Colombia: Free-trade rejection an “insult”
posted at 10:20 am on January 23, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
During her confirmation hearings, Hillary Clinton asserted that Colombia would remain on friendly terms with the US whether we approved a free-trade agreement with them or not. The Colombians beg to differ, as Investors Business Daily points out in an editorial today. They look around Latin America and see themselves treated as a second-class friend, and given their efforts on our behalf, they’re starting to get mightily unhappy about it:
Although Colombia’s President Alvaro Uribe sent a courteous message to welcome President Obama, Colombian officials have grown frustrated in the last two years, warning Democrats their friendship, which has cost them much blood and treasure, had limits.
Referring to a rejection of free trade, Colombia’s vice president, Francisco Santos, said last year: “Colombia plays such a vital role in the continent for U.S. interests that it would be geostrategic suicide to make a decision like that. I wonder who wants to be the one who loses Colombia like they lost China in the 1950s.”
Also last year, Trade Minister Luis Plata warned IBD that denying free trade to Colombia in a hemisphere full of U.S. free-trade treaties amounted to sanctions on an ally because the other countries with which America has agreements are its competitors.
In Santos’ view, it would be “an insult” and a “slap in the face.” Failure to pass the treaty, he said, “I’m sure will lead to a fundamental repositioning of relations between Colombia and the U.S.”
At the moment, Colombia sends its goods to the US free of tariffs, while Colombia collects a billion dollars on tariffs on imports from America. However, that would be chump change ccompared to the level of US investment possible under a free-trade agreement. They hope to convince investors to build business in their country, which would have the secondary effect of employing people outside of the drug trade, against which they’ve spent billions on our behalf.
The Obama administration will probably say that investors should focus on the US rather than Colombia in these troubled economic times. However, they probably won’t cancel the other FTAs in the region, putting our closest ally in South America at a competitive disadvantage to other, less cooperative trading partners. That will eventually push Colombia away from the US at a vital time when we need them as a counterweight to Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, Rafael Correa in Ecuador, and the FARC terrorists that both men fund and support.
After years of difficult reforms and fighting the drug trade and FARC simultaneously, Colombia deserves better treatment than this.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Ed….where did GW stand with respect to this? And our Democrat Congress?
Patrick S on January 23, 2009 at 10:24 AM
OT: Obama to reverse abortion policy
Obama has done it now. He has opened up a hornet’s nest.
Millions will march on Washington.
This will get ugly.
faraway on January 23, 2009 at 10:25 AM
Because liberals hate everything that is good, reasonable, and just. There really is no other explanation to their actions over the past few decades. The sooner people understand that the better.
Grafted on January 23, 2009 at 10:25 AM
That would be the Marxist-thug-infatuated Democrats. Any more questions?
Beagle on January 23, 2009 at 10:25 AM
GWB wanted free trade with Columbia. Dems blocked it, of course.
Babino on January 23, 2009 at 10:26 AM
Good! Put the heat on King Herod and let him know he doesn’t hold every American’s heart in his hands.
Grafted on January 23, 2009 at 10:26 AM
George Bush tried and tried to get this through and the Congress fought him on it every step of the way. This administration is going to mess things up like things have never been messed up before. If it weren’t so sad and dangerous, it would be fun to watch “her thighness” flop right on her face.
suzyk on January 23, 2009 at 10:28 AM
Obama is now claiming that his planned extraordinary actions are necessary because of our “unprecedented economic times”. Wake up people and remember that “unprecedented economic times” also produced Lenin, Hitler, Castro, Chavez and other memorable totalitarian figures.
rplat on January 23, 2009 at 10:28 AM
Free trade all the way, baby. Yes, Cuba too.
LimeyGeek on January 23, 2009 at 10:28 AM
A disgrace! But the Obama admin. is philosophically closer to S. America’s socialist countries than to capitalist Columbia.
JiangxiDad on January 23, 2009 at 10:28 AM
Bush is the one who negotiated the free trade deal with Columbia. He also had deals in place with South Korea and Panama that were not passed because of the Democratic Congress.
RedSoxNation on January 23, 2009 at 10:29 AM
The Colombians are fighting narco-aholes who are just as savage as the jihadis arrayed against us, and this is how we treat them?
How many days before Ogabe appears in a photo-op with Evo Morales or Hugo Chavez, smiling like a moron and promising to work towards mutual goals?
I hate the DFL.
Bishop on January 23, 2009 at 10:29 AM
So…a nation that has struggled hard, and for years, and with huge losses, against both narco-terrorism and Chavez-inspired assaults to its independence and freedom, a nation that has free markets, and a strong middle class, a nation that seeks to remain in the 21st Century by building its infrastructure and deal in an open business-like manner with other nations, to include our own, is tossed aside….simply because the Columbia Free Trade Agreement is a Bush idea?
So, this is how the new Administration hopes to win the hearts and minds (and contents of the wallets) of the world community? Suck up to Fatah….and cast aside Columbia?
Does Columbia deserve better treatment? Last week…sure. This week? Not any more. That’s what “change” does.
coldwarrior on January 23, 2009 at 10:29 AM
ummmm….didn’t the Columbians get the memo? I’m sure it’s around there somewhere. This is just for public consumption. I’m sure that huge sucking sound Ross Perot warned us about will move from Mexico to Columbia under Obama. Have no fear. This is Bill Clintoons 3rd term. Bill is off writing books and running foundations. Filling in for Bill is Barack Obama for the next 4 years, otherwise its the same old song.
kanda on January 23, 2009 at 10:30 AM
“Unprecedented economic times”?
Half as bad as the 1970s requires a messianic cult leader? I’ll get my matching tennis shoes and the Kool Aid.
Beagle on January 23, 2009 at 10:30 AM
In Santos’ view, it would be “an insult” and a “slap in the face.” Failure to pass the treaty, he said, “I’m sure will lead to a fundamental repositioning of relations between Colombia and the U.S.”
Change you can believe in! I wonder what O’s attitude towards Daniel Ortega will be?
Tony737 on January 23, 2009 at 10:30 AM
Yep, funny how he wants to fund abortions overseas again though.
reaganaut on January 23, 2009 at 10:30 AM
Bye bye Colombia, we hardly knew ya. Note to Colombia. Elect a left wing socialist , redistibuter of wealth, and Obama will give you whatever you want.
MDWNJ on January 23, 2009 at 10:33 AM
I say – start your blackmarkets and take as much of your economy underground at this point. Screw the democrats.
izoneguy on January 23, 2009 at 10:35 AM
Just have Uribe increase military expenditure by a large margin, and then start threatening US interests and its neighbors. Obama will jump right on board with whatever they want.
Riposte on January 23, 2009 at 10:35 AM
Stole my thought. There is no method do the madness…
fiscallyconservative on January 23, 2009 at 10:35 AM
to* the madness.
Pardon my (lack of) proofreading.
fiscallyconservative on January 23, 2009 at 10:36 AM
Yep, funny how he wants to fund abortions overseas again though.
reaganaut on January 23, 2009 at 10:30 AM
Priorities, you dumb cracka. The U.S. can’t salvage its own economy while simultaneously placating the frothing monkeys who put Ogabe on the map.
And Uribe didn’t rate higher than Abbas on Ogabe’s “first call as President” list.
Think I’ll head over to Cabelas and and check out the .45′s on display.
Bishop on January 23, 2009 at 10:36 AM
Dear Colombia:
I’m sorry.
I’m sorry we elected a Congress and President that do not want to reward your friendship with our friendship. :-(
rbj on January 23, 2009 at 10:38 AM
Well, Columbia could always extend their trade agreements with China, and Japan, and South Korea…better products, cheaper, too. Leave us out of the loop.
coldwarrior on January 23, 2009 at 10:39 AM
Pick me up something nice too. Over here you need a permit and a background check to buy a butter knife.
MDWNJ on January 23, 2009 at 10:39 AM
President Bush was a huge free trade guy.
And, though I wasn’t alive, weren’t the 70s much, much worse economically than today? I know the counter argument is that things aren’t at their worst yet, but the question still remains.
BadgerHawk on January 23, 2009 at 10:39 AM
Let me tell you how I warned many Colombian Americans in my community did not want to believe democrats would do such a thing to Colombia.Well, a country that was our ally could go into political turmoil with the help of these liberals.
I have been warning of Ingrid Betancourt who was “captured” by the FARC. She is now cozying up with Hugo Chavez. She will most likely run again for the presidency and win since she is so popular. The woman is a sympathizer of Marxism. I’ve seen cases like this time and again in Latin America.
The democrats are playing with fire here. Urine is the best thing that happened to that country in a long time. This could hurt a good man politically.
jencab on January 23, 2009 at 10:44 AM
Not really part of this discussion, but THIS should be required viewing!!
stonemeister on January 23, 2009 at 10:45 AM
Iraq was bad but Hugo and the Big O will invade Columbia and set it free. Hillary to busy explaining Chinese donations to William Jeff Clinton foundation to intercede.
Herb on January 23, 2009 at 10:45 AM
Does anyone think this administration has had a particularly strong first week?
Four years is a long time to have to rely on hopenchange.
Weeks like this will cause the magic to fade sooner rather than later.
Nat Hound on January 23, 2009 at 10:46 AM
Re-Chavez,Mexican border drug war,and this…
No doubt this will be a new breeding ground for terrorists. Wth is obie thinking?
canditaylor68 on January 23, 2009 at 10:47 AM
I am sure Her Royal Thighness of Foggy Bottom will come to the rescue!
Mr. Joe on January 23, 2009 at 10:47 AM
That’s the Democrat way, carrots to terrorists and enemies, kicks in the nuts to allies.
There are far more benefits to being a US enemy than ally, so we shouldn’t be surprised when we make enemies.
That this stupid, unqualified, corrupt witch is in charge at State, doesn’t give me any confidence that anything good is going to come out of State during the Obama Administration.
NoDonkey on January 23, 2009 at 10:48 AM
Santos sounds naive if he thinks the US interests as he understands them are the same as the current crop of Dems’ interests. And it wouldn’t be geostrategic suicide to them as there are more nations down their that they consider to be more compatible with their ideas than those of Uribe. I also doubt the Dems here consider we “lost China in the 1950s.”
Dusty on January 23, 2009 at 10:48 AM
Defeat of an FTA means less fighting of the drug war by Columbia. Less fighting means more cocaine coming into the USA. Cooincidence?
cadams on January 23, 2009 at 10:50 AM
aren’t we putting a military base in Columbia? or were?
thought I remember our contract with bolivia was coming to close and their marxist govt. wanted us to leave, but Columbia wanted us to come.
jp on January 23, 2009 at 10:50 AM
This is outrageous.
CP on January 23, 2009 at 10:51 AM
Why is anyone surprised by this?
The Corruptocrats want Columbia to turn into another Marxist run dictatorship. The Corruptocrats love Castro and Chavez and they have actively worked with the terrorist group FARC to destabilize the Columbian government.
From the WSJ
The Reyes hard drive reveals an ardent effort to do business directly with the FARC by Congressman James McGovern (D., Mass.), a leading opponent of the free-trade deal. Mr. McGovern has been working with an American go-between, who has been offering the rebels help in undermining Colombia’s elected and popular government.
Mr. McGovern’s press office says the Congressman is merely working at the behest of families whose relatives are held as FARC kidnap hostages. However, his go-between’s letters reveal more than routine intervention
Nahanni on January 23, 2009 at 10:52 AM
It depends on how you look at it. There are similarities to the 1970′s but I think from a financial standpoint this is far worse. We are just entering this recession and so far what the government is doing is not working. We ae draining the US treasury and our pockets to finance failed enterprises. Even Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter never did that. During the 1970′s the nations wealth continued to increase dispite run away inflation. This time we have wealth disappearing all over the world at a fantastic rate. Our present national debt levels were unimaginable in the 1970′s. I’d compare the period we are in today more to the worldwide economic collapse that occured in 1929. The bailouts are an attempt to prevent things from getting that bad again. The US economy is still in a downward spiral. Banks are still not improving, auto industry is still failing, Job loss rates continue to worsen. Ii is all coming together here and abroad. Like a speeding truck down a mountain if we don’t find a brake ramp soon there will be a terrible crash.
kanda on January 23, 2009 at 10:53 AM
This is 2009 and not 1947, and we are no longer a wealthy manufacturing nation. The economy will not improve as long as we conduct trade as foreign policy. It’s time we start playing to win.
DFCtomm on January 23, 2009 at 10:53 AM
Urine is the best thing that happened to that country in a long time. This could hurt a good man politically.
jencab on January 23, 2009 at 10:44 AM
Oh if only HA had an edit function. :-)
Bishop on January 23, 2009 at 10:57 AM
Colombia will only be the first. Next on the f***-your-buddy list are the Baltics, Poland, Georgia, and Ukraine. Putin just hasn’t asked nicely yet.
DrSteve on January 23, 2009 at 10:57 AM
typical Democrat foreign policy, screw your friends, appease your enemies
runner on January 23, 2009 at 11:00 AM
Well at least Sen. Reid is preparing the way for the flood of refugees. Anyone have any more information on Senate Bill 9 –a bill called the ‘Stronger Economy, Stronger Borders Act of 2009.
/Sarc
canditaylor68 on January 23, 2009 at 11:04 AM
I thought the MSNBC background in the picture was appropriate for the act — open mouth, insert foot.
littleguy on January 23, 2009 at 11:04 AM
stonemeister on January 23, 2009 at 10:45 AM
Thank you for the link. Very interesting and educational. Definately a must watch.
milwife88 on January 23, 2009 at 11:05 AM
There is only one group of people who know what the DFL is. A Minnesotan. Unless you are referring to “Dumb-F’ing-Liberals”
Dasher on January 23, 2009 at 11:05 AM
Um, yeah they were. As late as 1982, mortgage interest rates were at nearly 20%. Meat prices changed daily due to inflation and there were actually meat shortages. Gas lines and rationing. Unemployment at 10%. Then you add on top of that the Soviet Union appearing to actually start winning the Cold War, the Olympics going to Moscow, the Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua, the genocide in Cambodia. You had the President of the United States telling people to turn down their thermostats and wear sweaters, whining about “malaise,” and serious talk of a permanent decline of the United States.
People really have short memories.
rockmom on January 23, 2009 at 11:06 AM
There is only one group of people who know what the DFL is. A Minnesotan. Unless you are referring to “Dumb-F’ing-Liberals”
Dasher on January 23, 2009 at 11:05 AM
Minnesotan, yes I am, but the Dumb Effin Liberal fits too.
Bishop on January 23, 2009 at 11:08 AM
Nice video but I bet you won’t see it in any classrooms.
DFCtomm on January 23, 2009 at 11:12 AM
Libtards in Congress are basically screwing over an ally just to give George Bush the bird. Nice.
commenter on January 23, 2009 at 11:14 AM
I thought Obama was gonna bring hopenchange to the WORLD? And everyone was going to like us again? I guess Democrat policies suck after all, like we confirm everyday on Hot Air.
kirkill on January 23, 2009 at 11:29 AM
Oh now guys, you all know that this is the kind of shit that will make the world love and adore the Americans. /sarc
leetpriest on January 23, 2009 at 11:29 AM
Nah, it’s not so much that as it is a lame attempt at a “do-over” for NAFTA. Clinton rolled the Congressional Dems to pass NAFTA and the union/left have been bitching about it ever since. This has nothing to do with Colombia per se, it is a symbolic issue to the unions. Unfirtunately it will have real, non-symbolic geopolitical consequences. But the AFL-CIO doesn’t care about that.
rockmom on January 23, 2009 at 11:32 AM
Columbia had the equivalent of our 9/11 attacks 20 years ago when the drug lords sent a 500 man army to kill and destroy in their Congress and Justice buildings. It looked like a miniature World Trade Center attack.
***
Columbia has fought on bravely and has just about destroyed the FARC guerrillas. Columbia has reclaimed the 20 percent of their territory the drug army held. Hugo Chavez of Venezuela helps arm and fund FARC.
***
Ingrid Betancourt was held by FARC as a kidnap victim for 5 or 6 years. Colombian soldiers freed her in a daring attack. She seems to be suffering from the “Patty Hurst” or Stockholm syndrome. Or maybe it’s something about her French background–LOVE YOUR ENEMY was used a lot by the French during WW2. She will be a very weak leader if she wins political power in Colombia.
***
John Bibb
***
rocketman on January 23, 2009 at 11:33 AM
Gee, I wonder if Bambi’s administration will use that same reasoning to reject the Bambi-sponsored Global Poverty Act, which proposes to give away nearly One Trillion of our tax dollars to the United Nations so that that infamously corrupt and inefficient organization can distribute our money across the globe (starting, as usual, with massive deposits into the U.N. corruptocrats’ own Swiss and Cayman Island bank accounts, no doubt).
AZCoyote on January 23, 2009 at 11:35 AM
I wouldn’t be surprised if Colombia becomes the next allied state to fall to our enemies due to the communists in the Democrat party. If this is a sign of things to come, today no-trade, tomorrow no arms, next week a treaty with Chavez, we could end up with a failed Colombia, a communist Colombia thanks to the Democrats.
sjramos on January 23, 2009 at 11:37 AM
You treat your friends with respect…obviously the liberals do not consider Columbia a friend.
Columbia is fighting the drug trade, that does not make them a friend to the liberals…how else can you read this?
right2bright on January 23, 2009 at 11:46 AM
Free trade with Columbia is a no brainer but even that requires too much intellect from this congress.
Speakup on January 23, 2009 at 11:54 AM
Wait….wait a minute. Columbia imposes import tariffs on goods from the US?
Where is the incentive to invest in Columbia when it is import tariffs imposed by Columbia that is the bone of contention?
What is the reciprocity offered by the US to encourage Columbia to drop those import tariffs?
Something in this story does not compute.
Skandia Recluse on January 23, 2009 at 12:01 PM
“You treat your friends with respect…obviously the liberals do not consider Columbia a friend.”
Alot of them don’t even claim Colombia, more specifically Uribe, as a friend. They routinely slander Uribe as a drug lord and paramilitary. He was even in D.C. a few months ago and all the Dems ran for cover to avoid him while Sarah Palin enthusiastically met with him.
Golden Boy on January 23, 2009 at 12:02 PM
I find it odd that Gitmo is considered inhumane. But Abortion is humane. Leaving a new born to die from a botched Abortion is humane. Thanks for the info. I hope they march, protest and raise holy hell.
sheebe on January 23, 2009 at 12:03 PM
Trade with Columbia would be great. Guess trading with worthless China isn’t a insult.
sheebe on January 23, 2009 at 12:04 PM
Screw Columbia! We should legalize drugs and produce our own! And then pay for everyone’s rehab with socialized medicine!
/lib
TheUnrepentantGeek on January 23, 2009 at 12:07 PM
This Texan knows what the DFL is. But I could never figure out why they just want to pander to farm labor. You would think that an inclusive party would want to pander to as many laborers as possible. /s
Conservatives in Minnesota need to start the RLF (Republican Liberty Freedom).
Harpoon on January 23, 2009 at 12:11 PM
The Democrats blocked this agreement because they want the deal to include a mandate that any American investment include the unionization of the workers. They claim that Uribe has not done enough to stop the assault upon union bosses trying to unionize the existing companies, which is not true. Uribe’s administration has made huge progress in curtailing the violence.
There are just so many reasons this is a good deal, it’s beyond reasoning except to benefit the AFL-CIO by extending its reach internationally.
Texas Gal on January 23, 2009 at 12:13 PM
The agreement eliminated the import tariffs on American goods.
Texas Gal on January 23, 2009 at 12:16 PM
The Hope and Kool-Aid party has spoken….
DL13 on January 23, 2009 at 12:18 PM
For all of you cheerleading Columbia, know that their relationship with the U.S. is a bit more complex.
The whole “they help us fight against drug suppliers; they must be our very good best friends” is naive.
Columbia has its own interests, and they actively pursue them regardless of whether or not those actions hurt us.
As I said above, our relationship with them is complex. I’m certainly not taking the messiah’s, or Hillary’s, side on this, but just know that there are reasons why we might not be jumping up and down to give them more freebies without them first stopping some of their own actions in return.
matthewbit07 on January 23, 2009 at 12:25 PM
Thanks for that. I’ve forwarded to a few friends/family that can use a refresher.
Now totally off topic, I also found this as a related link.
Worth a good few laughs.
DarkCurrent on January 23, 2009 at 12:28 PM
Why don’t you expand and add some substance?
DarkCurrent on January 23, 2009 at 12:29 PM
More than likely the AFL-CIO doesn’t care because their philosophy differs little from the Marxist World Workers Party.
I guess that Colombia didn’t get the memo from the SoS Harridan Enforcer yesterday that “we will not tolerate divisiveness.”
It’s three days of the first 100 in Steve’s presidency, and he is destroying America in front of our unbelieving eyes.
onlineanalyst on January 23, 2009 at 12:31 PM
While I would like to support Columbia, there is no Free Trade ANYWHERE. None of it is free.
NAFTA hurt a lot of people, including those in ag.
CAFTA will succeed in doing the same as NAFTA.
Columbians don’t have the $$ to buy our stuff. So we will end up bringing their lower priced stuff here & that in turn skews the market for the products we produce here, UNDER DIFFERENT RULES.
I can never say this enough!
I’m no economist, but why is it OK for one country to use pesticides on their crops (i.e. Canada) that are banned here in the US & then they sell the finished product here on OUR MARKETS. HUH?!
I can’t compete with that. Why is our govt making me compete with people who do not have the rules I do?!
Trading with other countries is great, but it is no wonder that our industries have moved over seas & we are importing way more of our food than we used to.
“Free Trade” my a$$.
Badger40 on January 23, 2009 at 12:32 PM
With friends like that, who needs….?
Why we couldn’t get more through when we had control of both houses, and the Presidency I don’t know. I’d suspect that the Bush Administration structured all of their workings around the GWOT and the primary focus laid there. But I find it unacceptable that with that much control we couldn’t get anything done. Perhaps one more round of slaughter in 2010 will clean the stables of the last of the worthless Republicans and allow us to start afresh?
juanito on January 23, 2009 at 12:42 PM
Because the details of the agreement were’t struck between Bush and Uribe until after the ’06 election. Bush made several references to the pending legislation going to Congress after the election. He was concerned about the timing and often mentioned it.
Texas Gal on January 23, 2009 at 12:52 PM
Ahh the clintons are back
Screwing every country they come in contact with..
Columbia i thank you for your efforts and warn you
Dont TRUST ANY LIBERALS
they will stab you in the back,..
jcila on January 23, 2009 at 12:53 PM
Well my question was more to the lack of ANYTHING accomplished in eight years. Sure, tax cuts, and the epic struggles to keep the GWOT funded. But more to the point, what conservative ideals were promoted? Don’t get me wrong, I voted for GWB both times, and I feel he was exactly the right person for the job in terms of GWOT. I also like him as a person. We definitely traded down. It also would have been a step down with McCain in my view. Remember, GWB ran on the concept of changing the mood in DC after the Clenis. He tended towards the middle of the road, and as Rush says, if you’re in the middle of the road, you’re going to get run over. I know we talk a great deal about BDS, but recall how angry we all were with Clinton. The left could rightly point to some Clinton Derangement Syndrome. And I did think he was a terribly flawed President (and person). It just seems that the left took the Clinton hate and amped it up to 11 for BDS. So once GWB found himself in that climate, I just wish he would have said “screw this” and push what he wanted past the left. The left didn’t have the votes, so what could they do? As I tell my kids, I will respect good effort, but in the end, Scoreboard!
juanito on January 23, 2009 at 1:08 PM
That was my point. The US can not lower tariffs that are imposed by Columbia.
Columbia by itself can lower those tariffs, on their own, but why would they do that? What is the incentive?
Columbia wants to compete with its neighbors who have lowered their import duties, why can Columbia not do the same on their own? What more can the US do?
So the real sticking point is democrat interference in the internal politics of Columbia as part of a demand that Columbia lower duties imposed by Columbia. It doesn’t add up.
Skandia Recluse on January 23, 2009 at 1:30 PM
Protectionist policies I’d say.
Kini on January 23, 2009 at 1:32 PM
Socialist thugs hate free trade. It’s so….so….beneficial to the American economy and that of our allies.
Hening on January 23, 2009 at 1:37 PM
I’m sorry I thought that since this thread is about the Columbia free trade agreement that you were addressing that issue. I didn’t realize it was just a general unhappiness with the entire 8 years of Bush. So when you stated the Republicans didn’t get anything done I just pointed out that this agreement went to the Congress after it changed to Democratic control.
Other than this agreement being left undone, I’m not sure what else you would have liked to have seen GWB push thru the Congress. If I recall correctly, just because we had control with enough Rs beside names in both Chambers, many of them often did not side with GWB and often went against him. Many of them even wanted to abandon Iraq which would have been a huge mistake. I think that’s an accomplishment with potential to change the world to eventually prevent the spread on Islamic fundamentalism.
As to what conservative ideals were promoted? How about Roberts and Alito. I think those were pretty significant accomplishments and will have long lasting legacies.
Yes, the BDS ran/runs rampant and it wasn’t/isn’t restricted to the Left.
Texas Gal on January 23, 2009 at 1:48 PM
Not all imports from Columbia enter the US tariff free. Those that do are under a different agreement that has to do with the fight against the drug trade.
This agreement is about free trade and levels the playing field. Columbia is in agreement because of potential investment. Also the trade agreement will help the Uribe government push thru institutional reforms.
The other countries that Columbia completes with are under CAFTA, a different agreement. We don’t yet have a free trade agreement with Columbia and Columbia was not include in CAFTA.
Bush instituted requirements in CAFTA and in this Columbia agreement that requires participating countries to accomplish certain institutional reforms in areas such as, justice and civil rights, in order to participate. The State Department is involved in providing technical assistance. He attached the same requirement to certain types of foreign aid thru the Millennium Account. It’s a part of his freedom agenda of soft power that never got any attention.
Texas Gal on January 23, 2009 at 2:02 PM
That’s the Democrat way, carrots to terrorists and enemies, kicks in the nuts to allies.
Why do the Democrats always treat our enemies better than our allies? It’s been like that at least since Carter. In some cases, our allies then become our enemies. Like Iran.
Will Colombia be next?
tom on January 23, 2009 at 2:16 PM
You know who wants CAFTA passed? Ray Nagin, because the people of Katrina-ravaged New Orleans who would benefit tremendously from the free trade agreement because of its port system. Alas his pleas have gone unanswered by the loathsome Madame Pelosi.
That’s just one example of the Dems folly. It is nothing short of despicable for them to oppose this agreement, and claiming to care about the unions and the environment is a pitifully poor excuse in these recessionary times.
Buy Danish on January 23, 2009 at 2:26 PM
BTW, did you know the first thing State Department did when the recession was confirmed under the passing days of the Bush Administration? It cut off aid to Colobia. Excuse? Recession.
If they had no money, why don’t they cut off aid to the UN and other useless international bodies?
promachus on January 23, 2009 at 2:56 PM
They have to do that because in their view anybody using US power or wealth is furthering the hegemony. To end the hegemony, you have to first end the clients of the hegemony.
The pre-Carter Iran was an ally of the US. The post-Carter Iran is an ally of the Left.
Remember, these are not liberals we are dealing with here. They are progressives. Just as the US used its power to topple governments around the world to stop Communism, they want to use the same American power to stop the advance of democratic capitalism. Payback is a bitch, isnt it?
promachus on January 23, 2009 at 3:04 PM
Dems want to tax Colombian trade to subsidize their coke.
- The Cat
MirCat on January 23, 2009 at 3:08 PM
Indeed – Those appointments were significant. And you are correct that many Rs did not fall in line with GWB. In fact Reagan had a hard time with Republicans as well. In many instances, he had more help from Dan Rostenkowski than from other Republicans in the House. That is simply bizzare. But what I keep coming back to is that you lead from the top down. I just keep suspecting that GWB was so committed to the GWOT, that he had nothing leftover to use on any other issues (i.e. Social Security). Don’t get me wrong, I am grateful for how he conducted the GWOT, but I suspect that he leads smaller groups (loyalty) more effectively than larger groups, because of his ability at the personal level. Reagan was great on ideals, not so much with GWB. How much of that was due to the necessity to focus on the GWOT we’ll never know. Remember he was going to be a Republican President that worked on domestic issues, because his foreign experiences were so light.
What would the GWB Presidency look like if 9/11 had never happened? I suspect that he could have accomplished a great deal, since he is so tenacious. Without the “distraction” of the GWOT, he might have had more focus on ideals.
juanito on January 23, 2009 at 3:08 PM
Pre-Carter Iran was an ally of the US. Post-Carter Iran is an ally of the Left. That’s the difference.
Remember these are progressives we are dealing with. For years, they saw the use of American power to stop the advance of communism by any means necessary, usually by the overthrow of the “dissidents”. Now, they want to use the same power to stop the check of democratic capitalism. Payback is a bitch isnt it?
promachus on January 23, 2009 at 3:09 PM
Ding!
baldilocks on January 23, 2009 at 3:15 PM
Not sure of your source, but that doesn’t pass my smell test. USAID is responsible for American foreign aid. The State Department can make recommendations to the President about foreign aid, but the current budget is in force until Sept ’09 I believe. I doubt we’ve reduced anybody s aid because of the recession. We just print more money!
Texas Gal on January 23, 2009 at 3:17 PM
I tend to believe in destiny. I’ve said before on another thread that I and a lot of my fellow Tex Republicans were pretty surprised when Bush won in 2000. We thought it would be close but thought it would be the other way and were really more focused on ’04.
And you’re right that Bush was more focused on domestic issues, some of those very ones that he did achieve were a part of his 2000 and ’04 platform such as prescription drugs and No Child. He’s been taken to task for those accomplishments. He always ran on a compassionate conservative agenda and that is what attributed to his election. As a matter of fact the only issue he did not follow through on was ‘no nation building’. And yes, 9/11 changed that. We’ll never know what he could have accomplished domestically. But I don’t think social security reform would have been one unless he had moved on it in his 1st 100 days. The Ds do not and will not make any reform to SS that moves away from mandatory contribution to government coffers.
Honestly, the Democrats were so pissed off about 2000 that they were loaded for bear when Bush arrived in DC and the only small respite was right after 9/11. Bush mistake in judgment wasn’t so much about the temperament of the Ds it was his confidence that the Rs would stand with him, too many of them failed. Too many of them saw him as not having paid his dues, so to speak. He was a cowboy for Texas who just happened to be the Governor. I think some of them greeted Bush much like Pelosi et al greet Obama, as in training. So it really was his own party that was the real problem. And in that respect I agree with you that the Republicans didn’t stick together to get things done when they had the chance.
Texas Gal on January 23, 2009 at 3:34 PM
True that! And look what that got them all in 06 & 08!
You’ve obviously had more exposure to GWB since you’re in TX. My Brother moved to Austin in 83 and my sister in law worked in the TX State Library in Austin, and met GWB a few times. I just felt him to be an honest man, who wanted to do right. And in 2000, what other choice did we have in the Republican primary?
I am grateful that GWB was our president in that time of crisis. I just wish the party had stuck to conservative values, instead of going off on a “please, like me!” spending spree. Govern as Republicans fer Pete’s sake, that’s why you were elected!
juanito on January 23, 2009 at 3:53 PM
…and when Columbia becomes a left wing dictatorship, and the entire region becomes a drug-exporting cooperative into the US, no one will connect the dots.
Vashta.Nerada on January 23, 2009 at 4:05 PM
Well, hopefully ’08 will result in at least back getting us back into more balance in Congress in ’10 and maybe back in control by ’12. Sounds terrible but I’m hopeful the economic situation is long enough to stop universal health and what will be truly amnesty. Those entitlements will have the ability to insure Democratic majority. If the same stuff goes on as did with the internet fund raising and ACORN we’re cooked if entitlements increase.
Yes, I do have a somewhat better view of Bush from Texas. I met GWB and Barbara Bush (mom) at the Republican Convention that nominated Bush Sr. and Bush Sr. was the first person I voted for as my Congressman years ago. I’ve always been a Republican. I have had the pleasure of meeting with Laura on several occasions as the First Lady of Texas in my previous job. They truly are sincerely nice people and very centered about who they are and their responsibility to others. I wish more people had more personal knowledge about them.
Texas Gal on January 23, 2009 at 4:10 PM
Bush Sr. was the first person I
votedcampaigned for as my Congressman years agoTexas Gal on January 23, 2009 at 4:26 PM
Why not allow free trade on drugs?
The war on drugs has been an absolute and total failure and a brilliant example of the power of free market economics. We’ve tried to buck the market and have nothing at all to show for it.
Legalizing and regulating it would be far more effective than anything tried to date, and cheaper and more effective than the waste of time that is the war on drugs.
Ares on January 23, 2009 at 6:57 PM
Very good post. I too am concerned about the entitlements proposed by the democrats. Last time it took us 40 years to get the scoundrels out of power. If we can defeat some of them in 2010 and some more along with gaining the presidency in 2012 we might still save the nation from socialism. If the democrats consolidate this much power beyond the next 4 years it will be very difficult if not impossible to turn it around. We need to start now in our neighborhoods and local areas getting good candidates. If you have some already continue supporting them.
You have good instincts for politics. Don’t get discouraged. Seize the opportunity we have to show the people what scum they have elected. At first they won’t believe you but keep plugging at it. As we lose more individual freedoms to the democrats the people will come around to our way of thinking. The sooner the better.
kanda on January 23, 2009 at 7:43 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »