Thursday, March 26, 2009

Hillary Gets on the Bandwagon

The Miami Herald reports on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's visit to Mexico and her very direct comments about the United States' involvement in the problems there.

Clinton offered the bluntest comments to date by any senior U.S. official that Americans' habits and government policies have stoked the drug trade and the accompanying violence.

"How could anybody conclude any differently?" she said. "Our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade. Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the deaths of police officers, soldiers and civilians."

U.S. domestic drug-control strategies during the past three decades have largely failed, she said, suggesting that the Obama administration will try to reduce demand and emphasize treatment more than its predecessors.

"We have certainly been pursuing these strategies for ... a long time. I remember Mrs. Reagan's 'just say no,' " Clinton said, referring to former first lady Nancy Reagan's exhortation to young people to refuse drugs. "It's been very difficult."

Although this is certainly a case of Ms. Clinton getting on the bandwagon of gun smuggling across the border, there is an important distinction. Her main focus is not the guns but rather the failed war on drugs. I find this extremely encouraging. In her comments to the Mexican government, she pulled no punches on the gun issue, actually promising about the expired assault weapons ban, "[w]e're exploring approaches that might work." But she consistently made it clear that the first main problem is the "insatiable demand for drugs" in the U.S.

The immediate response has already been implemented with a much increased military presence on the border. Plus, she announced that Obama would seek $80 million, most of it in an upcoming supplemental budget request, to provide Mexico with three Blackhawk helicopters. My belief is that these efforts are largely lost in the maelstrom of violence of which there is no end in sight. The hope I take from these announcements is that by admitting the main problem is the demand for drugs in the U.S., and that the Reagan-era war on drugs has failed, policy changes will continue that will bring about a true improvement. It will take time, but I think we're heading in the right direction with the recent changes we've made.

Plus, about the gun smuggling, I for one can't wait to see what the Secretary has in mind by saying they are "exploring approaches that might work." What about you?

Do you think it's important that Clinton names the priorities, first the war on drugs then gun smuggling? Do you think it's possible to do something about the hunger for drugs in our country?

Please feel free to leave a comment.


  1. "Plus, about the gun smuggling, I for one can't wait to see what the Secretary has in mind by saying they are "exploring approaches that might work." What about you?"

    I hope she sincerely wants to explore approaches that might work. For now I'll assume the worst. I don't trust the Clintons on guns.

  2. I don't trust the Clintons on guns.

    I bet that you never have trusted those LIBrul Clintons.

  3. We don't have the political will to eliminate "for your own good" drug laws, sad to say. Switch the drugs from illegal to legal and long term, you've eliminated 3/4 of the drug problem that affects non-druggies, both here and in Mexico. I don't see how coerced treatment will help.

    It may be too late for Mexico--If we were to legalize drugs, we may make the Mexican criminals desperate for a new source of funds,

  4. Looks like most of the voting public isn't joining her:

    Sixty-five percent of voters say that the international black market is the main source for Mexican drug cartel arms; while only 13.5 percent think these arms are coming from U.S. gun stores (3.5 percent think the arms are coming from somewhere else and 18 percent are not sure).

  5. It has nothing to do with being "liberal" mud rake and everything to do with an honest evaluation of their past actions and attitudes.

    The Clinton's have always been vehemently opposed to 2nd Amendment rights. They've always pushed gun control, so I'd expect more of the same.

    I'm sure that's far too complex for you though, you'd rather just make this a partisan issue when it's not.

  6. I'm curious why comments from Muddy like above are not considered violations of the new commenting policy. Please Clarify, will you Mike?

  7. Multiple choice for Weer'd and anyone else who wants to play.

    Why do some comments get rejected and others not?

    A. Because I delete those which are too difficult to answer, the ones which threaten my crumbling facade as an anti-gun supporter.

    B. Because I delete at random, every tenth one.

    C. Because I make my best call using the New Commenting Policy as my guide.

    Here's a hint, reread that policy, I'm sure you'll get it because you're a pretty sharp guy.

  8. See MikeB,

    This is where your double standard appears to pop up.

    But, when it comes to personal attacks and slander, all of which is off topic, I won't have it

    Even you can't deny that you've allowed Mud to slander and personally attack Barb, right?

    Did you call him down on those attacks? I certainly don't remember seeing it.

    You moderated my comment Pancho Villa because?????

    Then after I called you on it, you approved it. Word for Word as I wrote it must not have violated your policy.

    It was a capricious decision on your part; maybe because of past comments I made, maybe because it did present issues that were hard to answer.

    I don't know. I do know that you are playing favorites and keeping people from reading all the comments.

    I had respect for you until you started those shenanigans, you've lost what there was left.

    Probably won't see this comment posted either.

  9. B) is obviously a foolish answer.

    C) You don't even follow your own commenting policy, and as I've said before, Muddy NEVER does.

    So A) becomes the obvious answer.

    And thanks for noticing what a sharp guy I am. BTW I'm upset you don't comment over at my blog anymore.

    I still don't, nor will I ever, Screen my comments.

  10. Gee, Hillary may be wanting to push another AWB, but the people who would actually know don't think it is the firearms; assault or otherwise

    Anti-gunners say the ban would reduce crime. But Agent Austin Banks with the ATF says it’s people, not guns, who cause tradedies. “It’s not the guns. It’s the guns in the hands of the people who are prohibited from owning them that cause problems in America.” According to the FBI’s crime stats, the total crime rate in the United States dropped 1% when the ban was in place.

    Is a 1% drop in total crime worth infringing on everyone's rights?

    I don't think so.

  11. Not to mention crime had dropped BEFORE the ban as well.

    The AWB was a total red-herring that infringed on rights.


    Grist for the Mill:
    "According to federal records obtained by the ABC-7 I-Team, Bustamante was arrested on the theft charges March 2. He was accused of selling six government handguns, three government shotguns and a pair of government binoculars without authorization."

    A US Marshall illigally selling guns in Mexico. Not exactly what you've been claiming, and not even remotely close to any proposed gun control laws, as police have exemption on EVERYTHING.