Obama Glosses Over Colombian Attack in Ecuador; Clinton Calls for Escalation Against Venezuela
The Clinton and Obama forces have asked us to consider who we want answering the phone at the White House at 3 AM. There is little need to speculate. We have a lot of evidence about how they will respond.
On Saturday, Colombia launched an attack on a FARC camp in Ecuador, with, Ecuador plausibly alleges, U.S. support. Colombia’s President Uribe — a close Bush ally — lied to Ecuador’s President Correa about the attack, claiming it was in “hot pursuit.” Ecuador’s soldiers, when they reached the scene and recovered the bodies of FARC members who had been killed, reported to Correa that they had been asleep when attacked. They were in their underwear. Correa called it a “massacre.” Both Ecuador and Venezuela have moved troops to their borders with Colombia, warned Colombia about violating their sovereignty, and cut diplomatic relations with Colombia.
Colombia’s attack was a flagrant violation of Ecuador’s sovereignty. “Hot pursuit” was Colombia’s only possible defense. 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.) If you say that international law doesn’t matter, you’re essentially saying that Colombia has special rights to violate international law because it’s a U.S. ally. That may sell well inside the Beltway, but it’s going to sell very poorly, in general, from the Rio Grande to Tierra del Fuego.
While no one should dispute that the tactics of the FARC have caused tremendous suffering — as have the tactics of the U.S.-backed Colombian government — it’s important to consider the likely motivations of the Colombian government for carrying out this operation. Raul Reyes, the top leader in the FARC who was killed, led negotiations that resulted in the FARC releasing six political hostages to Venezuela, including four a week ago. This is a pattern for the Bush-backed Colombian government — to meet the “threat” of successful diplomacy with military escalation. The Colombian government, with vigorous U.S. support, is taking actions whose probable consequence is to reduce the likelihood that FARC hostages will be released — including three American captives.
Indeed, Ecuador says it was in talks with rebels to release 12 hostages, including Ingrid Betancourt and three Americans, that the talks were in an advanced stage, and that the process was thwarted by the Colombian raid.
Now consider the statements of the Democratic presidential candidates. First, Obama:
Obama Statement on Recent Events near Colombia’s Borders - March 03, 2008
“The Colombian people have suffered for more than four decades at the hands of a brutal terrorist insurgency, and the Colombian government has every right to defend itself against the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). 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. 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.”
Obama is absolutely right, of course, that nothing should used as a “pretense” to ratchet up tensions or threaten the stability of the region. But this glosses over the apparent fact that Colombia flagrantly, deliberately, and with premeditation violated Ecuador’s sovereignty. Ecuador is a U.S. ally. The U.S., as a member of the Organization of American States, has an obligation to defend Ecuador’s sovereignty. If you say that doesn’t matter, then what you’re saying is that a country like Ecuador can’t rely on the U.S. to behave in accordance with international law, and has to turn to countries like Venezuela to help defend its sovereignty (as it has.) In this assertion, you’d have a lot of agreement in Ecuador, including from its U.S.-educated president.
Obama says, “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.” That’s absolutely correct. He might also note that the U.S. — which is a protagonist through its role in Colombia — shares this obligation.
Now let’s consider Hillary’s statement:
Statement from Hillary Clinton - 3/3/2008
“Hugo Chavez’s order yesterday to send ten battalions to the Colombian border is unwarranted and dangerous. The Colombian state has every right to defend itself against drug trafficking terrorist organizations that have kidnapped innocent civilians, including American citizens. By praising and supporting the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, Chavez is openly siding with terrorists that threaten Colombian democracy and the peace and security of the region. Rather than criticizing Colombia’s actions in combating terrorist groups in the border regions, Venezuela and Ecuador should work with their neighbor to ensure that their territories no longer serve as safe havens for terrorist groups. After reviewing this situation, I am hopeful that the government of Ecuador will determine that its interests lie in closer cooperation with Colombia on this issue. Hugo Chavez must call a halt to this provocative action. As president, I will work with our partners in the region and the OAS to support democracy, promote an end to conflict, and to press Chavez to change course.”
This is 100% wrong. Hillary acts as if the “event” is not the Colombian attack in Ecuador, but the Venezuelan response (Ecuador, the country whose sovereignty was violated, is an afterthought.) . According to Hillary, Colombia has “every right” to “defend itself” by violating Ecuador’s sovereignty — that’s the event — but if Venezuela sends troops to its side of the Venezuela-Colombia border — its own national territory — that’s “unwarranted and dangerous.” Hillary says that “after reviewing the situation,” she is hopeful that Ecuador will determine that its interests lie in “closer cooperation with Colombia” — the country that just flagrantly violated its sovereignty — than with Venezuela, its ally that is speaking up against the violation. She is hopeful that Ecuador will lick the hand that beats it. As president, she will work with our partners in the region and the OAS to press Venezuela to change course. Good luck with that. It’s the U.S. and Colombia that need pressure to change course — to forswear violations of international law and to choose real diplomacy.
Judging from Hillary’s statement, we should expect no meaningful change in U.S. policy towards Colombia, Ecuador, or Venezuela (which she falsely claims is a dictatorship) if she is elected president — unless it is a change to make it worse.
Robert Naiman is National Coordinator of Just Foreign Policy, a membership organization devoted to reforming U.S. foreign policy to reflect the values and serve the interests of the majority of Americans. Naiman edits the daily Just Foreign Policy news summary.
Good piece Mr. Naiman and not surprising from Obama the man for all seasons and Hilary Republican light Clinton. Latin America has always been about those north making a buck. Nothing has changed.
Why shouldn’t Columbia go around attacking other countries? We do.
kathyodat
Ah, Hillary showing her true colors, how sweet…You won’t hear this on the MSM though…
Of course, this has nothing to do with big oil.
Excellent — and very clearly written — article. I am in total agreement with it.
Hillary as President would basically amount to a third Bush term.
The same can be said of Obama. As for McCain, we know he is a Bush clone.
This country is never going to change through its present political apparatus. Change will knock at the door much more brutally and painfully (oil prices, economic depression, ecological collapse, diseases, etc.).
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.
I was thinking the same thing Kit. USA is setting the fine example.
My friend in Ecuador said that Farc was about to get the release of American and French hostages but now we have a threat of new war.
As an American living in Ecuador I totally agree with Mr. Naiman. Ecuador has suffered for years from Colombia’s inability to control its own country, let alone these kinds of illegal incursions into Ecuadorian territory.
From my experience Ecuador and its people are the most peace loving country and people in the world. With the election of Presidente Correa they have continued in that tradition. However, since he has had the courage to stand up to the United States by refusing to renew the US military’s lease on the airfield in Manta on the Pacific coast and he has been audacious enough to suggest that if the USA wanted a military base in Ecuador it would only be fair if Ecuador had a military base in Miami, he must be punished. And if you don’t think these kinds of things are interrelated I have bridge in Arizona I want to sell you.
As for Senators Clinton and Obama, Obama is the only candidate in the race that has said out loud (in the CA debate) that it is clearly time for the US to adopt a different foreign policy, a policy of aggressive diplomatic talk and negotiation rather than Clinton’s standard knee jerk response or accelerating the aggression and pushing the small countries of the world around. It they don’t do exactly as we tell them, bomb ‘em, invade ‘em, punish ‘em. If we can’t do it directly we have one of our surrogates (they are numerous) do it for us.
It is time for real change and real hope in the USA and the only way that is going to happen is to elect Senator Barack Obama as the next president this coming November.
Bill Bushnell
Cuenca, Ecuador
Endcapitalism has it correct. This country ignores international law and expects his clients like Columbia to do the same. What UN? We are the world’s largest terrorist country with the biggest military. We do not consider any other people than the corporations.
And all you heard from the Corporate Media yesterday was a full-frontal attack on Hugo Chavez. This is all about his nationalizing his oil. Period. The U.S. will do anything to cut him down to size and get rid of him and his influence in the region. The lapdogs in the Press won’t question any of this. The U.S. doesn’t give a sh*t about Columbians, Equadorians? or Venezuelans.
I wonder if Hillery ever watched “The Clinton Chronicles”
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6470450895164255089
Are we supposed continue to pretend that our government is looking out for all of us ,while they profit off of both sides of every issue?
I have and will continue my support of Ron Paul .His suggestion is to end the “war on drugs “and stay the f**k out of other countries affairs.
But that is apparently not “progressive” for most here.
Note very carefully what’s in Obama’s statement. Hillary’s is so obnoxiously and bloodthirstily wrong as to not really need analysis. As usual, she completely supports the bloody foreign policy that she and Bill started in Colombia in the 1990’s and that Bush has carried through.
But look closely at Obama’s. And what’s not there is as important as what’s there. As usual, Obama tries to pretend he’s different. But, remember we are talking about the deliberate assassination of a person who’d been sitting at the negotiating table. Ie, someone tries to negotiate with a US puppet regime, and the result is their murder.
Also, by talking of all three Presidents equally, he clearly tries to ignore and ‘fuzz’ what has just happened. Only one of these three Presidents has launched a violent and illegal attack into a neighboring country. The other two are only taking actions that could easily be seen as prudently responding to try to insure the safety and security of their countries.
But the way Obama words it, it sounds like any tensions in the region are as equally the fault of the Presidents of Ecuador and Venezuela as it is the fault of the President of Colombia who ordered the illegal cross-border attack.
Obama does not in any way say that there is anything wrong about this. In fact, he mentions it in such a way as to say that this is completely normal and acceptable and not worth any comment.
Obama is slick, but you have to read him carefully. I’m learning that he is very, very tricky in how he uses words.
And the key point is this. The Democrats are essentially debating who can be the best manager of the evil empire. They are arguing a bit about tactics. But there are some things that you won’t ever hear Obama or Hillary challenge. Among these would be …
– Is it proper for the US to be pumping large amounts of military aid into Colombia in the first place?
– Is it proper for the US to have so many advisers and mercenaries in Colombia?
– Is it proper for the US to be supporting a policy of assassination? Especialy when the target of the assassination is someone who’s been sitting at the negotiation table?
– Why is it that US allies always seem to respond to a peace process moving forward with violent attacks and murders? We’ve seen exactly the same pattern in the past in Israel where apparent progress in negotiations was met by provocative assassinations.
