Obama Glosses 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.

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.

UPDATE: 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.

AP: "President: Ecuador was in talks with rebels to release 12 hostages, including Betancourt"

Comments

[glitzqueen]

For decades, our country has methodically savaged the economies of its neighbors to the south (as is excellently detailed in Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine"), among other nations -- all for the benefit of transnational corporations and local oligarchies. Among the earliest victims, many in South America are now rousing from the trance and telling entities like the World Bank, the IMF and big oil companies to go jump off something. Urribe, by contrast, is a fan; he has long and close ties to the right-wing militias that act as corporate enforcers and inspire movements like the FARC to defend the rights of peasants and workers.

When, oh when, are enough Americans going to wake up to the fact that we're being victimized by exactly the same exponents of "free trade" (aka lavish corporate welfare, on the backs of everyone else)? While I don't like FARC violence any more than the violence of the corporatists, it has higher motivations than sheer greed. And we'd better find a way to get big money out of politics, before we're fighting here, too.

[Robert Naiman - Huffpost Blogger]

Robert59 notes my "claim" that Colombia broke international law. I refer him to the consensus resolution of the OAS:

'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." '

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-colombia6mar06,1,7827865.story

[vinbeazel]

This is the best observation I have seen, that recognizes the aggression of our "ally" colombia, who has received 5 billion US tax dollars to keep Uribe in power...

In contrast, Chavez has been targeted for overthrow, and we have done everything short of landing the Marines in Caracas to take out Chavez with precision guided missiles...a scenario right out of Tom Clancy's books/movies...

If this is how Clinton uses her influence, to fuel a scorched earth policy in the southern states, I will expend my energies and Spanish training to help Obama win the party nomination. Go Obama and Ron Paul!

[NABNYC]

If Hillary Clinton is elected, the U.S. war against Iraq will continue throughout her term and for decades to come. HRC recognizes that this is a resources war, and the real benefit to the U.S. in attacking Iraq is in the ability to stay there and steal its oil.

HRC also supports a war against Iran. As do her supporters in Israel. Clinton would prefer that Bush start the war so she can duck responsibility, which is why she supported that stupid and insipid Kyle-Lieberman resolution.

HRC will also start a war against Lebanon. Remember her devotion to and support for Israel's attack on civilians and on the UN inside Lebanon.

HRC will also start wars against all Palestinian territories to complete the genocide. She has already publicly said that she will leave troops in the middle east to fight against and try to destroy Hezbollah and Hamas. As if we don't have enough wars already.

And she obviously will support Bush in trying to assasinate Chavez and/or yet another effort to stage a phoney coup in that country. And I assume she would love to invade Cuba. It's impossible to imagine anyone supporting the thugs, thieves and assassins that make up the government in Columbia.

This woman is a pro-war, pro-corporate, pro-Nafta hack. I can't believe anyone would vote for her.

What are her liberal credentials? She's been in the Senate for 7 years during which she has done absolutely nothing. A few ridiculous resolutions honoring strawberry jam, or other things of no consequence. She claims to be a fighter, but that's only against Obama, not against her good friends Bush and Cheney who she has never spoken again. If she gets the nomination, I give up.

[LouPop]

There are food shortages in Venezuela? Is it because the same people who set up a dictatorship in 2002 (they"re obviously freedom loving patriots in your eyes) are cutting back supplies intentionally? I know this because they"ve announced their plans to the public. Funny that nothing is said about this fact, that they"re intentionally hurting their countrymen and women because they want to regain power and enact policies that Venezuelans don"t want. This same tactic was used in Nicaragua against the Sandinistas. This is why the government has set up stores of their own to sell food. Inflation is raging. Why? Well, one reason is the structure of the monetary system. Venezuela, like every other country, has fractional reserve banking. When people make more money (as they have thanks to Chavez, you obviously don"t think about the situation in Venezuela before Chavez when the vast majority were in poverty) they spend more, the "velocity of money" increases. This, along with the fact that banks can create wealth for themselves out of nothing every time a money deposit goes through, is what causes inflation. Investors hate this "goods inflation" because they can"t make more money off of debt. What you want in practice, you might try to make it sound more benign but in practice it would be exactly this, is for the people to make horribly low wages so they have less purchasing power and the velocity of money decreases, thus increasing the relative wealth of elite investors. That"s what will solve inflation there. Put people back into poverty, make them go into debt to investors, and sell off the resources people depend on for survival to the highest bidder, thus creating a good "investment climate".

