Monday, July 03, 2006

Neocons plan to steal Mexico

BushCo is at it again.

Linky linky.

Friday, June 30 — GEORGE Bush’s operatives have plans to jigger with the upcoming elections. I’m not talking about the November ‘06 vote in the USA (though they have plans for that, too). I’m talking about the election this Sunday in Mexico for their Presidency.

It begins with an FBI document marked, “Counterterrorism” and “Foreign Intelligence Collection” and “Secret.” Date: “9/17/2001,” six days after the attack on the World Trade towers. It’s nice to know the feds got right on the ball, if a little late.

What does this have to do with jiggering Mexico’s election? Hold that thought.

Hunting for Terrorists in Latin AmericaThis document is what’s called a “guidance” memo for using a private contractor to provide databases on dangerous foreigners. Good idea. We know the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the Persian Gulf Emirates. So you’d think the “Intelligence Collection” would be aimed at getting info on the guys in the Gulf.

No so. When we received the document, we obtained as well its classified appendix. The target nations for “foreign counterterrorism investigation” were nowhere near the Persian Gulf. Every one was in Latin America — Argentina, Venezuela, Mexico and a handful of others.

Latin America?! Was there a terror cell about to cross into San Diego with exploding enchiladas?

All the target nations had one thing in common besides a lack of terrorists: each had a left-leaning presidential candidate or a left-leaning president in office. In Venezuela, President Hugo Chavez, bete noir of the Bush Administration, was facing a recall vote. In Mexico, the anti-Bush Mayor of Mexico City, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador was (and is) leading the race for the Presidency.

You see, rigging elections and staging coups d'étsts in Latin American countries, especially those with left-leaning governments, is a well-known American tradition. However, there seems to be more to BushCo's relation with Mexico than the sundry imperial antics pulled off by the CIA:

Most provocative is the contractor to whom this no-bid contract was handed: ChoicePoint Inc. of Alpharetta, Georgia. ChoicePoint is the database company that created a list for Governor Jeb Bush of Florida of voters to scrub from voter rolls before the 2000 election. ChoicePoint’s list (94,000 names in all) contained few felons. Most of those on the list were guilty of no crime except Voting While Black. The disenfranchisement of these voters cost Al Gore the presidency.

Having chosen our President for us, our President’s men chose ChoicePoint for this sweet War on Terror database gathering. The use of the Venezuela’s and Mexico’s voter registry files to fight terror is not visible — but the use of the lists to manipulate elections is as obvious as the make-up on Katherine Harris’ cheeks.

In Venezuela, leading up to the August 2004 vote on whether to re-call President Chavez, I saw his opposition pouring over the voter rolls in laptops, claiming the right to challenge voters as Jeb’s crew did to voters in Florida. It turns out this operation was partly funded by the International Republican Institute of Washington, an arm of the GOP. Where did they get the voter info from?

In that case, access to Venezuela’s voter rolls didn’t help the Republican-assisted drive against Chavez, who won by a crushing plurality.

In Mexico this Sunday, we can expect to see the same: challenges of Obrador voters in a race, the polls say, is too close to call. Not that Mexico’s rulers need lessons from the Bush Administration on how to mess with elections.

In 1988, the candidate for Obrador’s Party of the Democratic Revolution (PDR), who opinion polls showed as a certain winner, somehow came up short against the incumbent party of the ruling elite. Some of the electoral tricks were far from subtle. In the state of Guerrero, the PDR was leading on official tally sheets by 359,369. Oddly, the official final count was 309,202 for the ruling party, only 182,874 for the PDR. Challenging the vote would have been dangerous. Two top officials of Obrador’s party were assassinated during the campaign.

Crucial to the surprise victory of the ruling party was the introduction of computer voting machines and the centralization of voter databases. Observer Andrew Reding of the Council on Hemispheric Affairs reported that ruling party operatives had special access codes denied the opposition.

It looks like the Bush regime has had plenty of practice rigging elections against political candidates who don't like them. I encourage the readers to read the rest of the article, as it gives an enlightening perspective on the democratic woes faced by South American countries.

Greg Palast expounds on the relationship between BushCo's choice (no pun intended) of ChoicePoint for the 2000 elections riggings and the rigging of elections in Mexico, all of course in the name of fighting terror (a similar excuse was also used during the Cold War).

But here is where things get interesting. Prison Planet reported the following in December 2005:

In late December 2005, Mexican President Vicente Fox hired a lobbying firm to sweeten political sentiment in the US towards Mexicans and the immigration issue. The same PR expert and GOP political consultant helped George W. Bush defeat Ann Richards for the governorship of Texas in 1994 and worked on both Bush's presidential campaigns.

Rob Allyn of Rob Allyn & Co. secretly engineered Fox's 2000 presidential victory and is closely tied with George W. Bush.

Is it therefore a stretch to suggest that Allyn, with the blessing of George W. Bush, is the architect of the mass immigration protests that were themselves an inorganic construct of the Spanish language media?

Various publications reporting on the Mexican elections described it as a referendum on Fox's neoliberal open market policies. If Fox's signature of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (better known as the North American Union) serves as an example of Fox's open market policies, then this would suggest that the Bush regime has a vested interest in promoting a successor that would endorse those same policies.

When is this going to end? And this raises an important question. Did the neocons play any role in Canada's election of Stephen Harper as well?

UPDATE: Sure enough, the Mexican election is being disputed, with both candidates claiming victory with a razor thin margin. Gee, I wonder why?


Post a Comment

<< Home