Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama Glosses Over Colombian Attack in Ecuador; Clinton Calls for Escalation Against Venezuela

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 02:01 PM
Original message
Obama Glosses Over Colombian Attack in Ecuador; Clinton Calls for Escalation Against Venezuela

The Clinton and Obama forces have asked us to consider who we want answering the phone at the White House at 3 AM. There is little need to speculate. We have a lot of evidence about how they will respond.

On Saturday, Colombia launched an attack on a FARC camp in Ecuador, with, Ecuador plausibly alleges, U.S. support. Colombia’s President Uribe — a close Bush ally — lied to Ecuador’s President Correa about the attack, claiming it was in “hot pursuit.” Ecuador’s soldiers, when they reached the scene and recovered the bodies of FARC members who had been killed, reported to Correa that they had been asleep when attacked. They were in their underwear. Correa called it a “massacre.” Both Ecuador and Venezuela have moved troops to their borders with Colombia, warned Colombia about violating their sovereignty, and cut diplomatic relations with Colombia.

Colombia’s attack was a flagrant violation of Ecuador’s sovereignty. “Hot pursuit” was Colombia’s only possible defense. There is no right in international law to engage in military attacks into another country with which you are not at war if it is not an immediate continuation of an engagement that began within your borders (unless your action is explicitly authorized by the UN Security Council.) If you say that international law doesn’t matter, you’re essentially saying that Colombia has special rights to violate international law because it’s a U.S. ally. That may sell well inside the Beltway, but it’s going to sell very poorly, in general, from the Rio Grande to Tierra del Fuego.

While no one should dispute that the tactics of the FARC have caused tremendous suffering — as have the tactics of the U.S.-backed Colombian government — it’s important to consider the likely motivations of the Colombian government for carrying out this operation. Raul Reyes, the top leader in the FARC who was killed, led negotiations that resulted in the FARC releasing six political hostages to Venezuela, including four a week ago. This is a pattern for the Bush-backed Colombian government — to meet the “threat” of successful diplomacy with military escalation. The Colombian government, with vigorous U.S. support, is taking actions whose probable consequence is to reduce the likelihood that FARC hostages will be released — including three American captives.

Indeed, Ecuador says it was in talks with rebels to release 12 hostages, including Ingrid Betancourt and three Americans, that the talks were in an advanced stage, and that the process was thwarted by the Colombian raid.

Now consider the statements of the Democratic presidential candidates. First, Obama:

Obama Statement on Recent Events near Colombia’s Borders - March 03, 2008

“The Colombian people have suffered for more than four decades at the hands of a brutal terrorist insurgency, and the Colombian government has every right to defend itself against the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). The recent targeted killing of a senior FARC leader must not be used as a pretense to ratchet up tensions or to threaten the stability of the region. The presidents of Colombia, Ecuador and Venezuela have a responsibility to ensure that events not spiral out of control, and to peacefully address any disputes through active diplomacy with the help of international actors.”

Obama is absolutely right, of course
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/05/7482/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 02:05 PM
Response to Original message
1. An escalation? The word is "surge".
And it's none of our fucking business.

Does this give you a clue as to the tone of the conversation if President Clinton answered that 3 am phone call?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabatha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 02:07 PM
Response to Original message
2. And this kind of intelligent commentary by Obama
will never see the light of day in the MSM - and the voters will not know about it, because all they can think of is the 3am call, the Canada non-story and the Rezko bashing.

I cry for this country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dhalgren Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 02:16 PM
Response to Original message
3. Obama and Clinton are both wrong. Obama sounded just like any
Edited on Wed Mar-05-08 02:16 PM by Dhalgren
moderate Republican would sound. Clinton sounded like Bush. Why can't a Democrat side with Ecuador on this? Why can't a Democrat come out and say that we are in general agreement with President Chavez that Colombia must respect the borders of her neighbors? What can't we be on the right side of things just once? This is one of the reasons why the Democratic Party just isn't running a candidate that I can actively support.

No thanks.

As Debs says, "I would rather vote for what I want and not get it, than vote for what I don't want and get it." Me too, Eugene, me too...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NotGivingUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #3
11. "I would rather vote for what I want and not get it, than vote for what I don't want and get it."
EXACTLY! well said!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KaptBunnyPants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 02:19 PM
Response to Original message
4. Plan Columbia was Clinton's baby in the first place.
Bush and Clinton, partners is the devastation of Latin America.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tired Donating Member (65 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 02:23 PM
Response to Original message
5. Just another example
Of why Hillary is just a continuation of the same old policies. We should be worried about Hillary answering the 3am phone call. "After reviewing this situation," I don't care what about international law!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 02:51 PM
Response to Original message
6. obama could have said no comment because
in the real world i doubt he has any decent information on what happened and what the bushshits were actually doing in columbia. remember the latest-arming the fatah against hamas?. if would have said no comment that would have opened up a big can-o-worms.

so the next best thing is to involve everyone in the problem and tell them to get their shit together...safe? yes and that`s the only way he can play it right now
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 08:52 PM
Response to Original message
7. This would work better if trimmed down to 2 paragrpahs and reposted with link IMO
Now consider the statements of the Democratic presidential candidates. First, Obama:


Obama Statement on Recent Events near Colombia’s Borders - March 03, 2008

“The Colombian people have suffered for more than four decades at the hands of a brutal terrorist insurgency, and the Colombian government has every right to defend itself against the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). The recent targeted killing of a senior FARC leader must not be used as a pretense to ratchet up tensions or to threaten the stability of the region. The presidents of Colombia, Ecuador and Venezuela have a responsibility to ensure that events not spiral out of control, and to peacefully address any disputes through active diplomacy with the help of international actors.”




Statement from Hillary Clinton - 3/3/2008

“Hugo Chavez’s order yesterday to send ten battalions to the Colombian border is unwarranted and dangerous. The Colombian state has every right to defend itself against drug trafficking terrorist organizations that have kidnapped innocent civilians, including American citizens. By praising and supporting the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, Chavez is openly siding with terrorists that threaten Colombian democracy and the peace and security of the region. Rather than criticizing Colombia’s actions in combating terrorist groups in the border regions, Venezuela and Ecuador should work with their neighbor to ensure that their territories no longer serve as safe havens for terrorist groups. After reviewing this situation, I am hopeful that the government of Ecuador will determine that its interests lie in closer cooperation with Colombia on this issue. Hugo Chavez must call a halt to this provocative action. As president, I will work with our partners in the region and the OAS to support democracy, promote an end to conflict, and to press Chavez to change course.”



It is your find, and it is a very very significant piece. Hillary's neocon side needs to be highlighted.
K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
superkia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 08:52 PM
Response to Original message
8. Clinton is just following her elite friends agenda just like in Iraq...
the goal is to go after any oil rich country that will not go along with the elites plan for a new world order. If you wont join them, you must be destroyed or replaced by a puppet that will go along. I am happy if Clinton goes after Venezuela, it only reinforces why she went into Iraq with no evidence...oil!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
populistdriven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 08:54 PM
Response to Original message
9. Bill Clinton expanded the US military into more Countries than any president in peace time nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spiffarino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 09:15 PM
Response to Original message
10. This deserves a kick
The contrast between the two candidates is stark and it's a significant indicator of how each would handle an international crisis. The differences between the two are much greater than I first thought.

I like Obama more after reading this. Thanks, Joanne98.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 10:09 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC