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.

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.

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.

U.S. PLAN TO PUT 800+ TROOPS IN COLOMBIA ROILS LATIN AMERICA

Bolivian President Evo Morales terms the agreement by Colombian president Alvaro Uribe a sell-out of Latin countries to the United States. I totally agree.

The BBC reports:

"Mr Morales said that Bogota's plan was aimed at countering the efforts of left-wing governments like his.

"He said those governments were fighting for greater social justice."

There is no good reason why Barack Obama approved sending 800+ more U.S. troops to Colombia. The proffered reason is that the troops are going to help with anti-drug operations. This is patently pretextual and ingenuous.

The real reason, offered by Evo Morales, is that the U.S. wants to spy on and impede those countries that are putting social programs into effect to help their poor and indigenous.

Does Barack Obama know of the turmoil resulting from this silly and foolish U.S. plan to base hundreds of American soldiers in Colombia? If he does, he needs to explain why it is worth it given the anti-American sentiment naturally created in the souls of the street in every country in South and Central America.

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.

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.

BUSH TO AWARD MEDAL OF FREEDOM TO COLOMBIAN ALVARO URIBE, TONY BLAIR, AUSTRALIAN JOHN HOWARD

The reason that Barack Obama and family cannot stay at the Blair House during these few days before inauguration is that it is being occupied by the former Australian premier, John Howard. Howard is being awarded the Medal of Freedom by Bush on January 13, together with Alvaro Uribe of Colombia and Tony Blair, former British premier.

Philip Rucker and Al Kamen write in today's Washington Post website:

"Howard and his entourage will be bunking at Blair House on Jan. 12, the night before he, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Colombian President Alvaro Uribe are to be awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom from Bush, two White House officials said today. The three current and former heads of state are longtime political allies of Bush, and Blair and Howard were key partners in the U.S.-led war in Iraq."

So Bush is awarding his favorite medal to those toadies who supported his disastrous and immoral War in Iraq. The question is, will Iraqis who suffered through these last six years caused by Bush and Co. throw their shoes at all of them?

Recall other famous recipients of the Medal: Gen. Tommy Franks, Paul Bremer and CIA former director George Tenet, three guys who really helped Bush screw up in enabling his unjustified war and then causing ruin and mayhem in Iraq after the invasion.

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.

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.

U.S. VIOLATES INTERNATIONAL LAW IN ATTACK AGAINST SYRIAN FARMING VILLAGE

The U.S. has finally admitted that it carried out an attack against a Syrian village some eight kilometers into Syrian territory. For the past 24 hours Washington issued no confirmation of the incursion.

This is clearly reminiscent of Colombian president Uribe's attack against FARC insurgents in Ecuador. It has no basis in international law and is a sure fire way to start another war, if not regional, even world-wide.

Katherine Zoepf reports in today's The New York Times web site:

"Syria’s state-run media also intensified its criticism of the United States on Monday, with the government newspaper Tishrin accusing American forces of committing “a war crime,” Agence France-Presse said."

I condemn the Bush gang for approving this attack which is a clear violation of Syrian territoriality. If the U.S. had any gripes about this poor Syrian farming village, it could have pursued a diplomatic course by talking to the Syrian government. It could have done so if it chose, but instead, Bush/Cheney resorted to military force.

The result is eight people dead, including one woman and four children. Not only is this a serious breach of respect for another country's sovereignty but above all it is a violation of the eight human beings who were gunned down by American special forces.

STOP URIBE FROM RUNNING FOR THIRD TERM IN COLOMBIA

Colombian president Alvaro Uribe is angling for a third term even though the Colombian constitution limits a person to only two.

Uribe is the Bush protege who believes the way to deal with the FARC is to kill them. If it were not for Hugo Chavez, president of Venezuela, no hostages would be released, even Ingrid Betancourt who was freed under a ruse by Colombian military posing as Red Cross workers. Chavez was the one who started negotiating with FARC and he succeeded in freeing Clara Rojas, Betancourt's assistant and others.

Uribe is just a right-wing dictator posing as a believer in democracy. He knows how to push all of Bush's buttons to get Bush to ante millions for Colombian's army.

Colombians should say no to a third Uribe term. No one is indispensable in politics.

BUSH SEEKS FOREIGN HELP IN PRESSURING SPEAKER PELOSI ON FREE TRADE WITH COLOMBIA

Now we have George Bush asking Felipe Calderon president of Mexico and Stephen Harper of Canada to come out and publicly ask Nancy Pelosi to reconsider not holding a vote on the Colombia free trade pact.

Stephen Lee Myers writes in today's The New York Times:

"President Bush pulled the leaders of Mexico and Canada into an unusually direct involvement in his domestic political efforts to expand free trade on Tuesday when his two North American allies joined him in a foray into both Congressional politics and the presidential campaign.
President Felipe Calderón of Mexico and Prime Minister Stephen Harper of Canada lent their weight to what has been something of a lonely campaign by the president as he has traveled the country to make pro-trade speeches and angry statements about the “petty politics” that he sees threatening one of his administration’s major legacies. They joined Mr. Bush in sharply criticizing a decision by the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, to scuttle a vote on a free trade agreement with Colombia."

This shows how impotent has become the Boy King. Not able to admit defeat for his lack of meaningful negotiations with Congress on other pressing national needs, Bush appeals to outside authorities to petition Speaker Pelosi.

Consider what is being sought. A free trade with Colombia, a country that on this past March 1st, launched an illegal intrusion into neighboring Ecuador to shoot and kill some 25 "members" of the FARC as they slept in their beds. The dead included four visiting Mexican college students who happened to be the camp to judge for themselves what was happening with the insurgent Colombian group.

The same Colombia which has a history of killing farmers by right-wing militias and justifying it by saying that the campesinos were FARC members. Just yesterday, Mario Uribe, cousin of Colombian president, Alvaro Uribe, was arrested by Colombian prosecutors and charged with complicity in the doings of the death squads. Mario immediately tried to seek refuge in the Costa Rican embassy, lending basis to the speculation that he did not want to answer questions about his cousin Alvaro.

So again, I say to Speaker Pelosi, don't be bullied by Bush to rush into this Colombian agreement. If George Bush is so desirous of the Colombian free trade pact, let him first agree to an expansion of the S-CHIP program granting health insurance to children. Let Bush first get serious about helping New Orleans, a project that he has forgotten about almost as soon as the flood waters receded.

SPEAKER PELOSI - DON'T APPROVE COLOMBIA TRADE PACT UNLESS BUSH AGREES TO COOPERATE WITH DEMOCRATS

Deb Reichmann writes in today's washingtonpost.com that George Bush is hectoring Nancy Pelosi and the Congress to approve the trade deal with Alvaro Uribe and Colombia. Pelosi and the Democratic majority in the House should stand firm and refuse to approve the pact unless Bush cooperates with Congress. As a sign of Bush's cooperation, Pelosi should require that Bush agree to sign an extended health insurance bill for children (S-CHIP) that he has vetoed at least twice in the last year.

In fact, if Bush wishes the Congress to go along and pass the Colombian trade pact, Bush needs to show his good will on other matters of importance as well. He needs to show cooperation on the matter of Congressional subpoenas given to Harriet Miers and Andrew Card. In other words, Bush needs to tell Miers and Card to show up and testify under oath. He also needs to do away with his flouting of the law by inserting signing statements that go against explicit provisions of laws that have been subject to bicameral approval and presentment. And most of all, Bush needs to confer with Speaker Pelosi about Iraq and admit it has been a disastrous foreign policy fiasco.

Until Bush cooperates with the Congress on the above matters, I urge Speaker Pelosi to stand resolute and not approve Bush's pact with Uribe or Colombia.

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.

WHERE EVER THERE IS CONFLICT IN WORLD, BUSH & CHENEY ARE INVOLVED

The Arab Summit scheduled to begin in Damascus faces the possibility that it will be deemed ineffective because the heads of Egypt and Saudi Arabia will not be attending. Apparently there is a disagreement among Arab leaders on Syria's role in Lebanon and its politics.

But permeating the whole disagreement is the suspicion that the United States and George Bush have been doing everything possible to sabotage the meeting. For one thing, Bush hates Syria and its leader. Secondly, Bush thinks Syria is in league with Iran, a country and people he hates even more. There is no end in imagining what Bush would do to create the impression that the Arab Summit is a failure.

These suspicions, I am sure, are rampant in the Arab world. After all, the trouble we see now in the world is due to Bush, Cheney and Rice and their machinations and interferences. Consider the carnage in Mogadishu where Bush sent in the Ethiopians to defeat the Islamic Courts in Somalia. Consider the fighting now raging in Basra where Bush goaded Al Maliki to send in the Iraqi troops to eliminate the Sadr forces Bush claims are allied with Teheran. Consider the cooling off of relations between North and South Korea where the U.S. forces of darkness surely have spurred the new South Korean conservative regime into taking a hard line on North Korea's policies. And don't forget about Colombia where Uribe's recent illegal raid into Ecuador to kill FARC members shows U.S. influence and support of Bush and Cheney.

Where ever there is fighting and conflict in the world, Bush surely has his fingerprints.