Here's what Rumsfeld said about the hostage release on Dec. 1:
"The world is saying little and doing less as President Hugo Chávez dismantles Venezuela's constitution, silences its independent media and confiscates private property. Chávez's ambitions do not stop at Venezuela's borders, either. He has repeatedly threatened its neighbors.
In late November, Colombia's president, Alvaro Uribe, declared that Chávez's efforts to mediate hostage talks with Marxist terrorists from the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, were not welcome. Chávez responded by freezing trade with Colombia." (my emphasis in bold)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/30/AR2007113001800.html"The Smart Way to Beat Tyrants Like Chávez," By Donald Rumsfeld
Sunday, December 2, 2007; Page B03
What's actually most interesting in this Rumsfeld op-ed--besides his congenital lying, which we've become rather inured to--is the prior sentence (to the one I bolded): "He has repeatedly threatened its neighbors."
I think this grammatical gaff is evidence of a quick, pre-publication re-write, when Rumsfeld/local fascists' plans to sabotage the first and bigger hostage release, that was to occur that weekend, got foiled (--possibly by Chavez's non-protocol call to the Colombian military on security matters--the excuse Uribe used to call off the negotiation). Uribe had initially invited Chavez to try to negotiate a hostage release (something that Rumsfeld omits). And just when Chavez was making progress, by obtaining "proof of life" (and just prior to the Venezuelan constitutional referendum, that the Bushites were pouring millions of our taxpayer dollars into Venezuela to defeat), Uribe (no doubt in my mind, at orders from Washington or direct from Rumsfeld) suddenly called a press conference, and stopped the whole hostage negotiation, with this lame excuse (that Chavez made a phone call to the Colombian military) (--no fool, Chavez!). THEN Uribe's forces captured the three FARC negotiators, who were in transit to Caracas with the "proof of life" documentation, and at first tried to take credit for obtaining the "proof of life" (with this bad faith act), but Uribe was quickly contradicted by the hostages' families and others, including the president of France, who credited Chavez and urged him to continue his efforts. This brings us past the first hostage release date and the referendum to about Dec. 6-7. Chavez lost the referendum (12/2) by a very close vote (49.7% to 49.3%). The referendum would have given Chavez more power, and would also have insured women's and gay rights, and other progressive measures. Chavez gracefully conceded, and turned his attention back to the hostage situation.
So, you see what a bind Rumsfeld was in, on Dec. 1. Their plot, which probably included some kind of confused crossfire situation, in which hostages would be killed (a tremendous embarrassment to Chavez), or even with Chavez himself as the target, had been foiled. How could they squeeze any P.R. points out of the situation now? Well, only by abruptly calling the hostage negotiation off, and finding some excuse to blame that on Chavez. (Rumsfeld or minion call to Uribe?) The initial invitation (by Uribe) had probably been a set up, to "get" Chavez. Chavez got onto it (my guess, with the phone call to the military), but took the invitation seriously anyway, very much wants peace in Colombia (it's in Venezuela's interest, and the interest of the region), and--with the hostages' families, human rights groups and government leaders around the world urging him to continue--did not give up on it.
All Rumsfeld can say, in his declaration of war on Venezuela, is that Chavez's efforts to negotiate a hostage release were "not welcome" in Colombia. They had been welcome--to appearances. Uribe had invited Chavez to do it. And they became welcome again later, when international pressure mounted on Uribe. For this brief moment in time--a day before the referendum--Chavez was "not welcome."
And a few days later, Rumsfeld's very op-ed title--about that "tyrant" Chavez--is given the lie, in Chavez's graceful concession of defeat in an election that would have enabled him to run for a third term (in 2012), and would have furthered his socialist revolution. Even with such a close vote, he didn't challenge it. Some tyrant.
Events were conspiring against Rumsfeld. Chavez was not "dismantling Venezuela's constitution." He was merely trying to amend it, BY A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE, and easily conceded when he didn't win the vote. Nor had he "silenced independent media." His government merely denied a license renewal to one corporate news monopoly that had openly participated in the violent rightwing military coup against his government in 2002. The rest of them--the bulk of Venezuelan media--are still ranting and raving against him, to their hearts' content. And the only private property he has "confiscated" is Exxon-Mobile's, for which Exxon-Mobile was fairly compensated.
