Well, it didn't take long for Greg Palast to debunk Columbian President Uribe and his Right-Wing Death Squad government's demonization propaganda slandering Hugo Chavez, which Bush quickly lapped up, if his people didn't promote it in the first place. This needs to get out on the Internet quickly, so pass around this info.
$300 Million From Chavez To Farc A Fake
Here's the written evidence
By Greg Palast
07/03/08 "ICH" — — Do you believe this?
This past weekend, Colombia invaded Ecuador, killed a guerrilla chief in the jungle, opened his laptop – and what did the Colombians find? A message to Hugo Chavez that he sent the FARC guerrillas $300 million – which they're using to obtain uranium to make a dirty bomb!
That's what George Bush tells us. And he got that from his buddy, the strange right-wing President of Colombia, Alvaro Uribe.
So: After the fact, Colombia justifies its attempt to provoke a border war as a way to stop the threat of WMDs! Uh, where have we heard that before?
The US press snorted up this line about Chavez' $300 million to "terrorists" quicker than the young Bush inhaling Colombia's powdered export.
What the US press did not do is look at the evidence, the email in the magic laptop. (Presumably, the FARC leader's last words were, "Listen, my password is ....")
I read them. (You can read them here) While you can read it all in espaÃ±ol, here is, in translation, the one and only mention of the alleged $300 million from Chavez:
"... With relation to the 300, which from now on we will call "dossier," efforts are now going forward at the instructions of the boss to the cojo [slang term for 'cripple'], which I will explain in a separate note. Let's call the boss Ãngel, and the cripple Ernesto."
Got that? Where is Hugo? Where's 300 million? And 300 what? Indeed, in context, the note is all about the hostage exchange with the FARC that Chavez was working on at the time (December 23, 2007) at the request of the Colombian government.
Indeed, the entire remainder of the email is all about the mechanism of the hostage exchange. Here's the next line:
"To receive the three freed ones, Chavez proposes three options: Plan A. Do it to via of a 'humanitarian caravan'; one that will involve Venezuela, France, the Vatican[?], Switzerland, European Union, democrats [civil society], Argentina, Red Cross, etc."
As to the 300, I must note that the FARC's previous prisoner exchange involved 300 prisoners. Is that what the '300' refers to? Â¿Quien sabe? Unlike Uribe, Bush and the US press, I won't guess or make up a phastasmogoric story about Chavez mailing checks to the jungle.
To bolster their case, the Colombians claim, with no evidence whatsoever, that the mysterious "Angel" is the code name for Chavez. But in the memo, Chavez goes by the code name ... Chavez.
Well, so what? This is what . . . .
Colombia's invasion into Ecuador is a rank violation of international law, condemned by every single Latin member of the Organization of American States. But George Bush just loved it. He called Uribe to back Colombia, against, "the continuing assault by narco-terrorists as well as the provocative maneuvers by the regime in Venezuela."
Well, our President may have gotten the facts ass-backward, but Bush knows what he's doing: shoring up his last, faltering ally in South America, Uribe, a desperate man in deep political trouble.
Uribe claims he is going to bring charges against Chavez before the International Criminal Court. If Uribe goes there in person, I suggest he take a toothbrush: it was just discovered that right-wing death squads held murder-planning sessions at Uribe's ranch. Uribe's associates have been called before the nation's Supreme Court and may face prison.
[This article continued on the Information Clearinghouse website as follows:]
In other words, it's a good time for a desperate Uribe to use that old politico's wheeze, the threat of war, to drown out accusations of his own criminality. Furthermore, Uribe's attack literally killed negotiations with FARC by killing FARC's negotiator, Raul Reyes. Reyes was in talks with both Ecuador and Chavez about another prisoner exchange. Uribe authorized the negotiations. However, Uribe knew, should those talks have succeeded in obtaining the release of those kidnapped by the FARC, credit would have been heaped on Ecuador and Chavez, and discredit heaped on Uribe.
Luckily for a hemisphere on the verge of flames, the President of Ecuador, Raphael Correa, is one of the most level-headed, thoughtful men I've ever encountered.
Correa is now flying from Quito to Brazilia to Caracas to keep the region from blowing sky high. While moving troops to his border – no chief of state can permit foreign tanks on their sovereign soil – Correa also refuses sanctuary to the FARC . Indeed, Ecuador has routed out 47 FARC bases, a better track record than Colombia's own, corrupt military.
For his cool, peaceable handling of the crisis, I will forgive Correa for apologizing for his calling Bush, "a dimwitted President who has done great damage to his country and the world." (Watch an excerpt of my interview with Correa here.)
Amateur Hour in Blue
We can trust Correa to keep the peace South of the Border. But can we trust our Presidents-to-be?
The current man in the Oval Office, George Bush, simply can't help himself: an outlaw invasion by a right-wing death-squad promoter is just fine with him.
But guess who couldn't wait to parrot the Bush line? Hillary Clinton, still explaining that her vote to invade Iraq was not a vote to invade Iraq, issued a statement nearly identical to Bush's, blessing the invasion of Ecuador as Colombia's "right to defend itself." And she added, "Hugo ChÃ¡vez must stop these provoking actions." Huh?
I assumed that Obama wouldn't jump on this landmine – especially after he was blasted as a foreign policy amateur for suggesting he would invade across Pakistan's border to hunt terrorists.
It's embarrassing that Barack repeated Hillary's line nearly verbatim, announcing, "the Colombian government has every right to defend itself."
(I'm sure Hillary's position wasn't influenced by the loan of a campaign jet to her by Frank Giustra. Giustra has given over a hundred million dollars to Bill Clinton projects. Last year, Bill introduced Giustra to Colombia's Uribe. On the spot, Giustra cut a lucrative deal with Uribe for Colombian oil.)
Then there's Mr. War Hero. John McCain weighed in with his own idiocies, announcing that, "Hugo Chavez is establish[ing] a dictatorship," presumably because, unlike George Bush, Chavez counts all the votes in Venezuelan elections.
But now our story gets tricky and icky.
The wise media critic Jeff Cohen told me to watch for the press naming McCain as a foreign policy expert and labeling the Democrats as amateurs. Sure enough, the New York Times, on the news pages Wednesday, called McCain, "a national security pro."
McCain is the "pro" who said the war in Iraq would cost nearly nothing in lives or treasury dollars.
But, on the Colombian invasion of Ecuador, McCain said, "I hope that tensions will be relaxed, President Chavez will remove those troops from the borders - as well as the Ecuadorians - and relations continue to improve between the two."
It's not quite English, but it's definitely not Bush. And weirdly, it's definitely not Obama and Clinton cheerleading Colombia's war on Ecuador.
Democrats, are you listening? The only thing worse than the media attacking Obama and Clinton as amateurs is the Democratic candidates' frightening desire to prove them right.
[Greg Palast is a good investigative reporter. He's funny and rough, but the truth comes out from much/most of his work. If you read my much earlier post (I scooped it! as I break my arm patting myself on my back — not really; Greg supplied the all-important text-details from the laptop; I just helped with rolling a ball that he would have rolled regardless) on this subject, "Colombia: Chavez funding FARC rebels: Allegedly ALLEGEDLY!," you'll see that I'm in sync with Greg on it.
Maybe Greg or one of Greg's stringers (news media part-timer or freelancer) reads my posts or subscribes to my RSS feed. "Don't flatter yourself, Usher." Yes, yes, I know. Ha! Just so long as people are helping tell the truth and are given credit when due, it's Christian.
Really, ego and pride are not good. All credit is God's anyway. If we help spread the truth, God knows we're doing it. However, the reason credit is important is because they try to discredit Jesus. That leads to discrediting his teaching and exemplary life. When that happens, we don't try to live up to his standard. That then keeps us from being as good as we can be. It makes the world darker — more evil. Everything that is wrong is then magnified. If we give credit where due though, then the opposite happens, of course!: Goodness and righteousness, which are the same thing actually.]
if you believe it contains sufficient original content or commentary.
Just change the title if the title of this post has already been used on Digg.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)