What would make Foreign policy under Hillary any different than foreign policy under Dubya? Nothing if you look at her reaction to the Colombia, Ecuador, and Venezuela situation...
Statement from Hillary Clinton - 3/3/2008
Common Dreams“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.”
This is 100% wrong. Hillary acts as if the “event” is not the Colombian attack in Ecuador, but the Venezuelan response (Ecuador, the country whose sovereignty was violated, is an afterthought.) . According to Hillary, Colombia has “every right” to “defend itself” by violating Ecuador’s sovereignty — that’s the event — but if Venezuela sends troops to its side of the Venezuela-Colombia border — its own national territory — that’s “unwarranted and dangerous.” Hillary says that “after reviewing the situation,” she is hopeful that Ecuador will determine that its interests lie in “closer cooperation with Colombia” — the country that just flagrantly violated its sovereignty — than with Venezuela, its ally that is speaking up against the violation. She is hopeful that Ecuador will lick the hand that beats it. As president, she will work with our partners in the region and the OAS to press Venezuela to change course. Good luck with that. It’s the U.S. and Colombia that need pressure to change course — to forswear violations of international law and to choose real diplomacy.
Venezuela fully mobilized its air, land and sea forces today sending the region into a crisis...
Hillary's foreign policy experience is essentially rooted in symbolic jestures and photo opps. That is to say, it is completely cosmetic. She, much like her husband, will make decisions based on polls and gutless after the fact reaction. The next president MUST be proactive in all matters of foreign policy.
Obama is the only candidate willing to do this. McCain and Clinton will continue to tow the a gutless, misguided, outdated model of decision making on the world stage.
I don't care for Hilary all that much, but let's not forget Obama is a politician as well and like all politicians they talk LOADS of before they are elected. I hope if he becomes president he does half the crap he is promising. I don't care as long as McCain doesn't get the chance to spread this war out another 90 years.
Same , different asshole....
LinkColombia used U.S.-facilitated electronic weapons and technology in its attack on a Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) camp in Ecuadoran territory, Ecuadoran Defense Minister Wellington Sandoval said on TV Thursday.
Five U.S. "intelligent bombs" were used by Colombia in Saturday's attack, he said. The raid resulted in the deaths of 21 FARC rebels, including second-in-command Raul Reyes.
Sandoval said only the U.S. army possessed the kind of bombs used by Colombia in the attack, reiterating that no other military force in Latin America had comparable electronic equipment.
The highly precise intelligent bombs fell in a radius not bigger than 50 meters from the FARC base, located 1.5 km inside Ecuador an territory, the minister said, citing military experts who had inspected the attack site.
LinkThe 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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote