"Chavez-Santos Summit in Colombia: UNASUR-brokered peace breaks out"

[Peace Patriot]

While I don't quite agree with some points in this article, I want to present it here (as "fair use" permits) because it answers one of my concerns about the resolution of the Colombia/Venezuela dispute. What happened is that, while numerous parties had offered to mediate talks between Santos and Chavez, Santos rejected mediated talks, and insisted that Chavez enter Santos' lair (Bogota) alone--not literally alone, of course (Chavez always has advisors accompanying him, as do all presidents), but without the visible backing, mediation and witness of other Latin American leaders who very much want peace within Colombia (as to Colombia's 40+ year civil war) and between Colombia and Venezuela, and who oppose and are alarmed by the U.S. military occupation of Colombian bases and other U.S. militarization in the region, and also who don't believe Colombia's outgoing leader, Uribe, who, in his final days in office, just before Santos was inaugurated, accused Venezuela of "harboring" Colombian guerilla fighters in Venezuela.

This is the tinderbox situation into which Chavez was walking, without support, it seemed. Uribe had lured Chavez into similar situations, with the result being utter treachery against Chavez. Further, Santos had been Uribe's Defense Minister not only during a period of Colombian military slaughter of trade unionists, human rights workers, political leftists, peasant farmers and others, but also during the infamous U.S./Colombia bombing/raid on Ecuador (to kill the FARC hostage negotiator, Raul Reyes and 24 other sleeping people), which almost started a war between the U.S./Colombia and Ecuador/Venezuela, then and there. Santos is not to be trusted. And, considering the egregiously undemocratic conditions that prevail in Colombia, neither is his election to be trusted. (Frankly, I consider him to be a CIA appointee.)

I thought that an opportunity to strengthen UNASUR had been lost by these bilateral talks. I was encouraged when I read that Argentina's former president, Nestor Kirchner, was present at the Santos/Chavez talks, but dismayed that the talks were not sponsored and overseen by this newly emerging collective entity and prototype common market, UNASUR (which had been so critically important in its first days of existence in turning back the U.S.-supported, white separatist insurrection in Bolivia, in 2008). Proposing a peace settlement for Colombia's long civil war would be a perfect task for UNASUR. The Chavez government proposed one, but the Chavez government CANNOT bring one about--particularly since relations Venezuelan/Colombian relations are so strained.

This writer asserts two things that are interesting in connection with all this, that: a) UNASUR was involved (in bringing Santos and Chavez together), and b) that this was an historic moment of defeat for the US in its rancid policies of militarization, domination/bullying and "divide and conquer."

The writer points out that Nestor Kirchner is the current president of UNASUR. (I thought Rafael Correa was--and hadn't read the news of this changed leadership.) And, although UNASUR itself couldn't agree on unified, official action in this case, Kirchner's presence, and Lula da Silva's and others' preliminary mediations, most certainly indicate that major powers in UNASUR were actively involved.

She goes on to explain what a defeat this Colombia/Venezuela accord was for the US (which has been trying to get Venezuela designated as a "terrorist supporting state"). But I don't quite agree with how she handles the matter of the imminence of war and the long term prospects for war. It certainly looked like Uribe was trying to start a war--and the U.S. had helped him set up a war excuse (way back during the Ecuador incident, with the "miracle laptops," etc.) I have to say I was worried that this was finally IT. But there were other explanations for Uribe's behavior, including that he was just throwing flak at Venezuela/Chavez because he himself is so indictable. I agree with her that the threat of a U.S.-instigated war against Venezuela, using Colombia as its proxy, is not over. She mentions several good reasons why this is so, but leaves one out--Santos himself. I don't trust Santos, at all. Uribe was merely a puppet, like Bush Jr. Santos is more like Rumsfeld-- a cold-eyed Machiavellian who has been sent to "Smile School."

The writer says that, "Washington's political and military strategists must be stunned by the extraordinary rapprochement between Santos and Chavez." I don't know about that. I think it's just as likely--and probably more likely--that it is a strategy dictated by Washington, to get the U.S. "free trade for the rich" bill through Congress, so as to conduct economic warfare against Venezuela and other leftist governments, which may be followed by war. We must not forget that Colombia is a U.S. client state. Its leaders are in no position to cross Washington's dictates. And, given the U.S. military buildup in the region, and the dreadful official/death squad murders that have been going on in Colombia, and given Honduras, there is no chance in hell, in my view, that Washington has dictated peace, except as a ploy.

(Please note: There are many links provided within this article. Go to the original for the links.)

-------------------------------------------------------



Chavez-Santos Summit in Colombia: UNASUR-brokered peace breaks out

By FRANCISCO DOMINGUEZ - VENEZUELA SOLIDARITY CAMPAIGN, August 12th 2010



The already bad relations between Venezuela and Colombia took a turn for the worse after the accusations made by the outgoing Uribe government's OAS representative, Luis Hoyos, who charged the Venezuelan government with harbouring Colombian guerrillas (1,500) and allowing guerrilla camps (85) inside its territory. The "evidence" - which has been pretty discredited - for this batch of accusations -as with previous ones- also came from the eight 'magical laptops' seized by Colombian military forces in an illegal military attack in March 1, 2009.

