|
Starting in paragraph 2:
"In an interview after the two men met, Mr. Richardson said that Mr. Chávez, who in recent months attempted his own mediation with the Marxist-inspired Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, welcomed Mr. Richardson’s efforts to contact the rebels." - NYT
Bush's boy Uribe ASKED Chavez to try to negotiate hostage releases. This likely occurred at a meeting in which Uribe was obliged to apologize to Chavez for the assassination plot against Chavez hatched in Uribe's government. It was a four hour meeting. Chavez then proceeded to contact the FARC and begin hostage negotiations--but Uribe started sabotaging him at every turn--obviously with his strings being pulled in Washington. I think now it was a set-up of Chavez from the beginning (probably designed by Donald Rumsfeld*), to hand Chavez a diplomatic disaster (with dead hostages). After asking Chavez to do this, when it was well advanced, and the first two hostages were on their way to freedom, Uribe suddenly pulled the plug, and bombed the hostages'location, driving them back on a 20 mile hike into the jungle. (Same weekend that Rumsfeld published his op-ed, "The Smart Way to Defeat Tyrants Like Chavez."*). This is how thngs went all the way to the near war that Colombia tried to start with Ecuador (and Venezuela) last month, by blowing away the camp of the chief FARC hostage negotiator, just inside Ecuador's border, killing him and 24 others, using ten 500 lb. U.S. "smart bombs" and U.S. surveillance (and likely U.S. aircraft and personnel).
Chavez ultimately got six hostages out safely, and they were released with no conditions--before the U.S./Colombia blew the FARC negotiator away--trying to fulfill his promises to the hostages families (after Uribe initially enticed him into it). To say that Chavez did this on "his own" is to entirely mischaracterize what happened.
A further little psyops in that paragraph is their throwing the word "Marxist" in it, in the part about Chavez, not about Richardson. It's sneaky, and in my opinion deliberate.
-----
"Mr. Richardson made a similar trip last month to Bogotá to meet with the Colombian president, Álvaro Uribe." --NYT
They don't say one word, and apparently didn't ask any questions about, what happened at that meeting! Big black hole in the article. My guess is that Uribe told him to fuck off, cuz he's got BIG PALS in Washington, and my other guess is that Uribe is getting dumped by his BIG PALS or by the global corporate predators who pull their strings, cuz he's failed at everything they told him to do, including cleaning up his image in order to push the Colombian '"free trade" deal through Congress. Just in the last month or so, protesters against the rightwing paramilitary death squads that are closely tied to Uribe, got murdered for exercising their civil rights in Colombia. The place has become Murder, Inc., when it comes to union leaders, political leftists, small peasant farmers, human rights workers and journalists.
The NYT gives not the slightest hint about what is really going on in the Andes region--with Uribe, with his death squads, with the 40+ year Colombian civil war (fascist war on the poor), with the hostage situation, with fascist/Bushite plots, with Venezuela, with Ecuador, which brings me to my third point--Richardson's request that the Chavez government meet with the U.S. (Bushite) ambassador...
-----
"Mr. Richardson also asked Mr. Chávez to have his senior diplomats meet with the American ambassador, Patrick Duddy, in an attempt to improve ties between their countries. Mr. Chávez instructed his foreign minister, Nicolás Maduro, to arrange such a meeting, according to an official briefed on the discussion who requested anonymity because of the delicacy of relations between the United States and Venezuela." --NYT
Why are relations so-o-o bad between the Chavez government and the U.S. Embassy? Cuz the U.S. Embassy has been running black ops, psyops and all manner of dirty tricks, destabilization plots, assassination plots, war plots, massive funding of rightwing groups, and probably drugs/weapons trafficking out of the Embassy--to topple the democratically elected Chavez government and install a fascist like Uribe who will do the Bush Cartel's bidding. This minimalist writing by the NYT--where they tell you NOTHING--is ridiculous. They're very chatty when they're running Bush/CIA "talking points" against Chavez and absurdly terse-lipped when it comes to Uribe, or POSITIVE news about Chavez.
------
One last thought: Chavez and Richardson met for an hour and half. I don't believe they spent all that time talking about the hostages. This meeting may signal a sea-change in U.S. policy--possibly initiated by some of the corporations and financial interests who are being aced out of South America by the election of leftists everywhere--even in Paraguay (last Sunday). Maybe they've finally realized that the political landscape has unalterably changed, and all their dirty schemes have failed to prevent that. It may also be a mission from Obama, who is more than likely going to be the next President of the United States, and this may signal a sea change HERE--maybe not the tidal wave there, but something--maybe the global corporate predators who are running things here have decided to back off a bit on the full-on fascist state they had planned to impose, with their rigged, 'trade secret' code voting machines, and their "Alice in Wonderland" corporate news monopolies?
Did I say "Fuck you, NYT!" Let that be my final thought on their coverage of South America and the Middle East (and the voting machines!).
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
- Hey, Condi relax! We've got it covered....
