http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080609/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/venezuela_colombia_rebels

Seems like Chavez realizes that he needs to, at least communicate if not fully enact, a 180 in his policy toward FARC.  I'm sure most of you have heard that a FARC laptop was confiscated from a dead higher up (General I think) and it had documents that the international community examined and found that the evidence was sufficient, and damning, that Chavez was backing FARC by proving weapons, safety, shelter, intelligence, possibly training etc.

In my most humble opinion I would call for a CIA bullet between his eyes and out through the back of his hollow head.  The man sponsors terrorism.  Some of which is responsible for the deaths of US citizens.  He is an unstable force in the region.  No one benefits, in the long run, from him being alive.  The longer he is breathing the more innocent lives will suffer or die.  He stands in the way of Democracy, Human Rights and American Interests.  I realize the deep irony in killing someone because they violate the human and civil rights of their citizens but in Chavez' case I am more than willing to make an exception.

Why then are the left parties (more left wing than our Democrats) in the EU, Canada, and the right wingers in Russia pursuing them?  In other words the democrats are dragging down the US by opposing free trade.  It would be a logical fallacy to say that because everyone is doing something then it is the right thing to do - but in this case Pelosi and her left-wing coalition would have to ignore all the data in the world to make their case!

Globalization is the future, we need to embrace it, not run from it.  It's good for us and good for the world.  We're all stronger from it.  We're going to lose our global market position...

;I know most of you hate Bush - but please, stop listening to your idiot politicians and listen to everyone else's idiot politicians ;)

http://www.ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=297559097183066

Best part of this article: 

In any other country, such a pointless squandering of market share would be cause for alarm. But somehow, Pelosi & Co. imagine that America doesn't compete in the world, that markets don't matter and that the U.S. will always be number one.

They steep themselves in puritanical righteousness, stalling the Colombia pact over a few crimes being prosecuted by authorities, while American influence and competitiveness wither.

Colombia isn't going to wait for Pelosi to come to her senses. It'll go ahead and do business with Canada.

I know I can't remember Reagan (he left office when I was 3) and I vaguely remember Bush Sr... but I have studied American foreign policy enough to be comfortable talking about it.  This article compares Obama's FP ideas to Jimmy Carter's...  It also shows you how disastrous JC's FP was.  I know many people care about the Economy more than FP but FP to me is just as important as economics. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/06/06/do0602.xml

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121262094242346677.html

Obama has been to Iraq once - never met with Nouri Al-Maliki (he went before N AM was in Gov't).  Another article from a former soldier condemning him for this.  I don't get it - wouldn't it make a better argument if he visited Iraq and then condemned it?  I mean he would have to ignore the majority of facts but at least it would look better.

Thanks to Real Clear Politics I found someone who I have come to adore: Thomas Sowell.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/obama_and_mccain.html

His latest article is another example of why even the harshest anti-McCain conservatives need to vote for him in the fall.  Two words: Foreign Policy.

McCain's is excellent, Obama's is fatally disastrous.

Edit: I should say that although I have been following his columns for the last six or so months.  I've linked some of them before I think. 

Former US ambassador to the UN John R. Bolton has a must read piece on Obama's incorrect analysis of history and how his foreign policy is dangerously naive.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-bolton5-2008jun05,0,5282011.story

This is my favorite part: "What is implicit in Obama's reference to "tiny" threats is that they are sufficiently insignificant that negotiations alone can resolve them. Indeed, he has gone even further, arguing that the lack of negotiations with Iran caused the threats: "And the fact that we have not talked to them means that they have been developing nuclear weapons, funding Hamas, funding Hezbollah."

This is perhaps the most breathtakingly naive statement of all, implying as it does that it is actually U.S. policy that motivates Iran rather than Iran's own perceived ambitions and interests. That would be news to the mullahs in Tehran, not to mention the leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah."

Posted by Jaime Sneider: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Weblogs/TWSFP/TWSFPView.asp

  Winning in Afghanistan Also