As I’m sure you’ve heard, ad nauseum, the Marxist Colombian FARC rebels released two hostages that they had been holding for ransom in the jungles of Colombia as a result of a “deal” “negotiated” by Hugo Chavez yesterday. They are Clara Rojas and Consuelo Gonzalez.
The press is falling all over itself in giving Chavez his props, as they say, for his “triumph”.
CARACAS (Reuters) – Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, hit by recent setbacks to his socialist revolution, scored a major political victory on Thursday by winning the freedom of two hostages held by Colombia’s Marxist rebels.
The hostages’ freedom also brought international praise for Chavez, a fierce critic of the United States, and he even received grudging acknowledgment from Washington.
Analysts said Chavez’s international reputation was boosted by the deal, just a month after he suffered a stunning defeat at home in a referendum vote on extending his powers
“With this tangible and welcome result, Chavez can now claim that he is a regional leader committed to peace,” said Michael Shifter, a Latin American expert at the Inter-American Dialogue think tank..
Think about this one. The FARC is a bunch of narco-trafficking terrorist thugs in the Castro tradition who are given aid, comfort and guidance by both Chavez and the Havana regime. Basically, the FARC is a client organization of Havana. It has always been.
So, either two things happened here:
1) Chavez ordered him to release a couple of hostages because the “struggle” needed a victory and if they didn’t , well I’ll cut off your funding and your drug deals.
2) Chavez gave them a suitcase full of money to buy the release of the two women.
For this, in the eyes of the press, he’s praised as a triumphant hero, as a humanitarian and having “won” a political victory over Colombia’s president Alvaro Uribe.
Now, it’s not that the press doesn’t know how to be skeptical about the motives and the actions of governments facing hostage crises. They just choose to look the other way when it pertains to America’s enemies, “fierce critics” and the left.
Imagine if you will, that there was a democratic right-leaning insurgency in Mexico trying to overthrow the corrupt oligarchy that has run that country (into the ground) for centuries. Now, its neighbor, the U.S. openly backs these rebels and it is suspected that it covertly finances and gives them aid and intelligence, etc.. Now, imagine that these insurgent freedom fighters take a couple of politicians hostage and the American president “negotiates” the release of these hostages by the rebels that everyone knows are his allies at a time when he’s had one political defeat after another.
How would the press handle that story? Would they praise the American president or would they “investigate” and try to get to the truth behind the propaganda? The “real story”.
For example, remember the Jessica Lynch story where the US military rescued a captured female American GI form her Iraqui captors and by the time the press (and Ms. Lynch) was done with the story, the US Military were the bad guys-as usual:
… a Pentagon willing to stretch the truth to boost morale. One bbc report dismissed the rescue operation as “one of the most stunning pieces of news management ever conceived.” And so the uncertainty fluttered around her: Was she a hero, or a pawn?
Interesting how no reporter is asking if its even within the realm of possibility that Chavez or Raul are stretching the truth or using these two released hostages as pawns or if the hostage release deal is a “stunning piece of news management.” No, of course not. They’re obviously being managed all too willfully and effectively by the Castro- Chavez propaganda machine.