I think that what we see in the above quotes by the Venezuelan Information Office is a split within the elites. Much as we saw during the referendum, when push came to shove, Wall Street couldn't tolerate the possibility of utter chaos in one of the largest Oil Suppliers, and decided to back President Chavez as opposed to the unknown of an unnamed opposition candidate. I think we're seeing the same split in regards to US policy in Iraq, specifically with Bechtel unhappy about the bid free contracts for Halliburton and its subsidiary KBR. What the current US administration has shown is that it is willing to alienate powerful groups within the US in order to complete its own agenda. While I think that the opposition highlighted by the information office is positive, I think we have two precedents to consider, namely the caving of the Legislature in the decision to invade Iraq, and Iran-Contra, where when there was enough opposition from within, the Reagan administration simply circumvented the rest of the government in order to acheive its primary goal. In the case of Iran-Contra, the elimination of the threat of a good example of government in Nicaragua was far too important to allow democracy in the US to stand in the way. At this time, we in the US have a significantly less democratic society, and the target is not only a "threat of a good example", but it has oil. If we consider that Iraq, Iran, and Venezuela all have oil, it seems that in the minds of the maniacal Bush Policy planners, the target that makes the most sense, more so than even Iraq, is the elimination of an administration that seeks to achieve massive social change AND has petroleum reserves. That's a bad precedent if your concern is complete hegemony.