Category: Foreign Policy

  • Running on a record

    Back in Novemeber 2006, I predicted right before the election that the Republicans would lose in the midterm elections because of their greatest success – preventing further attacks against Americans on our own soil. Nearly two years later, nothing has changed – there have been no further successful attacks. The Left continues to use the Republicans success against them by intimating that there is no threat because there’ve been no attacks. Democrats have successfully diverted the discussion away from security and on to the subject that gets them the most votes – the economy.

    Today, in the Wall Street Journal, the Left’s favorite boogeyman, Karl Rove writes that the left avoids talking about national security because, as we used to say in the infantry, they’re LIW – Lost In the Woods;

    For a party whose presidential candidates pledge they’ll remove U.S. troops from Iraq immediately upon taking office — without regard to conditions on the ground or the consequences to America’s security — a late February Gallup Poll was bad news. The Obama/Clinton vow to pull out of Iraq immediately appears to be the position of less than one-fifth of the voters.

    Only 18% of those surveyed by Gallup agreed U.S. troops should be withdrawn “on a timetable as soon as possible.” And only 20% felt the surge was making things worse in Iraq. Twice as many respondents felt the surge was making conditions better.

    It gets worse for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Nearly two out of every three Americans surveyed (65%) believe “the United States has an obligation to establish a reasonable level of stability and security in Iraq before withdrawing all of its troops.” The reason is self-interest. Almost the same number of Americans (63%) believe al Qaeda “would be more likely to use Iraq as a base for its terrorist operations” if the U.S. withdraws.

    Rove goes on to quotes Democrat Party leaders deep in denial;

    In September, Mrs. Clinton told Gen. David Petraeus “the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief.” This week, she said “we’ll be right back at square one” in Iraq by this summer.

    In December, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid refused to admit progress, arguing, “The surge hasn’t accomplished its goals.” He said a month earlier there was “no progress being made in Iraq” and “it is not getting better, it is getting worse.”

    Asked by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on Feb. 9 if she was worried that the gains of the last year might be lost, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi shot back: “There haven’t been gains . . . This is a failure.” Carl Levin, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee told the Associated Press the same month that the surge “has failed.”

    This passionate, persistent unwillingness to admit what more and more Americans are coming to believe is true about Iraq’s changing situation puts Democrats in dangerous political territory. For one thing, they increasingly appear out of touch with reality, a charge they made with some success at the administration’s expense before the surge began changing conditions in Iraq.

    Their one hope is that John McCain keeps repeating his absurd comment that we’ll keep troops in Iraq for 100 years (Examiner link);

    …McCain’s response at a New Hampshire town hall meeting in January when he was asked about a comment President Bush had made about U.S. troops remaining in Iraq for 50 years.

    “Maybe 100,” McCain answered. “As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it’s fine with me, and I hope it would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al-Qaida is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.”

    I know what he meant, my readers know what he meant, but the knee-jerk media (with whom McCain has lost his luster) distorted it to mean that McCain would stay there and fight a war for a hundred years. McCain should have known better.

    But the fact remains that anyone concerned about our security can’t seriously consider the Democrats. Their strategy is to pay off our enemies with perks – and generally ignore the more dangerous. Similar to Jimmy Carter’s strategy that led to the rise of the Islamic Republic (which led to the Iran-Iraq War, the arming of Saddam beyond his security needs and eventually the current war in Iraq), the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (which led to the rise of the Taliban eventually).

    The Democrats’ vocal base won’t let them talk about real national security; Code Pink is holding common sense hostage while Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid prevent discussion and passage of essential national security legislation. Our national security is dependent on a tiny group of shrieking drag queens.

    Just wait till they run both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

  • Venezuelans take their ($19b) ball and leave

    According to the Miami Herald this morning, Venezuelans are taking their money out of Venezuela and stashing it outside of the country;

    Capital flight out of Venezuela established a record during 2007, the Central Bank of Venezuela has reported, despite strict currency controls adopted in 2004 by President Hugo Chávez’s government to limit the outflow of money.

