At least one world leader wants John McCain to be the next leader of the free world: President Alvaro Uribe of Colombia.

While under fire from Democrats due to his government's shoddy human rights record, Uribe warmly welcomed McCain to Colombia on Tuesday. McCain praised Uribe's "substantial and positive" progress on human rights and reiterated his support for a US-Colombia free trade deal, which labor leaders and human rights activists strongly oppose.

The day McCain left the Colombian government staged a dramatic rescue of 15 hostages, including three Americans.

Nothing more than a fortuitous coincidence?

The Bush Administration was involved in the planning of the rescue and provided unspecified "specific support," according to the White House. McCain admitted that he was briefed about the raid the night before it occurred by Uribe and the Colombian defense minister. Yet he dismissed speculation that the rescue operation coincided with his visit. "There's no way possible that it could have anything to do with our visit, that I could imagine," McCain said on his way from Colombia to Mexico.

Yet that didn't stop McCain's friends at Fox News from making a connection, citing McCain's background as a POW in Vietnam. "There really might be a connection between the high-level visit of the former prisoner of war, John McCain himself, and the release now of three American prisoners here in southern Colombia," said reporter Steve Harrigan.

(Tightness with foreign leaders can sometimes be a sore-spot in US Presidential elections. Back in 2004 John Kerry made the rather obvious point that leaders around the world were rooting for him to defeat George W. Bush. Responded Dick Cheney: "At the very least, we have a right to know what he is saying to foreign leaders that makes them so supportive of his candidacy.")

Link or no link, the rescue operation certainly enhanced McCain's stature as a "tough on terror" world leader. Political pundits were wondering why McCain decided to travel to Colombia in the first place. Now, thanks to Uribe, a potentially clumsy trip for McCain turned into a PR success.

Comments (23)

1. Within minutes of the story on this "heroic" rescue at HuffPo, there were hundreds of questioning comments wondering about the strange coincidence of the prisoner release happening on the very day McCain arrived in Columbia. Or was it just happenstance?

   And of course the Columbian president had lavish praise for McCain as a "great leader"-I'm sure the Government there much prefers him to Obama, who's an unknown quantity...

   This also raises other questions about the connections between FARC and top Columbian officials, which Betancourt was apparently writing about. She claimed there were even FARC connections to the US!

   Was this just another of the staged events that Republicans are so good at? (remember the release of American prisoners in Iran the day Reagan was sworn into office!)

   Unfortunately, this administration has so little credibility that anything they do comes under intense scrutiny by the progressive community, if not the Corporate Media. We're paranoid out here in lefty land for a very good reason!

   Posted by wagonjak at 07/03/2008 @ 1:51pm

2. IF and thats a big if it actually was because of his visit it was only because Bush planned it that way considering Americans helped with the operation. It's called campaigning. Of course the Republican President is going to do everything he can to help the Republican nominee.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/03/2008 @ 1:56pm

3. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Common fallacy.

   Like, say, Halliburton making a billion and gas going up to nearly 5 dollars a gallon after the Iraq war.

   Coincidence, surely.

   Posted by RLawrence at 07/03/2008 @ 1:59pm

4. hmm.

   uribe

   another member of the international republican'ts.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 07/03/2008 @ 2:05pm

5. >>>"There's no way possible that it could have anything to do with our visit, that I could imagine," McCain said on his way from Colombia to Mexico.<<<

   It looks like McCain has a SERIOUS honesty problem. If we can't trust him to tell us the truth on minor issues like the raid, his temper tantrums, and his statements about the economy not being his strong suit, how can we trust him on more important matters?

   Posted by Metteyya at 07/03/2008 @ 2:14pm

6. NO MORE DAMN trade deals until we get America fixed again. This is what has caused our downfall in the first place. If we would have stayed a manufacturing country instead of being sold out and told to become a buying country things would not be like they are right now.

   NO MORE TRADE DEALS!!

   Posted by lvdragonlady at 07/03/2008 @ 2:48pm

7. Had to get this off my chest.

   Couldn't find a good thread to post this on, so I'll post it here for the moment:

   SHOULD PROGRESSIVES VOTE FOR OBAMA?

   That is the question.

   Before you answer let's review some recent background.

   Barack Obama sailed into June with the political wind at his back and riding the crest of a tidal wave of enthusiastic support, especially among his left wing progressive base who were convinced that Obama would --however cryptic he might often come off-- eventually deliver with a more or less progressive agenda. After all, isn't it rather obvious after Dubya that the time is ripe for a whole new agenda? What other change should we "believe in" if not a genuine change in direction?

   We lined up eagerly with our money in hand to buy our tickets to the big race. Everyone knew that this was a moment for the histroy books. Big Brown was destined to go wire to wire, and we would all cash in our winnings and join the ticker tape parade to the sounds of triumphant music.

   Only it didn't happen.

   We were left standing with our losing tickets and tear streaked faces while the owners acted upset too. "Who is responsible for this travesty?", they said. It was the trainer, or the jockey, or perhaps the track conditions were not right.

   Here is where the analogy must break down. In politics we all know that the game is so often rigged just like boxing and horse racing, but in this case I put the blame for our disappointment firmly with the horse. How could he so callously raise our hopes, and then so unceremoniously dash them as soon as the nomination was his?

   This is the "old" politics we were promised would not be repeated.

   And one of the ironies of the moment is that more disappointment has perhaps been raised in the so-called mainstream media then in our progressive media.

   Philip Gailey, recently, in the St. Petersburg Times, "In ‘The Audacity of Hope,' Obama wrote: "I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views." Someone is going to be disappointed. He can't be everything to everyone. If that's his idea of a new kind of politics, maybe he should just stick to the old politics he is beginning to master."

   Katrina vanden Heuvel said on Stefanopoulos (6/29, viewable online), "I'm shocked, …shocked that Obama has turned to the center."

   Really?

   Or is this just a sarcastic remark ala Casablanca? I'm not quite sure, but I'll assume, for her sake, that she really meant it –after all, a sarcastic remark would be a slap in the face to Nation readers since The Nation endorsed Barack Obama. And if she is indeed shocked, then where is the appropriate anger to go along with it?

   I, for one, am grateful that George Carlin decided to die right at the moment when his words are most needed --and I'm not referring to the ones that have been played on television of late:

   "Forget the politicians, politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don't. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you.

   They own everything. They own all the important land, they own and control the corporations, they've long since bought and paid for the senate, the congress, the state houses, the city halls, they've got the judges in their back pockets, and they own all the big media companies so they control just about all the news and information you get to hear. They've got you by the balls.

   They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying to get what they want. We know what they want. They want more for themselves and less for everybody else... but they don't want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They're not interested in that. That doesn't help them. That's against their interests. They don't want people who are smart enough to sit around the kitchen table and figure out how badly they're getting fucked by a system that threw them overboard thirty fucking years ago....

   The game is rigged, and nobody seems to notice, nobody seems to care, good honest hard working people, white collar, blue collar, doesn't matter what color shirt you have on. Good honest hard working people continue to elect these rich cocksuckers who don't give a fuck about them. They don't give a fuck about you... at all...

   And nobody seems to notice, nobody seems to care, that's what the owners count on. The fact that Americans will probably remain willfully ignorant of the big red, white, and blue dick being jammed up their assholes everyday.

   Because the owners of this country know the truth - it's called the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it."

   On June 3rd Barack Obama clinched the Democratic nomination, and today, July 3rd, is the anniversary of the ending of the battle of Gettysburg in 1863. Lincoln would deliver his Gettyburg Address the next day and singlhandedly redefine what the nation stood for. "…Our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."

   This is the central tenet of the progressive movement, people. As Bill Moyers recently said at the Media Reform Conference, "Equality is the heart of Democracy."

   In just one short month Barack Obama with his completely unecessary, but entirely calculated flip-flops –on NAFTA, FISA, campaign finance reform, the Israeli-Palestinian issue etc…-- has essentially declared war on the very causes he has thus far pretended to champion.

   Obama appears to be just the latest act at Sea World. A black and white Orca performing incredible high flying tricks for his corporate masters.

   We've been duped, folks. And it's up to us to resist the behavior that the masters have calculated we will exhibit. You see, they've got us pegged with their sophisticated statistical algorithms, and sealed in a prison of numerical calculations. As right winger Hugh Hewitt said on Stefanopoulos, "Progressives will ride the bus no matter how hard right it turns."

   The question is, "Will we, really?"

   If Obama is a Big Brown of disappointment, I challenge all of us to tap our inner Black Beauty.

   It is up to us to show our corporate masters that we are not the emmasculated animals that they treat us as. Statistical calculations don't have the power to predict the impact of inspiration.

   At a time that our nation is facing its darkest moment at least since the Civil War, we need to find the courage to shirk the reins that have been so carefully crafted for us.

   If Barack Obama can't find it in himself to do the right thing and stand up for a progressive –and popular--agenda, then we need to do the right thing and vote for Ralph Nader.

   Don't fear the election of John McCain, fear instead the machinery that would have us all in shackles with our noses buried in slop-filled troughs of fattening propaganda.

   Should we vote for Obama?

   As a former Marine First Sergeant of mine was fond of saying, "Not only no, but fuck no!"

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/03/2008 @ 3:13pm

8. Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/03/2008 @ 3:13pm

   BKool,

   You are doing a DISSERVICE to the progressive cause with your continued Obama bashing.

   You obviously have no political sophistication at all or you would realize that Obama is perhaps the ONLY progressive capable of getting elected president of the United States.

   The reason is Obama's moderate sounding language and posturing that you detest. Progressives do NOT make up the majority of the American electorate, so the only way a progressive can get elected is if he "sounds" like a moderate but really is a progressive. This enables him to get moderate voters into the progressive coalition to form an electoral majority.

   The fact that you need to be educated on this is deeply troubling, as any serious student of politics would know this already.

   A VOTE FOR NADER IS REALLY A VOTE FOR MCCAIN!!!

   Posted by Metteyya at 07/03/2008 @ 3:56pm

9. How many times have we heard that?

   Posted by Maskbeta at 07/03/2008 @ 4:07pm

   Well when if McCain brings us some more war and this time a war that kills 5k to 10k American children maybe people like B_Kool will learn not to wait.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/03/2008 @ 4:19pm

10. The reason is Obama's moderate sounding language and posturing that you detest. Progressives do NOT make up the majority of the American electorate, so the only way a progressive can get elected is if he "sounds" like a moderate but really is a progressive. This enables him to get moderate voters into the progressive coalition to form an electoral majority.

    The fact that you need to be educated on this is deeply troubling, as any serious student of politics would know this already.

    Posted by Metteyya at 07/03/2008 @ 3:56pm

    So as a Obama sycophant, you are telling us that Obama will say anything to be elected. And you want to question McCain's honesty?

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/03/2008 @ 4:37pm

11. Well when if McCain brings us some more war and this time a war that kills 5k to 10k American children maybe people like B_Kool will learn not to wait.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/03/2008 @ 4:19pm

    Since you think this would happen under a McCain presidency, why don't you tell us what kind of war will kill 5k to 10k American children. That would suggest a large scale attack in the US.

    So you think that terrorists would be better able to attack here under McCain that Obama? On what basis?

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/03/2008 @ 4:59pm

12. Since you think this would happen under a McCain presidency, why don't you tell us what kind of war will kill 5k to 10k American children. That would suggest a large scale attack in the US.

    So you think that terrorists would be better able to attack here under McCain that Obama? On what basis?

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/03/2008 @ 4:59pm

    Nice attempt to twist my meaning. You know by children I meant 18 year old soldiers. I call them children because they are all someone's children.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/03/2008 @ 5:35pm

13. I don't think you'll be getting a response for Metteyya. He made a slip of the tongue and admitted that his guy is a liar. It'll be tough to dig his way out of that one.

    Posted by frankgrits at 07/03/2008 @ 4:51pm

    Eh, could just point out that McCain is a liar too?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/03/2008 @ 5:35pm

14. Posted by frankgrits at 07/03/2008 @ 4:51pm

    Political positioning to get elected is NOT lying!

    Lying is what McCain did when he said" it didn't happen" when referring to an event that his Republican colleague described where he grabbed a Sandinista by the collar because he didn't like what he had to say.

    Lying is McCain telling journalists AFTER the economy is polling as the number one issue, that "I did not say the economy is not my strong suit" when the Boston Globe and the Wall Street Journal have him on record saying the opposite.

    Posted by Metteyya at 07/03/2008 @ 5:43pm

15. >>>So as a Obama sycophant, you are telling us that Obama will say anything to be elected. And you want to question McCain's honesty?

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/03/2008 @ 4:37pm<<<

    No, what I am saying is that Obama wants to win to usher in a new era in progressive politics, but WINNING IS THE FIRST STEP!!!

    Posted by Metteyya at 07/03/2008 @ 5:48pm

16. Anyone notice the case study we could do on cultish behavior with Frank. I don't mean this as a slight toward you Frank but to a degree it's true. When Frank latches on to a candidate as being his choice he in no way acknowledges any of the candidates faults anymore. Less than a year ago Frank was saying that McCain's being detained as a POW and tortured was a liability. Now it is his greatest achievement. If you try to have a policy discussion with Frank on who has better policies he completely dodges it. If you ask him why McCain is better he says it is because he is better equipped to lead this country but when you point out that McCain doesn't have the sound judgment to be President because he is voting along the lines of Bush a man that Frank will call an idiot he ignores it. If Bush is an idiot for supporting the things he has supported then doesn't that make McCain an idiot for voting the same way? Not to Frank. When Frank decides that a candidate is the best he blinds himself to all of that persons faults. To him Hillary was perfect. She never did a wrong thing in her life. Now to Frank McCain is perfect he has never done a wrong thing in his life. He is the perfect person to be President and should have his face carved into Mount Rushmore. Even though some things Frank is upholding as McCain's strengths now were less than a year ago McCain's weaknesses. I guarantee you, if it was Hillary vs. McCain all of a sudden in Frank's eyes McCain would not be an American hero. He would be trash talking McCain for all of the things he is now trying to paint as positives.

