Venezuela and Colombia
There is considerable controversy about how Hugo Chávez mentioned respect for the FARC’s ideology, which came on top of his assertion that the FARC should be considered insurgents rather than terrorists. Now he has also announced that he wants to meet with FARC leaders to get them to stop using armed struggle as a strategy for achieving their ideological goals.
I take it he is trying to put together a huge deal. He convinces the Colombian government to stop calling the FARC terrorists, then brings the FARC to the bargaining table by expressing solidarity with their Marxist goals while convincing them to stop using kidnapping and violence as a means to achieve them (he should also add that they get out of the drug trade, which has not been mentioned).
Megalomaniacal? Maybe so, but it’s also fascinating.
70 comments:
If the FARC released all of their hostages and quit kidnapping and violence, I think everyone would be willing to drop the "terrorist" label including the governments of the US and Colombia.
If the FARC released all of their hostages and quit kidnapping and violence, I think everyone would be willing to drop the "terrorist" label including the governments of the US and Colombia.
What moral authority does Alvaro Uribe have to say who is a "terrorist" and who isn't? For that matter, what moral authority does George Bush have on this matter?
If I were the guy responsible for one million dead in Iraq, I think I'd just leave it alone.
Bush didn't invent the terrorism list, nor did he add the FARC. The existence or actions of one nefarious world leader doesn't excuse drug trafficking, kidnapping, or bombing civilians.
PS - This is hardly the place, but it's probably a good idea to read up on the Lancet survey before giddily regurgitating its figures and extrapolations:
http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/databomb/index.htm
The existence or actions of one nefarious world leader doesn't excuse drug trafficking, kidnapping, or bombing civilians.
Who ever said they did? I'm simply opposed to the ideologically-charged and selective use of terms like "terrorist." Nobody ever screamed about Uribe negotiating with paramilitary "terrorists." Nobody ever talks about whether Uribe's past is a "terrorist" one. Nobody ever asks whether it's "terrorist" to kill one million people in Iraq. But somehow the Washington establishment gets its panties all in a wad when big bad Hugo says that countries should consider removing the "terrorist" classification for the FARC so as to bring them to the bargaining table.
Forgive me if I don't see what the problem is.
Regarding Boz's comment, I think the big question for any Chavez plan (anyone's plan, for what matter) will be sequencing. Who does what first?
Since the Lancet studies on Iraq deaths were brought up for some reason by Dan . . .
New study published in 10Jan2008 New England Journal of Medicine. Free and full-text. See http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMsa0707782
and editorial comments at http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/NEJMp0709003v1
If you read National Journal critique of Lancet studies, you might also read
http://www.jhsph.edu/refugee/research/iraq/lancet_mortality_response.html
http://www.johntirman.com/Bombs%20Away%20-%20a%20dull%20hatchet%20job.pdf
and/or
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/
Seems like I remember centellas also calling the Lancet studies "discredited" a few years ago, but I disagree. The new NEJM study supports the Lancet studies in methods, results, conclusions, and especially that Iraq deaths are an important health issue.
To tie it back to Latin America (the theme of the blog), I hope we never see studies like these (methods also used for Congo and Yugoslavia) needed for the Western Hemisphere.
--John
The relevant issue is not anyone's terrorist list per se, and to my knowledge Chavez hasn't challenged the notion of labeling a given group "terrorist." The issue is definitely not the number of deaths in Iraq.
The relevant issue Chavez raises is the practical implication of using the label terrorist in this particular situation.
The guerrilla is looking for an exit but what Chavez is aiming for is a red carpet which they don't deserve. As for them being terrorists, I think that it's just a smart way to get the US involved directly and make of this another Chavez Vs. The Empire episode.
The issue is definitely not the number of deaths in Iraq.
The issue is clearly relevant to the question of whether terms like "terrorist" are applied in a principled or selective and ideologically-charged manner.
Which is not relevant to what Chavez is doing or saying.
"Which is not relevant to what Chavez is doing or saying."
Greg, if Chavez says the "terrorist" classification should be removed (as he does), and then others in Washington and Bogotá respond disapprovingly (as they have), how is the question of whether terms like "terrorist" are applied in a principled or selective manner not relevant to the issue at hand?
It's simply untenable to try to tell others what "the" issue is in these sorts of discussions. The debate brings up a great number of issues. To try to set the agenda of which issues are relevant (to you) and which aren't reflects your own ideological predispositions.
Cantinflas
Well the FARC torture people. Chain prissoners. Kidnap people. Recruit underage kids.Use mines. Work for narcotrafickers. Destroy infrastructure and so. All of this in a country like Bolivia and Venezuela where they could just run for president and win if they were popular. If this is not terrorism I don't know how to call it. Only a gringo hippie cannot see it.
Only a gringo hippie cannot see it.
Yeah, that's me, the gringo hippy.
No doubt the FARC has committed plenty of atrocities. But if that's really you're measuring stick, then we would have to say that most of the people around Uribe are associated with "terrorism" as well.
Ultimately, it's the selective usage of such a politically-charged label that's the problem. The discourse of "anti-terrorism" becomes a propaganda tool that is selectively applied for partisan political purposes. If the discourse were applied on principled grounds rather than for propaganda purposes, the discourse certainly wouldn't be directed at only the FARC and ELN.
All of this in a country like Bolivia and Venezuela where they could just run for president and win if they were popular.
Oh, and one other thing, Anonymous. You obviously don't know Colombian history if you think that Colombia is just another "country like Bolivia and Venezuela where they could just run for president and win if they were popular." We still don't know what would happen in Colombia if the left (and by that, I don't mean the FARC) were to reach a point at which it could conceivably take power electorally.
Why do you think the leftist Colombian Senator Gustavo Petro still needs an entourage of 9 bodyguards to survive?
Here's a little piece of historical trivia that you've somehow overlooked: The Colombian left's two greatest presidential hopes --Carlos Pizarro and Jorge Eliécer Gaitán-- were both assassinated.
And, yes, the paramilitaries --the ones who assassinate leftists-- are still swarming all over the place.
So you might want to try thinking before writing.
Ultimately, it's the selective usage of such a politically-charged label that's the problem.
The AUC are also considered "terrorists" by the Colombian government, EU and US.
Also, the Colombian government has negotiated with the AUC and ELN in spite of the "terrorist" label. They've offered negotiations to the FARC; it's the FARC that have found reasons to turn those negotiations down.
Boz's last point is a good one, as it gets back to the main point--the practical implications. Would the change of label facilitate negotiations in some way?
The AUC are also considered "terrorists" by the Colombian government, EU and US.
We're talking about public discourse, not only official classifications. Discourse is what I study. I would guarantee you that, in any study of political speeches and mediated discourse about Colombia, the conflation of guerrillas with "terrorism" would be light years more common than the conflation of paramilitaries with "terrorism." The reason is that, for the most part, elites don't use discourse in a principled fashion. For the most part, elites use discourse to score propaganda points that serve their political interests. It's not going to serve one's political interests to highlight the "terrorism" of paramilitaries whom the state is negotiating with (and in bed with), but it will most certainly serve elites' interests to highlight the "terrorism" of groups whom they're not interested in negotiating with.
Hombre I am Colombian. Don't lecture me on my country. There are free elections here. Where do you live?
Are you really a hippie?
Hombre I am Colombian.
Well, then you don't even know your own history if you think that Colombia is just another "country like Bolivia and Venezuela where they [the left] could just run for president and win if they were popular." I'm not saying that would be impossible (although it would certainly be unlikely as long as the paramilitaries go on jerry-rigging the vote in the countryside), but there's nothing in your history to verify your claims.
In sum, if you're Colombian, what you've written is a pretty sad commentary on your knowledge of your own history.
Top headline in today's El Tiempo:
Álvaro Uribe ofrece levantar estatus terrorista a las Farc si hay proceso de paz
And the quote from Uribe:
"En el momento en que las Farc hagan demostraciones de buena fe, que quieran negociar la paz, el Gobierno está dispuesto a concederles todos los beneficios dentro de la Constitución, a facilitar ese proceso de paz... Y en el momento en que avance la paz con las Farc, el gobierno de Colombia sería el primero que dejaría de llamarlo terrorista y el primero que le pediría al mundo que como contribución a la paz no se les llame más terroristas".
Alright, before I hit the sack, let's clarify one thing. Uribe says a lot of things. Uribe said that he wanted the initial hostage release to succeed as well, but while he was saying all that and saying that the Colombian armed forces were standing down in the area where the hostages were to be released, the Colombian armed forces were apparently bombing the shit out of the area. That's straight from the mouth of one of the released hostages, Consuelo Gonzalez.
In sum, Uribe says a lot of things. He's also a systematic liar.
But, of course, Boz will be easily taken in by Uribe, as has always been the case.
Interesting. Coming back to the sequencing issue, both sides are constantly saying "you first." Nonetheless, the fact that Uribe is talking this way is positive--let's see what "buena fe" means in practice.
Señor hippie. You would have used the same excuses in Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia and Ecuador to justify any leftist atrocity. The history in all those countries is one of political killings, dictatorships and government abuse. The thing with guerrillas is they belong to other era that you are nostalgic for. You see this like a movie. I live it. You have n o clue of the damage you do.
Just found this blog. I skimmed Justin Delacour's apologia for the FARC terrorists and immediately guessed he was a doctoral student. Man, too easy.
As a former doctoral student, I can say that the two are not automatically correlated.
As a former doctoral student, I can say that the two are not automatically correlated.
If you're interested in operating in an ethical manner, Greg, you shouldn't indulge people who make claims that have no resemblance to anything I've written, especially when you yourself haven't even read the short piece in question.
I'm happy to just ignore neo-McCarthyite garbage of that sort, but I find it particularly annoying when people like yourself indulge the purveyors of lies.
As usual, inspite of his pit bull apprach, Justin has a very valid point about the selective and misleading use of the term 'terrorist'. For example, Annonymous resorts to te same sore of cildish name calling. And no one has yet explained to me why Luis Posada is living as a free man in Miami after admitting that he bombed the hotel in Havana, killing all those innocent people and not putting a scratch on Fidel. Or the 80 people on the Cubana Airlines airplane whose only crime was to board the wrong airplane. Yet the US government gives sanctuary to this man who has yet to pay for his crimes. Selective use of terms. You bet!
What Greg is seems to be sayng is that Chavez is taking a chance much like the Carter risks that resulted in the Israel-Egypt peace treaty. I for one hope he succeeds.
Greg Weeks,
"As a former doctoral student, I can say that the two are not automatically correlated."
Oh sure, there's no iron rule, but there sure are alot of Marxists running rampant in the warm cocoon of academia. And the Left has had a rather remarkable long love affair with anti-American Latin thugs like Chavez, as Delacour demonstrates.
"For example, Annonymous resorts to te same sore of cildish name calling."
I guess it's very, very sophisticated to eschew labels when regarding the fine folk who kidnap innocent Colombians off the streets and tie them to a tree in the jungle for years on end.
"And no one has yet explained to me why Luis Posada is living as a free man in Miami..."
Were you out taking a whiz the day they taught logical fallacies in school?
Ok, now respond with, "Oh yeah, well what about Uribe?!!!"
No, I won't respond, because childish name callin and personal insults are all you seem to be intellectually capable of.
"No, I won't respond," he responds.
This is the testimony from a FARC prissoner carried by the freed prisoners:
“He tenido de arrastrarme en el barro para hacer mis necesidades fisiológicas, con la cadena y el candado atados al cuello”
What are this guys if not terrorists? Common torturers? At least terrorists think to have a cause. If these are not terrorists then they are just criminals.
"What are this guys if not terrorists? Common torturers? At least terrorists think to have a cause. If these are not terrorists then they are just criminals."
Que up Justin Delacour to respond with stellar argument, "Oh yeah, well what about Uribe?!!"
“You obviously don't know Colombian history if you think that Colombia is just another "country like Bolivia and Venezuela where they could just run for president and win if they were popular."
Justin, don’t try that “you don’t know what you’re talking about” tactic. All you have to do is look at the past presidential elections, CARLOS GAVIRIA big leftist with communist background, was running for president, the reason why he didn’t win was because , We Colombians knew better not to elect him, but he ran!!!
Another example is ANTONIO NAVARRO WOLF, who was second in command in the M-19 guerrilla, and after giving up their weapons he was elected in the Senate, was part of the Constituyente and has just started his term as Nariño governor!!!
Justin, I really wonder if you have ever been to Colombia!!!
Justin I invite you know learn a little bit about Colombian history!!!
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-19
Do you really want to keep your comment???
"We still don't know what would happen in Colombia if the left (and by that, I don't mean the FARC) were to reach a point at which it could conceivably take power electorally."
It's about time for you to leave the safety of your university dorm and look at the reality!!!!
Anonymous:
When the left is at the point of getting someplace in Colombia, that will be the true test of whether the paramilitary-infested Colombian right will actually permit it. (As long as Colombian Senator Gustavo Petro still has to walk around with 9 bodyguards, I'm not gonna hold my breath.)
All your history has shown that, when a leftist leader had the prospect of winning office, he was assassinated. Exhibit A: Jorge Eliecer Gaitan. Exhibit B: Carlos Pizarro.
I think we all know that Antonio Navarro Wolff has been a sad excuse for a political leader next to, say, Carlos Pizarro and Jaime Bateman.
And Carlos Gaviria was no threat to the Colombian right because everybody knew he wasn't going to win (especially with the paramilitaries jerry-rigging the vote in the countryside).
But when and if the electoral prospects change for the Colombian left, we'll just have to see what happens. So far, your history hasn't given us any reason to be optimistic.
Cantinflas
AUC, FARC, M19, ELN ... they are all listed as "terrorist" groups. If you make a deal with one you might as well deal with the others.
Anything less is hypocritical.
80% of the atrocities committed during the Colombian conflict were committed by the AUC. Time to deal with the other 20%.
Time to deal peacefully, I should add.
"But when and if the electoral prospects change for the Colombian left, we'll just have to see what happens. "
If it's Hugo Chavez Left, we already know what will happen. It will destroy Colombia like it's destroying Venezuela.
If it's Hugo Chavez Left, we already know what will happen. It will destroy Colombia like it's destroying Venezuela.
Well, that would be for the Colombian people to decide, not you. The point is that, in a democracy, the political right does not assassinate leftist leaders when said leaders are in a position of possibly winning an electoral contest for the presidency. So the jury is still out on whether Colombia is really moving toward democracy.
"Well, that would be for the Colombian people to decide, not you."
Keen insight.
"So the jury is still out on whether Colombia is really moving toward democracy."
Because a former terrorist turned politician has 9 bodyguards? Big deal, Uribe is surrounded with them.
Because a couple Presidential candidates were assasinated, one of them 50 frickin years ago? I guess we don't have democracy in the US either, if that's your standard.
Rather selective in your principles of democracy given your hero worship of the tyrant Chavez, whom the FARC terrorists also truly adore. Have you ever stepped foot in Colombia?
Because a former terrorist turned politician has 9 bodyguards?
Oh, I see, so now the old M-19 was a "terrorist" organization too. I guess that would make the moderate center-leftist Antonio Navarro Wolff a "former terrorist" too. And what about the former guerrillas in the governments of Brazil, Bolivia and Uruguay. Are they all "former terrorists" too, Paul?
Notice how the Bush Administration's post-9/11 propaganda barrage has changed our entire lexicon.
Some of us choose to think for ourselves. Some don't.
Oh, and by the way, Paul, just how "democratic" is it for Uribe to publicly denounce critical Colombian journalists, thereby prompting anonymous death threats against them and forcing some to leave the country?
That's quite a "democracy" you got there.
Oh, and given all the skeletons in Uribe's closet, might he also be included in your category of "former terrorists"?
For those of you who say that Chavez doesn't lie. I urge you to watch this video:
http://www.noticias24.com/
actualidad/?p=11254
He swears on his mother's grave (literally) that he would never support in any way a guerrilla government against the DEMOCRATIC Colombian Government. He goes on saying it three times.
Justin, Just one question. Let's assume for once that Uribe is a horrible children killing monster. WOuld you then accept that the FARC's are terrorits? I mean. What's your take on their fight and methods, are they legitimate. Please be open.
Justin, Just one question. Let's assume for once that Uribe is a horrible children killing monster. WOuld you then accept that the FARC's are terrorits?
I'd certainly consider it, but my point is not that either the FARC or Uribe is "terrorist" because there is no general consensus on what terrorism means. We can certainly point to many instances in which both Uribe and the FARC have been complicit in instilling terror in the population, but there is no politically neutral measuring stick as to who gets classified as a "terrorist" and who doesn't. The discourse of "anti-terrorism" is much too politically charged for my taste. The problem with the "terrorist" label is that it is arbitrarily applied for propaganda purposes; the selective application of the discourse of "anti-terrorism" is designed to impose a military solution on Colombia.
But let's suppose that we were to somehow develop a politically neutral definition of terrorism and that both the FARC and most people in and around the Uribe government met that definition (or were found to have aided and abetted activities defined as terrorism). In that case, we would have to say that the apparent object of Plan Colombia is to have one group of "terrorists" militarily defeat another group of "terrorists." Well, that "solution" wouldn't look to me to be any way of ending terror (especially when we see that many of the people whom the United States is aiding have been complicit in instilling terror for decades).
If we were to define both sides as "terrorist" and our object were to end terror, then it would logically follow that the path to ending terror would be to bring both sides to the negotiating table. The solution would not be to selectively apply the "terrorist" label to one side so as to try to impose a military solution on Colombia.
Do you endorse the FARC methods or not?
Do you think that their fight is legitimate or not?
Please spare us the lenghty paragraphs about the evil empire, children-killing-Uribe and Chavez the genious.
Do you endorse the FARC methods or not?
I endorse neither the FARC's nor the government's methods of waging conflict because they show insufficient concern for innocent life. Each side's methods are rooted in a reciprocal siege mentality that cannot be resolved in the absence of negotiation. Until there is a negotiated solution, thousands and thousands of innocent civilians will continue to be caught in the crossfire.
Do you think that their fight is legitimate or not?
Both the government and the FARC's fights are illegitimate insofar as they have shown insufficient concern for innocent life.
But, unfortunately, this isn't a question of legitimacy. It is a question of power. When there are two sides of conflict with considerable military power and no end to their conflict in sight, the logical thing to do is to try to bring them to the negotiating table so as to end the killing, period.
Please spare us the lenghty paragraphs about the evil empire, children-killing-Uribe and Chavez the genious.
As for your snide remark above, anonymous, you're in no position to get snippy in light of the fact that you're clearly incapable of actually debating my points about Uribe. I've stated that the man probably has more skeletons in his closet than all other Latin American presidents combined, and the fact of the matter is that you haven't put forth any argument to the contrary.
OK I understand. You do support the FARC methods.
I just thought you would be smarter than that. Sorry.
Try learning to debate, anonymous.
"Oh, I see, so now the old M-19 was a "terrorist" organization too."
Of course.
Basically, Delacour has a man-crush on the radical groups who cause so much misery to Colombia, but make his Marxist heart go pitter patter. So he blurs reality with some rhetorical technique he probably got out of a book written by some anti-American like Chomsky or Zinn. Still waiting to hear about Delacour's actual experiences in Colombia.
"Oh, and by the way, Paul, just how "democratic" is it for Uribe to publicly denounce critical Colombian journalists, thereby prompting anonymous death threats against them and forcing some to leave the country."
Colombia is a rough neighborhood. That doesn't mean Uribe doesn't have the right to respond to Leftist journalists trying to destroy him and the good he has brought to Colombia. The right to respond to your accusers seems to me to be one of the core tenets of democracy.
"Oh, and given all the skeletons in Uribe's closet, might he also be included in your category of "former terrorists"?
It's possible, but all Uribe haters ever come up with is guilt-by-association. The article, hosted by a FARC sympathizing website, clearly demonstrates that.
But supposed Delacour is right, Uribe may have skeletons in his closet. So do alot of Colombian politicians who have had to make deals to achieve any progress, or just to stay alive. Uribe grew up in the Lion's den, Medellin.
What matters most is what Uribe is doing now. Just about every measurable indicator, whether economic or social, is trending in a positive direction. Delacour can't say that about his hero in Caracas. .
I asked a simple question. I will ask it again, and give you a chance to get out of your argumentative closet:
What's your take on the FARC fight methods?
Are they legitimate?
Please be open. Your position is very important to the debate. After all this is about the FARC.
Colombia is a rough neighborhood. That doesn't mean Uribe doesn't have the right to respond to Leftist journalists trying to destroy him and the good he has brought to Colombia.
You're just sick in the head, Paul. First of all, Uribe didn't just respond to the journalists. He denounced them, and then the death threats started rolling in. One journalist was a correspondent for El Nuevo Herald (the sister paper to the Miami Herald), so I have a real hard time believing he was left-wing, but that's irrelevant. Any president who denounces a journalist knowing that death threats will follow is an evil son of a bitch.
You're obviously not worth my time, Paul.
I answered your questions, anonymous. Now, please, learn how to debate.
"He denounced them, and then the death threats started rolling in."
Oh, golly! He denounced people who were slandering him! What a monster! We are, of course, going by what the journalists claim, not any real proof. Do you have a shred of evidence Uribe ordered the so-called intimidations?
Nope.
"Any president who denounces a journalist knowing that death threats will follow is an evil son of a bitch."
Then how evil is the President who does the intimidating himself?
"You're obviously not worth my time, Paul."
Heh. Delacour, out of ammo.
There's no point in having a discussion with someone who can't even recognize that Uribe is clearly complicit in the repression of journalists.
Chavez hasn't forced any journalist out of the country, and any jackass who's spent any time in the two countries can tell you that Venezuela's press is light years more free than Colombia's, where journalists keep their heads low for good reason.
Get a clue, Paul. You're sick.
"There's no point in having a discussion with someone who can't even recognize that Uribe is clearly complicit in the repression of journalists."
Cuz you say so? You haven't offered a shred of evidence.
"..and any jackass who's spent any time in the two countries can tell you that Venezuela's press is light years more free than Colombia's, where journalists keep their heads low for good reason."
Tell that to RCTV. And Im still unclear about your jackass experiences in Colombia?
Cuz you say so? You haven't offered a shred of evidence.
I already gave you the relevant link, Paul. Now, read the Miami New Times report, genius. And if that's not good enough for you, read this AP report.
Not even the most shameless minions of empire are dumb enough to try to defend Uribe on this score. You might want to try choosing your battles more wisely, big fella.
It's pretty clear that the Uribe family had major drug connections, but any journalist who tries investigating the matter comes under threat. This man clearly has something to hide.
"..already gave you the relevant link, Paul. Now, read the Miami New Times report, genius."
I already read that bilge months ago. You'll even notice the first comment in that story at the link is mine. Big deal.
"And if that's not good enough for you, read this AP report."
Which says.."A freelance reporter for The Miami Herald's Spanish language newspaper said Friday he is leaving Colombia because of several threats he's received after being criticized by Colombia's president."
Got that? We're going on the reporter's allegations, no actual PROOF Uribe had anything to do with it. Did they teach you the concept of proof in your studies about the class struggle? Or is it, like Marxian truth, all relative?
Uribe has the choice of sitting quiet while people who hate his guts smear his name, or respond to his critics and then be accused of orchestrating plots against his accusers. I'd make the same choice if I were him. Especially since his most rabid critics are people who share your ideology and sympathetic to the terrorists who have caused the Colombian people so much pain.
When were you last in Colombia?
Got that? We're going on the reporter's allegations, no actual PROOF Uribe had anything to do with it.
My dear idiot:
The point is not that Uribe commanded anyone to threaten the journalist's life. The point is that Uribe knows that when he denounces a journalist publicly, the threats will inevitably follow (because they always do).
Are you really so stupid, or do you just play this way in the blogosphere?
"My dear idiot:"
Heh. Delacour is running on fumes!
"The point is not that Uribe commanded anyone to threaten the journalist's life. The point is that Uribe knows that when he denounces a journalist publicly, the threats will inevitably follow (because they always do)."
Uribe is criticized quite often in the press.I'm sure Delacour already knows that from all his extensive travels there. Anyway, sometimes Uribe responds to the most slanderous reporters rather than sit silently and have everyone think the lies are truth. That's his right. He could try to shut down the opposition via gag laws and revoking broadcasting licenses a la Chavez, but he's more of a democrat.
"Are you really so stupid, or do you just play this way in the blogosphere?"
Delacour at his rhetorical finest!
What razor sharp wit!
You tell 'em, Paul. That Nuevo Herald commie muckraker had it comin'! Viva Uribe!! Down with the liberal media!
And down with the pinko commies who wrote this:
"The rightwing Uribe cannot shut down opposition TV stations for the simple reason that there aren't any"
(God damnit, where are the death squads when you need 'em?)
Heh, again I point out Uribe gets his share of criticism from the press in Colombia. Sometimes he responds to the most scurrilous charges, though people like yourself want him to sit silently and take it. Perhaps there aren't any openly pro-FARC stations, and that would make sense from a ratings perspective because nobody supports those savages anyway.
How is it I need to point this out to you when you are so obviously well traveled there? What cities did you say you visited?
"God damnit, where are the death squads when you need 'em?"
They're probably on the phone with Chavez, deciding who to kidnap, or what town to attack.
Have you considered joining the John Birch Society, Paul? You'd be a perfect fit.
Heh, what a substantive reply! you really should demand your tuition money back.
Do you have any pictures of your travels to Colombia?
Post a Comment