The Exculpation of Manuel Noriega

President Bush's invasion of Panama in December 1989 to topple the government of Manuel Noriega is often touted as a triumph of good over evil, but closer inspection of the facts suggests that the Evil Bush settled a score with the less than good Noriega.

Anything with George Bush's finger prints on it must be considered suspect as criminal. If George Bush's lips were moving, he was lying; if his hands were waiving, he was murdering. Such was the case when he invaded Panama, leaving in his wake anywhere from 246 to 2000 dead bodies, depending upon who did the counting.

Only in a deranged psychotic mind could one find a pretext for invading a country, which posed no threat to the United States, based upon rumors and innuendo. If the United States was so concerned about human rights and narcotics, why didn't it invade Saudi Arabia or the terrorist state of Israel, or even the fount of cocaine itself, Columbia? Heck, Bush could have even prosecuted Bill Clinton for his Mena drug running operations. No, drugs were simply a convenience card to start a war with a defenseless country which accomplished several things for one of the murderers of President Kennedy on November 22, 1963 in Dallas' Dealey Plaza.

After watching the daily proceedings of the 9 month Noriega trial in Miami, investigative reporter Peter Eisner uncovered a number of unsettling facts which indicated that the invasion of Panama was predicated on a tissue of lies concocted by the Bush Crime Syndicate whose purposes are not entirely clear, but about which we will speculate in our closing.

One of the most notable anomalies in the affair was the contrived set of charges brought against Noriega on drug trafficking. Eisner discovered that 26 of the witnesses against the Panamanian leader were convicted felons who were paid to bring false witness, either through reductions in sentences, retention of drug profits, or improved quarters in prison. Not one of these witnesses had ever met Noriega, so their testimonies were simply third hand, rehearsed recitals of imaginary crimes. Yet the US District Judge William Hoeveler found nothing suspect about these paid for witness.

Through it all Noriega maintained his innocence.

In defending the outcome of the case, Hoeveler, in an interview with Eisner, implied that even if Noriega was not guilty of his 8 convictions, there were rumors in the news that he had ordered the murder of Dr Hugo Spadafora, one of Noriega's political enemies. So here we have a federal judge using a newspaper rumor to justify a potential miscarriage of justice. No wonder the Warren Commission could make its baseless claims in its criminal Report with nothing but a little hearsay and wishful thinking.

While 8 Panamanian soldiers were charged in the murder of Spadafora, the jury failed to convict even one of them. Yet a short time later, as Eisner reports, that same evidence was used to convict Noriega in absentia. Again, the Panamanian government was channeling the ghost of Earl Warren and his cover-up commission.

Following up on the allegations of murder and corruption, Eisner made contact with a Panamanian diplomat of repute, whom he called Armando, who explained how he had engineered the downfall of Noriega by circulating unsubstantiated allegations of drug trafficking and murder against the head of state. He shared with Eisner the ease with which he manipulated Congress and the press. However, it is your Chronicler's view that he worked for CIA which did the bidding for Bush.

As Armando put it to Eisner,

"I don't have any independent evidence about Noriega," he said. "I don't think he was dealing drugs. I don't know that he killed Spadafora. I doubt very much the National Security Agency was monitoring him or even had the capacity to do it. It didn't matter at the time. It was all a machination, a manipulation of the system."

Armando contended that the conspiracy against Noriega was strictly about Panamanian internal politics, and while this aspect cannot be entirely discarded, we believe that it obfuscates larger matters. To think that the tail was wagging the dog is utterly retarded, and further supports our contention that Armando was a CIA asset working for Bush.

Nevertheless, Armando mounted a vicious whisper campaign against his government with the help of the Panamanian consul, Jose Blandon, whom Noriega had recently fired in 1987. This rumor attack resulted in indictment of the Panamanian leader in Miami in 1988.

We probably should stop to consider the implication - namely that a foreign, allegedly sovereign nation is subject to US law. The only logical explanation is that Panama is a US possession, something which the US government fails to admit.

Eisner discovered that 2 of the major witnesses against Noriega, Floyd Carlton Caceres, and Jose Blandon, both instrumental in the indictments, lied under oath. At that point, the US government turned to its paid convicted felons for testimony. Nothing which Caceres or Blandon stated under oath held up under subsequent investigation, and in fact created considerable difficulties for the prosecution as just noted.

Even more ironic and infuriating is that the US government was doing business with the very drug cartels with which a grand jury indicted Noriega for doing business. Hoeveler had no concern for the hypocrisy. One cannot help but recall the lyrics from The Night the Lights Went Out in Georgia:

        Well, don't trust your soul to no backwoods Southern lawyer

        Cause the judge in the town's got bloodstains on his hands

In summation, Eisner concluded, 

Since my first visit with Judge Hoeveler, I've spoken to at least four dozen other sources, both in Panama and the United States. They include former DEA officials, CIA agents, U.S. military officers, an official at the Defense Intelligence Agency, even a member of Mossad who monitored the Israeli spy agency's operations in Panama. "We do not believe Noriega did any of this drug-dealing," the Israeli source said.

Given the fraudulent and criminal nature of the case against Noriega, what was its real motivation? We have already noted Panamanian politics which was certainly an issue, but our view is that it was a tool used by the Bush administration to justify the president's removal of Noriega which seemed to be to protect the former from information known by the latter.

One could argue that the invasion was a dress rehearsal for the upcoming invasion of Kuwait, and a way for Bush to impress upon the Central Americans that the US was still the imperator. Some even say that Noriega was currying Soviet support against US intrigue, and thus Bush needed to reassert the Monroe Doctrine to prevent another Cuba. I don't buy any of it - plausible as these arguments may sound. The USSR was in its death throes and had no stomach for a new conflict thousands of miles away.

Other theories hold that Noriega was providing intelligence to other nations or intelligence agencies in contravention to agreements made between CIA and Noriega's government. To assert that spooks have a code of ethics is laughable on its face.

Is it possible that Noriega knew about Mossad and Michael Harari's activities in Panama preceding the Kennedy murder, of which Bush was very much a part? Whatever the General knew, it threatened Bush down to his skull and bones. The theory that Bush invaded Panama to counteract the wimp reputation he was burnishing is malarkey. Bush was a consummate killer - he didn't need to rescue his reputation.

Reference

Peter Eisner, Uncertain Justice, Miami New Times, March 23, 1998, source(Uncertain Justice (miaminewtimes.com), accessed 5/17/2021)

Copyright 2021 Tony Bonn. All rights reserved.