>The only problem I have with this is that Bolivia could turn down the money and not accept any 'help' from the U.S. Are we the bad guys for offering our support or is the Bolivian government the 'bad' guys for accepting? I would prefer we don't provide aid to other countries myself so give the money back. I understand that this is supposedly help fight the war on drugs in the U.S. by diminishing the supply, but it is not working and the money spent could be better used at home.

The candidate in question considered this very option: to reject further aid, which he considers part of the problem.

>>

It is also said that in several other government policies, our government is "submissive" to the U.S., and does about anything the U.S. asks of Bolivia.
>
>Once again, that is the responsibility of the Bolivian government, not the
U.S.

Yes, of course.

>This is the most ridiculous so far. The Ambassador should no longer be in a public office of any type.

I think he was changed after a few months. But I am not up-to-date about the details.

> It's humourous that it backfired though!

The accusation of another party, that this may have been done on purpose, seems ridiculous - since Mr. Morales doesn't exactly represent the best interests of the U.S. (1. he represents the people who grow the Ancient Leave, 2. He wants to cut all ties with the U.S.)

Difference in opinions hath cost many millions of lives: for instance, whether flesh be bread, or bread be flesh; whether whistling be a vice or a virtue; whether it be better to kiss a post, or throw it into the fire... (from Gulliver's Travels)