Robert Naiman ignores the most important element of this situation that would otherwise drift away harmlessly in the news cycle: the US sponsorship of the assassinations. Without satellite reconnaissance, Uribe would not have been able to locate Reyes and his group, much less catch them with their pants down.

Obviously, Uribe acted with the guidance and complicity of the US and is following through with a flurry of false allegations targeting Chavez.

He killed not two, but three birds with one stone: 1. he scuttled negotiations with the FARC, which were threatening a political accommodation with the radical left. Reyes was acknowledged internationally for his diplomatic skill 2. he enhanced his image with his own constituency 3. he goaded Chavez into an aggressive posture and laid the propaganda basis for branding him as a sponsor of terrorism.

Columbia is a US client state. If Uribe is a complete fool he will follow the script he's been given and provoke a US proxy war with Venezuela, which is the purpose of this operation.

Let's hope Uribe has a little common sense.

I am going to be really worried when Hillary gets that 3 a.m. phone call - or any phone call, for that matter. She says that she speaks for the American people and not special interests, but her statement is clearly geared towards anti-Chavez, pro-war constituencies. Maybe like her husband Bill did, she'll just bomb the hell out of people, so that her defense cronies will continue to support her. War is big business - diplomacy does not make anyone rich (though fewer people die that way).

from the youth camp. It's a bitch living in the belly of the empire while the grown-ups play Obama vs Clinton vs McCain vs bush 1 & 2. Let's see how old am I now, have lost my tribe as well as my childhood. Cindy Sheehan I love you, you are my last hope and god bless you for your camp outside Crawford. That was pretty gutsy here in Texas where I'm stuck. I also spent most of my childish life reading Molly Ivins, bless her dear departed spirit. Lizard, I mostly read you here and intuitively trust you. Please don't let me down.

Obama seeks to oppose the Bush/McCain foreign policy-for-the-sake-of-multinational corporations' insanity by distinguishing himself from it. He needs to dothis more; and the movements need to create an atmosphere that more enables him to do this. Clinton seeks to oppose Bush/McCain foreign policy insanity by matching it; witness the Iraq War vote, the Iran vote, comments on Chavez, little willingness to talk with our "adversaries", etc. to show that she's a "real man" on foreign policy, & therefore, not "weak on national security" when the red phone rings at 3am.

I can see I'm going to be in a minority here, but I can't understand why Ecuador gets a free pass. If that country deliberately allowed FARC to use its territory as a base or safe haven or HQ for attacks inside Colombia, that's a violation of Colombian sovereignty. Ecuador had a duty to disarm and intern or expel any foreign belligerents operating on its territory.

The US has been in Ecuador's shoes. Before the Civil War, John Walker launched several filibuster expeditions to invade Central America (the origin of our word for blocking votes in the Senate). Shortly after our Civil War, a large band of Fenians, i.e. Irish Republicans, used US territory to invade Canada. They managed to win one small battle against a local territorial unit, then pulled back. Only after their retreat did the US government stop further attacks. Fortunately, the British were more patient with us than Colombia has been with the Ecuadorans.

As every progressive keeps saying "Nader is the only candidate espousing progressive ideas, like it or not. He is the only game in town that does not seem bought and paid for by the corporate oligarchy."

This not to demean Paul or Gravel, but their respective parties will make sure they are not THE presidential candidate.

How do I join the Ecuadorian army? It was only about 160 years ago that some unnamed people on the coast of Ecuador saved my ggggrandfather's life. I owe it to them. The U.S. is denying involvement, so how can it marginalize my citizenship. I mean that's if they'll have me, maybe it's not a place for retired geezer lawyers and what I need is a smoke?

Hilly Clinton is showing her true colors. .She is a ruthless jingoistic politician. The CIA and the NeoCons Gang are instigating a South American War to destabilize this Oil Rich Region. This will probably drive the price of a barrel of Crude Oil to $200+++

The United States should keep out of South American politics. .We are a broken Military Power. .Our Economy is a disasterous recession. .War anywhere in the world can easily push the United States into a DEPRESSION.

Hillary could be worse than George W. Bush !!!!!!

I plead innocent to the charge of "giving a ringing endorsement to Obama." It wasn't my intention, and I feel confident, re-reading the piece, that I did not do so. I thought I was pretty clear that he was glossing over Colombia's flagrant violation of Ecuador's sovereignty. See the headline.

On the other hand, we're talking about the potential President of the United States, a position of awesome power, for which those of us in the U.S. have tremendous responsibility, whether we like it or not. In this context, there's a huge difference between "wrong" and "wrong plus gratuitously provocative." It's a distinction with real-world consequences, so if you care about real-world consequences, you have to care about the distinction.

I am an American living and working in Colombia on peace issues. I have been very disturbed from the beginning that no politician has mentioned the issue of the violation of sovereignty and Ecuador's legal and diplomatic case in this argument. I don't expect anything less from the current administration. However, the candidates for the Democratic nomination, and I am an Obama supporter so he in particular, should be making this clear in their statements. This is particualrly true since they are presenting themselves as champions of a different face of US international policy which more seriously embraces diplomacy. Uribe should be clearly told to sit down with Correa and resolve this, admitting the violation. As the author notes, US policy in Latin America is pushing potential allies, regardless of their left-leaning politics, toward their only other option - Chavez. This can only be divisive.

I will soon have to stop reading Common Dreams. Obama's statement is clearly unacceptable if one is going to have a process based on peace and justice. Columbia is the one that violated internatinal law. Yet because they violated in a manner that the US would have done, pre-emptive strike against a 'socialist' entity, the US has no problems with it.

The outcome of the two statements is identical. This is another example of Obama whitewashing. The democratic party does not get my support this time around either.

so it goes...

Americans will support this barbarity on the grounds that FARC are drug dealers and terrorists. The fact that the Colombian government subsists on drug dealing and terror will totally escape them. they will not know about the massacres carried out by paramilitary forces that specialize in killing teachers, union leaders and peasant organizers. As usual, they will give their support based on ignorance and shallow thinking. And the beat goes on...Before Bush leaves the White House, if he leaves at all, he will engineer the death of hundreds of thousands more, if not millions. The whole world is watching...

The time to march is NOW.

There is one difference that stands out between the statements of Obama and Clinton. Clinton's singles out Chavez of Venezuela for attack, whereas Obama's does not.

Obama is running as a centrist Democrat which is the only way he can win in the present distorted reality. Obama's statement does not challenge existing US policy, but Clinton's is positively aggressive, in keeping with her unconscionable (she knows better) Orwellian characterization of the democratically-elected Chavez, who has not done one action against the United States nor threatened any, as a "dictator".

Democrats: Clinton is toxic. Obama is less certainly toxic, and in that is the possibility of hope. Polls also show Obama beating McCain in swing states such as Florida, against Clinton losing to McCain in Florida. Obama is the most exciting candidate for the Democrats to put forward in a long time, and it will be tragic if Democrats blow this one. Rush Limbaugh's (serious) urging yesterday of Texas Republicans to vote for Clinton is a clue that Republicans WANT to run against Clinton because they believe they can beat Clinton. The Obama phenomenon was unexpected, more of a wild card, and in that is the ray of hope.

From the statements above Clinton is setting the stage for war against Chavez. How else to interpret her inflammatory, propagandistic, factually incorrect, and unretracted characterization of "dictator" applied to Chavez recently, followed by today's extravagant rhetorical attack upon Chavez in the aftermath of US-sponsored Columbia's aggression?

Clinton is a warmonger. Obama is a hopemonger. This is not to say Obama's voting record is perfect; it is not. There are no perfect candidates who are electable. The question is a different one: who is the best hope for being an American Gorbachev? With Clinton, zero chance. With Obama ... something above zero. And Obama is better able to bring about regime change in November of Bush-Cheney Republicanism of which McCain will be a continuation.

FARC may decide they have no choice but to execute the hostages. This could then lead to an attack by Colombia upon Ecuador and Venezuela and war. Colombia drafts its soldiers. They have no choice but to die for the leaders (US). Here, once again, we see American brutality in action.

