Colombian presidential candidate in a critical condition following assassination attempt
BOGOTA, Colombia — Miguel Uribe, a conservative Colombian presidential hopeful, was in critical condition on Monday after being shot in the head from close range during a rally at the weekend.
In a statement, doctors said the 39-year-old senator had 'barely' responded to medical interventions, that included brain surgery, following the assassination attempt that has had a chilling effect on the South American nation.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Chamberlain hoped to ‘avoid worst' as Second World War loomed
Neville Chamberlain wrote 'I still hope we may avoid the worst' six days before the start of the Second World War, a letter has revealed. The former prime minister is infamous for his failed appeasement policy, which saw him offer Adolf Hitler numerous concessions to try to avoid war. Now a newly discovered letter suggests he clung on to the hope his strategy would pay off up until the moment Germany invaded Poland on Sept 1 1939. Writing to Captain William Brass, the Conservative MP, on Aug 26 1939, he said: 'I still hope we may avoid the worst, but if it comes we are thank God prepared for it.' Chamberlain's confidence in Britain's readiness for war would prove to be misplaced as within nine months the Nazis had captured swathes of Europe. More than 330,000 British Expeditionary Force troops had to be hastily evacuated at Dunkirk between May 26 and June 4 1940, to enable Britain to 'fight another day'. The day before Chamberlain's hopeful note, however, Britain had signed the Anglo-Polish military alliance, promising to support Poland if its independence was threatened. Hitler had originally scheduled his invasion of Poland for Aug 26, but when news of the Anglo-Polish pact reached Berlin, he temporarily postponed the attack by six days. Chamberlain's policy of appeasement saw Britain make no response to Hitler's annexation of Austria in March 1938, a move Winston Churchill warned at the time was a mistake. During a speech in the House of Commons, Churchill said: 'The gravity of the annexation of Austria cannot be exaggerated.' Hitler quickly moved on to trying to control the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia, and by Sept 1928 Chamberlain had flown to Hitler's holiday home to negotiate in person, to no avail. Chamberlain said at the time: 'How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing.' The Munich agreement saw Chamberlain sign over the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia to Germany from Oct 1 1938, in exchange for Hitler giving up on plans for further expansion across Europe. Churchill called it a 'total and unmitigated defeat' and it failed to stop Nazi Germany annexing more Czech land, including Prague, and launching an invasion of Poland – which finally sparked war. Chamberlain lost the confidence of Parliament and resigned as prime minister in May 1940, when Churchill stepped up to lead the nation. The one-page letter, on 10 Downing Street letterhead and dated Aug 26 1939, has emerged for sale at RR Auction in Boston, US. It is tipped to fetch $20,000 (£15,000) because of its historical significance. An RR Auction spokesman said: 'Behind the scenes, British diplomats were still scrambling to avert war. Chamberlain hoped that deterrence, through strong alliances and military mobilisation, might still dissuade Hitler. 'At the same time, Britain was accelerating preparations – air raid precautions were being implemented across cities, reservists were being called up, and public morale was being steeled for the possibility of conflict. 'Thus Britain found itself in a state of grim resolve: committed to defending Poland, preparing for war, yet still clinging to fragile hopes that Hitler might yet be deterred. 'Within a week, however, those hopes would be extinguished as Germany launched its invasion of Poland on September 1.' The sale takes place on Wednesday. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Gizmodo
an hour ago
- Gizmodo
What Side Are the ‘All-In Pod' Bros On?
