|
And it's worth trying to read the entrails for what is really going on.
1. The first hostage negotiation was a set up by the Bushites and their highly corrupt operative, Uribe, to create a diplomatic disaster for Chavez. Uribe asked Chavez to negotiate with the FARC for hostage releases, then, on the eve of Chavez's first success (the release of the first two hostages), Uribe abruptly announced that he was withdrawing his permission and had the Colombian military bomb the location of the hostages as they were brought out of the jungle, driving them back on a 20 mile hike, back into captivity. I think Donald Rumsfeld may have been orchestrating this. For one thing, there appears to have been a rehearsal, some months prior, whereby a mysterious, as yet unidentified paramilitary group stalked a FARC camp where hostages were present, attacked it and deliberately shot and killed all the hostages. (The Colombian/Bushite line was that hostages were killed in a "crossfire" situation by an unknown armed group, but FARC said it wasn't "crossfire"--the hostages were targeted.) I figure this was Blackwater. Further, Rumsfeld's Washington Post op-ed ("The smart way to defeat tyrants like Chavez") was published the very weekend that this first hostage release was to occur (12/1/07), and mentions it in the first paragraph (saying that Chavez's help "is not welcome in Colombia"--but it had been welcome days before, so what I smell here is utter treachery, with perhaps a phone call from Rumsfeld to Uribe saying, "pull the plug now"). Miraculously, those two hostages were not killed. Chavez got them out a few weeks later, and proceeded to get four more hostages released--a diplomatic triumph for Chavez--amidst more treachery by Uribe.
2. Having failed to create a disaster for Chavez, the Bushites went to Plan B: How to draw Venezuela and Ecuador (both members of OPEC, with lots of oil, ergo targets for destabilization and overthrow) into a shooting war with U.S. surrogate Colombia. This plot unfolded in March. Colombia, using U.S. surveillance and ten 500 lb. U.S. "smart bombs" (and likely U.S. aircraft and personnel) bombed a FARC camp inside the Ecuadoran border, then sent troops over the border to shoot any survivors. Bodies were found in their pajamas shot in the back. Their main target was Raul Reyes, the chief FARC hostage negotiator, who was in very advanced negotiations with the presidents of France and Ecuador (and including the presidents of Venezuela and probably Argentina, and others) for the release of high profile hostage Ingrid Betancourt (Colombian/French citizen, former presidential candidate in Colombia) and other hostages. Reyes had sought a safe haven on the Ecuador side of the border, for the release of these hostages. Colombia/U.S. forces blew him away, along with more than 20 other people (including an Ecuadoran citizen and several visiting Mexican students apparently present to participate in the humanitarian mission). And they did so without the consent of the president of Ecuador.
3. The president of Ecuador, Rafael Correa, was furious. He broke off diplomatic relations with Colombia, and sent Ecuadoran military battalions to reinforce his border with Colombia. I should mention here that all parties involved in these hostage negotiations considered them the preliminary to a peaceful settlement of Colombia's 40+ year civil war between the leftist guerrillas (FARC) and Colombian fascists (now armed with $5.5 BILLION in U.S.-Bush military aid). This civil war has been disturbing Ecuador's and Venezuela's border areas for many years (deaths of soldiers and small farmers, drugs/weapons trafficking by both fascists and leftists, pesticide spraying by Colombian/U.S. "war on drugs" forces, etc.). It is in Ecuador's and Venezuela's interest to see this war ended. That is likely why Chavez initially agreed to try to get FARC to release its hostages. When the U.S./Colombia violated Ecuador's sovereignty to kill Raul Reyes, Chavez (whom Lula da Silva, president of Brazil, a week later called "the great peacemaker") rushed Venezuelan troops to reinforce his border as well--apparently to reassure Correa that he was not alone in facing U.S.-Colombia aggression, and then talked Correa out of retaliating in kind. He smelled a war trap (that's my read on it). The matter went to the Rio Group (all Latin American-U.S. not a member) and the OAS. Uribe was pressured to issue an apology and a promise never to violate international law again. The Latin American countries were unanimous in condemning the violation of Ecuador's sovereignty. The U.S. was the only holdout (at the OAS).
