Join in 7 seconds.. Existing users: sign in.

all forums, active | friendly talkzone, travel tips, visa & paperwork, renting, selling & meetups, politics & the war, espanol

$300 MILLION FROM CHAVEZ TO FARC: A FAKE

$300 MILLION FROM CHAVEZ
TO FARC A FAKE
Published March 7th, 2008

By Greg Palast

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 español, 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 Angel, 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? ¿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.

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 Chávez 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.
******************

By (Deleted user) on Mar 15, 2008, 10:30 in Politics & the war.

juancegomez says on Mar 15, 2008, 10:40:

While I'm skeptical about the details of Colombian government's specific interpretation of the matter (which also applies, from my point of view, to the uranium issue), and it's indeed possible that the text could be interpreted in other ways...I'm not so sure of what he's arguing as a valid alternative, especially after reading the documents myself.

I was not at all convinced, considering the same context this fellow is referencing, that it was meant to refer to "300" prisoners.

Additionally, as only one of several potential nitpicks, FARC has no similar amount of officially "exchangeable" captives (politicians or security personnel) at this point.

That being the case, I think he hasn't considered other references to "300" or to the "dossier", as well as to "Angel" and the "cojo"...not to mention this latest tidbit from SEMANA, which hints at a FARC interest in receiving $250 million, after Piedad Córdoba allegedly received $100 million from Chávez for "social work"in her department:

Septiembre 23 de 2007

Camarada JE, camaradas del Secretariado: Fraternal saludo.
No tengo objeciones y ni aportes a la nueva carta del camarada para Chávez. De alta política el llamarlo a trabajar en conjunto con las Farc.
Ratifico mi propuesta de delegar al camarada Iván Márquez para que en representación del Secretariado y acompañado por Marco León o Santrich, acuda a la entrevista clandestina con el presidente Chávez, con la misión de exponer el plan estratégico...

Piedad me contó, pidiendo nuestra confidencialidad, que Chávez le aportó para obras sociales en su departamento 100 millones. De ser así, no sería descartable conseguir nosotros los 250 millones del Plan.

Abrazos, Raúl

http://www.semana.com/wf_InfoArticulo.aspx?idArt=110107

You could say I'd like to see him directly address this letter and other references he does not explicitly address nor mention on his website. I'm a bit lazy right now, so I won't post them here, but they're certainly in the documents.

If anyone takes the time to read all of them, they'll probably see there is more to the subject than what Mr. Palast has said.

Of course, once again, there's always the real possibility that at least some of these documents are false, but assuming they aren't...that's where different interpretations come in.

But if you're going to strongly insist on declaring that something is a fake, you'd better consider *all* the documents and *all* the relevant references, not just one or two.

That's not exactly too convicing, so Mr. Palast's analysis doesn't quite make it, in my view.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

aztec says on Mar 15, 2008, 10:58:

Damn this (cassini77) guy is like a bad penny. An expression we use in the States suggesting you can't get rid of it. I know I have listed at least two of his monikers as ignore!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Aaron21 says on Mar 15, 2008, 11:10:

I do not follow the logic. We should applaud Correa for condemning Uribe's incursion while at the same time condemning Uribe for killing someone who was trying to overthrow his government? This is the sort of idiocy that will destroy your assertions every time.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

lampltr says on Mar 15, 2008, 11:29:

Has anyone seen the documentary; "America - Freedom To Fascism?" I now agree with Kat and her post about Chevez a few weeks ago. Reading & listening to biased news in the US, serving in the military for nearly 30 years one can see the different angles by the U.S. and that the Gov't will do whatever is necessary anywhere in the world to fight "Global War on Terrorism." Even to the point of overthrowing governments, democratic or not. Check out the video and see what you may get out of this. Just may match up to what is said above.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Chriscan says on Mar 15, 2008, 13:34:

Every time the u.s makes a statement about another country it seems that the oppisite turns out to be true. I wouldn't be surprised if Colombia follows the soame formula.

