MITT ROMNEY BELIEVES THAT VENEZUELAN PRESIDENT HUGO CHAVEZ IS THREAT TO U.S.

The NY Times today has a report on comments of Mitt Romney's campaign, criticizing Barack Obama,

Write Helene Cooper and Richard A. Oppel Jr., quoting a spokesman for the Romney campaign:

"President Obama thinks visiting our closest ally in the Middle East is a ‘distraction,’ that Hugo Chávez is not a ‘serious’ threat, and that the right response to Russia is to promise more ‘flexibility’ in exchange for giving him ‘space’ before the election,” said Mr. Romney’s campaign spokeswoman, Andrea Saul. “It is clear that President Obama’s foreign policy is confused, ineffective and has weakened our influence in every region of the world. Governor Romney understands the difference between our allies and those who will challenge us. He will stand by allies and restore American strength and resolve to protect our interests abroad and defend our values.”

The point I find amazing, no, astonishing, is that Mitt Romney must believe Hugo Chavez is a threat!  Mr. Chavez is suffering from cancer, probably colon cancer, is currently on chemotherapy and radiation, and overall is seriously ill. 

To consider Hugo Chavez a threat underlines the danger if Mitt Romney wins the election.  The U.S. under Romney would be fighting wars all over the world on the basis of defeating imaginary enemies and putting down dreamt-up threats.  True, in the case of Hugo Chavez, democratically elected president of Venezuela, Chavez did once call George W. Bush "Satan" at the United Nations, and added that the U.N. speakers podium smelled of sulphur after Bush talked.  But is that the basis of the threat that scares Mitt Romney?

Please, save us from this hillbilly!

OBAMA DISAPPOINTS WHEN HE APPLIES ECONOMIC SANCTIONS AGAINST PEOPLE OF IRAN

What a disappointment Obama is!  What a waste of a Democratic presidency!

Here are my complaints today:

1.  Obama, stop the economic sanctions against Iran and its 77 million people.  These are just a form of economic warfare against ordinary Iranians in Tehran and throughout the country.  I thought democratic principles had been settled at Nuremberg:  a country may not inflict "collective punishment" upon its "enemy."  One nation may not target the population and citizenry of another either by dropping bombs or applying economic sanctions.

2.  Mr. Obama, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela dares to imply without evidence that his cancer, and that of Lula da Silva of Brazil and Cristina Fernandez of Argentina, is the result of some bizarre American plot.  Perhaps Chavez makes this ridiculous claim because you, Mr. President, have totally ignored Latin America, its problems and its leaders.  Have you, Mr. Obama, sent anyone of the above leaders a get-well card or any other sign of your personal concern over their life-threatening illnesses?  I doubt it, and I would be most pleased if any of my readers would tell me otherwise.

OBAMA'S AGREEMENT WITH URIBE THREATENS TO START WAR BETWEEN COLOMBIA AND VENEZUELA

There is a big story brewing but I could find no mention of it in today's The New York Times. Tensions are mounting along the border between Colombia and Venezuela.

Colombia has announced that it will build a military base close to the Venezuela border housing five or six airborne battalions using American military helicopters. No wonder that Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez is upset not only at the Colombian president Alvaro Uribe but also and especially at Barack Obama.

If a war starts between Colombia and Venezuela, it will have been precipitated by the foolish and stupid American agreement to send 1,000+ U.S. forces to Colombian air bases. Nobel peace price winner Barack Obama will be directly responsible for causing a serious military conflict in Latin America.

How could Obama been so dumb as to authorize the U.S.- Colombia agreement? To station gringo troops on Latin soil is to offend the dignity and sovereignty of every Latin country. By this agreement, Obama has destroyed much of the good will generated in the hearts and minds of the Latin street.

OBAMA NEGLECTS LATIN AMERICA, SEEMS TO CONTINUE BUSH'S POLICY OF CONDESCENSION

I see a glaring weakness in Pres. Obama's foreign policy: Latin America.

True, Obama did attend the OAS meeting several months ago and personally met most of the Latin American leaders including Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Evo Morales of Bolivia. But since then, Obama and his secretary of state Hillary Clinton seem to have put policy toward Latin America on hold.

