This just in, from Reuters:
U.S. to blame for much of Mexico violence - ClintonNote the order in which the casualties are listed.MEXICO CITY, March 25 (Reuters)
... Mexico's drug war [is] high on President Barack Obama's agenda, after years of Mexico feeling that Washington was neglecting a joint problem.
"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 death of police officers, soldiers and civilians," Clinton told reporters during her flight to Mexico City.
I have to wonder: just how many wars do these people need? The answer seems to be, as Samuel Gompers once said in a different context, "More." So the flak-jacket boys in Mexico are now getting the warm fuzzies from Obie et al., after feeling a bit cold-shouldered by the previous War President:
Clinton said the Obama administration strongly backed Mexico in its fight with the drug cartels and vowed the United States would try to speed up the transfer of drug-fighting equipment promised under a 2007 agreement....Used to be that the Democrats were always more eager for a war than the Republicans. In my lifetime the latter have closed the war-lover gap; but you can still trust a Democrat to find a missile gap, or a body-armor gap, or a goggle gap, that the Republicans have so far overlooked.Washington plans to ramp up border security with a $184 million program to add 360 security agents to border posts and step up searches for smuggled drugs, guns and cash.
The Obama administration will spend $725 million to modernize border crossings and provide about $80 million to help Mexico purchase Black Hawk helicopters....
"It's not only guns. It's night vision goggles. It's body armor. These criminals are outgunning the law enforcement officials," [Clinton] said."
Comments (5)
Conservative sites have been flogging this issue for quite awhile. There's no particular Dem interest in it; it just happens to be their turn to run the one-party state for awhile.
OP: could you look back a few hundred words and read my question today on "Every man his own investor"?
Posted by senecal | March 26, 2009 11:31 AM
Posted on March 26, 2009 11:31
Posted by MJS | March 26, 2009 5:19 PM
Posted on March 26, 2009 17:19
I missed that. It's also that the Dems are better at coming up with *technocratic" language and solutions, whereas the Repugs specialize in pitbull hyperbole -- dirty Mexican criminal gangs pouring across the borders to rape your daughters!
Posted by senecal | March 26, 2009 5:41 PM
Posted on March 26, 2009 17:41
Presumably this is just excuse to invest in the Military Industrial Complex rather than social goods people actually want (based on the photo, among others, Ford are making out well in the deal).
Posted by Peter Ward | March 27, 2009 9:36 PM
Posted on March 27, 2009 21:36
PS: I'd wager the focus more on the War on Drugs reflects the increasing public skepticism re: of the War on Terror.
Posted by Peter Ward | March 27, 2009 9:39 PM
Posted on March 27, 2009 21:39