BajaNomad

Rizzo's account of PRI control of drugs in Mexico

Iflyfish - 3-1-2011 at 08:24 AM

http://www.borderlandbeat.com/2011/02/socrates-rizzo-pri-pre...

Woooosh - 3-1-2011 at 10:22 AM

I think we can safely presume everyone who could get money from the drug trade, is or was getting money from the drug trade. Regardless of party. No one wanted to be left out and I haven't sen a long list of politicians being jailed for it--- so it goes on. Too much money in it to stop it.

Iflyfish - 3-1-2011 at 10:55 AM

This article connects a lot of historical dots and clearly elaborates on the depth of institutionalization of the drug trade.

The "War on Drugs" is another very lucrative, institutionalized enterprise and one that will also be hard to stop.

Is there any alternative?

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.ht...

Iflyfishscratchingmyhead

durrelllrobert - 3-1-2011 at 11:10 AM

interesting quote from the artticle:
"Previous classified statements that Sócrates Rizzo made to the Monterrey U.S. Consul General in cable 09MONTERREY31 and revealed by Wikileaks show that pacts between political figures of all parties and drug cartels are possible even now"

bajajazz - 3-1-2011 at 11:15 AM

Thanks for posting this link, Ifly. Very revealing information. Seems like Edomex's "golden boy" is not all that golden, just a bit better than the scum that waits in the wings. Surprised that Carmen Aristegui is still above ground .. . that little lady gets around and tells it like it is.

Bajahowodd - 3-1-2011 at 05:21 PM

On some level, we can conclude that the Calderon war on drugs is, and will be just about as successful as the US war on drugs. The only real question I have, and I really do see what was going on back then, is just what was the compelling issue to start this exercise in futility?

JESSE - 3-1-2011 at 05:24 PM

The supposed statement by Rizzo, was proven to be false.

DENNIS - 3-1-2011 at 09:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JESSE
The supposed statement by Rizzo, was proven to be false.


Any details to go with that?

JESSE - 3-1-2011 at 10:03 PM

Rizzo did not say the PRI controlled the drug trade or the cartels, he said the PRI had stronger presidents, and governors who where accountable to the president, and thus could control crime better.

His words where twisted around, he never said the PRI controlled drugs.

Iflyfish - 3-2-2011 at 04:10 PM

Well, I guess that resolves that. I must have been drinking the Koolaide during those days?! Must have been confused along with a whole lot of other people. Guess the governments hands were clean on that one. Whew!
What Rizzo paints is a picture of how drugs were dealt with. A complicit agreement that territories were divided up and therefore violent confrontation and competition was kept at bay. Have I misread what he said? I read here a discription of how various players interacted to manage this highly profitable enterprise.
I read what he is saying as a critique of the current approach to dealing with this issue. I read him as saying that the PRI had a better handle on it but that was then and now is now and the ballgame changed when Fox and now Calderon decided to do the War on Drugs Dance. Maybe my reaing of this is wrong. Did I miss something?

Iflyfishsometimesdrinkingkoolaideatthesametimeappartently

Bajahowodd - 3-2-2011 at 04:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Iflyfish
Well, I guess that resolves that. I must have been drinking the Koolaide during those days?! Must have been confused along with a whole lot of other people. Guess the governments hands were clean on that one. Whew!
What Rizzo paints is a picture of how drugs were dealt with. A complicit agreement that territories were divided up and therefore violent confrontation and competition was kept at bay. Have I misread what he said? I read here a discription of how various players interacted to manage this highly profitable enterprise.
I read what he is saying as a critique of the current approach to dealing with this issue. I read him as saying that the PRI had a better handle on it but that was then and now is now and the ballgame changed when Fox and now Calderon decided to do the War on Drugs Dance. Maybe my reaing of this is wrong. Did I miss something?

Iflyfishsometimesdrinkingkoolaideatthesametimeappartently


Although there has been some debate on this issue, my take is that since both Fox and Calderon are members of PAN, and PAN can be considered a more conservative business oriented party, they just were not able to relate with and to the cartels.