What's really happening in Venezuela?
http://sg.biz.yahoo.com/040301/1/3ifqa.html
Agence France Presse's report on Chavez's statements to the United States.
It's March 1st of a very strange year, of a very strange US presidency. A great number of us Latinophiles are looking stunned at an at least momentarily successful coup d'etat in Haiti straight out of the 1950's. In Haiti, a president with a populist history and a proven electoral mandate is toppled in favor of the remnants of the Duvalier dictatorship. It didn't take much time at all for the seemingly inexorable outcome in Port-au-Prince, perhaps this explains the current goings on in Venezuela. The timing may be coincidental, but there's reason to be wary of an encore performance by US policy makers in Caracas.
Perhaps a good way to frame this current situation in Venezuela is the recall referendum. I assume most narconews readers have been following the referendum for the recall in Venezuela. Now it doesn't take much more than a cursory look at the history to see that this recall referendum is just the latest attempt by the oft-discredited opposition to remove the democratically elected Chavez from office.
It's important to note that the opposition isn't stupid, anymore than the US policy makers are. The opposition, with some possible exceptions to allow for the self-deluded, knows that President Chavez is highly popular. A real campaign to win a recall election would not come to pass as it did in California in 2003. In California, we had an unpopular Governer excreted from the Democratic Party's machine who refused to make even the most simple progressive reforms. Chavez, on the other hand, has indeed enacted a long series of reforms, perhaps not as quickly as some would like, but has for the most part been consistent in his stance on major issues that affect Venezuelans.
So if you were a big mover at the ironically named Coordinadora Democratica (CD), you wouldn't really want a referendum where you could be summarily trounced in an open election. Instead, you'd want to do everything you could to make a mess of the political system, and attempt to discredit the constitutional process.
None of this is news, it's been reported in the authentic press for some time. What is new is what appears to be a change towards a more aggressive response by the Chavez presidency. I think the most notable act of the Chavez government was the threat to end oil exports to the US. This threat is a major shift in Venezuelan policy and demonstrates that the Venezuelan government has grown tired of US anti-democratic actions and support of the most reactionary sectors of Venezuelan society.
The escalation occurred as the CNE, the Venezuelan National Electoral body approached a decision regarding the authenticity of the signatures on the recall referendum petitions. According to the reports by Charles Hardy of Vheadline and Narconews fame, some opposition leaders have even admitted their lack of sufficient signatures to call the referendum a success. It's important to note that Chavez's opposition is not homogenous, if you oppose the policies of Chavez, the only significant game in town is the CD, whose helm is currently populated by some of the most spoiled and reactionary people in Venezuela. It's important to keep in mind that there are perfectly reasonable members of the opposition with valid claims against Chavez, they just don't happen to be in charge. (You can glean some knowledge about the make-up of the CD by reading my previous article on Venezuela I did for Narconews in 2002) http://narconews.com/Issue25/article11.html
Last week, the CNE seemed ready to release their decision about the recall petition signatures. The Carter center was dispatched early in the decision making process to oversee the signature analysis, but the result seemed already clear, the CNE would invalidate as many as 1.6 million signatures out of the 3.4 million supplied by the opposition. After subtracting the fraudulent signatures, the total falls far short of the 2.4 million needed for a recount. The opposition has now placed itself in the position of "To hell with the democratic process, we want a democratic recall referendum where we win, regardless of how many signatures and votes we receive!" It worked in Florida, I can understand their disappointment. In a temper tantrum of thousands, the opposition took to the streets last week, according to my Venezuelan friend's eyewitness account, and tried to provoke the Venezuelan National Guard into firing upon the opposition marchers. The National Guard responded with "less-lethal" weapons and tear gas, which I can tell you from personal experience are no fun, and the less-lethal projectiles can do some serious damage, but the national guard did not use live weapons. A protester was shot by a live round from a motorcycle rider during the march, but the details are still quite murky as to whom this protester was, which side the protester supported, and the identity of the assailant.
Another part of the equation are the revelations achieved by a Freedom of Information Act(FOIA) Request by a Venezuelan solidarity organization, which reveals some of the direct meddling and intervention by the US government in Venezuela's political affairs. You can see the result of the FOIA request at:
http://www.venezuelafoia.info
So what now? The opposition is setting fire to barricades in their middle-class neighborhoods (According to Vheadline) to protest the decision of the CNE. The Oil threat is an important development, as Venezuela is in a difficult position with oil. They need the US to import oil as badly or more than the US needs the oil. This statement by Chavez is a major escalation, but this weekend's events are a clear indication that President Chavez has reason to be concerned.
Email this page
Your oil comment
Submitted on March 1st, 2004 by Peter CarlinOn Oil and Venezuela
Submitted on March 3rd, 2004 by Ron Smithhttp://sg.biz.yahoo.com/040301/1/3ifqa.html
Remember the Alamo, George Orwell
Submitted on March 2nd, 2004 by Jeff SimpsonDistracted by Haiti, U.S. ignores Venezuela
Jean-Bertrand Aristide has fled, Haiti is on the verge of total anarchy, and the United States has taken its eye off a larger and much more dangerous problem. The very day that Aristide fled, fires burned throughout Caracas, Venezuela, explosions and gunfire could be heard across the city, citizens battled and died at the hands of the National Guard, and the country pushed closer to all out civil war.
Civil war in Venezuela will make the anarchy in Haiti look pale and meaningless by comparison. The American media are filling the airwaves with images of violence from Port-Au-Prince, while "burying the lead" as they say in the news business. That "lead" being the exponentially larger story in Venezuela our press is ignoring.
But, of course that headline should read:
Distracted by US manipulated anti-democratic destabilization in Haiti, US media ignores US manipulated anti-democratic destabilization in Venezuela
The drama of Haiti and of the Aristide administration implies many dangers for Cuba and Venezuela. It is the final outcome of Washington’s Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) against popular governments in Latin America: namely, subversion-destruction.
...The implications of the eventual installation of a right-wing government in Haiti are considerable for Cuba, the Dominican Republic, and Venezuela. The geographic distance between north Haiti and eastern Cuba is barely 90 kilometers. Guantanamo Base is located in those latitudes and any maritime exodus from Haiti could be used by the Bush administration as a pretext for unleashing force in the region.
Praise the Lord and pass the ammo...
Venezuela, it's official
Submitted on March 3rd, 2004 by Ron Smithhttp://asia.news.yahoo.com/040303/afp/040303002527 int.html
As predicted, the right (as well as some inscrutable sectors of the left) is protesting in the streets, demanding that a recall occur regardless of the signature count, and to attempt to bring some stability, the Chavez government may come to a compromise with the opposition. At issue here is a general state of lawlessness, created for the most part by the right, although the Chavez government is not blameless in this regard. Throughout Latin America there is a tradition of impunity for perpetrators of crimes, be they of a personal or political nature. Case in point: no major players in the 2002 coup have served any time in prison. It is perhaps for this reason that I saw a group of Admirals in the CTV headquarters trying to squirm away from my camera when the group I was working with got to meet the Coordinadora Democratica's decision makers. Carmona, the dictator for a day, is living in Bogotá, perhaps waiting for Chavez's ouster to return triumphantly to Venezuela. By failing to enforce a rule of law for those that ignore the constitution and human rights, the Chavez government has failed to weaken the opposition. Not prosecuting the coup participants is a strategy, as has the Chavez's lax interactions with the libelous Venezuelan corporate media. Libel is not a light matter, as I'm sure Al can attest, narconews was the victim of a SLAPP-like libel suit when Al printed the story of citicorp's misdeeds and those of one of it's subsidiaries. However, my own experience watching Venezuelan corporate news media reached lows that are the stuff of Rupert Murdoch's wildest fantasies. I'm no fan of restrictive policies, and I admit that my own injury at the hands of authorities in the United States makes me extremely wary of government's use of force during protests. That said, if a government is trying to address the ills of society in a meaningful way, impunity must be confronted in order to protect any gains made by the society. There's much more than Chavez at stake, especially considering the Bush regime's current stance on Latin American affairs. It's up to us, the independent media to keep a close eye on what happens in Venezuela over the coming months, and be ready to shout when wool is pulled over people's eyes by the mainstream media. But we all know that, since that's why we're here, right?
Venezuela: The Squalid Opposition
Submitted on March 4th, 2004 by Al GiordanoThis has been at the crux of a long debate since April 2002 between many people, among them Chávez, who sticks with his non-repressive approach, and Fidel Castro, who is said to have advised Chávez to go after the coup plotters with full legal force. (This is very ironic, since the screeching squalid class always yelps about Chávez supposedly wanting to govern like Castro, even as they are the main beneficiaries of Chávez's kinder, gentler, approach.)
I do think that he has succeeded in weakening the "opposition" by giving them enough rope to hang themselves over and over again. I don't subscribe to the view that Venezuela is in any kind of chaos right now: it's just more squawking from the spoiled brats and their corrupt Commercial Media correspondents... read enough of geezers like Gustavo Coronel huffing and puffing from their golf courses about how they're gonna get violent now... of rich kids playing with molotovs and calling in the squalid press to report on the bombs that they don't then go out and throw (someone commented on a squalid blog the other day "hey, it worked for the Weather Underground!" but scualid blogger Francisco Toro, the disgraced former NY Times stringer, censored that comment)... Toro himself is talking all macho about how he's going to stop being a "flower eater" and go fight in the streets... good luck to him... he'll probably get hurt just tripping over his shoelaces... Why suppress them when they're their own worst enemies to begin with?
This "opposition" is the gang that couldn't shoot straight. They've been outmaneuvered instead of being repressed. I think it's been a brilliant strategy on the part of Chávez that helps a lot in the longterm project that he has launched to bring the country forward on democratic terms.
We had a very emotional discussion at the February 2003 J-School about whether, and at what point, the Venezuelan government would be justified to take away the licenses of the dishonest Commercial TV stations. My position is yes: Paid speech does not merit the same protections as free speech. Others - particularly some North Americans - felt almost religiously opposed to any intervention even by democratic governments in the media. Different worlds and different world views...
But in that discussion an even better idea was raised, that seemed to be acceptable to all sides: to levy a special tax on Commercial Broadcasters that would be used exclusively for funding community-run TV and radio stations, of the kind that Venezuela has pioneered in recent years, and kill them with the thing they claim to support: competition, with a better product.
hey, it worked for the Weather Underground!
Submitted on March 4th, 2004 by Jeff WegersonBut it did not actually work for the Weather Underground did it?
that was the joke
Submitted on March 4th, 2004 by Al GiordanoCarpe Diem!!!
Submitted on March 5th, 2004 by David Keatinghttp://usatoday.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt? action=cpt&title=USATODAY.com+-+U.S.+sees+caus e+for+concern+over+gas&expire=&urlID=95010 97&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com% 2Fmoney%2Findustries%2Fenergy%2F2004-03-05-gas-pri ces_x.htm&partnerID=1661
U.S. sees cause for concern over gas
By James R. Healey and James Cox, USA TODAY
EXERPT
"The government amplified concern Thursday about rising gasoline prices and repeated a warning of possible shortages, but it didn't offer relief for either.
"This administration is extremely concerned" about the near-record gas prices, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said, strengthening a department statement a day earlier that said "spikes in gasoline prices are always of concern."
Separately, the head of the department's Energy Information Administration, Guy Caruso, told a Senate panel that "many signs are pointing to a tight gasoline market this driving season," repeating the caution about possible shortages from a recent EIA analysis."
...
Can someone reply to this?
Submitted on March 5th, 2004 by David Keatinghttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3479113.stm
EXERPT
"YES
Natalia Brandler, political scientist at Simon Bolivar University in the Venezuelan capital Caracas:
There are strong reasons to oppose the government of Hugo Chavez"
...
She makes many claims regarding the record of Chavez and her title lends her the air of respectability...
Natalia Brandler Is Dishonest
Submitted on March 6th, 2004 by Al GiordanoBrandler claims in that link that Chavez must go because of alleged...
FACT: Every single one of those economic problems was caused by the "opposition," especially the "strike that was not a strike" of December 2002, when the bosses locked the workers out of their jobs, and the corrupt bureaucrats leftover at the state oil company locked the workers out and sabotaged the facilities there.
So she's blaming Chavez for the problems that she and her anti-democracy ilk caused.
FACT: She doesn't understand the system of checks and balances - which is also that of the United States and other lands - in which an executive branch or legislative branch leader is not only free, but is expected, to have a somewhat adversarial relationship with the judicial branch. She uses an overcharged word like "attacked" to describe nothing more than free speech criticism (he did not physically "attack!"). And, for that matter, right now it's her oligarchy "opposition" pals who criticize the court more than Chavez anyway. The changes in the Court that she complains about were done democratically according to the overwhelmingly popular Constitution, approved by the people in 1999. She wants it both ways. She's not only anti-democracy. She's a moron.
The rest of her accusations - supposed relations with "bad" countries (hey, Venezuela is a member of OPEC, it's an oil producing country, and frankly the US has relations with most of those countries as well), with Colombian "guerrillas" (unproved), her libelous claim that he has funded "armed groups" in Venezuela... - simply reveal her as either incredibly gullible or intentionally dishonest or both.
If she really hates it so much, there is a place for oligarchs like her who like stolen elections: Miami.
Thank you Al
Submitted on March 7th, 2004 by David KeatingIt would seem that this is part of the process of the coup de etat. Attempting to discredit the leader in the eyes of the people, both nationally and internationally so that no one will seriously complain when the axe falls.
It is happening with Aristide, who is now demonized for speaking out against the "blondes". Did Aristide really tell his followers to physically attack them? I doubt it. Just like I don't believe Chavez tells his followers to physically attack the rich in Venezuela.
It also happened in my "favorite" US coup de etat against Mossadeq in Iran. (For one of the CIAs playbooks I would recommend "All the Shah's Men" by Stephen Kinzer.) I call it my "favorite" because the USA, at the insistence of Britian, removed the most progressive leader in the history of the Middle East from life.
Who are the great leaders of South America that the USA has removed and ushered in despots? Allende and Pinochet come to mind but I guess there is at least one set per country.
Maybe we should be looking to the root of this problem and asking ourselves why the US government seems intent on keeping all others off the path that it has taken.
Inventory of dictators and coupsters
Submitted on March 7th, 2004 by Al GiordanoThe mysterious, anonymous, and impressively thorough blogger who goes by the name of Soj has a sidebar list of "dictators and butchers who have been financed and supported by the United States in the last 60 years."
Most, but not all, of these guys came in by US-supported coup d'etat...
Islam Karimov (Uzbekistan)
Reza Pahlavi - Shah (Iran)
Gen. Rafael Trujillo (Dom. Republic)
Anastasio Somoza (Nicaragua)
Hosni Mubarak (Egypt)
Ariel Sharon (Israel)
Augusto Pinochet (Chile)
Nuri as-Said (Iraq)
Mobutu Sese Seko (Zaire)
Ferdinand Marcos (Phillipines)
Fulgencio Batista (Cuba)
Generalissimo Franco (Spain)
Hissene Habre (Chad)
"Baby Doc" Duvalier (Haiti)
"Papa Doc" Duvalier (Haiti)
George Papadopalous (Greece)
Pervez Musharraf (Pakistan)
Pedro Carmona (Venezuela)
Jacobo Arbenz (Guatemala)
Jorge Ubico (Guatemala)
Suharto (Indonesia)
Emir Jabir Al-Sabah (Kuwait)
General Teodoro Obiang Mbasogo (Equitorial Guinea)
Manuel Noriega (Panama)
Siad Barre (Somalia)
King Fahd (Saudi Arabia)
Efrain Rios Montt (Guatemela)
Fujimori/Montesinos (Peru)
Garardo Machado (Cuba)
Josef Stalin (Soviet Union)
Saddam Hussein (Iraq)
General Sani Abacha (Nigeria)
Idi Amin (Uganda)
Colonel Hugo Banzer (Bolivia)
Sir Hassanal Bolkiah (Brunei)
General Humberto Branco (Brazil)
Chiang Kai-Shek (China)
Alfredo Christiani (El Salvador)
Ngo Dihn Diem (Vietnam)
General Samuel Doe (Liberia)
Mullah Omar/Taliban (Afghanistan)
King Hassan II (Morocco)
Gen. Maximiliano Martines (El Salvador)
Turgut Ozal (Turkey)
Park Chung Hee (S. Korea)
Pol Pot (Cambodia)
General Sitiveni Rabuka (Fiji)
Halie Salassie (Ethiopia)
Antonio Salazar (Portugal)
Ian Smith (Rhodesia)
Alfredo Stroessner (Paraguay)
General Jorge Videla (Argentina)
Mohammed Zia Ul-Haq (Pakistan)
Ilham Aliyev (Azerbaijan)
Askar Akayev (Kyrgyzstan)
Nursultan Nazarbayev (Kazakhstan)
Enomali Rahmonov (Tajikstan)
Raoul Cedras (Haiti)
Nicolae Ceausescu (Romania)
Jacobo Arbenz?
Submitted on March 7th, 2004 by Ron SmithGive me a break
Submitted on March 8th, 2004 by Trevor TopFull of bad examples?
Submitted on March 8th, 2004 by Jeff SimpsonSubject matter
Submitted on March 8th, 2004 by Trevor TopMy point was the left gets in trouble when it blames all the ills of the world on the US and portrays it as undermining every last government on Earth. What about the democratic governments we've supported?
These two are a bit absurd:
Hosni Mubarak (Egypt)
Ariel Sharon (Israel)
These two hardly got much US support:
Generalissimo Franco (Spain)
George Papadopalous (Greece)
the obvious one:
Jacobo Arbenz (Guatemala)
suspect Latin American examples:
Fujimori/Montesinos (Peru)
Colonel Hugo Banzer (Bolivia)
General Humberto Branco (Brazil)
a ridiculous bunch:
Josef Stalin (Soviet Union)
Nicolae Ceausescu (Romania)
Chiang Kai-Shek (China)
Haile Sellasie (Ethopia)
and I don't even know half the names on the list.
Let's just keep the examples rooted in Latin America and specific to overthrow.
refine the list, fine, but...
Submitted on March 8th, 2004 by David KeatingMy only conclusion short of the ridiculous "pure evil" is that the US gov is protecting our "interests" (as stated), which is protecting our prosperity. The wealth and ease found in the USA comes with a price. Others must live without it in other places. That's the reality of our great nation.
I am beginning to believe that the only way to stop this madness is to literally stop "buying". As soon as the american people reject the affluence handed to them on a platter by the dirty deeds of their government around the world then the government will no longer have a reason to do them.
I believe this would be consider a "market force".
CIA Playbook Example
Submitted on March 9th, 2004 by David KeatingFor example when I read about "Aristide supporters shooting peaceful demonstrators" a "red flag" goes up because of the CIA's use of local operatives to masquerade as violent supporters in order to change public opinion. They admit doing this in Iran, I have read the government documents that says they do this, everyone knows they do this (SO THEN WHY DONT THE NEWSPAPERS NOTE THIS WHEN THEY WRITE ABOUT THIS CRAP!?!).
So these links are to the history of and actual US documents on the publicly-known CIA run coup in Iran to overthrow their Prime Minister Mossadeq.
My favourite source of official US documents gained under the Freedom of Information Act is the The George Washington University National Security Archive.
In it they link to an early review of the documents at Al's favourite The New York Times.
And I would like to add a link to those who would rather read a book on the subject written by Stephen Kinzer entitled All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror.
I hope the above links stimulate a discussion on the process (I know Iran is not in South America but it is the best known example I know of...). I would be happy to discuss the event as I have read and heard about it in more detail if there are interested people.
Your comment on SPR is not accurate.
Submitted on March 6th, 2004 by Peter CarlinDOE/EIA statistics show US oil inventories at very low levels, and getting lower. Last weeks miniscule 2 million b/d build in crude stocks must be measured against historically low reserves since the SPR began.
What is not known, is weather nations like India and China may be building similar reserve structures, causing an enormous pressure on demand. As of now it is speculation, but on Friday oil prices registered higher prices than they did on the eve of Gulf War II, to give you some scope of where prices are.
An SPR build right now would be an expensive endeavour for the US, with $37 bbl crude and world freight rates at an all-time high.
My Oil Comment
Submitted on March 6th, 2004 by Ron SmithNews from journalists in Caracas
Submitted on March 6th, 2004 by Jules SiegelIn addition to some comments of his own he sent me some documents that I think journalists should read, including an excellent article from Caracas by Alan Cisco, published this weekend in Counterpunch, along with a transcript of the Venezuelan government statement to the Carter Center/OAS. Since the complete texts are too long for an email, I've published excerpts from Cisco's article, the full text of Carson's comments and the government statement at newsroom-l.net.
Summing up: After grueling negotiations, everyone involved agreed on a process for gathering the signatures for a referendum to recall Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez. When the signature gathering drive was completed, the National Election Comission, whose five members had been approved by all concerned, invalidated more than one million of the three million signatures.
About 143,000 were either dead, under age, foreign born or otherwise ineligible. The rest were invalid because the identification data had not been filled in by the signers, but by others, which was forbidden in the process all had agreed to follow. The election commission established a five-day period for signers to go to 2700 centers to re-affirm the validity of their signatures. The opposition insists that these signatures must be honored and has gone to the streets to enforce its demands.
U.S. congressman Barney Frank told Carson, "I've spoken with the Carter Center and I believe that the signatures that were gathered without them filling out the forms, that there was a miscommunication, a misunderstanding and there does not appear to be any doubt about these signatures/thumbprints and that is pretty well verifiable."