Also, have any idea how many attempts paramilitaries have made on Chavez" life? Have any idea how close a connection the Uribe government has to these groups? Have any idea how much of the "anti-drug" payments the US government gives to Colombia goes towards the military and have any idea on the effect Plan Colombia has on farmers & the eco-system? If you need a refresher let me know, I"ll give you some links.

Answer a few questions really quickly: you are obviously against Chavez. Who & what are you FOR? Are you in favor of the governments before Chavez? Do you want something similar to Colombia? Give me a single country that the US supports in the region that would be a counter example to Chavez" Venezuela. At least that way we can understand where your criticisms are coming from.

[LouPop]

"He has repeatedly tried to change the Venezuelan constitution so he can stay in power indefinitely (this part of the vote failed)."

Actually, because the 1999 constitution (created by the Chavez government and voted on in a NATIOAL referendum) the general population there, unlike here, have tremendous direct power. For instance, if 10% of the country disagrees with a law passed by Chavez they can put the law up for a public referendum. Do you have that option here with this broken democracy? If 35% of the country wants Chavez or whoever follows him re-called, the re-call gets put up for a national referendum. You"ll remember this was actually used against Chavez a few years ago. Funny that the press didn"t mention that it was only possible thanks to Chavez himself. What Chavez did wasn"t change the constitution himself (this was actually done by the president of Colombia. He had his cronies in government change the constitution to run indefinitely without the input of the Colombian population. Did you hear articles about the threats to Colombian democracy? Not surprising though, a Bush ally in Australia just gone done with his FOUTH term, France for instance has no term limits). Chavez asked the people to vote on the idea and the vote failed. He accepted the defeat. Very dictatorial.

RCTV is the TV station you"re talking about and you obviously have no idea what happened. The TV station, along with a few other private channels there, worked with groups receiving money from the US (through the organizations like the NED) that were working for the removal of the democratically elected government of Venezuela. Not only that, as the coup was going down they called people (even though a small minority opposed the government) to hit the streets and used misleading footage to goad them into it. Other stations were actually used by the coup plotters as bases. An interview on Globovision with one of the coup plotters revealed this on national TV. In 2002 there was a coup. The constitution (voted on in a national referendum and supported by the vast majority of the country) was torn up, all branches of government dissolved, the head of the Central Bank removed and a military dictatorship was set up. When it was announced the crowd cheered. The US was the first government to recognize the dictatorship. On TV, on NATIONAL TV, the coup plotters actually thanked RCTV for their support of the removal of the democratically elected government. Chavez was restored by the people and what did he do in response to this? He didn"t send a single person on the station to jail, he waited five years and didn"t renew the license for the station. They had to go to cable. So the punishment for a TV station supporting the removal of a democratically elected government was that they had to go to cable TV. If CNN had did the same with, say, Chinese money, would you think it was "authoritarian" to not simply re-new their license, not sending anyone to jail? Do you ever place yourself in Venezuela"s shoes and ask yourself if you or the US were in their position if it would be logical to call acting as Chavez did an "attack against the press"? I challenge you to find a single press agency not involved with the removal of its democratic government with the funding of the attacking superpower being attacked by Chavez.

There isn"t a more democratic government in Latin America. The regular people of that country have many more rights than you or I ever will here. If the US were under the same external pressure they"d be infinitely worse and you know it. Maybe you should read up about what is actually happening in the country, trying to be objective about what pressures its under thanks to the US, and not only pay attention to the same elite press groups who sold you the Iraq war and the wonders of pacts like NAFTA. Just a suggestion.

