The Clinton-Colombia Connection: It Goes Back a Long Way

A week ago, if you'd asked most people to say the first thing that popped into their heads when they heard the word "Colombia," you might have gotten: "Bogotá," "coffee," "cocaine," or maybe even "kidnappings."

Today that list would probably be led by "Clinton."

First came chief strategist Mark Penn's "reassignment" following the embarrassing revelation of his side job advising the Colombian government on how to promote a trade agreement loudly decried by the candidate whose campaign has so far paid him and his firm $10,800,000 for his input.

Then came word that Clinton campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson also has financial ties to Colombia via his involvement the Glover Park Group, a company founded by Clinton administration alum Joe Lockhart that has also been advising the Colombian government.

And, of course, there is the Whitman sampler of Colombian goodies gobbled up by Bill Clinton, including: $800,000 in speaking fees from a Colombian pro-free trade agreement group; a "Colombia is Passion" award bestowed by Colombia's president Alvaro Uribe (who honored the former president as an "unofficial minister of tourism"); and a sweet Colombian oil field deal for a company Clinton pal Frank Giustra's investment firm had advised. Giustra is the mining magnate who has donated $31 million to Clinton's charitable fund, and whom Bill personally introduced to Colombian President Uribe (Giustra is the same guy Clinton helped land a uranium deal in Kazakhstan, but that's a Clinton story for a different blog post).

The Clinton-Colombia connection doesn't stop there -- and involves much, much more than a spousal disagreement over how free our trade with the Colombians should be.

As President, Bill Clinton had initiated Plan Colombia, a $1.3 billion aid package to escalate the war on drugs in Colombia. I wrote a number of columns in 2000 and 2001 outlining the very troubling nature of this Clinton-backed initiative. I'll include the links at end of this post if you want a fuller history, but here is a quick refresher:

At the time, Colombia was in the midst of a four-decades long three-way civil war pitting the Colombian army, which has one of the worst human-rights records in the Western hemisphere, against leftist rebels and right-wing paramilitary groups, both largely funded by the drug trade (a war that continues to this day). Despite the abject failure of America's misguided war on drugs -- with the hundreds of billions spent on it failing to curtail drug use -- Clinton decided that another billion or so directed to Colombia would do the trick. The Colombian military's extensive ties to right wing death squads be damned! In fact, Clinton signed a waiver of human-rights provisions that Congress had imposed on the Colombia drug-war package.

The story of how Clinton helped funnel all that money to Colombia is a textbook case of much that is wrong with the way our political system operates.

For instance, to avoid resistance from those who did not believe this was the best way to spend over a billion in taxpayer dollars, the Clinton administration decided to introduce the Colombian aid as part of a larger emergency-spending package -- bundling the potentially controversial measure with proposals to provide $2.2 billion for relief from natural disasters, and $854 million for military health care. It's an old legislative ploy designed to squelch debate and force politicians to vote for wasteful -- or even terrible -- measures just because they don't want to be painted as being against God, country, and disaster relief.

The Clinton White House also used a poll commissioned by a very interested party to help provide cover for the Colombian initiative. Here's how it worked: defense contractor Lockheed Martin commissioned Democratic pollster Mark Mellman to conduct a poll which concluded that 56 percent of registered voters would support $2 billion being spent on "tracking planes to be flown in drug-producing areas." (I'm surprised the poll didn't also conclude that 82 percent of those 56 percent would be especially overjoyed if those planes were "Lockheed Martin P-3 tracking planes.") Lockheed's smart bomb hit its mark: five months after this manufactured mandate was presented to the president, he proposed the $1.3 billion package, confident that he could shake "the will of the people" (or at least the 800 people Mellman offered his tailor-made questions to) in the face of opponents.

And, it wasn't just the White House playing the Beltway game. When there is that much money involved, you know that lobbyists will be right in the center of the action. In the case of Plan Colombia's river of cash, among those involved were Clinton confident Vernon Jordan, whose law firm was hired by the Colombian government to stump for it on the Hill. And lobbyists for Occidental Petroleum, BP Amoco, and (flashback alert!) Enron, all of which had business interests in Colombia, were also greasing the wheels for the aid bonanza - as were lobbyists for a pair of helicopter manufacturers looking to get a cut of the substantial slice of the money earmarked for the purchase of drug-war fighting choppers.

