|
they are CIA. Would they answer "yes" if they were?
The Bushwhack/CIA strategy in Colombia (and all over South America) is disintegrating. That is the context for these former hostages' statements, I think. The Bushwhacks' goal was to lure Venezuela and Ecuador into a war with Colombia, early last year--meant to be the chaos in which they could trigger the fascist secession plots in Venezuela's and Ecuador's northern oil provinces. Chavez flummoxed them on that one. What an amazing sidestep he did--just like a martial arts expert "retreat" to use the momentum of an attacker to defeat the attack. Lula da Silva called Chavez "the great peacemaker" after that series of events.
The U.S./Colombia had bombed the FARC hostage negotiator's camp inside Ecuador's border, and then raided over the border, to shoot any survivors (slaughtering 25 people in their sleep, including an Ecuadoran and several Mexican students). The FARC were preparing to release Ingrid Betancourt and other hostages to French, Swiss and Spanish envoys, under Rafael Correa's auspices. Correa was beside himself with fury at the U.S./Colombia bombing/raid. He sent battalions of the Ecuadoran military to reinforce his border with Colombia. Chavez first of all sent battalions of Venezuela's military to reinforce Venezuela's border with Colombia, in accord with Correa. The region was poised for war. But Chavez smelled a rat. Soon the matter was removed to the Rio Group, where (on a YouTube of the proceedings) you can plainly see what is happening, even if you don't understand Spanish: Chavez has pulled Correa back from the brink of war, and is bouncing around the room, happy as a lark, smiling and backslapping, because he was right--it was a trap, set by the Bushwhacks to create chaos and destabilization, and they were counting on the younger, hotter tempered Correa's inexperience to get the war under way--and Chavez had talked Correa out of it. Chavez is happy. Correa is still steaming. But the war was averted.
This is the way things went for various Bushwhack schemes all year. That was in early 2008. Fast-forward to September 2008, and their Bolivian coup attempt also fails, due to Evo Morales' swift action in throwing the U.S.-Bushwhack ambassador and the DEA out of the country, but also because of the coordination among the leftist leadership of the continent. By that time, UNASUR had been formalized, and UNASUR gave Morales strong backing. Throughout all of the Bushwhack evil plotting in South America, Alvaro Uribe, 'president' of Colombia, has been their corrupt, treacherous tool. But--and this still fascinates me--by September, something had changed. Colombia joined the rest of the UNASUR nations on the Bolivian crisis, to make it a unanimous vote. Is it possible that Uribe, like the Colorado Party in Paraguay, could now see the "handwriting on the wall" as to leftist domination of the continent, and the benefits therefrom, of a concerted economic strategy? He was soon holding an "all is forgiven"/brotherly lovefest with Chavez, at which they announced several joint Venezuelan/Colombian projects including a railroad.
More likely, Uribe is playing both sides of the street. "Treachery" is his middle name. Currently, he has said he is not running for president again, as follow-up to his fraudulently obtained second term. I tend to believe him. Colombia needs to adjust to the new realities in Washington, as well as to the rather amazing new realities in South and Central America--the leftist tide. The new reality in Washington quite importantly includes a comeback by the "old school" CIA, which will be taking over Bushwhack-CIA operations and running things quite differently--to the same purpose, of course, for the benefit of U.S.-based multinationals and U.S. "war on drugs" profiteers, but not so crudely as the Bushwhacks. This may mean installing a cleaner-looking tool in Colombia. Uribe is very tainted--with death squads, with drug trafficking, and probably with vast corruption regarding the $6 BILLION in U.S./Bushwhack military aid. I think Defense Minister Santos has ambitions--but I would surmise that his ambition would be more along the lines of a military dictatorship. McCain losing probably nixed that ambition. What the three U.S. CIA hostages' remarks about Betancourt tell me is that the "old school" CIA is looking for an alternative rightwing candidate--somebody more acceptable to the leftist leadership of the continent, but who will still do our corporate rulers' bidding on items like the Colombia/U.S. "free trade" boondoggle, and "war on drugs" strategic placement of U.S. military spying and trouble-making facilities.
Bear in mind that Betancourt is a dual French-Colombian citizen. France's president Sarkozy worked hard on getting her released. France's state oil company, Total, is benefiting from Exxon Mobil's demise in Venezuela. Total stayed in the negotiations with the Chavez government, and agreed to terms that are more beneficial to the Venezuelan people, whereas Exxon Mobil walked out, and then lost their court battle to punish Venezuela by seizing $12 billion of Venezuela's assets. Who benefits? France! Colombia also has considerable undeveloped oil reserves. So that is a factor in the Colombian presidential contest--France's oil interests.
This may be why these CIA assets are dissing Betancourt. Another possibility is that these three U.S. hostages are Bushwhacks, and are abetting the Bushwhack faction in the CIA, whereas the "old school" CIA, with Panetta in charge, may want Betancourt--or would find her acceptable, for their subtler tactics and goals. The Bushwhacks may be still angling to install Santos. Their massive theft of our federal coffers, and creation of private armies at our expense, should not be dismissed. They have the capability to mount private wars. This is especially true in Colombia, where the Bushwhacks basically bought themselves a whole army. A military dictatorship in Colombia would make the "free trade" deal difficult to get through the U.S. Congress. So installing Santos would have to look democratic (sort of).
One important issue is the fraudulent election process in Colombia. Will anything be done to improve it? I don't know if that's possible with Uribe in charge. The country to be monitored by, say, the Carter Center, has to invite the monitors in. And it is not just a matter of observing an election. International monitoring groups won't do it on the spur of the moment, for one election. They require being involved sometimes years in advance, in helping to set up an honest, transparent system. There is a lot of momentum for this in South America. And that might help get it done. But Colombia is a very difficult problem, as to clean elections.
Note: Betancourt has also said she is not running for president of Colombia. And I simply don't know if either thing is true--that both Uribe and Betancourt are not running. The three U.S. CIA hostages' criticisms of Betancourt point to her running.
One other thing: It's difficult to gage the statements of former hostages. They may be suffering post-traumatic stress syndrome. And they may not be actually CIA, but just Bushwhack-CIA stooges--tools. They may feel used, and they may be projecting their feelings about their own CIA handlers onto Betancourt. So it's hard to know for sure what their statements indicate, as to U.S. interest in Colombia. Could be just griping and whining and displaced emotion. If their portrayal of Betancourt in the FARC camp is accurate, it may point--very ironically--to qualities in Betancourt that would make her a superb president of Colombia. She can throw her weight around with the FARC! She can lord it over three CIA narcs!
Think of it! This is quite a woman. Maybe the very person needed to bring Colombia's dreadful 40+ year civil war to a peaceful conclusion. You have to be a strong and savvy negotiator to do that. And it sounds like--in their complaints about food and books, etc.--she always won.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