Here"s a site that will also help: http://www.zcommunications.org/znet

[Robert59]

I wanted to puke when I read your article. Let's put it in a context we can all understand. We have a group of terrorists in our country who commit numerous atrocities, kidnap hundreds to ransom as a way to finance their war, sell drugs to finance that war, and bed down their forces in neighboring countries. Those neighboring countries it turns out not only know about the terrorists but make sure (in the case of Ecuador) they put military commanders in those areas who are FARC friendly. It then turns out these terrorists/traitors/insurgents are receiving money from those neighboring countries.

Seems to me you've put the cart before the horse. Ecuador and Venezuela started this by not securing their borders and by financing and offering safe haven to FARC.

If this were one of our neighbors every American would be screaming for the bombing of Ottawa or Mexico City. You're one of those leftist Democrats my Republican friends always warn me about, the lunatic fringe of my party.

And it's not a massacre to attack sleeping combatants. It's called war. No one is claiming the Colombian military mowed them down when they were attemping to surrender which would be a war crime. Killing the enemy when he's least able to defend himself is how you win wars; this isn't a schoolyard fight.

Grow up.

[LouPop]

Robert, let"s put it into a different context. There is a liberal president in the late 1940"s who wants to introduce progressive reform. He"s not even a leftist, he"s basically a New Dealers type. He"s assassinated, a ten year civil war starts. The worse violence is against the peasants, especially in the south of Colombia. The US steps in and essentially creates an infrastructure that kills tens of thousands of innocent people. More union leaders killed in Colombia than the rest of the world combined. The UN and Human Rights Watch say that the majority of the atrocities are committed by the very network that the US committed, largely against the peasants who would go on to form the FARC and similar groups. The vast majority of drugs come out of the North & the very same network that the US has created. The DEA admits as much. The US looks away, just as they did in the past with drug networks that financed its activities. During the 80"s the peasants who formed the FARC, and the other left forces not associated with the FARC, are asked to come out of the woodwork and take part in peaceful democratic elections. They do so and thousands of their leaders are quickly killed. Presidential candidates, mayors, lawyers, teachers, social workers, etc. After this the US steps up it support for the counter narcotic operations (only 1/3 of which goes to this, the majority of it is actually military transfers), ruining the country"s agricultural system and stepping up the violence against the population there. Out of this the group becomes more an more violent, (similar in some negative ways to Pots forces in Cambodia, which the CIA admits wouldn"t have come to power or formed if the US didn"t drop more bombs on Cambodia than all the bombs dropped by the Allies during WWII) even against the social groups that it used to be aligned with.

First off, do you acknowledge that the FARC are largely a creation in reaction to the US" and the Colombian right wing"s policies? Do you not acknowledge that they, and other violent leftist groups, have formed in large part because the economic and social reforms that are needed have been stalled and reversed by the right wing here and in Colombia? Do you deny that the majority of violence is actually committed by the groups that the US is aligned with? Do you deny that the FARC and the other leftist forces, when asked to take part in the democratic process, were killed by the thousands? Finally, do you not acknowledge that the US is funding the same elements in Venezuela and these elements attempted to set up a military dictatorship in Venezuela in 2002, and were only able to do so because of US funding and military support?

I, personally, don"t agree with the FARC"s tactics and think it has acted in extremely immoral ways. It"s also hurt the people working towards the social and economic transformations, as well as the left, in the country. However, Chavez (supposedly, the evidence has not been verified and not been further explained, these groups have a long history of lying through their teeth) would have good reason to align himself with this group, hopefully begrudgingly, because the government and paramilitaries they"re fighting against have attacked him, have had numerous plans of assassination against Chavez uncovered, would jump in a heartbeat to help with his removal & are funded by the same country who wants to install similar elements in his country against the will of the populace there. The situation is so much more complex than what you want to paint it. If Chavez is supporting terrorists then what is the US supporting when every international, independent organization involved with the conflict says that the majority of violence committed is from the paramilitaries, who are largely funded by selling the majority of drugs out of the country, with US weapons?