All of these lies that Rumsfeld tells--and that he and the Bush-purged CIA have been feeding to AP and other corporate news monopolies--have been turned on their heads by Chavez's actual behavior, which is anything but tyrannical. That he wanted to run for a third term puts up there with that tyrant FDR, who ran for and won four terms as president of the U.S.--and died in his fourth term (he was "president for life")--and was also accused by fascists of being a "dictator." (And, in fact, Rumsfeld's pet Uribe himself wants a third term in Colombia--which Judi Lynn has documented).
Anyway, the linchpin of these lies apparently was to be Chavez's terrible botching of a hostage negotiation--probably in which deaths of hostages would be blamed on him. (There was a possible rehearsal of this, some months ago, when unidentified shooters stalked a FARC camp and open-fired on a different group of hostages, killing them all.) That linchpin dissolved during the last editings of Rumsfeld's op-ed, before publication. And we don't know what sentence or sentences were edited out, that resulted in the ungrammatical, "
He has repeatedly threatened
its neighbors." But it may well have been something to do with Venezuela's sympathetic treatment of "terrorists," in a general indictment of the Venezuelan people and its government (Rumsfeld anticipating the voters' endorsement of a third term?), or--going further into Rumsfeld's article--a call for "swift" U.S. military intervention in support of "friends and allies" in Venezuela (fascist thugs planning another coup, if the referendum had won). The point would have been to demonize Venezuelan voters, and Venezuela in general, to justify supporting a coup. Thus "he" (Chavez) gets mixed up with "its" (Venezuela's) (--in the sentence, "He has repeatedly threatened its neighbors.") Stop, twist around--'oh, oops, the Venezuelan voters gave Chavez a defeat--can't demonize THEM.'
The only evidence that Rumsfeld can drum up that anybody--Chavez, his government, or Venezuela in general--has "threatened" their "neighbors," is another very brief moment, just as this op-ed was published, when Chavez, angry at Uribe for his collusion with the Bushites, and clearly as a result of Uribe's bad faith and his efforts to sabotage the hostage negotiation, suspended trade with Colombia. Chavez and his government had plenty of reason to be very pissed off. In every other respect, Chavez policy on peaceful cooperation among Latin American countries, and on many projects of mutual benefit, including regional trade and finance, and the Chavez government's generosity toward other countries, is legendary. Threatens his neighbors? Threatens "its" neighbors? WTF?
I am so joyful that Chavez hung in there, in the face of all of this nefarious plotting and Bushite/fascist hatred, and at great danger to himself--danger to his reputation, danger to his person--and got these two women freed. It is the first sign of hope in the Colombian civil war--a war fed by the Bushites with our money--in a very long time. I am thrilled for the women and their families. And I hope that this development will help put Rumsfeld's horrendous plans for Oil War II just a bit more out of reach. It makes any U.S. interference in Venezuela less justifiable. It opens up a little window of opportunity for the truth about the Chavez government--that it is democratic, beneficial and peaceful--leaking into our corporate press. It dashes the hopes of rightwing thugs for an easy hit on Chavez, and perhaps will help curtail other plans for destabilizing democratic countries (Bolivia, Ecuador). It bolsters the new president of Argentina, Cristina Fernandez, a Chavez ally, who expressed her willingness to help this hostage release succeed, in her inaugural address. It is a triumph for hopes of peace and for a good future for the people of South America.
While we here struggle with yet another suspected stolen election (in New Hampshire), and chaff under the yoke of global corporate predators and war profiteers, and monitor our Dark Lords for their next war plans, South America is showing the way back to democracy and world peace. And, believe me, transparent vote counting is the key to their revolution. If we had Venezuela's transparent election system, we could have prevented much horror and grief that has been done in our name, and done to us. I hope this little "candle of peace" in Colombia, achieved by Venezuela and its President, will help light our way.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
