Remarks by President Bush in Signing Drug-Free Communities Act Reauthorization Bill

Us Newswire ^ | 12/14/01 | George W. Bush

[Pern]

I probably would. I hear it's good stuff. I'm a firm believer, what I do on my own time is my business. I think we have to agree to disagree, dude.

[headsonpikes]

RE: "...in search of the Holy Bong"

You auto-lobotomized sheeple must be a constant source of delight to your masters.

[verity]

Welcome to moral turpitude country!

[Pern]

Exactly how long have you served in the US military? Let me guess, NOT AT ALL!

[Dane]

Exactly how long have you served in the US military? Let me guess, NOT AT ALL!

Yep you are correct.

But that doesn't mean that I can't disagree with veterans. Take for instance John Kerrey(D-MA, Senate). He is a vet and was awarded medals for his service in Vietnam. He got back and decided to join the anti-war movement. There was an AP photo of Kerrey throwing his medals over the White House fence in 1970, just one problem though they weren't his medals. He through someone else's medals over the fence(while taking "credit" that they were his medals).

Finally someone put two and two together when someone noticed that Kerrey's medals were hanging in Senate office.

I feel the same way about your vocal stand on marijuana. Just as I believe that veterans shouldn't use their veteran status to lobby for gays in the military, I do not think that veterans should lobby for marijuana usage in the military and society in whole.

[Native American Female Vet]

Dane your reply #39 was way out of line. Show some manners or shut up.

[Free_at_last_-2001]

The war on drugs is just starting - all druggies please hide in your caves!!

[Uncle Bill]

"For the sake of our children and for the good of our nation, we will reduce drug use in America."

.. #5

Asa Hutchinson May Become Bush's Attorney General - February 27, 2000

Let's Move On

SECRET FROM WHOM?

No Person Is Above The Law - Sorry, Just Kidding

"My Friend Mexican President Vicente Fox"

The Crimes of Mena

Barry Seal, Air Contra, and Mena Airport - Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

BOY CLINTON - Prologue

Celerino Castillo, the DEA Man Who Worked Too Well

CIA admits drug trafficking, cover-up

CIA Linked To Seal's Assassination - George Bush's Personal Phone Number Found in Seal's Trunk

Volume II - The Contra Story - CONNECTIONS BETWEEN CIA AND THE CONTRAS IN COCAINE TRAFFICKING TO THE UNITED STATES

FBI Documents #147 #149 #150

When Uncle Sam was a drugs runner

DEA Shielded Tainted Informant Agency Paid Source for 16 Years Despite Arrests, Perjury

"What is one to make of the riveting assertion, made by a convicted Colombian drug kingpin at Manuel Noriega’s Florida drug trial, that the Medellín cartel gave $10 million to the Nicaraguan contras? Carlos Leader is a key prosecution witness; the U.S. government cannot lightly assail his credibility. Another cartel figure, Ramón Milián Rodríguez, also testified under oath that the Medellín cartel had given millions to the Contras."
The Washington Post - Editorial - 1991

From Here:
"A startling indication of Bush's role in these developments was the testimony given to a U.S. Senate hearing in 1987, where Medellín Cartel money-launderer Ramón Milián Rodríguez revealed that he had given $10 million in cocaine profits to Félix Rodríguez, a long-term CIA agent who ran the drugs-for-guns exchange for George Bush. Milián told investigative journalist Martha Honey that Rodríguez had offered that, "in exchange for money for the Contra cause, he would use his influence in high places to get the [cocaine] cartel U.S. `good will.'. . . Frankly, one of the selling points was that he could talk directly to Bush. . . . The issue of good will wasn't something that was going to go through 27 bureaucratic hands. It was something that was directly between him and Bush."

Milián met with Rodríguez on Jan. 18, 1985. Four days later, Rodríguez met with Vice President Bush in the Executive Office Building.

The promised "good will" was not long in coming. Indicative is the role played by a former senior official of the Reagan-Bush Department of Justice, Michael Abbell. In November 1984, Medellín Cartel boss Jorge Ochoa and Cali Cartel boss Gilberto Rodríguez Orejuela were sitting in a Madrid jail on drug charges, facing extradition--and probable life sentences--in the United States. Abbell, who had been the acting director and deputy director of the International Affairs section of the DOJ's Criminal Division from 1979 through 1984, abruptly quit that post, and travelled to Spain to testify against the extradition of Ochoa and Rodríguez to the United States, claiming that his old employer, the U.S. Department of Justice, had filed faulty papers against his new clients, the drug lords. Thanks to Abbell, Ochoa and Rodríguez were sent to Colombia, where they were eventually set free."