When Donald Trump and Elon Musk finally had their big blowout last week, fans of the All-In podcast knew the next episode was going to be one to watch. There's just one little problem: The All-In boys didn't release a new episode like everyone expected this week. And folks on social media have noticed. The show features four incredibly wealthy men who are friends with Musk and have devoted themselves to carrying water for Trump. You've got Chamath Palihapitiya, Jason Calacanis, and David Friedberg, who all decided in the summer of 2024 to debase themselves in the name of supporting a fascist. They had Trump on the show and lobbed softball questions as Trump rambled about artificial intelligence and other topics he knew nothing about. The fourth host, David Sacks, went a step further, even joining the administration as the so-called 'crypto czar' after Trump's election win. So it makes sense that people would want to hear what these guys have to say about the current controversy, which started relatively small. Last week, Musk expressed frustration with the Republican budget bill for not cutting enough, Trump said he was disappointed in Musk, and then it was off to the races. Musk went nuclear claiming Trump was 'in the Epstein files,' a reference to the late pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, and Trump said he might cancel Musk's contracts with the government. Musk relies on billions in government money to sustain his businesses, especially SpaceX. Things appear to have calmed down a bit, with Musk deleting some of his most incendiary tweets, including one suggesting Trump should be impeached and replaced by Vice President JD Vance. And Musk posted two American flags in a quote-tweet of Vance's post about Trump's leadership on Sunday, largely taken as a sign he's still solidly on Trump's side. But the relationship between the two men is clearly fractured. It's really hard to basically accuse someone of being a pedophile and then go right back to being besties, as the All-In hosts call themselves. But at the time of this writing, the All-In Guys haven't come together to talk about it. The last episode was published June 4 and it was an interview conducted by Friedberg with Jared Isaacman. It's an interesting thing to listen to, given the fact that Isaacman was dumped as Trump's pick to be the NASA administrator shortly after Musk's send-off from the Oval Office. The gist is that Isaacman thinks he was torpedoed by anti-Musk forces in the White House who got into Trump's ear about donations he previously made to Democrats. But Isaacman rightly pointed out that his old donations to Democrats were no secret. And it seems like after Musk and Trump's blowout, people who were anti-Musk saw their opportunity to pounce. Isaacman is a friend of Musk's and is more focused on getting to Mars rather than the Moon, much like Musk. And there are plenty of obvious assumptions that people have been making about how Musk would benefit by having his friend as the head of NASA, an agency that delivers enormous contracts to SpaceX. While the episode with Isaacman touched on the Musk-Trump drama, it didn't provide the gabby four-way conversation All-In listeners are used to hearing between Palihapitiya, Calacanis, Friedberg, and Sacks. Or at least a three-way conversation, given the fact that Sacks has been ducking out of episodes pretty frequently since he joined the administration. Sacks seems pretty uncomfortable anytime there's criticism of anything Trump is doing. Calacanis has always been the most Democratic-curious of the bunch, even if he bent the knee like everyone else during that ridiculous episode back in June 2024. And Sacks has been snippy at Calacanis on more than one occasion over the faintest hint of dissent on Trump's tariffs. What do these guys—'friends' of Musk and allies of Trump—have to say about the situation? Folks on social media would really like to know. And people are making lots of jokes about it. 'All-in podcast going dark this week like the news broadcast during a coup when the outcome isn't yet clear,' writer Matthew Zeitlin wrote on X. People have also taken to asking Grok what's holding everything up. But the AI doesn't have a definitive answer. 'It's tough to say definitively why the All-In podcast skipped this week's episode, as the hosts haven't shared an official reason,' Grok responded to one user Sunday. 'The timing suggests it could be tied to the Trump-Musk feud, a hot topic they'd likely cover given their focus on tech and politics. It's a sensitive issue, so they might be taking extra time to frame it carefully.' There are rumors floating around online that they actually recorded an episode and it's being suppressed for some reason. Who would be doing the suppressing isn't really clear, though Calacanis is most in the tank for Musk, and Sacks, being in the administration, is most supportive of Trump. There's also speculation that perhaps the hosts want to see if Musk and Trump actually reconcile in some meaningful way before they say anything. The four men are also fully capable of just diverting attention if that's the way they want to play it. They all are pretty skilled at saying things in a confident matter-of-fact way that listeners take as gospel if they don't actually know anything about the topics being discussed. During a recent discussion about Trump getting a free $400 million airplane from the government of Qatar, Palihapitiya tried to argue that it's simply Qatari culture to give lavish gifts and you're actually being insulting if you don't take bribes like that. 'There are customs, I guess, and who am I to judge these customs, that to us might seem excessive or untoward or maybe an attempt at graft, but to them is actually a sign of deep respect,' Palihapitiya said. Then he pivoted into asking why the media wasn't talking about more important things. Whatever happens with the next episode, people are going to be extremely disappointed if they don't address the elephant in the room. But there's nothing that's forcing them to talk about the thing that's staring them right in the face. After all, Musk accused Trump of being in the Epstein files, suggesting the billionaire oligarch was perfectly happy ignoring something morally inexcusable to get what he wanted. Allegedly. It's entirely possible the All-In guys just barely touch on the controversy in the most shallow way and move on.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Government facing ‘walk of shame' over Chinese embassy decision
Plans for a Chinese super-embassy in central London have become a 'walk of shame' for the Government, a former leader of the Conservative Party has said. Sir Iain Duncan Smith said response by the Government to the proposed embassy near the the capital's financial district had become 'Project Kowtow', as he criticised the Government for 'one denial after another (and) one betrayal after another'. Sir Iain referred to the warnings reportedly issued by the White House and Dutch government to Downing Street over the plans, which is set to be scrutinised by ministers. The worries stem from the close proximity of the proposed embassy's Royal Mint Court site to data centres and communication cables. The Sunday Times said the US was 'deeply concerned' about the plans, quoting a senior US official. In response, planning minister Matthew Pennycook said he could not give a full response as the matter was still to come before the department for a decision, and any verdict could be challenged by the courts. Sir Iain said: 'Beijing has a recent history of cutting cables and confirmed infrastructure hacks, including embedding malware capable of disabling all that infrastructure. 'Minister Peter Kyle yesterday on television said surprisingly that this was in the planning process and could be managed. Will the minister correct this record? The planning inquiry has concluded, no changes can be made to the Chinese planning application at all. 'I'll remind him the application contains nothing about cabling. Indeed to the inquiry, the Chinese have rejected only two requests, which he referred to actually, made by the Government in the letter from the foreign and home secretaries, despite ministers regularly saying that this letter, and I quote, should give those concerned, 'comfort'.' The Conservative MP said rerouting the cables would cost millions of pounds, and asked Mr Pennycook why the Government had denied the existence of cables until the White House confirmed it. He asked Mr Pennycook to deny reports by Chinese state media, saying the UK had given the Chinese assurances that it would allow a development 'no matter what'. He added: 'I see this as Project Kowtow, one denial after another, one betrayal after another. No wonder our allies believe that this Chinese mega embassy is now becoming a walk of shame for the Government.' Mr Pennycook replied because of the 'quasi-judicial nature' of his role, he could not comment on details of the application. He also said it would not be 'appropriate' for him to comment on the cabling or national security issues. He said he did not 'recognise the characterisation' by the Sunday Times of the embassy being raised in talks between the UK and China on trade. 'It is important to also emphasise that only material planning considerations can be taken into account in determining this case,' he said. 'But, as I say, I cannot comment in any detail on a case and it is not yet before the department.' Tory shadow communities secretary Kevin Hollinrake said Parliament had been treated with disdain by the Government. Mr Hollinrake said: 'Question after question, letter after letter, the Government has consistently treated Parliament with complete disregard on this matter. Stonewalling legitimate inquiries about national security, about ministerial discussions, and warnings about security bodies.' He added: 'Why won't the Government follow the examples of the US, Australian, and Irish governments which veto similar embassies that threaten their national security? 'The Government is on the verge of making a decision that will lead to huge risk, that will persist for decades. Will they change course before it is too late?' Mr Pennycook replied: 'No decision has been made on this case. No application is yet before the department.' Marie Rimmer, Labour MP for St Helens South and Whiston, said: 'China has a track record of aggressive state-backed espionage, and surely this country cannot afford to make a massive underestimation of what risk if this would go ahead?' She added: 'We cannot not say anything in this House. We must comment on what we see, and please understand that we must do so.' Meanwhile, former security minister, Conservative MP Tom Tugendhat, asked whether the Government believed the Chinese would treat a similar application in the same way. He said: 'Do you honestly believe that thr minister thinks that the Chinese would look at this proposal in the same way? 'Do we actually in this House believe that our economic security being threatened, as highlighted by the Americans and the Dutch, would go through a bureaucratic planning process with no ability to vary it because, frankly, them's the orders? 'I don't think that's the way China would do it, and it's certainly not the way we should.' Mr Pennycook replied: 'I'm very glad that we have a different and more robust planning system than the People's Republic of China.' Later in the session, Conservative MP Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) asked if the officer considering the case is 'cleared to receive top secret information'. Mr Pennycook replied: 'A planning inspector is assessing the case as part of a public inquiry. 'And I'm afraid, while I recognise why (Mr Jopp) has asked the question, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on national security matters.'
