<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><HTML><FONT SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">All,<BR>
<BR>
FYI,<BR>
<BR>
Beverley<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
[Ed. Note: This report should be read from its website location at
http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1224.htm as this email copy does not
contain the links embedded in the original report.]
April 15, 2009
Obama Caves To CIA, Saves Bolivian Leader From Certain Death
By:Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Western Subscribers
An FSB report circulating in the Kremlin today states that President
Obama was forced to ‘cave into’ demands made upon by his own CIA to not
prosecute them for torture and murder or Bolivian leader Evo Morales
[2nd photo, left] would be assassinated on the eve of the 34-nation
Summit of the Americas in Trinidad, an action which if carried out would
have permanently severed the United States from Latin America.
In facing this ‘impossible choice’, these reports continue, President
Obama chose the Bolivian leaders life, and upon his informing the
Bolivian Federal Police Forces of the CIA plot to kill their President
was able to avert Morales’ assassination, and as we can read:
"Bolivian police said they had broken up an armed international group
yesterday that was plotting to assassinate President Evo Morales. Three
suspects were killed and two were arrested in a half-hour shoot-out with
officers in the eastern city of Santa Cruz, police said. The area is the
centre of political opposition to Mr Morales. Police confiscated
explosives, high-calibre weapons and plans to follow the president's
motorcade, police commander Victor Hugo Escobar said. They included C-4
explosives "that don't exist in Bolivia," Vice-President Alvaro Garcia
said."
President Obama honored his blackmailed promise to the CIA, and as we
can also read:
"President Barack Obama absolved CIA officers from prosecution for
harsh, painful interrogation of terror suspects Thursday, even as his
administration released Bush-era memos graphically detailing — and
authorizing — such grim tactics as slamming detainees against walls,
waterboarding them and keeping them naked and cold for long periods.
Human rights groups and many Obama officials have condemned such methods
as torture."
Tensions have been growing between the United States and Bolivia after
President Morales’ election, and as explained in this report:
"The tiny South American country of Bolivia has just signaled that it
will no longer be pushed around by the United States. This week they
took radical step of declaring U.S. Ambassador Philip Goldberg to be
"persona non grata", and asked him to leave their country. He is
expected to leave within 72 hours.
Why would they do such a thing? It seems that once again the United
States has been trying to interfere with the internal affairs of another
country. The Bush administration doesn't seem to be able to let other
countries determine their own future. They want to dictate to other
countries what policies they should follow and who their leaders should
be.
In this case, newly-elected President Evo Morales (pictured above) has
accused the United States and Ambassador Goldberg of conspiring against
Bolivia's democracy and encouraging the break-up of the country.
Morales is the first fully indigenous person to become president of
Bolivia, and he was elected to the office in 2006. Since assuming
office, he has nationalized the countries gas reserves. He is trying to
redistribute the proceeds from this gas to help the poor and working
classes of his country. He is the first Bolivian president to really try
to help the country's underprivileged (most of whom are indigenous
people)."
Russian Intelligence Analysts point out in these reports that the battle
between President Obama and the CIA was foretold by the spy agency
itself when after his taking office they gave Obama the codename of
‘Renegade’, and which Obama certainly lived up to in his choice to lead
the CIA, and as we can read:
"The incoming Obama administration has named Leon Panetta, of all
people, as its nominee for the Director of Central Intelligence. Some
observers are confused, to put it mildly, about the pick. The guy -- a
former White House chief of staff and House Budget Committee chairman --
has a reputation for being a tough, competent manager, they say. But can
he really be an effective CIA chief, with experience in the
cloak-and-dagger world? What about those pledges, to keep the
intelligence community out of politics?
"I find the choice of Leon Panetta to head the CIA a curious one," one
well-connected former spy tells Danger Room. "On the one hand, if you
are looking to pick a nation's top spook, it is generally a good idea to
pick someone with more than a cursory exposure to the intelligence
business. It is also more than a little annoying that we can't seem to
find a CIA chief that hasn't spent all of their adult life playing
politics."
On the other hand, if you are truly pushing an agenda of change, Panetta
has the political and managerial chops to get the notoriously stiff
bureaucratic wheels of the intelligence community moving in the right
direction. Not being an establishment CIA or IC guy he is less likely to
feel sentimental for the old boys and 'the way we've always done it'
routine.
An ex-senior CIA manager tells Laura Rozen that the message of the
Panetta appointment was clear: "The message is, 'I don't want to hear
anything out of the CIA. Make it go away. No scandals. Keep it quiet,'"
the former officer told me. "They put over there a guy who is a
political loyalist, who will keep everything nice and quiet, but who
won't know a good piece of intelligence from a shitty piece of
intelligence, and wouldn't know a good intelligence officer" from a bad
one."
With these latest events, however, it appears as though the CIA has no
intention of going ‘quietly into the night’ and is, instead, preparing
to fight for its survival against their own President, no matter what.
It should not be forgotten, either, that this is not the first time that
the CIA has squared off against an American President as the still
unresolved assassination of President Kennedy attests to, and as
reported by the Pravda News Service in their May, 2006, report titled
"John F. Kennedy killed by CIA agents?", and which says:
"Did the U.S. government cover up the details pertaining to the
assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy? An answer to this question
will be much sought after by participants of a conference that kicked
off on Monday, May 15th, in Washington, D.C. According to the report of
the Warren Commission, President Kennedy fell victim to "Lee Harvey
Oswald, acting alone." However, the "alternative" versions of the
tragedy argue that two or more people shot at JFK in Dealey Plaza in
Dallas, Texas, on November 22nd, 1963. The above versions allege that
U.S. government covered up the truth behind Kennedy’s death.
The participants will reportedly present new data to support the version
about the "CIA conspiracy." According to the theory, CIA agents might
have replaced Kennedy’s brain with that of another person during the
president’s autopsy.
By a strange twist of fate, the plane carrying Senator Ted Kennady, the
brother of the late President John F. Kennedy, was struck by lightning
right on the day when the conference kicked off in the U.S. capital. No
one was harmed during the incident yet the news seemed to serve as yet
another reminder of grim fate controlling the Kennedys."
<BR>
<BR>
© April 17, 2009 EU and US all rights reserved
http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1224.htm
--
<BR>
Sorcha Faal
sorchafaal@fastmail.fm <BR>
<BR>
</FONT></HTML>