[News] Bush and Uribe v. Chavez and Correa

[Anti-Imperialist News]

Bush and Uribe v. Chavez and Correa

http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/16838

March 12, 2008 By Stephen Lendman

Call it another salvo in Bush v. Chavez with Ecuador's Raphael Correa 
as a secondary target and Colombia's Alvaro Uribe as a proxy 
aggressor. The Ecuadorean incursion was no ordinary cross-border 
raid. It was a made in Washington affair that escalates a nine year 
attempt to remove the Venezuelan leader and return oligarchs in the 
country to power. It also threatens two regional leaders who know 
what they're up against in Uribe and Washington, "friendly" 
handshakes in the Dominican Republic notwithstanding. The situation 
is far from settled, and here's how events unfolded so far:

-- on March 1, the Colombian military illegally entered Ecuadorean 
air space and invaded on the ground; the target was a FARC-EP rebel 
camp; US intelligence was key by identifying the precise location to 
bomb through satellite telephone tracking; Colombian Radio Cadena 
Nacional (RCN) reported it heard a FARC-EP leader - Chavez 
conversation three days before the raid; Colombian Noticias Uno TV 
said "foreign spy planes" photographed FARC-EP's precise location for 
the country's military to use in the raid;

-- it's also known that US Special Forces train Colombian 
counterinsurgents, accompany them on missions, and likely 
participated (covertly) in the March 1 operation;

-- Colombian (and likely US) forces attacked and slaughtered over 20 
people in total, including 16 Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia 
(FACR-EP) members while they slept;

-- among the dead was FARC-EP's second-in-command, Raul Reyes; he was 
FARC-EP's public voice, its key peace negotiator since the 1990s, and 
the lead figure in the Chavez-arranged hostage releases; that and his 
prominence made him a target so his death may disrupt the process and 
current efforts toward resolving a 40 year conflict equitably; 
Washington wants it halted, so does Uribe, and that's where things now stand;

-- Hugo Chavez and other Latin American leaders were united in 
condemning the hostile act; the 35-member Organization of American 
States, however, was tepid in its formal March 5 response; Correa 
called it welcome but inadequate and insists on a formal 
condemnation; Chavez was even more forceful saying: "We demand 
condemnation of the Colombian government for this aberrant act," he 
called it a "war crime (and blamed the crisis on the US) empire and 
its lackeys;"

-- ahead of the March 7 Dominican Republic XX Rio Group Summit of 
Latin American leaders, foreign ministers from Chile, Argentina, 
Mexico, Brazil and Peru issued a statement demanding respect for 
their national sovereignty; Chavez called the meeting "positive" and 
advocated "cooling tensions;" he supported Ecuador and said: "We 
don't want war;"

-- Chavez, Correa and Uribe exchanged cool handshakes and pro forma 
conciliatory statements at the Summit; for what it's worth, Uribe 
issued a "formal apology" to the Ecuadorean government and its 
people; call it disingenuous diplomacy; it settles nothing in spite 
of how the media played it or that Venezuela and Colombia restored 
diplomatic ties; for his part, Correa said it will be "difficult to 
recover trust" and reestablishing normal relations "will take a little time;"

-- one example of media coverage came from correspondent Simon Romero 
of The New York Times; he's always disingenuous and never neutral; he 
reported "handshakes and warm embraces....ended the dispute" as 
though nothing ever happened and it's again business as usual; in 
fact, nothing is settled; the incident still simmers, it's just a 
matter of time before the next one erupts, and Chavez, Correa and 
other regional leaders know it; so does Washington that plans them;

-- earlier, Chavez also called Colombia the "Israel of Latin America" 
saying both countries claimed "a supposed right to defense," to bomb 
and invade neighbors on orders from Washington;

-- Uribe confirmed it by saying he "refused to rule out future 
military incursions into Ecuador or Venezuela," so expect more 
provocations ahead with full Washington backing;

-- at the same time, huge crowds of Colombians at home and abroad 
marched for peace and against terrorist acts; they denounced violence 
on both sides and want it ended, but a new disturbing report came out:

-- the Colombia weekly Semana wrote that ex-Israeli military men are 
fighting guerrilla organizations (meaning the FARC-EP and ELN), and 
Defense Minister Juan Santos confirmed that "A group of former 
Israeli military officials (including three senior generals, a lower 
ranking officer and three translators) is counseling the military's 
top brass on intelligence issues;" in addition, FARC-EP claims that 
Israeli commandos were engaged against them along with US and British forces.

The hostile words followed with Ecuadorean officials citing 
irrefutable evidence that Uribe's attack was premeditated and his 
worst ever aggression against their country. Correa expressed 
"outrage" and sees no negotiated settlement because "there is nothing 
to negotiate." In Brazil for a meeting with Lula da Silva, he said 
Ecuador is prepared to go "up to the ultimate consequences (over this 
even though) nobody wants war. But we won't fool ourselves. The war 
was started by Colombia. We were bombed."

Correa and Chavez both deployed troops to their borders, and each 
country went further. Ecuador severed diplomatic ties with its 
neighbor, and Correa called Uribe Washington's "unconditional puppet" 
for his blatant act of aggression. Chavez also expelled Colombia's 
ambassador, and called the strike "a cowardly murder, all of it 
coldly calculated" and planned in Washington. He also warned Colombia 
against similar Venezuelan incursions that he would interpret as a 
"cause for war."

Uribe, in turn, defiantly shot back that Colombia will charge Chavez 
in the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague for materially 
aiding the FARC-EP by "sponsor(ing) and funding genocidal" groups. 
Colombia's Radio Caracol then reported Uribe intends to "revise" or 
"examine" his charges with no further details given. And on the same 
day Vice-President Francisco Santos Calderon provocatively indicated 
that relations with Correa "may be recovered," but it will be "very 
difficult" to reach a diplomatic solution with Chavez. He and Uribe 
have long been antagonists and have been at odds for months over 
Chavez's hostage mediating success that embarrassed the Colombian 
president and Washington in the process.

Colombian officials heightened tensions further through 
misstatements. First, they claimed bombings occurred  on their own 
territory. Then they changed the story saying: "Colombia has not 
violated any sovereignty, (we) only acted in accordance with the 
principle of legitimate defense," and responded to fire from inside Ecuador.

Both statements were untrue and Chavez reacted. He accused Uribe of 
lying and called him a "criminal" saying: "Not only is he a liar, a 
mafia boss, a paramilitary who leads a narco-government (that's) a 
lackey of the United States (but he also) leads a band of criminals 
from his palace."

The war of words continues with Washington's OAS ambassador, Robert 
Manzanares, accusing FARC-EP of "undertak(ing) repeated incursions 
and infringements of national sovereignty (against Colombia's) 
neighbors." Defense Secretary Robert Gates "applauded" Uribe's 
action, and when asked if US intelligence supported it said: "Well, I 
would just say that we are very supportive."

George Bush joined in, and jumped to his ally's defense. Well he 
should as Washington provides Colombia with over $600 million a year 
and all for one purpose - to support repression and the interests of 
capital at the expense of beneficial social change. On March 4, Bush 
phoned Uribe with assurances "America fully supports Colombia's 
democracy (and) firmly opposes any acts of aggression that could 
destabilize the region." He also called sending Venezuelan troops to 
the border "provocative maneuvers."

In addition, he used the crisis to push Congress to approve a trade 
deal that's been stalled over issues of Uribe's paramilitary links 
and the country's human rights record. Bush did what he always does. 
He cited national security and said ratification is a way to counter 
leaders like Chavez who destabilize the region. "If we fail to 
approve this agreement, we will let down our close ally, we will 
damage our credibility (and) will embolden the demagogues in our hemisphere."

Consider comments as well from US presidential candidates. On March 
3, Barack Obama said: "The Colombian people have suffered for more 
than four decades at the hands of a brutal terrorist insurgency, and 
the Colombian government has every right to defend itself against the...FARC."

Hillary Clinton was even more hostile stating: "Hugo Chavez's order 
yesterday to send ten battalions to the Colombian border is 
unwarranted and dangerous. (Colombia) has every right to defend 
itself against drug trafficking terrorist organizations that have 
kidnapped innocent civilians, including American citizens. By 
praising and supporting the (FARC-EP), Chavez is openly siding with 
terrorists that threaten Colombian democracy and the peace and 
security in the region. (Chavez) must call a halt to this provocative 
action. As president, I will....press Chavez to change course."

Then there's John McCain who even scares some in the Pentagon and is 
virulently hostile to Chavez. He calls him a "wacko" and 
"two-bit-dictator" and advocates his ouster "in the name of democracy 
and freedom throughout the hemisphere." As president, he'd be the 
most likely to provoke a confrontation because he's ideologically 
committed to militarism "to confront a range of security 
challenges....in a dangerous world."

  One writer calls him an "authoritarian maverick" and a man to fear 
as president. Another describes his "McCainiac mentality," his notion 
of occupying Iraq for 100 years or as long as it takes, and his 
belief that militarism, nationalism and honor are their own rewards. 
Still another expects a McCain administration to confront Venezuela 
and Cuba by allying with regional rightest forces for regime change 
in both countries. Add Ecuador as well and a determination to declare 
"mission accomplished" before his tenure ends if he's elected.

Disturbing evidence of his belligerence is in his October 2001 
commentary titled: "No Substitute for Victory - War is hell. Let's 
get on with it." In it, he calls war "miserable business (but let's) 
get on with the business of killing our enemies as quickly....and as 
ruthlessly as we must....(post-9/11) we have only one primary 
occupation, and that is to vanquish international terrorism. Not 
reduce it. Not change its operations. Not temporarily subdue it. But 
vanquish it....We did not cause this war (but) we must destroy the 
people who (did)." Is this a man to trust as president who considers 
anyone unresponsive to US interests a "terrorist" and state enemy to 
be destroyed?

Democrats are no better, so expect the worst under a new president 
next year. The "war on terror" will continue, and Uribe will get full 
funding and support for internal repression and Washington-ordered 
regional aggression.

By that standard, Hugo Chavez and Raul Castro have every right to 
invade Florida to capture two resident terrorists for bona fide 
crimes against their countries - Luis Posada Carriles and Orlando 
Bosch. Posada is a former CIA operative who terror-bombed and killed 
73 people in 1976 on Cubana flight 455 that Bosch likely 
masterminded. Yet South Florida's Cuban-American community and the 
Bush administration protect them as an expression of their judicial 
double standard.

Heated Rhetoric and Provocative Charges

Further heightening tensions, Colombia's vice-president, Francisco 
Santos Calderon, made an outlandish claim. With no verifiable 
evidence, even some in the intelligence community are dubious - that 
invading forces found provocative material on three recovered laptops 
that supposedly show:

-- Venezuela provided $300 million in aid to the FARC-EP;

-- Chavez and Correa have links to the rebel group;

-- Chavez is trying to undermine, isolate and discredit Uribe and 
wants to cleanse FARC-EP of its (undeserved) pariah status; and most 
outrageous of all that

-- FARC-EP acquired 50 kilograms (110 pounds) of uranium for a 
radioactive dirty bomb it wishes to sell for profit.

Former State Department arms smuggling expert, James Lewis, discounts 
the story. He said: "In a lot of cases involving uranium deals, 
somebody's usually getting snookered (and the 50 kilos) quantity 
sounds really suspicious" because US intelligence would likely spot 
anyone securing an amount that large.   Chavez as well denounced the 
claim and called the documents lies and fabrications. He also closed 
Venezuela's 1300 mile long Colombian border, and at an extraordinary 
Organization of American States (OAS) session, his representative, 
Jorge Valero, said: "The Colombian government has lied blatantly. All 
(its) accusations....against Venezuela and Ecuador are false, totally 
false." Retired Venezuelan general, Alberto Muller Rojas, went 
further. He denounced Colombia's "evidence" as an "exercise in 
falsification (and stated that) the only foreign government that 
finances the conflict in Colombia is the United States," it's done it 
with billions for years, and in the same way it destabilizes regions 
throughout the world.

Corporate Media Responses

A March 5 Washington Post editorial supported Colombia's aggression, 
but that's typical for its one-sided type journalism. The commentary 
said: "Colombia's armed forces struck a bold blow against 
the....FARC, a group specializing in drug trafficking, abductions and 
massacres of civilians that (the US has) designated a terrorist 
organization....it showed how Colombia's democratic government may be 
finally gaining the upper hand over (these) murderous gangs.

Now (Hugo Chavez) has been revealed as an explicit supporter and 
possible financier of the FARC. (He) made a show of ordering 
Venezuelan troops to the border (and) goaded his client (Correa) into 
mimicking his reaction. (They) both may have something to hide 
(about) financial links with the terrorists (and) backing an armed 
(terrorist) movement against the democratically elected government of 
their neighbor. No wonder (Uribe acted); he knows (Chavez and Correa) 
provid(e) a haven for the terrorists."

The New York Times' Simon Romero's comments were more measured in an 
article titled: "Colombia is Flashpoint in Chavez Fued with US," but 
his message was much as it always is - one-sidedly supporting 
Washington and its allies and hostile to Hugo Chavez. In this 
instance, it's his ties to the FARC-EP and supplying it with millions 
of dollars in aid. In an editorial, The Times went further. It 
accused Chavez of "meddling and manipulation (and trying to) revive 
his own flagging political fortunes" by getting involved. It added 
"Mr. Chavez should just keep quiet. The more he meddles, the easier 
it is to believe that the charges against him are true."

Then there's the Wall Street Journal that's even further hard right 
since Rupert Murdoch bought it. It's March 4 editorial was titled 
"Chavez's War Drums" with a sub-headline stating "A laptop spills 
some of his secrets." The commentary noted "Colombia's....major 
antiterror victory" and "Chavez....threatening war....But the real 
news (was in) a laptop belonging to (Paul Reyes) that reveals some of 
Mr. Chavez's secrets."

Columbia's "military (entered Ecuador) for legitimate reasons of 
self-defense....the Venezuelan bully....ordered 10 battalions and 
tanks to the Colombian border, and warned of war if the Colombian 
army staged a similar raid inside Venezuela....The war bluster is 
phony because Mr. Chavez is already waging his own guerrilla campaign 
against Colombia (by) support(ing) the FARC." The recovered "computer 
contains evidence supporting the claim that the FARC is working with 
Mr. Chavez (and) showed that Venezuela may have paid $300 million 
(for the) FARC's recent release of six civilian hostages."

Documents also "show(ed) that the FARC was seeking to buy 50 kilos of 
uranium (and sold) 700 kilograms of cocaine valued at $1.5 million." 
The "military found a thank you note from Mr. Chavez to FARC for some 
$150,000 that the rebels had sent him when he was in prison for his 
attempted (1992) coup d'etat."

This type agitprop never lets up, so expect continued anti-Chavez 
rhetoric ahead as the dominant media plays up every chance they get 
to demonize him and support Bush's hostile regime change agenda.

Some Background on the Diplomatic Crisis

Venezuelan-American lawyer and activist Eva Golinger writes on how 
Washington relentlessly targets Chavez. In November 2006, she 
explained what's just as true today - that the Bush administration 
goes at him by "three different fronts of attack."

-- the financial front by funding opposition groups "to obtain 
control in all different parts of the country," including the 
electoral process;

-- the diplomatic front by accusing Chavez of destabilizing the 
region; also by "diplomatic terrorism," including sanctions "for 
made-up things" like non-existent drugs trafficking or not 
cooperating against it or the "war on terrorism;" and

-- the military front with a large US presence in the region, major 
support for Uribe, and "use of Colombian paramilitaries (and) 
intervention of US Special Forces; the paramilitaries are the 
'actors'....they're....sent....to try to assassinate Chavez (but) 
command-and-control is directed and controlled by the US Special 
Forces;" the paramilitaries and Colombian army "do the dirty work" 
while the US is "building up a secret (military) base near" 
Venezuela's border; in addition, "there were attempts to push the 
FARC into Venezuela to provide an excuse for Colombian troops to 
enter the country (and) make (the) border a combat zone." At the time 
Golinger wrote, she said there were more than 3000 paramilitaries in 
the Caracas area alone. That number or more are still likely there 
and elsewhere in the country, and in Ecuador as well.

Colombian-Directed Hostility Toward Chavez

Since his 2002 election, Uribe has been hostile to Chavez, and 
Colombian paramilitaries continue committing border-area terrorist 
attacks and within Venezuela as well. Uribe is Washington's key Latin 
American ally, he's liberally funded for his role, and his background 
makes him ideal - his hard right ideology, a wealthy land-owning 
family background, and a tainted past history:

-- he's been linked to the country's paramilitary death squads and 
drug cartels;

-- for over 20 years in various government positions, he supported 
state terrorism, including kidnappings and assassinations - of trade 
unionists, opposition group peasants, social and human rights 
activists, journalists, and others on the left who oppose the 
country's corporatist interests; and

-- he frequently violates Venezuelan sovereignty with full backing 
and funding of the Bush administration calling the shots.