************* WARNING ************* my words often come from my ass

0 funny, 0 helpful.

cali373 says on Mar 15, 2008, 14:26:

"...I'm not so sure of what he's arguing as a valid alternative"

He doesn´t offer a valid alternative, he just suggest that Colombia´s interpretation of the email was skewed and they added their own conclusions to support their agenda.

his suggestion of 300 prisoners probably meant 300 FARC prisoners held by Colombia, not 300 FARC hostages. But like he says: Is that what the '300' refers to? whos knows because he is suggesting that Colombia does not know either so they are full of shit about 300 million from Chavez.

Code name : Chavez LOL!!!

Smile if you are a thinker!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

robi666 says on Mar 15, 2008, 14:28:

It could be that they were talking about 300 Pesos to buy an empanada.

"I am a citizen of the most beautiful nation on earth. A nation whose laws are harsh yet simple, a nation that never cheats, which is immense and without borders, where life is lived in the present."

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Alma del Norte says on Mar 15, 2008, 14:30:

300 Pesos? that's a bargain empanada.

La vida es una rutina

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Alma del Norte says on Mar 15, 2008, 14:30:

Do you get a filling?

La vida es una rutina

0 funny, 0 helpful.

robi666 says on Mar 15, 2008, 14:32:

But that's what it costs una empanadita de papas o carne en Mi Bunuelo en El Poblado!
True, you need 500 pesos for a full empanada de pollo downtown Barranquilla...

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Alma del Norte says on Mar 15, 2008, 14:34:

Wow! - mine cost about a mil more than that, en mi pueblito de Cedritos.

La vida es una rutina

0 funny, 0 helpful.

cali373 says on Mar 15, 2008, 14:36:

For those that don´t know who Greg Palast is. He is an investigative journalist unlike the ones you find on CNN, Fox, CBS, NBC. Being that he actually does investigative journalism and doesn´t censor himself to get on the air.

He works out of great britain because his investigative work got him in trouble with the U.S. Patriot act. Over the past years he has been uncovering the truths about the Iraq war and the lies and deception that go on about it. but you won´t find it on Television, I assure you.

Smile if you are a thinker!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

sloopskipper says on Mar 15, 2008, 14:43:

cali373, I searched for reputable (to me) sources for that story, and found none that I was familiar with. However, I did find that this seems to be quite a reputable source, not an Oliver Stone. Although I think he is also a fiction writer, no?

I think that I also saw that he writes and appears on the BBC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Palast

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Mar 15, 2008, 14:50:

I read the Reyes letters too....and am not convinced. I'm sure the documents are authentic, however, and not fakes, but what do they mean? The interpretation given by Colombian officials was too fast and too convenient to suit my tastes.

"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."-President George W. Bush

0 funny, 0 helpful.

durito says on Mar 15, 2008, 15:02:

The best interpretation I've read of the documents suggest that the FARC is in such a disorganized state that it's impossible to tell how accurate many of their communications are.

We all remember the Iraqi minister of communications who was still so scared of the Saddaam regime that he reported no US troops near Baghdad even as tanks rolled by behind him.

This is quite different, but nevertheless it seems pretty clear the FARC no longer has a solid communication and organizational structure. How else would they think they had the child Emmanuel and not have him.

I agree with desi, that while I sure as well that the documents are in fact authentic, what they actually mean may be far different than what's been released. For example, it seems quite unlikely they actually intended to make a "dirty bomb".

Nevertheless, I've read much of Greg Palast's stuff before and while sometime he does good work, He's quite quick to jump on any conspiracy theory without any real justification.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

robi666 says on Mar 15, 2008, 15:07:

One thing I learned in Colombia, it is that the worse interpretation of facts is always the right one.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Mar 15, 2008, 15:50:

Desi. I completely agree that the Colombian government has rushed things and that its interpretations are hardly perfect, to say the least,.

For example, they backtracked a bit on the uranium claim...apparently it was either a scam or going to be sold to a third party.

Also, about the "300", I'm not certain that the relevant passages refer to Chavez per se, and other references imply that the money (if that's what this is about) has not been fully delivered yet.

But, in short, I think the same applies to Greg Palast here: he's rushing things.

He attempts to shoot down the government's position, yet he only talks about a single reference, ignoring others, in the rush to "prove" its all "fake" and "tell that to the world".

cali373:

"He doesn´t offer a valid alternative",

He does try to make one suggestion, at least.

But fails at it, IMHO.

"he just suggest that Colombia´s interpretation of the email was skewed and they added their own conclusions to support their agenda. "

Except that, in order to make this suggestion credible, I would expect him to do a better job.

Credentials or no credentials, investigative journalist or no investigative journalist...that matters not.

Maybe I'm asking for too much...but I don't think it's impossible for Mr. Palast to read all the available documents (which were already posted online and elsewhere at the time, with the partial exception of the latest letters from SEMANA) and not just a couple of them.

Since he didn't do that, he has ignored other relevant phrases and passages, which may hint at some sort of monetary transaction and/or interest.

But no...

"his suggestion of 300 prisoners probably meant 300 FARC prisoners held by Colombia, not 300 FARC hostages."

Which makes little sense, especially considering other phrases and statements that Palast ignored.

Why would the documents refer to them as "dossier"?

Why would they talk about shadowy characters such as "cojo" and "Angel" giving or receiving instructions?

Why would another document mention that "50" have been readied and "200" could be completed over the course of the year?

Btw, Colombia has, at the very least, 500-600 FARC prisoners, according to the media. According to the government, the figures are at least twice that.

"300" doesn't really fit all that well there. This runs into exactly the same problem I mentioned, and IMHO still doesn't fit the actual context.

Not to mention Palast is not really too accurate about what happened during the previous "exchange", but I suppose it's too much to ask him to read the text of the agreement signed between the government and FARC back in 2001 (IIRC, could check the date later and so forth...there's a scan of the entire thing in Pastrana's book).

"But like he says: Is that what the '300' refers to? whos knows because he is suggesting that Colombia does not know either so they are full of shit about 300 million from Chavez. ""

Except that, again, in order to suggest this in a reasonable manner I would expect him to do something he hasn't already done: read other documents, other references and address what they say.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

miamimike says on Mar 15, 2008, 16:51:

Remember when Colin Powell gave the Infamous "WMD" Speech that launched us into this disasterous War? If it happened here in the US who is to say the Facts aren't being stretched or misinterpreted on this matter,,,,

"Wait a minute. What did you just say? You're predicting $4-a-gallon gas? That's interesting. I hadn't heard that." -- Feb. 28, 2008 --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

webmanco says on Mar 15, 2008, 20:57:

Lo que encontraron el el portatil de Reyes

(I really hate it when women get their panties all bunched up their butt, they can get so cranky!) Poor butt happy

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Aaron21 says on Mar 15, 2008, 21:53:

Lolololol.............. Classic!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

robi666 says on Mar 15, 2008, 22:30:

Are we talking about 300?...

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Catfish35 says on Mar 16, 2008, 03:33:

I have a great idea! Since we can't make heads or tails out of this mess anymore. Sheetz gotten just too clouded for me. Lets just wipe them all out and start over. Crist! I can't figure out who's who anymore!

"So many guns, and so few brains". sam spade

0 funny, 0 helpful.

aztec says on Mar 16, 2008, 09:48:

Apparent FARC cash uncovered in Costa Rica!

Of course this is also a frabrication of the Colombian Government.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/americas/story/458476.html

0 funny, 0 helpful.

cali373 says on Mar 17, 2008, 14:30:

Could be FARC money, there is FARc money all over Latin american countries, yet this is not the topic we were discussing on this post.

As far as I see it the Colombian government should get critisized for inventing instead of interpretating.

Smile if you are a thinker!

0 funny, 0 helpful.