Consider what is now happening: Peru and Chile are in a serious contretemps based on Peruvian claims that Chile was spying on Peru. Hugo Chavez is threatening to wage war on Colombia and its conservative president Alvaro Uribe, principally because Chavez objects to Uribe permitting !,000 North Americans to occupy Colombian bases. And the whole world wants to see Cuba free from the shackles of the U.S. embargo, something Obama has inexplicably not done.

Obama needs to get involved, and fast. It seems the whole Latin American world greeted his election with delight and a sense that U.S. policy would be more receptive to Latin needs. In these months since, there has been a growing ominous sense that Obama plans to continue Bush's policy of neglect and condescension. The military agreement with Colombia has Latin leaders wondering who in the Obama administration was so blind to Latin sensitivities that they would not see or recognize the Latin fear and resistance to having U.S. soldiers stationed in any country in Latin America. And why has Obama not immediately lifted the useless Cuban embargo? There are no answers to these questions that do not reflect poorly on Obama.

OBAMA'S POLICY TOWARDS IRAN - WHAT HAPPENED TO MUTUAL RESPECT AND COOPERATION?

I am disappointed with Pres. Obama's foreign policy initiatives towards Iran. All Obama's people can talk about is sanctions, maybe even "crippling" as Hillary Clinton phrased them, to force Iran to stop its nuclear development. Sanctions do not work, have never worked, and will not work. There were sanctions on Iraq and Saddam Hussein since the first Gulf War in 1992, yet there was no forcing Iraq to comply with U.S. demands. We see the same ineffectiveness of sanctions against Cuba and Fidel Castro. Yet Obama persists in threatening sanctions against Iran and Iranians.

Today in The New York Times, Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett propose a smarter foreign policy approach to Iran.

The Leveretts write:

"Indeed, the meeting on Thursday in Geneva of the United Nations Security Council’s five permanent members and Germany with Iran (the “five plus one” talks) will not be an occasion for strategic discussion but for delivering an ultimatum: Iran will have to agree to pre-emptive limitations on its nuclear program or face what Secretary of State Hillary Clinton calls “crippling” sanctions.

"However, based on conversations we’ve had in recent days with senior Iranian officials — including President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — we believe it is highly unlikely Iran will accept this ultimatum. It is also unlikely that Russia and China will support sanctions that come anywhere near crippling Iran. After this all-too-predictable scenario has played out, the Obama administration will be left, as a consequence of its own weakness and vacillation, with extremely poor choices for dealing with Iran."

How has Obama got himself into this no-win confrontation with the Iranian government and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? During the presidential campaign, Obama promised a new approach of rapprochement and mutual respect to countries like Iran. Yet here we are no, with a confrontational policy that differs very little from the small-minded policy of George W. Bush.

The Leveretts write:

"Because President Obama assembled a national security team that, for the most part, did not share his early vision for American-Iranian rapprochement, his administration never built a strong public case for engagement. The prospect of engagement is still treated largely as a channel for “rewarding” positive Iranian actions and “punishing” problematic behavior — precisely what Mr. Obama, as a presidential candidate, criticized so eloquently about President George W. Bush’s approach.

"At the United Nations General Assembly last week, President Obama used language reminiscent of Mr. Bush’s “axis of evil” to identify Iran and North Korea as the main threats to international peace and vowed to hold them “accountable.” In Geneva, we can expect the United States to demand that Iran not only accept “concrete” limitations on further nuclear development but also demonstrate the peaceful nature of its nuclear program to avoid severe sanctions."

The Leveretts go on to suggest Obama adopt a new policy of cooperation with Iran, one where each country guarantees the security of the other.

"The Obama administration’s lack of diplomatic seriousness goes beyond clumsy tactics; it reflects an inadequate understanding of the strategic necessity of constructive American-Iranian relations. If an American president believed that such a relationship was profoundly in our national interests — as President Richard Nixon judged a diplomatic opening to China — he would demonstrate acceptance of the Islamic Republic, even as problematic Iranian behavior continued in the near term."