    Much of the money landed in the United States and especially Florida, through various means such as bank accounts, financial investments and asset purchases, said José Guerra, the Central Bank’s former chief economist, and Antonio Jorge, an economics professor at Florida International University.

    ”Miami is a natural destination for the escape of Venezuelan capital,” said Jorge.

    He estimated that at least 60 percent of the $19 billion ended up in the United States, given that nearly 70 percent of Venezuela’s international commercial exchange is with the United States.

    When I was in Panama last November, the common complaint of most Panamanians I talked with was that Venezuelans were driving up the price of real estate and luxury goods while they deposited their savings in Panamanian banks (Panama is Latin America’s Switzerland). In 2006, Venezuela’s GDP was $176b, if it remained at that figure, that means that more than 10% of it’s GDP is leaving the country – it’s an equivalent of over a trillion dollars leaving the US in a year.

    So that leaves me wondering what Chavez intends to do about it – because he can’t afford to have Venezuela hemorrhaging cash.

    Good news for Hugo, though is the fact that a judge in Great Britain overturned the decision that enabled Exxon/Mobil to freeze $12b of Venezuela’s assets (Bloomberg link);

    Exxon Mobil Corp.’s freeze on $12 billion of assets belonging to Venezuela’s state oil company was overturned by a U.K. court in a setback for the U.S. energy company in its dispute with President Hugo Chavez.

    A London court today said that an injunction freezing assets belonging to Petroleos de Venezuela SA, known as PDVSA, should be thrown out. Judge Paul Walker disclosed the ruling without giving his reasoning.

    Exxon, the world’s largest oil company, sought freeze orders in several countries to keep Venezuela from shifting assets out of the reach of an international arbitration commission that’s handling claims against Chavez’s government for last year’s takeover of an oil field. PDVSA had argued that U.K. courts didn’t have jurisdiction to intervene in the dispute.

    “The judge hasn’t allowed his court or his country to be an instrument” of Exxon, Samuel Moncada, Venezuela’s ambassador to the U.K., said in an interview. “This decision should have an effect on any reasonable court in the world.”

    So he’s still short a few billion bucks.

  • Paz Sin Fronteras

    Yesterday tens of thousands of music fans gathered on the border between Colombia and Venezuela to listen to the biggest names in Latin music perform from a bridge that spans the two nations in response to the recent Chavez-inspired crisis. Paz Sin Fronteras means “Peace Without Borders”.

    I suppose Chavez would have a difficult time forming these happy folks into an army.

    I found a video of some of the stars that includes Juanes the artist who formed the concert and Alejandro Sanz, arguably the biggest popular music artist in latin America. It’ll give you an idea of the size of the audience. Me? I like the music.

    [youtube I1nXzI1t3XI nolink]

    Katy of Caracas Chronicles reports that Venezuelan media was too fixated on Alo Presidente to notice. Miami Herald reports that President Uribe was asked not to come;

     Colombian President Alvaro Uribe had planned to attend but canceled on Sunday, saying Juanes’ manager asked him not to come because the show “was not to be a political event.”

  • Buddhist Monks lead democracy protests in Tibet

    Just as they did in Burma last fall, Buddhist monks are the engine driving the latest protests in Tibet (Wall Street Journal link);

    A wave of antigovernment protests by Tibetans is spreading and, fueled by rapid communications among the monasteries that serve as centers of Tibetan cultural and spiritual life, appears unlikely to subside soon.

    The tensions, which pose a challenge to China ahead of the Beijing Olympics, were on display in Xiahe, a small city wedged in a valley in the rugged Qilian mountains of northwestern China’s Gansu province. Saturday, hundreds of Tibetan protesters pelted government offices and shops in Xiahe with stones.

    In a heavily Tibetan area of Sichuan province, in southwest China yesterday, Tibetans took to the streets in violent demonstrations and set fire to a police station. Residents there reported hearing gunfire.

    Hundreds of Buddhist monks also marched in another Gansu city Saturday, shouting pro-independence slogans and carrying Tibetan flags, witnesses said.

    Spanish Pundit quotes ABC News;

    The three great monasteries — Sera, Drepung and Ganden — are all now surrounded by phalanxes of Chinese troops.

    “The Sera monastery is surrounded by Chinese soldiers or police,” the same eyewitness told ABC News. “I went yesterday to an area nearby to meet a Tibetan friend, and I saw the monastery surrounded by them.”

    The Washington Times reports that the uprising, as they often do in Asia, is spreading across the region;

    Protests spread from Tibet into three neighboring provinces yesterday as Tibetans defied a Chinese government crackdown, while the Dalai Lama decried what he called the “cultural genocide” taking place in his homeland.

    Meanwhile, activists rallied outside the Chinese Consulate in New York yesterday and scuffles broke out in front of China’s Paris embassy during one of several protests in Europe.

    The Wall Street Journal also reports that protesters are enthusiastic;

    Spirits were high among the demonstrators. “This is the first time in my life that I’ve been able to say what was in my heart, to say, ‘Free Tibet and long live the Dalai Lama,’” said a 37-year-old monk who was one of the organizers of Saturday’s march in Xiahe.

    So here is my question; since there are probably at least a few hundred protesters in town ready to display their manufactured faux-outrage at the Bush Administration on Wednesday – why can’t they go about a half-mile from the White House (up Connecticut Ave) and protest REAL human rights violations in front of the PRC embassy? I mean they’ve got nothing to do anyway (besides spend their parent’s money and suck down nasty Starbuck’s coffee all day) – why can’t they take a few minutes off from the BDS and do something worthwhile.

    All day Friday I listened to the Left praise the IVAW for their “bravery” and “courage” in speaking out against the Bush Administration. Folks, take a look at Tibet – THAT’S bravery and courage. It doesn’t take courage to speak out against a government that won’t do anything to you for speaking out.

    The Left can’t leave their Bush Derangement Syndrome aside long enough to protest REAL oppression. And then they wonder why I make “snide” comments about their movement.

  • Chutzpah in Gaza

    Just seeing the title of this Associated Press article made me giggle;

    Hamas sets terms for Israel cease-fire

    Since when does the armed force that’s getting it’s ass handed to it get to set terms of a ceasefire? Here’s some terms for you, Hamas; stop killing Israelis and they’ll stop killing you. But that’s not possible is it?

    Gaza’s Hamas prime minister publicly set his conditions Wednesday for a cease-fire with Israel to end the fighting that has killed dozens in recent weeks.

    Ismail Haniyeh demanded an end to Israeli military activity in the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip, a lifting of Israeli economic sanctions and the opening of Gaza’s borders, which have been sealed since the Islamic militant group seized control of the territory last June.

    “We are talking about a mutual, comprehensive calm, which means that the enemy must fulfill its obligations,” Haniyeh said in a speech at Gaza’s Islamic University. “The Israelis must stop the aggression … including assassinations and invasions, end the sanctions and open the borders.”

    Yeah, open the borders so those guys with the heavy coats in the 90-degree heat can cross over and start blowing up more Jews on buses. And what are you giving return? Another empty promise? Oh, that’s right, Hamas sets the rules while it’s getting it’s ass kicked – the whole rest of the world has to bow down to the thugs.

    Haniyeh used the word “tahdia” to describe the informal cease-fire he sought. He did not use another Arabic term, “hudna,” because it would imply recognition of Israel’s right to retaliate for attacks, Hamas officials said. Both terms denote a temporary cease-fire rather than a permanent peace.

    Hamas does not recognize Israel’s right to exist and is sworn to its destruction.

    Every time Hamas attacks Israel, the Israelis retaliate and kill more Palestinians. You’d think after awhile Hamas would learn. Well, when I say “you’d think”, I’m assuming that the reader is a rational person living in a 21st Century culture that respects peace, life and liberty.

  • Chavez, are you with us or with the terrorists?

    More than three months ago, my new friends at Western Hemisphere Policy Watch (who seem to be bears of sorts since they’ve been in hibernation since Christmas Eve – maybe this link will shake them awake) recommended that the US State Department put Venezuela on the terror watch list.

    Since we are unwilling to recall our Ambassador, and it took a Spanish King (a Bourbon no less) to set HC straight, why not make this token gesture that will surely invigorate the youth that have rallied to this effort?

    According to the Miami Herald this morning, those wheels are in motion;

    The Bush administration has launched a preliminary inquiry that could land Venezuela on the U.S. list of nations that support terrorism because of its alleged close links to Colombian rebels, a senior government official has confirmed.

    The inquiry, by government lawyers, is the first step in a process that could see Venezuela join North Korea, Cuba, Sudan, Syria and Iran as countries designated by the State Department as supporters of terrorism.

    U.S. laws permit some leeway on the scope of sanctions, but experts say that adding Venezuela to the list could force U.S. and even foreign firms to sever or curtail links with one of the world’s leading oil producers and the owner of Citgo Petroleum.

    The inquiry comes after Colombia seized four computers belonging to a guerrilla leader in a March 1 raid into Ecuador. The documents suggest Venezuela, among other things, promised $300 million to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC.

    The U.S. and Colombian governments and the European Union have officially designated the FARC as a terrorist organization, but Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez has said publicly that he considers it a legitimate insurgency.

    A senior U.S. official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the delicate nature of the subject, said government lawyers had been asked to clarify ”what goes into effect in terms of prohibitions, or prohibited activities” when a country is put on the U.S. list.

    After Chavez’ little drama play last week, feigning outrage at a violation of Ecuador’s sovereignty, it is clear that Chavez, and his poodle Correa, have a deeper interest in the success of FARC than they do in the success of the Colombia’s government and it’s people.

    Stockpiling weapons and instruments of war in a relatively peaceful corner of the world should have shaken the OAS awake, but it hasn’t, since they decided to side with Correa and FARC – despite the damning evidence that President Uribe presented to the council in Santo Domingo proving Chavez and Correa’s support of FARC and their nefarious activities.

    Chavez claims to have no need of trade with the US, let’s just see.

    Anyone interested in reading summation of the documents Colombia has culled from Raul Reyes’ computers, Colombian Semana has the most important parts of the evidence (in Spanish) .

  • Colombia vs. Chavez/US Democrats (UPDATED)

    2008_03_07t230149_450x311_us_venezuela_colombia.jpg

    Photo from Reuters/Yahoo

    Colombia’s President Alvaro Uribe (R), Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega talk as Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez looks on after they agreed to resolve a territorial dispute.

    We were all surprised, somewhat, Friday when Ecuador, Venezuela and Colombia stepped back from the heated rhetoric, suddenly all broke into grins and shook hands. It appeared that one side was scared and the other side was glad they were scared. The Devil’s Excrement posits the theory that Colombian President Uribe had much more information on the underhanded dealings of Venezuela’s Chavez and Ecuador’s Correa than he was showing;

    My theory? Easy, Uribe a master politician, had only leaked earlier some of the information gathered at the guerrilla camp and there was much more than they had released to the press two days ago. Either the additional material was being passed on to the various Governments as Uribe spoke, or it was handed over at that point to Correa and Chavez. Chavez was simply too timid, talking about peace, religion, God, even calling for a mass (how cynical can he be?). My further guess is that the Colombian Government uncovered financial information compromising both Ecuador and Venezuela. In fact, Uribe read at one point a letter from a FARC leader mentioning a specific amount of aid to the FARC from the Ecuadorian Government.

    It turns out that Miguel’s theory panned out, according to a Miami Herald article this morning;

    Colombia’s FARC guerrillas discussed contributing up to $100,000 to the campaign of Rafael Correa six weeks before he was elected president of Ecuador in 2006, Colombia’s Semana magazine reported on Sunday, citing a document found on the laptop of slain rebel leader Raúl Reyes.

    Another document reportedly found by Colombia’s National Police is a letter from 2000 that asks Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi for a $100 million loan so the guerrillas could buy weapons, including surface-to-air missiles. There’s no evidence that the deal went forward.

    Mary Anatasia O’Grady, in the Wall Street Journal this morning, uncovers more evidence of FARC’s connections to the Chavez and Correa governments;

    The FARC puts a lot of effort toward discrediting Mr. Uribe in the court of world opinion. A September letter from a rebel commander to “secretariat comrades” reads: “As to the manifesto, I suggest adding the border policy and making it public by all means possible to see if we can stop all the world from supporting uribismo [the agenda of Mr. Uribe] in the October elections.” He then proposes a “clandestine” meeting between one rebel and Mr. Chávez in Caracas to discuss “our political-military project.” Mr. Chávez, the rebels say in a later document, suggested that the FARC videotape any Colombian military strikes in the jungle for propaganda purposes.

    In January, FARC leader Manuel Marulanda (aka “Sureshot”) wrote to Mr. Chávez: “You can imagine the happiness that you have awoken in all the leaders, guerrillas, the Bolivarian Movement of New Colombia [and] the Clandestine Communist Party with the plan you put forth . . . to ask for the analysis and approval of recognizing the FARC as a belligerent [therefore legitimate] force.”

    The documents also show why it was a good idea for Colombia not to ask Ecuador for permission before moving against the FARC camp — even though in the past it had done so when tangling with the rebels at the border. A January memo reports on a FARC meeting with the Ecuadorean minister of security, who said that Mr. Correa is “interested in official relations with the FARC” and has decided not to aid Colombia against the rebels. “For [Ecuador] the FARC is an insurgent organization of the people, with social and political proposals that it understands,” the memo reads.

    Even the Venezuelan people couldn’t find it to support Chavez’ “war”. The Miami Herald, in another article, describes the terror that frontier-dwelling Venezuelans suffer because of Colombian guerillas conducting cross-border operations with at least tacit approval of the Chavez government;

    Dozens of people in this hilly, forested border region also have gone missing, and many here believe Colombian guerrillas are to blame. Despite the government’s pledge to crack down on groups terrorizing the border, few here think that will happen. ”The national government lies,” Davila said. Colombian police have even told him they suspected the National Liberation Army, one of three guerrilla groups believed to be operating here, was holding his father.

    ”Here, Colombian guerrilla groups are operating, sometimes with the complicity of police,” he said. “We live in a climate of terror fueled by the indifference of the state and the injustice of impunity.”

    The Devils’ Excrement writes that the majority of Venezuelans were opposed to a war with Colombia;

    Despites Chavez’ intention to raise nationalistic spirits with the crisis, polls indicate that this was not the case. At least two polls, one public, indicate 90% rejection levels for an armed conflict with Colombia, 70% rejection levels for the FARC, 70% rejection levels for closing the border with Colombia and one poll shows a 66% majority do not believe Chavez when he says the FARC holds no Venezuelan hostages.

    The Wall Street Journal accuses US Democrats in Congress of supporting Chavez at the cost of losing Colombia as an ally;

    Yet Democrats on Capitol Hill are doing their best to help Mr. Chávez prevail against Mr. Uribe. Even as Mr. Chávez was doing his war dance, Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus was warning the White House not to send the Colombia deal to the Hill for a vote without the permission of Democratic leaders. He was seconded by Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel, who told Congress Daily that “they don’t have the votes for it, it’s not going to come on the floor,” adding that “what they [the White House] don’t understand it’s not the facts on the ground, it’s the politics that’s in the air.”

    The editorial staff goes on to name names – including both Democrat Presidential candidates;

    Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd’s early support helped the strongman consolidate his power. Former President Jimmy Carter blessed Mr. Chávez’s August 2004 recall victory, despite evidence of fraud. And then there are the many House Democrats, current and former, who have accepted discount oil from Venezuela and then distributed it in the U.S. to boost their own political fortunes. Joseph P. Kennedy II and Massachusetts Congressman Bill Delahunt have been especially cozy with Venezuela’s oil company. If Democrats spurn free trade with Colombia, these Democratic ties with Mr. Chávez will deserve more political scrutiny.

    Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are both competing for union support. But if they wanted to demonstrate their own Presidential qualities, they’d be privately telling Ms. Pelosi to pass the Colombia pact while Mr. Bush is still in office. That would spare either one of them from having to spend political capital to pass it next year.

    Instead, both say they oppose the deal on grounds that Mr. Uribe has not done more to protect “trade unionists.” In fact, Mr. Uribe has done more to reduce violence in Colombia than any modern leader in Bogotá. The real question for Democrats is whether they’re going to choose Colombia — or Hugo Chávez.

    Chavez and Correa have made it increasingly apparent that their loyalties lie with the less desirable elements in Latin America. Letters on Reye’s computers bring to light ties that FARC had connections with Libya and North Korea and that Correa was interested in exploiting those ties for his own enrichment. Are the Democrats willing to ally themselves with the interests of FARC and, by extension, the whole rest of the evil that terrorizes in the world?

    UPDATE: Noticias 24 confirms that there are indeed Colombian guerillas operating in Venezuela (my Calle J bar room Spanish translation);

    La guerrilla colombiana está bien instalada en Venezuela. Un periodista del diario brasileño Folha de Sao Paulo corroboró la actuación de las FARC, el ELN y la guerrilla chavista en la zona fronteriza con Colombia. Infobae lo reseña hoy. También “El Mundo” publicó ayer un reportaje sobre Guasdalito.

    Colombian guerillas are very well entreched inside Venezuela. A Brazilian daily newspaper, Folha de Sao Paulo, corroborates the accusations that FARC, ELN and chavista guerillas operate in the frontier zone with Colombia. Infobae reviewed the article today. Also “El Mundo” (Spain) published a news article on Guasdalito yesterday.

    So let’s see Chavez wiggle free from this and blame it on the United States propaganda machine. If ever the US had enemies, it was in the Latin American prensa.

  • Self-inflicted, willful ignorance on the Left

    sarah_amina_said.jpg

    On Little Green Footballs, there’s a link to a Daily Kos diary entry (you’ll have to go to LGF to see the article – I don’t want those peawits over here) that seeks to defend the way women are treated in the Islamic world by essentially claiming they have it the same under all religions;

    …there’s little support for the notion that women living in “traditional” Islamic cultures enjoy a lower social status than those in orthodox Christian, Jewish or Hindu communities, to name a few examples. Think of the perfectly backwards Eastern Orthodox Church, the largest Christian communion in the world. Or consider the country where women may be brutalized more terribly than in any other, the Democratic Republic of Congo, which is 70 percent Christian and 10 percent Muslim. Or go to Utah, where tens of thousands of Mormon fundamentalists believe that women are literally the property of their fathers or husbands.

    Well, when I read that, it made me fairly angry that someone could be so ignorant as to disregard everything we’ve learned over the past few years – learned because the scales fell from our eyes.

    I read this on Invincible Armor (in reference to this CNN article);

    Crimes against women in Iraq’s south have included killings and amputations.

    Police chief: “Two women were killed in front of their kids”.

    Not wearing headscarves, other violations of “Islamic teachings” bring crimes.

    Woman tells CNN “fear is always there,” but “we don’t know who to be afraid of”.

    Yeah, I’ve heard the same complaints from Mormon women (insert eye roll here).

    How about these honor killing victims – women and teenage girls – from Atlas Shrugs. When was the last time a father and brother killed teenage daughters and sisters for breaking the tenets of Christianity?

    Does anyone think these missing/murdered models (link to Fausta’s Blog) were kidnapped by Buddhist extremists? Are there Eastern Orthodox Christians publicly stoning their women and hanging homosexuals from construction cranes?

    How willingly ignorant can these people be to blame these atrocities on a few “extremists” and equate the barbarity inflicted on Islamic women with the treatment of women in more civil and modern cultures? It’s this blatant, self-inflicted ignorance that has gotten us to this place in time.

    All of the statistical analysis mumbo-jumbo like “I’ve seen no empirical data to suggest that an Islamic majority itself correlates with the subordination of women better than other co-variables like…blah, blah, blah…” is boob bait for the bubbas (to borrow a phrase from Pat Moynihan). In the comment section of the Kos piece, all of the mental midgets fall in line with the typical “separation of church and state”, “all extremists are dangerous” blather often reserved for their empty-head, rattle-nodding to make each other feel smarter than they could ever hope.

    These same Leftists who excuse the inexcusable in Islam in this day and age, are the same people who judge our own history outside of the context of it’s own time. There’s no other phrase for it than self-inflicted, willful ignorance.