– Is it proper for a US ally to attack into another country?
None of this will be questioned by any leading Dem. Obama won’t question this any more than Hillary will, and apparently an Obama presidency won’t change any of these policies. He’s slick and he manages to sound different from Hillary. But when you look at the key underlying factors in how the US operates around the world, Obama offers no changes. Just maybe a change in the talk that covers all of this.
So I see most posters on here and the writer of that article are all for starting another war?
Doesn’t this ring of BOTH Bush’s language so twice we got involve in Iraq.
To boot you blame Hillary for trying to seek peace without more bloodshed.
People you cannot have it both ways. BlaminG Senator Clinton for that long ago Iraq vote .Then calling her a peacenik because she wants Columbia And Ecuador to settle this dispute peacefully?How many of you are raising cain about Turkey crossing Iraq’s border?
We had enough wars in the last 7 years.An I bet most of you have echo this but another chance to take a slap at Senator Clinton was just too much for you to resist.
Go ahead ! If she loses you will have lots more wars.
Remember Columbia is the way it is because Americans just got to have their drugs.
And by the way what Has America ever did for any of those Latin American countries to let them make a good honest living?
You do realise if we could give the people of those countries a better life all those aliens crossing ouur border would trickle down quickly.
A PRESIDENT OBAMA solving any crisis is a laugh. Oh and you CHOICES. You do realise that means most of you will attack every problem from different positions.
ERGO no solutions will even be attempted for fear or upsetTing the other contesters.
You really want CAOS IN OUR GOVERNMENT THEN OBAMA IS YOUR CHOICE
Note also Obama’s willingness to use the Orwellian euphmism of ‘targeted killing’ instead of the more direct phrases of ‘assasination’ or ‘murder’. This language also signals Obama’s acceptence of this sort of immoral policy and its almost certain continuation in an Obama White House.
Three American military contractors were among the hostages whose release was being negotiated. Had it happened, it would have been another big PR boost for Chavez, which is the last thing the U.S. wants. So instead, Colombia, with the U.S.’s blessing, attacks the FARC camp, and now Uribe is claiming that documents recovered at the FARC camp show that Chavez has funneled millions to FARC, and Uribe plans to charge Chavez with genocide. So a possible PR boost for Chavez has suddenly turned into charges that he has engaged in genocide. And the 12 people held by FARC whose hopes for release have now been dashed have become “collateral damage” in the propaganda war, which, as cygnus said, is all about the oil.
I don’t see anything in either this article or in the comments above that could in anyway be construed as supporting another war. They all seem uniformly critical of Colombia’s illegal cross-border attack.
endCapitalism: You’re right on about ending U.S. empire - and I too believe the empire is doomed but, don’t expect it to fall without a sound. The assertion that most Americans are “sheeple” and follow the corporate agenda is true in practice but not so simple with regard to their attitudes. Since the change cannot be done without the sheep in our fold, we need to not only oppose the empire but to present alternatives that are attainable.
When I confront people on the capitalist (imperialist) agenda, I often get a tacit agreement in principle but a blank and certain response that, “it is better than the alternative”, and “there is no other choice.” This is a statement you will hear from economists, politicians, soldiers, and even activists.
You must be prepared to answer. You must be able to build a vision for them that goes beyond empire; one that is clear, concise and attainable. I suggest a focus on local activism, self-sustainability, local food systems, local energy production, cooperative work environments; all the grassroots efforts to subvert and make irrelevent the need for and support for the corporate-imperial fascist system of government that the greed and individualism of the Reagan era has immortalized in our society.
This is the vision of change that can change sheeple into people, active in their communities; complete the demilitarization, disintegration and demise of the empire, and usher in a new generation of peaceful, cooperative and sustainable community.
I’d love to see those documents. The forgeries produced by US intelligence have actually been amazingly bad over the last decade considering how much of our tax money they spend. See the documents related to Iraq getting Uranium ‘yellow cake’ from Niger as just one example.
Just a guess, but while the US and Colombia will wave these documents around like a bloody flag, they’ll actually prove quite relunctant to allow any public scrutiny of them.
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.
CoMarc, that’s a good guess and one that will undoubtedly turn out to be correct. Highly classified, national security, blah, blah, blah.
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
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.
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.
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.”
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.
That 1969 speech by HRC was pure gibberish to me.
genaman, a Bush operative talking trash, with bad spelling and worse grammar?
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.
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.
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 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.
Obama is a fraud from the word go. Vote for Ralph Nader.
What was Ecuador doing hosting a camp by FARC’s second in command?
Clinton Calls for Escalation Against Venezuela!
Forget about discussion!
Hillary Clinton is crazy!
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.
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 !
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)
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!
Bomb the suckers in oblivion.
There’s no difference between democrats and republicans….Who was it that said that?
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.”
Genaman, huh? You don’t make any sense.
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 …
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.
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.
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.
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.
With every passing day I like Clinton less and less. She would be a disaster as president, no better than McCain.
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.
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.
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…
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.
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?
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.
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 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).
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.
Yeah, clearly the cooler, more diplomatic words came out of Obama’s mouth. If we are to judge the caliber of the thinking and analysis by the rhetoric, then Obama’s words were far less likely to escalate the situation. Challenging a country’s right to defend its borders, as Clinton did by dismissing Venezuela’s right to send troops to its own borders, seems designed to provoke. Peace? Hmmm.