[JacobSinger]

Robert:

While this may seem overly pessimistic, I really believe we need to accept the fact that there are ZERO presidential candidates [even among those who've dropped out of the race] who have the political courage required to take a good long look at US foreign policy positions and make logical, non-aggressive, non-hegemonic decisions and changes to those policies.

It would be nice to think [or hope] that Obama has such an agenda hidden somewhere and he has the common sense not to disclose it until he has the actual power to act. But there's nothing in anything he has said, written or presented as potential policy to suggest that such is his intent.

[Robert59]

I don't disagree with you at all Jacob, but it's not germane to Naiman's contention Colombia broke international law or that Obama and Clinton's answers were in violation of international law.

By financing those groups and offering them safe havens Ecuador and Venezuela declared war, albeit through a proxy. I've got no sympathy for either government.

To imply Colombia as somehow being worse than Ecuador or Venezuela is a joke. Love him or hate him the only dictator who eschewed lining his own pockets is Castro. Chavez wants to take from the rich and give to Chavez. The same is true of Ecuador's leadership.

The continuation of La Violencia going on for nearly seven decades (my mom was there in the 40s when the Blancos and Rojos waged war by slaughtering campesinos by the tens of thousands) has kept Colombia in third world status when it should be a first world state.

[JacobSinger]

I don't doubt what you're saying about Colombia [and I have no personal experience to contrast against it], but considering all that we have "going on" in that country--CIA ops, and god only knows what else--it's hard for me to see how Ecuador or Venezuela are at fault by calling bullshit on this. None of the players are angels, but with sovereignty and defined borders on the side of Ecuador and Venezuela [a principle the US undoubtedly ignores completely these days], it seems to me they have a right to object, and respond if such continues.

[citygal]

i guess because few people other than one who posted earlier than I, have any idea what is the true situation in these countries, you can write posts like this one, robert59, that just makes stuff up. I suggest you read about the history of Colombia as the US' "keystone" to control of all of Latin America. Colombia is not only much 'worse' than Ecuador or Venezuela, it is our proxy, the most right-wing government in Latin America, conducting a scorched-earth policy in FARC controlled areas(no, I do not support FARC, but life is more complicated than you imagine). Your casual assertion that Chavez and Correa are crooks is nothing but a slander, ... or can you offer any evidence?
Probably better to refrain from opinionizing about things about which you clearly know nothing.
If Mexico invaded Texas to go after one of its drug gangs or after the Zapatistas, what would your position be?
Hillary made outrageous and unsolicited comments about Latin America & Russia at the end of one of her last debates with Obama. This alone made me jump off the fence and become an Obama supporter. I wish his position were better than this, however.
Thanks to Naiman for a great commentary.

[JacobSinger]

The US position, while not clear to the uninformed [and incredibly misleading to the kool-aid drinkers], is The Same As It Ever Was; the US no longer has allies outside of developed nations that can offer resistance to our goals and/or policies--they're either client states, enemies, or potential enemies.

The candidates' statements are negligible, IMO, as both are restrained in what they can say, and both are calculating what to say in terms of how their statements play to their base. I liked Obama's statement best, but if we're honest about the entire situation, we're on the wrong side of this issue, and when that is the case the US never makes course corrections--the idiots in DC and the delusional knee-jerk patriots will champion the absurd notion that the US is infallible in its policy decisions.

[Brooklynindy]

In other policy matters....I'd like to propose that the HuffPost and all its bloggers give the "drink the kool-aid / kool-aid drinker" cliché a REST. It's TIRED... and it's gettin' real old, real fast. Trendoid-ish.

[JacobSinger]

Is that you, Jim Jones? ;-)

[kararay]

The Hillary position is the very same old we north americans have the answer to other people's problem and therefore they ought to do as we say. Reconcillation, conversation and honoring of other human beings are not a part of the vocabulary of these folks... any thing to win and grap power that's their language....

