I won't pretend to fathom the current events in Latin America, so I can't debate or concur with that analysis.

But I have seen Obama go off half-cocked in the debates saber-rattling at Pakistan, and I have heard one of his key advisers say that Iran has advanced its nuclear weapons program (while even the Bush White House and its NIE don't) and ratifying Bush's speculation about Iran's support of Iraqi terrorism, and I've seen him surrounded by a bubble of perfection that may lead to very poor decisions, the kind that result from either hubris or striving to be all things to all people.

I think Hillary is more mature, has a mighty close adviser who was masterful in Kosovo and respected by the likes of Richard Clarke and Joe Wilson, and she's (painfully) learned a thing or two about intelligence bullshit.

So, I'd rather have her answering those calls.

Will she be perfect on ending U.S. imperialism? Probably not. Nor was the sainted JFK, nor most any president I could name.

According to Time Weiner's History of the CIA he was a fan of Ian Fleming who entered the White House and encouraged covert ops.

But when he realized the CIA had ops even he wasn't allowed to know about, he put the brakes on. In the Bay of Pigs, among other places.

The ride in Dallas came afterwards... not there's any relationship, of course.

The cheesy LBJ ad is madness, sir.

I'm in perfect agreement about Obama's faults. I just think you're drinking the Clinton Kool-Aid a little too deeply, Vastleft. She's a tool of the NeoCons, but so is Obama.

That being said, either will do a far better job at avoiding World War III than McCain. Or Nader.

No Hell below us
Above us, only sky

Definitely a tough guy, a figher, who did the right thing at some risk to himself.

VL, check your mail... I was wondering about tying on the feedbag with you...

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

that is, i think most policy heads and chiefs know little of the areas in which their decisions have an impact. sometimes, even dems shock me with their ignorance of various situations or foreign nations. bush's "they have blacks too?" quip is one of 000s to be found, if you look for them. our "legislative" process has become little more than Village Elect signing pre-written policy handed to them by friendly MIC or contractor lobbyists. the disaster that is iraq is all the proof one ever needs of this.

... largely similar candidates you trust more.

I've strongly criticized Hillary in the past, she wasn't my favorite choice until the media decided she was one of two — and only two — options on the menu, and I'll be very glad for the likes of Corrente to hold her feet to the fire to be a better President than she's likely inclined to be without progressives' scrutiny and criticism. And I'll be right there, pulling no punches, as I will if it's President Obama, President McCain, or President Nader.

It looks like neither Democratic candidate has a clear picture of what's going on down there. They are both U.S. Senators, so they have Access to the Information, if they can rein in their impulses and their advisers. I know it's politics, but would it be possible to engineer some research and reason into the policy debate--a pause before the soundbite? McCain and the Mighty Wurlitzer are waiting for the Democrats to narrow the targets down to one sitting duck.

Just to look at this from the other side of the border, the Columbian government has been fighting FARC for a long time and both Ecuador and Venezuela have willingly allowed FARC forces to hide just across the border in their territory. As much as Ecuador might view this latest raid as an unwarranted invasion of its territory, Columbia could reasonably argue that the repeated incursions by FARC from safe havens in Ecuador constituted a series of sanctioned violations of its sovereignty.

After a series of battles in the early 1820’s, Simone Bolivar defeated Spain and outmaneuvered various rivals to form the independent nation of Gran Columbia. Within a decade Bolivar was dead and his dream of a unified South America had fractured; the several countries have been in conflict with each other – and all their neighbors – ever since. Columbia, Venezuela and Ecuador were skirmishing before the US had a presence and they would still be at it today whether the US was involved or not.

An alternative to kb’s interpretation might be that Clinton was sending a strong message to Chavez of Venezuela – as well as the rest of the world - that she will not be taking any guff while signaling to anyone listening here at home that she is as tough in international relations as anyone else, an important position for her to take for the general election. Obama, on the other hand, could be seen as engaging in wishful thinking or insincerity by advocating something that has never happened over the last 175 years and is highly unlikely to occur any time soon.

Hillary’s approach could be seen as a valid and rational exercise in Real Politik on two levels, while Obama’s position could be interpreted as an inexperienced tap dance and an expression of weakness. Either way, none of the three countries involved will pay much attention to US opinion on the matter.

There aren’t a lot of good guys at the top of Latin American politics. Picking and choosing allies there has never been straightforward, and probably never will be. While the US can do a whole hell of a lot better than we have, it won’t be as easy as saying let’s all play nice.

