Venezuela's Capriles says Maduro government will fall

[Peace Patriot]

3. Oh, man, the CIA game is on!

I predicted this when Leon Panetta (Bush Sr. associate; member of Bush Sr.'s "Iraq Study Group&quot took over the CIA (and was welcomed there with open arms and champagne corks popping). Panetta's A LOT savvier than Bush Jr.-Cheney-Rumsfeld & co.

I also noted, in a recent New Yorker article, a statement by President Obama (albeit, re drone assassinations): "Give the CIA whatever it wants" (or some such words--don't have the article in front of me).

Context: The war between the Pentagon and the CIA that Rumsfeld-Cheney started resulted in the CIA not doing its "best" job at destroying the opposition to U.S./transglobal corporate/bankster/war profiteer rule wherever it may arise. The Bush Junta was blundering around in Latin America, colluding with outright mafia dons (Uribe in Colombia), demonizing leaders like Chavez (Venezuela) and Correa (Ecuador) as "terrorist lovers" with Rumsfeldian dirty (and obvious and even laughable) ops, trying to use elbow-breaking and kneecapping tactics on people who are not easily intimidated, trying to start a shooting war (between the U.S./Colombia and Ecuador/Venezuela), sending down dictates (for instance, that South American leaders "must isolate Chavez"--to which the president of Argentina replied, "But he's my brother!&quot , and on and on, almost Keystone Copsian, if it weren't for all the murdered labor leaders in Colombia and other heinous crimes funded (or thought up) by the Bush Junta.

Panetta's main brief, in my opinion, was to end the war between the Pentagon and the CIA, and get everybody back on "the same page." And that he did.

So now we have the old, pre-Bush Junta-gutted, CIA back in operation. You can read their "talking points" and, I would guess, their plan itself, almost verbatim, just by reading Capriles' quotes, above, as brought to you by Rotters. They should probably shut Capriles up. He is too transparent. But anyway, no rough-edged coup d'etat this time. They've got conditions ripe for a recall election (such as the one the stupid Bushwhacks couldn't win against Chavez back in 2004). The economy is the key (according to Capriles). They've apparently found the levers to "make it scream." And they're going to try to make this look 'democratic'--because they are dealing with a VERY different Latin America than the pre-Chavez government Latin America--a Latin America with balls, to put it crudely (especially since some of these new ballsy leaders are women).

Such irony! Chavez did not himself unleash the power of democracy in Latin America--the grass roots did that--but he and his government certainly demonstrated that democracy can work "of, by and for the people," and that inspiration spread far and wide, and now includes governments "of, by and for the people" in Brazil, in Argentina, in Bolivia, in Ecuador, in Uruguay, to some extent in Peru and Nicaragua, and soon to be true in Chile once again--as well as in Venezuela. These governments will not sit back and take another crude coup d'etat in Venezuela. It would mean a permanent and severe breach between north and south America. So the CIA has to be more careful, and IS being more careful, to lay the groundwork and give it a 'democratic' gloss.

I do suspect that the CIA has also found the way to hack Venezuela's (once thought to be impervious) electronic voting system. Chavez's successor, Nicolas Maduro, had a 10% to 20% lead in ALL POLLS a week before the special election--and won by only 1.5%. That still mystifies me. There is no reasonable explanation for such a precipitous loss of support in such a short time. And if the CIA did this, the question, "why didn't they then just (s)elect Capriles?", is an interesting one. It could be they were only partially successful in penetrating the system. It could be they thought it was too soon, and would risk massive rebellion and disorder, making it impossible for Capriles to govern (give the oil back to Exxon Mobil). Plots are sometimes not perfect--fail, half fail, result in unintended consequences, are too cautious or too bold, etc.--and Venezuela's election system would be a very difficult one to hack, and its political system, overall, is very resistant to U.S. interference).

One other possibility is that they don't like Capriles and are grooming some other leader. Capriles looks, acts and smells like "a tool." And that may be all he is, to the CIA--a "tool" to get from point A to point B.

Rotters--and all the other corporate news propagandists--never tire of quoting Capriles, so we ought to follow this lavish (and slavish) coverage of Capriles with sharp eyes, for the latest instructions from Langley to the fascist forces in Venezuela. It's like having a phone tap on them.*

-------------------

(Do you think the FBI was bugging the CIA? I do. How else did they catch the (post-Panetta) CIA Director with his pants down? That was hilarious! Panetta was good at putting some entities back "on the same page," but not everyone, I suspect. And I think I know what the reason might be. Panetta's protege, the new president of Colombia, Manual Santos, has come out for complete legalization of drugs. This is likely a Big Pharma/Big Ag/Big Chem plan to take over and monopolize (and GMO-ize?) the trillion+ dollar trade in herbal, recreational or addictive drugs, through legalization. But entities like the FBI and DEA may not agree with this. The "war on drugs" is their gravy train. But if illicit drugs have been the CIA's gravy train--which many well-informed people believe--then evading FBI/DEA, et al, "boy scouts" is high on their skill list, AND they've had time to position themselves for the Great Legalization via "free trade for the rich" in Colombia.

(It wouldn't surprise me to find out that THAT was one of the big issues between the CIA and Rumsfeld-Cheney. Who controls the drug trade? Which cartels are favored, which smashed? Who gets to go legit? And whether or not to go legit? This seems to be a rather big issue between Santos (CIA protege) and Uribe (Rumsfeld-Cheney protege). Uribe, as mafia boss of Colombia, of course wants it to remain illegal. That's all he knows: how to run a criminal organization, and how to use the levers of government to protect it. He doesn't know how to run a legit government with legit, legal, democratic-looking profiteering by the rich. (Some one hundred of Uribe's closest political associates, including family members, are under investigation, or already in jail, for ties to the death squads, for drug trafficking, for illegal domestic spying and other crimes.)

(Santos, on the other hand, has Panetta-like savvy. He sees the advantages of Colombia going legit, and is altogether a smoother chief executive. How is this relevant to this thread? Capriles just made a high-profile visit to Santos. I'll bet legalization was one of the things they talked about. For Capriles, it might mean being able to infiltrate "Black Eagle" operatives into Venezuela, in a up-and-up way, to control the chavistas. For Santos, it might be a way into Venezuela for Monsanto & brethren.)

(We've got to always understand--or try to understand--how Colombia's largely illicit drugs economy is simmering beneath the apparent news in the corporate press. It is truly an "elephant in the room"--a huge, weighty, overwhelming presence, breathing most of the air and eating all the food, that no one talks about except in the "boy scout" terms of the corrupt, murderous, failed U.S. "war on drugs" (largely without including the corruption, murderousness and failure of it). They might note the tail, and identify, say, a rat in the room, to distract us from the "elephant." They NEVER take on the "elephant.&quot