Posted on 03/05/2003 11:24:49 AM PST by TLBSHOW
THE O'REILLY FACTOR February 21, 2003 FACTOR Follow-Up
O'REILLY: Thanks for staying with us. I'm Bill O'Reilly.
And, in THE FACTOR "Follow-Up" Segment tonight, bad news in the drug war.
The U.S. inexplicably did not destroy the poppy fields in Afghanistan, and the Bush administration has not moved the military to the borders to back up the Border Patrol as the patrol has requested.
Result: It is business as usual for drug dealers around the country, and some believe America is waging a phony war on narcotics.
Joining us now from Washington is Heidi Bonnett from the National Defense Council Foundation and, from Houston, Ron Housman, the assistant director of White House Drug Policy under President Clinton.
Ms. Bonnett, I read your letter in "USA Today," very impressed with it, that you were angry about the U.S. not getting -- eradicating the poppy fields in Afghanistan. Tell us about your opinion and why you formed it.
HEIDI BONNETT, NATIONAL DEFENSE COUNCIL FOUNDATION: Well, I formed this because, in the last year, the opium production in Afghanistan has reached almost record highs again. It's re-established itself as the number one opium producer in the world.
And, while we have pledged money to this, we aren't doing enough. We haven't been helping to eradicate the poppy crops, and that's mainly -- if we go in and we bomb, then they're going to come, and they're going to sprout somewhere else.
We need to start enforcing more a multifaceted program and step in and really assist the Karzai government because the Karzai government has been attempting do this, but they basically don't have the money or the...
O'REILLY: All right. Now why do you think -- since we control Afghanistan -- the U.S. controls Afghanistan militarily right now...
BONNETT: Yes.
O'REILLY: ... and it would not take more than a week to -- for us to bomb those fields, to destroy those fields, why do you think it hasn't happened?
BONNETT: I don't think we've had the will to do it. There...
O'REILLY: Why? Why? It's nar -- it's heroin we're talking about here.
BONNETT: Yes, it is.
O'REILLY: It's an enormously destructive substance that finds its way not only to the United States but to Europe and everywhere else.
BONNETT: Yes, it's gone all over the world. I think that, even if we bomb it, there are -- we -- it's just going to -- probably we think that it's just going to spring back up again in another location if we're not giving the farmers another option because if a farmer can receive about $6,000 for an acre of opium, what incentive do they have to go back to...
O'REILLY: All right. Now I don't mind buying them off either, and we haven't done that.
Mr. Housman, you know, you -- look, you know how the White House works. Why hasn't? Mr. Bush done this? Do you have any idea?
ROB HOUSMAN, FORMER DRUG CZAR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR: Well, I can only speculate to a degree, Bill, but I think one of the things that Ms. Bonnett just said is very important.
If we don't provide some way of following up on this and getting farmers some replacement crops, some other economic development for this country -- I think the Bush administration is really worried -- and I think this is a huge mistake -- that we'll take away their largest cash crop, and I -- as I said, that's a huge mistake of...
O'REILLY: We can't be doing that. I mean, this is insane. Do you know how much crime -- you -- Mr. Housman, you know above all else must -- 70 percent of all of the street crime in the United States is caused by drug-addicted people, and...
HOUSMAN: Bill, I...
O'REILLY: ... and, I mean, we're over there, and you're telling me we can't destroy those fields and pay off those farmers? Come on!
HOUSMAN: No, we should. No, absolutely. I totally agree with you, Bill. I think we need to show some will here, and I think we need to do just that. We need to eradicate these crops, and we need to provide crop replacement and buy the farmers off, get them on our side, because we're never going to stabilize this country.
We'll never make it a democracy unless we do just that because, you know, as I've said for many times -- and you and I have discussed this -- there is an insidious triangle trade now that exists between terrorism, drugs, weapons, and money...
O'REILLY: Sure. And we -- and the Bush administration...
HOUSMAN: ... and we should break that triangle.
O'REILLY: The Bush administration has probably spent more money advertising that triangle than they have eradicating anything. This is why I'm stunned. And I can't get a straight answer out of Walters, the drug czar, anybody else, all right, to tell me why.
But I think I know, and that's because they don't want these warlords in Afghanistan who control the narcotics trade to turn on the Karzai government. So they're saying -- they're saying you do what you want, you sell all of the dope you want, leave Karzai alone, and we'll let you do it.
Mr. Housman, I...
HOUSMAN: And...
O'REILLY: ... think that's what's going down there.
BONNETT: But that's not...
HOUSMAN: Absolutely. And it's a false choice.
BONNETT: That's not really helping the Karzai...
HOUSMAN: Exactly. It's a false choice, Bill, because they're never going to get stability, they'll never get democracy, and, as Ms. Bonnett was saying, you will not have a strong Karzai government if you keep up letting the warlords run drugs.
O'REILLY: Yes, but they...
HOUSMAN: It just doesn't work.
O'REILLY: Ms. Bonnett, I think that's what's going down here, is it not?
BONNETT: Yes, the warlords have a vested interest in keeping the government weak because, as long as the government is weak, they can't enforce their own policies. So long as the government...
O'REILLY: Right. So the deal has been cut.
BONNETT: Yes.
O'REILLY: You don't bother our troops -- U.S. troops, and you don't bother Karzai, and we'll let you sell all the opium and heroin you want. That's the deal. I think that's what's going on here. Nobody disagrees, right?
BONNETT: No.
