Problems With the "Drug War"

The Drug War has been a fiasco.
A failure.
An argument can well be made that the major problem with drugs is the drug war itself, and its destruction of lives, and freedoms, and its corruption.
It hasn't failed because enough money hasn't been spent on it.
Billions have been spent to incarcerate pot smokers and other drug users.
Countless homes have been invaded by hordes of policemen looking for evidence of drug use.
Americans must prove they are not drug users to gain employment, so much for the presumption of innocence.
Barrack Obama used cocaine.
Bill Clinton smoked Pot.
George Bush said he couldn't remember if he used cocaine or not, which means he used cocaine.
One of the things they have in common is none of them had to surrender thier personal liberties as a result.
None of their lives were ruined as a result of their usage.
William F. Buckley, the founder and editor of the National Review, as well as a prolific writer, smoked pot and called for its legalization.
Bill Buckley was a conservative who believed in individual liberties, and keeping the government out of our private lives.
The drug war is the modern day witch hunt.
Prohibition has always failed.
The only tangible result from prohibition is the enrichment of criminals.
In view of the immeasurable harm caused by the so-called drug war, a new direction is needed.
A direction that calls for more personal responsiblity and less government control.

I do not comprehend how any conservative could say that heavily armed police have the right to kick down a citizen's door, invade her home, and drag him off to prison in chains because he or she may be smoking a marijuana cigarette.

Bibi Proclaims Talks with Clinton "Deep and Good."

Clinton met with Prime Minister-designate
Binyamin Netanyahu today. Netanyahu said the Secretary of State showed a
deep understanding of Israel and America's common
goals and said that he was satisfied with the meeting.
Netanyahu did not reveal the content of his discussion with Clinton other than to say that
the two had spoken about “the Iranian issue and the Palestinian issue” and had agreed to meet
again once a new government has been formed. Netanyahu described the talks as “deep, important and good.”
"We need to think creatively in order to move forward and create a different reality, both in
terms of security and politically,” Netanyahu said Tuesday.

Clinton Says Israel Can’t ‘Stand Idly By’ Over Gaza

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the U.S. understands Israel’s need to respond to rocket fire on its southern towns from the Gaza Strip and pledged to work with any new Israeli government.

“There is no doubt that any nation including Israel cannot stand idly by while its territory and people are subjected to rocket attacks,” Clinton said after meeting with Israeli President Shimon Peres in Jerusalem today during her first foray into Middle East diplomacy.

Clinton came to Jerusalem from Egypt, where the U.S. and international donors sought to bolster Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who controls the West Bank, and undercut the Hamas movement in the Gaza Strip. Israel fought Hamas two months ago in a 22-day military operation it said was intended to stop rocket attacks.

After parting from Peres, Clinton went straight to Yad Vashem, Israel’s Holocaust remembrance complex. She was escorted by Yisrael Meir Lau, a former Israeli chief rabbi, to a ceremony in the Hall of Remembrance in which she rekindled the eternal flame for the 6 million Jews killed by the Nazis and laid a wreath on a crypt of ashes of Holocaust victims.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is "a good friend of Israel," Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said Tuesday.

Speaking at a joint press conference in Jerusalem, FM Livni said that Clinton had "shown a deep understanding of the needs of Israel," as well as "an understanding of the nature of the threats that we have here in the region"
Noting this week's US decision to boycott an upcoming UN conference on racism, Livni said the move was "symbolic," and added her personal gratitude."
Clinton stressed the "unrelenting" US commitment to Israel's security, specifically criticizing continuing rocket attacks out of the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.
Clinton also discussed the threat from Iran.
"When we talk about engagement with Iran, do not be in any way confused, our goal remains the same: to dissuade and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and continuing to fund terrorism," she said. "Whatever we do will be done thoughtfully in consultation with our friends and Israel, most particularly Israel.

"It's up to the people and the government of Israel to decide how to define your interests," she said.

HELPING HILLARY WHILE KEEPING ISRAEL SAFE

There has been lots of controversy over the Obama handling of the situation so far, even though little has actually been done, up to this point.
The proposed 900 million dollar giveaway to Gaza is not too many people's idea of a good thing, its not mine, at any rate.
We did pull out of Durban II, that was a sign that people are thinking in Washington.
Here's Barry Rubin weighing in on the new Secretary of State.

Michael Blackburn





Gloria Center


Most Israelis are genuinely glad that she was appointed to this job.