“If you say that international law doesn’t matter, you’re essentially saying that Colombia has special rights to violate international law because it’s a U.S. ally.”
Yes, that sounds right; and I’m sure that Attorney General “paradox” Mukasey could assist Uribe in explaining to the world how he really didn’t “violate” international law.
“The Clinton and Obama forces have asked us to consider who we want answering the phone at the White House at 3 AM.”
Without having to think about this for very long, my answer is “Hugo Chavez”. He is one President who refuses to allow multi-billion dollar oil corporations to steal the profits from “the people’s” national oil interest.
The U.S. doesn’t like it when they can’t create and enforce oil laws in other petrol-producing countries.
The feud between Exxon and Venezuela continues……
How about this?
We back up The Terminaters idea to do away with the rule that states you must be native born to run for Pres.
Then in 2012 when Hugo steps down in Venezuela we’ll move him up here and run him for President.
Yes, Nader is the answer. But the question is who will be the next President of the U.S., and the correct answer is, not Ralph Nader. WSWS, time to cough up some real money for Ralph.
Perhaps the most interesting thing here is the focus on Chavez, both from Bush and Cinton. They don’t mention Correa at all. After all- it was his territory that was attacked, and he’s pissed! Why not mention him? Because Bush/Clinton are pushing the idea that the problem in S. America is with Chavez and Chavez alone. If they have to start fighting a multiple-front word war with Correa, Chavez, Morales, etc., they’ll lose their number one fear-mongering card: that there’s a Hitler in our midsts! It’s hard to make a sound-bite if you’re claiming that there are elected Hitlers running around everywhere…
“Venezuela and Ecuador should work with their neighbor to ensure that their territories no longer serve as safe havens for terrorist” - Hillary “Bush” Clinton
hmm…dont look now Hill, but isn’t the USA still habouring Luis Posada Carriles???
http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/columns/html/20070303T190000-0500_119832_OBS_USA_CONTEMPT_FOR_CARIBBEAN_.asp
If Clinton is nominated by the Dimbulb Democrats, and that includes the people that have voted for her, in either ignorance or just stupidity, the hell with them. I’ll vote for Hanna Montana……..I’m too fed up with this crap!!
Did anyone notice that the US violates borders all the time. The US just shot missiles into Pakistan, and into Somalia. They were chasing Al qaida. I guess the US has the right to bomb anyone in the name of Al Qaida. The US is definitely a rogue country. Obama is the better of the two for sure. Hillary is a Republican plain and simple. I’m think I’ll vote for Nader.
What I want to know is: “where’s the beef?”
Oh here’s another good Clinton video .Remember Vince Foster?
http://www.truthnews.us/?p=2047
What did Hillary say today about being privy to some info.(speaking of the reason for the Super Delegates ).
“See we got lots of ins and outs here Maude”
The Big Labouski
These candidates ain’t the people! While they do all the jabbering pursuant to the advice of some consultant spin on narratives to excite and get the natives to react — we natives divert ourselves from ourselves and our worldly realities and needs to react to their stupid and self-serving framings of reality. Kids, if we were in a life raft with a limited supply of rations — do you really think any of these clowns would do anything other than seek to first throw overboard other occupants? Welcome aboard the ship of state! It’s how the game of governance has worked for centuries and centuries.
THE ONLY THING THE CLINTONS COVET IS POWER FOR POWERS SAKE. SHE’S PROBABLY THINKING ABOUT PULLING TROOPS OUT OF IRAQ SO SHE CAN SEND THEM INTO VENEZUELA. YOU SEE THEY COULD ACTUALLY SAVE TAX PAYER MONEY BY CUTTING DOWN ON MILAGE. AT THE SAME TIME THERES THE OIL!
Cee Miracles—terrific post! What we resist persists and I refuse to give any more of my energy to anything but the work of creating the world I want to live in. Too much ego, too much maya, in that dark reality—give me some light!
excellent point seastar.
A little more U.S. intervention south of the border.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-446387292666223710
LOOK OUT ORGANIZE PROTEST in the streets,at court houses,at the offices of politicians,boycott elections, pull the plug from the TV sets, defend the internet at all cost for that is the last forum where we can still express and read objective news,and question authority. The neocons in about 8 plus years have managed to set in place the choke controlling system on our nation, prisons are ready,Patriot acts ready,anti- terrorist laws in place {at our government interpretations},Guantanamo prison ready for Americans also, Black water security services ready to operate against American citizens,Black water has several training camps in the USA, So???, do you still really believe that the 2 party system will get us out of this mess?,naaahh. Colombia has long been a puppet of the US why?? Cocaine, the so called WAR ON DRUGS is a war that it is intended not to be won , too much billions of $$ to be made,Colombia has for decades been a country with a terrible record in abuses of human rights,paramilitary organizations providing security services made by ex or actual police members, along with the military create a state of terror in the population, The FARC is a genuine Revolutionary force that has taken an armed opposition to the military rulers in Colombia that defend the Aristocrat class. The drug trafficking problem it is a problem of the Colombian government mostly,for its failure to provide employment to millions of unemployed Colombians for decades ,thus giving raise to other means of making a living, like kidnapping citizens in the streets at random,drugs. T o call the FARC a terrorist organization ,is the way the Bush administration through the controlled corporate news media has eliminated {tey think} the birth of any new revolutionary movement that demands change .What a nerve we have to call others terrorists,we need to take a good look at ourselves, and look around the thousands dead in Iraq alone, is Black Water a global terrorist organization ??. This action by the Colombian army has destroyed a plan to release hostages in the hands of FARC , Obama and Clinton did not mentioned that. So I see in 10 years from now, the USA will be a third world country, ruled by a minority ,witha large population of dummies ready for the cheap labor market and shopping at all the everything a dollar stores.
response to cruxpuppy: I didn’t ignore the question of direct U.S. involvement in the attack, see the first line of the second paragraph: “On Saturday, Colombia launched an attack on a FARC camp in Ecuador, with, Ecuador plausibly alleges, U.S. support.” However, the evidence of U.S. involvement is much clearer now than it was yesterday when I wrote this; and I completely agree with you, this is not getting nearly the attention it deserves. It now seems very probable that the Bush Administration was quite complicit before the fact in Colombia’s violation of Ecuador’s sovereignty (that it has been complicit after the fact is completely transparent) and they should be challenged on this by the media, Members of Congress, and the public; and by other governments.
fpal sez: “This stinks.”
Aye. I believe it’s Eau de Cheney. A pretentious, cloying and rancid bouquet.
Just imagine the $1 billion/year that Monsanto would not want to lose if its pesticide sprayed all over southern Colombia is deemed harful.
This is a salvo in the coming proxy war against Chavez and rising populism in Latin America. The move has everything to do with Naomi Klein’s “Shock Doctrine”, and it is taken from the Neo-Liberal playbook.
Here’s the plan: Washington establishment screams “Terrorism!”, while sending its puppets (Columbia, rightwing death squads, Contra retreads) to incite violence and scuttle diplomacy throughout the region. The ensuing death and destruction cripples popular democracy, leads to new military dictatorships, and eliminates progressive social programs. Multinational corporations move in to exploit the dispossessed and to seize natural resources. Mission accomplished.
Hillary keeps telling us she’s experienced, and sure enough! she knows exactly how to apply this monstrous pattern to all situations.
Gail March 5th, 2008 8:36 pm
““The Clinton and Obama forces have asked us to consider who we want answering the phone at the White House at 3 AM.””
That’s an easy one, Clinton, Obama, or McCain, because if they are manning the phones at three A.M. they aren’t the President.
Lobo Gris
Who do I want answering the phone at 3AM? Can I get that phone disconnected?
The PHONE is Disconnected!
Between Washington and the American People!
McPAIN Hillary 08!
What’s the Difference?
Robert Naiman : “This is a pattern for the Bush-backed Colombian government — to meet the “threat” of successful diplomacy with military escalation.”
Obama . “the Colombian government has every right to defend itself against the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).”
For the above read “Israel” for Columbian government, read “Hamas” for FARC, and you will see it is the just same policy different place. In other words, I and my friends can and do use force of any kind against anyone who opposes me or my friends. However, if anyone uses force against me or my friends they are “terrorists” and I cannot speak with them, and those that do are supporting “terror”…. Samantha Power is Barack Obama’s senior foreign policy advisor…. Perhaps she should read her own book sometime “Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide” or I wonder weather AIPAC is running her too now? Maybe that’s just what you have to do and say to win elections.
Hillery : “I’m more macho than you, and have a bigger d..k, Wake me up in the morning and I’l bomb you, What I and my friends say is always right.” Or maybe she didn’t quite say that, but I agree totally with Robert Naiman’s comment on her statement.
Corporate Oil. PNAC. BU**SH** Crime family. Nothing else, but that is plenty. Enough to steal another election, just ask Karl.
I pretty much took it as a given that Colombia would not do this without at least approval from Washington. And its also very, very likely anytime you see this that at the very least US intelligence agencies and AWACS type planes are providing real-time intelligence to an operation like this.
————-
Read Mr. Naiman’s article carefully before criticizing him. For instance, read the second paragraph after the Obama quote that begins with “But,…”
————-
Obama is very good a putting forward different ‘words’ than Hillary. He always sounds really good on the surface. Its when you look very carefully at Obama’s words and try to figure out what he’s really saying about policy that you realize there’s not going to be any change if he’s President.
Compare Obama’s words to these.
“Imperialism has just committed a monstrous crime in Ecuador. Deadly bombs were dropped in the early morning hours on a group of men and women who, almost without exception, were asleep. That has been deduced by all the official reports right from the beginning. Any concrete accusations against that group of human beings do not justify that action. They were Yankee bombs, guided by Yankee satellites.
Absolutely no one has the right to kill in cold blood. If we accept that imperial method of warfare and barbarism, Yankee bombs directed by satellites could fall on any group of Latin American men and women, in the territory of any country, war or no war. The fact that this happened on undisputed Ecuadorian territory is an aggravating circumstance. ”
–Fidel Castro, http://www.counterpunch.org/castro03052008.html
Anyone who believes that either candidate should, in the middle of this campaign, utter other than banalities about Colombia/Venezuela/Ecuador needs to be put in the care of the nearest responsible adult.
Second, anyone who believes that either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama will be extensions of Bush/Cheney should make an immediate appointment with a psychiatrist.
Good Article!
Like many here I see a real important difference between Clinton’s response and Obama’s.
If Obama gets trashed by the lies of Clinton and the Republican smear campaign, I will not commit to voting for Hillary because I don’t trust her…She is too quick to lie about any confrontation she sees (Imagine what Russia and China Intel agencies are assessing about her methods).
I may be naive to the cynics, but I don’t yet see much difference between McCain and Clinton and McCain may be more honest so I will commit to vote for a Dem congress and local but may do a protest vote for Prez if this shit continues… Ralph , Don’t give up yet.
Same old shit from the mouths of American politicians telling other country’s leaders how to run their country when the biggest fuck up in the world is the ” good old USA “.
Why is the USA either laughed at or regarded simply as a country full of fat greedy fools or both, I don’t know except that the conception after 15 years in America is largely true.
How could a person of normal intelligence be taken in by the 9/11 scam.
How could a person of normal intelligence be convinced that Iraq was responsible.
How can a country be persauded to spend trillions attacking another country to save billions. Do your sums all you Americans with oil at $3.50 a US gallon, about 3 times it was 7 years ago plus the trillions you’ve spent trying to steal it,is it any wonder Americans are regarded as the worlds idiots.
You’ll not change, your ” education ” doesn’t allow it having been brought up on extreme nationalism and history lessons from Hollywood. Travel around the USA and you’ll see millions of plastic/tin sheds laughingly called mobile homes, very apt name since they have a nasty habit of collapsing in a strong wind. The sad part is the occupants have no health coverage, very little income and they’re lucky if the can accumalate enough money to retire on.
Blaming corporations and the media is all very well but they can’t do it without you.
Chavez has been a thorn in the side of America for a while, one idiot American I know refuses to buy Citgo petrol despite it being cheaper because it would be considered ant-american, how brainwashed can one get.
The only thing one can say about Obama’s response is that not moving suggests he’d leave it to someone else, like the UN or the Organisation of American States. Either way, I’d take that over us stomping in with our bloody big feet.
The reality is that this country is so convinced that it has the right to plod about wherever, whoever gets elected, regardless of party, will be a meddlesome git. I’ll settle for Obama if his meddling is less thick-headed.
FARC is no doubt a rather unsaavory group who have lost their political ligitimacy and are essentially rural gangsters rather than a politcal movement.
Having said that, exactly how bad is FARC compared to other violent actors in Colombia??? I do know these facts:
1. The National Labor School (Escuela Nacional Sindical), a prominent labor rights group in Colombia, has recorded more than 2,500 killings of trade unionists since 1986; 201 in 2001 alone, and most recently, two in late ‘07. Virtually none of these killings were solved or even investigated.
2. Throughout the 1980’s until to a few years ago, human rights orgainzations have consistently assigned 80% of the violence in Colombia to the right-wing paramilitaries, not FARC.
3. Since 2003, the paramilitaries have largely disbanded, but have been given complete immunity from prosecution for their crimes. Presumably most of them are now in the regular Colombian Armed Forces.
So, I repeat, considering these other crimes, why is so much of the focus only on FARC?
Wow, what a great conversation. Naiman, Thanks for engaging; you too Central American commentators.
jameer March 6th, 2008 9:15 am
You might want to study reality before making such comments here.
Please view videos I posted above for starters.
Then maybe some John Pilger documentaries on South and Central America.
Here’s just one:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3739500579629840148&q=Pilger&total=522&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
Those who have written in defense of the U.S./Colombian position should confront this reality: at the OAS meeting, the U.S. and Colombia were the ones isolated, absolutely predictably.
‘In Washington, the Organization of American States passed a consensus resolution that used mutually acceptable language to rebuke Colombia for having violated Ecuadorean sovereignty Saturday in a raid that killed a high-ranking rebel leader and 16 others.
The 34-member organization voted to “reaffirm the principle that the territory of a state is inviolable and may not be the object, even temporarily, of military occupation or of other measures of force taken by another state, directly or indirectly, on any grounds whatsoever.”‘
The U.S. and Colombia were so isolated that they had to sign onto a consensus resolution that rebuked their claim that the raid was justified.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-colombia6mar06,1,7827865.story
“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”
Using that logic Cuba has the right to bomb Miami. Have any idea how many terrorists that have killed innocent people (plane & hotel bombings, assassinations, attacks against agricultural systems, taking out democratic governments & installing right wing dictatorships, etc) are living free in Southern Florida? How many countries would have the right to bomb the School of America’s? Have any idea how many state terrorists were trained there? Certainly Boston should be bombed for its connections to the IRA.
The fact is that the FARC were a creation of the violence that originated during the period known as “La Violencia”. Gaitain would have brought some of the social and economic changes that have been needed in Colombia and the right wing forces have attacked and killed anyone trying to implement some of the policies that Gaitan would have. The fact is also that Human Rights Watch and the UN both say that the majority of the massacres are from the paramilitary network (which the US helped set up & has financially supported for decades) and the majority of drugs comes out of the same networks (which the DEA has admitted). The FARC are by no means angels but they are a creation of the extremely violent environment that they’re from and no other alternative has been given the right to exist. As someone above mentioned, the left wing forces (not just the FARC) were asked to take part in elections during the 1980’s. The left did so and thousands, thousands!, of its activists were killed. Presidential candidates, mayors, lawyers, teachers, union organizers, etc. More union leaders are killed in Colombia than the rest of the world combined, again the US set the network up themselves. So, again, the FARC are a creation of the environment that the US has largely created.
It’s the same situation as in Cambodia during the 1970’s. The Khmer Rouge had support, according to the CIA, from about 1% of the country. The US drops more bombs on Cambodia than all the bombs dropped by the Allies during WWII and there is a violent backlash. The formerly minority Rouge gain in popularity and rise to power on the violence of the US. Without the bombings, admitted later by Pot, there is no Khmer Rouge government that comes to power.
Regarding the allegations against Chavez (people need to keep in mind that the evidence has not been independently verified and the reasons for whatever connections exist not yet known), the paramilitary networks in Colombia have tried numerous times to assassination Chavez. In 2004 about 50 were caught in Caracas ready to attempt the assisnation. They are funded by the same superpower that funded the military coup in 2002 in Venezuela and it is apparent that they’d move in a heartbeat to assist in a coup against Chavez, should the time come. I don’t like the fact that he could have connections to the FARC but I also realize, logically, why he would.
” COMarc March 5th, 2008 1:23 pm
I don’t see anything in either this article or in the comments above that could in anyway be construed as supporting another war. They all seem uniformly critical of Colombia’s illegal cross-border attack.”
BASED ON WHAT I READ of the reader comments, COMarc must’ve posted the above based on the following post.
” genaman March 5th, 2008 1:18 pm
So I see most posters on here and the writer of that article are all for starting another war?
Doesn’t this ring of BOTH Bush’s language so twice we got involve in Iraq.
To boot you blame Hillary for trying to seek peace without more bloodshed.
…”
AND I HAVE TO AGREE WITH COMarc’s reply, though it’s stated in much more “politically correct” terms than what I might typically say, which is summarizable by simply saying that genamarc’s logic is of the LOST, confused kind. genamarc seems, appears to be genuinely concerned, but is evidently not “sharp” with logic, including very simple kind, for what the article is about is NOT difficult in terms of logic, reasoning a reality-based undestanding of the situation referred to.
As COMarc says, there is nothing of war-promotion kind at all in the article.
And as I’ll restate, anyone who believes that any of the Clintons are fit for any political offices in the USA, or anywhere else for that matter, has either lost his or her mind, or never gained one to begin with. They are all cons, and of war criminal kind; in addition to being criminal against humanity in terms other than overt military warfare, that is, war of aggression.
Good intentions pave paths to hell, often and easily, and wanting to believe that we are good at logic, interpreting events and statements, etc. may provide a “nice feeling” about ourselves and for ourselves, alone, but may be the self-tricksters’ way of fooling ourselves into believing that supporting wickedness is supposedly good. Iow, we also need to be self-critical; we have to be able to competently examine our own views and arguments in order to try to objectively determine if we are right or minimally make some sound sense, or not, to find the pros and cons in our views and arguments. Only by doing this and carefully so can we successfully arrive at views and arguments that are irrefutably right or valid; as far as humans can assess anyway.
That’s not done by people who support either Billary or Obama, or any other RP or DP candidates presently campaigning to try to become nominated to run for president; except for Gravel. Other than for him, the only critically valid candidates are NOT with either the RP or DP, but third party candidates.
After all, all of the Obama promoters who do all they can to treat his Senate voting and statement record as if so meaningless and therefore dismissable, ignorable, esp. compared to his so-called fall 2002 anti-war words, which, and like COMarc says in his posts in this page, reflect not only the explicit, but also important truths left unstated, so implicit, and very inherently so; well, these political candidates must not be taken at only superficial “face value” on or with their words!
Only charlatan schmucks could ask for others to consider solely the spoken or written words, instead of encouraging to carefully and wisely consider that, and f.e., “actions speak much louder than words(!)”; often revealing the words to be justly understood as HYPOCRISY.
What was quoted of Obama’s words in the above article makes him seem considerably better candidate than Billary, whose words clearly are of the same U.S. hegemony, hypocrisy, world bully, etc., kind [as usual], very clearly, obviously so. But Obama has to be considered for much more than only his words, and people who do only that also subjectively select which of his statements to refer to; never referring to when he wholly and clearly sides with US threat of war of aggression on innocent Iran and with Israel’s HELLBENT crimes against Palestinians, f.e.
Much more serious reading needs to be done with ALL political candidates, but while I agree COMarc that Obama’s tricky as speaker, I don’t agree with this very much; only a little, and only because the USA is full of f*cking IDIOTS, liars, selfishly biased schmucks who can even realise that this describes them well, but while denying it, pretending to instead be of goodwill, etc. LIARS, charlatans, they are ABUNDANTLY present.
If you vote for the lesser of the two evils then it becomes complicity rather than pragmatism.
Therefore I’ll not vote for either of the two evils.
1. How depressing to think no matter who you Americans elect, it’ll be business as usual for the rest of us in the world.
2. Just an aside — why do you refer to Obama as ‘Obama’, but to Clinton as ‘Hillary’? So little really changes….
From the little issues to the big issues, nothing will change until education does.
YES ALL WILL BE THE SAME UNTIL THE ENVIRONMENTAL CATASTROPHE BREAKS.
There is one candidate they may rise to the rhetoric because her represents the young people but for Clinton nothing will change and all she cares about is her rich friends and power. The people be damned!
In support of all those who shout here in vain against the Clinton scourge, against the Clinton camp who simply want more of the same “failed policies of the past”, in support who those who want change at any price because it can’t be worse than these past eight years, nothing can, I submit a letter requested by the Obama’s campaign director. It is an open letter to the super delegates. We all know that the entrenched congress is opposed to Obama and the will of America. We know the bought and paid media is nothing more than an establishment, corrupt, rubber stamp for government policies and afraid of their own shadows. They reflect this gutless country so afraid they might lose their next new car they would defeat any change agent more of the same stupidity regardless of the cost. They are afraid of change, which is necessary for global survival. I am opposed to the infrastructure of the Green party since the level of anarchy dictates against any real positive direction. Or for that matter a run by Nader, not enough charisma to attract sufficient voters, not that his message lacks importance. Hillary followed directly in the footsteps of Karl rove and George Bush and the republicrat from Connecticut, Lieberman her good friend.
Change is the only hope for this country and the world!
Dear Mr. David Plouffe,
Thank you for your request, although by e-mail. I am a visual artist, Filmmaker and global communicator. I have recently returned from Africa and work on both sides of the Atlantic in Europe. I know from my work that people for the first time in a long time are hoping for a change in America. Europeans believe that Barak Obama offers the possibility that America will once again join the global community. His stated environmental objectives create enthusiasm in those in other parts of the world.
There are some who believe that the democratic will of the people should be overturned by the presumption of power as in the super-delegate issue of the Democratic Party. This raises the specter of large-scale defections toward the Republican agenda by the youth vote, should the Democratic Party not align itself with the peoples democratic and non-militant direction. Should this occur it would affect world security and the issue of climate change directly. These issues are dependent upon radical solutions, which include global economic changes. Defection of democrats and particularly the young people-who hope for change and believe that change is necessary could possibly tilt the election toward the Republicans should opt out. They would refuse to turn out for the Clinton camp.
Many fear that Obama may lose the election as a result of the strange electoral system and candidate approval mechanisms, felt to be undemocratic. This reflects the basic problem of what many think is a so-called Democracy in America where a win in the popular vote does not guarantee the change in direction of the country.
The Electoral College can make a change as we saw in the 2004 election which allowed Bush to take office; this renders the popular vote, void. The Democratic Super-delegate issue is a reflection of the absurd non-democratic American condition of the Electoral College. Should Barak Obama win the popular vote from America’s Democratic caucuses, delegates and committed states prior to the convention I do not believe that he should accept second place as vice president, which seems to be the mood of the media controlled races and spin jockeys. I believe that he should maintain himself as the democratically designated elected leader of the Democratic Party. Contrary to that hack journalist, Blitzer and his ‘dream Team”.
Obama forced to that position form a third party and run against both Hillary Clinton and John McCain. This would be true democracy in action but we all know this is a fantasy. People everywhere both in this country and abroad want change in the USA. Should that occur Obama needs a ready made party and given his environmental agenda the Green Party and others might supply the reasoning. However they are in such disarray this is probably an unlikely thought. His rhetoric suggests, that we must move away from the “failed policies of the past” if we are to save this world for future generations.
Obama has stated he has run because the time is now not in the future. The changes needed, are as he puts it, “right now”, not in the future and the perils of environmental collapse are approaching so quickly that we do not have the luxury of another eight years of “business as usual” which would be the Clinton way, before he could claim the office of president. Clinton knows that she can not win against McCain without Obama. To defeat Clinton and the return to the failed bush methodology she amply displayed to win Ohio a radical shift in Campaign policy is necessary.
He is a populist candidate that has offered hope! He should continue that platform with the courage to take the steps necessary if the standard-bearer position is denied to him to effect party and changes in American direction. He should take this radical shift and direction, if necessary! By doing so he would serve notice to the Democratic Party that democracy is not lost in America should the first place be denied. The party is being prepared for Clinton with the discussion now on the table for Michigan and Florida to vote once again. We all lose and the possibility of change and it goes down with her selection.
If he takes half the country with him to a third party we all have a chance. He believes that the failed policies of the past exist within the entrenched two party systems in congress represented by the Super delegates. The only way of preventing another move to those failed policies is not to allow Hillary Clinton to win by forcing Barak Obama to take second place. But does Barak Obam have that amount of courage to suggest this option, I doubt it, though I support the man. This would be the last hand to play and he should be discussing this in the back rooms of the party as Hillary is discussing, the two other states she covets
This public denial by him of allowing super-delegates to determine the election would be a way of circumventing the second place the congress and CNN want him to accept. It would force the super delegates to reflect the will of the people. I heard one of the super-delegates speaking from Georgia. He was black and under examination by the press, it was clear that the po