4. Having failed to draw Ecuador and Venezuela into a shooting war, the Bushites went to Plan C: The mystery computer. Uribe soon claimed that he had a laptop computer (then computers) seized from the bomb site, that implicated Correa and Chavez as "terrorist-lovers": Chavez giving money to the FARC; FARC giving money to Correa's presidential campaign; FARC seeking uranium for a "dirty bomb"; political leftists all over the map of Latin America colluding with the FARC, in Costa Rica, in Peru--utterly ridiculous, wild charges--based on Colombian interpretation of phrases in Raul Reyes' email correspondence, very suspect evidence that was more than likely cooked up in Rumsfeld's "Office of Special Plans in Exile" (from the Pentagon) or some other Bushite shop. It became very clear, with these Uribe charges against Chavez and Correa, that the entire hostage negotiation scheme had been set up from the beginning to slander and discredit the presidents of Venezuela and Ecuador, and draw them into hostilities--and to target anybody else they wanted to sully. Uribe fed lists of leftists' names to Interpol, which began harrying leftist groups in other countries. (--so like the crazy McCarthyite period in the U.S.--"I have LISTS!").
5. All of this was occurring in the midst of the U.S. Congress' consideration of the Colombian "free trade" deal, and amidst revelations of Colombian government collusion and coverup of the slaughter of thousands of union leaders, small peasant farmers, political leftists, human rights workers and journalists, by Colombian military and paramilitary forces with close ties to Uribe. Uribe himself just came under investigation (he is accused of being present at a meeting where one massacre was planned), as have some 60 of his political cohorts (including Uribe relatives).
6. Richardson went down to Colombia and met with Uribe about a month ago. I can't recall for sure if this was before or after he defected from Clinton and endorsed Obama. I'm pretty sure it was just before. And it worried me at the time. What was he up to, and on whose behalf? Was he trying to get this terrible Colombian "free trade" deal pushed through Congress, on Bush's behalf? On Clinton's? On Monsanto's? On Occidental Petroleum's? On behalf of major drug/weapons cartels? More recently, it was revealed that Clinton's chief political strategist, Mark Penn, has been acting as a paid agent of the Colombian government, to push the "free trade" deal. Clinton had said she opposed the "free trade" deal (it is strongly opposed by many labor unions and pro-labor Congress members), but her hiring of Penn gives that the lie. She cannot have been unaware of it. If she was, she is utterly incompetent, and I don't believe that about her. Hypocrite, yes. Clueless, no. So she was playing a double game. (Her campaign had meanwhile colluded with officials in Canada to slander Obama about NAFTA--that his aides had secretly told Canada not to be worried about Obama's public anti-NAFTA statements, but it turned out that that is not what his aides said; in context, they said that Canada wasn't the concern--Canadian "free trade" was okay; i.e., "free trade" with countries like Colombia where union leaders get murdered was the problem, not Canada. In short, Clinton-Penn were using a Karl Rove tactic, pre-emptively slandering an opponent for sins that you yourself are committing. As to both Canada and Colombia, it was the Clinton campaign that was being duplicitous).
7. Then Richardson endorsed Obama (making the Clintons very angry). Now Richardson is on a mission--presumably on Obama's behalf--to get U.S. hostages released by the FARC. He visited Uribe again. He's now visiting Chavez. (Did Uribe spurn his effort? Or was it evident that Uribe simply has no ability any more to negotiate with the FARC, given his treachery over the last five months--his scheming with Rumsfeld and/or other Bushites to turn everything into blood and mayhem, his targeting of Raul Reyes, FARC's peace negotiator, his bombing of hostages' locations, his possible collusion in the "crossfire" shootout, his lies about FARC (the "dirty bomb" thing, etc.), and his slanders against the PEACE-MAKERS--Correa and Chavez. How can FARC trust anything he says? And Uribe is furthermore up against it, himself--accused of colluding with mass murderers and death squads, and his whole career (first as Meddelin Cartel, now as Bush Cartel) resting on the Colombian "free trade" deal. He may be in the process of being dumped by the money powers in Colombia (and here?), and suffering psychosis (Rafael Correa recently called him a "psychotic"). Richardson was maybe testing the waters, trying to see what's what with Uribe, saw that there was no hope for progress (whatever that may mean to him) with Uribe. So he's going to see Chavez.
