What alerted me to this was Mark Penn being a paid agent of the Colombian government--and Colombia being a key Bushite player in the war to regain U.S. corporate control of the oil in Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia. I think Clinton is on board for this war, Obama not so much. I think this may be why the Clinton's were so adamant in asserting that only Hillary could win the GE--because our Corporate Rulers MUST have that oil, and they control the voting machines. Hillary may be many things to many people--some good, some bad--but one thing I am certain of: She is the front person for the Corporate Rulers' agenda in the Democratic Party. And their agenda can be summed up in one word: Oil!
Iraq is a disaster area (they will never reach full production again). Iran is well-defended and has powerful friends (China, for instance). Mexicans are balking at the privatization of their constitutionally protected oil resource. Where else is there oil?
The Bushites have reconstituted the 4th Fleet (nukes), which will be off the coast of Venezuela by mid-summer (and in particular off the state of Zulia). The Bushite strategy--since they have been unable to destroy democracy in South America--has been to fund, organize and arm fascist secession groups in the oil states of Venezuela (Zulia), Ecuador (coastal region) and Bolivia (eastern, white separatist provinces), to split off fascist mini-states where the oil is, from control by the national governments (democratic, leftist, into social justice and regional autonomy). Colombia (adjacent to Zulia)--and larded with $5.5 BILLION in U.S./Bush military aid--is totally on board for this war, and has already tried to provoke it (first shots fired in March of this year--with the Colombia/U.S. bombing/raid into Ecuador).
Clinton is tied to Colombia though Mark Penn. Bill Clinton was the architect of "Plan Colombia" (the arming of Colombia). Penn is the paid lobbyist for Colombia on the Colombia/U.S. "free trade" deal. Colombia has one of the worst human rights records on earth--and labor Democrats in Congress balked at favored trade status to a country were union leaders are chainsawed and their body parts thrown into mass graves--among other, numerous atrocities. So getting this "free trade" bill through Congress was likely high on Clinton's agenda with Obama--perhaps no. 2, after the oil war against Venezuela and its oil-rich allies.
The Clinton's are dependent on corporate backers who designed U.S.-dominated "free trade," and MUST HAVE more oil (to tanker "free trade" goods around the world, and as the engine of corporate profit, here and abroad). Obama, not so much--he has us 1.5 million small donors, for instance--who want peace and justice, and are starting to suffer, ourselves, under Corporate imperialism. I'm not saying that Obama is all that virtuous compared to Clinton. His statements about Iran and particularly Venezuela and Ecuador have me very concerned. I'm just saying he is relatively
freer of corporate backers.
So, what I suspect took place at this meeting was a confrontation of these two major components of the Democratic Party--those previously in charge (the corporate/ war Democrats, into getting the OIL), and the candidate (Obama) whom the people have flocked to, who are sick and tired of that agenda. We tend to think of things too personally--because that's how the media plays it, as a distraction from the issues. Clinton wants debt relief, or to be VP, or whatever. Obama wants her support. But larger forces are very much at work (including us, the American people--we're a force), and very important policy issues, including war and trade policy. And this is how I'm reading it: top of the agenda is the oil war the Bushites have, in fact, already tried to start in South America, and have set up for major action in late summer, not only to grab the oil (or try to) while they have Bush-Cheney in the White House, but also as a CAMPAIGN ISSUE.
What was specifically traded? Who knows? But I imagine Clinton saying something like this to Obama: "You know they'll Diebold you, don't you--if you don't go along with this?" (i.e., U.S. military support for the "independence" of Zulia--or Santa Cruz in Bolivia.) "Make me VP" (or whatever), "and I'll signal my backers that you're okay with the new oil war. And he wonders, "how cleanly can it be done?", and she says, "minimum casualties," and he says, "what about reaction? it may destroy U.S/Latin American relations for the rest of the century," and she says, "naw, they don't like Chavez anyway, down there" (which would be a lie--he's as popular with South American leaders as he is with Venezuelans and millions of others on the continent--VERY popular). And maybe Obama swallows this lie because he is NOT well-informed on the matter (if his speech in Miami, a few weeks ago, is any guide).
This is a FANTASY conversation, I want to stress. I'm trying to convey what I think the meeting was really about--not personal horse-trading, but SERIOUS, IMPORTANT, EVEN GRAVE policy differences, and compromises.
I know this may come as startling news to folks who haven't been paying much attention to Bushite activities in Latin America. I suggest you read what Donald Rumsfeld (yup--
that Donald Rumsfeld)--wrote in the Washington Post just six months ago. He urges "swift action" by the U.S. in support of "friends and allies" in South America.*
----------------
*
"The Smart Way to Beat Tyrants Like Chávez," by Donald Rumsfeld, 12/1/07http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/30/AR2007113001800.html(Note: It's mostly about the Colombian "free trade" deal, but bear in mind that that "free trade" deal is one of the bribes to keep the Colombian fascists on board for war against Venezuela and Ecuador (also Bolivia), by harassing their borders, running drugs and weapons routes through them, phony "war on drugs" incursions, spraying their farmers with toxic pesticides, slandering them as "terrorists" (recently), colluding with/arming the secessionists within the oil provinces, assassination plots (and dirty tricks) against Chavez and others hatched in the Colombian military, and use of Colombia as a launching pad for U.S. military support of the secessionists.)
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(383 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
