I want to mention the larger picture in South America, re Uribe engineering a third term.
Recently, the presidents of Venezuela and Brazil have gone to extraordinary lengths to try to tug Uribe away from the Bushites and from the most extreme fascist elements in the Colombia military, and into the orbit of the new South American "Common Market"--UNASUR. Colombia's Uribe and Hugo Chavez met in Caracas the other week to "bury the hatchet" and announce several joint ventures (including a new railroad between their countries). Chavez then visited the president of Ecuador, Rafael Correa (who is aggrieved against Uribe--see below) to convince him to re-establish diplomatic relations with Colombia. Meanwhile, Lula da Silva met with Uribe to discuss Brazil's proposed common defense (in the context of the "Common Market"). Advances in South American economic and political integration have often hinged upon fraternal pressure on countries that the Bush Junta were bribing and bullying with U.S.-dominated "free trade," World Bank loans, and militarization funds ("war on drugs"). In several instances, fraternal pressure has worked (Uruguay, Paraguay--in fact, in Paraguay it resulted in a strong leftist being elected president this year, overturning 61 years of fascist rule). In one it didn't (Peru--but Peruvian voters will likely take care of that in the next election). The advantages of integration are very great; the downsides of Bushite policy are nakedly apparent, everywhere.
Why would Chavez and da Silva care a crap about Uribe, and try to bolster him up--after what he did to Chavez and to the president of Ecuador, re the successful leftist hostage negotiations with the FARC? (--with U.S./Bush help, he bombed/raided Ecuador and killed the chief FARC hostage negotiator, who was about to release Ingrid Betancourt, in Ecuador, in March.) Chavez has done this before--tried to befriend Uribe after some Uribe treachery--to my surprise. Well, a NAME got attached to this question last week when Uribe met with Chavez: Colombian Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos. Santos publicly criticized the Uribe-Chavez meeting. Chavez reacted (told Uribe to reign in his defense minister). And Uribe issued a statement basically telling Santos to shut up.
Chavez described Santos as a "threat." I think the threat is an all-out military dictatorship in Colombia, with Colombia used as a launching pad for a Rumsfeldian plan to instigate fascist secessionist civil war in Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia (splitting the oil-rich provinces off into fascist mini-states in control of the oil). There is plenty of evidence for this Bushite scheme, which I won't go into here--except to mention that the president of Ecuador, Rafael Correa, has talked about it publicly; it is an in-progress Bushite scheme currently in Bolivia; and the Bushites have reconstituted the U.S. 4th Fleet in the Caribbean, which will be roaming off the coast of Venezuela this summer (near the Venezuelan coastal state of Zulia, where all the oil is; Zulia is adjacent to Colombia, and Zulia's fascists have already met with Colombia officials to discuss secession).
Exxon Mobil (the U.S.) can't win fair and honest elections in South America. And South America's many leftist governments are unified enough now that they are not easy to topple in the traditional ways (i.e., the Bush-supported rightwing military coup attempt in Venezuela in 2002, or the crippling oil professionals' strike just after that, or the assassination plot against Chavez hatched within the Colombian military--that sort of thing). Those tactics have not worked. Thus, the plan to foment civil war and secession in the oil-rich states. At the least, it will cause major trouble--destabilization, a drain on the resources of leftist governments (as it is doing in Bolivia). At best--from the Bushite point of view--it will gain them fascist control of major oil reserves, and deny benefit of those profits to the poor majorities of the oil-rich countries and to their governments, which are using the profits for social justice programs and to promote South American integration and self-determination.
It would be a major coup for Rumsfeld & co., for instance, for the fascist plotters in Zulia to declare their "independence" from the Chavez government, and for Bush (now) or Obama (later--yup, quite likely) to lend U.S. military support to their cause. With Colombian military/paramilitary collusion, Blackwater and other mercenary involvement, arming of local fascists, and U.S. military backup, it is not at all outside the realm of feasibility. They would then invite Exxon Mobil back in, and revert to the 10/90 split of the profits that the oil giants had before Chavez. It would cripple the Chavez government, and, at the least, cause great turmoil.
In his Dec 07 op-ed in the Washington Post*, Donald Rumsfeld urges just this: "Swift action" by the U.S. in support of "friends and allies" in South America. The Bushites don't have any "friends and allies" in South America, except for the fascist thugs and drug traffickers running Colombia, and the fascist cells
within leftist democracies, plotting coups and secessions. I think this is what Rumsfeld meant by "swift action"--U.S. military action in support of secessionists.
Colombia is the odd man out, in South America--a fascist, Bush-supported dinosaur in the midst of the overwhelmingly leftist trend all over the continent. It is important, therefore, that the forms of democracy be preserved in Colombia, so that there is some accountability, some hope for change, and avenues of trade and communication. If Colombia were to shut down under a military dictatorship, funded by the U.S. ($5.5 BILLION so far), and Colombian economic policy were to be run from Washington DC (if Congress passes the Colombia/U.S. "free trade" deal), this would not only pose a serious security threat to Colombia's neighbors, and to all of South America (and Central America), but it also could mean serious economic impacts: for instance, corporate biofuels from Colombia (where union leaders are regularly murdered, and the environment trashed) could be dumped on the market at cheap prices, destroying the more labor- and environment-friendly markets of Brazil and other leftist countries (where there is more accountability to the people).
This is exactly what Donald Rumsfeld proposes in that same op-ed*--the Colombia/U.S. "free trade" deal as economic warfare.
The U.S. is a stumbling giant, with a $10 trillion deficit and a crumbling middle class, and is fast becoming the biggest "banana republic" on earth. It not in Colombia's interest to remain a client state of the U.S. Santos could force it to be. He and the Colombian military (and paramilitaries) are the most direct beneficiaries of the U.S. $5.5 BILLION, with much reason to resist integration with the rest of South America (--although blowback--the Colombian military turning around and defending South American interests-- would certainly parallel other Bush Cartel disasters). Continued (if tentative) civilian control of Colombia is the best circumstance that can be hoped for, presently, for eventual integration of Colombia and the greater good of the continent.
This is why Lula da Silva and Hugo Chavez are extending a hand to Uribe, despite all his treachery, and his ties to death squads and drug trafficking, election fraud and other fascist activities and crimes. He is better than Santos. (Analogy: Who would you rather have as president of the U.S.--Bush or Rumsfeld?)
----
*
"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