Murdoch's editorial covers several different issues. As far as I can see, his issues have nothing more in common other than they are all current issues that he wants to sound off about.

David, it seems clear to me you simply read the editorial too quickly and jumped to a conclusion. Put another way, you responded only to what you thought was the sub-text, without actually bothering with the text -- something we all do at times. Why not admit publicly to the simple mistake of assuming that that Murdock called for replacing France or Germany with Columbia in NATO? Really, it's the human thing to do.

--------

Expanding NATO by adding member states that actually care about defense is a good idea. Emerging (or for those with a sense of history, re-emerging) states like Ukraine and Georgia correctly understand that there are real threats in the world. So in theory, they are good candidates.

However, adding them to NATO, or even promising to add them to NATO (via MAP) is premature at this moment. These countries have the potential for a low-intensity border conflict that has flared up in the recent past and could easily flare up in the near future. So we in NATO have to ask ourselves: does it strengthen the alliance to add countries that may well draw the alliance into a conflict in the near future? If we are to maintain the principle that an attack on one NATO country is an attack on all of them, it is illogical to add members who may in fact be attacked in the very near future, unless of course we are prepared to actually fight their attackers today. I would ask my fellow Americans and others who support the additional members: It may not come to that, but if it does, is NATO really prepared to do that? Really?

I am not proposing we abandon the Ukraine or Georgia, they've suffered enough at the hands of the Russians. It seems to me an ad-hoc alliance of former Iron Curtain countries, plus any other European countries that care to join, is a much better way to keep the Russians deterred until the situation becomes more stable. When the chance of a war in Ukraine or Georgia becomes as low as the chance of a war in say Poland or Bulgaria, then we should add them into NATO.

--------

Murdock is also correct about the Columbia free trade deal. Does anyone really think that tiny Columbia is a threat to the US work-force?

Besides, Venezuela used to have a strong labor union of oil field professionals and laborers who understood that a profitable, financially sound domestic oil industry was critical to lifting Venezuela out of poverty and avoiding the "oil curse". When Chavez stole the election the first time, and threatened to raid the oil ministry to finance his fantasy economics, they went on strike along with other labor unions.

Chavez used the armed forces to bust the unions wide open. Oil rigs that had been safely and cleanly shut down by the strikers, were restarted by enthusiastic but unskilled soldiers who created a massive environmental disaster on the surface, did permanent damage to the oil-bearing strata, and ruined valuable drilling and extraction equipment. In spite of record oil prices, Venezuela still hasn't recovered the lost capacity, and so the country is only seeing a fraction of the windfall it would have otherwise seen.

Meanwhile, the damage done to Venezuela's once-growing financial reputation will only become apparent when Chavez dies or leaves office and an honest audit can be performed.

Columbia hasn't always treated its independent unions correctly, but they are treated far, better than those of Venezuela. We should support that.