I SUPPORT OBAMA BUT DISAGREE WITH HIS POLICIES TOWARDS LATIN AMERICA

I support Barack Obama as president and I will do almost anything to help him succeed in turning the country back from the brink of Bush and Cheney.

However, there are certain Obama administration actions that are troubling:

One. Why was it necessary to make an agreement with Colombia and its president Alvaro Uribe to send 800 more American troops to be stationed on Colombian soil? To say that the American soldiers are there to fight drug traffickers is ludicrous and beyond belief. Let Uribe fight his own war again drug cartels. To station American troops on Latin soil rankles the ordinary guy in the street from Rio de Janeiro to Montevideo to Mexico City. And it does nothing to improve American relations with its Latin neighbors to the south. Obama created much good will, even with Evo Morales of Bolivia and Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, when he attended a summit of leaders of the OAS several weeks ago in Costa Rica. Why did Obama blow it all on this ill-thought-out, ill conceived deal with Colombia? It says to me that Obama himself has absolutely no sensitivity to the desires and needs of Latin American countries and their peoples.

Second. Why did Obama name Janet Napolitano as head of Homeland Security? In her position, she is in charge of immigration policy and practices. But Napolitano is almost as anti-Latino and anti-immigrant as Sheriff Joe Arpaio, that racist from Phoenix. Napolitano has not only continued the mean and harsh policies of Julie Myers and Michael Chertoff when it comes to Spanish-speaking undocumented immigrants, she has made them even more stringent and cruel. Surely Obama could have picked someone more sympathetic with those Latinos who come to the U.S. solely for the purpose of achieving a better life for their families. Again, Obama's choice of Napolitano shows a lack of sensitivity to the plight of immigrants from Mexico and other Latin countries.

There are other decisions of Obama with which I disagree. I will leave them for subsequent posts. Obama is my candidate but his actions since taking office show his lack of awareness of issues that are important to Latinos. Someone needs to give him better advice in the future. I still hold hope that he will come to a better sense of correct policy towards Latin America.

ISRAEL CLAIMS THAT IRAN IS "EXTREME ENEMY OF PEACE"

This is getting ridiculous. The Netanyahu government in Israel is accusing the Palestinians of talking with "extreme enemies of peace" because a Palestinian official met with the Iranian Foreign Minister.

The BBC reports:

"Israel has accused a senior Palestinian official of meeting "the extreme enemies of peace" after he held talks with Iran's foreign minister."

Israel's response follows the classic treatment of "enemies." First demonize them, then attack them.

Israel's government seems to have the George W. Bush sickness: refuse to talk or have any dialog with those countries that have insulted you or said bad things about the Holocaust.

Just as Bush would not have diplomatic relations with Hugo Chavez and Venezuela because Chavez called him the devil, so it seems that Israel will have nothing to do with Iran or even establish talks with the Iranian government because Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called the holocaust a figment of the imagination or that the government of Israel should be wiped off the map.

Because of these words, however harsh and intemperate not to say foolish, Israel now deems Iran an "extreme enemy of peace."

George Bush attacked Iraq because he claimed Iraq was a threat to world peace. It turned out that it was Bush who was the genuine threat. I would argue that it is the same with Israel. It terms Iran an extreme enemy of peace but I see Israel as the great destabilizer in the Middle East when it comes to peace. Just look at the Israeli three-week war against Gaza this past January, or the cruel Israeli month-long military campaign against Lebanon several years ago that left a thirty-mile swath in southern Lebanon filled with unexploded cluster bombs.

FAILURE OF BUSH FOREIGN POLICY: VENEZUELA & BOLOVIA KICK OUT AMERICAN AMBASSADORS

Yesterday both Venezuela and Boliva kicked out the American ambassadors. At the same time Honduras refused to accept the credentials of the new U.S. ambassador. This was a horrible day for U.S. diplomacy and shows the results of the dismal approach of Bush and Condoleeza Rice towards Latin America.