By Barry Rubin

March 01, 2009
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has arrived in Israel on the first of what will no doubt be many visits. Beyond the simple self-interest of making her feel appreciated, most Israelis are genuinely glad that she was appointed to this job. The reason why is critical to understanding the future of U.S. Middle East Policy and U.S.-Israel relations.
What is most important is that Clinton is regarded as a realist. She watched her husband try really hard and put his prestige on the line in attempting to achieve an Israeli-Palestinian peace and saw him being made to look foolish by Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat and Syrian ruler Hafiz al-Asad who rejected his proposals. During the presidential campaign she courageously—and to her own cost—tried to explain the dangers to those dreaming only of a fast getaway from Iraq.
Moreover, it’s not just that she spoke positively about Israel—a senator from New York could do no less—but that the way she explained her positions seemed to indicate she really understood the situation.
All things considered, then, one can believe the secretary of state doesn’t accept four myths that some—though not all--of her colleagues in Washington and Europe embrace. She seems to know that:
--The Israel-Palestinian conflict is not the fulcrum of the Middle East whose solution will make Islamism, terrorism, Iran’s nuclear weapons’ program, anti-Western or anti-American sentiments, Iraq’s instability, and all other regional problems disappear.
--The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not easily solvable by pressure, the perfect plan, or hard work. Not only is peace not at hand, it isn’t even at arms’ length.
--Whatever part of the blame for continued conflict is due to Israel, a very large and decisive portion rests on the Palestinian side for reasons including the weakness of the Palestinian Authority and its leadership, the division into Hamas and Fatah regimes, and other issues.
--Bringing Hamas into the negotiating process is a mistake that would doom any chance for peace and might even bring the Palestinian Authority (PA) crashing down altogether. U.S. interests require that the PA survives as recognized Palestinian leader, while Hamas is an Iranian client whose triumph would hurt the U.S. strategic position in the region.
Secretary of State Clinton also knows that the new Israeli government is not yet in place and her first visit must be dedicated to getting acquainted with leaders and issues.
What are the problems for bilateral relations? A critical aspect is that no matter how skeptical Clinton is of the chances for progress, she wants to make it appear that she is actively engaged and making progress. The thing that will make her furious is that which makes her look bad. And she wants Israel to make her look good.
On some items, this is no problem. A high level of cooperation with the PA, supporting funds and military training for it within reason, is in Israel’s interest. The West Bank economic and security situation is improving. Here, Clinton and Israel should agree.
Her next goal is a bit more difficult but reasonable: that Israel should dismantle more settler outposts, as Israel has promised. True, this presents political difficulties and potential confrontations with settlers, yet Israel’s government should assert its authority. A serious effort on this front would bring a positive return from Washington with no cost to Israel’s security.
Beyond this, the United States is likely to ask for Israel to stop expanding settlements, even for natural growth. Since the peace process’s start 16 years ago Israel has publicly asserted that building homes for “natural growth,” new adults on existing settlements, is part of the Oslo agreement.
If this were to change, Clinton could claim a victory of stopping settlements, usually portrayed by the PA as its main grievance, that is, excuse for not doing more itself. Such a concession should not be unthinkable but the question is what would Israel get in exchange? U.S. pressuring the PA to stop officially inspired anti-Israel incitement; changing its schools and media to advocate a two-state solution; greater U.S. backing for Israel’s security regarding Gaza? Asking Israel to do something on the settlement issue is all right if—but only if--there is more real compliance from the Palestinian side.
Finally and importantly there is the question of Gaza. Clinton wants some quick success on that front, namely a ceasefire and resolution of humanitarian problems there. It will be tempting for her to insist that Israel reopens crossings unconditionally, without a real ceasefire or any release of Hamas’s Israeli hostage. And Israel will explain why it has legitimate concerns which must be realized, lest a new war crisis emerge.
Of course, the two governments must begin to reach understandings about Iran. The new administration is determined to try engaging Tehran. Israel must convey the point that Washington should be alert to Iranian efforts to bully or fool the new president. The goal of stopping Iran’s nuclear weapons’ drive has to be the top priority; unilateral concessions in exchange for nothing should be avoided.
And the White House will hopefully not be shy in admitting when it finally concludes that Iran doesn’t want to be friends. President Barack Obama has spoken of opening Iran’s clenched fist. The danger is that Iran will do so only in order to slap America silly.
Early on this administration must comprehend that reputations will not be built, Nobel Peace Prizes won, or Arab and European cooperation won by sacrificing Israel’s vital interests. In exchange, Clinton must see that Israel wants to make her look successful and to cooperate on reasonable terms. On such a basis of understanding and good will a very successful partnership can be built.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center at IDC Herzliya and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs Journal . His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition) and The Truth About Syria.
The Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center
Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya, P.O. Box 167, Herzliya, 46150, Israel
info@gloriacenter.org - Phone: +972-9-960-2736 - Fax: +972-9-960-2736
© 2007 All rights reserved | Terms and Uses | Design By: Studio Cova | Developed By: NekudPsik