----
So, what to make of all of this? Does Obama want a "free trade" deal with Colombia, but has to get their act cleaned up first? I think that's likely. A peace settlement of Colombia's civil war and a new government in Colombia would be the best of all solutions. The money powers here are anxious to profit off of corporate biofuel production in Colombia, which is ultimately why the peasant farmers are being brutally driven from the land. Oil, major illicit drugs/weapons trafficking, and boondoggle "war on drugs" profiteering, are also at issue. Colombia has oil (in FARC territory). And, of course, so do Venezuela and Ecuador (who are understandably anti-Bush, but not necessarily anti-U.S., if the U.S. would just stop trying to overthrow their democratic governments). Virtualy the entire continent of South America has been swept by a peaceful, democratic, social justice revolution. A leftist candidate for president, Fernando Lugo, just swept away 60 years of corrupt, rightwing, pro-Bush government in Paraguay. It is obvious to anyone who is not hogtied to past global corporate predator policy that these vibrant new democratic governments cannot be overthrown, and must be bargained with.
That's the most positive read on it. I don't particularly trust Richardson. I will never forget that it was Richardson who stopped the recount in New Mexico in 2004, that might have exposed the stolen election. I think he, like many corporate Democrats, may not be genuinely elected themselves, and may be complicit in the demise of our own democracy. But there is almost no one in the current Democratic leadership with clean hands. And we can't expect a revolution to happen here overnight. What are they up to in South America? Are they merely cooking up a cosmetic change--with the kind of promises that Bill Clinton made in his 1992 campaign, that he wouldn't sign NAFTA without labor and environmental protections (and then quickly broke that promise)? Will it just be more rape and ruin for South America, with a nicer face? Can we expect genuine reform from Obama--or just more "neo-liberalism" in disguise--or something in between, something that could eventually lead to genuine reform, here, better relations elsewhere, and some kind of hemispheric peace treaty/common market that promotes prosperity and fairness for everyone?
Like I said, it's like reading entrails. So much is happening out of sight of the American people, behind the scenes, beclouded with corporate news monopoly propaganda and disinformation. We can only guess about decisions that will determine our future and South America's. This is not acceptable, but it is the reality. Our own democracy is in tatters. We are ruled by global corporate predators and war profiteers, no matter which party is in power doing their bidding. Obama may be somewhat freer of these shackles than Clinton, but we should not have any illusions about who these corporate predators will PERMIT into our White House. They call the shots, not us. They may be split right now, with a segment of the Corporate Powers facing several new realities--the diminishing returns from warmongering, China's blockade of an attack on Iran (also the U.S. military balking at it), and South America's new direction away from U.S corporate rule toward independence and self-determination. But Obama cannot act independently, in our interest. It is simply not possible here, as yet.
And it still remains a question mark whether or not the American people can elect this friendlier face of capitalism and empire, if the Corporate Rulers are intent on bringing the fascist boot down on us, with a McBush junta (or something not quite so bad, a Clinton junta) (--or some more Byzantine scenario, of a "liberal" taking the blame for Bushite-created disasters, over the next four years, then they bring in Hitler II?). We do not have public control of our election results. We lost that with the fast-tracking of the "trade secret" code electronic voting systems all over the country (during the 2002 to 2004 period), with the code controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations, with virtually no audit/recount controls. We lack essential sovereign control over our fate, until we change that and restore transparent vote counting. But it may be that the Corporate Rulers are getting a bit worried about us, and our potential for rebellion. Obama's supporters are way out in front of their candidate, as to their passionate desire for reform. They are a Corporate nightmare. Obama himself is not. He is a "win-win" corporate P.R. kind of guy, with a lot of charisma. But if the Corporates go with him, it may give us some breathing room--and give a lot of oppressed people some breathing room--to work toward creating a better democracy here, and a better world.
This Richardson mission gives me some hope that the Corporate Rulers have already made their decision, that they have to back off a bit, with the fascist boots. The Bushite thing is not working. The American people and others are too resistant to it (and too onto it). They have essentially "lost" South America, and have risked all-out rebellion here. They need to put us northerners back to sleep. They may think an Obama presidency will do that. And I really, really don't think Richardson would be visiting Hugo Chavez--or Jimmy Carter visiting Hamas--without permission of the global corporate predator powers who control our government.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