Chavez reacted by breaking off relations with Colombia, leading to a further worsening of the relations between the two nations, but sent his foreign minister to attend Santos' inauguration anyway. Uribe's response was to announce that his government was lodging a formal accusation against Venezuela in the Inter-American Committee of Human Rights and another formal charge against President Chavez personally to the International Criminal Court, one day before Juan Manuel Santos inauguration. Furthermore, Uribe, reportedly, announced he would be prepared to testify to the ICC against Hugo Chavez.

However, after intense diplomatic activity undertaken by UNASUR, Nicolas Maduro, Venezuela's Foreign Relations Minister, Nestor Kirchner, UNASUR's President, and Brazils' President, Lula, the latter two very publicly meeting with both Hugo Chavez and Juan Manuel Santos at various separate meetings, managed, in a matter of few days, to turn what looked like an inexorable slide to disaster, into one of the most extraordinary political turnarounds from the brink in recent Latin American history.

At his inauguration, Juan Manuel Santos stunned the world by announcing that his administration would be seeking to repair and normalise Colombia's relations with Venezuela and Ecuador as a matter of priority. And in stark contrast to the prevailing attitude under Uribe, Santos declared "The word war is not in my dictionary when I think about Colombia's relations with its neighbours" (a far cry from Uribe's warmongering). Furthermore, Santos had previously indicated his willingness, under certain conditions, to even talk to the Colombian guerrillas. More surprises were to follow: Santos ordered the handing over of Raul Reyes' 'magical laptops' to the government of Ecuador.

Some in the British media such as The Guardian, The Economist, the BBC and, of course, the ubiquitous Human Rights Watch, enthusiastically accepted the evidence publicised by the Colombian authorities at the time. The attitude of the US corporate media was significantly worse. As is well known, but not widely publicised by the corporate media, Ronald Coy, Head of Colombia's technical police, admitted to an official investigation both that the data in the laptops had been manipulated before it was subjected to judicial review and that no emails had been found in them (this did not prevent The Guardian's Latin American correspondent, Rory Carroll, from reading several emails from the magical laptops, as he reported at the time).

We shall very soon see how much of Mr Hoyos' "evidence" to the OAS is left standing after Ecuador's expert analysis of the 'magical laptops' takes place. The Venezuelan government has consistently denied any such charges and to this day, apart from regular media repetition of Uribista "false positives", no serious evidence of any kind has been produced to substantiate the allegations that Venezuela harbours guerrillas and guerrilla camps in its territory or that it gives them resources and weapons.

Venezuela and Colombia share a 1,375-mile of very porous border. Colombia's internal conflict has the unfortunate dynamic of spilling over into other countries in the form of guerrillas, paramilitaries, drug traffickers, refugees, and immigrants escaping from the conflict (about 5 million Colombians reside permanently in Venezuela). It is estimated that overall, Colombia's military have over 300,000 soldiers -proportionately one of the largest in the region, and seven times larger than the armed forces of Venezuela - and have benefited from US$7 bn in military aid -the second largest in the world- which are nevertheless incapable to controlling their own domestic terrain in which there are about 8,000 armed guerrilla fighters, many thousands of active illegal paramilitary forces and a great deal of drug trafficking. Most of the cocaine in the world is produced in Colombia, and most of cocaine production takes place in Colombia- according to UNODOC about 50%. Furthermore, Venezuela finds itself geographically sandwiched between the largest producer and the largest consumer of cocaine in the world, Colombia and the United States respectively.

After Santos' inauguration, events have developed at neck-breaking speed. Assisted by Nestor Kirchner, the Foreign Ministers of Colombia and Venezuela met last Sunday in Bogota, and they announced that Presidents Santos and Chavez would be meeting at a special summit on Tuesday 10 August in Colombia. Chavez immediately seized the opportunity offered by his Colombian counterpart and called upon the guerrillas to seek a political solution: "The Colombian guerrillas do not have a future by way of arms... moreover, they have become an excuse for the empire to intervene in Colombia and threaten Venezuela from there” he said on Sunday. He also called upon them to show their commitment to a peace accord through “decisive demonstrations, for example, that they liberate all those they have kidnapped.”

It is clear that Santos wanted to repair relations with Venezuela and Ecuador and that he was willing to accept UNASUR's good offices to facilitate his meeting with President Chavez. However, the most significant aspects of this development is that Santos was determined to seek the improvement of Colombia's relations with Venezuela and Ecuador, partly because it wanted to end Colombia's regional isolation, but also because the almost complete cessation of trade with Venezuela was making Colombia's economy scream (their mutual trade had declined by 73.7%). It is also clear that Uribe knew this and all his last-minute rabid attacks on Venezuela seemed to have been aimed more at Santos than Chavez. Uribe desperately tried to torpedo the Colombo-Venezuelan rapprochement because he knew it was in the offing.

Uribe's desperate efforts mirror the actions of powerful forces in Washington which have been vigorously lobbying to declare Venezuela a "state that sponsors terrorism", "a narco-state" (view which is specially strong in SOUTHCOM and the US Congress - and which, therefore, seem to favour a 'military' solution to the US 'Venezuelan problem'. SOUTHCOM has been busily installing US military bases everywhere in the region and has even resuscitated the IV Fleet (which was decommissioned in 1950). The US has deployed 20,000 soldiers in Haiti after the earthquake and has also stationed massive military forces in Costa Rica (7,000 soldiers, 200 helicopters and 46 warships until the end of December 2010). Thus, labeling Venezuela a 'sponsor of terrorism' is not just right-wing rhetoric, it may have very serious military consequences. Regional leaders are very alarmed about these developments and have expressed serious concern.

A normally omitted dimension of Colombo-Venezuelan relations is the attitude of Venezuela's right wing. In every Venezuela-Colombia spat under Uribe's two presidential mandates, they have sided enthusiastically with Uribe. They did so again this time but were unwittingly wrong-footed by Santos' announcement. When it comes to opposing President Chavez Venezuela's right wing seem to have no sense of proportion, thus, for instance, the governor of the state of Táchira, Cesar Perez Vivas, a member of COPEI, went as far as to appeal to Chavez not to make the US military bases in that country a precondition for the normalisation of relations with Colombia. Venezuelan TV broadcaster, Alberto Nolla, suggested that during the crisis unleashed by the Uribe's actions, the Venezuelan right wing media was more strident in their support for Uribe than the Colombian media had been during the same period. Any cursory look at the main right wing newspapers such as El Universal and El Nacional and TV channels such as Globovision confirm this conclusively.

What is totally unprecedented is the fact that the US administration was de facto reduced to the role of spectator (specialists confirm this). The U.S. were supportive of the accusations against Chavez at the OAS (…”our concerns about the links between Venezuela and the FARC that we have not certified Venezuela in recent years as fully cooperating with the United States and others in terms of these antiterrorism efforts,” stated U.S. ambassador to OAS) but were clearly sidelined by UNASUR's brinkmanship which managed to bring the rapprochement between Colombia and Venezuela. It is Santos, Chavez and UNASUR (especially Brazil) who have been doing the running (“Brazil’sgovernment has made it clear that it would like the matter to be taken up within UNASUR, without the influence of the United States. It proclaimed South America a “region of peace” and affirmed that problems between countries should be first dealt with bilaterally.) This reality shows first the growing assertiveness and independence of the region from U.S. influence, but secondly, it shows that underlying this political reality there is the growing independence of the region from traditional economic centres and a steady distancing from the U.S. The Tectonic plates have dramatically shifted and most Latin American leaders feel they have averted an almost certain Uribe-US driven war.

It remains to be seen how far this summit takes the two countries. They have decided to fully restore their relations in every field and the two presidents have established five commissions within the framework of a statement of principles signed by them. They include a commission for debt; another for the economic collaboration between the two countries; one for the development of a plan of investment in their common border; another for the joint undertaking of infrastructural works; and a security commission. Both heads of state undertook a commitment to collaborate in the struggle against drug trafficking, paramilitary and illegal armed activity. Colombia has sent the President of Colombia's Congress, Armando Benedetti, to assist the process of full restoration of relations between the two countries. The OAS reacted by applauding the diplomacy of Santos and Chavez. There has been popular rejoice in both countries. Not all the issues pending between the two nations were, however, addressed, such as the U.S. military bases in Colombia, the urgent need for a peace process in Colombia, and the charges levelled by Uribe against Venezuela to the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights and against President Chavez personally to the International Criminal Court.

The dogs of war have been kept at bay, at least temporarily. Peace has broken out. The full restoration of relations between Venezuela and Colombia is indeed very positive. However, the array of forces set against the implementation of such a broad peaceful agenda is also pretty formidable. For start it is led by the U.S. and it also involves powerful economic groups in most countries in the region, such as the separatists in the Eastern of Bolivia, that nearly overthrew Morales' government in 2009; the Venezuelan right which managed to actually oust Chavez in 2002 -but who the people returned to power-; the Colombian oligarchy itself; the extremely wealthy and powerful Chilean Pinochetista bourgeoisie; the right in Argentina; the very wealthy Guayaquil entrepreneurs; and so forth. All of whom in one way or another favour the US militarisation of the region as a solution of last resort in the face of radical social movements and progressive governments in the continent. In the meantime the U.S. militarisation of the region continues apace.