Despite Frank's opinion, it's clear that everyone was aware of how the signatures were to be validated. As the Venezuelan government pointed out in its statement, the suspect signatures would have been thrown out in California. Misunderstanding or not, why should anyone be given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to kicking out a democratically elected president?
Reminding Barney of Massachusetts Law
Submitted on March 6th, 2004 by Al GiordanoI recall that Barney's quote was prefaced by some disclaimer acknowledging that he could be wrong and that he wasn't sure... In which case I'll be in touch with my old friend in Massachusetts.
However, it must be pointed out - since both Barney and I have captained many signature drives for referenda and candidates in Massachusetts - that, in the Bay State, elections officials invalidate all petitions with irregularities, including where the handwriting doesn't match that of the signator, or that lack a legal signature by the person who collected the petition, and that sort of thing.
So, to be fair: If Massachusetts Law were applied in this Venezuela referendum, it would already be over, and there would be none of the "second chance" that Venezuela election officials are so generously giving the "opposition" in this process.
In fact, in Massachusetts, it would be illegal to give them that second chance.
So let's keep it all in perspective. What's good for Massachusetts ought to be good enough for Venezuela, at least where our esteemed colleague from Congress ought to be concerned.
Then again, since I don't know the context of the interview, I'll give Barney the benefit of the doubt that perhaps he got ambushed or wasn't well quoted.
Barney Frank
Submitted on March 7th, 2004 by Jules Siegeldon't rate this
Submitted on March 8th, 2004 by Al GiordanoI don't understand the kind of "journalism" that Vheadline and its cacique Roy Carson does. There was a point in time when they had no greater supporter than me. When, during the coup, their server suddenly disappeared, and Roy was out sick, Narco News carried them and produced their reports for the world when no one else would. When, 8 months later, they almost went out of business, it was a fund appeal that I sent to our donors that bailed them out and kept them alive.
But then, since no good deed goes unpunished, wierd shit started happening. They - and their pals over at the escualido oligarch petroleum news site (I don't understand why they play footsie with those oilagarchs) - started stealing Narco News articles for their websites that, after all, are both Commercial and sell ads...
Roy started posting articles on his site as if Luis Gomez or I had posted them ourselves, it was very deceptive and, in my opinion, dishonest. It could have been an innocent mistake, but when I asked Roy to please stop it he freaked out, blocked me from reading Vheadline's pay-per-view stories, and even accused me of provoking the suicide of escualido gringa Janet Kelly (I kinda liked that: not even I think my svengali powers can do such public good!). It was bizarro. But it also gave me cause for pause.
Since then, I've watched a hundred "stories" on Vheadline that don't cite the sources (often ripped off from the oligarch press in Venezuela without citing the source), or one in particular that claimed a conspiracy to assassinate Chavez in an airplane that they never followed up on with any hard facts, and I feel more confident in Venezuelanalysis.com, in aporrea.org, and in the new venezuelafoia.info than I do in Vheadline.
And I also know Barney Frank. Nobody on the House Judiciary Committee has done more to protect civil liberties than Barney. Nobody. Not even Conyers. And I have since researched that "article" on Vheadline - which tossed an irrelevant aside regarding Barney's sexual orientation (what is that about?) - and see that Barney sent out a stupid press release, and I'll ask him about that (Jules: "ream him out" is not the most sensitive choice of language considering Vheadline's raising of his personal life, which is irrelevant). But the additional quotes in that Vheadline article seemed to me to be overplayed, and not fair, nor well reported in the "good writing" and "coherence" categories that both Jules Siegel and Al Giordano so value.
So a word to the wise is sufficient. The world of Venezuela news reporting has expanded exponentially since 2002. And I will always show great solidarity to those who do it fairly. But the smell of that Barney story was a bit yellow - Hearst style of days of old, with a whif of sexual scandal - and so until I talk to the Congressman, who is one of the few that has been in contact over the years with the clandestine Narco Newsroom telephone number, I'll reserve judgment until more facts are in.
If it's a choice between giving the benefit of the doubt to Vheadline or to Barney, mine goes to Barney. In any case, it is such a non-story that only Vheadline "reported" it. Eventually, I'll get to the root of it. But truth takes time.
Call Frank's office
Submitted on March 8th, 2004 by Jules SiegelAbout your comment "Jules: 'ream him out' is not the most sensitive choice of language considering Vheadline's raising of his personal life, which is irrelevant"
It's so irrelevant to me that I didn't think about it at all when writing the comment. I can't be aware of the possible sexual inference of every statement I make. Not all homosexuals are into anal sex, anyway. Let's try to remember that this is journalism, not psychoanalysis.
