July 2007: Gracias, Ambassador Arturo Sarukhan

A post from July 2007

We started this month with a post about Mexican politicians blaming the US for their problems. 

Today, we say "thank you" to Arturo Sarukhan, Mexico's ambassador to the United States, for telling the truth:

""It's very hard for Mexico to preach to the north what it does not do to the south," Ambassador Arturo Sarukhan said in a meeting with editors and reporters at The Washington Times, referring to Mexico's felony penalties for, and sometimes cruel treatment of, those caught crossing its southern border.

"Unless we correct the fundamental challenge of the violation of human rights of Latin American or Central American migrants crossing the border into Mexico, it's very hard for me to come up and wag a finger and say you guys should protect the rights of my citizens in this country," he said, adding that changes to the Mexican law are now pending.

Mr. Sarukhan, who presented his credentials as ambassador to President Bush in February, said his government is taking a new tack since the December inauguration of President Felipe Calderon, who has toned down the public relations push for an immigration bill in the United States and is instead trying to build infrastructure, combat corruption and create jobs to keep workers at home." (Mexican envoy hits own policies)

It's about time. It's refreshing to see Mexican officials publicly admitting what they know privately.

Last year, Banco de Mexico's chief came to Dallas and delivered a similar message.

Why is this happening? I think that Pres. Calderon understands that Mexico must change rather than export people to the US. This is a good start. It's good to see that Mexico is addressing its structural problems. You can not improve yourself until you admit that you have a problem.

P.S. You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.

July 2007: We are fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq!

A post from July 2007

What is the Democrats' message: Fight Al Qaeda everywhere except Iraq!

Here is the bottom line: We are fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq:

"In a global struggle against Islamic extremism, it is an incontestably welcome development that ordinary Sunnis in the Arab heartland are spurning al-Qaida. The extremist group has been on a campaign of savagery in Iraq that has discredited its own cause. The grassroots revolt against it means that it is within our reach to deny al-Qaida its most important current geopolitical objective, which is plunging Iraq into a bloody chaos in which it can thrive." (The Fight Against al-Qaida in Iraq By Rich Lowry)

At some point, we have to get our heads out of the partisan hole and see the big picture. How would an Al Qaeda victory in Iraq help out the next Democrat president?