Good choice of topic, kb; rich culture, endless complexity, enough murkiness to challenge the most ambitious connector of dots.

I’ll be very glad for the likes of Corrente to hold her feet to the fire to be a better President than she’s likely inclined to be without progressives’ scrutiny and criticism.

That's the only silver lining for me with regards to her being disliked to hated by so many, including so-called "progressives:" the left won't cut her any slack, unlike a president Obama (e.g., WORM, MoveOn endorsement), and she'll be most vulnerable to pressure from the left since she'll need us, again, unlike Obama (see: his dismissal, even scolding, of the "netroots"). I don't doubt for a second that politicians only do what they feel they must do and I like our chances with keeping her in check and pushing her forward on progressive issues if she were somehow able to win the presidency.

an ex who got dumped by a rich boy who gave them herpes, begging for a mercy fuck for old times sake. two years from now, or less. but that's another post...

BIO, your argument falls apart at "taking any guff." wtf are you talking about, bro? if two (or three or more) soveriegn nations want to mess around on their borders, what right do we have to take offense? be upset? whatever it is you mean? yadda yadda, protect regional interests drug trade world's policeman human rights...when was the last time US intervention in SA made a positive difference? no, don't answer that, you'll throw out some example that will just piss me off. what i'm saying is: progressives should demand a higher standard, and now is a good time for a quasi-isolationist/human rights aid only policy formulation. most americans agree: our roads and schools are falling apart right here right now, let the rest of the world take care of itself for a while. keep the borders well policed and a couple of nukes fresh, that's really all the "security" we need as a nation.

We'd get a sound currency, universal health care, and our own language. What's not to like?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

This is on the links between FARC and Uribe.

If you can get a hard copy of the magazine, there's a good story in the Feb issue of Harper's - only the summary is online - about the links between the Columbian gov and drug lords/paramilitaries.

Latin American politics, a labyrinth in a swamp; GG Marquez writes about reality, not fiction.

The “guff” comment is about several things, on several levels. One part is Clinton posturing for the general election, trying to appear tough to the American public in foreign affairs against US opponents; it’s a perception she will need in abundance to blunt McCain’s advantage on that topic. The hope will be to appeal to Farmer Fred in rural Ohio, who would like help with his health care and whose kids are struggling with finding jobs so he’s thinking of voting Democratic this time but he’s still real worried about them terrists. If Clinton can reassure him she’ll be a tough CinC she might get his vote, his and the missus.

Secondly, it is a shot across the bow to Chavez, who is no prince. There are no good guys in Latin American politics, just shades of evil. Right now we are buddies with Columbia and Ecuador, enemies with Venezuela. Reasons why, very long essay, all very ugly and messy and indefensible except to say that there are no good guys to buddy up with and if we don’t have a presence in SA, someone else (China) will fill the vacuum.

You tell me which is worse, and yes, we should be handling it much better than we are but under Bush there was so much money to be made off the drug trade that, well, you know, shifting focus to terrorism relieves the Coast Guard and the FBI from having to bother with all those non-terrorist boats and planes full of white powder. All fucked up, I agree, and yet another horrific reality that the next president will have to deal with – can’t just wish it away.

Then there’s Chavez, who has dug himself a hole as deep as his neck politically by making a lot of promises to the masses to win election while continuing to siphon money off to the rich so they don’t kill him. As long as oil is going up in price he’s OK, but if it even levels off he is so screwed it won’t be at all funny; he won’t be able to pay for everything he’s promised and somebody – a lot of somebodys – will be very angry with Hugo.

What to do? What every smart demagogue does; start a war. Columbia is perfect, right next door, the army is effective against low-level conflict but no better than that so it will be a long, unresolved battle that will shift focus away from him, take restless unemployed young men off the street and create an excuse for economic belt tightening, and he can paint it as being in support of the freedom-fighters of FARC against the evil imperialist US and their Columbian government lackeys.

The last thing Clinton wants is another war to deal with, full plate there, so the warning to Chavez is to back off. (Note she hardly mentioned Ecuador.) This response of hers also plays well with the more sophisticated foreign policy world wonks in the DNC, who will be part of any superdelegate negotiations. Does the party want a president who can deal knowledgably and effectively with complex foreign relations or one whose response to every conflict is “Can’t we all just get along?” So; all of that is what “no guff” was supposed to encapsulate.

CD: “when was the last time US intervention in SA made a positive difference? no, don’t answer that, you’ll throw out some example that will just piss me off.” Ah, dear, you should have hung in with that question. Off the top of my head I can’t think of one; even when we’ve tried to be genuinely helpful it hasn’t gone well. Still, we can hardly abandon the continent entirely; like Africa, South America is a sleeping giant that one day will emerge and wreak havoc if it isn’t friendly. Agreed it is a mess, and we have had a strong hand in making it so. Had we stayed out, however, I am not persuaded that it would now be any less of a mess; somebody else would have stirred the pot.

Excellent discussion topic you raise about the posture of “progressive” foreign policy in our current times; can we really take care of ourselves economically and be secure by becoming Fortress America or do we need a carrot-and-stick overseas presence in managing trade relations and foreign affairs? Love to have a chat about that, a murky business and solid arguments both directions.

Bruce F, great link, ‘tis a mess all around, eh?

Lambert; join with Canada instead, they’re closer and the health care is just as good. Maine could easily fit in with the Maritimes, and give the Cape Breton Islanders someone to look down on for a change.

what, if anything, to do with their leaders. we don't need to be paying for their military, or "advisors" or anything else. try starting from there, and see how policy can be formulated.

why is the US paying for other nations' security? it's such a simple question. there is no simple (short) good reason. we don't actually "make things better" in nations we fund in this manner. there is no Cold War. we here all know what a joke it is to claim that money we spend in foreign aid is 'helping in the war on terror.' we also know that aid programs work, and are underfunded. do we know exactly how much we spend in foreign military aid? i don't, but i'm sure that it's much more than what we spend on humanitarian aid that works.

hillary has plenty of ways she can seem tough. i expect what you describe from her. but i question the whole of the logic that says "the US can make a difference by 'hard' posturing and military aid to nations struggling with internal political matter." 99% of the time what we do is wrong, or makes things worse, or both.

Implementation in SA has been terrible, no question. Whether or not we should have some involvement, however, seems to be more nebulous. You’re in favor of humanitarian aid but not military. Fair enough, and I’m not being smartass here, but how does that work in a culture where corruption steals and sells all the humanitarian aid and uses the money for arms, or where donating food and medicine allows a government to shift expenditures towards buying arms, or where a belligerent neighbor threatens the security of the people we’re trying to feed? How about Darfur, where humanitarian aid cannot reach the people in need precisely because of a lack of externally-provided military protection?

In Columbia, so my friends and acquaintances tell me, El Presidente Uribe is generally popular, and was recently overwhelmingly re-elected. It is the innate Latin cognitive dissonance, a basic anarchistic bent that simultaneously demands dictatorial control to contain its worst excesses – see Franco. So – I gently ask – if Uribe, as a popularly elected President of a free country, not only chooses to have a close economic and military relationship with the US but a big part of his popularity rests on the results of that very relationship, does it meet your test of “the people of Columbia” having made the decision? I don’t much like it either, and am damn certain that the relationship is unsavory in many, many ways and will eventually come to no good end, but it is what there is today and the next president will have to figure out what to do going forward from what is, not from what should have been.

South America has been one continuous inter-regional conflict for at least as long as recorded history, long before arrival of the Spaniards. It was precisely a newly emerging Incan civil war that allowed – in large measure – Pizarro’s conquest. While the Spanish were able to quell internecine violence by killing and enslaving the natives, as soon as they were overthrown the entire continent again devolved into warfare along pre-Conquista geographic and ethnic lines. The conflicts today are not much helped by our interaction, but if all we did was drop food from the air they would still be happening.

You write ”hillary has plenty of ways she can seem tough.” I hope so, because she will have to do so in order to get elected. But the question asked was not a general one – it was specifically about Columbia-Ecuador-Venezuela and I, IMNSHO, think Hillary’s answer was spot-on the right one for her to give under current circumstances. What course she will actually take once in office we’ll have to wait to see, but we both know that what she says now has a lot more to do with getting elected than it does with governing.

During this election what she’s putting out is the pick-up line; later comes the live-in affair that doesn’t work out as well as you’d hoped – once again. :-)

90% of you fools thought he was and should continue on as a "strong leader" after 911. so your point about uribe's popularity doesn't move me, nor does the love the bush admin has for him. the ones they like are the ones i should...you're saying "like," right? um, no.

and d'ya think maybe, finally, we're so damn tired of the carpetbagging toddler and his damnyankee oiligarch (not a spelling error) pals crying wolf that we're actually ready for a (gasp) change in this country?

I wouldn't bet next week's rent, if they fake up another "attack" like the ricin scare in the Vegas hotel.