This is how our government worked then - and how it continues to work today, with Washington insiders moving back and forth between lobbying firms, campaign staffs, and government positions, and former presidents raking in big bucks making speeches while acting as facilitators to sweetheart private deals and advocating for public ones.

And this is how our government will work in the future as long as we elect candidates whose campaigns are run by the likes of Mark Penn and Howard Wolfson -- and advised by the likes of Bill Clinton. And that holds for the likes of Charlie Black, Rick Davis, and the bevy of other lobbyists guiding John McCain's campaign as well.

Follow the stink rising off the Clinton/Colombia connection and you'll arrive at the very large slagheap that American politics has become.

Click here to pre-order my new book, Right Is Wrong

Links to Colombia columns:

Colombia: The Drug War's Latest Perverse Priority - March 13, 2000

Commissioned Polls: Is That Your Final Answer? - April 20, 2000

The Drug War And Colombia: Deny And Escalate - May 11, 2000

Bush And Gore On Colombia: Ask Us No Questions, We'll Tell You No Lies - August 28, 2000

Colombia Chopper Wars - June 26, 2000

Random Acts Of Leadership - February 15, 2001

Good Morning, Colombia - July 16, 2001

Follow Arianna Huffington on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ariannahuff

Comments

[Keondas78]

There's also a cultural element to this in that presidents in latin American are also seen by their people as the supreme power. In doing so, people continue to preserve status quo, do not speak up, and continue to be hypnotized by a war that could be stopped. The willingness is just not there. Then, there's the coca. That's a whole other issue that makes things worse. or, so it seems. does it need to? why after 3.1 billion of investment it hasn't been solved? perhaps it's also deeply embedded in the cultural norms of the region. Nothing wrong with that. Except it has gotten out of hand, and out of sight.

My apologies if certain adjectives appear to offend people, but hey...some things are just the facts... why not accept it, and move on? It's like someone would say Americans like junk food, or Americans pollute the environment....well those are also true statements

[Keondas78]

In reality such laws are tough to implement as is the case in many latinamerican countries. It's no secret that after that law was passed only very few courts or judges were actually implementing it. They would send the couples to be married to a "different" court where the proceding is conducted, and amidst threats from the same judges. Oh...and we haven't even mentioned the far right independent armies that are responsible to thousands of deaths, which has been sponsored by members of congress in that country! It's said too that the current president was affilliated to those groups! Likewise, human rights organizations continue to dennounce how peasants are killed by such groups, and by the government to make them seem like rebels. It's said that guerilla operations have been made up to make the problem look worse, or to continue blaming the problem on someone else, instead of taking accountability. Lastly, that most Colombians like the tactics use by its leadership? Are we just just asking the 5% of the elite? Can we cross the bridges and ask the working class, and the vast majority that lives under poverty line and do not have access to decent channels of communication, or access to any politician they could trust?

[Keondas78]

I most certainly do not agree with the use of violence to change a situation; however, it appears to me that parts of the working class and the poor people of that country -about 55% of the population- I think, just saw one choice and that was to fight.... therefore the argument that Colombia faces a war against FARC (Revolutionary Armed forces of Colombia) shouldn't be allowed as an argument to ally with the government of that country. To a good extent, that's a fictitious war in that it escalated to the level it has because the government of that country has been unable to manage corruption, and unable to restructure institutions to start, at least, having a plan to address endemic social issues. The president of that country does not take an active & open stance to acknowledge FARC's claims. I do not believe that Alvaro Uribe popularity rate is 82%. Perhaps that's the case in the upper, and leading class of Colombia. Also, the main media venues in that country, supported by the state, maneuver information to be in favor of the leading class of that country. What we see here is a medieval government in 2008!! It's also true that in recent years so called progressive laws have been passes such as allowing gay marriages. But....I believe that has been done to appeal to America, as a more civilized country, and to favor the seal of the treaty.

