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 ... 221-240241-260261-280281-293 next last
To: cinFLA
MrLeroy and Tpaine do not respond to debate.

LOL! You offer no debate, only ad hominems.

241 posted on 03/06/2003 1:41:39 PM PST by MrLeRoy ("That government is best which governs least.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: jmc813
The only "antics" I can see is him having a somewhat radical opinion on the issue. As far as flaming, namecalling, etc., I find him to be no more guilty than anybody else.

Then why have they been repeatedly warned, relegated to the backroom and told by JR that there posting methods give them little credibility. There methods are those of paid spammers that are present on every open forum.

242 posted on 03/06/2003 1:41:55 PM PST by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
told by JR that there posting methods give them little credibility.

He never told me this.

243 posted on 03/06/2003 1:43:13 PM PST by MrLeRoy ("That government is best which governs least.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
his antics keep the thread relegated to the smokey backroom

Rubbish---I recall many marijuana threads being Backroomed before any mention of other illegal drugs was made.

244 posted on 03/06/2003 1:45:10 PM PST by MrLeRoy ("That government is best which governs least.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
I thought it was a states' rights issue. What is your problem if your state legalizes hard drugs?

Lemme try to use a different example. Here in New Jersey auto insurance is regulated by the state. We also have an idiotic "no-fault" mandate. This has led to NJ having the highest auto insurance rates in the country. I certainly oppose these policies BUT find it preferable to the Federal government mandating every state's insurance laws.
245 posted on 03/06/2003 1:45:57 PM PST by jmc813 (Trampled by lambs and pecked by the doves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy; tpaine; JmyBryan
I may or may not respond to you. I don't really advocate long tirade battles among those who are supposed to unite, especially when they are so repetitive and redundant.

Suggest these Web site, BTW:
http://www.liberty1.org
http://www.wallbuilders.com
246 posted on 03/06/2003 1:45:57 PM PST by unspun ("Inalienable right to own hash, PCP, ricin, C4, smallpox & plutonium." - TOTALIBERTARIAN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: unspun
How droll. - My last post to you was a reply to your 'repetitive & redundant' #195.
247 posted on 03/06/2003 1:57:36 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
Rubbish---I recall many marijuana threads being Backroomed before any mention of other illegal drugs was made

Right. We all know that these mj threads are part of the Soros "normalization" strategy.

248 posted on 03/06/2003 2:10:19 PM PST by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: jmc813
I certainly oppose these policies BUT find it preferable to the Federal government mandating every state's insurance laws.

Then you find it preferable that even if some states enact total drug legalization the feds should keep their nose out of it. Even if it means your 'minor daughter's' boyfriend can go across the border to buy ecstasy or your 'minor daughter' could (quote to indicate no offense intended) could go across the state line for an abortion without your knowledge?

249 posted on 03/06/2003 2:15:17 PM PST by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: jmc813
I haven't had time to look at his other posts but my impression of the libertarian position is that the government should make no laws regarding reproductive issues. How is anti-abortion a libertarian position?
250 posted on 03/06/2003 2:19:28 PM PST by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
his antics keep the thread relegated to the smokey backroom

Rubbish---I recall many marijuana threads being Backroomed before any mention of other illegal drugs was made.

Right. We all know that these mj threads are part of the Soros "normalization" strategy.

Your paranoid fantasies are irrelevant to your dubious claim that my legalize-all-drug posts are what "keep the thread relegated to the smokey backroom."

251 posted on 03/06/2003 2:23:09 PM PST by MrLeRoy ("That government is best which governs least.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
Your paranoid fantasies are irrelevant to your dubious claim that my legalize-all-drug posts are what "keep the thread relegated to the smokey backroom."

I never said such a thing. Again you are twisting and churning.

252 posted on 03/06/2003 2:25:05 PM PST by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
How is anti-abortion a libertarian position?

Visit the Libertarians For Life site: http://www.l4l.org/.

253 posted on 03/06/2003 2:25:06 PM PST by MrLeRoy ("That government is best which governs least.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
Then you find it preferable that even if some states enact total drug legalization the feds should keep their nose out of it.

Yes.

Even if it means your 'minor daughter's' boyfriend can go across the border to buy ecstasy or your 'minor daughter' could (quote to indicate no offense intended) could go across the state line for an abortion without your knowledge?

The same argument could be made by a gun-grabber arguing for federal firearms laws. In fact, that is one of the main reason we have the idiotic "assault weapons" ban in effect today.

My opinion has always been that the government is no substitute for good parenting, and likewise no remedy for bad parenting. I don't have any children, but if I did, you could rest assured that the first time they were caught with drugs, they would face the wrath of God and never think about drugs again.
254 posted on 03/06/2003 2:26:28 PM PST by jmc813 (Trampled by lambs and pecked by the doves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
How is anti-abortion a libertarian position?

Give me a few minutes and I will dig up a great anti-abortion article by Murray Sabrin. Sabrin ran as a Libertarian for governor here in New Jersey back in 1997, and I even voted for him, considering the alternatives were the then incumbent flaming RINO Christie Whitman, and the man who would eventually be elected years later Jim McSkeevy.
255 posted on 03/06/2003 2:29:38 PM PST by jmc813 (Trampled by lambs and pecked by the doves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
Your paranoid fantasies are irrelevant to your dubious claim that my legalize-all-drug posts are what "keep the thread relegated to the smokey backroom."

I never said such a thing.

Yet another of your many lies. jmc813 said, "In my idea of the ideal state, pot would be legal, harder stuff wouldn't be" and later, "Let's take MrLeroy for example. Nice guy, I enjoy reading his opinions and communicating with him"---to which you replied in post 236, "He and his kind are hurting your ability to discuss the issue as his antics keep the thread relegated to the smokey backroom."

256 posted on 03/06/2003 2:30:44 PM PST by MrLeRoy ("That government is best which governs least.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
Here's the Sabrin article
257 posted on 03/06/2003 2:33:12 PM PST by jmc813 (Trampled by lambs and pecked by the doves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
From your cited site:

"The LP platform stands in favor of abortion choice even until the child is being delivered. What would you like to see done about this? I've enclosed some articles that will give you an idea of what LFL has been doing. Please make copies and circulate them as widely as possible."

Appaently Libertarians for Life hold the minority view.
258 posted on 03/06/2003 2:35:04 PM PST by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
You pulled up "Libertarians for Life" but you apparently have a problem when I pull up groups like:

Libertarian socialists
Libertarian communists
259 posted on 03/06/2003 2:36:55 PM PST by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
One more quick thing about libertarianism before I leave for dinner. Many folks (myself included) are careful to distinguish themselves as "small-l libertarians". I do so becauseof major disagreements with the Libertarian Party (e.g. abortion, open borders, lack of organization to run a good campaign). So one can be a libertarian while not being a Libertarian, if you catch my drift.
260 posted on 03/06/2003 2:41:45 PM PST by jmc813 (Trampled by lambs and pecked by the doves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280281-293 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