The Leveretts call Obama's present policy worse than merely "clumsy." I have the same feelings about Obama's approach to Latin America. True, Obama did say hello to and shake hands with Bush nemesis Hugo Chavez. But then Obama let his Depart of Defense and State Department go ahead and make the foolish agreement with conservative Alvaro Uribe of Colombia, whereby the U.S. would send 800 more American soldiers to be based on Colombian airfields. No wonder the move has caused an uproar not only in Venezuela and Bolivia, but also in Brazil and Argentina. Here again we see Obama's lack of understanding of how Latin American countries view the "threat" of the United States and its military forces.

So then how should the U.S. deal with Iran. The Leveretts have a proposal:

"INSTEAD of pushing the falsehood that sanctions will give America leverage in Iranian decision-making — a strategy that will end either in frustration or war — the administration should seek a strategic realignment with Iran as thoroughgoing as that effected by Nixon with China. This would require Washington to take steps, up front, to assure Tehran that rapprochement would serve Iran’s strategic needs.

"On that basis, America and Iran would forge a comprehensive framework for security as well as economic cooperation — something that Washington has never allowed the five-plus-one group to propose. Within that framework, the international community would work with Iran to develop its civil nuclear program, including fuel cycle activities on Iranian soil, in a transparent manner rather than demanding that Tehran prove a negative — that it’s not developing weapons. A cooperative approach would not demonize Iran for political relationships with Hamas and Hezbollah, but would elicit Tehran’s commitment to work toward peaceful resolutions of regional conflicts."

I fully support the Leverett's proposals. We need a fresh start with Iran so that both countries can guarantee each other's national security. A foreign policy that emphasizes economic cooperation including development of peaceful nuclear power. Above all, the policy of Obama towards Iran cannot be left to Israel and Netanyahu to dictate.

U.S. AGREEMENT WITH COLOMBIA DAMAGES BARACK OBAMA'S STANDING AMONG LATIN LEADERS

There is a conference of heads of state of countries in the Americas beginning today in Quito, Ecuador. Unfortunately, Pres. Barack Obama will not be attending. He is meeting with Mexican president Felipe Calderone and Canadian PM Stephen Harper in Guadalajara, Mexico. It is a shame Obama thus won't be hearing the criticisms from most of the other Latin leaders in Quito about the ill-thought-out plan of the U.S. to station 800+ more American troops in bases in Colombia.

Colombian president Alvaro Uribe also won't be in attendance. He doesn't want to be castigated and/or disparaged by the other heads of state for allowing more U.S. troops to be stationed in a Latin country.

Many heads of state, like Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Rafael Correa of Ecuador and Evo Morales of Bolivia, believe that Colombia's welcoming of American soldiers will de-stabilize the area, and possibly lead to military skirmishes and even more serious events.

Who was the guy in the Obama administration who thought sending more Yanqui troops would be in the interest of the U.S.? And how and why did Obama even sign off on this bad idea? The whole agreement with Colombia and Uribe reeks of U.S. gunboat diplomacy and American desire for hegemony south of the border. The agreement never should have been considered, much less made.

I agree with those Latin heads of state who think that this agreement with Colombia will cause a lot of damage, not the least to the reputation of Barack Obama in the eyes and minds of almost all the Latin leaders.

CHAVEZ SAYS U.S. INCITES POSSIBLE WAR BY SENDING YANQUI TROOPS TO COLOMBIA

I saw and heard Hugo Chavez, president of Venezuela, this evening on the news broadcast of Univision claim that there was going to be a war in Latin America, and the instigator would be the United States.

Now there are many things that Hugo Chavez says and does to which I object, like trying to close radio and TV stations that don't agree with him politically. And I have strenuously objected in previous posts.

On the other hand, I totally agreed when Hugo Chavez called George W. Bush a threat to world peace, and Satan himself. I thought Chavez was spot on.

And I agree with him that the U.S. has done a stupid thing in agreeing with Alvaro Uribe president of Colombia to send some 800+ American troops to that country, together with spy planes and other deadly weapons. The whole of Latin America has been thrown in turmoil and confusion by this move.

Who in the Department of Defense advised Obama to send the Yanquis? I would like to know because this person has no sensitivity to the feelings and opinions of the ordinary citizen who hates the prospect of Yanqui troops based in a Latin country. The whole agreement smacks of "gunboat diplomacy" and Yanqui imperialism.