Both Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Evo Morales of Bolivia are in the process of re-doing their agreements with foreign oil and gas companies for the purpose of keeping more revenues and profits in their own countries from the sale of their indigenous natural resources. Of course many Republicans and neo-cons here in the U.S. see this as "socialism" and a dire threat to the "American way of life." But what Morales and Chavez are doing is exactly the same as what is now happening in Russia under Medvedev and Putin, only the Latinos are not using physical threat and force.

This is no reason for the U.S. under Bush to make the Venezuelans and Bolivians out to be "enemies." And certainly the U.S. should mind its own business and refrain from trying to aid opponents of Chavez and Morales in overthrowing democratically elected governments.

BUSH'S POLICY TOWARDS RUSSIA/GEORGIA HIGHLIGHTS AMERICAN HYPOCRISY

This whole episode with Russia and Georgia throws a bright light upon the incredibly messed up and hypocritical Bush foreign policy.

Bush warns Putin not to think of "regime change," but that is exactly what Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rumsfeld did in Iraq. Bush and Cheney say Russia's "aggression" will not go unanswered, but this is the very same aspiration shared by the Islamic street about the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. Bush tells Russia to pull out of Georgia and South Ossetia, but says U.S. troops will stay indefinitely in Iraq.

Bush warns Putin not to overthrow a democratically elected government in Tbilisi but that's what Bush wants to do in Venezuela with Hugo Chavez and in Boliva with Evo Morales and in Ecuador with Rafael Correa.

Bush says that Russia must respect the territorial sovereignty of Georgia with regard to the enclaves and mini-states of South Ossetia and Abkhazia where the majority are Russians or want to be Russian. But just a few months ago, Bush and Cheney wholeheartedly supported the independence of Kosovo, torn from the territorial sovereignty of Serbia which regarded Kosovo as "holy ground."

So in view of all these oppositional positions on the part of Bush & Co., where is the consistency and rationality of the Bush foreign policy? The answer is, there is none. These guys are dangerous and they have five more months in office.

NY TIMES GETS IT WRONG ON COLOMBIA FREE TRADE

Contrary to the opinion expressed in the lead editorial in today's The New York Times, Congress and Speaker Pelosi should not allow Bush to push through his free trade agreement with Colombia. There are several reasons:

One. We need first to make Bush come up with a plan to rescue the two million families that are in danger of losing their homes to foreclosure in the sub-prime mess. Bush so far allows the financial markets to be be bailed out by the Fed but refuses to offer any rescue line to those in foreclosure. What needs to be done is a readjustment of the mortgage principal so that people don't owe more for their mortgages than the amount of their home equity. So before Congress even considers a free trade pact with Colombia, Bush needs to do something about homeowners in peril.

Second. Colombia still suffers from death squads targeting trade union members and other campesinos. The extra-judicial killings of workers and farmers originally caused the FARC to come into existence to fight Colombia's injustice to the lower economic classes. Even today, campesinos are being killed by Colombia's army in an effort to show Bush/Cheney how much progress the government is making against FARC.

Third. The agreement between Bush and Colombia's president, Alvaro Uribe, is just a proxy for U.S. battle against Hugo Chavez and Venezuela. Bush is still fuming from Chavez calling him "Satan" and the greatest threat to peace in the whole world. That's why Condoleeza Rice recently termed Chavez "a very hostile" threat to the U.S. It is not because Chavez or Venezuela has actually done anything bad, it is all because Chavez insulted Bush during a U.N. forum. Bush's silly and amateurish foreign policy must not be allowed to succeed. Stop the campaign against Hugo Chavez. Don't allow the free trade pact with Colombia to be passed. It is only a slap at Venezuela.

Congress and Speaker Nancy Pelosi did the right thing to block Bush's scheme. The NY Times has got it wrong on Colombia.

NANCY PELOSI STOPS BUSH'S DISASTROUS FREE TRADE PACT WITH COLOMBIA

What Nancy Pelosi did with regard to George Bush's free trade pact with Colombia was ingenious and brilliant. Thank you, Madame Speaker, for resisting that bully Bush in his push to reward his crony, Alvaro Uribe who is president of Colombia.

