America's Dangerous New Proxy War In South America

These days Washington views everything through a prism of terrorism it seems. And Washington's views on the latest and most dangerous new military tensions between Colombia, Equador and Venezuela certainly reflect this view from Washington that every conflict can be resolved by bombing away opposition movements.

In South America on March 1, Colombia launched a successful military attack within Equadorian territory to attack a guerrilla camp and kill the international spokesman, Paul Reyes, of the leftist Marxist organization, FARC, which has created serious tensions between neighboring Venezuela as well angering Equador. Certainly FARC is far from a saintly organization by any means, which has financed itself through kidnappings, drug dealing and even Human Rights Watch has condemned the sexual abuse of young girls involved in this guerilla movement by some leaders of the organization who have misused their power. As much as 30% of the 15,000 estimated fighters involved with this guerrilla organization may be under 18 years of age. Children over the age of 11 are considered to be of age to become fighters in this organization with many child soldiers. Many in Colombia are drawn to this organization as a way out of poverty rather than really drawn to the Marxist revolutionary philosophy.

It is an easy mistake for Washington to want to compare FARC to a terrorist organization such as Al Qaeda. However the cycle of poverty in Colombia as well as the lure of easy drug money seem to draw many young followers to this military outgrowth of the Columbian Communist Party. However the attack to kill the international spokesman of the organization, Paul Reyes, has ended any good efforts for the government of Colombia to work out some cease-fire or peace settlement terms with this organization. Reyes has met with the NYSE head Paul Grasso, and members of the Clinton State Department before in some attempts to bring this organization to peaceful terms.

Washington has a strong military client state stake in Colombia, providing $600 million each year in military aid to the government. Yet this government in Columbia must really resolve the serious issues of extreme poverty that influence so many to join an organization such as FARC or involvement in the drug trade. Simply bombing away opposition groups such as FARC or killing the leadership who are at least willing to take part in some peace talks is really no solution.

Colombia is unfortunately a major supplier of illegal drugs to the U.S. And it certainly serves the interests of the U.S. to put a stop to this terrible epidemic. However, a proxy war by Wahington against an organization such as FARC really does little to raise up the economy of Colombia and replace the dangerous drug trade and poverty with viable new economic opportunities. The terrible poverty in Colombia and the related problems associated with it really require a far more intelligent answer than simply attempting to bomb away poverty.

On so many levels FARC is hardly any good organization by any measurable means, however it represents the social and political frustrations of many in Colombia. Any organization that takes hostages for ransom money to finance itself or deals in drugs to finance operations cannot be admired on any level. Even many leftist leaders in Columbia are completely disgusted with FARC taking hostages for ransom. But FARC continues to represent the serious social problems within Colombia. Colombia needs to resolve many social problems and Washington must be careful not to provoke a wider new war in South America that could represent further dangerous disruptions for oil from the region. A war in South America is the last thing the troubled world oil markets need right now.

Oil November 2000: $28 A Barrel. Oil March 2008: $106 A Barrel. Replacing The Bush-Oil Industry Plutocracy: Priceless!

In the highly disputed November 2000 election, the oil industry interests which were the major supporters of buying the Bush Administration into power and creating an oil industry run plutocratic form of government in the U.S. were able to get their way on a wide range of tax and environmental issues dealing with the oil industry as well as allowed to develop the foreign policy that created the drive to war in Iraq, yet oil prices did not fall as result of all of this. Oil actually increased from $28 a barrel in November 2000 to topping $106 a barrel at one point in today's commodity trading.

The oil industry has been given every possible favor and advantage with the Bush Administration that it helped to buy into power. For example, with the EPA, the oil industry was given a special pass to delay until 2014 to remove the cancer causing benzene that is in such high quantities in Alaskan oil. Currently only BP produced oil uses a complex filtering site to filter out this dangerous cancer causing substance from the Alaskan oil. Automobile pollution control systems do not filter out this highly toxic substance that pours from car exhausts. Yet despite these special rights and costing cutting advantages by the oil industry, oil prices only continued to rise like a skyrocket.

And the oil industry attempted to secure cheaper oil by ramping up the nation to invade Iraq under absurd claims by the Bush Administration that the heavily weakened government of Saddam Hussein which was subject to both tight UN controls, sanctions and weapons inspections presented some WMD threat. Again this did not result in cheaper oil, as the U.S. only became bogged down in a protracted conflict with first hardliner supporters of Saddam Hussein such as hardcore Baathists, then caught between a civil religious sect war between rival Sunni and Shiite sects as well as Al Qaeda elements when Bush challenged them to attack U.S. forces in his "Bring it on" invitation.

The Bush Administration brought in 43 members of the oil industry, including former executives and major stockholders including Bush himself, compared to 33 members who were associated with defense contractors, and the only net result was war and war for oil that failed miserably to bring on better prices for the American consumer.

It was thought that Iraq contains 225 billion barrels of undiscovered oil, which would have constituted a 98 year supply for the U.S. Instead all of the sectarian and Al Qaeda generated violence only made the easy development of this oil very difficult and actually decreased the oil output of Iraq below that of the days of Saddam Hussein.

The oil industry formed plutocracy government of Bush did bring about better prices to the American consumer. Only huge profiteering at record levels for the oil industry has resulted, and Republican members of Congress even attempted to block a Democratic drive to tax these record profits.

The American consumer will now be looking at $4 a gallon gas very soon and outrageous heating bills for oil heated homes because the oil industry was given the control of the American government and this has only resulted in oil approaching a level nearly 4 times the price per barrel since the oil industry bought Bush into power.

Would You Buy A Used War From This Man?

If anything, a McCain term as president would only mean little more than being a third Bush term and bring in all of the prowar public policies that Bush brought in. As a war for cheap oil, Iraq was a miserable failure that only resulted in higher prices. Oil was only $28 a barrel when Bush entered office, but actually topped $104 a barrel yesterday. In any measure, the oil company driven war in Iraq only failed to bring about more supply or better prices. It was a huge failure for the old-time colonial imperialist foreign policy of the major nations using military force to invade weak developing nations to seize their mineral assets.

Iraq was thought to have 225 billion barrels of undiscovered oil, which would have been a 98 year supply of oil for the U.S. at current consumption rates. Instead the U.S. got bogged down into first a protrected battle mopping up the most hardline of Saddam's Republican Guard elements, then Al Qaeda and secular combatants from the warring Sunni and Shiite sects, and the widespread development of oil in Iraq by the very same oil companies who wanted the war to begin with soon fizzled.

John McCain means little more than years and years more of a U.S. commitment to the Iraq mistake, if not even an even worse effort to attack Iran as well. The problem is that no MidEast problem is quickly resolved, and any commitment into the MidEast ends up in decades or even centuries of problems. Do you really want to buy a used war from these men?

The Witch Strikes Back!

Just when it looked ever so likely that the voters of America might just reject the same old politics as usual and embrace the fresh new and hopeful candidacy of Senator Barack Obama, the Clinton attack machine pulled out all the claws and nails and joined in with the Republican attacks on Obama and sucker punched up his campaign ever so badly and raised a whole number of unfair and overblown attacks and cut into his 11 state win momentum. Clinton managed to pull off wins in three of four contests yesterday with her selfish tactics, in which she could care less what damage actually does to the Democratic Party in November as whole, just as long as she can win the nomination for herself is the only moral justification behind her resurgent efforts to wrest the nomination back from Obama.

Clinton apparently successfully raised some fresh voter doubts about the "experience" factor of Obama with her 11th hour "red phone" ads. However Obama appeared to be too much of a gentleman, or not really interested in party destruction to raise the real problems of any real Clinton "experience". The fact of the matter is that when Clinton was in charge of things it often ended up either in scandal or miserable failure. From her law office she helped to leave the Whitewater mess as a dangling problem dogging the early days of the Clinton White House. As First Lady, she managed to allow the White House "Travelgate" mess to happen under her leadership as well. When she took on the responsibility of promoting the Clinton Health Care plan, it not only miserably failed, but she also proved the inability to work that well with others including the Republican opposition members of Congress. Clinton also never served in the military, yet according to her "red phone" ad she claimed that America needs her military experience answering the red phone if a real crisis develops. God help the country if she's ever elected president and has to answer the red phone during a real crisis given her history of past failues. Even her campaign was in desperate condition with her back against the wall because it was not all that well managed either, with no real viable plans that extended beyond Super Tuesday, allowing Obama a wide opening to assert his candidacy to the old politics as usual Clinton machine.

Clinton didn't prove that she was the superior candidate this Tuedsday, only that she could raise a particulary nasty campaign when she's under pressure and facing possible political elimination. Maybe that sort of a nasty politics could possiby win a general election. But should it? It's morally bankrupt on so many levels. Right now Clinton has barely proven that she can even win her party nomination with her form of old style politics and personality.

The Republicans may choose their leadership by handing it to some old guard loyal party member whose time has finally come even if it is often long past their most useful years, much like the old Soviet poliburo once did. Reagan, Dole and McCain certainly seem to carve from this model. You can hardly expect to progress or advance of the social agenda under such leadership. Obama offers something fresh, a staunch progressive liberal for a change and is certainly a far better messenger than Clinton and more likely to deliver the goods in the end.

Obama also brought in millions of new or disaffected voters, including some Republicans tired of politics as usual. Unless his campaign can pick up the pieces and wrest back momentum from Clinton, then any Clinton-McCain November matchup will mean four more years of the same old politics as usual crap from either of these two. The Obama campaign is indeed standing at a crossroads today with some serious soul searching going since the dust settled on last night's results.

Texas And Ohio Debates Have Apparently Not Slowed Clinton Slippage

Fresh polls from Rasmussen and other polling organizations continue to suggest that the Texas and Ohio debates have failed to prevent further poll slippage by Clinton to Obama who now is seen as leading in Texas and close to Clinton in fresh Ohio polls. None of this is good news to Clinton who really needs big wins this Tuesday in Ohio or Texas to be seen as a viable candidate. And although she was able to raise a surprisingly healthy amount of campaign cash last month in excess of $30 million dollars, Clinton's campaign could be all be over if she should lose in both Texas and Ohio.

As things stand today, Clinton is only highly likely to win in tiny Rhode Island on Tuesday, lose in small Vermont, as well in the critical Texas primary, and the Ohio contest is nearly a toss-up with only a small 5 point advantage over Obama that could well disappear by Tueday if the current trend towards Obama continues. In the upcoming Pennsylvania Primary, Clinton is only ahead by a mere four points, which is a tiny and nervous lead considering the momentum of Obama. The campaign for the Democratic nomination could nearly be over this Tuesday if Clinton only manages a win in tiny Rhode Island.

Rudolph Giuliani watched his campaign for president end with the complete failure of his "firewall" in Florida. While Clinton is a better condition than this, still her campaign is falling behind Obama as more and more endorsements come his way and the Republican Party nominee John McCain has already targeted Obama as his November opponent.

Even Worst Than Ralph Nader

At one time, Ralph Nader held an important position as a senior apostle of the left who was seen as the conscience of the nation on many issues because many of his observations and complaints about the system were so correct. Then with one endless defeat after another in one perpetual losing race for president after another, Nader slowly began to wear away his role as a sort of senior statesman for the left and was increasingly seen as little more than some egotistical political cult leader.

And as bad as the slow decline of Ralph Nader has become, there is yet a even worse perpetual candidate, who seems to make far less sense, yet still has an appeal to a small political cult of followers. Former college dropout, turned Marxist, turned unusual political philosopher, Lyndon LaRouche still attacts a tiny core of followers and continues to write elaborate strange conspiracy tales despite a former stint in a federal prison and other personal setbacks. At one time, LaRouche headed a leftist political party, the U.S. Labor Party, but has since run for office within the Democratic Party as what has to the strangest and most unconventional of platforms compared to the broad mainstream of most Democrats.

It's not only the endless runs for political office, but also the highly unconventional views of LaRouche which have run the gamut from one-time Trotskyite Socialism all the way to a form of pseudoconservatism and elaborate conspiracy theory construction that have seemed to characterize LaRouche as very far from his claimed "Franklin Delano Roosevelt" form of Democratic Party mainstreamism. In so many ways, the logic of LaRouche's writings often seem like "synthetic", not real political thought because the logical connection between the points often seems so distant to many like me at times.

It is hard to believe that LaRouche once left college due to poor grades because on the surface he seems like such a prolific writer. Yet the real value of much of his works seems really lost to many readers as it often weaves strange conspiracy tales involving world banking, the Queen of England, and other matters not typical in most mainstream political discussions.

The other day I noticed a supporter of LaRouche with a display of his books outside the post office. I guess LaRouche is probably gearing up for yet another run for office as a vehicle for his unconventional conspiracy tales. Ralph Nader isn't the only candidate who endlessly runs for office and still has some political groupies who cling to his views it seems.

Math Looks Tougher And Tougher For A Hillary Comeback

If Hillary Clinton intends for any political comeback, then she'll be facing longer and longer odds. Right now she must win every remaining state between now and the Oregon primary in late May by a 55-45% popular vote margin if she intends to have enough delegates to win the nomination straight out. That sounds nearly impossible as she is likely to have two fresh losses in Hawaii and Wisconsin to Obama, making it 10 wins in row, and raising her needed popular vote wins to a staggering 57%-43% margin in all remaining states. If she losses one more contest among any of the remaining states, then she will need to garner over 60% of the vote in all remaining states.

The hard fact is that Clinton has had few 55% wins so far before the huge Omama bandwagon of momentum really started to steamroll over her campaign in 8 straight states. Only in Arkansas did she capture a huge 70% of the vote. In Michigan she captured 55%. In Florida it was merely 50%. And in her New York it was 57%. But in most other states her share of the vote was less than 55%, including Tennessee at 54%, Massachusetts 56%, New Jersey 54%, Oklahoma 55%, California 52% and Arizona 51%. However since the latest string of eight straight wins by Obama, Clinton has managed no better than a mere 37% of the vote as her latest high-water mark. And her campaign is reeling from dwindling new cash donations and management changes which are only further serious signs of trouble.

A new poll published in Rasmussen does Clinton the lead in Ohio, but how long that lasts as the Obama tidalwave washes away her hopes is a good question? Rasmussen also found Obama leading her nationally by five points for the first time ever yesterday. Likely this margin is only likely to grow in the coming days as Obama is able to close the door on the Clinton campaign.

While the Obama lead in pledged delegates is still small at this point, it is important to look at all the factors involved in his new wave of strength and see that Obama has made inroads into every demographic that supported Clinton in previous primary events. It was only her strengh among those in the Hispanic community that really glued together her wins in some big states like California. As Obama trims her support even among Hispanics, her ability to win even Texas looks a little less hopeful than only days ago.

It certainly looks more and more difficult for Clinton to recapture her footing in the race. Part of her problem came from constantly changing her message starting from a Michael Dukakislike one of her claimed inevitability of winning the Democratic nomination, to a desperate me-too attempt of adopting the "change" message after she only seemed to promise an old guard return to a 1990's Clinton Administration type rule once again with her "experience" message. Obama by contrast stayed with his "change" message, and awed large crowds with a hopeful and forward looking message, where it was certainly far more inspirational than the Clinton message of wanting to basicly restore the old 1990's Clinton rule with her replacing her husband as president this time around. That hardly failed to unite supporters anywhere near as well as the hopeful Obama message or lure supporters.

Clinton certainly managed to allow a stronger candidate such as Obama with a more powerful and more inspirational message a clear opening to exploit and more likely capture the Democratic nomination. Likely Clinton will have many years to think about what went wrong and ruined her best shot at ever winning the White House.