[Keondas78]

. But what does all this have to do with the northamerican public, and with the lay American citizen? As you point out politians tend to have double agendas. First, a commercial treaty with that country, while some claim is needed to strenghten the U.S commercial & political ties with latinamerican, shouldn't be the justification to enter in such treaty, without fist looking at all factors at play here. Others claim that Nancy Pelosi effectively opposed the treaty solely on the basis of antagonizing Mr. Bush, is not true either. I think Pelosi acted by using common sense.

I agree Colombia has a localized armed conflict with left wing revolutionary groups. But...hey.­...imagine the following: Imagine American farmers 80 years ago not being allowed access to land where they could harvest corn, cattle, potatoes, etc. Imagine those farmers being pushed to marginalized areas of the country by the government, by politicians, and by powerful land oweners. And, to make things worse imagine those farmers, or the working class people not having access to healhcare of any type, not having access to a basic education. Now...continue picturing these pattern over decades, and decades. Imagine those farmers being made promises each time a new election came up, or being offered cash for their votes, and, then, be forgotten for 4 more years. How would you think that segment of the population would feel.... to say the least? Would they feel they cannot trust their politicians.

[Keondas78]

Thanks so much for bringing attention to the matters outlined in your article. Being part Colombian myself, and also Colombian-born, I couldn't agree with you more about the failed & hyprocritical Plan Colombia. Not only were American tax payers embroiled in a foreign affair issue that's complex and filled with corruption, but they were also, once more, ridiculed by their leadership. It's no secret that Plan Colombia didn't work. The crops of coca and the labs to produce coca paste were simply moved to other areas of Colombia. Today, Colombia continues to be the number one producer of cocaine. And, the money that was sent down there to support the plan in Colombian soil? Should we ask the government of that country where it went? I'm not too sure it was designated to restructure that country's political institution so that peasants have alternatives to growing coca, or alternatives to resorting to joinining left-wing armed groups because their politicians aren't able to take care of its own people. It's true that part of it went to social programs, but I sure hope corrupted politicians in that country didn't suddenly saw their back accounts inflate with taxpayer's contributions.

These days, too, if you were to ask me what comes to mind when someone mentions Colombia...I'd have to say "corruption" "kidnappings" for sure, "violence" which I mostly attribute to that country's government lack of accountability, and most importantly, I'd have to say....rampart facism

[StraightShooterPA]

******** REALITY CHECK ********

In summary, it is very important to be critical, but be critical on the facts, not interpretations and opinion. See what is happening for what it is. Know that Hillary Rodham Clinton did, in fact, lie to you and got caught, then gave a remorseless apology, then joked about it on national tv while our soldiers are getting killed daily from very real sniper fire. Those are the facts. Obama accurately assessed the growing sentiment in small towns in Pennsylvania and throughout this country that they have lost jobs, pensions, pay more than they ever have for gas and heating and food, and confidence in our Government on the whole has dropped - all polling indicates that overwhelmingly. Obama is reaching to those people, like he has all of us, to help us realize that change can in fact happen, he can inspire us to achieve more, not to be satisfied with where we are rather to work together to make change happen. What else could possibly explain his successful campaign performance from six months ago to now? Being out of touch? Now who said this first? What is their credibility? And who jumped in on it soon after? Ask the better question - WHY was it brought up? Was it an attempt to perhaps take the eye of justifiable scrutiny off of her?

Know the facts. Think.
You be the judge.
Then VOTE.

God Bless America
God Bless Barack Obama

Michael & Erica Williams
Philadelphia,

[StraightShooterPA]

******** REALITY CHECK ********

Likeability & Electability.
Is it important to grow our Democractic base or discourage and alienate them? Is it important to stay on message while opposition continues to divide and conquer? Is it important that a very large portion of the opposition will be automatically be against you because of a previous history of controversy in earlier administrations? Is your clear difference of opinion with your spouse an indication of other differences that existed from long ago or will there be more drama to come? Is it unfair to ask questions about this in an attempt to diffuse what is already out there and most certainly will come up again? Does tearing down your democratic ally to better yourself make you more likeable or would it be far more likely that would be perceived as divisiveness? Does it make you weaker or stronger to stay on message, defend when necessary, and continue to speak the truth above all else even though it may not be what you want to hear, but what we need to know?

