March 27, 2007  The Editors of ECrisis reprint below two recent pieces reminding us of Hugo Chavez and Rafael Correa's ongoing support for the FARC narcoterrorists. We maintain that there can be no sustainable liberties for any peoples under the thumb of terrorists, drug cartels or criminal gangs.

Those who do not support Uribe's principled position against narcoterrorists end up looking like they actively aid and abet narcoterrorists. We also remind that in the global world of crime, there is scant area to rejoice in some middle ground of manipulation, appeasement, enabling and furthering coverups of criminality, no matter how addicted to manipulation the actors remain. We can only ponder the involvement of the same/identical pro FARC activists, also called highly paid NGOs and civic groups, papering the Correa regime in their unending efforts to further the FARC and the Chavez effrontery.

They appear on paper to be one and the same with the pro-constitutional reform groups currently launching the same in Nicaragua as in Venezuela. It is time for a formal review of the proFARC and pro so called alternative democracy activists populating Correa's administration and the antiUribe fight, including their sponsors and access to manipulating the highest levels of government decision making. Theirs is an addiction to manipulation not worthy of financial or political support.

- the Editors, ECrisis
-------------- 

Colombia's Underhanded Enemies
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, March 26, 2007 4:30 PM PT

War On Drugs: Just as Colombia comes up for U.S. aid, out come flimsy 'scandal' stories claiming it may not be fighting its enemies by Marquis of Queensbury rules. It's nothing but partisan politics to undercut our ally.

Over the weekend, a report surfaced in the Los Angeles Times that the chief of Colombia's army, Gen. Mario Montoya, was 'collaborating' with Colombia's paramilitaries, one of three scourges Colombia is trying to end in its 44-year war. The intelligence was unverified and the source anonymous, leaving readers little to judge but rumors. Montoya calls it an 'immense slur.'

Colombia's paramilitaries are armed vigilantes who emerged in the 1980s as self-defense forces against Colombia's Marxist FARC narcoterrorists. The paras arose understandably enough, after Colombia's government did nothing to protect citizens. Back then, it was actually appeasing the FARC. But some paras became criminals, and others allied themselves with Colombia's drug lords.

Enter President Alvaro Uribe in 2002, whose steely leadership against all factions reduced Colombia's civil war, put its drug trafficking under duress and made Colombia's major cities safe.

With the help from $4 billion in U.S. aid, Uribe managed to power up Colombia's army into a credible fighting force, and persuaded 31,000 paramilitaries to give up their arms in confidence that Colombia's army would do its job. Now that Colombia's $586 million in aid is up for renewal by the U.S. Congress, out come the opponents, seeking to discredit Uribe.

They can't argue with his 70% popularity among Colombians or his success in abating the war. So they go after Uribe and his men, trying to knock them out individually in the same way congressional Democrats seek to weaken President Bush by picking off his cabinet officials one by one.

The Times story cited a confidential CIA report obtained from an anonymous source who said he was dissatisfied with Colombia's drug war. In other words, he was leaking out of political motives.

The Times said Montoya, a well-regarded official in the U.S. with a long career fighting narcoterrorists, 'collaborated' with the paras to clean out a FARC-infested slum in Medellin in 2002. But it didn't name the report, quote wording or explain any extenuating circumstances in the report. That left readers wondering about the source and motives of the unconfirmed and anonymous report.

The CIA is a veritable dirt-magnet for reporting and could have gotten just about anything from a disgruntled underling tattling on a boss to a false report from a FARC infiltrator. It could have distorted what happened. But again, there's no way a reader can tell.

This report is nothing but a weapon in the hand of Colombia's enemies seeking high moral ground for undercutting the war effort. Unverified information from anonymous sources is exactly why it needs to be transparent. The CIA pleaded with them not to run news of the report, but the Times pompously ignored that plea.

Now Colombia's on the defensive, its aid threatened, and must answer questions about a possible smear in a newspaper. Congressional Democrats, who are always carping about how Uribe runs the war and demand to manage it themselves, will be in a prime position to dictate newer and more difficult terms for aid, if not cut it off.

But some things are clear: Colombia critics hate Bush and by extension his ties with Uribe, and would do anything to undermine both. They also want to force Colombia into concessions, redirecting its military aid to social programs that will no doubt employ lots of nongovernment organizations the Democrats favor. For them, aid is a Christmas present, not a critical necessity that keeps illegal drugs out of America. Maybe they can explain that strategy to the next random shooting victim caught up in the Los Angeles gang war.

Some also want to force Colombia into peace concessions with FARC. Seven congressional Democrats already are playing amateur diplomat in a new 'peace process' prisoner swap, little different from Colombia's failed appeasement initiatives of the past. It looks like an IRA-style effort to enable FARC to eventually grasp political legitimacy, now that Uribe's got them militarily cornered.

Fortunately, Uribe isn't bending. 'Colombia's government rejects accusations made by foreign intelligence agencies against army commander Gen. Mario Montoya, that have been filtered through the press, without evidence being presented to Colombian justice and the government,' Reuters reported.

If the Times' leaked CIA report manages to influence Democrats to weaken aid, Colombia's army will diminish in strength and Colombia's paramilitaries will step in to fill the void. That in turn will negate Colombia's progress. Colombia's enemies want this. The rest of us can't let that happen.

_____

Western Hemisphere Policy Watch
"A slender acquaintance with the world must convince every man that actions, not words, are the true criterion of the attachment of friends," George Washington

Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Publius Pundit: When you hire a Truthteller ... in Colombia
Democrats in Congress - Terrorist Appeasers - Seek to "Negotiate" with Terrorists in Colombia

(From the Banks of the Potomac) As is the case with Publius Pundit, we are big fans of Colombia's President Alvaro Uribe with the possible exception that we think Colombia can do better than kow-tow to the U.S. policymakers that want a "peace process" with FARC terrorists. Enter the new foreign minister.

As you will read in the Publius Pundit post, Colombia's new foreign minister is exactly what was needed in that process. You see, the fellow was kept like a caged animal by FARC terrorists for six years. These are the same FARC terrorists supported with arms, training, and other assistance by Cuba and Venezuela. You can see why the new Colombian foreign minister would not waste any time, or words, in calling a political spade a spade.

Publius begins with the Colombian President chewing out "his new foreign minister, Fernando Araujo, for telling the truth about Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Not as in namecalling, like I might do. But as in a story about an experience in his life." She continues:

Araujo was in Washington this week and he did tell the truth, from the pit of his soul, from his own experience. He said what he say in the FARC camp - he said that the FARCsters were big worshippers of Hugo Chavez who was their hero. With his own hostage eyes, he watched as they mooned over the Venezuelan dictator's speeches, studied them in the camp, and gushed whenever he came on TV. Chavez really excited them. Araujo said that Chavez was their ideological leader. There was no question that they were crazy about Hugo Chavez. The FARC and Hugo were like lips and teeth.

Colombian is at a critical phase in its history. It has enemies to its east, west, and southwest. Colombia's enemies are enemies of the U.S. and the free world. The foreign minister is just telling it like it is because he loves his country and his freedom.

We understand the Uribe has a country to run and cannot allow one minister to derail that process. We also know that Araujo can say things that Uribe wishes he could say, but because of his position, cannot. Either way, we think the time has come for Colombia, and our State Department, to fight the FARC terrorists head-on. Fight = war, kill. It may not be politically correct, or the most diplomatic, but it is the only solution in this long, decades long struggle that is slowly tearing apart a once great nation.

As Publius closes in her piece, "Sooner or later, the truth will out. It already has come out with the ex-hostage Araujo. When will it come out for everyone else?" Here here. Read the complete post, here.

One more note. As far as U.S. interests, Colombia's stability could not be more vital to the U.S. in that region. We must give Latin America's leaders a reason to come out of this political two-step, (i.e., publicly work with goons like Chavez, while privately work with the U.S.), and, if necessary, require that they publicly side with the U.S. and our common shared vision for the Western Hemisphere. The Colombian voters are not stupid. Stop treating them that way. They are voting with their feet by leaving for the U.S. in droves.

Finally, if our troops can fight for freedom and track down terrorists in the Middle East, why not in the Western Hemisphere? The time has come for a serious re-assessment of our mission in the region. The review is long overdue and our military, from what we are told by our sources in the inside, is itching to do more for places like Colombia, but have been held back by liberals in Congress, liberals in the State Department (including political appointees for WHA), and others about town. This has to change.

That said, there are a bunch of Members of Congress heading to Colombia to negotiate with FARC terrorists. Talk about undermining the Uribe Administration, not to mention the U.S. position against terrorists. We, of course, did not vote for terrorist appeasers, but many people did. Let's pray such a myopic view of the world does not prevail and further erode efforts to enhance and support freedom's cause around the world.

Posted by From the Banks of the Potomac

_____