Hillary Clinton takes the blame on Benghazi in dramatic appearance before Congress

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | JANUARY 23, 2013

United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on took full responsibility on Wednesday for the attack that killed 11 people, including the U.S. Ambassador in the U.S. consulate in Benghazi last September 11.

Clinton appeared at a hearing before the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and asked its members to work with her successor in office to respond to new threats in North Africa.

Clinton responded to several questions about security problems detected in the consulate in Benghazi, the measures taken to protect the U.S. response to terrorist threats in North Africa, and the reaction from the State Department to prevent similar attacks occur in the future.

“I take full responsibility and no one is more committed than me to learn the lessons of this attack,” said the secretary. Clinton said the State Department created an internal commission to determine the different measures that can prevent a similar attack and repeat all of them, a set of 65 strategic changes will be implemented by March.

“It is absolutely essential that this committee work with the new secretary of state to understand the challenges, that are increasingly complex,” said Clinton.

“You can not say we agree on everything, but let’s focus on what really matters.” Clinton has asked the committee to abandon confrontations such as those surrounding the statements of the U.S. ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, that ended with her refusal to be considered as his replacement at the head of U.S. diplomacy.

The secretary strongly defended the role of Rice and her remarks four days after the attack on the consulate and asked the Senate Republicans to put aside their doubts about the time that that took the Administration to recognize that it was a terrorist attack.

“What difference does that make in a time when the government was still trying to determine the cause of the deaths of four U.S. citizens?” Clinton responded with great anger, and stroke the table with her left hand. “It took several days to get a clear picture of what had happened.”

The head of U.S. diplomacy answered several questions about the security measures taken by the Department to protect its representatives abroad, especially after the instability created by the Arab Spring in various countries in the region, which incidentally was sponsored by the United States government, among other Western nations. The U.S. actually armed much of the opposition that apparently took down Mubarak in Egypt, Gaddafi in Libya and that is now trying to take down Assad in Syria.

Several Republican politicians have argued since then that the secretary rejected requests from various embassies to increase security, something she has rejected by saying that she was “shocked” by such assumptions.

Clinton said at the beginning of her appearance, that the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens “is a personal matter, not just professional” and that she feels responsible for the lives of the 70,000 employees who work for the State Department.

Hillary Clinton had initially refused to appear before Congress alleging she was ill when the request was issued, but she later agreed to appear given growing political and popular demands to have an official explanation of the facts.

The Real Agenda encourages the sharing of its original content ONLY through the tools provided at the bottom of every article. Please DON’T copy articles from The Real Agenda and redistribute by email or post to the web.

EE.UU. ya elige nuevo gobierno para Siria

POR LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | 9 NOVIEMBRE, 2012

El papel de Estados Unidos en el conflicto sirio ha pasado de “no enviaremos soldados” a “vamos a elegir quién será el gobierno después de que Assad sea derrocado”. Mientras los principales medios de comunicación informan de que Washington perdió la paciencia con la labor del Consejo Nacional Sirio, la verdad es que la oposición al gobierno encabezado por Bashar al-Assad ha sido influenciada por las fuerzas occidentales desde el principio.

El Consejo Nacional Sirio, que agrupa a cerca del 60% de la oposición política al régimen es visto como una organización presuntamente fracasada en su intento de lograr un “cambio real” en Siria.

Esto sigue el cambio realizado en la última semana por el Departamento de Estado. “Queremos dejar en claro”, dijo Hillary Clinton en una reciente visita a Croacia. Luego agregó que “el Consejo Nacional Sirio no puede ser considerado como el líder más visible de la oposición.” El mismo tipo de resultado sufrido por el Consejo Nacional Sirio lo sufrió el ex líder libio quien fue asesinado después de que su apoyo occidental perdió la paciencia. Gaddafi fue asesinado en las calles de Libia por presuntos grupos de la oposición que habían sido armados por los Estados Unidos después de que las fuerzas occidentales decidieron que ya era hora de que se fuera.

La declaración de Clinton es vista como un ataque directo contra el movimiento opositor liderado desde el exterior por el Kurdo Abdulbaset Seida, que abandonó Siria y ahora vive en el exilio. El movimiento de oposición en Siria no ha podido llevar a cabo la agenda de Occidente a pesar de la importante ayuda proporcionada por los Estados Unidos y Turquía. El gobierno turco prestó su territorio para crear una revolución que provocaría la caída de Assad, pero el gobierno sirio ha sido capaz de retener el poder. Esta semana, la oposición siria y los líderes rebeldes se reúnen en Qatar para tratar de reconducir la revolución desde el otro lado de la zanja.

El rechazo por parte del departamento de Estado de EE.UU. de la labor realizada hasta ahora por el movimiento de la oposición siria ha cuestionado públicamente el papel de la revolución como una organización en la que la Hermandad Musulmana tiene un lugar prominente.

El jueves pasado, el portavoz del Departamento de Estado, Patrick Ventrell dijo durante una conferencia de prensa que después de muchos meses, el CNS no ha demostrado su capacidad de extender su liderazgo a las grandes áreas del país y otros grupos étnicos”. Según Ventrell, ex embajador de Estados Unidos en Siria, Robert Ford, se comunicó con varias personas para presentar sus nombres a los asistentes a la reunión de Doha, para que puedan ser considerados para puestos de poder dentro del CNS.

“Hemos visto algunos individuos han demostrado liderazgo y quieren ser parte del futuro de Siria”, dijo Ventrell. Diplomáticos de EE.UU. se reunieron con  opositores en la conferencia, pero también lo hicieron con miembros del Ejército Libre Sirio (SLA). Aunque formalmente comandantes rebeldes mantienen la comunicación con el Consejo Nacional Sirio, lo que ha llegado a enviar delegaciones a las zonas confiscadas por el régimen, la dirección de la guerra está en manos de las milicias.

El intento por parte de los EE.UU. para cambiar de dirección no fue bien recibida dentro del CNS. Según Salem Zuhair, miembro de la Hermandad Musulmana, “la tutela directa y dictados de los Estados Unidos son inaceptables para el pueblo sirio.” Mientras hablaba de la necesidad de un cambio de dirección, los Estados Unidos están tratando de obtener apoyo para tal cambio en todo el mundo. Diplomáticos estadounidenses están trabajando en este nuevo enfoque con otros miembros del Grupo de Amigos del pueblo sirio.

Entre los grupos siendo contactados por los gobiernos occidentales está el denominado Comité Nacional de Coordinación para el Cambio Democrático en Siria, que supuestamente tiene una relación estrecha con China y Rusia. Su líder, que vive en París, es un médico y escritor conocido como Haytham Manna. Al parecer, Manna celebró una reunión la semana pasada con el Ministerio español de Asuntos Exteriores.

El Comité, que afirma haber establecido vínculos con algunas brigadas de combatientes en Siria, no tiene una buena relación con el CNS. Manna dice que su plan es lograr un alto el fuego, entablar un diálogo integral, así como promover las negociaciones y la transición sin el actual presidente en el poder. “Bashar al-Assad ha fracasado en los últimos meses para resolver los problemas del país”, dijo Manna. “Él pertenece al pasado”, agregó.

The Real Agenda permite la reproducción del contenido original publicado en el sitio SOLAMENTE a través de las herramientas proporcionadas al final de cada artículo. Por favor NO COPIE contenido de nuestro sitio para redistribuirlo o enviarlo por correo electrónico.

America’s Death Pornography Culture

Celebrating brutal deaths of Muammar Qaddafi and Saddam Hussein.

by Wayne Madsen
Strategic Culture Foundation
November 2, 2011

The United States government and military revel in death and pornographic intimidation. The videos and photographs of howling Iraqis celebrating the hanging of Iraqi president Saddam Hussein after his U.S.-administered kangaroo court trial in Iraq and the physical abuse, alleged sodomizing, and execution of Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi by NATO-armed and directed rebels after his convoy in Sirte was reportedly struck by a U.S. drone-launched missile, exemplify America’s fixation with pornographic death scenes…

The George Walker Bush and Barack Hussein Obama administrations share a fascination for displaying the dead bodies of their vanquished enemies. For Bush, it was the gruesome stone-slabbed corpses of Qusay and Uday Hussein, Saddam’s sons, after they were killed in a firefight with U.S. troops in. That was followed by the body of Saddam after his hanging in.

Of course, it did not suit President Obama to broadcast a photograph of Osama Bin Laden, allegedly killed while resisting arrest in Abbotabad, Pakistan. In the case of Bin Laden, there is a strong reason to believe that Osama’s body could not be shown because there was no body of Osama. Whether an Osama Bin Laden look-a-like was killed or not may never be known, but what is certain is that the Obama administration’s explanation for ”Osama’s” burial at sea from a U.S. aircraft carrier appears dubious.

There was also the curious designation of the operation to kill Bin Laden as “Geronimo.” President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates were in the White House Situation Room when they heard the news from the strike team: “We’ve ID’d Geronimo,” followed by “Geronimo EKIA” or “Geronimo enemy killed in action.”

There was outrage among Native Americans over the designation of Bin Laden as Geronimo. But the code name has its own ghastly history. In 1918, in another macabre display of ghoulishness by America’s political elite, Prescott Bush, the future U.S. senator and father and grandfather of two future presidents, allegedly dug up the grave of the famed Apache leader Geronimo and stole his skull and some bones. The remains are said to be among the prized possession of Yale’s elite and secretive Skull and Bones society, along with the skull of former President Martin van Buren, the only president of the United States who was not in the blood line, close or distant, of the British royal family.

As Qaddafi’s body, along with those of his son, Mo’tassim, and the former Libyan army commander, Abu Bakr Yunis, rotted in a meat freezer in Misrata – for the whole world to see — more details emerged about Qaddafi’s last hours in Sirte. On October 19, at around 8:00 am in Sirte, a convoy of 70 vehicles departed the heavily-bombed out city, heading west. There were also Twitter messages coming out of Sirte reporting that several white flags of surrender were seen in the city at day break. However, a CIA Predator drone tracking the convoy passed its coordinates on to NATO. French and other NATO jets pounded the convoy, incinerating many of the drivers and passengers. Many of those killed were black Libyans. There are now reports of mass graves in Sirte containing the bodies of scores of Qaddafi supporters and fellow tribal members.

There have been some reports that a truce and a surrender by Qaddafi and his forces was worked out between some rebel leaders and Qaddafi’s entourage through the auspices of the Qaddadfa (the tribe to which Qaddafi belonged) tribal leaders in Sirte. After the convoy was on the highway heading west, with reported white flags from some of the vehicles, the motorcade, which was not engaging in fire with rebel or NATO forces, was set upon by NATO forces. Witnesses to the surrender and/or safe passage negotiations will be hard to come by, since one of those murdered in his home in Sirte by Libyan rebels was reportedly the chief of the Qaddadfa tribe who was part of the negotiations for surrender and safe passage.

Reports that Qaddafi and his group were trying to make a dash through the offensive lines around Sirte make no sense since the convoy left after sun up and in broad daylight, when white flags could clearly be seen by the belligerents, and the Twitter messages out of Sirte indicated that rebels, pro-Qaddafi forces, and neutral observers could all see the white flags. If Qaddafi wanted to make a break for it, he would have done so at night with headlights out.

One of the last things Qaddafi is heard asking his captors is “Do you know right from wrong?” If the rebels or NATO reneged on a promise of safe passage and ignored the universally-recognized white flag signifying truce and surrender, it would constitute a gross violation of the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, and would, therefore, be a war crime. Under the conventions, the white flag is protected as a sign that an approaching party intends to surrender or negotiate the terms of surrender. Those displaying a white flag may not fire or be fired upon.

If NATO and the rebels violated the white flag in Sirte, it would represent one of the first major violations of a practice that began with the Eastern Han dynasty in China in the year 25, and was recognized by the Roman Empire, armies during the Middle Ages, and every major and minor nation since. A violation by NATO of the flag of truce would represent a flagrant return to barbarism by the “collective defensive” organization.

Hillary Clinton reacted to news of Qaddafi’s death by chortling like a school girl. Preparing for an interview with CBS News, Clinton, who had just paid a visit to Libya, joked, “We came, we saw, he died.” Other NATO leaders, including Obama, David Cameron, Nicolas Sarkozy, and Anders Fogh Rasmussen, as well as UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who all self-identify themselves as Christians, expressed relief and joy at the news of Qaddafi’s death, a very “un-Christian” trait.

The brutal treatment of Qaddafi and his forces matches the treatment meted out by American forces to detainees in Iraq, including the pornographic abuse of prisoners, including minors, at Abu Ghraib and other prisons. In the report by U.S. Army General Antonio Taguba, there are instances of U.S. guards forcing male and female prisoners into naked and explicit positions, including human piles, and taking photographs and video shots, forcing male prisoners to wear women’s underwear, forcing male prisoners to masturbate while being photographed and videotaped, and sodomizing detainees with broom sticks and chemical lights. One prisoner murdered by U.S. forces, Manadel al-Jamadi, was kept on ice to prevent decomposition and spirited away from investigators to cover up his suffocation by U.S. prison guards.

The abuse at Abu Ghraib continues to have ramifications and has resulted in a lawsuit in California, Ford v. CAARNG (California Army Reserve National Guard). The suit charges that “retired Sergeant Frank G. Ford who, in 2003, was assigned to Iraq with the 223 Military Intelligence Unit under the 205 Military Intelligence Brigade as a Counter Intelligence Agent and Medic, was strapped to a gurney against his will and kidnapped. He was then sent from a war zone [Iraq] to Germany . . . because he reported the torture going on at Abu Ghraib prison as well as the death by torture of a prisoner while in custody.” The suit also alleges that “Ford cared for and treated, as an onsite medic, numerous victims of torture.”

A video currently circulating of a Libyan rebel sodomizing Qaddafi with what appears to be a rifle barrel brings back the scenes of the U.S. house of horrors at Abu Ghraib. Obama’s decision to become judge, jury, and executioner in the death sentences (“targeted killings”) carried out by a CIA drone flying over Yemen on September 30, on U.S. citizens Anwar al Awalaki (a former Islamic confidante of the Pentagon), and Samir Khan, and an additional October 14 drone strike in Yemen that killed Awlaki’s teenage son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, also a U.S. citizen, reinforces a growing belief that Obama lords over a voodoo-like death cult that has taken over U.S. military and foreign policy.

By word and action, the U.S. military and its NATO underlings have discarded thousands of years of chivalric military tradition, common practices, and law against a backdrop of ghoulish and pornographic behavior.

China: The New Bin Laden

Paul Craig Roberts
May 12, 2011

George Orwell, the pen name by which Eric Blair is known, had the gift of prophecy, or else blind luck. In 1949 in his novel, 1984, he described the Amerika of today and, I fear, also his native Great Britain, which is no longer great and follows Washington, licking the jackboot and submitting to Washington’s hegemony over England and Europe and exhausting itself financially and morally in order to support Amerikan hegemony over the rest of the world.

In Orwell’s prophecy, Big Brother’s government rules over unquestioning people, incapable of independent thought, who are constantly spied upon. In 1949 there was no Internet, Facebook, twitter, GPS, etc. Big Brother’s spying was done through cameras and microphones in public areas, as in England today, and through television equipped with surveillance devices in homes. As everyone thought what the government intended for them to think, it was easy to identify the few who had suspicions.

Fear and war were used to keep everyone in line, but not even Orwell anticipated Homeland Security feeling up the genitals of air travelers and shopping center customers. Every day in people’s lives, there came over the TV the Two Minutes of Hate. An image of Emmanuel Goldstein, a propaganda creation of the Ministry of Truth, who is designated as Oceania’s Number One Enemy, appeared on the screen. Goldstein was the non-existent “enemy of the state” whose non-existent organization, “The Brotherhood,” was Oceania’s terrorist enemy. The Goldstein Threat justified the “Homeland Security” that violated all known Rights of Englishmen and kept Oceania’s subjects “safe.”

Since 9/11, with some diversions into Sheik Mohammed and Mohamed Atta, the two rivals to bin Laden as the “Mastermind of 9/11,” Osama bin Laden has played the 21st century roll of Emmanuel Goldstein. Now that the Obama Regime has announced the murder of the modern-day Goldstein, a new demon must be constructed before Oceania’s wars run out of justifications.

Hillary Clinton, the low-grade moron who is US Secretary of State, is busy at work making China the new enemy of Oceania. China is Amerika’s largest creditor, but this did not inhibit the idiot Hilary from, this week in front of high Chinese officials, denouncing China for “human rights violations” and for the absence of democracy.

While Hilary was enjoying her rant and displaying unspeakable Amerkan hypocrisy, Homeland Security thugs had organized local police and sheriffs in a small town that is the home of Western Illinois University and set upon peaceful students who were enjoying their annual street party. There was no rioting, no property damage, but the riot police or Homeland Security SWAT teams showed up with sound cannons, gassed the students and beat them. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufKv-5t0t4E

Indeed, if anyone pays any attention to what is happening in Amerika today, a militarized police and Homeland Security are destroying constitutional rights of peaceful assembly, protest, and free speech.

