Here's what I don't get...

The Colombian government has been locked in conflict with the FARC for decades. They are beginning to make the sort of progress that might finally bring some degree of resolution to the conflict...and suddenly the negotiation for release of a few hostages (as important as they certainly are to their families and friends) is being held up as a higher priority than neutralizing the FARC (you know...the guys responsible for taking hostages in the first place...

The biggest losers in Reyes' death appeared to be the hostages the rebels want to swap for jailed guerrillas.

You don't suppose that, perhaps, the biggest losers in Reyes' death might just be the FARC, do you?

France's foreign ministry said Uribe knew France was communicating directly with Reyes in an attempt to secure the release of former Colombian presidential candidate Ingrid Betancourt, a dual French national who has become a cause celebre in Europe.

The rebels said Tuesday that Reyes died "completing a mission to arrange, through President Chavez, a meeting with (French) President (Nicolas) Sarkozy" aimed at securing Betancourt's release. Correa claimed his government, too, was talking to the FARC about securing freedom for hostages. He alleged Reyes' killing stymied those efforts.

Because the safety of a hostage - who is a cause celebre in Europe, after all(!) certainly takes priority over the security and stability of an entire country locked in a long term guerrilla war, right?

Last week, the FARC released four hostages to Venezuela's justice minister, who said the Colombian raid proved the "intent of the fascist Colombian government is to hamper the handover of hostages."

At least I can understand this sort of talk from the FARC. They just got served an atomic wedgie from the Colombian military...they're obligated to put SOME sort of PR spin on it.

Correa suggested that the raid was aimed at blocking any release of hostages. Though offering no proof, Correa said he agreed with speculation that Colombia "killed him (Reyes) to prevent a deal for the liberation of the hostages from going forward."

You suppose Correa would have the same attitude if it was HIS government locked in a prolonged counterinsurgency campaign...?

Further proof of a sharp swing to the Left

Not that most political observers needed it...but Ortega's words of condemnation - and ridiculous suggestion that, somehow, the moment for productive peace talks has been lost - reminds us again of how far the region has steered to the Left over the last few years.

Put simply, the FARC has never negotiated in good faith and has typically not even bothered with the illusion of peaceful intentions unless they are on the ropes (which they are right now, by the way). Ortega and Chavez obviously see reason for concern regarding the long term viability of FARC's movement and message.

I just like the turn of phrase...

Venezuela to Give Currency New Name and Numbers - New York Times:

We’re witnessing policy in the form of window dressing, all carried out at the whim of one man whose strong point is not economics,” said Hugo Faría, an economist at the Institute of Higher Management Studies, a private business school here. “Anyone who sees a 12 ½-cent coin as a remedy for this country’s problems isn’t thinking too clearly.

Another interesting note buried in the article speaks to Chavez's anti-Imperialist rhetoric (unless he's talking about his own imperialist ambitions, that is...)

Mr. Chávez has no intention of limiting his attempts at monetary reform to Venezuela. “One day in Latin America we will have our own currency,” he said on his television show, and he proposed naming it after Antonio José de Sucre, a Venezuelan aristocrat and independence fighter who was a friend of Bolívar’s.