18, 2009 at 11:09 PM
DoT-
I noticed that. Could it be a deflection-it'd be a very short list of British, Canadian, or Australian exchange officers who'd have access?
and glenda, though it wasn't addressed to me, no one currently serving would or could speak out, though if something egergious were to happen, a major general or rear admiral might be "tasked" to show flag officers displeasure. I think the most that would happen, if the Obama Administration were to really foul up and cross some redlines in civil-military relations, is dealing with the political and military fall out from flag officers resigning en masse.
We aren't dealing with the holiday from history anymore.
Posted by: RichatUF | April 18, 2009 at 11:14 PM
jfh, whoever you are, molto grazie
Posted by: clarice | April 18, 2009 at 11:17 PM
If Obama kept refusing to authorize Bainbridge/SEAL plans, it was probably because he was still punching that "Reset" button for US/pirate relations and wondering why nothing was happening.
Posted by: PD | April 18, 2009 at 11:30 PM
I wouldn't trust facts just on the say-so of the L.A. Times.
There were also numerous errors in media accounts, the most glaring being the one about the captain jumping in the water the second time instead of being tied up.
Posted by: PaulL | April 18, 2009 at 11:38 PM
There's quite a bush-telegraph system in place among retired flag and general officers, and the ones on active duty are constantly in touch with them. Sometimes quite a bit of lobbying goes on through those channels, and discreet messages are conveyed.
I'm not able to conclude at this point that Obama has personally done anything overly restrictive in terms of the ROE; I don't know what they are, and I don't know if they have changed at all since he took office.
I do find it odd that, by inference, the people on the scene were not permitted to shoot, even if Phillips had been in "imminent danger," until word to that effect came from the White House well into the standoff. I also would think that by any reasonable interpretation Phillips was constantly in imminent danger, at least from the moment those shots were fired fairly early on.
Again, we'll just have to be patient. In-depth analyses will be forthcoming, and probably a book or two.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 18, 2009 at 11:57 PM
You are quite right, PaulL, and your point is reinforced by the disagreement between the LA Times report ("Later that night, Obama appears to have issued his first order authorizing the use of lethal force") and the one that appeared in the NYT ("On Saturday morning, the president agreed to permit action, [senior defense officials] said, but only if it appeared that the captain’s life was in imminent danger.")
Posted by: Elliott | April 18, 2009 at 11:58 PM
DoT and RichatUF...many thanks to both of you for the answers. I feel a need to "be Prepared..be very prepared" for the next 3+years. And JOM is the best place to get an education. And to have the honor of talking with fine Americans I believe in. I could go the rest of my life and never hear or see Obama again, and be happy, but if the Chinese and Russians crash the internets(ala Al Gore), we all need to train plain dumb pigeons as carrier ones or send sealed letters of marque by messenger.Hee!
I hope the Sunday shows have fair reporting on the protests, the pirates and the great fish tacos Obama shared with the 2 C's of oppression in Latin America.
Will there be a single "journalist",political director, white house correspondent, anchor, guest
express disdain on the coverage of the recent "tea parties" for the bias and unprofessionalism, much less lies?
There has got to be at least 1 person at MSNBC and CNN who has a conscience and will talk about the animous the media has against anyone who calls Obama on his policies. I mean, people, this is America--we should think independently on everything, especially politics.
Posted by: glenda | April 19, 2009 at 01:11 AM
Nicely">http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/04/a_good_week_for_the_stevens_fa.html">Nicely done, Clarice!
Posted by: daddy | April 19, 2009 at 06:12 AM
Thanks. I was going to say that your comment there was fantastic!
Posted by: clarice | April 19, 2009 at 07:45 AM
Ah, finally figured why the data from ATF was goofy (and why Fox chose the number they did). First, the rather silly datapoint from William Newell's testimony:
I couldn't figure any reason for mixing the FY07 with the FY08 data, unless they were intentionally trying to be opaque . . . but then I hadn't seen the statement from Hoover and Placido, which refers to the previous year's data: Taken together, it's fairly obvious someone updated the numbers for 2008 and merely failed to correct the final "2007" when it was updated. Hence the numbers (of successful traces) should read: Nothing wrong with that data, AFAICT, and it meshes perfectly with the 17.6% figure (using the overall estimate of 29,000 recovered firearms, admittedly not a very reliable number). Factcheck's numbers use the trace percentage estimates (multiplied by the numbers of firearms submitted), and are clearly faulty.Posted by: Cecil Turner | April 19, 2009 at 09:58 AM
Some people at that AT thread, still don't get it, you don't investigate some one based
on a law that doesn't exist. BTW, in the LUN, is a rather self serving Newt Gingrich interview with Christianity Today, that does
show, kind of the reason I hold him in contempt now
Posted by: narciso | April 19, 2009 at 10:05 AM
Follow-up data (because it's sitting in my spreadsheet yearning to be free):
Using the 93 and 95% figures for traces in the FactCheck claim yields 5464 successful traces out of 11055 firearms submitted, for a successful trace rate of 49.4%. (Not surprisingly, ATF isn't touting this in their factsheets.) Of those traced, 5114 were from US sources, 350 from elsewhere.
FactCheck failing to note >50% were not successfully traced caused them to inflate the US percentage by a factor of two, and I can't find anything wrong with Fox's numbers (except perhaps that 17.6 should be rounded to 18%).
Posted by: Cecil Turner | April 19, 2009 at 10:38 AM
except perhaps that 17.6 should be rounded to 18%
You know, considering some of the other arithmetical atrocities I've seen journalists making, I kind of despair of ever explaining the concept of "significant digits" to them.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | April 19, 2009 at 10:53 AM
BTW, has Thomas Ricks really lost his mind, this is not a rhetorical question, (LUN)
have the Brits gotten rid of St. Cyr, the
French Sandhurst
Posted by: narciso | April 19, 2009 at 10:57 AM
Oh, I don't think he's lost his mond, but I dont think he has a clue about the utility of having four years of exposure to military traditions as opposed to the 90-day wonder officer courses. He's right that the service academies aren't particularly striking intellectually, but mistaken that a PhD from a better school is a better qualification for an officer.
Looking at his Foreign Policy bio, I don't notice that he's ever served in uniform.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | April 19, 2009 at 11:11 AM
. . . I kind of despair of ever explaining the concept of "significant digits" to them.
Yeah, I wouldn't even start down that road. But in this case, they did the rounding themselves, and just did it wrong:
In another spot, they said "about 17 percent," which is probably acceptable. But though it's small potatoes, it mars what's probably the best report on the subject . . . especially since the Fox report at least had the ~6000 successful traces concept, which is far better than FactCheck managed to do, even with hindsight.Posted by: Cecil Turner | April 19, 2009 at 11:31 AM
Thanks, Clarice and Daddy for the lessons on Alaska. That Dr. Book belongs commenting here, doncha think?
Why is the federal government allowed to take away the rights of states to develop their own resources? Utah has some of the same problems.
Posted by: Caro | April 19, 2009 at 12:48 PM
Caro:
Because the Commerce Clause has been expanded beyond recognition, with the unfortunate concurrence of the Supreme Court.
Posted by: JM Hanes | April 19, 2009 at 12:56 PM
Hmmm,
The only other guy I can recall interested in giving up West Point was Benedict Arnold.
Posted by: Daddy | April 19, 2009 at 02:59 PM
Hmmmm,
The only other guy I can recall interested in giving away West Point was...Benedict Arnold.
Posted by: Daddy | April 19, 2009 at 03:05 PM
Typepad is eating my comments today. Grrrrr.
Posted by: Daddy | April 19, 2009 at 03:07 PM