And what the hell ever did they find out about that damn anthrax, anyway?

So pardon me if I'm having my doubts about a President who'll "reach out" and be "post-partisan" in 2009. I know you and I disagree on this, but what that sounds like, to my old cynical hardened ears, is capitulation, surrender, trying to make nice with the Rethugs.

As we used to say in Texas, I'd just as soon not, thanks.

i missed what i missed in your comment...we disagree about what? sounds like you and i are on the same page. 90% lurved bush post-911, we all know what happened after that. i have never advocated more "reaching out" and "post partisanship" with bush republicans. i never will.

The danger is that it will all go up in flames.

Don't know how you propose to sort out what you said you wanted, which is for the people of Columbia to decide, if you then reject the decision that they have apparently made. The evidence shows that Columbians have decided, unwisely it seems to me but then I don't live in Columbia, that the US with its guns and money is a better demon to deal with than the FARC. Also everybody is getting a taste of the drug trade profits now, which is booming and very little is going to FARC, so there's that incentive as well.

I don't like Uribe, but Columbians seem to. If we - that means all of us collectively - are going to work with Columbia it will have to be with Uribe for the forseeable future or else we will have to engineer a coup and you know how well that's worked out in the past. So, what's your proposal? Stay home and let the Chinese take over SA? Because they will, and they won't be anywhere near as scrupulous as you or I would like us to be.

I'm not trying to defend the US track record in SA, or anywhere foreign for that matter after the Marshal Plan. Big FUBAR all the way around. Alls I'm saying is that SA is a mess, there are no simple solutions, us walking away will not make anything better for either SA or ourselves in the long run, and that Hillary's response was adult, on target and what current circumstances here and abroad require.

No longer clear why you're upset with me. Not that there's anything wrong with you being upset with me, but I am always curious as to why. Please, clarify your displeasure.

PS: Do be careful throwing around terms like "you fools." I was never a Bush supporter, the best it ever got for me was the hope after 9/11 that the grownups would take away any and all decision making power and deal with things responsibly on their own. Alas. Got my wish, except for the responsible part.

Soy de la opinión que esto es la vez pasada para dejar a una mujer intentar su mano en cosas que corren. Ella no será capaz de hacer un lío más grande que el hombre que es responsable ahora ha hecho.

No confío en este hombre Obama. No confío en aquel hombre Bush. No pienso que cualquiera de ellos trata francamente con la gente. Las cosas que ellos dicen el sonido demasiado similar para mí para creer en cualquiera de ellos, sobre todo cuando Bush es un mentiroso y el cobarde probado, y puede ser loco. Tal vez me equivoco sobre Obama. Sé que usted lo encuentra más favorable que. Sólo no puedo confiar completamente en lo que él dice.

What the fuck does Franco have to do with South America? What is this "innate Latin cognitive dissonance" you speak of? What exactly is evil about Lula da Silva, or Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, or Michelle Bachelet? I'm afraid your orientalization of Latin American politics is about 30 years out of date. The days of the US having "our bastards" throughout LA are dead and gone (save maybe Uribe), good riddance.

By the bye, China is already there, just in case you weren't aware.

bringiton, This isn't working for me:

It is the innate Latin cognitive dissonance, a basic anarchistic bent that simultaneously demands dictatorial control to contain its worst excesses – see Franco.

We've seen Franco. He left quite an impression, but I'm not sure that his victims were ever convinced that their bent demanded his control.

I have to gently ask: What on earth do you mean by this, and how can you defend it?

Or were you just checking to see if anyone was awake?

Yo también no confían Obama. Él es demasiado joven, demasiado inexperto. Hillary tiene también problemas, pero no tanto.

Ambas son mejores que El Diablo de Bush.

The dichotomy of the Latin character permeates the culture and has since at least the Middle Ages. Is this a new concept for you? Everywhere you look there is on the one hand wild passionate exuberance and on the other control, repression and formality. Franco was just one of the swings taken towards oppression, and don’t fool yourself into thinking he just sprang up unsupported and took over against widespread opposition; he had considerable support and much of Spain prospered under his rule, while other parts did not.

His partnership in repression with the Catholic Church continued a pattern that began in earnest under Ferdinand and Isabella. The same course of combined secular and religious repressive authoritarianism came to Latin America with both the Spanish and Portuguese, where it inevitably led through one wave of oppressive governance after another just as it did across Iberia.