In his earlier writing, long-time Latin American expert, James 
Petras, referred to "the Uribe Doctrine (that) lays the basis for 
unilateral military intervention anywhere in the hemisphere (and 
echoes) Washington's global pronouncements." They remain unchanged 
and claim the right to:

-- "violate any country's sovereignty (through) force and violence;

-- recruit and subvert military and security officials to serve 
(Colombian and Washington's) interests;

-- allocate funds to bounty hunters or 'third parties' to engage in 
illegal violent acts within a targeted country;

-- (assert) the supremacy of Colombian laws, decrees and policies 
over and against the sovereign laws of the intervened countries;" and

-- target Venezuela and militarily act wherever else Washington 
directs it in the hemisphere.

Chavez correctly calls Colombia "Latin America's Israel." And 
Washington funds it well for that purpose and to aid the Bush 
administration's top regional priority - toppling Chavez with Uribe's 
incursion the latest episode that signals further escalation. Petras 
says Uribe acts openly, and he's supported "at the highest level of 
the US government." Bogota ambassador, William Brownfield, is also 
supportive. He formerly served in the same capacity in Caracas where 
he frequently clashed with Chavez while there.

Petras also explains what Uribe's doctrine is up to, and it's clear 
where it originates. First and foremost it's to support Bush 
administration regional policies, specifically target Chavez, and get 
billions in funding to do it. In addition, it's to:

-- "destroy Cuban-Venezuelan trade ties (to) undermine (Cuba's) 
government;" efforts to do it may now intensify against the new Raul 
Castro government;

-- assure Venezuela remains "an exclusive oil exporter to the US" and 
sabotage Chavez's efforts to lessen his reliance on America by 
serving new markets like China; and

-- prop up a key regional ally to assure rightist forces rule as a 
reliable Washington proxy and consider its record:

-- Colombia is an internally repressive narco-state;

-- it practices state terrorism;

-- its foreign minister, Maria Consuelo Araujo, resigned last year 
after her brother, a senator, was jailed for colluding with 
paramilitary death squads; Colombia's Supreme Court also urged 
federal prosecutors to investigate her father - a former governor, 
federal lawmaker and agriculture minister on kidnapping charges;

-- its democracy is a sham; in last year's regional elections, 30 
mostly left of center candidates were murdered; news reporting is 
censored; journalists are arrested and killed; civil liberties are 
debased; and the rule of law is tenuous at best under a president who 
roguishly suspends it; he also packed the country's Supreme Court and 
bribed and bullied enough legislators to amend the constitution to 
allow him to run for a second term - the first time in over 50 years 
an incumbent president did it;

-- its government is riddled with scandal; over one-third of his 
party members are allied with paramilitary death squads; eight 
pro-Uribe congressmen were arrested last year for their paramilitary 
ties, and dozens of national and regional politicians are under 
investigation and fled the country; in addition, Colombia's attorney 
general arrested Uribe's campaign manager and secret police chief, 
Jorge Noguera, for having supplied paramilitaries with trade unionist 
names to murder; another former secret police official is serving an 
18 year sentence for purging police records of paramilitaries and 
drugs traffickers;

-- around two-thirds of Colombians are impoverished;

-- many thousands of its people are restless and leaving;

-- many cross into Venezuela with several hundred thousand now there;

-- wealth concentration is extreme and worsening; and

-- in the wake of his blatant aggression, Council on Hemispheric 
Affairs' Director, Larry Birns, calls Uribe "Latin America's most 
disgraced president." He says he's "scorned throughout (the region) 
for being Bush's favored hemispheric figure (but his) legacy (of 
aggression) will be a heavy cross for (him) to bear." He  calls his 
presidency "catastrophic," and his Ecuadorean incursion effectively 
dooms it and his influence "on the hemisphere....Metaphorically 
speaking, (Paul) Reyes....scalped Uribe and....hung (his) tattered 
presidential sash upon a pike and walked the macabre sight through 
(Latin American) streets." Uribe will pay an "excessively high" price 
for "gunning down Reyes."

Contrast that assessment to conditions in Venezuela under Chavez. 
They're mirror opposite so expect lots more trouble ahead. Tattered 
or not, Uribe remains a loyal Washington proxy and will continue in 
that role while in office. It's why Plan Colombia isn't about 
eradicating drugs. Its about weakening Chavez and toppling the 
FARC-EP and National Liberation Army (ELN) rebel groups that control 
sizable portions of the country. Washington calls them Foreign 
Terrorist Organizations (FTOs), but many countries disagree. Hugo 
Chavez calls them a revolutionary army that shares Venezuela's vision 
for a Bolivarian Latin America. Workers' Party of Mexico deputy 
Ricardo Cantu Garza agrees. He says they're a legitimate belligerent 
force confronting a corrupt and unequal political system.

And here's how prominent US attorney, Paul Wolf, describes the 
FARC-EP: They're a "belligerent army of national liberation....they 
conduct their conduct of hostilities by organized troops kept under 
military discipline and complying (with) the laws and customs of 
war....international law (doesn't prohibit) revolution, and if (it) 
succeeds....international law (allows) the outcome, even though it 
was achieved by force."

Progressive scholars and human rights activists agree, which brings 
us to what still drives both sides of the struggle. Washington and 
Colombia won't give an inch, but rebels won't yield until they do. 
For his part, Chavez wants peace, but was grim in his outlook when an 
American journalist asked if a confrontation with the US is 
inevitable: it is, "because while we want freedom, they want to keep 
us in chains....We want a fatherland; they want a colony....we want 
peace," but Colombia and the US want war and perpetual conflict. 
"Venezuela will never again be a US colony," and he saluted Fidel 
Castro as he said it and called him a "great teacher."

Castro responded and called the Ecuador raid a "monstrous crime. 
Deadly bombs were dropped....They were Yankee bombs, guided by Yankee 
satellites. Absolutely no one has the right to kill in cold 
blood....Correa has in his hands the few survivors and the rest of 
the bodies." Colombian troops kept two prominent ones as trophies and 
to collect millions in Washington-offered bounty. Correa, for his 
part, "can (now) cry out like Emile Zola: J'accuse."

So can the FARC-EP. Petras calls them the "longest standing, largest 
peasant-based guerrilla movement in the world (that was) founded in 
1964 by two dozen peasant activists (to defend) autonomous rural 
communities from" Colombian military and paramilitary violence. It's 
now a "highly organized 20,000 member guerrilla army with several 
hundred thousand local militia and supporters...."

Pre-9/11, most EU and Latin American countries recognized the 
organization "as a legitimate resistance movement," and for several 
years Colombia's Pastrana government negotiated peace with its 
leaders. Since 2000 under Clinton and continuing under Bush, however, 
conflict replaced compromise with a clear committed aim - support for 
narco-state terrorism to "destroy the guerrilla army and its 
suspected social base among peasants, urban trade unions and 
professionals (especially teachers, lawyers, human rights activists 
and intellectuals)."

Ever since, a bloody extermination campaign has been waged, and it 
spills into Venezuela to topple its government and return the country 
to friendly oligarch rule. The scheme involves pouring billions into 
Colombia on the pretext of eradicating drugs. In fact, it's to build 
Uribe's military and fund a "31,000 strong death squad (paramilitary) 
force" that ravages the country, kills thousands of peasants and 
people on the left, and engages in US-style abductions and torture. 
With American taxpayer dollars, their post-2000 record is appalling:

-- over 2.5 million peasants and urban slum dwellers displaced;

-- more than 5000 trade unionists murdered from 1986 to 2006, by far 
the most anywhere in the world;

-- "30,000 peasants, rural teachers, and peasant and indigenous 
leaders have been killed with impunity;" and

-- "land seizures by paramilitary leaders, cattle barons and military 
officers (that's) concentrating land ownership to an unprecedented level."

With this going on, the liberation struggle continues, and  expect no 
amount of billions to crush it. Colombia's conflict is civil. It's 
not, as Washington calls it, a "war on terror," but it's clearly 
state-directed terror against the Colombian people that also targets 
Venezuela. It's the latest salvo in Bush v. Chavez that won't likely 
end when a new US president takes office. So the struggle for justice 
continues with no early end of it in sight and no chance whatever 
that those in it have any intention of quitting.


Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at 
lendmanstephen at sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at 
sjlendman.blogspot.com.





Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110

415 863-9977

www.Freedomarchives.org  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20080312/9e0ee04f/attachment.htm>