Why does FARC exist? because the liberals and conservatives of Colombia decided to change the system and alternate the government among themselves. Liberal president to be always followed by a conservative. In other words, democracy vanished, leaving armed struggle as the only alternative for gaining power. The deal has ended now, but the system is still owned by the rich and the US. FARC exists in Colombia because democracy doesn't.

With every passing day I like Clinton less and less. She would be a disaster as president, no better than McCain.

Oh, and ruminluv, it isn't ironic that the right wing death squads have ties to drug running, it's business as usual. Drug running is used by many US allies and by the CIA to finance their nefarious plots.

Obama's response to the border incursion by the Columbian military is absolutely the correct response. His statement respecting this situation is "constructive diplomatic speak" that is both proper and practical for all parties concerned.

Firstly, He correctly chastised FARC for its "four decades of brutal terrorist insurgency" that's resulted in suffering & hardship on the people of Columbia. He made it absolutely clear that there is no justification for the military actions carried out by FARC on Columbian soil. It is a violation of international law.

Secondly, Obama stated that: "The recent targeted killing of a senior FARC leader must not be used as a pretense to ratchet up tensions or to threaten the stability of the region". Again, more "constructive diplomatic speak"; words that are measured and appropriate given the complex nature of this international incident. In other words, Columbia can't justify a preimminent cross-border on FARC because it was a direct violation of international law.

Thirdly, Obama ties it all together with his statement that: "The presidents of Colombia, Ecuador and Venezuela have a responsibility to ensure that events not spiral out of control, and to peacefully address any disputes through active diplomacy with the help of international actors." This statement rightfully moves the this touchy issue to the U.N. and other international parties who can act as intermediaries. The current U.S. position is untenable.

Lastly, Obama's brilliant response addresses the concerns of all parties involved in this unfortunate conflict. It gives "wiggle room" to all parties, and opens the door for diplomatic negotions. This demonstrates his "correct judgement" vs Hillary's hawkish experience, wherein her response to this conflict is stiff and totally inflexible.

As President, Obama will use our country's unparalled position as a ranking member of the OAS (and as leader of the free world) to solve disputes in a pragmatic way, promote economic growth in the Western Hemisphere, and recapture the respect, honor and dignity that's been totally absent throughout the Bush-Clinton-Bush eras.

Clinton's hawkish response is an excellent example of why she must not get to the White House. She has little understanding of foreign affairs, and can be counted on to adopt a xenophobic, militaristic response. She is certain to continue Bill's and Dubya's imperialistic policies. At least Obama equivocates, I suspect out of political caution.

Chavez seizes oil assets in Venezuela from Conoco Phillips and Exxon Mobil. Chavez agrees to compensate the oil companies but wants Venezuelan control of Venezuelan oil.

The U.S. responds militarily through its agent Columbia and now has a "smoking gun" or "mushroom cloud" assertion against Chavez.

This stinks.

Lets see if the the Internet can prevent war or at least disseminate truth.

Thank you, COMarc and BobK for pointing out what should have been obvious, that both Obama and Clinton are supporting the right of the murderous government of Columbia to cross the border and assassinate opponents in another country. Sort of like Letelier and Moffitt in Washington, DC in 1976.

I was amazed to see that somehow Naiman and the first posters had turned miniscule differences in language and emphasis into a ringing endorsement of Obama!

By the way, I used to work with an ex-sniper from the Marines. (Unrepentant). He killed in Iraq and Columbia. When I said, "Well, you were killing the good guys in Columbia" (my knee jerk anti-facism) He said "They're all bad guys" When I acknowledged that he may have had a point, he did admit "But I did wonder why they would point out this guy to kill, but not that guy"

So the US is much more involved in the murders in Columbia than is acknowledged. And stopping negotiations with bombing is what the US does. Also, keeping hostages longer for political purpose. Case in point - William Casey has credibly been fingered as making a deal with the Iranian hostage takers to keep them until after Reagan was elected. This, coupled with daily reminders to the American people that there were hostages in Iran, is credited with costing Carter the election.

If the US is so worried about their hostages, why do we not have daily updates on these three hostages that I have never heard of in Columbia?