O'REILLY: OK. Now let's go to Mexico. Tons and tons of narcotics coming across from Mexico every single day. The Bush administration won't put the troops on the border even though they now have a reason: national security after 9/11.
Ms. Bonnett, any idea?
BONNETT: I think we just really need the focus on building up the Border Patrol, giving the Customs...
O'REILLY: Not going to happen. Not going to do it. You can...
BONNETT: No, they're not going to.
O'REILLY: No. The Border Patrol itself admits it can't do it, needs the military.
BONNETT: Yes.
O'REILLY: Mr. Housman, any idea why we don't have the military down there?
HOUSMAN: Well, I think one reason is, right now, we have a law called the Posse Comitatus law that prevents the military...
O'REILLY: No, doesn't apply.
HOUSMAN: ... from being used...
O'REILLY: Mr. Housman, it doesn't apply. It does...
HOUSMAN: Well, Bill...
O'REILLY: The Posse Comitatus law only says the military can't make arrests. It does not say...
HOUSMAN: Exactly.
O'REILLY: ... they cannot back up the Border Patrol and inhibit. Now you worked under Clinton.
HOUSMAN: And I agree with you on that, Bill.
O'REILLY: Clinton would not do...
HOUSMAN: I agree with you on that.
O'REILLY: Clinton would not do it either. Why wouldn't President Clinton put troops on the border?
HOUSMAN: Well, I think there's a natural hesitancy to deploy the U.S. military at home, but I also think that we're seeing a shift.
I mean, our borders right now are our front lines in the war against terrorism, in the fight against drugs, and these are interrelated problems, and we need to look at more National Guard support for deploying those units in intelligence.
O'REILLY: But we're not.
HOUSMAN: Bill, I agree with you.
O'REILLY: What is it going to take?
HOUSMAN: We ought to be looking at that. Well, I -- sadly, I think one of the things it may take is another disaster, and I hope it doesn't...
O'REILLY: Yes.
HOUSMAN: ... come to that...
BONNETT: I...
HOUSMAN: ... but we need a strong border...
O'REILLY: You know what, both of you? We're living out six-million disasters every day because there are six-million Americans addicted to hard drugs, and every day those people go through many disasters in their own life.
Some of them hurt us. Some of them are just pathetic. Some of them sell their bodies. Some of them have AIDS. Every day, six-million disasters. Yet the United States government with all its power will not do anything to help get this drug thing under control.
It's disgraceful.
BONNETT: Right.
O'REILLY: Thanks very much, Ms. Bonnett, Mr. Housman. We appreciate it. Nice to see you both.
Because attempting to protect a few Darwin Award wannabees is not worth the price of restoring the Taliban/al-Qaeda regime (which is inevitable if we become the Bad Guys in the view of the typical Afghan peasant).
Duh.
Peter Lewis is a self made billionaire, really really stubborn, and basically unintimidatable. Hopefull he and his ilk are more than the neo-prohibitionists can handle.Huh???? Where did that come from? That group has been pushing medical marijuana initiatives, but nothing else.Under the world that they envision, you will have fewer freedoms that you do now. They are pushing a new world order, a national police force and total gun control.
Indeed, legalized pot is Peter Lewis's "pet issue". I've not heard of him being active on gun control or any of those other matters, and most of the things he does make news around here.
-Eric
They're playing right into my hands!
You mean they talked you into volunteering with no compensation?How much is the ONDCP paying you? They seem to have plenty of money for Super Bowl commercials, after all.
-Eric
Relaxed pot laws favoured by most Posted by jmc813 to dennisw On The Smokey Backroom 02/22/2003 11:39 AM PST #20 of 32 So do you make common cause with those who want to legalize all illegal drugs including heroin and meth? Like Mr. Leroy? I'll assume you support gun rights. There is an organization known as the Pink Pistols which is a group of gays who are pro-second amendment. Going by your reasoning, does this make you gay? If you have to choose between legalizing all drugs or none where do you stand? Tough call, but I suppose I'd be on the side of legalizing 'em all. Luckily, that's not the case. My problem is with the Federal involvement in the WOD. I think each state should set their owmn policies. In my idea of the ideal state, pot would be legal, harder stuff wouldn't be.
Whatever Soros, Sperling, Lewis, and Zimmer are up to, I give them high marks for leaving my tax dollars out of it.Only one side of the legalization debate is funded using tax money. Too many bureaucrats have jobs at stake.
-Eric
Coffee contains the highly addictive drug-- caffein. All you are doing is trading one drug for another.
You exposed your own lie, cinFLA.
More addictive than marijuana, that's true.
I have laughed at CinFla from the first time he/she/it brought up the "paid for posts" material. Its so quaint, its hilarious. Someone who supports a position(keep drugs illegal), that is supported by a government agency that spends over $40 billion a year to keeop drugs illegal - the same agency that spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on ads full of out-right lies - claims someone against the governemnt position has been "paid" to post to internet forums? LOL!!!
Its projection in a way. The guilty always project their attributes onto someone else.
Let me do treat this once more! LIBERTARIANS, RANDITES, ETC.: DO NOT call conservatives such as myself "statist," "socialist," etc. or you make yourself a liar and tempt the patriotic conservative to harsh treatment in return.
P., if you've found me unChristian in any way, please FReepmail me. Thanks.
Pitts is absolutely Right !
....and Crawl down from that F16 before you hurt somebody !
.....THUNDER......
But that is the basic anti-WOD mantra. Legalize all drugs. And the one central theme of your posts is the *WOD pings.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.