I wonder what he has to say about what to do about the reason the Mexican drug cartels exist...to supply the United States with the gigantic quantities of drugs consumed here every hour of every day? The volume of the "drug importation" business is so voluminous that getting the payments back to the cartels in Mexico actually means shipping truckloads of currency...or boatloads or trainloads or whatever other large containers needed to transfer billions of dollars in payments for the drugs.

To think these statements are made by someone trying to become President of the United States is unbelievable.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...s-drug-war/?hp

You know how I feel about this nut. This is just one more of a string of crazy ideas this guy comes up with, then his poor staff has to back peddle trying to explain what he meant. Very dangerous man.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

I wonder what he has to say about what to do about the reason the Mexican drug cartels exist...to supply the United States with the gigantic quantities of drugs consumed here every hour of every day? The volume of the "drug importation" business is so voluminous that getting the payments back to the cartels in Mexico actually means shipping truckloads of currency...or boatloads or trainloads or whatever other large containers needed to transfer billions of dollars in payments for the drugs.

To think these statements are made by someone trying to become President of the United States is unbelievable.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...s-drug-war/?hp

It is difficult to intelligently discuss the issue with you when you fail to be specific about what statements you are basing your conclusion on. You are usually much more precise in your assessments. Your misleading use of the word "War" in the title bar is also uncharacteristically shallow and disingenuous as it is a misrepresentation of the content of the article. I'll spare you the gratuitous shot at the Times use of the word "war" in their lead as you already know how I feel about most of their reporting.

The article states, "He (Perry) indicated that any such action would be done “in concert” with the Mexican government."

It states, "“It may require our military in Mexico working in concert with them to kill these drug cartels and to keep them off of our border and to destroy their network,” Mr. Perry said during a campaign appearance here." VK, you may have a point with this representation. It begs for a more detailed explanation that defines the role of our military. Would it be advisory or tactical for instance?

Times quote, "The United States has already been sending drones deep inside Mexico to gather intelligence about drug trafficking. And the Obama administration has also let Mexican authorities mount cross-border operations against drug traffickers from inside the United States. But Mexican President Felipe Calderon kept those operations secret in order to avoid legal and political protests from his opponents." This rare acknowledgment suggests to me that back channel communications are already in place. Shocking by your standard I guess. How do you feel about the Obama administration's "war" on Mexican drug cartels? Do you find it as "unbelievable" as Perry's.

You seem to suggest that America thirst for drugs feed the cartels. You are correct, and having some first hand experience in the drug enforcement community, I can tell you it is an almost insurmountable battle, fought for decades just to maintain the status quo. Any realistic effort to reduce the problem has to involve a multi-faceted approach that includes:

interdiction at the source

interdiction at the borders

increased communication and cooperation with foreign provider governments

a vigorous and sincere drug education and prevention effort in our schools and high impact drug abuse areas.......this I believe speaks to your initial point

I am not a Perry supporter by any means but would like to hear his detailed perspective on the implications of escalating drug cartel violence from the perspective of a governor who shares a 1200 mile border with Mexico and lives the consequences of it every day. To dismiss him as a nut, crazy, unbelievable and dangerous on such a limited fact pattern suggests an absence of intellectual curiosity that stifles creative approaches to solving the problem.

I'll leave the easy, cheap shots to the other gallery posting assassins.

I'm curious....why did you start a new thread on this topic when one already existed?

Originally Posted by The Villager II

You know how I feel about this nut. This is just one more of a string of crazy ideas this guy comes up with, then his poor staff has to back peddle trying to explain what he meant. Very dangerous man.

Not as dangerous as Obama who sent weapons to Mexico that have killed over 200 people. Disgraceful.

Originally Posted by villagegolfer

Not as dangerous as Obama who sent weapons to Mexico that have killed over 200 people. Disgraceful.

Everything is going to be OK. OOOOOOHHHHHHHMMMMMMMM

Originally Posted by villagegolfer

Not as dangerous as Obama who sent weapons to Mexico that have killed over 200 people. Disgraceful.

Amen.

The Fast and Furious project that killed Border Patrol Agent Brian A. Terry, age 40, and others, if framed correctly would be a topic worthy of interesting discussion on this board.

No hijack intended. Back to VK's post.

Originally Posted by cabo35

It is difficult to intelligently discuss the issue with you when you fail to be specific about what statements you are basing your conclusion on. You are usually much more precise in your assessments. Your misleading use of the word "War" in the title bar is also uncharacteristically shallow and disingenuous as it is a misrepresentation of the content of the article. I'll spare you the gratuitous shot at the Times use of the word "war" in their lead as you already know how I feel about most of their reporting.