It is in the interest of Latin America, very well represented on this historic occasion by UNASUR, to help the Colombian oligarchy to loosen the too uncomfortable US embrace in which Uribe got them into. On the other hand there are the U.S. hegemonic interests in the region and its growing oil dependency from fiercely nationalist governments which are asserting their independence collectively. Washington's political and military strategists must be stunned by the extraordinary rapprochement between Santos and Chavez.

Uribe's insane efforts to bring about a war with Venezuela, underscores the ‘predicament’ the U.S. finds itself in: faced with the rebellion of its Southern neighbours, unable to win politically, and incapable of offering anything such as development, progress, investment or even the American Way of life (which is crushingly coming to an end in the United States itself), has decided to resort to war to maintain its backyard under subjection. Latin America has opted for democracy, social progress, national sovereignty and peace. On this occasion even the staunchest pro U.S. Colombian oligarchy have sided with the South, not the North. We shall see who beats the other in the historic arm-wrestling underway.

http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/5566

(This is a "fair use" article, with a "Creative Commons" license, which may be quoted in full, with proper attribution.)

[Judi Lynn]

1. Read your comments, will return to read the article: sounds useful,

and it's good to read someone who recognizes the reality corporate media have intended to conceal completely until it's too late to matter, again, as already accomplished throughout the Americas continuously. When it's quiet it NEVER means there's nothing going on, as we know.

I think the Kirchner turn at the wheel at UNASUR is recent.

Thanks for this article. Looking forward to reading it.

Recommending.

[EFerrari]

2. After that warning letter Chavez got, I was afraid for him to go to Colombia. n/t

[Judi Lynn]

5. No kidding! He must really be determined to carry out his job, considering the circumstances. n/t

[naaman fletcher]

7. You mean the one he made up about is friend in the US? nt

[Judi Lynn]

3. Peace Patriot, the first link from the author has powerful information I overlooked previously!

This is absolutely astounding, because I NEVER ran across any mention of this anywhere, and it's so predictably hideous, devious, exactly what you'd expect from Uribe's regime. In a discussion of the Magic Laptop(s), this is is revealed:

Meanwhile, the very day after the Interpol report received so much news coverage, the website of the Colombian magazine Semana reported that hard drives and mobile-phone SIM cards belonging to high-level paramilitary leaders extradited to the United States on drug-trafficking charges, had been lost. Hardware belonging to three paramilitary leaders disappeared and was never recovered. Information taken from the laptop of one of the paramilitary bosses, Rodrigo Tovar Pupo a.k.a. Jorge 40, sparked the so-called paramilitary-political scandal in spring 2006, eventually leading to the jailing of more than 30 of Uribe’s parliamentary allies, including Mario Uribe, his cousin, on charges of colluding with narco-paramilitaries. The disappearance of these computers—possibly containing evidence of connections between the paramilitaries and the Uribe administration that could have been entered into court records in the United States—received scant attention in the United States, even though they caused a scandal in Colombia.

https://nacla.org/node/5184

This is so dirty, so damned dirty, and they pulled it off slick as a whistle with the assistance of corporate media here. Here's a reference which discusses the materiial contained on Jorge 40's computers, of which we read several years ago until the subject abruptly dropped out of sight with no further references here:

In a recent Miami Herald op-ed in which he argues for continued military aid to Bogotá, Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte credits the Uribe government with "restor the integrity of the state." (13) This is held by Negroponte to be a significant achievement worthy of further support. Although the article in question is littered with deceptions, this particular claim is especially mendacious; Colombian politics are currently dominated by a massive scandal resulting from revealed connections between high-ranking political leaders and paramilitary deathsquads. The vast majority of those implicated have been allied with or supportive of Uribe. (14)

In sharp contrast to Negroponte's enthusiasm, Colombia's Attorney General "has publicly stated that are more serious than the most severe political crisis of Colombia's recent history". (15) This sense of urgency was echoed in a recent US Congressional testimony by Maria McFarland Sanchez-Moreno, the Principal Specialist on Colombia at Human Rights Watch, who asserted that "Colombian democracy is now facing a grave threat - perhaps the most serious it has ever faced - in the form of drug running paramilitary groups exercising direct influence at some of the highest levels of government." (16)

What is now often referred to as the "para-political" scandal began in earnest last year, when a computer belonging to the paramilitary commander known as "Jorge 40" was seized by government investigators. (17) On the computer "were the names of politicians who apparently collaborated with Jorge 40 to intimidate voters, seize land and kidnap or kill trade unionists and political rivals", The Guardian reported in March 2007. (18) The crisis has steadily widened. On May 14, five more congressmen were arrested for "for alleged links with illegal paramilitary groups", brining the total number of incarcerated legislators to 14. (19) A recent Washington Post report says:

So far, authorities have charged 14 members of Colombia's Congress, seven former lawmakers, the head of the secret police, mayors and former governors with having collaborated with paramilitary commanders. A dozen more current congressmen are under investigation. Most have been close Uribe allies… (20)

