US Senator met with Venezuelan Congress Vice-president

[Judi Lynn]

US Senator met with Venezuelan Congress Vice-president

Caracas, viernes 22 de agosto, 2008
Nacional y Política

US Senator met with Venezuelan Congress Vice-president

US Senator Arlen Specter (R- PA) and Saúl Ortega, the first Vice President of the Venezuelan National Assembly, met on Thursday and vowed to relaunch the Parliamentary Group for Friendship and Cooperation between Venezuela and the United States, Ortega said.

Specter arrived in Caracas last Wednesday in a visit is aimed at seeking rapprochement between Chávez's government and Washington in some specific areas such as anti-drug cooperation. However, the US Senator has not been received by any member of the Venezuelan Executive Branch.


Ortega said, referring to his encounter with the US Senator, that the meeting was informal. The Venezuelan legislator noted that Specter intended to "improve the relationships between the United States and Venezuela."

http://english.eluniversal.com/2008/08/22/en_pol_art_us-senator-met-with_22A1933725.shtml
Venezuelan opposition newspaper

[Peace Patriot]

1. Thanks for catching this, Judi! I wonder if it's significant that, when NM Gov Bill Richardson

went to Venezuela earlier this year, he had a meeting with Chavez (and they made statements of accord afterwards), but when Specter goes to Venezuela, no one in the Venezuelan executive branch meets with him. Could this be a harbinger--the way things are sometimes, rumbles, omens from abroad--that our Corpo/political establishment has decided in Obama's favor (and will permit their 'TRADE SECRET' voting machines to reflect the true vote, or, more likely, an Obama win with a fraudulently shaved mandate)?

Richardson claimed that his purpose was the hostage situation in Colombia (there were three U.S. "contractors" among hostages held by leftist guerrillas). This was in April of this year. Richardson and Chavez emerged from their meeting, and Chavez said he would do everything he could to help. (Chavez had already gotten six hostages released--in Dec 07-Feb 08--in spite of the treachery of the Colombian government.) But Chavez and Richardson met for one and a half hours! I sure would like to have been a 'fly on the wall' in that meeting! Specter seems to have been marginalized, by comparison. Richardson met with the head of state (for 1 1/2 hours!). Spector met with the head of the legislature (comparable to Pelosi or Reid), I don't know for how long, and the article above is totally vague on the purpose.

As I recall, also, when Richardson met with Chavez in April, Richardson was about to switch--or had just switched--from Clinton to Obama in the presidential primary race, much to the displeasure of the Clintons (who had hired Mark Penn--a paid agent of the fascist Colombian government(!)--as Hillary's chief campaign strategist--the Clintons clearly on the side of the bad guys--the losing side--in South America). Yes, I remember now, Richardson had just switched, because I recall thinking that Richardson was an emissary for Obama (as presidential candidates often put out emissaries or fact-finders to foreign heads of state, in order to formulate policy and in prep for possibly taking the reigns of gov't).

I don't for a minute believe that Richardson met with Chavez for 1 1/2 hours just to talk about the hostage situation. (Richardson--a former ambassador, and freer of other hostages--said that the hostages' families had asked him to intervene--and that may be true--but his main mission may have been something else, or a lot else.)

The South American context of Richardson's visit was that, in March (just prior to Richardson's visit to Chavez) the U.S.-Bush, using Colombia as a proxy (5-10 U.S. "smart bombs," U.S. high tech surveillance--and possibly also U.S. aircraft and personnel--all orchestrated from the "war room" at the U.S. embassy in Bogota), had just bombed/raided Ecuador, killing the chief FARC hostage negotiator, Raul Reyes, and 24 other people, in their sleep, bringing Chavez's and others' hostage negotiation efforts to an abrupt and bloody halt, and nearly starting a war with Ecuador. French, Swiss and Spanish envoys were in Ecuador to receive Ingrid Betancourt and other hostages. Ecuador's president, Rafael Correa (a Chavez ally), was helping those negotiations, and Betancourt's release was imminent (according to Correa). The envoys had notified Colombia of their purpose in Ecuador. Bang-bang, shoot-shoot.

The "message" could not have been more blatant and more bloody: This was a Bush 'fuck you' to Chavez; the Bushites wanted a war.

So, why would Richardson think that Chavez could help? Chavez had initially been asked by the Colombian gov't (specifically its president, Alvaro Uribe) to negotiate with the FARC for hostage releases. There followed a series of events which looked, for all the world, like Uribe had set Chavez up, and intended to hand him a diplomatic disaster, with dead hostages. (--although now I think it was probably Defense Minister Santos, in collusion with the Bushites, and possibly with 'retired' Sec of Defense Rumsfeld). Chavez adroitly avoided this series of traps they set up, and got six hostages released, without conditions. The President of France, other world leaders, human rights groups and various hostages' families, begged Chavez to continue his efforts, but the Colombian gov't was so hostile that Chavez could not proceed. (The Colombian gov't--or, rather, its military--was clearly willing to kill hostages to prevent any more Chavez-negotiated hostage releases.) Raul Reyes--a FARC commander who apparently wanted to negotiate a peaceful settlement of Colombia's 40+ year civil war, and was the point man for the hostages releases--set up a temporary camp, just inside Ecuador's border, to release more hostages (including Betancourt). Then the Bushite fuckwads bombed the camp, killed Reyes and ended all hostage negotiations and all talk of peace.