Paul Kane and Dan Eggen write in today's The Washington Post:

"The House today voted to delay consideration of a free trade agreement with Colombia despite fierce opposition from the Bush administration and accusations from Republicans that Democrats were subverting long-standing laws regarding bilateral trade pacts.

"On a mostly party line vote of 224 to 195, the House approved an internal rule change that altered the statutory timeline for congressional approval of trade deals negotiated by an administration. The rule, which was supported by all but 10 Democrats, gives House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as much time as she wants to bring the agreement to the floor, rather than the 60-day standard for previous trade deals."

Colombia and Uribe allow the Colombian military to kill Innocent campesinos and then claim they were members of the FARC, the Colombian revolutionary group fighting the government. Colombia has not put a stop to these killings, nor has it stopped the extra-judicial killings of trade union members.

However, Bush sees Uribe as a counter-weight to Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, a person Bush intensely dislikes. Condi Rice claims Chavez is very hostile to the U.S. Why? Chavez' mistake was calling George Bush "Satan" at a United Nations convocation. Because he called Bush the "devil," Rice and Bush now imply that Chavez and his Venezuelan government are the "enemy."

This is the worst form of diplomacy where George Bush uses his personal likings and animosities to decide which country is friend or foe. Which country to reward and which to bomb.

To stop this madness, Nancy Pelosi put a hold on the free trade deal. Again, thanks and kudos to Speaker Pelosi.

On a negative note, Rep. Jim Matheson, Second Dist. Utah, was one of 10 Democrats who voted against revising House rules. Shame on you, Jim Matheson.

BUSH CITES "NATIONAL SECURITY" AS REASON FOR APPROVING TRADE AGREEMENT WITH COLOMBIA

George Bush claims that Congress should quickly okay the free trade agreement between the U.S. and Colombia because it involves "national security." This is a joke. The implication is that Hugo Chavez is going to attack the U.S. and that Bush needs Alvaro Uribe, the president of Colombia, to protect American interests.

See what happens when you call George Bush "the devil" at a U.N. convocation! You make yourself and your country Venezuela "enemies" of the United States.

But another thing that appears ridiculous in Bush's tossing around of the words "national security" is that Venezuela is one of Colombia's largest trading partners.

AP's Christopher Toothacher writes on ABC News website:

"Venezuela is Colombia's second-largest trading partner after the U.S. Trade between the nations totaled $5.7 billion from January through November 2007, according to Colombian government statistics.

"Venezuela imported $4.4 billion in goods from its neighbor, nearly doubling from 2006 because of high demand for Colombian-made vehicles, car parts and clothing. Colombia, meanwhile, purchased only $1.2 billion worth of Venezuelan goods, mostly petrochemical products and plastic goods."

So if it is important for Bush to want to finalize a trade agreement with Colombia, doesn't this mean that Bush's United States will be indirectly trading with Bush's nemesis, Hugo Chavez? Whatever might be the benefits for Colombia from a trade agreement, they would appear just as substantial for Venezuela, only indirectly. So with this trade agreement, Bush is really adding to Venezuela's bottom line.

STOP FREE TRADE AGREEMENT WITH COLOMBIA

Congress must resist the pressure coming from George Bush to approve the free trade agreement between the U.S. and Colombia.

AP's Martin Crutsinger writes in today's washingtonpost.com:

"The need for this agreement is too urgent, the stakes for our national security are too high to allow this year to end without a vote," Bush said.

"Bush signed a document to transmit the trade agreement to Congress, but Congress won't formally receive it until lawmakers return on Tuesday. Bush's action will force Congress to take up the proposal under a fast-track process that requires votes within 90 days. Officials said Bush is acting now in order to force a vote before Congress leaves in the fall for the campaign season.

""If Congress fails to approve this agreement, it would not only abandon a brave ally, it would send a signal throughout the region that America cannot be counted on to support its friends," Bush said."

For one thing, these free trade agreements don't do enough to protect the indigenous farmer and small business in the Latin countries. As we have seen from NAFTA, the benefits of free trade usually go to the large American agri-businesses and mega-businesses. The subsistence-level Mexican farmer is left to suffer the severe economic consequences. The question for Mexicans is then, how does a small farm compete with the large corporate American mega-farms that can produce corn or tomatoes so much more cheaply? NAFTA has done nothing to answer this question, and I am sure neither does the proposed agreement with Colombia.

Second, Colombia is rife with para-military groups intent on preserving landowners from the lower classes. This is the reason for FARC, the Colombian insurgency, that for the last 20 years plus has waged guerrilla war against the Colombian government. We have Alvaro Uribe now as president of Colombia. He is a direct scion of the privileged classes. This past March 1st, Uribe directed Colombian army units to cross the border and mount an attack against FARC in a camp in Ecuador, something that violates all international norms on the sovereignty of countries and their borders. The result was that some dozens were killed, including four Mexican college students who were investigating FARC's modus vivendi. Also killed was a high FARC commander, Raul Reyes, who seemed willing to negotiate the release of some two thousand hostages held by FARC. Reyes' killing has effectively put an end to further FARC releases of hostages, including the most famous, Ingrid Betancourt, former Colombian presidential candidate.

Congress should turn down George Bush's agreement with Colombia until Uribe and his Colombian supporters agree to root out the para-militaries and guarantee Colombian subsistence farmers a fair deal in any agreement on trade with the U.S. George Bush has sent billions of dollars of military aid to Uribe in the hopes of countering Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, Evo Morales of Boliva and Rafael Correa of Ecuador. Congress cannot and should not allow Bush to get away with this free trade pact, above all designed to punish Latin countries that see Bush for what he is, the worst war monger and American imperialist since Richard Nixon.

BUSH'S DOCTRINE OF PRE-EMPTIVE WAR SPREADS TO ISRAEL AND COLOMBIA

The typical modus operandi of George Bush and Dick Cheney is to rain down missiles and drop bombs. These militarists still have some 10 months in office. We should all be worried about their irresponsible war mongering, especially when it comes to the U.S. attacking Iran.

For the same reason that I abhor the Bush pre-emptive war doctrine, I also condemn Israel for trying to solve the Palestinian question with tanks and helicopters. The latest Israeli incursion into Gaza last week killed over 100 Palestinians, many of whom were children shot by Israeli snipers. This is not the way to achieve piece in Israel and the surrounding territories but it is the way to keep the Israeli-Palestinian war going for the next 200 years.

We have seen the Bush doctrine also adopted by Alvaro Uribe and Colombianos. Instead of negotiating with FARC, the revolutionary group controlling much of Colombia's rural areas, Uribe wants to kill them all. Witness Colombia's illegal military foray into the jungles of Ecuador last week that killed some 18 FARC members while they slept, including four Mexican university students who were studying the revolutionary movement up close. This militaristic move by Uribe effectively killed the program of Hugo Chavez, president of Venezuela, to secure the release of FARC hostages, especially ailing Ingrid Betancourt, former candidate for presidency of Colombia. This action shows what Uribe and many Colombianos really want is the death of FARC members, and to hell with the release of the hostages. I condemn Uribe. This is not the way to solve Colombia's problems with FARC. It is the way that Bush and Cheney would take. Surely they encouraged Uribe to illegally cross into Ecuador and kill FARC members.

NY TIMES MISSES GOOD WORK OF HUGO CHAVEZ IN FREEING COLOMBIAN HOSTAGES

The New York Times today has an editorial on the recent intrusion of armed forces of Colombia into Ecuador. This clearly violated international law. One country cannot legally invade another, even if the intrusion was only a mile or two. However the NY Times seems to believe that Hugo Chavez and Venezuela are meddlesome interlopers:

"Venezuela — whose territory wasn’t violated — jumped in. President Hugo Chávez, who thrives on such crises, expelled Colombia’s ambassador, ordered forces to his border and threatened to block trade. Colombia then accused both Venezuela and Ecuador of aiding and abetting the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, the guerrilla group known as FARC. . . .

"Mr. Chávez should just keep quiet. The more he meddles, the easier it is to believe that the charges against him are true."

In this case, the background is most important for a correct understanding of the role of Hugo Chavez, president of Venezuela. Venezuela borders Colombia on the north and Ecuador borders Colombia on the south. Hugo Chavez has been instrumental in freeing at least six hostages taken prisoner by the Colombian insurgence, the FARC. These hostages have been in captivity in Colombian jungles, many of them for over six years. Colombia and its U.S. backed president, Alvaro Uribe, seem more intent on killing members of the FARC than securing the release of the hostages. One of thee hostages not freed is Ingrid Betancourt, both a citizen of France and Colombia, and a candidate for Colombian presidency until she was kidnapped several years ago.

The hostage crisis forms the backdrop to the Colombian raid on a FARC camp inside of Ecuador. The Colombians killed 18 FARC members with a late night raid, including FARC # 2 officer, Raul Reyes. Given Colombia's propensity to refuse to negotiate with FARC, and in light of the recent freeing of six hostages through the personal intervention of Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez, what does the raid say about the FARC hostages still not released?

Colombia has in effect said that it does not care about the hostages still in captivity. It is going to kill all members of the FARC that it can, to hell with the hostages or their families or their release. Furthermore, this is a way that Alvaro Uribe can oppose Hugo Chavez after being shown up by Chavez for not making the release of the hostages a priority of the Colombian government.

Instead of calling Chavez an outside busybody, the NY Times should commend the efforts of President Hugo Chavez for securing the release of FARC hostages up till now. Hugo Chavez was well on his way to secure the freedom of many more, including Ingrid Betancourt. Now in light of the foolish Colombian raid, it is doubtful that the FARC will release any more. No wonder Hugo Chavez felt compelled to condemn Uribe and Colombia. In criticizing Chavez, the NY Times missed the whole import of the altruistic Chavez involvement.

SOME OF GEORGE BUSH 'S CLOSEST ALLIES ARE TYRANTS AND DICTATORS WHO DENY HUMAN RIGHTS

George Bush is quick to condemn Barack Obama for saying that he would sit down with world leaders, especially with those with whom the previous U.S. government has had unpleasant relations. Bush warned that such meetings would lend an air of credibility and legitimacy to those leaders who abused their own people and denied them basic rights.

Here's the White House transcript of Bush's words.

"What's lost by embracing a tyrant who puts his people in prison because of their political beliefs? What's lost is it will send the wrong message. It will send a discouraging message to those who wonder whether America will continue to work for the freedom of prisoners. It will give great status to those who have suppressed human rights and human dignity.

"I'm not suggesting there's never a time to talk, but I'm suggesting now is not the time -- not to talk with Raul Castro. He's nothing more than an extension of what his brother did, which was to ruin an island, and imprison people because of their beliefs. . . .

"Sitting down at the table, having your picture taken with a tyrant such as Raul Castro, for example, lends the status of the office and the status of our country to him. He gains a lot from it by saying, look at me, I'm now recognized by the President of the United States. "

But wait! Don't we have fotos of George Bush himself sitting down and hugging tyrants like Vladimir Putin, the King of Saudi Arabia who believes in 200 lashes for rape victims, Islam Karimov, the tyrannical president of Uzbekistan, and Gen. Pervez Musharraf. Take Musharraf. He dismissed the Pakistani Supreme Court, put the chief justice under house arrest, and sent the police out to beat up the peaceful Pakistani lawyers who were protesting Musharraf's disdain for the rule of law. Yet Bush considers him a friend and an ally.

So what gives with Bush's animosity to Raul Castro, Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? The answer is a hypocritical hostility towards those leaders who don't bow down before George W. Bush.

For the fotos, take a look at Think Progress here.

INSTEAD OF DROPPING BOMBS ON U.S. "ENEMIES," FAR BETTER TO TALK AND NEGOTIATE

One of the main reasons why we need to see Barack Obama elected as president is his attitude towards foreign policy and his willingness to meet with foreign leaders with whom the U.S. has had run-ins.

George Bush says it would be unseemly to meet with Raul Castro or Hugo Chavez or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But why? Because Raul Castro believes in Cuba's socialist revolution? Because Hugo Chavez publicly insulted George Bush by calling him "satan"? Because Ahmadinejad is a devout believer in Islam?

Meeting with leaders who disagree with American leaders or with the foreign policy of the U.S. does not exhibit weakness or or lack of judgment. Rather it indicates strength and maturity. Instead of the leaders of the United States solving all problems with guns and missiles, it is long overdue that Americans have a president who believes it is far better to talk and negotiate. Rather than declaring certain leaders and countries as "enemies" of the U.S., we should treat all countries with respect and openness.

This is the main reason why we must elect Barack Obama as president.

CHAVEZ SAYS FARC IS NOT "TERRORIST" WHILE BUSH AND URIBE WANT TO DROP BOMBS AND SHOOT MISSILES

Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez says that the FARC (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia) is not a "terrorist" organization. Both George Bush and Alvaro Uribe, Colombia's president claim the FARC is indeed a "terrorist" organization.

Is this a valid reason for the United States to overthrow Chavez? Does George Bush think that he has cause to invade Venezuela or topple Chavez because Chavez was successful in negotiating with the FARC to release Consuelo Gonzalez and Clara Rojas several weeks ago?

Why must the U.S. give millions of dollars of military aid to Colombia when it is clear that military means are incapable of either solving the Colombian's problems with the FARC or securing the release of the hundreds of hostages which FARC is currently holding in the Colombian jungles?

George Bush's way is to drop bombs and shoot missiles at anyone he perceives to be his "enemy." Hugo Chavez believes in talking with the FARC and negotiating. So far Hugo Chavez's way has proven to be the right way.

Will George Bush and his pal Uribe, in their growing animosity towards Chavez, start a war against Venezuela?

JOE LIEBERMAN SHOWS UP IN BOGOTA TO SUPPORT URIBE AGAINST HUGO CHAVEZ AND FARC

Now who appears today in Bogota to buoy up Colombian president Alvaro Uribe but Joe Lieberman, the "independent" senator from Connecticut. First it was Condoleeza Rice a few days ago, now Lieberman. I can only guess that the same person(s) who sent Condi also sent Joe.

Bush and Cheney are so angry that their "enemy," Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, was the one who secured the release of the two Colombian ladies who were held hostage by FARC. The American leaders seem obsessed to deny Chavez some of the world's gratitude that they are sending Joe Lieberman to say that Uribe is their man, notwithstanding that Uribe has done nothing to secure the release of the other hostages other than make bellicose and militaristic threats against FARC.

Put this Lieberman visit together with the sentencing of an extradited FARC leader to 60 years in a U.S. federal penitentiary, and we get the picture of a United States government that has no idea of what is happening in Colombia.

What will the FARC do in response to the 60-year sentence? FARC holds several hundred hostages, including at least three Americans whose plane crashed in the Colombian jungles some three years ago. Will FARC let them go as a humanitarian gesture? Or will it take revenge for the 60-year sentence of one of its leaders?

The answer is clear and against the interest of all of the hostages. The U.S. sentences a FARC leader to a harsh sentence. FARC will redouble its efforts to maintain captivity of its hostages, and the hostages will be held captive for the rest of their natural lives.

BUSH SENDS CONDOLEEZA TO COLOMBIA - IS HER TRIP ANTI- HUGO CHAVEZ?

Why is Condoleeza Rice in Colombia conferring with Colombian president Alvaro Uribe? The story is that she is pushing for some sort of free trade agreement, but the suspicion arises that she is consorting with Uribe in some sort of public relations campaign aimed at Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez.

Chavez recently was instrumental in getting the FARC to release two female hostages, Clara Rojas and Consuelo Gonzalez, who had each been held for over five years. If it had been left to Uribe, the two ladies might still be captives in the Colombian jungle. Uribe believes in freeing the hostages with guns and soldiers, whereas Chavez thinks that diplomacy and talk can get the job done and the hostages released.

Bush and Cheney treat Chavez as the "enemy," and they cannot be happy to see him lauded for his good diplomatic work in freeing Gonzalez and Rojas.

So the suspicion, what is Condoleeza Rice doing in Colombia if not to stir up problems for Hugo Chavez.

ANOTHER DOSE OF HYPOCRISY FROM BUSH IN MIDDLE EAST

I don't understand how come Bush said nothing yesterday to Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak about Mubarak's trashing of democracy in Egypt where dissidents are thrown in jail and members of the political opposition are deemed "terrorists." Yet a few days before, Bush made that pompous speech in Abu Dhabi where he said that freedom and democracy were God's gift to mankind.

At the same time Bush rants against Iranian president Ahmadinejad and threats the Iranian nation with annihilation for sending five small speedboats out to investigate warships of the U.S. fleet in the Straits of Hormuz. Yet he is strangely reticent with the president of the Egyptian dictatorship. Remember Egypt is one of those nations where Bush illegally sent American prisoners to be "interrogated." He once boasted about this, saying, in effect, that they disappeared thereafter, and he was not unhappy about that.

Bush wants democracy where the outcome of the vote agrees with his pre-formed opinions. But he rejects democracy where the outcome does not suit him. Witness his rejection of the democratically Hamas government in Gaza. Bush calls Hamas a "terrorist organization." Another example - Bush's contempt for Hugo Chavez, democratically elected as president of Venezuela with more than 70% of the vote. Where the outcome does not suit Bush, he claims that either the election was rigged or that the elected government oppresses its people.

HUGO CHAVEZ SEEKS DIPLOMATIC RESOLUTION TO FARC HOSTAGES HELD IN COLOMBIA'S JUNGLES

Finally I see someone writing an analysis of the disastrous and senseless U.S. foreign policy towards Colombia, Venzuela and the FARC (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia). Mark Weisbrot writes as a guest blogger for Post Global in The Washington Post about the release of the two FARC hostages through the efforts and negotiations of Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez.

Weisbrot correctly describes Colombia's benighted policy towards the hundreds of FARC hostages still being held in captivity in the Colombian jungles. Colombia believes it can win militarily, negotiations be damned. This is the same policy favored by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney towards Iran. It is the same policy favored by Israel's government towards the Palestinians. Bombs, guns and missiles solve all problems.

"The Colombian government appears to believe that it can win the 40-year war through purely military (and paramilitary) means. The Bush Administration shares this view, and supplies Colombia with more than $600 million annually in military aid, which is sometimes labeled "anti-drug" aid. But there has been increasing pressure for negotiations: from inside Colombia, led by the courageous Senator Piedad Cordoba; from the families of the hostages; and from Europe – where Ingrid Betancourt, a dual French-Colombian citizen, is well-known and has much sympathy."

Weisbrot writes that Hugo Chavez, in the quest to get FARC to release the other 500+ hostages, wants to see Colombia and its president Alvaro Uribe quit referring to FARC as a "terrorist organization." Otherwise, neither FARC nor Uribe will agree to negotiate for the hostages' release.

"In the last few days, Chavez has called for the FARC to be recognized as insurgents rather than terrorists. This has been portrayed as "support" for the FARC. However, his position is the same as other governments in the region, which have consistently rebuffed U.S. pressure to officially label the FARC as a "terrorist" organization. Brazil’s government has said that to classify the FARC as “terrorist” organization would likely damage any prospects of negotiating a solution to the country’s civil conflict.
"The FARC clearly does engage in actions that can be considered terrorist, including kidnappings. However, so does the Colombian government, and over the years international human rights groups have found right-wing paramilitaries linked to the government responsible for the vast majority of atrocities. And during the last year, revelations of ties between Uribe's political allies and the death squads have severely damaged the government's reputation, and led to the arrest of more than a dozen legislators."

