But I'll some give credit where credit is due. From the New York Times.
A group of men agreed to assist the Taliban in a conspiracy to ship narcotics through West Africa to the United States and with the proceeds buy weapons for use against American forces in Afghanistan, federal prosecutors in Manhattan announced on Monday.I'm against people seeing weapons to kill US soldiers. There. How's that for a non-controversial statement?
The charges stemmed from a sting operation run by the Drug Enforcement Administration, in which paid informants posed as representatives of the Taliban and discussed arrangements for the proposed drugs and weapons deals with the accused conspirators in meetings in West Africa and Eastern Europe.
“This alleged effort to arm and enrich the Taliban,” [US Attorney] Mr. Bharara said, “is the latest example of the dangers of an interconnected world in which terrorists and drug runners can link up across continents to harm Americans.”
Of course, and I guess it needs to be said once again: Drugs wouldn't be supporting terrorists if these drugs were legal and regulated and taxed. It really is that simple. We can support terrorists and have drug prohibition; or we could legalize and regulate the drug trade and not give support to terrorists. That's the choice we make. Personally, I'd pick the latter. Apparently, that makes me crazy.