VHeadline
Submitted on March 10th, 2004 by Erik SiegristThe final straw for me though came a few months ago. I had responded to Al's original call for funds to save VHeadline; Carson sent out a new appeal, but rather than wait for a voluntary donation actually sent a bill to my Paypal account.
For some reason a demand for money, as opposed to a reasoned appeal, didn't work as well. Funny, that.
Alan Cisco's article
Submitted on March 6th, 2004 by Ezio Cusihttp://www.counterpunch.org/cisco03062004.html
It is avery good abstrtact of what seems to be going on in Venezuela and it gives us hope that Chavez can weather the storm for the time being.
Arbenz error
Submitted on March 7th, 2004 by Andrew Grice (not verified)That's right. Arbenz was overthrown by the CIA on behalf of United Fruit. And, like Aristide, while his country was being attacked by a smallish group of "rebels" he pleaded for assistance to the world. None was forthcoming because the Eisenhower administration was behind the whole thing.
It was the sometimes downright genocidal dictators that came after Arbenz which the United States backed to the hilt.
Kerry attacks Venezuela's Chávez
Submitted on March 22nd, 2004 by Jules Siegel[Excerpts]
CARACAS, Venezuela (Reuters) - U.S. Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry has attacked Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez as a dubious democrat hostile to U.S. interests, delivering a slap in the face to the leftist leader who had portrayed Kerry as a potential friend.
In his declaration dated March 19, the Massachusetts senator accused Chavez of undermining Venezuela's democracy, supporting Colombian rebels and "narco-terrorists" and trying to torpedo a constitutional bid by foes to hold a referendum on his rule.
Condemning Chavez's policies as "detrimental to our interests," Kerry said the United States should lead international pressure to persuade him to allow a recall vote.
Full story
Gregory Wilpert rebuts Kerry's stupid comments.
Submitted on March 23rd, 2004 by Jeff SimpsonA Rebuttal to Senator Kerry’s Statement on Venezuela
some reaction to Kerry's boneheaded statement
Submitted on March 24th, 2004 by Andrew Grice (not verified)from xinhuanet, under the headline:
"Venezuela will not take Kerry's criticism seriously"
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-03/24/conte
nt_1382063.htm
"Tarek William Saab, President of the Venezuelan National Assembly's Permanent Commission on Foreign Affairs, was quoted as saying in an interview published by local daily El Nacional on Tuesday."
"I do not think the Kelly statement is very serious because the United States authorities have already denied this connection," said the official.
"Kerry's strategy is to get new supporters in the Florida state," Saab added."
Charles Hardy rebuts Kerry's bellicose diatribe
Submitted on March 25th, 2004 by Jeff SimpsonCharles Hardy: US Senator Kerry ... how much does it cost to buy a President?
Because Chávez endorsed him...
Submitted on March 25th, 2004 by Jules SiegelEva Golinger slams Kerry's reactionary rant
Submitted on March 25th, 2004 by Jeff SimpsonSenator Kerry, You Are Wrong on Venezuela
Foreign endorsements: why Kerry bashed Chávez
Submitted on March 26th, 2004 by Benjamin MelançonJules Siegel's explanation, that Kerry had to distance himself from Chávez, makes sense to me-- at least it tells me that Kerry's attack on Chávez didn't come out of nowhere.
Kerry's statement came "nearly two weeks after Chavez had publicly praised the Democrat contender, hailing his health care plans and likening him to assassinated U.S. President John Kennedy," according to Reuters (on CNN.com).
If Kerry hadn't already given the Bush campaign an opening to label him the choice of anti-American foreign leaders, he might not have feared such praise. Kerry had said, as quoted in a March 8 Reuters article, "I've met foreign leaders who can't go out and say this publicly, but boy they look at you and say, 'You've got to win this, you've got to beat this guy, we need a new policy,' things like that."
Thus, Kerry made it easy for the Bush campaign to smear him as the favored candidate of terrorists (or even France, not that there's a difference in Haiti). A lot of help also comes from fake journalists like the Washington Post's Mike Allen, who kindly insinuated to his readers the character assassination Bush doesn't want to have to make directly:
Though it's tempting to conclude that Kerry didn't mean everything he said about Chávez, for me this background makes Kerry's intense, inaccurate criticism of Venezuela's twice-elected president even more disheartening. He and his campaign could have chosen to embrace Chávez: a foreign leader not afraid to publicly support Kerry. Kerry could trumpet Chávez's democratic credentials, acknowledged after the coup was overturned even by the New York Times (perhaps in large part thanks to Jules Siegel). Most important, Kerry could remind everyone of Bush's machinations against Venezuela's democracy.
