Obama, Clinton, Mexico spar over characterizations, ignore elephant

It’s really pretty funny (in a sad way).

Obama Retracts Clinton’s Comparison of Mexican Violence to Colombia

Washington, D.C., United States (AHN) – President Obama took the unusual step Thursday of retracting a statement made a day earlier by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton about Mexico’s drug war.

Clinton said Mexico’s drug war was like Colombia’s war against insurgents 20 years earlier, which was funded by money from drug cartels. […]

Clinton’s comment drew sharp rebuttals from Mexican politicians, who described their effort against drug cartels as more of a police action than a war against military insurgents.

Prohibition is the elephant.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Obama, Clinton, Mexico spar over characterizations, ignore elephant

  1. Just me. says:

    Ofcourse Obama retracted Clintons comments. She must have made the statement out of truth that the US wants to send troops there or something like they didi before with central America. Thats bad news for the Obama admin. Immigraition is a big part of this WOD’s . Sending troops there of meddling in Mexicos buisness would draw the ire of Mexicans all over.

    Some where between Obamas retraction and Clintons comment lies the truth of what OUR government plans to do about the cartels so that they dont have to give up their money pot called ..prohibition. All the cartels violence is drawing a much larger debate about re-legalization of cannabis and hard drugs. They dont want that.

  2. kaptinemo says:

    “All the cartels violence is drawing a much larger debate about re-legalization of cannabis and hard drugs. They don’t want that.”

    They most assuredly don’t…and they don’t want to talk about it here, because to do so is to be forced to admit the huge bureaucracy they’ve created to ‘fight drugs’ is instead an arm of something much vaster…and far more evil.

    Banks want to keep drugs illegal because fo the huge profits engendered by the prohibition of weeds and bushes and poppies….whose actual market value is about as much or less than staple foods. Governments want to maintain the drug prohibition to garner powers that they would not otherwise have. (The so-called PATRIOT Act was built on the rights-destroying legislation created by the ‘War on Drugs’) And, of course, there’s nothing like dirty untraceable money
    to fund dirty untraceable covert actions against one’s political opponents.

    Truly, major governments all over the planet don’t want re-legalization. And for vastly less moral reasons that the one’s offered.

  3. So, what should we do when CA pot legalization does not dramatically reduce the violence and put the cartels out of business? That is a real possibility, ya know – and represents the danger in using those two outcomes as our mantra.

    Last time I checked, there are 48 other continental states where cannabis is consumed. It doesn’t seem much of a stretch to believe all the cartel cannabis coming from Mexico will just turn right and head east.

    Our friend Brian Bennett reports that seizures of domestically grown cannabis are up, suggesting that cartel cannabis does not represent the bulk of their business. And even if it does, who believes the cartels will just roll over and play dead? More likely is that they will step up their sales and marketing of coke, meth and heroin – the most dangerous and violent segments of the drug business.

    Such an outcome is more than reasonable to expect. And then the prohibitionists will be emboldened to wag their fingers and shout “See, we told you so!” and double down on their efforts to overturn CA’s legalization scheme. And then we’ll be fucked. Again.

    While I support Prop 19, we should all be mindful of the rule of unintended consequences.

  4. kaptinemo says:

    Daniel, when you consider the expected ‘rush’ of out-of-State cannabists to CA in the aftermath of 19’s passage, and that neighboring States are just as penniless, Cal-ee-forn-ee-ya’s neighbors are not going to be left in the fiscal dust. They’ll go legal (again) too.

    As for the cartels, yes, they’ll concentrate their attention on States where re-legalization is resisted, but it won’t matter. The lack of revenues (and the influx of cartel-sired crime) will force those States out of sheer necessity to re-legalize. In such cases, the shrieks of the sado-moralists will be drowned out by the tappy-tappy-taps of the bean-counter’s calculators.

  5. Just me. says:

    Please Cali…be the big stick that stirs this nasty little kettle of corruption in America. End prohibition…

  6. Whitney Ede says:

    Thank you for every other informative web site. The place else may I am getting that kind of info written in such a perfect means? I’ve a mission that I am just now running on, and I have been on the look out for such information.

Comments are closed.