Skip to main content

Here We Go. Obama Administration Plunging U.S. Further Into Drug War Mire

Often when I ponder our brilliant lawmakers and policy makers in that shining swamp on a hill I can't help but constantly ask : will they never learn?

But the makers and perpetuators of our nation's utterly-failed anti-drug policies, which have been exploding in America's face for decades upon decades now, are not interested in learning anything. Nor are they interested in results, facts, or even common sense.

They are absolutely hard-core fundamentalists with such a bent for constant escalation of their "war" that they make George W. Bush's middle east war policies look pacifist and isolationist in comparison (not to mention the analogous corruptions of war profiteering). In any event, the purveyors of such aggressive militarist "solutions" are finding quite a cozy home in Obama.

All have vested interests in the endless pursuit of their war, whether political, professional, financial, or pseudo-moral. None...not a single goddamn one.....justifies the horrible fallout and deadly consequences of their insane and impossible quest for some quasi-utopian (totalitarian) end game of a "drug-free world".

Please. Fantasies like this, in which a set of isolated, insulated absolutists wield limitless authority through bottomless exertions of control not only to remake humanity but human nature itself, are the oldest and most virulent seeds of tyranny.

I guess I really shouldn't be surprised that a "liberal" like Obama is so happily-intent to double down on invasive, incredibly-costly, destructive, deadly schemes to control the world population viz a viz recreational drug usage.

But, alas, war is profitable...for a few. The question is how much longer will the many put up with the warmakers endless appetite for resources and control, their complete practical failure on nearly every front, their utter indifference to the death and mayhem they instigate and inflict like a holy crusade, and the wilful denial of reality required to perpetuate this godawful bloody mess they have created.

And now steps our glorious, once cocaine-snorting and dope-smoking, president into the breach, dragging the country further down this dead-end road of social mayhem and massive institutionalized crime and punishment.

Does he now believe that the young drug-using Barack Obama should have been made to pay for his drug 'crimes' like so many others not so fortunate as him, especially other young black males, whose lives have been chewed up either as pawns in massive drug black markets (created by prohibition laws) or as the arbitrary quarry of the drug enforcement and penal industries?

And all this, for what?

Of course, with all this comes a more and more comprehensive police state with all its accoutrements to ensure the tightest control on the civilian population such that a simple category of individually-used commodities can be summarily interdicted from millions and millions of end users, the vast majority of whom are otherwise responsible law-abiding people.

It's all just so insane, sometimes I have trouble fathoming what these people are thinking or if they are even thinking at all.

If only Obama could find it in himself to actually be liberal in just one measly good way, and actually change something in one truly positive and meaningful way, it would be to end this war.


President Obama is finalizing plans to move federal agents, equipment and other resources to the border with Mexico to support Mexican President Felipe Calderón's campaign against violent drug cartels, according to U.S. security officials.

In Obama's first major domestic security initiative, administration officials are expected to announce as early as this week a crackdown on the supply of weapons and cash moving from the United States into Mexico that helps sustain that country's narco-traffickers, officials said.

The announcement sets the stage for Mexico City visits by three Cabinet members, beginning Wednesday with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and followed next week by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.

Napolitano, designated by Obama to convene a multi-agency security plan for the border, said the government is preparing plans to send more agents and intensify its investigation and prosecution of cartel-related activity in the United States. In addition, she said, the government may expand efforts to trace the sources of guns that move from the United States into Mexico.

To combat the southbound flow of guns, ammunition and grenades at border checkpoints, the government may deploy new equipment, such as scales to weigh vehicles and automated license-plate readers linked to databases, as well as other surveillance technology, she said.

Government officials are discussing how to increase intelligence sharing and military cooperation with Mexico, following a visit there this month by Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. And the administration could employ tools used to track terrorist financing to follow the flow of funds within the estimated $65 billion North American drug trade. Funds -- estimated at $18 billion to $39 billion a year -- move through wire transfers as well as cash smuggled into Mexico in planes and vehicles and by human "mules."

Sharp increase in killings

Obama, who plans to visit Mexico in mid-April and has said he will have a "comprehensive policy" on border security in place within months, has elevated to the top of the agenda a subject that did not receive significant attention in the presidential campaign. His focus on Mexico follows a sharp increase in drug-related killings in Mexican cities along the border, prompting fears in the United States of destabilization in the populous neighbor. Since the beginning of 2008, more than 7,200 people have died in drug-related violence, according to Mexican authorities.

Andrew Selee, director of the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, said Obama's security and foreign policy aides have spent the past two months reordering their priorities as "snowballing" concern in Congress pushed Mexico "to the front burner" alongside the economy and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.



Here is an interview full of the same old bureaucratic doublespeak turd-polishing, repackaging the same tired fable we have heard for decades - that "we can win this fight if we just______________!"

Of course there are plenty of "Operation This" and "Operation That", as if any of the previous "operations" ever worked.

"We'll fight the drugs in Mexico so we don't have to fight them here!" or similar nonsense.

"We don't want the smoking gun to come in the form of a magic mushroom cloud!"

"You're either with or us or you're with the drugs."

Comments

David said…
Didn't the drug war start with liberals to act like they were tough for their populist voters after they repealed the 18th amendment? How would it be acting like a liberal to end the drug war?

I am not commenting on the drug war, but if you want to know who is responsible was it not the progressive/populist gang?
Tyler Nixon said…
Point taken, David. Liberal Joe Biden is the most aggressive drug warrior in modern memory.

Up until rather recently, the only well-known intellectuals or public figures to publicly decry the drug war over the last 40 years have all been conservatives / libertarians.

Perhaps I meant more that Obama might live up to purportedly liberal notions like protecting civil liberties and control over their own body, to which so many liberal politicians pay lip service.

It amazes me that the same folks who would take to the streets to defend abortion rights don't bat an eye at laws that make it a crime to merely possess, much less smoke, a joint.

As the saying goes : "keep your laws off my body".

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...