It could become quite a theme, if Bush insists on making foreign endorsements an issue: democrats for Kerry, dictators for Bush. (That is, most European and Latin American leaders, including Aristide, preferring Kerry; Pakistani, Uzbeki, and Saudi rulers, among others, as well as Gerard Latortue, for Bush.)
Unfortunately, I suppose that supporting democracy in Venezuela, let alone around the world, would seriously disconcert some of the top donors to Kerry's campaign-- many of whom already give more to Bush, including banks and investment houses such as Citigroup and Goldman Sachs. Still, Cisco's NYT article reported rebounding economic growth in Venezuala: as in Brazil, international capital may deign to make profits in a country headed by a populist-- at least in the short term.
Kerry, in short, may be able -- realistically, politically -- to make common cause with Chávez. Let's try to make him want to.
So while I agree with Stan Goff that there should be focused pressure to make Kerry stand up for democracy in Haiti, I would argue that he also be pressured to stand up for democracy everywhere-- including Venezuela and not forgetting, in particular, the United States.
(All research in this post was brought to you via Google or Jules Siegel posts.)
Pass the K.Y., I'm Back
Submitted on March 30th, 2004 by Al GiordanoIt's gonna be great to have you with us in Bolivia come July.
This Kerry pander to the anti-democracy mafias in Miami and Caracas has some unstated angles that I'll unfold in the coming days. I'll reserve the overtly political (and personal) stuff for over at my weblog, where I've fired the first shot across the bow:
http://www.bigleftoutside.com/archives/000386.php
But I will share with you this excerpt of my blog entry about it, with apologies to Eminem:
(You can also read about my swell little rest over there... Thanks to everyone here for carrying the torch during my absence.)
Petitioning Kerry to get informed on Venezuela
Submitted on March 25th, 2004 by Paul Zarembka"Why John Kerry Must Retract his Position on Venezuela", March 25.
Two Yale 'Skull and Bonesmen' (Kerry, 1966; Bush, 1968), same position on a vital Latin American issue!
We're going to have to watch Zapatero that he gets it right!
Paul
Why Kerry rebuked Chavez
Submitted on March 25th, 2004 by Kevin OkabeRand Beers
Rand Beers
Submitted on March 26th, 2004 by Ron Smithhttp://www.narconews.com/beersperjury1.html
Let's remember also that Clinton was no fan of Chavez, and was the first US president to sign Plan Colombia. While many liberals have their hopes that Kerry will marginally improve things in the Middle East, and will be one notch above the current selected president, in Latin America we can expect more of the same regardless of who's in office.
Beers, Berger, and Holbrooke
Submitted on March 30th, 2004 by Al GiordanoI'm going to start thinking out loud and "data-dumping" to formulate the most brutal and strategic response to the Kerry-Venezuela statement, with the goal of isolating and marginalizing the runaway foreign policy team that was behind it, neutralizing them, limiting their future room to maneuver, and making sure all politicians understand that it is self-destructive to let these particular guys near Latin American policy.
Beyond those of Randy Beers, the fingerprints on that Kerry statement on Venezuela also include former Clinton administration functionaries Sandy Berger and Richard Holbrooke.
On February 27th, with other reporters, I listened to a conference call, sponsored by the Kerry committee, with all three of these wanna-be rule-the-worlders. They were gushing about Kerry's "major foreign policy speech" on the subject of "terrorism."
Prefering to listen to the Commercial Media reporters make asses of themselves and take notes, I didn't say anything during the call. But after the conference call I sent the following follow-up questions to Katie Lelyveld of Kerry's press staff:
Lelyveld responded to me:
Of course, that coward Sandy Berger never did get back to me to answer those very reasonable questions, even after his handler promised he would.
That suggests that Berger knows full well that U.S. policy misuses highly charged words like "terrorism" and "narco-terrorists" and the other sorts of malignments that filled the Kerry Venezuela statement, and that Sandy Berger wants to reserve his option to engage in such knowingly false political discourse, too.
Berger, Holbrooke, Beers, and some other names that I'll get into, are the cancer upon the Kerry committee right now. The fish rots from the right fin.