And to think that Obama is so clueless about the culture of Latin America that he went along with this dumb ass idea that could spark a war between Colombia and its neighbors such as Ecuador, Bolivia and Venezuela.

OBAMA CLUELESS ABOUT LATIN AMERICA IN SENDING U.S. SOLDIERS TO COLOMBIA

Which idiot in the Obama administration approved the sending of 1,000 additional U.S. soldiers to duty in Colombia? Whoever it was has no idea of the politics and feelings of the various Latin American countries which strongly oppose the presence of more Yanqui troops in a neighboring country. It would appear that Obama himself has no sense of what is happening in Central and South America, the move to the left and the quest for economic and social justice and equality. More seriously, Obama appears to be saying that he has no interest in cultivating serious ties with governments there.

It is not only Hugo Chavez of Venezuela or Rafael Correa of Ecuador or Evo Morales of Bolivia who decries the invasion of the Yanquis into nearby Colombia. It is more centrist Lula da Silva of Brazil and Michelle Bachelet of Chile who also object.

The BBC reports that Colombia's president Alvaro Uribe will visit some of the Latin countries in an effort to quell the objections.

"Colombian President Alvaro Uribe is to tour other South American countries concerned about plans to increase the US military presence in Colombia.

"Bogota said he would visit this week Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, Peru and was planning trips to three other nations.

"Venezuela has expressed alarm at plans to relocate US anti-drug forces to bases in Colombia, and Brazilian officials also say they are concerned."

Frankly there is no good reason why Obama or one of his ignorant cabinet secretaries approved more U.S. troops to be stationed in Colombia. Ostensibly it is to fight the drug trade in Colombia. But this is only a patent pretext. The real purpose must be to spy on Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Paraguay and other countries nearby where there are leftist governments that oppose American hegemony.

VENEZUELAN PRES. HUGO CHAVEZ SENDS PARAMILITARIES TO BEAT UP TV STATION PERSONNEL

I was a supporter of Venezuelan Hugo Chavez when he said in his speech at the Untied Nations that he could smell the stench of the devil from George W. Bush. I also approved his social programs using Venezuelan oil revenues to build schools and grant pensions to the impoverished.

But now Mr. Chavez goes too far when he sends out police and paramilitaries to beat up people at the television station Globalvision.

Hugo Chavez could be the leader of Latin America but for his recklessness and foolishness in his campaign against TV and radio stations that criticize him and his policies.

Here's a report from the BBC on August 1st:

"Venezuelan opposition groups have protested against a decision to take 34 radio stations off the air, calling it an attack on freedom of speech.

"As the stations stopped broadcasting on Saturday, staff said the move was aimed at giving more space to media that support President Hugo Chavez.

"More than 200 other radio stations are expected to close in coming weeks."

Chavez is cracking down on free speech and revoking the broadcast licenses of stations that allow commentaries critical of his policies. This is not right.

I oppose Hugo Chavez for his campaign against critical political speech. I only hope that he lays off with his police and paramilitary. Venezuela is too sophisticated a society to allow him to get away with this.

COLOMBIA TO ALLOW U.S. MILITARY ACCESS & PRESENCE

The BBC reports today that Colombia is finalizing an agreement with the United States to allow U.S. forces the use of three Colombian airfields.

Writes the BBC:

"Colombia's government says it is close to sealing an agreement with Washington to make Colombia a hub for US anti-drug operations in South America.

"The deal would give the US access to air bases in Colombia to gather intelligence and support operations against drugs production and terrorism."

This agreement is troubling. Why must the United States have a central base in Colombia? So it can attack its "enemies" like Hugo Chavez who called Bush the "great Satan"? All the Latin countries are going to be hating this. And where is Obama's policy towards Latin America in all of this? This is gunboat diplomacy all over again.

The BBC reports that Rafael Correa, President of neighboring Ecuador, would die rather than allowing the U.S. similar access:

"Ecuador's left-wing president Rafael Correa, a political ally of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, has said he would rather "cut off his arm" than allow the Americans to stay on at Manta."

And why are the Colombians putting up with this? This agreement practically cedes Colombian sovereignty to the U.S. military. Is Colombia and its president Alvaro Uribe that backward looking that they welcome and even invite the U.S. to establish military hegemony?

Reports the BBC:

"Colombian officials have rejected accusations that the deal would infringe the country's sovereignty.

"Colombia is the biggest recipient of US military aid in the Americas.

"The US was forced to look for a new centre for regional operations after Ecuador refused to renew the lease on its military base of Manta."

The BBC writes:

"Final details of the Colombian plan are still being worked out but the US may use at least three air bases, including Malambo in the north, and Palanquero and Apiay in the central region.

"A maximum of 800 US military personnel and 600 civilian defence contractors would be based in Colombia.

"They would operate the US aircraft that maintain 24-hour monitoring of the region, intercepting communications and coordinating with spy satellites to protect US interests."

The whole agreement reeks of yanqui imperialism and domination. Has Barack Obama signed off on this? Does he realize the bad impression this deal will carry in the eyes of Latinos in every country and hamlet in South and Central America? After making such a good impression with Latin leaders at the last America summit, Obama squanders it all by allowing the U.S. military to make this unnecessary and ill-timed agreement.

REIGN OF PAX OBAMA IN LATIN AMERICA

Pres. Barack Obama attended the Conference of the Americas for the past several days in Trinidad-Tobago. How things have changed in just a few months since the departure of Bush/Cheney.

Instead of insulting and patronizing other leaders of Latin countries as Bush would have done, or walking out when some leader criticizes imperialistic and militaristic U.S. policy, Obama made it a point to listen and consider viewpoints other than American ones. Obama listened to Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega criticize U.S. interference in Latin affairs and listened to Bolivia's Evo Morales unhappiness with U.S. meddling.

Bush had a list of "enemy" countries. Many on the right seem to have wanted Bush to bomb and attack the "enemies," but Obama seems to be disposed to consider other countries to be friends and allies, not adversaries.

And finally Obama had a chance to meet, greet and shake hands with Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Obama still does not know how to pronounce the Venezuelan president's last name (not Sha-vez, but Cha-vez, as in cha-cha). But Obama recognizes that there is no need to see Chavez and Venezuela as the "enemy."

We see the beginning of Pax Obama, a period of peaceful cooperation between the United States and the countries to the south.

OBAMA SHOULD OPEN DIALOG WITH HUGO CHAVEZ IN VENEZUELA

The Washington Post has an op-ed today by Edward Schumacher-Matos on Hugo Chavez.

Schumacher-Matos advises the Obama administration to simply ignore Chavez, rather than scheme against him.

"Obama should merely ignore Chávez and let Venezuelans take care of him. Much is made of how Chávez is a troublemaker who has enlisted Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Honduras and Cuba in an anti-American leftist alliance. Who cares? None of these small countries is a threat or wants to be. There is no Soviet Union to use them as a platform, and Chinese dabbling in the hemisphere is purely commercial."

But while plotting against Chavez would certainly be another gringo administration political disaster, ignoring Chavez is equally not sound. Obama should open a dialogue with Hugo Chavez. There is nothing to be gained from ignoring him. Chavez is respected in Latin and South America and has good relations with Chile, Argentina, Brazil and yes, even with Cuba. And Chavez has always respected the voters' will on the many elections held since he took office some nine years ago.

Chavez has made many mistakes and has an inordinate desire to be president for life. But on balance Chavez has done many good things for the poor in Venezuela. That's why his many supporters love him and would vote to make him president for as long as he wishes.

Furthermore Chavez has done much to improve cooperation among South and Central American nations. Chavez has worked to free the hostages from FARC in Colombia, an effort his right-wing enemies claim without basis, shows his support for "terrorist organizations," and has extended aid to the poorer Latin nations. Chavez has also befriended Cubanos and has shown that the brothers Castros are not, as the right would portray, incorrigible devils.

Obama should meet Hugo Chavez and try to improve diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Venezuela.

WASHINGTON POST CONDEMNS HUGO CHAVEZ FOR CRITICIZING ISRAELI RAID ON PALESTINIANS IN GAZA

The Washington Post had an editorial yesterday entitled "Mr. Chavez vs. the Jews," about the plight of Venezuelan Jews after the attack on a synagogue in Caracas.

The attack on the synagogue was indeed unfortunate and indicative of anti-semitic forces in Caracas. But the WashPo went on to decry the expulsion of the Israeli ambassador by Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez as a sign of displeasure with Israel's attack upon the Palestinians in Gaza.

Writes the WashPo editorial:

"Then there is the assault on Venezuela's Jewish community -- which seems to have replaced George W. Bush as Mr. Chávez's favorite foil. After Israel's offensive against Hamas in the Gaza Strip last month, the caudillo expelled Israel's ambassador and described Israel's actions in Gaza as "genocide." Then Mr. Chávez turned on Venezuela's Jews. "Let's hope that the Venezuelan Jewish community will declare itself against this barbarity," Mr. Chávez bellowed on a government-controlled television channel. "Don't Jews repudiate the Holocaust? And this is precisely what we're witnessing.""

First of all, Chavez is not alone in condemning the barbaric and cruel attack upon Gaza. Israeli war planes and tanks destroyed schools, mosques, police stations, and even shelled safe houses such as those run by the U.N. Many, including myself, think Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) perpetrated serious war crimes for which they should be punished. The constant screaming of war planes overhead day and night surely traumatized Gaza's children who make up more than 50% of the total population. Even homes and apartment buildings were not safe from Israeli bombs and tank shells. It did seem that Israel, not successful in killing off the Palestinians by a food and fuel blockade, decided to do the job with an outright military attack.

So the Washington Post should not blame Chavez for his stern reaction to "this barbarity." It is wrong to attack a synagogue in Caracas but Chavez's government has made timely arrests of those it believed executed the contemptible destruction. But it is equally or more wrong for Israel to attack Gaza, not allow any of its inhabitants to flee the fighting, and kill over 1,400 Palestinians in the process.

Hugo Chavez may be politically wrong for trying to amend the Venezuelan constitution to allow him to overcome term limits, but he is not wrong for condemning Israelis for their bombardment of Gaza.

NO EXTRA TERMS FOR BLOOMBERG, URIBE, PUTIN OR CHAVEZ

I am against Michael Bloomberg's quest for a third term as Mayor of New York City just as I was against Rudy Giuliani's attempt to portray himself as indispensable to the safety of New Yorkers after September 11, 2001.

For the same reason I am totally against Vladimir Putin trying to re-install himself as president of Russia. And I am against Alvaro Uribe's similar tactics to change the Colombian constitution so that he can run for a third six-year term.

I heard today on BBC Radio News that Hugo Chavez is pursuing a similar change to Venezuela's constitution. I am disappointed. Citizens of their respective countries should not allow any of these guys to make an end run around term limitations prescribed by the various national or state constitutions.

MEDVEDEV ON VISIT TO LATIN AMERICA, MEETS LULA, HUGO CHAVEZ & RAUL CASTRO

Lost in the sad news of the attacks in Mumbai is the visit of Dmitry Medvedev, Russia's president, to Latin America. He has met with Lula da Silva of Brazil, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and today with Raul Castro of Cuba.

The BBC reports on Medvedev's Latin excursion:

"Mr Medvedev's visit was part of a Latin American tour aimed at boosting both Russia's presence and trade ties in a region traditionally of strategic importance to the US.

"Boosting bilateral trade between Russia and Latin America, which could reach $15bn (£9.9bn) this year, is another priority for the Russian president during his talks.

"The Russian leader travelled to Venezuela from Brazil, where he and President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva held talks on boosting trade and technical co-operation."

Medvedev shows how Obama should treat Latin America. For one thing, Medvedev has no qualms in talking to other cultures and visiting far-off countries. He treats each leader with respect, and that includes Castro, Chavez and Lula. Medvedev takes the initiative, unlike Bush, who wants to be courted and fawned over by leaders he thinks are beneath him. Obama in his campaign said he would sit down and talk with everyone, and here is Medvedev doing just that.

NY TIMES MISTAKEN IN SUPPORT OF TRADE AGREEMENT WITH COLOMBIA

I strongly disagree with the editorial in today's The New York Times urging the passage of the free trade agreement with Colombia.

Writes the NYT:

"We don’t say it all that often, but President Bush is right: Congress should pass the Colombian free-trade agreement now.

"Mr. Bush signed the deal two years ago. The Democratic majority in Congress has refused to approve it out of a legitimate concern over the state of human rights in Colombia and less legitimate desires to pander to organized labor or deny Mr. Bush a foreign policy win.

"We believe that the trade pact would be good for America’s economy and workers. Rejecting it would send a dismal message to allies the world over that the United States is an unreliable partner and, despite all that it preaches, does not really believe in opening markets to trade. There is no more time to waste. If the lame-duck Congress does not approve the trade pact this year, prospects would dim considerably since it would lose the cover of the rule (formerly known as fast track) that provides for an up-or-down, no-amendment vote."

Colombia has long been a home to right wing death squads. These groups seem to have the backing of Colombia's ruling class and the Colombian army. Just recently a story has emerged how the Colombian military had a practice of kidnapping young men from poorer sections of Bogota to take to the jungle, kill them, and then proffer their bodies as successful head counts in the war against the FARC.

Furthermore, Colombia's president Alvaro Uribe is no friend of the rule of law or democracy. Uribe wanted Colombia's constitution changed so he could run for a third term. Furthermore, he ordered an attack of a FARC camp inside Ecuador, a clear violation of Ecuador's sovereignty and against international law.

And Uribe is a close ally of George W. Bush. That in itself should make Congress think twice before approving the trade agreement.

Instead of blindly giving Bush and Uribe what they want, Congress should wait until the new Obama administration comes on stage. Obama needs to do a thorough review of U.S. policy towards Latin America. In particular, he needs to change the current Bush policy of neglect and disinterest in Latin American events and politics.

Obama needs to cultivate Hugo Sanchez of Venezuela as well as Evo Morales of Bolivia and Rafael Correa of Ecuador. There is no reason why Obama should continue the failed Bush policy of trying to make these leaders and their states "enemies" of the United States. I am sure they all look forward to getting rid of the Bush administration and starting a new more peaceful era with Obama.

Therefore, in disagreement with the NYT, no agreement over trade with Colombia at this point. Wait till Obama comes in. Then perhaps the U.S. can establish free trade pacts not only with Colombia but also with all the other countries in the region, including Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia.

OBAMA NEEDED MORE PREPARATION FOR DEBATE, ALWAYS ON DEFENSIVE, FAILS TO WHACK MC CAIN ON CIA TORTURE, GEORGIA OR WAR WITHOUT END

The New York Times reports in today's paper that after John McCain said that he was breaking off his campaign to return to D.C. for the bail-out talks and that he wanted to cancel last night's debate, Barack Obama too stopped preparing for the debate. Apparently, the Obama camp had set up an elaborate training site in Florida with stand-ins for the moderator Jim Lehrer and for McCain. Maybe this is what McCain's transparent ploy had in mind.

Obama last night seemed flat and not well-prepared. For example, he said nothing to contradict McCain's claim that he always opposed torture in interrogations even though McCain sided with Bush in voting to allow the CIA to continue that abominable practice.

Obama failed to point out that it was Georgia and Saakashvili who started the Russian/Georgian war by lobbing lethal shells and missiles at the mostly Russian civilian population in South Ossetia. And he stayed mute even when McCain derided him for saying at the beginning of the conflict that both sides need to exercise restraint.

Obama said nothing when McCain said he was naive for saying that he would have talks with world leaders such as Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez (whose pronunciation McCain slaughtered along with Ahmadinejad of Iran) and Cuba's Raul Castro.

Obama was too laid back, too placid, too boring. I attribute all of these failings to his suspension of debate preparation. If I was a campaign adviser, I would read him the riot act.

RICE VISITS LIBYA, U.S. HAS "NO PERMANENT ENEMIES"

The BBC reports today that Condoleeza Rice is visiting Libya, the first American high official to do so in some 50 years.

Rice makes the inane comment that "America has no permanent enemies." But America should not have any "enemies." Then the U.S. need not worry whether they are permanent or only temporary. Americans should not view Iran as an "enemy." Iran has done nothing to the U.S. in terms of dropping bombs or killing Americans. The same for North Korea, Syria or a fortiori Venezuela. True Hugo Chavez of Venezuela has called George W. Bush "Satan" and similar names. But U.S. foreign policy should not characterize Venezuela as the "enemy" because Chavez insulted our great leader.

BBC Radio also reported that Gazprom, the Russian gas behemoth, had recently tried to enter into an exclusive agreement with Libya and Qaddafi to develop Libyan oil and gas fields.

The desire to keep open channels to Libyan oil might explain why Condoleeza Rice is so anxious to visit Libya and offer tokens of friendship.

AWFUL DOWNSIDE OF ATTACK UPON IRAN

Imagine what would happen to the price of oil if the U.S. under George Bush launches an attack against Iran. People are complaining about the price of gasoline now being above $4.00 per gallon. They ain't seen nothing yet if Bush, Cheney or their counterpart in Israel, Ehud Olmert, sends bombs and missiles raining down upon Teheran.

Oil, now at $135 per bbl. would like go to $300, and stay there. Iran, one of the world's biggest oil producers, no doubt would disrupt its supply and cause huge dislocations in the oil market. So would all the other producers who would object to another U.S. started war against an Islamic country. Hugo Chavez of Venezuela certainly would react in sympathy with the Iranians. So would the whole world, almost, that considers George Bush and his regime an outlaw and a war monger.

And how about the world's stock markets. They would go into a steep dive, especially stocks in the U.S. and those of emerging markets.

In sum, the whole world economic order would cascade down to levels unimaginable.

An attack against Iran would make enemies of all the other Islamic countries, not withstanding that Iran is mostly Shiite whereas countries like Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia are mostly Sunni. Nevertheless, the message received by the ordinary man in the street in any Islamic country would be clear - the U.S. and by association, the entire West, wages war against Islam and its beliefs. There would bitter enmity between Americans and Iranians for the next 500 years.

The ratcheting up of talk of war against Iran was not helped by Barack Obama's speech to AIPAC last week. Instead of toning down his rhetoric, Obama went out of his way to say that Iran was the gravest threat, and that he, as president, would not take anything off the table - code for bombing Iran - in assuring that Iran would never acquire nuclear weapons.

I supported Obama for his assertions that he would be willing to sit down and talk with Iranian leaders including president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. I did not vote for Obama to allow him to start another Middle East war, this time with Iran. I want negotiation and diplomacy and peace, not threats and bluster and military action.

OBAMA WINS NOMINATION, PANDERS TO AIPAC ON ISRAEL

So my choice, Barack Obama, won the Democratic nomination. However . . .

I read in The Washington Post where Obama fell over himself to show that he was a true friend of Israel. Obama spoke at the AIPAC convention, the largest and most powerful Israeli-American lobby in the nation.

Reports Dana Milbank:

"A mere 12 hours after claiming the Democratic presidential nomination, Barack Obama appeared before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee yesterday -- and changed himself into an Israel hard-liner.

"He promised $30 billion in military assistance for Israel. He declared that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps' Quds Force has "rightly been labeled a terrorist organization." He used terms such as "false prophets of extremism" and "corrupt" while discussing Palestinians. And he promised that "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided."

"Vowing to stop Tehran from getting a nuclear weapon, the newly minted nominee apparent added: "I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally, Israel. Do not be confused.""

Is this the same Obama that garnered my support because of his willingness to adopt a saner U.S. foreign policy than what we have had over these past eight years? Someone who would be willing to sit down and use negotiation and diplomacy to talk with Ahmadinejad of Iran or Hugo Chavez of Venezuela? A president who believes that dropping bombs and shooting missiles is unjustified and yes, immoral?

How could my guy Obama say that he would isolate Hamas when even today Isabel Kirschner reports for The New York Times that Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas says that he wants to negotiate with Hamas? If Abbas wants to open talks with Hamas, why would Obama say that he would never do so? Obama's statement is disapppointing, rash, politically deceptive and unwise.

And as to Syria, Milbank reports on Obama's statements:

"Israel's military action last year "was entirely justified," Obama said, to knock out Syria's "weapons of mass destruction" program. "The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat," he added."

So Obama is saying that one country, Israel, is justified sending war planes across territorial boundaries of another country, Syria, and bombing a building it suspects is housing a nuclear reactor? Where is this found in the principles of international law? This is Bush's preemption carried through to its logical conclusion. And Obama is adopting this military aggression as own?

Milbank writes:

"The Superman music soon returned, and the man with the Star of David on his lapel left the dais in a shower of hugs and kisses from the AIPAC officers."