Hugo Chavez is the one with the break-through ideas for resolving Colombia's stand-off with FARC. If Colombia insists on pursuing a military resolution with FARC, it is fair to assume that the hostages will remain prisoners for another 20 years. This cannot be allowed to happen.

BUSH THREATENS IRAN YET PREACHES FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY

George Bush constantly threatens the government of Iran with military force and says it should be confronted "before it's too late." He did it again today in a speech in Abu Dhabi. The BBC reports:

"US President George W Bush has warned of the dangers he says are posed by Iran, in a speech in its Gulf neighbour, the United Arab Emirates.

"Mr Bush said Iran threatened the security of all nations and should be confronted "before it's too late".

"In a speech in Abu Dhabi on the latest leg of a Middle Eastern tour, he also urged the region to embrace democracy. "

We all know Bush is a war monger. The chances are good that Bush will attack Iran before he leaves office. Bush engages in reckless threats and charges against Iran. For example, Bush long claimed that Iran was building nuclear weapons until the National Intelligence Estimate disabused him of that baseless claim. WMD as we all remember was the faulty casus belli for the U.S. attack and invasion of Iraq.

The BBC reports on other facets of Bush's speech:

"Mr Bush said spreading freedom and democracy was the best way to defeat radicalism.
America and its democratic allies would prevail over extremists like al-Qaeda, he said, because they have "freedom and justice written into our hearts by Almighty God . . . no terrorists can take that away". "

Bush always wants to "spread freedom and democracy" except when free elections turn out in a way different from how he wants it. Take the Palestinians voting for Hamas in January 2007. That was a free and fair election, but after the results came in, Bush said he would not recognize Hamas as the governing body because it is a "terrorist" organization that fails to recognize Israel. The result is Bush accepts democracy only when it suits his purposes and aims. The same goes for Venezuela where Hugo Chavez was elected president by an overwhelming majority. Bush claims Chavez is as dictator who abuses human rights. But that is because Chavez called Bush "Satan." Furthermore, Chavez has no affinity with Bush's proclivity to solve all problems in foreign diplomacy with bombs and missiles, and has been outspoken in his criticism of Bush and Bush's foreign policy.

We still have more than a full year till Bush leaves office. With all his rhetoric about freedom and democracy, the world has still much to fear from Bush's military push to re-make the world in his small image.

CHAVEZ OBTAINS FREEDOM FOR TWO FARC HOSTAGES IN SPITE OF BUSH AND URIBE

Hooray for Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez for his role in obtaining the release of the two hostages from the FARC (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias Colombianas) today. The two ladies released have been more than five years in captivity.

This is a huge setback for George W. Bush who has made disparaging remarks about Chavez in the past. Chavez is becoming more and more an influence in Latin and South America, while Bush's influence is little to nil.

I suspect Bush counselled Colombian president Alvaro Uribe to reject the help of Chavez several weeks ago in securing the hostages' release. Now both Bush and Uribe appear mean-spirited and enemies of humanitarianism while at the same time Chavez comes out looking like the real force for good in seeking an accommodation with the FARC to secure the hostages' freedom.

DID BUSH AND URIBE CONSPIRE TO PREVENT HUGO CHAVEZ SECURING RELEASE OF FARC HOSTAGES?

Hugo Chavez has come up empty handed in his attempt to get the FARC to release three Colombian hostages. Chavez believes that George Bush had something to do with the failed release, and so do I. It has been reported on Univision, the Spanish TV network, that Bush apparently consulted with President Alvaro Uribe of Colombia in recent days. This leads to the suspicion that both Bush and Uribe hatched some sort of obstructionist plan to thwart the release of the FARC hostages.

Chavez called Bush the great Satan when he spoke to the United Nations General Assembly last year. Consequently, Bush's foreign policy treats Hugo Chavez as an "enemy." Therefore, I believe Bush will do anything to prevent Chavez from getting credit, notwithstanding Chavez' extraordinary attempts to mediate a peaceful solution between the government of Colombia and FARC.