For practical purposes, the U.S. Constitution no longer exists. The police can beat, taser, abuse, and falsely arrest American citizens and experience no adverse consequences.

The executive branch of the federal government, to whom we used to look to protect us from abuses at the state and local level, acquired the right under the Bush regime to ignore both US and international law, along with the US Constitution and the constitutional powers of Congress and the judiciary. As long as there is a “state of war,” such as the open-ended “war on terror,” the executive branch is higher than the law and is unaccountable to law. Amerika is not a democracy, but a country ruled by an executive branch Caesar.

Hillary, of course, like the rest of the U.S. Government, is scared by the recent International Monetary Fund (IMF) report that China will be the most powerful economy in five years.

Just as the military/security complex pressured President John F. Kennedy to start a war with the Soviet Union over the Cuban missile crisis while the US still had the nuclear advantage, Hillary is now moving China into the role of Emmanuel Goldstein. Hate has to be mobilized, before Washington can move the ignorant patriotic masses to war.

How can Oceania continue if the declared enemy, Osama bin Laden, is dead. Big Brother must immediately invent another “enemy of the people.”

But Hillary, being a total idiot, has chosen a country that has other than military weapons. While the Amerikans support “dissidents” in China, who are sufficiently stupid to believe that democracy exists in Amerika, the insulted Chinese government sits on $2 trillion in US dollar-denominated assets that can be dumped, thus destroying the US dollar’s exchange value and the dollar as reserve currency, the main source of US power.

Hillary, in an unprecedented act of hypocrisy, denounced China for “human rights violations.” This from a country that has violated the human rights of millions of victims in our own time in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, secret CIA prisons dotted all over the planet, in US courts of law, and in the arrests and seizure of documents of American war protestors. There is no worst violator of human rights on the planet than the US government, and the world knows it.

The hubris and arrogance of US policymakers, and the lies that they inculcate in the American public, have exposed Washington to war with the most populous country on earth, a country that has a military alliance with Russia, which has sufficient nuclear weapons to wipe out all life on earth. The scared idiots in Washington are desperate to set up China as the new Osama bin Laden, the figure of two minutes of hate every news hour, so that the World’s Only Superpower can take out the Chinese before they surpass the US as the Number One Power.

No country on earth has a less responsible government and a less accountable government than the Americans. However, Americans will defend their own oppression, and that of the world, to the bitter end.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts is the father of Reaganomics and the former head of policy at the Department of Treasury. He is a columnist and was previously an editor for the Wall Street Journal. His latest book, “How the Economy Was Lost: The War of the Worlds,” details why America is disintegrating.

We Can’t Legalize Drugs Because ‘There Is Just Too Much Money in It’

stopthedrugwar.org
by Scott Morgan
February 02, 2011

In an interview on Monday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave a very precise demonstration in how to dramatically misconstrue the fundamentals of drug prohibition. It’s one of those perfectly incoherent explanations that would be almost comedic if it weren’t for the tens of thousands who get murdered in the streets thanks to logic like this.

QUESTION: In Mexico, there are those who propose not keeping going with this battle and legalize drug trafficking and consumption. What is your opinion?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I don’t think that will work. I mean, I hear the same debate. I hear it in my country. It is not likely to work. There is just too much money in it, and I don’t think that – you can legalize small amounts for possession, but those who are making so much money selling, they have to be stopped. They can’t be given an even easier road to take, because they will then find it in their interest to addict even more young people. Mexico didn’t have much of a drug problem before the last 10 years, and you want to keep it that way. So you don’t want to give any excuse to the drug traffickers to be able legally to addict young people.

That’s interesting, because I don’t see the drug cartels taking over the coffee trade, even though it’s more addictive than space-meth and grows vigorously on the hillsides of Colombia. I can’t help but wonder what everyone on the left would say if this preposterous analysis came from Sarah Palin, rather than Hillary Clinton. It’s the sort of profound nonsense that ought to get you skewered by Jon Stewart, yet our Secretary of State will almost certainly get a free pass on misunderstanding literally everything about the escalating violence below our border.

(Transcript)

QUESTION: So about Mexico, you said recently it’s looking more and more like Colombia looked 20 years ago, where the narcotraffickers controlled certain parts of the country. These drug cartels are actually more and more indices of insurgency. What do you understand by narcoinsurgency?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I think that every situation is different, and certainly Mexico is not Colombia, Mexico is not the United States. We have to analyze every situation. But both Mexico and the United States have a series of transnational threats that we have to confront. The drug traffickers are a transnational threat and they cross borders. They have, unfortunately, set up business in your country, in my country. So we have to see it not just as something that is local but is something that has unfortunate tentacles that go outside, which means we have to work together to try to eliminate it.

QUESTION: But the word insurgency – I mean, do you have evidence of an alliance taking place between organized crime cartels and subversive groups seeking to overthrow the Mexican Government, for instance?

SECRETARY CLINTON: No, no, no. And that was not my intent with that word. That was not at all what I intended. What I was intending to say, and appreciate the chance to clarify that, is that the techniques that are used now by drug traffickers, unfortunately, resemble other threats around the world that we see: the barbaric, horrific amount of violence, the communication capabilities that they now have, how heavily armed they are. They are armed like the military now, unfortunately. So it’s not in a sort of geostrategic sense but in sort of tactical – some similarities.

QUESTION: Okay. Do you consider that the violence in our country is something that threatens national security in your country?

SECRETARY CLINTON: No, I consider it more of a problem that we have some responsibility for that’s affecting our neighbor. And therefore, we have to take not only the responsibility, but also offer assistance so that the people of Mexico can have the security that Mexicans deserve. And this is not a national security issue in a traditional sense. It’s a border security issue, and for that reason it’s something we take very seriously. It’s an organized crime issue, and we just had this huge roundup of organized crime figures in the United States. And we’re working closely with our counterparts so that we can try to prevent these drug traffickers and organized criminals from hurting Mexicans or Americans.

QUESTION: But what are your plans to face this threat? I mean, we know you’re helping our country to restore peace, or trying to restore peace, in Ciudad Juarez. Exactly what are you doing?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, what we’re doing is providing assistance to law enforcement, equipment, building capacity. But we’re also working with the Mexican Government on the reform of the judiciary that President Calderon has begun on building a stronger corrections system so that when criminals are caught they can be detained, and having a prosecution system that uses all the modern techniques in order to put these people behind bars. We believe that you can’t just have a law enforcement response. You have to have a broader, more comprehensive approach, and that is what President Calderon is taking.

QUESTION: Okay. In several occasion, you have recognized that the partial explanation to the violence in Mexico can be found in the elevated drug consumption and the tolerance towards arms selling in your country. The consumption has not diminished. On the contrary, I hear it’s, like, reached a historical maximum and arms selling continue. And it’s very unlikely that it would – this will change. So why would – should we continue giving this battle? And when I say we, it’s like our country, Mexico.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we are making some progress. There has been some decrease in drug use. But more than that, there’s been greater cooperation across the border. We are stopping more people and finding not only drugs, but guns, money for money laundering. We have much better law enforcement cooperation across the border. I don’t think either of us could do this without working with the other. And I don’t think either of us wants to let a drug kingpin and his gang behead people or addict people on either side of the border.

QUESTION: In Mexico, there are those who propose not keeping going with this battle and legalize drug trafficking and consumption. What is your opinion?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I don’t think that will work. I mean, I hear the same debate. I hear it in my country. It is not likely to work. There is just too much money in it, and I don’t think that – you can legalize small amounts for possession, but those who are making so much money selling, they have to be stopped. They can’t be given an even easier road to take, because they will then find it in their interest to addict even more young people. Mexico didn’t have much of a drug problem before the last 10 years, and you want to keep it that way. So you don’t want to give any excuse to the drug traffickers to be able legally to addict young people.

QUESTION: But in the United States there [is] more and more tolerance for marijuana, right?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: So this doesn’t seem right. Like the tolerance in the United States, and here we are killing each other for this product.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, the tolerance is in a very limited arena. It is for medical –

QUESTION: Medical use.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Medical use. And there are lots of regulations on it. So it’s not accurate to say, as I’ve heard some say, well, we’re legalizing marijuana. We are not. We are – the biggest – we have more people incarcerated, unfortunately, than any country in the world, and most of them are there because of some drug-related offense. So we know that this is not an easy struggle. We’ve been at it ourselves. But we also believe that you have to keep the pressure on the criminals; otherwise, they will just expand their operations, and then you do have to worry about more corruption, more problems with institutions.

QUESTION: Okay, thank you very much.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you very much.