    This is not an insult to you Frank. This is a simple observation and my opinion so don't bother getting all uppity because I am not going to get into a spitting match with you.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/03/2008 @ 5:49pm

17. Should we vote for Obama?

    As a former Marine First Sergeant of mine was fond of saying, "Not only no, but fuck no!"

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/03/2008 @ 3:13pm

    well written and passionate. so what is your scenario then for the next 4, 8, 12 years of our country's history? a stunning nader victory followed by the realization of all our most cherished progressive dreams?

    oh yes indeed i can just see it now. because if a candidate who stands a chance of being elected does not agree with me 100%, does not appeal only to my lefty sentiments, and does not at all times represent my wildest expectations for how i think things should be...

    of course he or she must be excorciated and dumped like a hot potato.

    if only we would all just write ourselves in as our presidential choice i guess we'd all get a perfect candidate.

    i just can't comprehend what your SOLUTION to our current problems is. please delineate your best case realistic scenario for the future of our country vis-a-vis the current choice of candidates.

    if all you and other hard core uncompromising aspergers syndrome naderites can do is identify problems and the only solution you have are reaslistically impossible...

    whats the point? what are you doing other than ennabling a situation in which you will always lose and have something to self riteously carp about in the coffee house while pompoulsly claiming moral and rapturously prophetic purity to realistic progressives and those you most aid and abet - your ideological opposites and personality matches - the hard core fascist right.

    nice...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/03/2008 @ 5:55pm

18. This is not an insult to you Frank. This is a simple observation and my opinion so don't bother getting all uppity because I am not going to get into a spitting match with you.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/03/2008 @ 5:49pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    unless frank has a LOT bettersense of humor than he appears to possess...

    there is no way you can hold an opposing opinion, especially the whole hrc thing...

    you will insult him.

    so why try not to? enjoy! he's a liebermanesque traitor who's loyalty is not ultimately to hrc nor his country but to his own bloated, inflexible ego. his commitment to ending the war in iraq ended the minute his own son arrived home from danger and his commitment to electing a democrat ended the minute his chosen candidate floundered and his ego got inflamed by those who supported his bugaboo, obama.

    but if you want to be nice to the benedict arnold bless you. dont expect the same in return. as long as he's a mccainite he's the enemy and has no right to demand decency nor respect.

    but offer few scraps off yummy niceness to the rabid dog if you like and enjoy the mangling of your hand and that long, painful series of rabies shots in the gut afterward if you like. lol...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/03/2008 @ 6:06pm

19. I don't think you'll be getting a response for Metteyya. He made a slip of the tongue and admitted that his guy is a liar. It'll be tough to dig his way out of that one.

    Posted by frankgrits at 07/03/2008 @ 4:51pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Frank...if flip-floppin is lying, does that make you a liar as well?

    Posted by OneVote at 07/03/2008 @ 6:22pm

20. 'Yet that didn't stop McCain's friends at Fox News from making a connection, citing McCain's background as a POW in Vietnam. "There really might be a connection between the high-level visit of the former prisoner of war, John McCain himself, and the release now of three American prisoners here in southern Colombia," said reporter Steve Harrigan.'

    Who wants to bet that the Repubs puts up one of hostages as their presidential candidate in 2012?

    Posted by OneVote at 07/03/2008 @ 6:25pm

21. I guess at this point you'd be willing to stipulate that Obama lies too. Mett has come clean. You might as well too.

    Posted by frankgrits at 07/03/2008 @ 5:58pm

    I've never said Obama was perfect. I have admitted his faults many times in the past. But I would rather have him than a warmonger.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/03/2008 @ 7:32pm

22. but if you want to be nice to the benedict arnold bless you. dont expect the same in return. as long as he's a mccainite he's the enemy and has no right to demand decency nor respect.

    but offer few scraps off yummy niceness to the rabid dog if you like and enjoy the mangling of your hand and that long, painful series of rabies shots in the gut afterward if you like. lol...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/03/2008 @ 6:06pm

    Like I have said before. I don't believe any other these people are the enemy. Jom, Happ, LVL, Frank. They are not enemies. We have ideological differences but I don't believe in stupid partisan politics so I don't consider them the enemy. I don't believe in politics as war.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/03/2008 @ 7:37pm

23. Somebody on the radio today said...."at least, Nader is consistent and honest, no matter what your view of his politics....". He has gained stature in my eyes, along with age-old annoyance & respect! Obama is going the other way fast, really, really fast!

    Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/03/2008 @ 7:12pm |

    Weren't you the one before the election saying that he needs to learn to play the politics instead of just sticking to one thing without the "info." You praised him when he changed a decision because you said he was finally learning to play the political world. Funny how that changes so quickly.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/03/2008 @ 7:39pm