The article states, "He (Perry) indicated that any such action would be done “in concert” with the Mexican government."

It states, "“It may require our military in Mexico working in concert with them to kill these drug cartels and to keep them off of our border and to destroy their network,” Mr. Perry said during a campaign appearance here." VK, you may have a point with this representation. It begs for a more detailed explanation that defines the role of our military. Would it be advisory or tactical for instance?

Times quote, "The United States has already been sending drones deep inside Mexico to gather intelligence about drug trafficking. And the Obama administration has also let Mexican authorities mount cross-border operations against drug traffickers from inside the United States. But Mexican President Felipe Calderon kept those operations secret in order to avoid legal and political protests from his opponents." This rare acknowledgment suggests to me that back channel communications are already in place. Shocking by your standard I guess. How do you feel about the Obama administration's "war" on Mexican drug cartels? Do you find it as "unbelievable" as Perry's.

You seem to suggest that America thirst for drugs feed the cartels. You are correct, and having some first hand experience in the drug enforcement community, I can tell you it is an almost insurmountable battle, fought for decades just to maintain the status quo. Any realistic effort to reduce the problem has to involve a multi-faceted approach that includes:

interdiction at the source

interdiction at the borders

increased communication and cooperation with foreign provider governments

a vigorous and sincere drug education and prevention effort in our schools and high impact drug abuse areas.......this I believe speaks to your initial point

I am not a Perry supporter by any means but would like to hear his detailed perspective on the implications of escalating drug cartel violence from the perspective of a governor who shares a 1200 mile border with Mexico and lives the consequences of it every day. To dismiss him as a nut, crazy, unbelievable and dangerous on such a limited fact pattern suggests an absence of intellectual curiosity that stifles creative approaches to solving the problem.

I'll leave the easy, cheap shots to the other gallery posting assassins.

I'm curious....why did you start a new thread on this topic when one already existed?

And I thought all the great wordsmiths disappeared with the advent of e-mail

Bravo!

Cabo, I must echo Rubicon's praises. Beautifully composed and executed post. There's nothing for me to add. Bravo!

Originally Posted by The Villager II

You know how I feel about this nut. This is just one more of a string of crazy ideas this guy comes up with, then his poor staff has to back peddle trying to explain what he meant. Very dangerous man.

Originally Posted by cabo35

It is difficult to intelligently discuss the issue with you when you fail to be specific about what statements you are basing your conclusion on. You are usually much more precise in your assessments. Your misleading use of the word "War" in the title bar is also uncharacteristically shallow and disingenuous as it is a misrepresentation of the content of the article. I'll spare you the gratuitous shot at the Times use of the word "war" in their lead as you already know how I feel about most of their reporting.

The article states, "He (Perry) indicated that any such action would be done “in concert” with the Mexican government."

It states, "“It may require our military in Mexico working in concert with them to kill these drug cartels and to keep them off of our border and to destroy their network,” Mr. Perry said during a campaign appearance here." VK, you may have a point with this representation. It begs for a more detailed explanation that defines the role of our military. Would it be advisory or tactical for instance?

Times quote, "The United States has already been sending drones deep inside Mexico to gather intelligence about drug trafficking. And the Obama administration has also let Mexican authorities mount cross-border operations against drug traffickers from inside the United States. But Mexican President Felipe Calderon kept those operations secret in order to avoid legal and political protests from his opponents." This rare acknowledgment suggests to me that back channel communications are already in place. Shocking by your standard I guess. How do you feel about the Obama administration's "war" on Mexican drug cartels? Do you find it as "unbelievable" as Perry's.

You seem to suggest that America thirst for drugs feed the cartels. You are correct, and having some first hand experience in the drug enforcement community, I can tell you it is an almost insurmountable battle, fought for decades just to maintain the status quo. Any realistic effort to reduce the problem has to involve a multi-faceted approach that includes:

interdiction at the source

interdiction at the borders

increased communication and cooperation with foreign provider governments

a vigorous and sincere drug education and prevention effort in our schools and high impact drug abuse areas.......this I believe speaks to your initial point

I am not a Perry supporter by any means but would like to hear his detailed perspective on the implications of escalating drug cartel violence from the perspective of a governor who shares a 1200 mile border with Mexico and lives the consequences of it every day. To dismiss him as a nut, crazy, unbelievable and dangerous on such a limited fact pattern suggests an absence of intellectual curiosity that stifles creative approaches to solving the problem.

I'll leave the easy, cheap shots to the other gallery posting assassins.

I'm curious....why did you start a new thread on this topic when one already existed?