Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bad news in the drug war America is waging a phony war on narcotics (O'REILLY FACTOR TRANSCRIPT)
THE O'REILLY FACTOR / VIA EMAIL | 2/21/2003 | THE O'REILLY FACTOR

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: afghanistan; decriminalize; legalize; poppy; thewodisevil; us; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 281-293 next last
To: unspun
Well, I like to deal with people who respect our constitution, regardless of how rude they may be preceived.

To bad you don't qualify, as you believe that American liberties are limited by what is 'responsible' for America, a basic socialistic concept.



81 posted on 03/05/2003 10:23:55 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
"We have several million alcoholics going through many disasters in their own lives; should we therefore ban alcohol?"

What a surprise Le Roy -- still drawing an inane analogy between drug use and alcohol use?

Have it your way, and I suppose a wedding toast of champagne could be interchangably acceptable with a 'bong-toast.'

Can you seriously compare a refined civilation's historical, cultural, traditional, and culinary use of spirits, beer and wine with drugs??

Hey man -- while your wheels are spinning, kindly name a successful world culture in all of history which thrived while it's populace doped out.

82 posted on 03/05/2003 10:27:45 PM PST by F16Fighter (Secure U.S. borders and DEPORT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
No. Liberty is not absolute and totalitarian. Read what the founders said. If you still don't understand it, read it until you do. Also read the sources the founders credited for American political philosophy: John Locke AND the Bible AND Algernon Sidney. Then read our founding cousins, Blackstone and Burke. Learn about virtue.

Don't call me a socialist or disrespectful of our Constitution, or you'll merely be calling yourself a liar. And you may tempt me to exercise some extreme liberty in your direction.
83 posted on 03/05/2003 10:31:18 PM PST by unspun (I'm really ticked off, tonight. But I love you all, I'm sure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: unspun
Totally, irrationally, 'unspun' about the librtarian position:

  
WHEREAS libertarians believe in limited government, individual freedom and personal responsibility;
WHEREAS we believe that government has no money nor power not derived from the consent of the people;
WHEREAS we believe that people have the right to keep the fruits of their labor; and
WHEREAS we believe in upholding the U. S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land;
BE IT RESOLVED that libertarians endorse the following principles:

1.0 FEDERALISM
1.1 The power of the federal government should be limited, as per the tenth amendment to the U. S. Constitution.
2.0 EDUCATION
2.1 The U. S. Department of Education should be abolished, leaving education decision making at the state, local or personal level.
2.2 Parents have the right to spend their money on the school or method of schooling they deem appropriate for their children.
3.0 HEALTH CARE
3.1 Free market health care alternatives, such as medical savings accounts, should be available to everyone, including senior citizens.
3.2 The federal entitlement to Medicare should be abolished, leaving health care decision making regarding the elderly at the state, local, or personal level.
4.0 TAXATION
4.1 The tax system of the United States should be overhauled.
4.2 There should be a national debate discussing various alternative means of taxation including but not limited to a single flat income tax, repealing the income tax and replacing it with a national sales tax, and reducing spending to the point where the income tax can be repealed without the need to replace it with a national sales tax or any other form of taxation.
4.3 The capital gains tax should be *eliminated*.
4.4 The inheritance tax should be *eliminated*.
4.5 The new tax system should be implemented *promptly*.
5.0 WELFARE
5.1 The U. S. Department of Health and Human Services should be abolished, leaving decision making on welfare and related matters at the state, local or personal level. All Americans have the right to keep the fruits of their labor to support themselves, their families and whatever charities they so choose, without interference from the federal government.
5.2 All able-bodied Americans have the responsibility to support themselves and their families.
6.0 CRIMINAL JUSTICE
6.1 Every American has the right to keep and bear arms. We affirm our support for the second amendment of the U. S. Constitution.
6.2 All people, regardless of position in the public or private sector, should be held equally accountable under the law.
6.3 The *only* litmus test for Supreme Court or other judges should be their determination to accurately interpret, not amend, the Constitution. Judges have *no* authority to make new law.
7.0 CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM
7.1 Election campaigns should not be subsidized by tax payers.
7.2 No individual should be compelled to support a political candidate he or she does not support. Government should not empower trade unions to collect funds from their members for use as political contributions without their members' expressed consent.
7.3 All limits on campaign contributions should be eliminated.
7.4 There should be full and timely public disclosure of all the sources and amounts of all campaign contributions upon their receipt.
8.0 FEDERAL BUDGET
8.1 There should be an amendment to the U. S. Constitution to require a balanced budget, provided it includes a supermajority requirement to raise taxes and provided it does not empower the judiciary to unilaterally raise taxes.
8.2 Honest accounting dictates that all federal expenditures should be on budget.
8.3 Each budget should be derived based upon the justification for and needs of each program, with no program being either budgeted for or increased automatically.
9.0 GOVERNMENT REFORM
9.1 The U. S. Department of Commerce should be abolished, per the tenth amendment of the U. S. Constitution.
9.2 The National Endowment for the Arts should be abolished, per the tenth amendment of the U. S. Constitution.
9.3 The National Endowment for the Humanities should be abolished, per the tenth amendment of the U. S. Constitution.
9.4 The U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development should be abolished, per the tenth amendment of the U. S. Constitution.
9.5 Subsidies to agricultural and other businesses should be eliminated.
9.6 Corporate taxes should be eliminated simultaneously and proportionally with the elimination of subsidies to businesses.
9.7 Recommendations by the Grace Commission and the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW) should be reviewed and implemented, where possible, beginning immediately.
9.8 Privatization of government assets, management and services should be implemented for cost-effectiveness wherever applicable.
10.0 TRADE
10.1 The U. S. government should inhibit neither the exportation of U. S. goods and services worldwide, nor the importation of goods and services.
10.2 The United States should not be answerable to any governing body outside the United States for its trade policy.
11.0 DEFENSE
11.1 U. S. military should be deployed only where there is a clear threat to vital U. S. interests and only with the consent of the U. S. Congress.
11.2 It is the duty of the federal government to provide a system to defend against missile attacks.
11.3 No branch of the military should be put in harm's way without a clear entrance and exit strategy and a goal, which when achieved, constitutes victory.
11.4 U. S military personnel should always be under U. S. command.
11.5 U. S. armed forces should be all-volunteer.
11.6 Military draft registration should be eliminated.
11.7 Foreign aid is often more harmful than helpful and should be curtailed.
12.0 PROPERTY RIGHTS
12.1 The government should not take private property without just compensation.
12.2 All unconstitutional regulation of private property should be repealed.
13.0 DRUGS
13.1 While recognizing the harm that drug abuse causes society, we also recognize that government drug policy has been ineffective and has led to frightening abuses of the Bill of Rights which could affect the personal freedom of any American. We, therefore, support alternatives to the War on Drugs.
13.2 Per the tenth amendment to the U. S. Constitution, matters such as drugs should be handled at the state or personal level.
13.3 All laws which give license to violate the Bill of Rights should be repealed.
84 posted on 03/05/2003 10:33:35 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: F16Fighter
kindly name a successful world culture in all of history which thrived while it's populace doped out.


bingo that is the plan and the reason drugs are allowed in this country. To destroy this country, put it to sleep.
85 posted on 03/05/2003 10:42:37 PM PST by TLBSHOW (God Speed as Angels trending upward dare to fly Tribute to the Risk Takers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
That is a very sweetened, euphemistic, "made over" depiction of what Libertarians truly want. I've read your posts. (The USSR had a very nice sounding statement of principles, too.)

It's also very similar to the RLC statement --but even more candied! It's not what we get from actual Harry Browne Libertarians.

Pleasant dreams.
86 posted on 03/05/2003 10:44:21 PM PST by unspun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: unspun
"Don't call me a socialist or disrespectful of our Constitution, ---
-- And you may tempt me to exercise some extreme liberty in your direction.
-unspun-


Your socialistic views on the unconstitutional drug war are on your home page:

"Don't let anyone tell you that it's unconstitutional to ban intoxicants. The 10th Amendment reiterates our right to legislate this in the states (and Article I, Section 8 does grant Congress limited power to curtail narcotics traffic)."
__________________________________

States can 'reasonably regulate' the use of intoxicants, -- not prohibit them for 'social reasons'.
And the in the commerce clause, to read 'regulate commerce' as a grant of prohibitive power is sheer socialistic jingoism.

Case closed.
87 posted on 03/05/2003 10:53:44 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: unspun
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?

88 posted on 03/05/2003 10:58:09 PM PST by TLBSHOW (God Speed as Angels trending upward dare to fly Tribute to the Risk Takers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: unspun
It is the RLC position statement.
Not 'candied' at all.

JR posted it some time ago when he founded the RLC Forum.
89 posted on 03/05/2003 10:58:23 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: unspun
My mind is made up about Libertarianism just as it is about Fascism, Communism, Islamism and other idealist, unsupportable, ideologically totalitarian governments. Libertarians want to take our republic and turn it into a virtual tribunal, to ban every governmental action that does not leave the most possible liberty and moral license conceivable under the Constitution. It is as if there is no responsibility to govern in order to "provide for the general welfare," as well as to secure our liberties. It is not Americanism. Libertarianism is anarchy in mock constitutional clothing.

The governments ability to "provide for the general welfare," can and has been used and abused to create the welfare state that we currently live in. It can be stretched to include controlling tobacco, foods, SUV's and a million other things that are harmful in someway to somebody. Some group will always be able to find a reason to control someone elses behavior in order to acheive a "more perfect society". That is why we must return to a constitutional government. Otherwise we will eventually fall into a total dictatorship no matter how good the original intentions.

I don't care what political party to which you belong. I will fiercely protect my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in whatever way I choose.

It is getting late and the coyotes are howling on the mesa behind the corral. I'm going to let my Great Pyranees team outside to chase them off and go to bed. Good night.

90 posted on 03/05/2003 10:58:24 PM PST by FreeLibertarian (Freedom begins when you tell Mrs Grundy to go fly a kite - Lazarus Long)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
"To destroy this country, put it to sleep."

"Bingo," back-atcha.

91 posted on 03/05/2003 11:12:03 PM PST by F16Fighter (Secure U.S. borders and DEPORT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
"Candied" not for the RLC, but for the preponderant doctrines of Libertarians.
92 posted on 03/05/2003 11:14:17 PM PST by unspun ("Before I formed you in the womb I knew you..." - Jeremiah 1:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Kindly take your invectives and feed them to yourself. Flush your unreasonable, absolutist exhaltation of property rights.
93 posted on 03/05/2003 11:18:29 PM PST by unspun ("Inalienable right to own hash, PCP, ricin, C4, smallpox & plutonium." - TOTALIBERTARIAN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: FreeLibertarian
Suggest using the real meaning of words and sentences and not throwing out reality because some have lied about it.
94 posted on 03/05/2003 11:20:14 PM PST by unspun ("Inalienable right to own hash, PCP, ricin, C4, smallpox & plutonium." - TOTALIBERTARIAN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: F16Fighter
morning bump
95 posted on 03/06/2003 5:48:50 AM PST by TLBSHOW (God Speed as Angels trending upward dare to fly Tribute to the Risk Takers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: F16Fighter
Can you seriously compare a refined civilation's historical, cultural, traditional, and culinary use of spirits, beer and wine with drugs??

Of course---alcohol IS a drug.

name a successful world culture in all of history which thrived while it's populace doped out.

Irrelevant to the current discussion as there is no reason to suppose that with drug relegalization our culture would "dope out."

96 posted on 03/06/2003 5:50:45 AM PST by MrLeRoy ("That government is best which governs least.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
"And the in the commerce clause, to read 'regulate commerce' as a grant of prohibitive power is sheer socialistic jingoism."

No it's not. Part of Article I, Section 8, is, "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations."

Congress prohibits the commerce of high speed computers to unfriendly nations. If Congress cannot "prohibit" under the Commerce Clause, where do they get this power?

97 posted on 03/06/2003 6:28:01 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie; vin-one; WindMinstrel; philman_36; Beach_Babe; jenny65; AUgrad; Xenalyte; Bill D. Berger; ..
WOD Ping
98 posted on 03/06/2003 7:30:49 AM PST by jmc813 (Trampled by lambs and pecked by the doves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: unspun
Suggest using the real meaning of words and sentences and not throwing out reality because some have lied about it.

Why don't you try revising your sentence into something more understandable after you sober up.

99 posted on 03/06/2003 8:12:14 AM PST by FreeLibertarian (Freedom begins when you tell Mrs Grundy to go fly a kite - Lazarus Long)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: unspun
Oh yes, the economy would be so much better if it were easier for people to live the most hedonistic/nihilistic and irresponsible lives they possibly can.

People who wish to do that are already doing it, with illegal drugs or legal (alcohol).

100 posted on 03/06/2003 8:18:35 AM PST by MrLeRoy ("That government is best which governs least.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 281-293 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson