in the captured laptop verifying the complicity of Chavez's regime in the terrorist activity and his financing of Colombian Marxist guerrillas.

Even if overlooking that powerful evidence, at this stage of the game Colombia cannot ignore the open alignment between Caracas and Havana. The long history of subversion by Castro's regime against many legitimate governments in the Western Hemisphere is also all too pervasive for Bogota to dismiss. In all probability Colombia's top diplomat was just pretending, and his words just reflected his government's desire of not alienating Raul Castro unnecessarily. We must remember that diplomacy is the art of pretending.

I cannot blame the poor guy. The American unreliability is demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt in the continuous rejection by the U.S. Congress of the Colombian Free Trade agreement. That rejection is not bound to reassure our only remaining South American ally. That irresponsible attitude of Congress is motivated mostly by the Democrat lawmaker's shameless political game of always favoring the labor unions' agenda, in this case at the detriment of our national security.

What is excusable in diplomacy --especially among U.S. allies experiencing betrayal-- is unforgivable among those politicians seeking the highest office in the land. One of the top honchos in the presidential campaign of Senator Barak Obama was forced to resign after his contact with a terrorist Islamic organization was made public. The junior Senator from Illinois also criticized the meeting between ex-President and notorious anti-American propagandist Jimmy Carter with Islamic terrorists.

However, candidate Obama himself has stated his willingness to meet in person and without preconditions with the likes of Kim Jong Il, Raúl Castro, and Ahmadinejad if he is elected President. Could we consider his statements contradictory? Contacts between Washington and Governments who openly sponsor terrorism have occurred in the past. President Carter opened the so-called U.S. Interest Section in Havana, thus allowing Castro to send here his spies and agent-provocateurs disguised as diplomats. Later, Reagan sent General Vernon Walters to Havana in a fruitless effort to mend fences with the Castro dictatorship. Recent talks were held by Washington envoys with Syria and North Korea.

The fundamental difference is that no American head of state has ever met personally and engaged in bilateral discussions with fanatically aggressive insulting anti-American tyrants. During the Cold War era, Eisenhower, Nixon, Kennedy, Carter and Reagan held frequent meetings with the Soviet rulers, but none of the llater ever hinted remotely at the obliteration of an ally of the U.S. Carter embarrassed his country by acting as Castro's buffoon while in Havana a few years ago, but by the time of the shameful deed he was just an ex-President. Clinton shook hands with the same bearded rascal while attending a meeting of heads of state in a very crowded room, but Bubba insisted that the greeting was purely accidental.

Responsible Republicans and Democrats alike agree that short of armed conflict, political isolation and economic pressure are the only effective measures at our disposal in order to neutralize Ahmadinejad, who does not make any bones about his plans to obliterate the “evil state of Israel” as well as the United States if this nation dares to stand in his way . Is this only bravado and empty rhetoric? If so, why is his regime so hell-bent on developing nuclear capabilities? Iran literally floats on a sea of oil; therefore its energy needs could be abundantly satisfied without recurring to nuclear power. Then, what objective --other than offensive military might-- would achieve Iran building uranium enrichment facilities?

The question Senator Obama should answer in earnest to the American people is how a face to face meeting with a powerful fanatic bent on violence can contribute to that dangerous enemy's international isolation and how it could damage his worldwide economic interests. It appears that such meeting could well accomplish the opposite, serving only to enhance Ahmadinejad's global stature. Also it would make the radical Muslim leader appear “victorious” over the “Great Satan” to his following at home and advance his domestic political appeal.

To that valid question Obama must find an answer –-if there is one-- if he ever hopes to effectively disprove the charges of inexperienced and lack of sound judgment. This must be done candidly, without spin or obfuscation. Nothing short of a straight answer to this vital subject should help his electoral prospects next November.

The “soft approach” against those who are fanatically determined to do away with freedom and exterminate everyone who disagrees is inexorably destined to fail. That strategy was already tried by Jimmy Carter over 30 years ago -–against much less determined foes-- with disastrous consequences. There is nothing “new” in trying to combat terrorism by means of doubling our foreign aid. Even under normal conditions nobody can buy friends. How that old insanity could be called “change”?

 

 

“What the Western enemy called The Cold War, the Soviet camp called peaceful coexistence.” Brian Crozier --THE RISE AND FALL OF THE SOVIET EMPIRE--

 

 

 

 

 

Is it practical to differentiate between acts of terrorism based on whether they are perpetrated by international bands of blood-thirsty thugs or by established governments which are in cahoots with them and that openly support their agenda? The American military actions in Afghanistan helping the overthrow of the Taliban regime suggests otherwise.

During a recent televised interview the Foreign Minister of Colombia praised the cooperation Bogota is supposedly receiving from Havana vis-à-vis the depredations and kidnappings of the Narco-Marxist Colombian guerrillas and its new venezuelan sponsor, the regime of leftist strongman Hugo Chávez. Was the colombian diplomat speaking out of naiveté or was he acting according to what Bogota perceives as its best national interests?

Whether that interview was taped after or before the seizure of a laptop belonging to the slain number 2 man of the so-called FARC (Colombian Revolutionary Armed Forces), is immaterial. At Colombia 's request Interpol labs assured the authenticity of the information