cannabisnews.com: Wasted










  Wasted

Posted by FoM on November 26, 2001 at 22:05:16 PT
By Mike Krause and Dave Kopel 
Source: National Review 

Throughout the federal government, agency after agency is shifting priorities in order to fight the war on terrorism. Except, apparently, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA). If you go to the "What's New" page on the DEA website, you'll find a lot of what's old. Almost nothing on the site relates to counterterrorism, other than a country report on Afghanistan. Yet testifying before Congress on October 17, 2001, Administrator Asa Hutchinson said: 
I recently testified before Congress regarding the connection between international drug trafficking and terrorism. This connection defines the deadly, symbiotic relationship between the illegal drug trade and international terrorism. The degree to which profits from the drug trade are directed to finance terrorist activities is of paramount concern to our nation and the DEA.Given this "paramount concern," one might expect the website to tout announcements from the DEA that the agency's new top priority would be attacking drug-trafficking networks with ties to terrorist organizations. Opium from Afghanistan, long tolerated by the Taliban in exchange for "tax" payments from opium distributors, would seem to be a logical number-one target.Yet amazingly, the biggest news out of the DEA since September 11 has been a massive new crackdown on drug users whom we know not to be associated with terrorist suppliers: medical-marijuana users.In California, the DEA has been seizing the medical records of medical-marijuana patients and destroying the marijuana gardens of AIDS and cancer victims. Since September, the DEA has raided and uprooted a marijuana garden in Ventura County, raided and seized the patient records of a medical research facility in El Dorado County, and shut down the Los Angeles Cannabis Resource Center in West Hollywood. (There, DEA agents seized some 400 marijuana plants, and the medical files of several thousand current and former patients. They even took the mix the center used to make marijuana brownies.)The issue isn't whether the DEA has the legal power to act against medical-marijuana distribution centers. In United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 does not allow marijuana cooperatives to raise a "necessity" defense in federal court, at least not in a context in which no individual's medical needs were before the court. Rather, the issue is whether going after medical marijuana is a wise use of limited resources, especially in a Republican administration — and very especially when we're in a real war, rather than just trying to reduce some domestic problem like poverty or inflation or drugs and calling it a "war."Nine states have passed medical-marijuana initiatives allowing the possession and use of marijuana for medical purposes. The laws were passed by voter initiative in Alaska, California, Colorado, Nevada, Arizona, Oregon, Maine, and Washington, and by the legislature in Hawaii. These state laws certainly do not legalize the sale of marijuana across state lines, or even sale within the state to people without medical needs. Republican Bob Dole ran for President in 1996 carrying the Tenth Amendment in his pocket; Republican President Bush won the 2000 election with similar promises to respect federalism. Candidate Bush, in keeping with his campaign themes of "compassionate conservatism" and "trusting the people more than the government," stated that while he opposes the use of medical marijuana, he believed that states ought to be able to decide differently. Speaking in Seattle in October 1999, the future president said, "I believe each state can choose that decision as they so choose." Indeed, the medical-marijuana issue should be a poster child for federalism. In California, Prop. 215, the Compassionate Use Act, was openly and hotly debated, voted on in a statewide referendum, and passed by a landslide. In fact, more Californians voted in favor of medical marijuana than voted for Bill Clinton (who would later threaten to prosecute any doctor who prescribed it). In West Hollywood, where the recent raid took place, close relationships were established between the cannabis-club operators and state and local government officials, to ensure the integrity of the program and that the law was obeyed. State supervision included quarterly reviews of doctors' prescriptions, and the issuance of patient ID cards in cooperation with the sheriff's office. Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.) has introduced the States Rights for Medical Marijuana Act, which would simply allow the states to implement medical marijuana policy, without interference from the federal government. Not too long ago, northeastern liberal Democrats were claiming that "states' rights" was a code word for racism. Now that an impeccably liberal Democrat, with many Democratic (and a few Republican) cosponsors, is pushing a bill with "states' rights" in its very title, astute Republican leaders would seize the chance to move the bill through committee and onto the floor — thus ending Democrats' ability to rail against "states' rights" Republicans. Pushing the "States Rights" bill would also give Republicans a chance to demonstrate their compassion on health care — without having to spend a cent, write a word of new regulations, or hire a single additional bureaucrat. But foolishly, the Republican leadership has let the States Rights bill languish in committee without a hearing.In any rational assessment of federal drug-enforcement priorities, doctor-supervised use of medical marijuana would land at the bottom of the list. There are no international or interstate sales, thus making the issue inappropriate for federal control under Congress's power to regulate international or interstate commerce. There are no sales to children. The only people who get the marijuana are adults with a demonstrated medical need. Even if one believes all claims of drug "warriors" about the harms of marijuana, the drug remains much less harmful than other, widely used illegal drugs, particularly cocaine and opiates. In contrast to, say, crackheads and junkies who rob in order to support their habit, medical-marijuana users are about the least dangerous demographic in America — consisting of people in wheelchairs, multiple sclerosis patients, and the like. The distribution of medical marijuana does not involve organized crime and has absolutely no connection to terrorism.In August, Mr. Hutchinson told the Washington Post he would enforce the federal ban because he wanted to "send the right signal" on medical marijuana. In other words, the best explanation of the DEA's war on medical marijuana is symbolism. Consider House Speaker Dennis Hastert's Speaker News: The recent dialogue on so-called 'medical marijuana' sends an ambivalent message to our kids about the dangers of marijuana. The continued public debate over what, if any, medical benefits some compounds found in marijuana may have makes it harder to convince our kids that drug use ends dreams and ruins lives. The way some have constructed this debate sends the wrong signal to our kids about drug use.In other words, they're doing it for the children. But the claim that we have to take medical marijuana away from adult cancer patients in order to frighten healthy 17-year-olds into abstinence is nonsense. Current federal laws allows medical use of morphine with a doctor's prescription; neither the DEA nor the seeker claim that this limited medical exception prevents society from convincing children not to use morphine or other opiates recreationally. Indeed, the Controlled Substances Act contains (on schedules II, III, and IV) literally hundreds of drugs for which medical use is allowed, with a prescription, but for which non-medical use is banned. Moreover, even if, for some reason, it is impossible to communicate the same message (medical use is all right; recreational use is not) about medical marijuana that is communicated about hundreds of other drugs, it is wrong to kill people simply for the sake of better communications. In Afghanistan, the U.S. government has been so humanitarian in trying to avoid "collateral damage" civilian casualties that the U.S. has foregone many opportunities to bomb buildings known to contain al Qaeda or Taliban leaders. If we're that careful not to kill foreign civilians, even for the supremely important objective of killing enemy leaders, then surely we ought not to kill American citizens who are AIDS or cancer patients, and who can't keep their medicine down without the anti-nausea effect of medical marijuana — even if such deaths would improve the "message" that the federal government sends to teenagers. (For the story of one death caused by federal prosecutors stopping a patient from being able to stop vomiting, see William F. Buckley's obituary of Peter McWilliams in the July 17, 2000, National Review.)Moreover, the seizure of the medical records of thousands of patients — who registered themselves in compliance with state law, in good faith — is an act of intimidation, meant to strike fear in the hearts of the sick that they will be targeted next for enforcement action. (The feds had better start looking for some prisons that are wheelchair-accessible.) In addition, according to John Duran, legal counsel for the Cannabis Club, the records of the club's donors and Prop. 215 supporters were also seized — a pure act of political bullying.What reason would any of the patients have to trust the government again? Their alternatives now consist of either foregoing the use of marijuana and suffering the health consequences — or else skirting the law entirely and becoming criminals by growing their own, or finding a street dealer.President Bush has asked all Americans to be eyes and ears for the federal government, keeping watch for suspicious activity related to terrorism. Yet when the federal government deliberately frightens sick people, or people who have lawfully participated in a political campaign, how can these people be expected to trust the government?On November 8, the Bush administration announced a dramatic restructuring of federal law enforcement. According to Attorney General Ashcroft, "We cannot do everything we once did because lives depend on us doing a few things very well." Pursuant to this change, FBI agents once assigned to drug cases have been reassigned to counterterrorism.Similarly, Coast Guard boats that were once used in the drug war have now been assigned to protecting our coasts from terrorists. According to DEA Administrator Hutchinson, "We've tried to make up the slack." Does making up slack mean less attention to complex cases, and more enforcement against easy marks like medical-marijuana providers, who operate out in the open and in cooperation with local authorities? Why were 30 DEA agents used on the October 25 "raid" on the Los Angeles Cannabis Resource Center (whose nearly 1,000 patients are mostly AIDS victims)? Wouldn't those 30 agents be better employed in going after heroin rings connected to al Qaeda and the Taliban? A Justice Department spokesperson said: "The recent enforcement is indicative that we have not lost our priorities in other areas since September 11." Perhaps it's time to reallocate some DEA resources, and prioritize counterterrorism.In the last decade, the number of FBI agents has remained relatively stable, at around 11,000. Yet in addition to being having the lead on counterterrorism and organized crime, along with substantial responsibilities on the related issue of money laundering, the FBI has been tasked with chasing deadbeat dads, carjackings, student-loan fraud, housing discrimination, and guarding access to abortion clinics. These latter matters are not unimportant, but all could easily be left in the hands of state or local law enforcement.Over the last decade, the DEA's budget has nearly doubled to $1.66 billion and its manpower has increased by roughly 75 percent, to over 4,600 special agents and over 9,000 total employees, with 78 offices in 56 different countriesThere is no doubt that many DEA agents out there are placing themselves in harm's way by chasing real criminals. But in the midst of the largest criminal investigation in American history, and of the drastic restructuring of the priorities of Justice Department agencies, the DEA finds itself in the comfortable position of being able to allocate highly trained, well-armed federal agents to targeting the sick and their medical-marijuana providers. Can't the DEA or Congress find a better way to use the DEA's resources — for instance, to fight terrorism? Kopel is of the Independence Institute -- http://www.i2i.org/Krause is a U.S. Coast Guard veteran who served as boat coxswain for drug patrols in the Caribbean Sea. Source: National Review (US) Author: Mike Krause and Dave KopelPublished: November 26, 2001 Copyright: 2001 National Review Email: letters nationalreview.com Website: http://www.nationalreview.com/ Related Articles & Web Sites:Los Angeles County Research Centerhttp://www.lacbc.org/What's New - DEAhttp://www.usdoj.gov/dea/whatsnew.htm Vigil Held for Cannabis Club http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11354.shtmlDEA Raids West Hollywood Cannabis Club http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11343.shtmlCannabis Club Raided by DEAhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11253.shtml

Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help






 


Comment #14 posted by Lehder on November 28, 2001 at 03:45:09 PT

obstruction of FBI
here, finally, is a reference to FBI Deputy Director John P. O'Neill who resigned in frustration (from Yahoo news):In the book ''Bin Laden, la verite interdite'' (''Bin Laden, the forbidden truth''), that appeared in Paris on Wednesday, the authors, Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie, reveal that the Federal Bureau of Investigation's deputy director John O'Neill resigned in July in protest over the obstruction.Brisard claim O'Neill told them that ''the main obstacles to investigate Islamic terrorism were U.S. oil corporate interests and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it''. http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/oneworld/20011115/wl/u_s_policy_towards_taliban_influenced_by_oil_-_say_authors_1.htmlreally, the resignation of the deputy director of the fbi in july ought to be taken seriously. as should the even more serious accusations of attorney danvers, prosecutor during clinton impeachment, for which i gave a link to the indymedia article here a few weeks ago. these people are not marginalized potheads and only one of them is dead. yet...nothing happens, nothing is pursued.also:"According to French investigative reporters Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie, Bush representatives met with the Taliban "several times in Washington, Berlin and
Islamabad" to get a deal to build an oil pipeline through Afghanistan. Bush promised a "carpet of gold," but the Taliban had to accept a "national unity" government including the Northern Alliance. If they
refused, Bush vowed to "bury you under a
 carpet of bombs." While these "negotiations"
took place, Bush "blocked U.S. secret
service investigations on terrorism,"
prompting FBI Investigation's deputy director
John O'Neill to resign in July in protest over
 the obstruction. O'Neill said "the main
obstacles to investigate Islamic terrorism
were U.S. oil corporate interests and the role
 played by Saudi Arabia in it." We demand an
investigation!" http://www.americaheldhostile.com/well, Dan B, i'm glad you take these suspicions seriously, and even recommend a 'revolt'. but it looks as if the fascist apparatus is fully in place now, complete with an attorney general who recommends torture and secret trials -- could anything be sicker?! the pattern of circumstance and the naked presence of motivation are truly ugly to behold. add to that bush's executive order to prevent the release of presidential records of reagan, when bush#1 was vp, and what could any sensible person conclude except that there's a vast conspiracy and coverup!of course, as i suggested to you, by making such a statement one ( as in you or me) tends only to marginalize himself - as i said, a nut case harping about ruby ridge, waco, oklahoma city( gore vidal, in the vanity fair article i referenced displays a shocking conspiracy around mcveigh, but of course vidal is a homosexual and the cousin of a loser), flying saucers, alien abductions etc etc. and despite the flagrant criminality of the bush administration, the media are muzzled and cowed, no one dares to question the torturers and persecutors and other bottom feeders that naturally rise to become surface scum in a fascist system, and it looks like nut cases we shall remain!
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #13 posted by Nuevo Mexican on November 27, 2001 at 21:55:47 PT

What now?
Just wondering? Does anyone have the feeling they've been paralyzed by the events of September? Are we in shock, post-traumatized and unable to respond to the horrific actions of our government? I hope not, but I think that time is important and events are overtaking our ability to focus on any one thing. We are overwhelmed and this will change, but at what cost, millions of lives for the bush dynasty death list? It looks that way from here, though I plan on being wrong as there is always hope for outside events to demand our attention and slap us backinto sanity. OUr self centered ways are destoying us faster than any terrorist or enemy, could ever hope to. Thanks to all for your insights and concern for the future of the U.S. and its' citizenry.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #12 posted by Lehder on November 27, 2001 at 17:04:07 PT

more on lehder's beliefs
this link was found after searching on "John P. O'Neill". He was the Deputy Director of the FBI and an 'expert' on terrorism who resigned earlier this year, frustrated with shabby FBI investigations into terrorism. it was his bad luck to take the job of head of security at the WTC two weeks before the attack.http://makethemaccountable.com/whatwhen/index.htmcareful, Dan, you're going to want tenure one day. really, damning compilations like these are made for Waco, Ruby Ridge, and now we've each found one for WTC. and so what and who cares - nothing happens. either you're with the g on these things or you're a nutcase. 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #11 posted by Dan B on November 27, 2001 at 13:08:40 PT:

Support for Lehder's Beliefs
I agree wholeheartedly with all you have said, Lehder. And here is the proof that Bush I and II were behind the attacks:http://www.copvcia.com/stories/nov_2001/lucy.htmlThe events on that timeline cannot be coincidental. The Bushes are responsible. We need to organize a citizens' revolt now!The problem is that most of the citizens are too ignorant to know better. I'm no knowledge guru (I feel like I should know a whole lot more, what with the new "Ph.D." after my name and all), but even I can figure out that what's going on is not in the best interest of most Americans. One article I read (I need to find it again, but when I do I'll post the URL here) said that in order for Bush I and II and the rest of the one-world brigade to accomplish their objective of a one world government, they would need to reduce America's population by half. That means genocide.Our future doesn't look pretty.Dan B

[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #10 posted by Lehder on November 27, 2001 at 09:51:07 PT

while i'm at it today,
i may as well say that i hold these dark suspicions:1) that the george bushes, both of 'em, allowed the terror attacks in NYC and Wash. DC to take place. that the FBI and CIA probes into terrorist activities prior to 9/11 were stymied by corrupt officials in the Bush administration who welcomed a terrorist attack on the US as an opportunity.2) that as the drug war and plan colombia were losing popularity, and in fact as bush was himself losing popularity and his legitimacy questioned, the terror attacks were welcomed as a means of bolstering the Bush plans for domestic repression and international economic domination. 3) the bushes are behind the anthrax attacks too. while congress was hiding in bunkers afraid of anthrax, bush issued his executive orders in defiance of the constitution. when congress did show up for work, they passed the "patriot act" and many of those who voted for it ( in the senate 98-1) did not even read it, too busy, too scared of anthrax, too gutless to question bush.4) that either this madness is stopped or we will find ourselves a naked dictatorship and the perpetrators of WWIII.5) that americans are too ignorant and too timid to halt bush, just as they have for 30 years too ignorant and too timid to stop the "war on drugs." so far european leaders are too, but a loud and persistent challenge from them is the only chance for beginning an opposition to the bushes.note that the perpetrators of the now abated anthrax attacks have not been found and that yesterday bush told us that it may take "years" to find bin laden. My hat is off to Russ Feingold and Barbara Lee. The rest of our government should be tried for treason. I think that's 99 senators and 454 reps that remain. Ignorance, like 'following orders', is no excuse.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #9 posted by Lehder on November 27, 2001 at 08:53:56 PT

correction
I think it's Paul Erlich, not Ewald, who studies nuclear war effects. Ewald studies AIDS and virology. check for yourself.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #8 posted by Lehder on November 27, 2001 at 08:51:48 PT

just the beginning
President Bush's prime purpose now is gearing up America for a wider war. "It's not over. It's not over," he told Newsweek, concerned that the people might think otherwise. "Afghanistan is just the beginning," he roared to an audience of soldiers at Fort Campbell, Kentucky. "America has a message for the nations of the world. If you feed a terrorist or fund a terrorist, you're a terrorist." 
http://commondreams.org/views01/1127-03.htmOn Iraq, Bush urged Saddam to allow weapons inspectors into the country ``to prove to the world he's not developing weapons of mass destruction.'' http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20011127/pl/attacks_bush_6.htmlThis is nothing but picking a fight. The U.S. has the capability of detecting the most minute traces of pollutants that inevitably escape from nuclear materials by stimulating ground sites with lasers and detecting the returned radiation. All this can be done by satellite. And any detections can be followed by bombing - as carried out almost daily on Iraq anyway. We see here George #1 preparing to settle a score. Asked what will happen if Saddam refuses, Bush replied, ``He'll find out.'' Does this loutishness make you proud, cowboys? It's the televised, decades long deification of ignorance and the promotion of schools where kids cannot learn but have to worry about being shot, beaten and robbed that makes this crudity not only possible but popular among Americans.It was popular, for a while, among Germans too as Hitler successfully invaded Poland, Holland, Belgium, France. I did not quote from any obscure web sites today - this is yahoo, this is what Bush said to Newsweek and to soldiers at Fort Campbell. This is what Americans support: an expanding, limitless war.Do a search on Paul Ewald, biologist, and find out the facts about WWIII: There are enough bombs in the world today to set off six Hiroshima sized explosions evvery second for forty-eight hours. Enormous populations of cockroaches and giant rats, feeding on the bodies, will consume those who survive. ``America must be prepared for loss of life,'' he said. 
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush (news - web sites) said Monday the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan (news - web sites) is ``just the beginning'' of the fight against terrorism,
and he warned Iraq and North Korea (news -web sites) there would be consequences for producing weapons of mass destruction. ``If anybody harbors a terrorist, they're a terrorist,'' he said. ``If they fund a terrorist, they're a terrorist. If they house terrorists, they're terrorists. I mean, I can't make it any more clear to other nations around the world.''He's a madman, and the people behind him are stupid.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #7 posted by Lehder on November 27, 2001 at 08:01:17 PT

Fighting Democracy in Bolivia
The Bolivian peasants recently threw up road blocks to protest spraying of their coca fields and children. The Bolivian government relented, temporarily, and called a meeting to present the U.S. proposals for alternate crops and payments for growing them. The Bolivians traditionally use coca as a food crop and had sought to grow only a 40 meter x 40 meter patch, about 1/3 acre, for their own families. They arrived peaceably to hear U.S. proposals for alternate crops and were presented with this:As substitute crops to coca, the farmers must choose one, two or three products from the five recommended by the Alternative Development Program (banana, palm, maracuya fruit, pepper and pineapple). If the grower wants, he can add other products to the five recommended ones, but he must first demonstrate the technical, economic and social viability of them. http://www.narconews.com/boliviasummit.htmlAnd these are only a part of the rules the U.S. would impose on these destitute peasants who have grown their small coca patches for hundreds of years. And this is presented to them in the context of decades of U.S. broken promises and payments unpaid. These people are not drug smugglers; they are poor families and the victims of the U.S. corporate-sponsored drug war that seeks to make self-sufficiency impossible for these people. It seeks to drive them off their own land and force them into corporate employment in the U.S. oil fields or in the cities working for McDonalds or for slave wages in U.S. controlled factories. And this is the Bush program for all of Latin and South America as nominations like that of Otto Reich so blatantly demonstrate.Such arrogance and economic rapine can only lead to wide scale violence, poverty and war throughout the Americas. And this too only plays into the Bush gang's hands, for it offers every opportunity to eliminate competition with corporate America and to usurp oil and mineral bearing lands. That's how America does business. And it's all claimed to the U.S. public to be necessary to protect American children from the scourge of drugs which grow by the thousands of acres unmolested by Bush's cartel partners in drug manufacture and smuggling.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #6 posted by greenfox on November 27, 2001 at 05:53:08 PT

Kap..
It might be a good idea to start practicing your Canadian English....Or your dutch for that matter,,,,in FACT i just wanted to let you all know that despite this terrorism nonsense I will be traveling to the netherlands again shortly. It will be fun. If it gets too crazy here, who knows, maybe I'll stay. Hell, at this point I already know a few growers/breeders.... so ....why not? :) (I can take cuttings quite well, thank you very much)//..sly in green, ta ta ta,,, sly in green, ta ta ta,,,foxy in KiND, da da da,,, foxy in KiND, da da da,,, -  ~gf
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #5 posted by greenfox on November 27, 2001 at 05:50:29 PT

It was a very good year
It was a very good year
when I was 21...but now the days are short,
I am in the autum of the year
and now I think of my life
as vintige wine from fine old kegs,
from the brim to the dregs, 
it POURS sweet and clear,
it was a very good year....

[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #4 posted by dddd on November 27, 2001 at 05:45:16 PT

Lehder
Right On Brother!....dddd
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #3 posted by kaptinemo on November 27, 2001 at 05:28:59 PT:

The Rockefeller Republicans speak!
The NR represents the moneyed side of the Republicans, the so-called "Rockefeller Republicans" who use the Religious Right as shock troops in their campaigns, but generally ignore them after they've won.That is, until recently. With such people as the the Religious Right's Bob Jones University 'educated' sorts like Hutchinson at the helm of the DEA, it becomes clear why they fought so long and hard to prevent such things as RR types getting their patty paws on the controls of the legal system. Because the smarter of them knew that the RR's would (in exactly the opposite of what Ashcroft claimed he'd do) use their power to forward their narrow-minded and bigoted agendas in retaliation for imagined elitist slights against their brand of Christianity.And now they see the resulting damage to our civil liberties may be so bad that they may never recover...and get worse. Much worse. Hence this unusual attack on the part of those who otherwise would sit back and smile as the money from their 'investments' in the political arena rake in more bucks for them.When the elite start sweating, it means we're already in the soup kettle. It might be a good idea to start practicing your Canadian English....
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #2 posted by Lehder on November 27, 2001 at 05:13:10 PT

Buckley
I'd vote for Buckley too. He opposed the drug war more than 20 years ago. But just as Bush is loved by Americans in part because he is unable to form a sentence, most Americans, victims of televised propaganda bytes, lack the attention span for comprehending a complete utterance of Buckley. An openly intelligent person like Buckley could never be elected or even win a single primary, as I you know. Because of his delightful and self-indulgent intellectualism, someone would call him a homosexual or an onanist and his campaign would collapse, reduced to a single absurd issue. That's what America has become after decades of conditioning the public with corporate-controlled television.Meanwhile, U.S. Dictator George W. Bush is corrupting the government with recycled Oliver-NOrth-Iran-Contra terror criminals, people even worse, incredibly, than Asa, if that is possible. John Negroponte, terrorist, was quietly appointed our ambassador to the UN a few days after 9/11, and now Congress will be confirming Otto Reich, terror propagandist, as Assistant Secretary of State for the Western Hemisphere. I've been reading about this pig:http://google.yahoo.com/bin/query?p=%22Otto+Reich%22&hc=0&hs=0It's clear that Bush has his sights on Cuba now too, and it's going to be even bigger business than usual destabilizing all of South and Latin America:At issue Before he went to Caracas, Reich, 55, ran the State Department's now defunct Office of Public Diplomacy for Latin America and the Caribbean from its inception in June 1983 until January 1986. His role was to rally the U.S. public behind the Reagan-backed Contras' opposition to Nicaragua's leftist Sandinista government. A General Accounting Office report issued in October of 1987 said the office headed by Reich carried out an illegal propaganda operation by secretly planting news stories
and opinion articles in U.S. media designed to rally support for the administration policy in Central America. http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/ottoreich.htmAs for elections in 2004 - what elections? If there's any chance of Bush losing, then a nuclear terrorist attack on the U.S. will be staged to rally the patriots.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #1 posted by dddd on November 27, 2001 at 04:07:57 PT

wonderful
I really like hearing the somewhat stuffy National Review,,putting forth their nice subdued opinions,, in that pleasantly arrogantesque style....The NR is kinda like the place to find rabblerousin' republicans....like Bill Buckley,,he is the god of verbose writers,and he writes in the NR regularly.......Bill Buckley might not be a bad pick for president.......dddd
[ Post Comment ]





  Post Comment