Yesterday the Bush criminal defense attorney, Alberto Gonzalez, who moonlights as the head of the "Department of Justice," announced the indictments of 50 leaders of the Columbian resistence movement FARC with smuggling $25 billion worth of cocaine internationally. The sad truth is that this indictment is more of a public relations ploy tied to sagging poll numbers and continued bad news from Iraq than any effort to fight narcotics trafficing. Like so very much of what the Bush cabal says and does, there lays a far more sinister reality justifying their actions. While the denotative discourse is about the prevention and prosecution of narcotics trafficing, if the United States were interested in preventing the flow of narcotics into the country it would more likely prosecute the president of Colombia Alvaro Uribe, a man long connected with the production and flow of cocaine, rather than the named defendants, forty seven of the fifty not even in US custody. But the truthful explanation relates to Plan Colombia, a large scale military aid package given to Colombia under the pretense of fighting the proliferation of cocaine, but much more directly related to picking sides in a civil war, and a drive to protect US economic (read, oil) interests. Yet after five years and three billion dollars later, the US is no closer to accomplishing policy goals relating to drugs than it was at the start, but actually has secured a new "fair trade" agreement opening up the Colombian economy for American exploitation. Yet the Colombian politicos don't care much about their citizens so long as the cocaine money keeps flowing in an administration so corrupt it has spread to the Drug Enforcement Agency agents themselves (though under the Bush cabal it's a chicken-and-egg debate), and that other agencies kept a lid on these allegations of corruption and cocaine trafficking. So you have the situation of the criminal Bush gang being in the position of being able to say that they are fighting drug trafficking, while ignoring, aiding and abetting the same, when it is done on the side with which the administration supports. And yet again, the more repressive and corrupt the cast of characters is, the more likely it is to receive the support and blessing of the Administration.
Yet why does the United States support such brutal and unsavory characters involved in drug trafficing and corruption? Well, for exactly the same reasons that it is in Iraq. To ensure military positions and access to resources in a rapidly depleting resource rich world. And when you talk about "natural resources" in the land of Bushspeak, that means one thing: OIL . Yet again the Bush-Cheney vampiric lust for oil takes them anyplace that there's a drop. And when there's the possiblity of war (translates into US arms sales) then there's an added benefit. So the corruption of the Uribe government means concessions to big Oil interests. And the FARC or any other indigenous aspirations need to simply get out of the way.
And another reason for the warm and friendly relations with drug smugglers is that at least they're not socialists. And when Hugo Chavez is across the border what better reason to give $600 million dollars a year to support border disputes and the hiring of mercenaries. And in case anyone wonders about Bush's adherence to "democracy" look no further than to our closest ally in South America.
Unfortunately the United States has a particularly horrible history when it comes to waging the "Drug War" versus ideological war. In fact, it was Gary Webb's breakthough reporting of the CIA's involvement in narcotics trafficing and protection of suppliers of narcotics into the United States that lead to his rise to national prominence, but also contributed to his death. For after having broken this remarkable story, he apparently wasn't ready for the journalistic backlash and impact on his personal and professional career that would ensue. And as Bob Parry would report, not only would Gary's accusations be confirmed, but America still owes him a tremendous debt.
A year before his death, weazl had the chance to sit in Gary's home and discuss the role of US complicity in narcotics trafficking. Unfortunately, we find that the Bush cartel allows no shameful acts in our nation's history to go unrepeated. But thanks Mr. Gonzales for blowing smoke to where we know there must be fire.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Have there ever been any U.S. military interventions weazl would be in favour for??
Weazl is anti-Nazi. Weazl would have been in favor of US intervention in WWII, but of all the tricks that the US has done, the "provocation policy" adopted by Roosevelt seemed to be the most justified to instigate an attack in the wake of large US public opposition to interventionin the war. Weazl, however, instead of allowing the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor, killing approximately 3,000 soldiers, weazl would've used the broken Japanese cable information to launch an attack once the Japanese fleet was in American waters. But it is a tough call, because you have perfect hindsight looking back, and Roosevelt would've had very good reason to believe that if he made any preparations, the Japanese could've called off the attack, thereby thwarting the entire provocation policy plan. So weazl may cut the whole WWII operation and involvement some slack.
Since WWII, US inteventions have mostly been interventions against anti-colonial drives for liberation, such as Congo, Ghana, and Vietnam, or progressive governments that had a socialist bent (but not tied to the Soviets) such as Iran, Nicaragua, Chile, Cuba (but pushed to the Soviets after Eisenhower and Nixon's rebuff), Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Jamaica, and Haiti, for example. I can think of no post-WWII interventions that were justified, assuming that it is not the US prerogative to take whatever resources from smaller countries whenever and wherever it sees fit, and make the world safe for US capitalism. But the US record has been suprisingly perfect in opposing all forms of governments in the "developing world" that sought to improve the lives of its citizens at the expense of cheap labor and cheap natural resources for the benefit of US corporate interests. In this regard, the US military has been primarily a free corporate security unit employed to protect US economic interests, hardly a force fighting for democracy, justice, and fairness in the world.
For the record, weazl believes that Saddam Hussein, a former CIA asset and client, would not have invaded Kuwait if it were not for April Gillespie's assurances to Saddam of James Baker's opinion that the Kuwait-Iraq dispute did not involve US interests. And therefore, he was simply "set up," so no justified invasion there.
Weazl would have supported the US involvement in Afghanistan, except for the fact that US provoked the Soviets to invade in the first place, as admitted (in a roundabout way) by Zbigniew Brzezinski:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html
The sad truth is that the overwhelming number of US interventions have been profoundly anti-democratic. weazl thinks that we can/could have done much, much better. And the list of butchers and bastards that we supported is quite long and disgraceful.
And as wealz has stated in an earlier post, the (upcoming) intervention of Iran will be the most misguided, dangerous and disasterous of all.
One point to clarify, however, it that weazl does think that Communism was a force to be defended against. However, the way in which this "noble cause" was bastardized in practice, especially as pertains to the Third World, has been truly saddening.
The mytholoogy has been of an "expansionist Red menace," and weazl does find support to think that there was an expansionistic intent (and, for example, as in your country, Czech Republic, occasionally played out). But the truth is that over the course of the Cold War, the US was FAR more expansionistic that the Soviets ever dreamed of, but hid their involvement behind covert operations, crony dictators, and proxy armies and proxy wars.
The Bush cabal asked the world to look at Iraq as an example of the US ability to "remake the Middle East" and noted that that country would serve as an example. Well, it does: an example of the cronyism, corruption, violence, hypocrisy and misery that has been an intrinsic part of our post-WWII Third World involvement. And every aspect of that history, from torture to fraudulent elections, to stoking hatreds between peoples to death squads, is rearing its head for the world to see. It truly is an example.
But more people really need to understand its lesson.
To jeanne:
Didn't know if you'd seen this.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO404A.html
weazl has spoken to Prof. Alfred McCoy, world authority on heroin trade. Prof. McCoy told weazl that heroin constitutes 60% percent of GNP. By way of contrast, in Colombia, quasi-narco state, cocaine constitutes 3%. American "liberation" in action.
Yeah, communism was needed to be fought against. It certainly was not a fair play from the U.S. side but we should not forget that it was the U.S. military race that tuckered out the Soviets, left them economically exhausted which primarily contributed to the collapse of the whole communist regime in the Eastern Europe. I mean, this is what people see for the most part, they are grateful to Americans and do not really care for the rest of the story.
It was NOT the US military race that "tuckered out" the Soviets, but the entire inefficiency of the Soviet regime that Gorbachev was attempting to address. The idea that Afghanistan or any other military buildup was a myth even many people in the CIA acknowledged: See Power of Nightmares. Gorbachev has stated himself that the US buildup did nothing to affect his reforms. Other members of the Soviet regime have said the same thing.
http://www.counterpunch.org/blum06072004.html
Perhaps the most comprehensive and quick view on the matter can be seen here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_Soviet_Union
In short, Gorbachev embarked on reforms that he was then unable to control. The myth that heightened military spending particularly under Reagan (or his Afghanistan efforts) caused the fall of the Soviet Union is simply not true. There is no reason why the Soviet Union could not have gone on a massive aggressive military offensive to try to save its sinking economic ship: a sad, pathetic course that unfortunately I see my country embarking on.
If the link that I mentioned is broken, cut and paste in two parts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Collapse_of_the_Soviet_Union
But if you mean a military arms race that took place over the course of the entire World War II period, the perhaps I agree that it "tuckered them out." But perhaps not in the intended way you suggest, if Georgi Arbatov, head of the Moscow-based Institute for the Study of the U.S.A. and Canada, wrote his memoirs in 1992. can be believed:
"Arbatov understood all too well the failings of Soviet totalitarianism in comparison to the economy and politics of the West. It is clear from this candid and nuanced memoir that the movement for change had been developing steadily inside the highest corridors of power ever since the death of Stalin. Arbatov not only provides considerable evidence for the controversial notion that this change would have come about without foreign pressure, he insists that the U.S. military buildup during the Reagan years actually impeded this development.
George F. Kennan agrees. The former US ambassador to the Soviet Union, and father of the theory of "containment" of the same country, asserts that "the suggestion that any United States administration had the power to influence decisively the course of a tremendous domestic political upheaval in another great country on another side of the globe is simply childish." He contends that the extreme militarization of American policy strengthened hard-liners in the Soviet Union. "Thus the general effect of Cold War extremism was to delay rather than hasten the great change that overtook the Soviet Union."
It is true that the Communist experiment was doomed from the begining, it was simply unrealistic in terms of human motivation. It is also true that it's demise began about the time of Stalin's death. What you folks don't factor in is that the remaining life of the Soviet was garnered from the assets of it's client states. Adding additional clients was the only hope of continued life for the Soviet, and the one thing that The United States was not going to allow. Certainly not in the Western Hemisphere. So we set up a few puppet governments, assasinated a few leftists, and funded some heavey handed assholes...What's the big deal?
The problem with you Leftists is that you still believe the failed utopian dream of Karl Marx, only you believe it in a different form. But you still believe it because you are terrified of the reality of life on this planet. You want Uncle Joe, or some benevelent angel, to come and protect you and make the world perfectly safe. Aint gonna happen, assholes. You guys must have all failed history in high school...You did go to high school?
America has blended a marvelous democracy, a great economy, with the ability to protect your sorry asses from tyrants. But you choose, out of neurotic hatred of authority, to attack the very entity that can provide you the safety that you so desparately crave.
In a way I hope that you succeed in bringing down the Government. What comes after that, when the real world comes to devour your candy asses, will be the agony that you richely deserve.
Look at what the victors have traditionally done to the vanquished.
Brave young Americans fought off the English, French, Spanish,Japanese, Germans (twice), and the Communists. Look at what those Empires did to their vanquished.
Now look at what Islaam does to it's captives. For that matter look at what they do to each other! Now you have an idea of what is in store for us if we lose to Islaam. I hope I live long enough to see them cutting your throats, and screaming "Allahu Akbar" with their faces alite with religious ecatasy. I wonder if I can get that on DVD from Al Jazeera?
I don't think that Doc respects you.
doc
Brave young Vietnamese fought off the Americans. And brave young Iraqis are doing a pretty good job so far. :-D
And I too hope to help bring down this government. Almost any government that could follow would be better than this kleptocracy presided over by a dysphasic.
And as far as your desire for a tape of jihadis in action, I suggest going to jihadunspun.com and purchasing one of their many selections, as discussed in my post Bin Swindled. They have a wide variety of options that I think would fulfill your needs. In fact, the link is here:
http://www.jihadunspun.com/
jus-store/titles.cfm
:-D
Thanks for stopping by, doc. Always a pleasure. ;-)
Hey, Jeffie, thanx for stopping in. But now that you're here, we won't let you down. But far from the conspiracy theories of which you refer, the US has been involved in the protection of narcotics trafficking for more than a half a century now. It was actually used to great affect in the Golden Triangle of Laos, Cambodia and Burma, preceding and during the Vietnam War. It shifted to Afghanistan in the seventies just in time for the destabiliazation of the the Soviet Union. And how do you think those Contras got paid when there was a Congressional freeze on payments to them? (Hint, allowing cocaine to enter the country) Sorry, but these aren't conspiracy theories but have been acknowledged not only in the Congressional record, but by the CIA's own internal investigations. So, sorry, Jeffie, you don't impress with your ad hominem: "you-all-hate Bush" tripe. Yes, I hate Bush, he's a dysphasic, dyslexic, apocalypic dry-drunk. But CIA and US involvement in narcotic trafficking predates the moron by generations.
So if you want to learn about some American history, you little patriot, you might check here:
http://intellit.muskingum.edu/cia_folder/
cia90s_folder/cia98_folder/cia98contras.html
In the meantime, keep a bit quiet about the consipracy theory tripe, at least until you realize that the conspiracy has been to keep people like you from knowíng things that appear even in the Congressional Record of the United States of America. Oops. ;-)
And I'll even refrain from calling you stupid. Even when you make the mistakes that you just made, with the arrogance that you just displayed. I'm sure that's embarassing enough. You probably don't need me to rub it in any worse. ;-D
Get real:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/
cocaine/contents.html
The Weasel Writes:
"And I too hope to help bring down this government. Almost any government that could follow would be better than this kleptocracy presided over by a dysphasic."
Wease, you think that the above is some caustic insult that, if not bring me to a true understanding, will cut me to the quick.
Well, your right. It does both. I now have a real idea of the depth of the political depravity engaged in by your ilk of anarchist fool. It really does scare me. If you, replicated countless times across the globe, are the people who are going to be in charge, we are fucked.
You have also answered my question about your level of education. You are completely in the dark about history. Nothing that you have postulated or quoted has been correct.
That brings me back to my investigation of your personality. You are bright enough to type and post. All the rest of your character is suspicious. What the hell has pissed you off so completely that you would create a world that you could hate so deeply?
You have combed the litrature of every enemy of the United States and compiled a litany of lies,half truths, and utter fabrications. You weave them into fantasies of iniquity and share them with semi-literate sychophants who are worse off than you.
Here are some of the history mistakes that are in your last entry:
The brave soldies of Ho Chi Min did not beat us. They killed 56,000 brave American boys. We killed 3.5 million of them. We were fighting to keep Commuinism from encroaching in South East Asia, and it is now gone. Viet Nam, althought they retain the title "Communist" has become a free market entreprenurial society...And quite good at it as well!
The "almost any government" remark should be removed from your compendium of arguments. It shows just how ignorant you actually are concerning the history of human kind (I take the liberty here to assume that you are human...You are, aren't you?). History is stuffed full of tyranical governments up to the point that American democracy (there was an earlier attempt by the French)stepped up to show the way to the wonderful life that allows you to do this.
I also would like to have you remove that argument because it is embarrassing me. I hate to think that the web is open for people to find me debateing an imbicile like as you.
(Doc is weary of fools)
doc
Well jeanne, you are correct. We are losing the war in Afghanistan, and, although you didn't mention it, the one in Iraq as well. Now that we are on the subject, we (Western Modernity) are losing the war to Islaam on every front.
Why is that? It is because modernity, including you, haven't a clue as to what is going on. There are 1.5 billion people out there who want to destroy modern life an replace it with a 7th century theocratic monstrosity. You have the happy feeling that you have an allie in your neurotic adolecent rage. You don't. You have mistaken the enemy. They would, I'm guessing now about your mores here, alternately like to rape you and stone you to death. Or, perhaps take you into slavery. Sexual slavery is widlely practiced in Islaam.
Now we have a choice. We can try to coax them into the 21st century, or we can fight them all-out. The latter would be nuclear. Get it? Nuclear! Now as Americans we are obligated to try the coaxing first. That's what is happening now...Although, you haven't a clue that is what we are doing in the Middle East.
I agree with you. We are not winning. We will not be able to bring them into a peaceful co-existance with modernity. They have undying religous stubborness. We will have, in the end, to nuke them.
Now here comes YOUR part: If Islaam knew that we were of one mind, they wouldn't do this to them selves. YOU and your cohorts have convinced them that they have enough political power to pull this off. They don't. Modernity will never allow itself to go back to the 600's.
We will kill hundreds of millions of Muslims before they figure it out. If you think that is an over exageration, remember, Commuinists executed 200 million of their own citizens inthe last century. There is presedence for this level of slaughter.
(Doc says: "It will all be your fault!")
Patriot,
doc
Doc, you're right. In Vietnam the US slaughered millions of people. Yet the US still lost. Yet it can still have now good relations with Vietnam despite the Communist "tag." Doesn't that suggest that other than having to fend off the Americans (quite important), those lives were lost in vain?
But your numbers once again are inflated. 3.5 million? Keep going and the US will have those Commie 100-200 million beat. ;-)
Post a Comment