This unresolved dichotomous Latin nature drives a world view that is quite different from the more coherent asceticism of Nordic culture or the subdued reserve of Asia. This dynamic tension is the defining characteristic of Latin philosophy, music, art and governance.

As to the politicians mentioned, Silva and Bachelet represent a glimmer of hope for stability and equalitarianism. But these are early days for Bachelet, and while Silva has made some real advances on some fronts in other areas he has been robbing Peter to pay Paul and his environmental approach has in practice been a continuing disaster. As for Kirchner, there are widespread allegations of corruption under her husband and she has IMHO a whole lot of Eva Peron in her attitude; I’ll hold off a while before giving her or her husband any credit.

China has a presence, yes, as does Japan and India and Europe and other parts of the world, but the US remains the dominant economic force in Latin America in spite of the relentless bumbling of the Bush administration. US-Latin America trade grew from US$232B in 1996 to US$555B in 2006. This compares to US$90B for China-Latin America trade in 2006, although the rate of growth for trade with China is accelerating.

This growth is a cause for some alarm. In particular, Chinese purchases are almost exclusively commodities, and they buy raw goods for processing in China rather than processed goods which would help build an industrial base in SA. Additionally, Chinese purchase agreements are never subject to OECD transparency requirements, nor are they bound by any restrictions on labor exploitation or environmental destruction; “fair trade” provisions are not even discussed. If allowed to continue while US interests press for greater implementation of these considerations, Chinese traders will have significant economic advantage to the detriment of the people of Latin America.

For the continent as a whole, the magnitude of poverty, the discrepancy between the wealthy and the poor, instability in the middle class, lack of unions and low rate of investment of revenues in modern infrastructure continue to hamper sustainable future development. Nationalization of commodities, as in Bolivia, is almost always a prelude to corruption and waste rather than a program of reinvestment that benefits the masses. While the transformation over the last 20 years from dominantly dictatorships to mostly democracies is a hopeful sign, these glimmers have happened before only to devolve back into authoritarianism. When there is greater equality in economic opportunity and a true succession of liberal democratic governments, then I’ll feel more hopeful.

Finally, an observation on US exceptionalism. It is wrong to believe that there is something so inherently wonderful about the American way that we can change a country for the better just by showing up; everyone on the Left acknowledges that. What is also true is that the US is not the fount of all evil, and not everything bad that happens in the world is the result of American perfidy. We are not as important as we like to think we are.

Tyranny, exploitation and cruelty are not unique to Americanism, and not every inequity in Latin America can be laid at America’s door. We can do better, we must do better, throughout the world, but we must also be aware that even at our worst we are by far not the worst possible influence out there.

(and yes, why don't you clarify your thoughts for us on Franco? i'm giggling here...)

but i don't forget what it was like to be a 6%-er, i guess you probably do too. it was some scary shit if you were a "far leftist" with a lot of friends in/from the ME in those days. seriously, i was worried for a minute they were going to start hanging us. so i get a little harsh when i speak of people who lined up behind the chimp in that period. for a moment, a large majority of liberals and progressives supported bush and believed in his ability to lead us out of danger and conflict.

it taught me an important lesson in the power of fear and emotion over logic and reason.

bringiton brings it on some more:

The dichotomy of the Latin character permeates the culture and has since at least the Middle Ages. Is this a new concept for you?

Not a new concept at all, and not a benevolent one. Even if it were more than partially true, it discounts the efforts of those trying to get out of the box.

bringiton, maybe when you're done lecturing us on the "Latin character", you could tell us a little bit about the "asian character", the "Jewish character", and the "black character". The 19th century called, they want their rhetoric back.

I'm still not sure what the rise of Spanish fascism in th 1930s has to do with contemporary Latin American politics, but maybe my Latin character is blinding me.

You may not want to give Cristina Kirchner or her husband credit yet, but where I come from (Argentina), they've both won elections by huge margins, implemented policies that lead to 8-9% GDP growth for the last 4 years (we should be so lucky) and the foreseeable future, politely told the IMF and World Bank to go fuck themselves, and started to fix the problems caused by the unthinking privatization of state industries during Menem-Clinton neoliberal 90s (all while finally holding the milicos de mierda responsible for the horrors of the '76-'83 dictatorship accountable). What widespread allegations of corruption are you talking about? Besides having been married to a president of Argentina, how are Cristina and Evita in any way comparable?

what is going on? why don't posts work?

... in the post that are triggering a filter to make sure that the blog isn't inundated by spam or worse.

The comment is now approved.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

I'm terribly sorry for the flood of posts then. Please reject my other comments.