Let's face it: There are good trade deals, and there are bad ones. Unfortunately, this country has been engaging in so many bad ones that when a good one comes along, our politicians don't have the courage to separate it.

That's the kind of spinelessness that has been prevalent lately in the Democratic Party, where politicians are so busy pandering to anti-trade voters that they are outright lying about trade deals they know are good for American workers.

Take the free trade deal with Colombia that is pending in Congress: It has been tabled and practically killed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and it has been thrashed by presidential candidates Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton — all of whom know that this is a good deal for Colombia and a great one for the United States.

So what's their problem? They have several:

— Under the current anti-free trade climate, they find it easier to attack all trade agreements than to explain to voters that there are some good ones.

— They know the proposal is coming from a discredited president who desperately is seeking a legislative victory, and they are not about to give him one — even if President Bush is right on this one.

— While claiming they are trying to protect American jobs, in the case of Colombia, they are putting American jobs in jeopardy.

— They refuse to acknowledge publicly that, while most Colombian products already enter this country duty-free because of existing trade preference laws, the agreement would eliminate high barriers for U.S. exports to Colombia.

In fact, when they speak against the free trade agreement with Colombia, you don't hear Clinton or Obama making a big deal about how it could harm American workers. They know it wouldn't! Their phony rhetoric is about concern they allegedly have for the safety of labor leaders in Colombia.

"We've got to have new trade policies before we have new trade deals," Clinton said in a speech recently. "And that includes no trade deal with Colombia while violence against trade unionists continues in that country." She told CNN that the deal is not appropriate because of a "history" of suppression and targeted killings of labor organizers in Colombia.

Obama sings a similar tune. He says he opposes the treaty "because when organizing workers puts an organizer's life at risk, as it does in Colombia, it makes a mockery of our labor protections.''

It's repulsive. The only mockery here is the disingenuous way in which Clinton and Obama are presenting this issue to the American people.

They must know that the government of Colombian President Alvaro Uribe has done more to protect labor leaders than any other Colombian government, that while about 200 union organizers were getting killed every year before Uribe, those murders are down to about 20 per year nowadays. In fact, they know that unless we support the Colombian government, those murders likely will increase once again.

Clinton and Obama know that failing to make this deal with Colombia, aside from hurting American workers, would send a terrible message to Latin America. They know that Uribe is one of the only friends we have left in South America, that he often gets in trouble just for being our friend. And yet in their selfish interests to seek votes from those who oppose free trade, they want this country to turn its back on a valued, true friend. They know that if we reject this deal with Colombia, we would be empowering our enemies, clearing the way for U.S.-haters, such as Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, to take over the southern half of the hemisphere.

And if they don't know these things, they are not qualified to be our next president.

Yet Pelosi, shamelessly seeking to favor the Democrats and putting the interests of her party before those of her nation, came up with a unique way to deny President Bush the vote he sought on the agreement. Last week, after the president started a 90-day clock for the House and Senate to finally approve or reject the 2-year-old pact, Pelosi persuaded the House to eliminate a rule forcing that body to vote on the trade agreement within 60 days. By a 224-195 vote, mostly along party lines, the Democratic-controlled House went along with Pelosi's cheap excuse for delaying the vote at least until after the November elections. They blamed Bush for submitting the agreement to Congress before a consensus was reached with congressional leaders on outstanding — and very phony — differences.

Bush said Monday that it is not in America's interest to "stiff an ally" such as Colombia. Of the three candidates who still have a shot at becoming our next president, only Republican John McCain has had the guts to stand in support of what is clearly a good free trade deal. This should be a good debate for the general election.

Even Pelosi acknowledged that a vote against the free trade deal would send the wrong message to the Colombian people. Yet somehow she denies that her partisan delay tactics would have the same effect. Told that her actions would end the hope of approving the Colombia deal this year, Pelosi reportedly snapped: "This is isn't about ending anything. It's about having a timetable that respects the aspirations of the American people."

I think she meant a timetable that favors the selfish aspirations of Democratic leaders. For now, apparently, that's even more important than U.S. interests, strong allies, and American workers.

To find out more about Miguel Perez and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.