Michael & Erica Williams
Philadelphia, PA

******** REALITY CHECK ********

[StraightShooterPA]

******** REALITY CHECK ********

Leadership, Wisdom, and Experience.
Is it really important to have insight to the real cost, not just the dollars, to the outcome of war? Is it important to be able to remain clear-minded and be able to accurately identify our enemy while overwhelming sentiment is to strike anyone who crossed us regardless of their actual threat? Is it important to demonstrate and exhaust all diplomatic avenues with any country before going to war? The Bush Administration has set this up perfectly, how on earth is it possible to achieve success in Iraq when the definition of success keeps changing or simply does not exist? Is it the role of our military to act as peacekeepers or would it be better to draw down, reinforce our alliances to draw in a more multinational peacekeeping force and open a dialog with all bordering countries that our current adminstration has been unwilling and unable to do? Is it true that our very presence in the Middle-East is what caused the attacks of 9/11 and keeping them there actually fans the flames of Radical Extremism and growing their numbers far greater than they were before invading Iraq? Are we more safe? Is it more likely we are bankrupting our nation in a no-win scenario? If we succeed we stay and if we haven't succeeded we stay - what kind of strategy is that, while the death toll keeps rising?

Michael & Erica Williams
Philadelphia, PA

******** REALITY CHECK ********

[StraightShooterPA]

******** REALITY CHECK ********

Let me try to tackle each with questions, I'll let you make up your own mind:

Honesty & Integrity.
Is getting caught lying to voters with intent to decieve and mislead a fair indication of an individual's character? When it becomes confirmed that the lies were calculated and repeated many times an indication of broader ramifications? Is it a conflict of interest to take $800,000 that goes into a joint account from Special Interests totally against what your stated positions are an indication that you will owe them something should you get elected? Is there further deception that your Lead Strategist goes to Colombia to iron out details for a Free Trade Agreement or is it more likely you are lying again to voters and really support it? Is credibility important? Is filing for an extension on you tax returns for 2007 while only providing scarce outline with no details another intent to decieve? Is hiding a donor list another attempt to decieve? How important is loyalty with regard to donations when your main message from your SuperDelegates is loyalty? Exactly how many people do you owe favors and loyalty to and where do the issues of voters fall into this in terms of your priorities?

Michael & Erica Williams
Philadelphia, PA

******** REALITY CHECK ********

[StraightShooterPA]

Tried to enter popular list blog but AD wont clear to allow entry. this post is relevant to Clinton lies regarding Bosnia but more pertainent to a blog that wont allow me to enter.


******** REALITY CHECK ********

If you are reading this, I tip my hat to you for pursuing truth in opinion. I would encourage you to always seek truth and speak it as well. Where truth gets lost is in perception and it is from that point I draw motivation to write an entry here.

We are currently entrenched in the most historic nomination process ever. Either candidate getting the Presidency will mark very important milestones; gender, race, age.

What do you campaign on if two candidates are essentially positioned identically on all the main issues?

Honesty & Integrity; Leadership, Wisdom & Experience; Likeability & Electability?

Michael & Erica Williams
Philadelphia, PA

******** REALITY CHECK ********

[Jazz42]

Ms. Huffington.
A great post. It remind us again how the Clintons have lied to the American people so many times, and are still liying to the American people

[Selbourne]

Bil Clinton takes $800,000 to promote Columbian Free Trade Agreement that Hillary claims to oppose. This money is part of their joint income. Is Bill taking money under false pretenses or is Hillary seeking office under false pretenses. If we the voters ignore low ethics in candidates, what right do we have to complain that the country is going in the wrong direction.
The Clintons have seized on Obama's poor choice of words to explain why he thinks his economic message is not well received in Pennsylvania by the very people he is trying to help.
Obama's point right or wrong was simply this. He felt that people in some smaller communities have many times in the past heard presidential candidates promise to take action to make their lives better economically. Once in office these men forgot their promises and helped the rich and powerful to oppress the middle class. Instead of protecting the middle class they have signed free trade agreements and adopted tax policies that send middle class jobs overseas. As a result many people have become cynical and no longer believe in economic promises. Instead they vote their interests in social policies like the right to bear arms, immigration, abortion, gay marriage.
Use your brains Pennsylvanians. The issue you need to vote on is not whether Obama is elitist, but whether you believe he will genuinely seek the interest of the middle class and poor. Millions of us are betting our hard earned money he will.

[dadw5boys]

Lets think about THE REASONS FOR NAFTA.

Other countries are becoming industrialized.
They can make the same products sold here for less because of labor cost.
The cost of raw material is about the same except for Sugar and shipping.
Sugar because the high dollar political connections of the Sugar industry.
Shipping because of labor and regulation cost.

Other reason for NAFTA a lot of patents have run out and anyone can make that product.

So moving to another country to produce the same product imporves the bottom line espically for investors and stock holders.
While the cost of raw material is not that much different with maybe $0. 12 cents higher cost per item to make it here in the USA it all come down to greed.
That extra $0.12 cents per tiem is too much to pay for those who seek the cheapest labor and want to pay no benifits to their employees for hard work only BONUSES to the excutives.

That is NAFTA to me the short list.

Of course you have the U.S. Citizens who are only 5 % of the world population comsuming 25 % of the worlds production so producing most of it here seems selfish. But if you kill the consumers ability to consume then production anywhere is a waste if it must be sold here.

[unionave]

You missed a very important point with this comment regarding free trade agreements . LOBBYIST . Members of our government get nice treatment from country XYZ . Our gov members put together a package paid for with our tax money and hand it to these nice people . They like it so they use some of the goodies to pay LOBBYIST to get some more of these goodies . Our gov members now have a steady flow of goodies in to their coffers . Tax payer's money through the pipe line from us to them . It is not just the corporations that benefit from free trade agreements . Members of our government and the LOBBYIST are all making out like bandits . The real money is in LOBBYING . Carvel , Begala , WJC , Mark Penn and the rest of their suporters are all LOBBYIST seeking to improve their governmental influence . And you can add Mr McCain and company to this list . Goodby jobs . When we learn to vote with our minds and not we our sentiment we will then get the government we want . Not until then .

[kfdan]

The War on Drugs like the War on Terror is a business! It's really as simple as that. The international financial consortium's wheels are greased by the drug trade and Washington is really in Columbia to make sure that the drug flow continues with little interference! Remember Oliver North and that nasty little bit of drug business during the Reagan years! It's still on and Bill is out there with the flow ... Penn is working on his behalf.

[Barbarossa03]

Also another point of interest. If Venezuela and Ecuador are sitting on fat oil reserves whose to say Colombia isn't. Aside from terrorizing the people of Colombia, the FARC also prevents oil companies from surveying this land. DEA has said that we have lost the war on drugs. The war in Colombia is against the FARC (which is right fully so), not the drug trade. Everything (all humanitari­an/economi­c assistance) is done in the best interest of the USA if you didn't know. So the real question is, are we really down there to assist the poor Colombian people in their war against a ruthless, terrorist organization or are we down there to drive out this ruthless, terrorist organization so that the oil companies can start drilling for oil in the jungles of Colombia?

[racetoinfinity]

Great post, Arianna - and thanks for the research. I'm saving it for the way it lays bare the corrupt beltway system we suffer under in both parties.

Barring a "road to Damascus" moment (I'm being sarcastic), unfortunately, it seems we have a major hypocrite - I'll say it - liar - in the person of Hillary, who'll turn chameleon to get elected. How can she say she's anti the Colombian deal, after all the evidence you've gathered? Must be pure lying opportunism. Does she think we're all that stupid?