Given the extensive connections between the President and those implicated in the scandal, it is simply not plausible that such high-level para-political collaboration took place outside of Uribe's knowledge. The former head of the Colombia's civilian intelligence agency (DAS), mentioned in passing by the Post, is Jorge Noguera. It appears that, after being appointed by Uribe to lead DAS in 2002, Noguera worked closely with Jorge 40 (who was even allowed to use Uribe's personal armored vehicle) and other commandos in the prosecution of the dirty war. Their specific projects seem to have included "an assassination plot against Hugo Chavez, the murder of political opponents, electoral fraud, doctoring police and judicial records to erase paramilitary cases." (21)

The computer seized from Jorge 40 contained "evidence of over 500 assassinations committed in just one Colombian state between 2003 and 2005", Human Rights Watch reports, invoking the Colombian Attorney General's office. (22) Citing reports published in the Colombian media, Amnesty International notes that "the DAS", while under Noguera's leadership, "provided a list of 24 trade union leaders to the paramilitary group Bloque Norte. Several individuals named on the list were killed, others were threatened, while some were reportedly the subject of arbitrary judicial proceedings." (23)

http://upsidedownworld.org/main/colombia-archives-61/791-a-dirtier-war-colombias-fake-qpeace-processq-and-us-policy

And look at this link from this month which has never generated one word of coverage in our own corporate media, although they yammered night and day concerning the "discovery" of the laptop, which became the "laptops" in a couple of days:

Police investigator admits manipulating Reyes' files .
Thursday, 05 August 2010 16:05 Cameron Sumpter .

A Colombian police investigator admitted to manipulating evidence against activist Liliany Obando which was recovered from FARC leader "Raul Reyes" computers, found in the cross-border raid in Ecuador in 2008, reports Europa Press.

When asked by a prosecutor if the police official had "opened and manipulated information before that information was subject to judicial review, in the absence of legal authorization to do so," investigator Ronald Coy replied, "yes sir."

The policeman is testifying in the case against Obando, a Colombian trade unionist and human rights defender, who was arrested on August 8, 2008 and accused of raising money for the FARC.

The evidence of Obando's links to the guerrilla organization were allegedly found in the Raul Reyes computers, which the prosecution said also contained personal emails between Reyes and Obando that suggested a romantic relationship between the two.

Coy had earlier testified that no e-mails were found on the computer.

Obando and her defense have always maintained that she was raising money for Colombia's largest agricultural union FENSUARGO.

According to James Brittain, a Canadian professor who has campaigned for Obando's release, the trade unionist was arrested the week she wrote a report on the murder of 1,500 FENSUARGO members over the last 30 years.

Obando's defense attorney Eduardo Matias says that Ronald Coy's confession means that the prosecution against his client now has no legal basis.

"There was ... an abuse of authority in violation of due process and therefore the proof can not be considered as evidence in criminal proceedings," the lawyer said.

Following the Colombian raid on Ecuadorean soil which killed FARC leader Raul Reyes, Ecuador's public prosecution released a report alleging that Colombian authorities manipulated the computer files before handing them over to the international police force Interpol.

Interpol's investigation found no evidence that the files had been tampered with after March 3, but said that Colombian authorities "did not always follow internationally accepted methods for handling computer evidence."

The international police organization also acknowledged that it had never performed a physical electro-magnetic exam of the hard discs, which according to Interpol is the only valid way to retrieve a copy of computer content.

More:
http://colombiareports.com/colombia-news/news/11199-police-investigator-admits-to-manipulating-rayes-files.html

The truth always comes out even though you often have to wait forever for it to be uncovered, just as the Samuel Clemmons' (Mark Twain) quote: The Truth is still putting on its boots while a Lie is halfway around the world.

[Peace Patriot]

9. Well, there it is, what we suspected all along, having read the DETAILS of the Interpol report

(not just the headlines)...

"'When asked by a prosecutor if the police official had "opened and manipulated information before that information was subject to judicial review, in the absence of legal authorization to do so,' investigator Ronald Coy replied, 'yes sir.'" --from the article

The accusations against Presidents Chavez and Correa, and others, were streamed out of a Magic Box quite like the Magic Box that brought us the non-WMDs in Iraq. And didn't we just read that the Bush Junta was giving high tech aid to DAS as to the drawing up of trade unionist hit lists?

This Magic Box could be traded around and used by all sorts of malicious entities, to make everybody who opposed him a "terrorist" as Uribe proclaimed.

[gbscar]

10. Provided you do know the word "manipulated" has more than one meaning, then yes, it was known...

...that the computers had been accessed without legal authorization between March 1st and 3rd, even according to the Colombian government's version of the events, which is the main reason why the information in them can be considered to be technically void from a judicial perspective regardless of its actual accuracy (or perhaps the lack thereof, but that varies from case to case). The recent news that has been linked to doesn't really say anything that wasn't already acknowledged by the original Interpol report, strictly speaking, in spite of the use of technical jargon.

[Peace Patriot]

11. Yes, and because the UN weapons inspectors, our own intel and most world leaders

said that Iraq had NO "WMDs" and/or that Iraq was not a threat, could mean that they had "weapons-related program activities," and thus it was okay to slaughter a hundred thousand innocent people in the bombing of Baghdad alone, a million all told, torture people who had been randomly rounded up and utterly destroy their society. Remember that? The switch from "WMDs" to "weapons-related program activities" when no WMDs were found?

"...which is the main reason why the information in them can be considered to be technically void from a judicial perspective regardless of its actual accuracy...".

No. What is becoming abundantly clear is that the "miracle laptop" (later, laptopS) is trumped up bullcrap. You cannot selectively assert that some of what the Bush Junta said about Iraq was true and some of it wasn't. THE SOURCE was tainted beyond any redeemability. They invaded and slaughtered and ruined, and that is the end of the matter. The Colombian government and military--which were spying on everybody, totting up hit lists of trade unionists, providing rewards for "false positives" (killing civilians, even 12 year old children, and dressing their bodies up as FARC guerillas), whose pResident said that everybody who opposes him--academics, teachers, union leaders, human rights advocates, the poor--were "terrorists," and some 70 of whose political cohorts are under investigation or in jail for drug trafficking, bribery, their ties to rightwing death squads and other crimes--BREACHED SECURITY for three days, and that is an end to it. Like the Bushwhacks, they lied for breakfast, lunch and dinner, and went home at night and lied in their dreams. There is not one word in the "miracle laptopS" that can be believed.

[gbscar]

12. I don't believe I was trying to argue or imply anything to that effect.

Let me repeat: Whatever the laptops say is, at this point, judicially irrelevant. And rightfully so. Right now, that source is largely useless.

However, there are probably specific claims that can, within the realm of possibility, be verified through the use of separate sources as part of a completely different process that involves distinct pieces of evidence. The end of the matter as it concerns the laptops is not, in and of itself, the end of the matter as it concerns the underlying reality of each issue.

Nothing in the computers themselves as they are now is useful, regardless of the true-or-false value of each claim. That much is fair enough.

My statement is merely an acknowledgement of the need to factor in additional considerations that go beyond this incident.

I don't believe in absolute "good" or "evil" myself, with a bunch of perfectly honest individuals on one side and a bunch of perfectly dishonest individuals on the other. Trading descriptions that rely on such binary logic, as much as they might seem warranted on a personal moral scale, isn't really my thing. The world and the human race are far too complex for that.

Even the Bush Administration, to use your example, as much as it lied about many things...isn't some sort of black hole where truth was absolutely nonexistent.

The worst lies can hold a hint of truth...and vice versa. Critical thinking must be a permanent exercise, not just for us but for the human race as a collective.

All too often do we stop when the first answer that seems convenient or satisfactory appears, because it's just what we wanted to hear. But is that really wise?

It's extremely reasonable to doubt and be skeptical about what was said, but that isn't an excuse to stop thinking and investigating about the issues...even following lines of thought that are not compatible with our views and political beliefs. The Truth (tm) is not "Red" or "Blue" in the grand scheme of things. It has no such limitations or obligations.

[Peace Patriot]

13. No, I do not agree. Critical thinking does not help with propagandists and war profiteers

except in so far as we can gage the truth by positing the opposite of what they assert. I found this rule of thumb quite useful in assessing statements of the Bush Junta: Whatever they are saying, the opposite is true, and whatever they are accusing others of, THEY are doing. Very useful rule; good starting point for figuring out what is really going on when you are dealing with congenital liars. It is utter stupidity to get burned time and again by propagandistic, war profiteering liars and keep giving them the benefit of the doubt, because they'll kill lots of people before you can make up your mind whether or not there is some stray atom of truth in their great big stinking pile of greed-driven, bloodsoaked horseshit.

[gbscar]

14. If you want to assume that the truth is simply the complete opposite of what they say, so be it.

I just don't think it's impossible to oppose harmful policies and actions, like those of Bush and his circle, without automatically assuming as much as you do.

Perhaps your rule of thumb is useful today, but perhaps some day it will fail you in a most illustrative manner and then you might reflect on it. Or perhaps not.

I don't give the benefit of the doubt in absolute terms, mind you, only in relative ones. I'm definitely skeptical about many issues and have voiced my opinions in several ways.

Imperialistic powers have definitely lied and killed far too many around the globe for, among other reasons, greed and profit. Just as you've said, I'm aware of this.

But I am not under the illusion that the only people who are going to be lying or killing in this world are the war profiteers and propagandists or, by extension, their allies.

Both the history of war and the history of the world, as a whole, aren't as black and white as that. The oppressed deserve more sympathy than the oppressors, by all means, but there are too many gray situations where lots of people have died at the hands of former victims and in the name of national liberation, freedom or liberty in the wider (non-U.S. American) sense of both terms...and then you find that there is plenty of horseshit to go around as a result, when you choose to blindly believe in whatever a particular side has to say because the alternative disgusts you to the point of absolute disbelief. If Bush and Cheney were liars, as they were in many areas, then was Saddam telling the absolute truth? I am not quite certain.

I was, however, certain of the need to oppose the 2003 invasion on plenty of grounds, moral and otherwise, that did not rely on whatever the truth was. I rest my case.

You could say I am aware of the fragility of knowledge. That is, at least, the conclusion I've reached at this point in my travels through life. Perhaps one day I will think differently.

[Peace Patriot]

15. No, you misunderstand me. Blind faith in some alternative view is not the answer to the "Big Lie"

technique that propagandists and warmongers, like the Bush Junta and Uribe and the Colombian military, utilize on behalf of war profiteers and the super-rich. Positing the opposite of what they assert is a useful way to arrive at what is real and what is true. I have never, ever, ever said that anyone should have blind faith in any politician or any political movement, nor, indeed, in anyone or anything.

This is not a fair statement of what I said: "...when you choose to blindly believe in whatever a particular side has to say because the alternative disgusts you to the point of absolute disbelief."

I did not say that the above-mentioned fascists "disgust me to the point of absolute disbelief." I said that, in trying to arrive at what is true, what is real, what is reliable information, assuming the opposite of what these propagandists and warmongers say is a USEFUL beginning--a place to start--and it is additionally useful to assume that, whatever they accuse others of, THEY themselves are doing. If Bushwhacks say that they are engaged in a "war on terror," to get at the truth, assume the opposite, that they are themselves terrorists. And, when you think about it, that fits the facts quite well. Are there some Islamic and other kinds of terrorists in the world--that is people driven by religious or political fervor to commit slaughters of innocent civilians? Yes. But who slaughtered a hundred thousand innocent people in the bombing of Baghdad alone, to steal their oil--and then unleashed chaos--random arrests, torture, Blackwater assassins, massive looting, pitting tribe against tribe--to terrify the survivors? Who are the greater terrorists? The LIARS who say they are "fighting terrorism," who claim that they want to "keep us safe," and have been able to hijack the biggest war machine ever created and used it to inflict massive horror on others, for purposes of greed and power--or the scattered jihadists and Timothy McVeighs who have no such war machine and who have inflicted nowhere near the horror of the Bush Junta or the Colombian military?

Let me give you an example, as to how I arrived at this rule of thumb: Amnesty International did an exhaustive study and report on the murders of trade unionists in Colombia, and what they found is this: 92% of the murders of trade unionists in Colombia have been committed by the Colombian military (about half) and its closely tied rightwing paramilitary death squads (the other half), and only 2% by the FARC guerillas. (AI also pointed out that that 2% killed by the FARC were probably trade unionists who were collaborating with the Colombian military.) So, WHO are the "terrorists" in Colombia? When the Bush Junta and Alvaro Uribe claim to be "fighting terrorists" in Colombia, THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE. They ARE the terrorists! It's NOT that the FARC haven't killed people. They have. It's not that we should support the FARC or believe everything THEY say. It's that the LIE that the Bush Junta and Uribe are telling--the big, big, BIG lie--needs to recognized BEFORE you can get at the truth of this situation.

And now we find out that the U.S. helped Uribe--gave high tech aid--for spying on, tracking and identifying trade unionists in Colombia! WHO are the "terrorists"? And then we have the spectacle of Uribe asserting that everybody who opposes him--academics, teachers, human rights workers, journalists, artists--are all "terrorists."

When we get our fill of this bullshit--when it is reiterated time and again in different forms--we can damn well create a "rule of thumb" like mine to get at the truth, and it DOESN'T MEAN that you then have "blind faith" in the FARC guerilla fighters, or Osama bin Laden, or anybody else.

I am afraid that you are the one guilty of simplistic thinking here. I've come up against something similar in rightwing DUers' reaction to threads or comments that point out the significant achievements of the Chavez government in Venezuela. If I or someone else points out these achievements--to counter the cartoon propaganda of "Chavez the dictator" that is pervasive in the corpo-fascist press--then they say that we are "worshipping" Chavez, or kneeling to "Saint Chavez." It's not that the Chavez government and the people who have elected that government by huge majorities are always right, or should be blindly followed. It's that to even begin to understand the REALITY in Venezuela, you have to FIRST put aside the U.S./rightwing/corpo-fascist propaganda. Rule of thumb: Warmongers and propagandists are saying that Chavez is a "dictator." Ergo, the Chavez government is very democratic.

And guess what? The EVIDENCE that the Chavez government is very democratic is in fact overwhelming. High voter participation rates. High rates of public satisfaction with the government. Honest, transparent elections. High levels of public participation. Big advances in education. Big reductions in poverty. Innovative ideas in both public participation (for instance, the community councils) and education (for instance, funding the magnificent children's classical music orchestras). Etc., etc. Never has Venezuela ever had a more democratic government!

Is the Chavez government "suppressing free speech"? Yeah, they kicked a few corporate butts--media moguls who participated in the 2002 coup attempt. Does that harm "free speech"? Hardly. They also have IMPROVED the access of ordinary citizens to the means of mass communications--with public channels and news services and funding of technical media training for the poor and the previously excluded.

Does this mean that the Chavez goverment is always right? Does this mean that the Chavez government can do no wrong? Does this mean that anyone should have "blind faith" in Chavez or any politician, or in socialism or any political philosophy? Of course not! But you have to shed the non-stop, 24/7, relentless, pervasive propaganda of our own government and its multinational corporate puppetmasters and war profiteers, and what THEY are saying about Chavez, to get anywhere near the truth. They are wrong. They are dead wrong. They are liars. And their motives are greed for profits and greed for power. Is anyone in the Chavez government motivated by greed? No doubt about it. There are most certainly people in the Chavez government motivated by greed for profits and greed for power. I don't think Chavez himself is--but I DO think he needs watching, like any politician. Are there things to criticize in Chavez or his government? Of course there are. They are criticized by the left and by the grass roots all the time! The Chavez government gets it from both right and left constantly. Is that democracy? It damn well is. Not perfect, but in working order. (One flaw in Venezuela's system is that the right are such nutballs and fascists that there really isn't a "loyal opposition." The best criticism comes from the left.)

So, assuming the opposite of what propagandists and warmongers are saying--for instance, about Chavez--does NOT mean "blind faith" in the alternative. Positing that the opposite of what they are saying is true LEADS YOU to the truth--to investigate, to learn the facts, to get out from under the "Iron Curtain" of corpo-fascist lies and see the world as it is, in the light of day.

VERY UNFORTUNATELY, I have found that the Obama government is not much different from the Bush Junta on Latin American issues. They lied about Honduras. They are constantly lying about Chavez. And they just put Uribe on a prestigious committee to evaluate Israel's actions against the humanitarian aid boats. Uribe! They are lying about Colombia and about what the $7 BILLION in military aid that the U.S. is giving Colombia is FOR. My rule of thumb works as to the Obama administration and Latin America. Whatever they say, assume that the opposite is true and you pretty much can't go wrong. You will be on the road to truth.

[gbscar]

16. I wasn't arguing those were your exact words but some of their possible implications.

-"(AI also pointed out that that 2% killed by the FARC were probably trade unionists who were collaborating with the Colombian military.)"

But have you noticed, I wonder, that this argument you're attributing to AI (strictly speaking, we cannot possibly verify it without reading the original source itself) follows the exact same logic behind the macabre reasoning employed by Bush, Uribe and others? If the consequences weren't so bloody tragic, in both directions, the irony would be almost hilarious.

I oppose, as a matter of principle, the application of said logic by all sides and that is, in fact, one of the reasons why I don't share your rule of thumb.

When someone says that a trade unionist was killed because he "probably" was collaborating with the Colombian military, I don't give that any more credibility than to those who state that a trade unionist was killed because he was "probably" collaborating with FARC. Just because more trade unionists have been killed, by more than an order of magnitude, at the hands of the Colombian state or its agents doesn't make either statement a valid justification for violence, terrorism or assassination in either direction.

Do I believe in the "War on Terror" in any way, shape or form? No, because not only do I find the concept preposterous, I am also aware that the United States and its allies, including Colombia, have engaged in terrorist actions. My refusal to apply your rule of thumb doesn't prevent me from understanding this.

Do I believe that Chávez is a dictator? Not at all. I admire the good things he has done for Venezuela and think he is, generally speaking, a force for social progress. However, I am still quite skeptical about some of his other actions and do not see the opposition's shameful behavior as a valid justification for certain measures Chávez has applied or announced.

For you, the evidence is so overwhelming that the application of your rule of thumb has become justified but that isn't something I can agree with. In particular, because what is often presented as the "truth" in response to existing propaganda is far from being free from distortions, omissions or exaggerations.

In the end, I believe both of us have the right to disagree and mutually respect our differences.

-"I am afraid that you are the one guilty of simplistic thinking here."

I might be guilty of misrepresenting your position, that would be fair enough, but forgive me if I dare to disagree about this point. Of all the possible mistakes in my reasoning, since it's evident that nobody is perfect, failing to recognize the complexity of reality is the least of them.

[Judi Lynn]

4. The rec. I added to your post overnight has disappeared.

It takes no time at all to guess who did that.

[EFerrari]

6. Here's one.

:kick:

[Judi Lynn]

8. Thanks! Hope somone doesn't eat it.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com.nyud.net:8090/_uUefUsx5ZJ4/S12j4cbNx5I/AAAAAAAAAXU/SZNi0VtBhEs/s320/TrollSketch.jpg