Colombian troops--or was it Blackwater?--crossed the border, after the bombings, to shoot any survivors (the Ecuadoran army found bodies in their pajamas shot in the back). Why I suspect Blackwater did this is what happened next. The Colombian gov't (Uribe) then claimed to have retrieved Reyes' laptop computer (later computerS) from the bombed camp, allegedly containing email evidence smearing Chavez and Correa (as giving money to the FARC, taking money from the FARC, helping the FARC get a 'dirty bomb,' etc., etc.)--smelling very much like a Rumsfeld "Office of Special Plans" specialty (fabricating evidence). (Rumsfeld's WaPo op-ed--calling Chavez a "tyrant"--at the beginning of all this, tells me that Rumsfeld was closely watching, and possibly deeply involved, in these events.)

Then Richardson goes to Caracas seeking Chavez's help in getting U.S. and other hostages released.

It doesn't make a lot of sense, does it? He went to Bogota first, and met with Uribe--and nothing. No press conference. No public statements. No commitment to help. Goes to Caracas and Chavez says he'll do what he can. But Chavez's hands were tied by that time--and the person he had negotiated with, for the release of the six hostages, had been executed without benefit of trial, along with 24 others. So, why was Richardson there?

It could be as simple as this: He was vetting the "hot war" situation for Obama. Rafael Correa was furious at the border raid, and sent Ecuadoran battalions to reinforce Ecuador's border with Colombia. Lula da Silva credits Chavez with preventing a war. (He called him "the great peacemaker.) And, recently, we've seen the rather amazing development of Uribe visiting Chavez in Caracas, to "bury the hatchet" and plan a new railroad together (--a meeting that Col Defense Min Santos publicly criticized). As a presidential candidate, Obama has to know what the "hot war" situation is, and he also needs to have contact with key leaders--not only on potential hostilities, but on many policy issues. (For instance, the U.S. imports 15% of its oil from Venezuela.)

Specter serves the same kind of function on the Republican side--he is able to talk to people. He is not like the Bushite Neo-Cons and ideologues. He is certainly a "made man," as they say, vis a vis the Bush uber-mafia, but he has a certain independence and is more of a diplomat.

But he couldn't get to square one in Caracas--a meeting with Chavez. Would Chavez not meet with him? Did Specter seek such a meeting? Who was Specter representing? (--the possibilities include Corpos such as Exxon Mobil.) Why did he meet with a lesser figure--someone not even part of Chavez's gov't (altho pro-Chavez)? What was his purpose? (To "improve relations" between Venezuela and the U.S. is so vague as to be meaningless. And the "parliamentary Friendship committee" seems like something the Venezuelan legislator pulled out of his hat.)

Did it have to do with the newly forming South American "Common Market"? With growing evidence of Bushite aggressive intentions in the region (the reconstitution of the 4th Fleet, for instance)? With trying to get the corrupt, failed, murderous U.S.-Bush "war on drugs" back on track (big military/police state boondoggle, increasingly rejected by South American countries)? Did it have to do with the Colombia "free trade" deal (i.e., Colombia will explode, like Peru, if it is passed--and it will be much bloodier than Peru--a BIG explosion right on Venezuela's border. Was Specter fact-finding, picking brains, spying re the Colombia "free trade" deal?)

Odd. Intriguing. Puzzling.

The general context of all of this is that the Bush Junta has utterly failed in South America, in every conceivable way--and U.S. Corpos are hurting in their schemes to brutally exploit every resource and every people on planet earth. The World Bank (first world loan sharks) has basically been evicted from the region. Exxon-Mobil was booted out of Venezuela (real bad actors). Chevron is on the outs in Ecuador for vast pollution, and Ecuador is going to kick the U.S. military ("war on drugs" boondoggle--Dyncorp) out of its leased base in Manta, Ecuador. Bolivian farmers the other week in essence told USAID "war on drugs" operatives to go fuck themselves ('we don't want your money'). That is happening throughout the region--as country after country recognizes the main purpose of the "war on drugs" (spying on and plotting against leftists and social movements). And the worst way that the Bush junta has failed is that democracy is flourishing virtually everywhere in the region; voters are electing leaders who actually attend to the interests of the majority and the good of the country. The two most troubled countries, the ones touched by Bush--Colombia and Peru--are failing because of Bushite interference, and they are very isolated.

Funny, how the Bushites wanted to "isolate" Chavez. The vast majority of the other leaders wouldn't go along, and basically said 'fuck you' to Bush. Chavez is a good guy, in their eyes. Although Bushite propaganda about Chavez has worked here (so far), it has not worked in South America, because they know the truth. (As Lula da Silva said, "You can criticize Chavez on a lot of things, but not on democracy.")