Great article.

It is true that FARC are not exactly role models for myself or others who follow nonviolent methods; but, in our schools and corporate media the history of Colombia disappears. The insurgency has had to retreat for cover because when they tried to get elected, they were assassinated in massive numbers. Killed not only by the military, but especially by paramilitary death squads (like El Salvador--the salvador solution)who in large part were the military on their time off. Uribe himself arose from the large landowner/paramilitary background. To this day, it takes great courage in Colombia to serve as a human rights worker, union organizer, or run for office as a leftist.

Colombia's problems have been exacerbated by Plan Colombia, begun by Bill Clinton, and embraced and increased by W. Ostensibly, to fight drugs, it has used our tax $ to send endless amounts of weaponry to the military, which often winds up in the hands of the paramilitary right wing death squads, which ironically also have strong ties, as have many right wing legislators, to the drug trade. Many FARC members and sympathizers languish in prison; and, while, reprehensible the main motive behind FARC kidnappings is to ceate prisoner exchanges. And, this is what Chavez and Reyes, from the safety of Ecuador, were working on. When Reyes and his companions were in fact were massacred by the Bush-backed Colombian bombers and invaders. See venezuelanalysis.com.

I can't pretend to know the real feelings of Obama. But, the corporate media have created a context in which it is impossible for him to speak the truth, just as with Israel. You've seen what they've done to Kucinich and Edwards; and, they're already doing it somewhat to Obama by uncritically amplifying Clinton and McCain. He has to lay it between the lines by not outright condemning Chavez.

VIVA CHAVEZ ... VIVA CORREA and R.I.P. RAUL REYES
... and now with visions of those evil creatures in my government obsessively manipulating anyone or anything for their GREEDOHOLIC* intentions for the most U.S.-connected GREEDOHOLIC* Corporations to control every valuable resource on the planet no matter what the cost to others ... I now will go stick my finger down my throat and envision my spew splattering all over the expensive, shiny shoes, including C. Rice's cavalry-style black boots, of these creatures.

[*thank you, the commentor who suggested GREEDOHOLIC and GREEDOHOLICISM at the end of another essay on CD a few days ago]

How we all have been caught up in this nightmare dream, the nightmare vocabulary, the nightmare consequences of others' insanities, and the NIGHTMARE LIES ... that what is being perpetrated is for the PUBLIC GOOD ... OUR GOOD, OUR SECURITY, OUR PROSPERITY, OUR FREEDOM ... and all the wars and attacks and invasions are generated for OUR PROTECTION and for the PROTECTION of our innocent allies AND for the PROTECTION of those people of those countries we decide to attack or are currently attacking. Now that last is TOTAL INSANITY.

But we discuss all the INSANITIES ad nauseum, ad enough already! finger-stuck-down-the-throat time. And we ourselves obsessively discuss INSANITIES as sanely as we can, but, I think, that is a form of Insanity too. Or maybe I just speak for myself when my eyes have glazed over and I feel sick at what I've read.

But INSANITY is what we are dealing with, not just some lil' ol' contentious political difference. And as we know ... and as we wait ... INSANE people can be unpredictable and very dangerous. And who we are ... of the people they don't know, they could care less!

How do we stop cooperating with this INSANITY? How do we stop giving it life? And instead, not cooperate with it right where we are standing, examining all that we do, all that we are saying, all that we buy ... and seriously changing our patterns, the ones that feed the INSANITY.

What if we and our closest kin and friends mutually agreed to transform our lives in little and big ways so as not to feed the INSANITY any longer. What if we consciously created little clusters of LIFE-AFFIRMING SANITIES and inspired others to do the same.

To put it bluntly, we are governed by a mere handful of NUTZED-UP SCHMUCKS. As a relatively small population of a little more than 301 million people we, as consumers, buy and use and take about 30 per cent of what the world has to offer.

Could we as individuals and as clusters of LIFE-AFFIRMING SANITIES get that number down by 10 or 15 per cent in our own lives?

There's all kinds of ways to do it. We're in the middle of a CRASH now ... Some of us don't know that yet, but maybe it's time to practice getting used to and having a little less. And maybe in the process helping others to have a little more of the stuff we really don't need.

It would be in our own best interests to support and help those people and those groups here at home and around the world who are truly doing their best to make life better for as many people as possible.

It's your call, if you want to consider intentional changes in your life at all. Whatever works best, you'll find it.

It seems to me that we have to withdraw our support and our attention from those who seem to perversely delight in creating NIGHTMARES wherever they go, and get ourselves out of the darkness and back into the sunlight as the healthest thing we can do for ourselves, for others, for our world ...

peace ...

Genaman, huh? You don't make any sense.

The author is correct that "There is no right in international law to engage in military attacks into another country with which you are not at war if it is not an immediate continuation of an engagement that began within your borders (unless your action is explicitly authorized by the UN Security Council.)"

He's correct again that both Obama and Clinton believe there IS such a right. Obama said, "the Colombian government has every right to defend itself," and Clinton said, "the Colombian state has every right to defend itself."

He goes off track, however, when he claims there is a difference between Obama's call for the countries to "peacefully address any disputes," and Clintons' call for "closer cooperation" between the countries.

That's what's called a "distinction without a difference."

There's no difference between democrats and republicans....Who was it that said that?

Bomb the suckers in oblivion.

Well, that's what I get for freaking out and responding to the headline!

Robert Naiman says "the tactics of the FARC have caused tremendous suffering — as have the tactics of the U.S.-backed Colombian government."

What planet is Naiman from that he equates the Colombian government with FARC, one of the bloodiest guerilla movements on a continent where the standard of "bloody" is fantastically high?

Next Naiman presents Paul Reyes as a "diplomat," because after holding hostages for six years he finally got enough ransom to give them up!

Next, it's harmless for Chavez to mass troops on the border, because... wait for it... the troops are on "its own national territory."

I actually hate Bush, and the "war against drugs" in Colombia is a joke, but Robert Naiman is writing ludicrous propaganda for FARC and Chavez, at a moment when Chavez could blunder Venezuela into a war on the basis on a very minor incursion into Ecuador.

Hillary is still crazy, but Naiman is even crazier to talk about the "diplomacy" of the FARC kidnappers.

Collecting ransom doesn't make you a diplomat!

I did not interpret Clinton's response as an escalation or call for direct US involvement. It did seem to pander to the anti-Hugo rhetoric going around.

We need to redefine- right here- our language and definition of 'us'.

We need no princes or priests. A President will not give us freedom. We only can give that to ourselves. Who would Jesus choose? (your own self, if you wanted an answer)

pres bush and v.p. cheney only care about control of oil resources....they are mad at chavez because they can't control him...OR HIS OIL INDUSTRY !if chavez approached bush or cheney about an oil deal...THEY WOULD LOVE HIM !

Just because nobody has a good reason to believe that Cliton and Obama are better than the Rpubs on foreign policy doesn't mean they aren't better. I believe they are -- and so should you! So don't spoil by voting for Nader with his near perfect record of supporting workers, the environment, and consumers. You should vote for 'hope' -- and then hope for the best.

Clinton Calls for Escalation Against Venezuela!

Forget about discussion!

Hillary Clinton is crazy!

What was Ecuador doing hosting a camp by FARC's second in command?

Obama is a fraud from the word go. Vote for Ralph Nader.

Obama saw a fight and said first and foremost: Whoaa... First acknowledge that yes there is a problem and then deal with it. Don't go around blaming without first having all facts out on the table. Acknowledge that there are things to sort out like the readers are sorting out here on CD and go for it. Find a solution. Don't demonize and chart a course just because the people of America are trained to expect blood right away whenever anybody looks at "them" funny. America has trained its children in a very odd way and now the politicians must deal with what our sinning fathers have created.

The evil American Empire is built on a hurricane of LIES and the Will of the People does not matter to our Authoritarian leaders. The dog and pony show of another election is just pathetic. Obama, who seems to be genuine, somewhat likeable, is short on a plan and most likely will cave into the Oligarchy's demands.

To prove that the American People mean shite to our Dear Leaders, how is it that the two most UNDESIRABLE and most DISLIKED candidates from the Republican and Democrat parties, St John the Insane and Hillarious Klinton, are now the only pre-selected choices for POTUS in the upcoming election???

This country is DOOMED.....and maybe that's not such a bad thing as I might've once thought.

Obama: "The Colombian people have suffered for more than four decades at the hands of a brutal terrorist insurgency,"

Shill: "The Colombian state has every right to defend itself against drug trafficking terrorist organizations that have kidnapped innocent civilians"

Tweedle-dum, tweedle-dee.

The truth is that the Colombian people -- the ordinary folk -- have responded in kind to the Anglo-American raping of their country, something which Obama and Clinton both support. And the "drug-trafficking" line is Tory propaganda; Clinton knows it's a lie.

This is a retread from a comment to the CD headline piece from this morning, dealing with the Columbian invasion of Ecuador. The reason that I wrote the earlier one was to try to give a boost to Obama. Hillary's take was essentially "bomb the crap out of Venezuela if we can", not because she a native daughter of the "dark side" but because she's a self-serving opportunist, and will say and do anything to get elected to this term of the US presidency and to the next one. Do you know what she will be doing on her first day on the job? Thinking about her next run.

So here goes again - although it's superfluous now.

---------------------------------------------

Something worth noting is the reaction of the two Democratic contenders for the party's candidacy in the presidential election.

Read a comment on their responses by Robert Naiman at Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/obama-glosses-colombian-a_b_89836.html

I interpret Clinton's comments on the Ecuadorian incursion as knee jerk and catering to the expectations her assumed supporters. I expect that we'll experience greater confrontation with Iran in her presidency, a pardoning of the telcos, the continued use of presidential signing statements, continued internal spying in the US, and a solution to the sub-prime and soon to be prime mortgage crises which will exclusively benefit the lenders.

Reyes was the key to hostage release and to negotiation. This is more Bush foreign policy through surrogates. Expect more of the same in a Clinton White House. Most of the primary voters, Democrat, independent, or Republican wouldn't have a clue with respect to what I'm writing about. The general ignorance in matters of the world among the greater part of the population of the US will be the undoing of this nation's Constitution and of its social, economic and cultural orders.

We already knew that both Hillary and Obama will continue to support AmeriKKKan imperialism, so what else is new? As long as Americans support this crap, more wars and suffering will continue. I've come to the conclusion that except for a very very small percentage of truly progressive Americans, the vast majority are just a bunch of sheeple who buy into the corporate agenda. The AmeriKKKan empire is going down and that will be a great day for humanity! The American people deserve it and good riddance to the assholes.

genaman, a Bush operative talking trash, with bad spelling and worse grammar?

That 1969 speech by HRC was pure gibberish to me.

The Bushies are pulling out all stops. 'Dirty Bombs' and all the other BS. Hey it worked for Iraq. The fact that a sovereign nation was invaded gets lost in the shuffle. and the Invader is a 'good guy'.

Uribe is the Western Hemisphere Saddam clone (while we supported him).

Amazing - and BBC World on NPR overtalked anyone who tried to give the Venezuela/Ecuador side of the issue. They are finallly showing as part of the mainstream press.

C'mon Obama: You Can't Stay Clean In A Mud Fight + Hillary's Commencement Speech:

I'd definitely bet the ranch that GWB- -who merely followed the Clinton paradigm--totally enjoys getting all the "credit. Among the biggest lies ever told was that Hillary had been "vetted." It's little known she took the 5th 200+ times, let alone their career-long involvement with the most nefarious characters, & their convoluted schemes such that the sheer complicity of smoking guns proves fatiguing to most, if not intimidating. One would think NAFTA, at least, would have been an issue, but it took almost a generation to hear, just recently, from a big union leader (whose rank & file voted to endorse O) that: "Finally, our workers begin to connect the dots." In a democracy they would have read it in the press-- 15 years ago, before Bill disabled the free press. You're right that says as much about those who give homage to the lowest instincts out of fear, or worse-- to share the spoils. That, cultivating the worst of us & our instincts, has to be chief among the reasons why I've always seen Hill & Bill as so uniquely threatening.

Birth Of The Clinton Paradigm
Hillary's Commencement Speech

Wellesley College
1969 Student Commencement Speech
Hillary D. Rodham's (Problem With Empathy)
May 31, 1969

Remarks of Hillary D. Rodham, President of the Wellesley College Government Association and member of the Class of 1969, on the occasion of Wellesley's 91st Commencement, May 31, 1969:

"Part of the problem with empathy with professed goals is that empathy doesn't do us anything. We've had lots of empathy; we've had lots of sympathy, but we feel that for too long our leaders have used politics as the art of making what appears to be impossible, possible. What does it mean to hear that 13.3% of the people in this country are below the poverty line? That's a percentage. We're not interested in social reconstruction; it's human reconstruction. How can we talk about percentages and trends? The complexities are not lost in our analyses, but perhaps they're just put into what we consider a more human and eventually a more progressive perspective. The question about possible and impossible was one that we brought with us to Wellesley four years ago. We arrived not yet knowing what was not possible. Consequently, we expected a lot. Our attitudes are easily understood having grown up, having come to consciousness in the first five years of this decade -- years dominated by men with dreams, men in the civil rights movement, the Peace Corps, the space program -- so we arrived at Wellesley and we found, as all of us have found, that there was a gap between expectation and realities."

Not surprising that Clinton would sound like a Bush. Bill Clinton proved to be nothing more than a slightly moderate version of Reagan. At least Obama's ambiguous statement suggests that minus the political pressures of campaigning for president of the mostly ignorant and conservative American people, he might show some respect for international law. Then again, he won't go after corporate America--the root of much of the world's evil. So vote for Nader.

Note also the bigger picture here. This 'war' in Colombia has been going on for decades. If I remember correctly, at one point back in the 1980's, the rebels agreed to end violent resistance and instead to participate in the political process. The result was a wave of murders and assassinations and torture of those who were trying to peacefully participate in a political process. I think some 4000 people died in that effort.

When you know that, you can realize why the rebels are a bit reluctant to try that again.

So, now that a lot of long and patient work led to some negotiations that were slowly leading towards the release of people the rebels had brutally kidnapped and held prisoner for years, one of the leaders who was willing to participate in those negotiations is brutally assassinated.

Stop and think about the impact that is likely to have. The next time there is a chance for negotiations, how would you expect this man's successor to react. A very logical conclusion is that the negotiations not only will be a wasted effort but that he would likely be forfeiting his own life by even trying. So, given this recent illegal violent action from a US ally\puppet, are future negotiations more or less likely?

The rebels are not saints, and there's a string of bloody and awful acts by them too. But who's controlling the course of events? Who keeps driving this area towards violence and away from reconciliation?

Then read Obama's BS comment again. He says some nice words about avoiding escalation, but since he either supports or ignores the causes of the violence, its seems very unlikely that there's any sign that an Obama administration would really be any different here.

No major difference from the other side either.
Whoever gets in will continue our dangerous policies.

Carter was the last president to try and change the direction.

No wonder they hate us

Senator John McCain, the Republican Party's likely presidential nominee, Monday called for Venezuela and Ecuador to remove their troops from the Colombian border. McCain called the rebel Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), whose second-in-command was killed by Colombian military forces who crossed over into Ecuador on Saturday, one of the world's "premier terrorist organizations" which has been kidnapping, murdering and promoting the drug trade for decades

I voted for Ron Paul. He has more in common with progressive ideals than Hillary or Obama.

You are either for or against Corporatocracy. Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are against. That's why the media pushed them out.

Having visited Colombia, Venezuela, and Ecuador, I'll say that none of them (sans Colombian's govt.) want the states meddling down there.

In this case, as you can see from my above comments, I think one week point at which to attack the propaganda is its glossing over of a deliberate murder as a 'targeted killing'. Instead, make the clear point that someone who was willing to sit at a negotiating table to try to reach some sort of resolution was instead brutally murdered. Make that point clear, and most Americans will realize that this is wrong and immoral. Strip away the Orwellian talk about 'targeted killings' and make it very clear what our nation is actually doing.