THE ORAL DEPOSITION OF WILLIAM C. DUNCAN
"9 Q. And it has been alleged that the Central Intelligence

10 Agency had some role in that operation. Is that the same

11 operation that you investigated?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And when you submitted the witnesses, the names of the

14 prospective witnesses to the U. S. Attorney in Arkansas, are you

15 referring to Mr. -- what was the name of the U. S. Attorney?

16 A. Asa Hutchinson.

...15 A. They were very frustrated, also. Mr. Whitmore, in fact,

16 made several trips to Fort Smith, Arkansas to complain to the

17 U. S. Attorney's Office.

18 Q. Did he relate to you the conversation he had had with the

19 U. S. Attorney?

20 A. On several occasions, and also related to me that the U.S.

21 Attorney wrote him a letter telling him not to come to his

22 office anymore complaining, that that was unprofessional

23 behavior.

24 Q. What was the conclusion of Mr. Whitmore concerning your

25 investigation and the manner in which it was handled by the U. S.

1 Attorney in Arkansas?

2 A. That there was a coverup.

3 Q. Are you saying -- do you agree with his-with Mr.

4 Whitmore's conclusion?

5 A. Absolutely.

6 Q. Are you stating now under oath that you believe that the

7 investigation in and around the Mena Airport of money laundering

8 was covered up by the U. S. Attorney in Arkansas?

9 A. It was covered up,"

BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC.
(501) 372-5115
[END OF PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT]

THE ORAL DEPOSITION OF RUSSELL FRANKLIN WELCH - Re: Asa Hutchinson

"10 I remember when he came in as U. S. Attorney, everybody was
11 really relieved in western Arkansas because we had had some
12 uneventful prosecutions prior to that apparently. And he did a
13 good job. He had a lot of prosecutions. Well liked.
14 My first uncomfortable experience was at the first grand
15 jury session concerning money laundering where two witnesses,
16 Jim Nugent and Kathy Corrigan, testified, and I was up there
17 just for moral support more than anything else, and to see what
18 was going on . And after they came out of the -- out of their
19 session with the grand jury, each individually expressed concern
20 to Bill Duncan that they were disappointed, that they hadn't
21 been asked the proper questions. They didn't like what happened
22 to them in the grand jury room. And that concerned me a little
23 at the time. But Bill Duncan, I remember him telling them not
24 to worry, that Asa Hutchinson knows what he's doing, and that
25 there's a reason for what -- the way he's handling this. And Page 21

1 they tentatively accepted that. That was my first concern. But
2 based on what Bill told them, I felt a little better about the
3 situation. And I don't know what happened at the grand jury,
4 when they said they didn't feel like they were asked the
5 questions that they had been led to believe were the pertinent
6 ones for their testimony.
7Shortly after that -- I believe that's the last session I
8 can remember that Asa Hutchinson held with the grand jury
9 concerning this investigation. Shortly after that, I learned
10 that he was quitting his position and was going to run for some
11 political office, and that Mike Fitzhugh would be taking over."

Mena: The Oral Deposition of Richard J. Brenneke

A selective passion for truth

By Mara Leveritt
Feb. 12, 1999

Last week I suggested that, rather than probing ad nauseum the president's lies about his extra-marital alliance(s), Washington could do us a favor by turning its investigative lights onto a question with some genuine national significance, to wit:

Precisely what was the relationship between various branches of the government, particularly the CIA, and this country's super-cocaine kingpins, such as Arkansas's own Barry Seal, during the 1980s?

The column did not exactly provoke a stampede to pick up the gauntlet. As I had outlined, there are powerful, bipartisan reasons why the questions about Seal have languished.

Republicans don't want to touch them for fear of where the answers might lead. The trail already points to the offices of former presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush.

Likewise, Democrats are not keen on kicking up a lot of dirt about Barry Seal, a major cocaine smuggler who, for reasons that remain a mystery, was allowed to base his multi-million-dollar operation in Arkansas, under the very eye of the Arkansas State Police, for four years while Bill Clinton was governor.

What did happen after that column appeared was that a reader called to remind me of the role played in the Seal saga by our own Republican Congressman Asa Hutchinson, the House manager who has been lately so aggressive in his prosecution of Clinton in the Senate.

Having listened to Hutchinson expound repeatedly on his desire only to get at "the truth" of the Clinton-Lewinsky affair, I am struck (as was my caller) by how remarkably unaggressive he was -- in fact, how surprisingly hands-off he was -- back in the 1980s when, as the U.S. attorney for western Arkansas, Hutchinson had the chance to prosecute Seal, the smuggler.

We now know that during the time that Seal headquartered his operation at Mena he was being watched by U.S. Customs officials, as well as by agents for the DEA, the FBI, and the IRS. Former IRS agent William Duncan has testified that Hutchinson, who was among the first to know of Seal's arrival in Arkansas, called a meeting in early 1983, at which Duncan was assigned to investigate Seal's suspected money laundering. Duncan did, and he tried to have members of Seal's gang indicted.

But when the IRS investigator asked Hutchinson to subpoena 20 witnesses who were prepared to testify about the alleged drug-trafficking at Mena, Hutchinson balked. Only three of the 20 were called, and of those, two later complained that they had not been allowed to present their evidence to the federal grand jury. The grand jury never indicted Seal or anyone else involved with him at Mena.

In 1991, five years after Seal was murdered, Duncan testified about his experience. "Are you stating now under oath that you believe that the investigation in and around the Mena airport of money laundering was covered up by the U.S. Attorney in Arkansas," he was asked. "It was covered up," he said.

Since then, I have spoken with Paul Whitmore, a former Chief of Criminal Investigation for the IRS, who was Duncan's superior. He oversaw the Seal investigation and concurs with Duncan's assessment that presentation of Duncan's evidence was blocked by Hutchinson's office.

At the time, and to this day, however, Hutchinson has cast himself as an anti-drug crusader. In light of that, I wrote to him after his election to Congress. I explained that I have had a Freedom of Information request pertaining to Barry Seal before the FBI for several years -- a request that the FBI has acknowledged should have been filled a long time ago. In light of that, I asked Hutchinson if he would intercede on my behalf to get the records released.

I was curious as to how hard Hutchinson would work to bring to light public records about a politically sensitive investigation in which he had played a significant part. As it turned out, he was not helpful at all. He replied that he had contacted the FBI concerning my request and that when he heard back from the agency he would "be back in touch" with me. That was more than a year ago. He has not been "back in touch."

By contrast, Rep. Vic Snyder, to whom I placed the same request, has been diligent in his support of my appeal. It seems to matter to Snyder that the Justice Department can flaunt a federal law, delaying by years, if it wants, the release of public information. The agency still hasn't budged on the Seal records, but Snyder's push for their release distinguishes him in this otherwise dark affair.

As for Hutchinson… I hope that some day he is held to account, as he would hold Clinton to account, for certain events of the past -- events that even this self-proclaimed seeker of truth might prefer would never come to light.

Copyright ©1998 Arkansas Writers' Project, Inc.
[End of Transcript]

Somebody has to help make sure Drugs Enter America.

It is natural for man to indulge in the illusions of hope.
We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth,
and listen to the song of that siren
till she transforms us into beasts.
Is this the part of wise men,
engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty?
Are we disposed to be the number of those
who, having eyes, see not,
and having ears, hear not,
the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation?
For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost,
I am willing to know the whole truth;
to know the worst, and to provide for it.

Patrick Henry

"We're going to have to give up some of our liberties"
Frank Keating - September 11, 2001 - CNN Radio

"Compassionate Corruption For The Children"

"The government of the United States was an active participant in one of the largest dope operations in the world.."
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT JUSTICE JIM JOHNSON

"We’re going to go after all crime, and we’re going to make sure people get punished for the crime."
George W. Bush - Presidential Debate at Wake Forest University - Oct 11, 2000

Asa Hutchinson shuts down the most important drug-trafficking case in the history of the Republic, involving both parties, and so, George picks him as head of the DEA. I know, ASA feels terrible about this now, so to redeem himself, he's going to bust as many people as he can for God, country and the American way. LOL!

"Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been, and ever will of civil society. It ever has been, and ever will be pursued, until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit."
James Madison, Federalist Paper No.51

[motzman]

Since everything that I read in Bush's remarks were geared towards prevention and treatment (especially towards children), I really don't have a problem with it.

However, if you really wanted to make this effective, the word alcohol should be inserted every time you see the word "drug(s)" in the speech. Then this would actually be effective.

Bush spoke of drugs "robbing the dignity, character, and ambition" of Americans, but alcohol does the same thing if not worse. Not all people that drink are drunks, and not all people that use drugs are junkies.

The illegality of drugs has actually caused the problem. There's far too much legal danger involved with drug use that keeps people with addictions away from treatment until it's too late. Also, illegality causes the crime, the corruption, and the mayhem associated with the "scourge of drug use". Alcohol Prohibition proves this to be true. Every single evil associated with drug use occured with alcohol during that time. Addiction. Broken families. Crime. Gangs and bloody shoot-outs.

Have you seen Coors employees and Anh-Busch employees shootin' it out in the streets lately?

Controlling recreational drugs with market forces would deprive these third world drug lords and muslim barbarians of one of their most precious revenue streams (next we take the oil...)

The War on Drugs should be re-named the War on Addiction, and re-focus its' efforts on drug and alcohol addicts for treatment. It's not the drugs' fault; it's an inanimate object. It's the anti-social, anti-productive behavior that we should be trying to eliminate. Drug use should be regulated like alcohol is now. If you're walking around on the street all messed-up, you're going to jail. Just like now if you were stumbing around all hammered, you're going to jail.

THEN we'll have freed up additional police / intelligence resources to focus on security against military and terrorist threats. Like they should have been doing all along..............

[balrog666]

Thank God you left the Armed Forces in 95, IMHO. Sheesh if you were in there now you'd be in search of the "Holy Bong", IMHO.

Dude, roll a fat one and smoke it. Calm down before you blow an aneurysm!

[Dane]

The War on Drugs should be re-named the War on Addiction,

I agree. The problem I have is the rhetoric I see on FR way too much, IMHO. The rhetoric is basically that marijuana and other drugs are benign and cause harm to no one and that Thomas Jefferson mandated that everyone has a right to light up a dube anywhere they want.

Another problem I have is that many on the pro-drug(Libertarian) side bring out articles from European sources saying that the answer is basically giving out heroin or other drugs on the taxpayer dime.

Places where drug legalisation is going full throttle are socialist(Holland, Britain) and when I point this out, I am knee jerkingly called a fascist, statist, or Jack Booted thug.

In closing thank you for your reasoned and non-vitriolic reply #49.

[Kermit]

Let's simply lay out the facts. Drug prohibition helps the thugs, the pugs, the gangs, the criminals, the left-wing marxist guerillas, the right-wing guerillas, the Taliban and the terrorists. The time is right to stop the phony war on drugs. If Bush wants to discredit the War on Terrorism, just keep linking it to the war on drugs.

[Askel5]

If Bush wants to discredit the War on Terrorism, just keep linking it to the war on drugs.

Hey ... we got a series going here, bub. You discredit the War on Drugs and you might as well discredit the War on the Poor Poverty and the War on Organized Crime while you're at it.

[Askel5]

SHAZAM ... wow, Uncle Bill. Thanks for the links and the excerpts!

[Huck]

#49 is very sensible.

[Huck]

But don't forget to add cigarettes to the list.

[Kermit]

You discredit the War on Drugs and you might as well discredit the War on the Poor Poverty and the War on Organized Crime while you're at it.

Make my day.;^)

[Askel5]

prevention and treatment (especially towards children),

You fail to understand a few things.

"Prevention" is a handy tool for conditioning.

"Treatment" is also a means for conditioning BUT ALSO has the additional perk of SUSTAINING the addicts.

That's important, you see, because drugs are not a case of Demand driving Supply but Supply driving Demand.

Without supply ... no one gets hooked with a free sample.
Without supply ... no point in killing or stealing to get some cash.
Without supply ... no SUSTAINABLE demand. Folks who end up cold-turkey in dry season sometimes wise up such they never go back to their habit.

If Bush were serious about this so-called "Drug War" he'd EXECUTE anyone caught bringing Red Cocaine or Red Heroin into this nation ... including the wives of Drug War Colonels heading back with a kilo-sized souvenir from Colombia.

They're not serious ... why? Drug cash floats our banks, corrupts our politicians and funds the terror on which we've managed to declare YET ANOTHER War on a Noun whose net effect is a war against US.

[motzman]

I agree. The problem I have is the rhetoric I see on FR way too much, IMHO. The rhetoric is basically that marijuana and other drugs are benign and cause harm to no one and that Thomas Jefferson mandated that everyone has a right to light up a dube anywhere they want.

Yes, you're correct, but it's more of the extreme libertarians that hold this view. There very few substances that you can injest that are absolutely benign, and everything can hurt you in one way or another. And TJ would never advocate a society where everyone could get blitzed, whenever they wanted and wherever they wanted. Local ordinances are necessary to prevent disorderly behavior; anyone who argues with that is a whack-job.

Another problem I have is that many on the pro-drug(Libertarian) side bring out articles from European sources saying that the answer is basically giving out heroin or other drugs on the taxpayer dime.

This is the most important aspect of the entire arguement, and cannot be stressed enough. A society simply CANNOT subsidize "bad behavior" or lawless behavior, and expect to survive for very long. At best, they're dooming themselves to stagnation, which is really bad anyway. That society will eventually "Darwin" itself. Decriminalization coupled with taxpayer subsidized dope would be an absolute disaster, and ruin the country. For far too many years, we've subsidized bad behavior, and bad choices; playing on the compassion of the American people to convince them that "something needs to be done" by the government. Something needs to be done all right, but not by the government (especially Federal). This is the job for churches, community programs, and volunteers to accomplish. By not having a "right" to subsidized addiction, a potential addict is faced with ambition-generating fear of totally falling into the gutter. It's a good fear to have, and it also will promote more community involvement and civility amongst citizens. Neighbors are there for people when they have problems; not the government. You might need help someday...you'd better be at least civil to your neighbors and somewhat involved in your community for "insurance" purposes. Too many people nowadays don't even know some of their neighbors names (I'm one of them)

And human nature has shown that if you build a "safety net", a certain percentage of people will always jump right into it and settle down for the long haul.

Places where drug legalisation is going full throttle are socialist(Holland, Britain) and when I point this out, I am knee jerkingly called a fascist, statist, or Jack Booted thug.

Obviously, for a very long time here, there has been no "gray area" in the discussion on this topic. Either you're a statist, or a hedonist. I've been guilty of this train of thought, and it accomplishes nothing. This whole issue is complex, but we've elected the (supposedly) best and brightest people to resolve issues like these, and we pay them big bucks to do so. But the people always ultimately get the government they deserve, and our "drug policy" has been riding on cruise control for far too long. Bad people (drug lords) are getting fatter and happier all the time, and our resources are wearing thin and not being focused on military and terrorist threats like they should be. We are the most innovative, creative, and productive society in history; we could lick this problem if we seriously attacked the issue correctly.

I look at the issue in this way: What is the most effective way of dealing with the societal problems of addiction? Drugs will never go away, and demand for them will never go away. Euphoria (through booze, gambling, roller coaster rides, etc.) is an industry, and since we are humans, we love our entertainment and feeling intoxicated. It's part of our nature. We're not Vulcans.

Education, addiction treatment, and responsibilty are the only real answer. It will be painful in the short term, but it will work. What we're doing now does not work, will not work, and will amplify the problems of drug abuse. Like it already has.

That's what I think...

And thank you for your reasoned reply.

[motzman]

But don't forget to add cigarettes to the list

I'd like to think of cigarettes as a health issue, because even being addicted to cigarettes does not cause bad behavior {unless you're between me and my first cigarette of the day :) }. It's obviously not good for you, but neither are fatty foods, break dancing, body peircing, and too much salt. I think the regulations on the books now are reasonable (especially in dealing with children), but the anti-smoking policies being adopted by government do-gooders are quite out of hand at this point. The reason I'm replying so late is that I just returned from a company Christmas (sorry...Holiday) Party at the Pearl River (NY) Hilton, and was stunned when I asked the front desk where the bar was so I could by a pack of smokes. The gal behind the counter told me that they don't sell cigarrettes at all in the hotel. Who ever heard of such a thing? I said to her something like "Gee, a hotel with a bar, restaurant, and hundreds of guests...who would want to buy a pack of cigarrettes?"

She gave me the blank stare. Oh well.

Anyway, that's what I think...