This is bad news for U.S. Corpos: democracy!

Was Specter trying to figure out how to subvert it?

Richardson is no 'democrat with a small d' either. He supports privatized, rightwing Corpo-controlled, 'TRADE SECRET' vote counting, and squashed the Green Party recount of Kerry vs. Bush in 2004. If Richardson really wanted to do us a good turn, he would have brought Venezuela's system of OPEN SOURCE code voting machines, with a whopping 55% audit, back to the U.S.

We're in the process of getting a king appointed, and we should never forget it. In Venezuela, they have a real president--and a real legislature--public office holders who can prove that they were actually elected. Richardson can't. Specter can't. No one here can.

So I don't necessarily think that Richardson was up to good, and Specter up to evil, in their visits to Venezuela. I don't know. I just don't think either visit was primarily as advertised, and I'd sure like to know what was really going on in both cases.

[Judi Lynn]

2. You've given us some food for thought on Richardson. Good points.

Never really expected him to go there, since he was at one time semi-connected to the Miami idiot league. Maybe that happened to him when he thought he was going to need their support in his bid to campaign for the Presidency.

I want to re-read this later tonight.

I'd like to know what the upshot is on that gnarly little Specter, too.

[Judi Lynn]

3. Looking at your comments again, I remembered something: The Colombian military has been fabricating

evidence for a long time. There are articles written discussing it, the last major one being one in the Washington Post, by Juan Forero, some months ago.

They have been in the habit of fixing the bodies of unarmed Colombian citizens to look like fallen FARCs, by either dressing them in FARC gear, or planting guns or grenades they carry with them for that purpose in their "kits." They have been doing this, as well as the paramilitaries.

They're old hands at creating illusions by now. I had not made the conscious connection, although I read all the material which indicates we were fed some real lollapaloozas on the laptop(S), when the media ran with the half-truth, not the truth which clarified, including the time at the beginning when the laptop(S) rested in the hands of the Colombian military for THREE days before it was ever sent to Interpol, during which time a huge number of files were deleted or added. So sad, isn't it, to have the liars appear to think they've pulled the wool over everyone's eyes? Not the eyes of people who take the time to think it all over, however, and to ask questions.

The idea that Richardson would share what he had learned from Chavez with Obama is very interesting. He could have been doing early legwork, then. Intriguing, to be sure. Undoubtedly what he learned from Richardson will be far more valuable to Obama than what he has heard from the _Bush-supporting corporate media!

Here's a message Specter sent to Rumsfeld telling him to tone down his harrassment of Hugo Chavez:

United States Senate
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC 20510-6275

August 19, 2005

The Honorable Donald Rumsfeld
Secretary of Defense
U.S. Department of Defense

Dear Secretary Rumsfeld,

I have just noted your comments about Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez in a speech you made yesterday in Peru.

I suggest it may be very helpful to U.S. efforts to secure Venezuela's cooperation in our joint attack on drug interdiction if the rhetoric would be reduced, especially at this time, when DEA and our State Department are trying to resolve a highly publicized controversy between DEA and Venezuelan narcotics officials.

On Wednesday of this week, I met with President Chavez in Caracas as part of a trip on Judiciary Committee oversight to evaluate our drug interdiction and terrorism policies, and to prepare legislation on immigration. I believe there is a window of opportunity at this time to resolve the disagreement on drug interdiction policies.

Our meeting produced an agreement between our Ambassador and Venezuela's Minister of the Interior, who had not previously had any contact, to meet early next week to try to resolve those differences between DEA and the Venezuelan narcotics officials. In this context, it may well be helpful to, at least, have a moratorium on adverse comments on Venezuela.

Arlen Specter

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/1300

~~~~~~~~~~
At the same time, Jose Serrano, from the Bronx, also commented publicly on _Bush's constant harrassment:

~snip~
Congressman Serrano called Rumsfeld's comments "baseless".

"Secretary Rumsfeld is following the careless and dangerous line that this administration has always held on Cuba, though now they have added Venezuela to their equation" said Serrano.

"For the past five decades we blamed Cuba every time impoverished people in Latin America were upset with their governments and did something about it. Now the formula is that Cuba and Venezuela are to blame," he said.

"When will we realize that it is these people's unmet needs at the root of their discontent, and not the agitation of other nations? The real causes of these uprisings are problems like hunger, lack of employment and inadequate educational opportunities. If this administration is serious about stemming discontent in Latin America and around the world, the solution is to respect our Latin American neighbors and to provide social and economic aid to the people. The administration's 'solution' of blanket condemnations and skewed trade agreements will never work," the lawmaker added.

Serrano asked the Bush Administration to stop the attacks on Venezuela. "The truth of the matter is that the Bush Administration is unhappy that the people of Venezuela democratically elected a president who does not pledge full allegiance to American interests. Therefore they cannot resist attacking President Hugo Chavez every chance they get and blaming him for every development in the region that they dislike. Again, it is time for these false statements and innuendos to stop," he said.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/1296