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 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 281-293 next last
To: Gforce11
Opium does have some legitimate uses as a drug, Percocet is derived from opiates, maybe we should simply have drug companies buy up all the stocks instead of dealers.
21 posted on 03/05/2003 12:29:29 PM PST by RockyMtnMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Gforce11
Its BS we can't have them produce something else other than drug plants, with all the economic power we have.

With all our power we haven't convinced South Americans to not grow coca.

22 posted on 03/05/2003 12:29:33 PM PST by MrLeRoy ("That government is best which governs least.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Gforce11
How about Coffee?

Alternative crops are the way to go. Colombia wouldn't be the mess it is today if they could grow coffee beans.

23 posted on 03/05/2003 12:30:35 PM PST by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
We've been cutting deals with drug-producing allies since the 60's. Maybe if the Afghanis tried to set up a medical marijuana program, we'd finally get tough with 'em.
24 posted on 03/05/2003 12:42:21 PM PST by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: bassmaner
I've often wondered why we couldn't set up an agreement between columbia and large drug companies to purchase all stocks of illegal substances. Part of the agreement would set production standards and establish accountability with regard to purchasers. The government gets to "control" the substance and the "drug producer" becomes a legitimate business. If the producer violates his agreement then he doesn't get to sell his product to the drug company and goes back to battling the government all the while his competitors are raking in legally earned profits.

If the drug companies buy up all the supplies then availability on the open street goes down significantly. Eventually market economics would take over and the price of a Tylenol 3 would go down benefitting the WOD groupies that get a headache from all this nonsense.

25 posted on 03/05/2003 12:42:45 PM PST by RockyMtnMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: All
My post #11 is positively drenched in irony!

Puh-leeze! No more congrats on having 'come over'. lol!

Besides, if I came over to the dark side, I'd have to buy a flashlight.
26 posted on 03/05/2003 12:44:25 PM PST by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen; MrLeRoy
more than 50% to 75% of them showed traces of drugs in their urine at the time of their arrest;

snip:

For a number of decades, the existence of empirical relationship has been documented by researchers, as well as by criminal justice practitioners and drug treatment professionals (McBride and McCoy, 1993; p.267)"

Many of these studies indicate that nearly 80% of offenders have used illicit psychoactive substances during the course of their lives; more than 50% to 75% of them showed traces of drugs in their urine at the time of their arrest; 30% to 50% of the prison inmates show signs of dependence to illicit drugs; close to 30% were under the influence when they committed the crime of which they were accused. Cannabis and cocaine (2) seem to be the most popular products with these people in America, while heroin has proved quite popular in Europe (Facy, 1991; Ingold and Ingold, 1986; Kensey and Cirba, 1989; Lauwers and Van Mol, 1995; Sueur and Rouault, 1993).
http://www.ccsa.ca/Costs/brochu.htm
27 posted on 03/05/2003 12:50:06 PM PST by TLBSHOW (God Speed as Angels trending upward dare to fly Tribute to the Risk Takers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: RockyMtnMan
I've often wondered why we couldn't set up an agreement between columbia and large drug companies to purchase all stocks of illegal substances.

There's no reason to think drug companies are undersupplied, so where's their motivation to purchase excess supply?

28 posted on 03/05/2003 12:53:40 PM PST by MrLeRoy ("That government is best which governs least.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
more than 50% to 75% of them showed traces of drugs in their urine at the time of their arrest;

Which doesn't prove they were under the influence. let alone addicted. Read the rest of what you posted:

30% to 50% of the prison inmates show signs of dependence to illicit drugs; close to 30% were under the influence when they committed the crime of which they were accused.

Well under O'Reilly's claim of 70%. Thanks for helping to expose O'Reilly as an ignorant blowhard.

29 posted on 03/05/2003 12:56:30 PM PST by MrLeRoy ("That government is best which governs least.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
It all looks pretty scary. Until you start counting alcohol, then those numbers don't look too bad.
30 posted on 03/05/2003 12:57:31 PM PST by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
Thank you, TLBSHOW. I knew these pot smokers weren't just sitting around in their living rooms listening to Cheech & Chong albums -- they're out and about, committing crimes!
31 posted on 03/05/2003 1:09:20 PM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
I knew these pot smokers weren't just sitting around in their living rooms listening to Cheech & Chong albums -- they're out and about, committing crimes!

Some of them are, just as some drinkers and some judge-sober persons are. What's your point?

32 posted on 03/05/2003 1:11:10 PM PST by MrLeRoy ("That government is best which governs least.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
more than 50% to 75% of them showed traces of drugs in their urine at the time of their arrest;

33 posted on 03/05/2003 1:13:43 PM PST by TLBSHOW (God Speed as Angels trending upward dare to fly Tribute to the Risk Takers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
You know, 100% of them drink water. Water, as everyone knows, leads to crime. Even terrorists use water!

We've gotta have comprehensive water bans right now!!!

34 posted on 03/05/2003 1:14:10 PM PST by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
Read much?
35 posted on 03/05/2003 3:35:25 PM PST by MrLeRoy ("That government is best which governs least.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: headsonpikes
The War on Drugs is a success.

As John Walters says,"We are making illegal drugs scarce, expensive, and unreliable..."

That's Job One.

You forgot to close the sarcasm tags.

The Civil War on Some Drugs is a total failure that is destroying America.

36 posted on 03/05/2003 4:34:32 PM PST by FreeLibertarian (You live and learn. Or you don't live long.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: JmyBryan
Or we could just take the profit out of growing and importing these drugs - and save money as well. Except a whole lot of federal narcotics officials won't live off the dole anymore.

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.

Ayn Rand is dead.

37 posted on 03/05/2003 7:07:45 PM PST by unspun (You're sitting in God's mouth and He's mulling you over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: FreeLibertarian
How's your Libertarian recruitment drive coming? Find anyone here yet?
38 posted on 03/05/2003 7:08:54 PM PST by unspun (You're sitting in God's mouth and He's mulling you over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
Seems yor thread has been intellectually infested with the Libertarian cult.

I wonder if the LaRouchies bother DU this much?
39 posted on 03/05/2003 7:11:04 PM PST by unspun (You're sitting in God's mouth and He's mulling you over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: unspun
Hey unspun how are you tonight?
40 posted on 03/05/2003 7:11:15 PM PST by TLBSHOW (God Speed as Angels trending upward dare to fly Tribute to the Risk Takers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 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