U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX) has wisely proposed that Mexico’s drug cartels be designated “terrorist organizations.”
McCaul’s proposal makes a good deal of sense given the complete lack of respect for human life and viscous violence employed by cartel thugs. Cartel beheadings and other terrorist tactics bear uncanny resemblance to Al-Quaeda and Osama bin Laden.
Recently, The Dallas Morning News published an editorial entitled “Let’s call Mexico’s drug cartels what they are: terrorists.” The editorial made a solid argument for supporting McCaul’s idea.
That editorial apparently did not set too well with the Mexican ambassador to the U.S., a dim-witted chap by the name of Arturo Sarukhan.
With righteous indignation flowing through his nostrils, Sarukhan fired off a missive to the newspaper protesting the use of the term “terrorist” with respect to Mexican drug cartel bosses who, in his worthless opinion, are simply good, hearted, hard-working business folks gone amuck.
In what can only be described as a historic and hysterical case of simple-minded blathering, the beleaguered ambassador wasted 182 words to remove all doubt as to his lack of intelligence and the extent to which his sick, deprived mind has decayed.
The ambassador wrote, and the newspaper published, the following trite:
“The editorial should be better headed "Let's Call Mexico's cartels what they are: very violent, well-financed transnational criminal organizations."
“These transnational criminal organizations, which operate in both our countries, are not terrorist organizations. They are very violent criminal groups that are well-structured and well-financed. They pursue a single goal. They want to maximize their profits and do what most business do: hostile takeovers and pursue mergers and acquisitions. They use violence to protect their business from other competitors as well as from our two governments' efforts to roll them back.
There is no political motivation or agenda whatsoever beyond their attempt to defend their illegal business.”
Misunderstanding the challenge we face leads to wrong policies and bad policy making. If you label these organizations as terrorist, you will have to start calling drug consumers in the U.S. "financiers of terrorist organizations" and gun dealers "providers of material support to terrorists." Otherwise, you really sound as if you want to have your cake and eat it too. That's why I would underscore that the editorial page should be careful what it advocates for.”
Arturo Sarukhan, Ambassador of Mexico to the U.S., Washington, D.C
-------------------------------------------------------
Sarukhan’s concern for “wrong policies and bad policy making,” is understandable, given the fact that President Calderon and his Mexican government is losing the war to the drug cartels, after five long years of brutal fighting.
Scores of thousands of Mexican citizens have been butchered like swine by the “business” folk who specialize in drugs and murder, while Mexico has declined even further into the abyss of a third-world, failed state.
Perhaps its time to reboot YOUR vocabulary, Mr. Ambassador, and recognize the cartel bosses for the heathen terrorists that they are?
Call them terrorists and treat them as such and the direction of the war might change course!
Pity that Sarukhan cannot rely on his brethren and sisters in America for better definitions. Unfortunately, our addled president refuses to use the term terrorism when describing the cut-throat Muslim gang from Saudi Arabia, those middle-eastern males that killed 3,000 Americans on September 11, 2001.
And President Obama is joined in words of abuse and denial by Janet Napolitano who refuses to call invading criminals from Mexico illegal aliens, opting instead to mislabel said miscreants “Newly arrived refugees.”
How about a compromise? Let’s call drug cartel bosses “undocumented murderous thugs with terrorist proclivities?”