[TruthLives]

I have no stand with what goes on in Colombia, Ecuador, or Venezuela...what I do care about is why the U.S. is the most hated country in the world...simple answer, because we must always for some reason involve ourselves in the affairs of another country ... We are not the worlds "big brother" and we still have not learned from Viet Nam, Granada, Panama, Iraq to name a few... I don't care who the president is, but unless it threatens us directly, I say HANDS OFF.........this is not an anti Hillary, Obama, or McCain posting so please don't treat it as one. This is about a foreign policy that is out of touch with the rest of the world.

[ljsfolly]

Well you fools who voted for Hillary have just voted for another "war president". She is bush in a dress. She will go to war with the "military we have not the military we want". with MAc or Hillary you will use up and break the military that bush has almost broken now. Feel better? You guys/gals don't get it. It's not so much love and anything else like hope but the thought of war until our economy and the military is so broken it cannot be fixed. Hillary and Mac have no clue how to fix things and neither one cares about hope and a changed future. Just war and power and hate.

[Halsey]

I agree with folly...Hillary IS a hawk...pure and simple..when WILL her supporters see that..(or..maybe they are hawks as well)... Obama's response was not sufficient. that is true... however..MY GOD people..do you want more (we already have special forces there)..TROOPS we DON"T have...sent to the friggin jungles (hmm..remind you of another "war")...of Colombia...just because HUGO has LOTS of...here it is....OIL!!!!!!!....and Ecuador..has lots of.........NATURAL GAS.... OMG..can't you just see Exxon and Conoco salivating over the overthrow of HUGO (yes..he's a nut job...but..has no WMD's..in case you were curious)..

Hillary wants to be Maggie Thatcher...only in a pantsuit (don't think I ever saw the other iron lady in a pantsuit).. She (HRC)..will continue the "fear" campaign..with hubby at her side...except when he's in Paris with Steve Bing..billionnaire playboy.... do you really think he'll keep Mr. happy in his pants..he couldn't even do that when he was the "official" president...(and hey guy..we're not france where they forgive that kind of thing)..

Get real America...don't turn us further down the road of IMPERIALISM...we have enough problems here at home to deal with...

[castlerider]

The reason Rush Limbaugh is so tickled to see Hillary win is because he knows that having Hillary in the Running, or even in the White House will ensure that the rethuglicans can unite against her, costing us the election in 08 and/or congressional and Senate seats in 2010.

Having the Clintons to attack while his pronged debates decimates and polarizes this country while he does has been his meal ticket going on 20 years now- You'd think we'd all be able to see through this fat faced idiot by now. I'm sick of him, and sick of the Clintons as well.

[Mac101]

So let me see if I got it right. The FARC are some mean murderous terrorists. The Columbians killed them while they slept in their pajamas. If we find Bin Laden's cave in Pakistan and kill him while he is sleeping we would be extremely mean spirited? Of course Bin Laden has most likely been dead for several years by now. If not, he's got to be the biggest Jihadist coward not to be more visable in some quality videos to inspire his fellow terrorist cohorts.

[citygal]

so, mac101, you think there is one model of behavior in the world; a little simple-minded, no?
The FARC negotiators are not Osama Bin Laden, and the FARC are not attacking countries other than their own. Like them or hate them and their kidnapping, drug-dealing ways, but they are revolutionaries--you know, like George Washington or others whom you might like less.
Those differences are a beginning to trying to figure out why you are offering is a poor analogy.
And focus on this: the man they claim to have gone after was the chief contact in negotiations for the release of hostages.

[glitzqueen]

Yep, it's painfully obvious -- to those who've bothered to study a little -- that Columbia's fascist Urribe is the darling of the transnational corporatists who dictate to our government and most others. The masters of the universe are chomping at the bit for another chance to slap down their opposition, now that some in South America have roused from the punishing effects of our past "Shock Doctrine" tactics there (begun with installing Pinochet).

HIllary stands ready to accommodate them and lie to us, just as Bill did when dismembering Yugoslavia on charges of genocide. The truth was simply that they didn't care to let the transnationals rape their economy, under guise of World Bank/IMF "aid".

Obama's at least hesitating. He's too corporate for my taste, but a much better bet than a Clinton.