Hugo Chávez Asks God to 'Give Me Life' Video

Poor old Hugo, poor old Venezuela. I will be a sad day for Venezuela if Hugo quits this coil, the Yanks will be circling already, and no doubt have a game plan, with a puppet head already lined up and ready to go.

Hugo Chávez Asks God to 'Give Me Life' Video

The Venezuelan president attends a pre-Easter mass with his family and tearfully prays to be spared from cancer. After returning from his latest round of cancer treatment in Cuba, Chávez wept during the televised speech. Having had cancer since last June, the leader pleaded with God to give him life because he had more to do for his country.
6 April 2012
Guardian

Rioters Attack British Embassy In Buenos Aires Give Us Back Our Islands

The natives are restless.

Flag and effigy burning; proving that they are not of the stuff to govern anything.

Not British you know. Watch

Venezuela Roundup

Chavez Surgery Opens Venezuela Election Chances For Candidate Henrique Capriles
Feb 26,2012

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) — Throughout his presidency, Hugo Chavez has relied on his vigor and endurance: playing baseball, speaking for hours at a stretch and making decisions on the fly while bounding around Venezuela exuding energy.

Now, just as he may need it most, Chavez finds himself ailing heading into a re-election campaign.

It's the rival, Henrique Capriles, who tossed a baseball with Little Leaguers and embraced admirers as Chavez, 18 years older, disappeared over the weekend into a Cuban hospital to have a potentially cancerous tumor surgically removed.

Capriles "represents a contrasting young and energetic option," said Diego Moya-Ocampos, an analyst with the London-based consulting firm IHS Global Insight.

The 39-year-old state governor has also, perhaps inadvertently, blunted some of the sympathy vote that might go to Chavez by shunning direct attacks on the president. He has cast himself as a polite, non-confrontational politician, a sharp contrast to the venom-tongued president, who recently referred to Capriles as "a pig" and has accused rivals of wanting him dead.

But Capriles didn't rise to the bait.

"I wish the head of state a long life," Capriles said. "I want him to see the changes that are going to come about in our country, for him to see a Venezuela of progress, a united country, a country where Venezuelans have many opportunities."

He added a little dart though: "It's important that people who have an illness tone down the confrontation a bit. It's not good for one's health."

History has shown that those who underestimate the socialist president do so at their own peril.

"For now (Chavez's) illness represents a political weakness, unless and until he can put it behind him," said John Walsh, an analyst at the Washington Office on Latin America, an independent think tank. "If he can eventually convince people that he has overcome cancer, then the narrative changes to one of Chavez conquering adversity, and the advantage could shift to Chavez."

"Chavez is a masterful politician," Walsh added. "His resourcefulness in setting the agenda and defining the terms of debate should not be underestimated."

Chavez had seemed to be rebounding from last year's cancer surgery, when he was in Cuba for weeks to have a malignant tumor removed from his pelvic region. At the time, he was often out of sight and was slow to give details of what was going on, leaving Venezuelans guessing about his health. But the hair he lost during chemotherapy has been growing back and Chavez was again back to making extensive, and extended, public appearances. He spoke for about four hours on Thursday as he discussed his illness before departing for Cuba, insisting, "I will live!"

Chavez's refusal to say exactly what type of cancer he had, as well as earlier assurances he had been completely freed of cancer, have led to uncertainly among Venezuelans regarding his chance for full recovery.

Chavez revealed last week that his Cuban doctors had discovered a one-inch (two-centimeter) lesion near where the larger tumor was removed last year and he has conceded he could be out of action for a while. If he is forced to undergo radiation treatment following the surgery, he could be sidelined for several months.

That could leave Capriles free to hog the spotlight back home, making personal appearances at school openings and giving speeches as the campaign builds toward the October vote.

If Chavez is unable to personally lead his re-election bid, that opens him to questions about whether he is still capable of running the government and illness tarnishes his long-standing image as an unbeatable politician just as the long-fractious opposition has finally united behind a single candidate.

Capriles, meanwhile, has been busy inaugurating schools and sports facilities in his central state of Miranda. At the inauguration of a baseball diamond on Saturday, he joined dozens of Little League players for warm-up exercises and tossed a ball around with them before a game.

Neighbors see him go on daily jogs through his middle-class Caracas neighborhood, and he even runs the occasional marathon.

That's the sort of athleticism long displayed by Chavez, a former paratrooper and a pretty good amateur baseball player.

A day before he left for Cuba, Chavez acknowledged that cancer's apparent comeback has obliged him to move beyond his usual politics of personality and lean on others.

"This situation forces me to move forward the appointment of the campaign organizers," he said to loud applause at a packed rally in Caracas. "I swear that I'll live and I'll accompany you to new victories. No cancer will stop us."

While the president's social programs are popular among the country's poor, he is vulnerable to criticism about economic and social problems that have persisted or grown during his more than 13 years in office. Those include annual inflation of 26 percent, the highest rate in Latin America, and soaring murder rates.

While Chavez has insisted that Capriles would eliminate many benefits for the poor, the governor has so far promoted welfare programs similiar to those of Chavez in his own state.

"The race is already shaping up to be close, and a physically weakened Chavez, less potent as a campaigner, would make it even closer," Walsh said. "At this stage it will be difficult for Chavez to recover his aura of invincibility and inevitability, meaning it will be a hard-fought campaign."

Luis Vicente Leon, director of the Datanalisis polling firm, said he expects the tightest presidential race Venezuelans have seen since Chavez's first election victory in 1998.

"It's the first time the opposition kicks off a campaign so close to Chavez," Leon said.

Before Capriles won a Feb. 12 primary, polls by Datanalisis showed a difference of less than 5 percentage points between Chavez and the still undetermined winner of the opposition vote, Leon said. Datanalisis, widely considered one of Venezuela's most accurate pollsters, has not carried out any surveys since the primary.

Emilio Mijares is one of the many Venezuelans known as "ni-nis," or "neither-nors," who have never backed Chavez or his opponents. He said he might vote this October for the first time in more than a decade because he fears instability if Chavez wins a fourth term.

"I don't believe the president is going to get better. His health could deteriorate following re-election, and that would certainly lead to problems," said Mijares, a 48-year-old taxi driver. By contrast, he said he considers Capriles to be an efficient administrator.

Others fear political upheaval looms no matter who wins.

"If (Chavez) recovers and wins, the opposition is going to protest. On the other hand, if Capriles wins the election, the Chavistas will fill the streets and there will be violence," said 58-year-old retiree Maria Guzman. "Whatever happens, we'll have trouble." HuffPo

The Big Hugo Chavez Post: After Iran, Venezuela?

In order that we may look at this latest article from Mike Whitney in a truer perspective, I have taken the option of posting it last in this series of three articles.

The first two, being previous posts on this blog, lots more in the sidebar under the South America tab, as there is Mike Whitney under his own tag.

Polly Says, "No You Can Feck Off" : Can We Swap Obama for Chavez?

Can We Swap Obama for Chavez?
By Mike Whitney
Feburary 08, 2011

On Monday, while Barack Obama was hob-nobbing with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Hugo Chavez was busy handing out laptop computers to second graders at a school in Caracas. After that, the Venezuelan president rushed off to a food distribution plant which is providing $110 million in prepared meals for Venezuela's poor. Finally, he ended his afternoon by making an appearance at one of the many construction sites where new homes are being built for the victims of January's massive floods. It's all in day's work for Hugo Chavez.

While Obama has turned out to be the most disappointing president in the last century, Chavez continues to impress with his resolve to improve the lives of ordinary working people. For example, in just 12 years, Chavez has created a thriving national public health care system with 533 diagnostic centers and medical facilities spread throughout the capital. Health care is free and there have been over over 55 million medical consultations since Chavez launched the Misión Barrio Adentro program. Compare that to Obama's wretched cash-giveaway to the giant US HMO's which he has tried to promote as universal health care. What a joke.

Chavez has also led the way to greater political engagement and activism by establishing over 30,000 communal councils and 236 communes, all focused on entering more people into the political process and empowering them to bring about change. In the US, grassroots organizations are routinely shrugged off by party leaders who take their marching orders from deep-pocket elites who control both parties. For his part, Obama is less interested in what his supporters want than even his predecessor George W. Bush.

And what has Chavez done to loosen the stranglehold that corporations have on media? Here's what Gregory Wilpert says in his article titled "An Assessment of Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution at Twelve Years":

"With regard to the media, ordinary Venezuelans now participate in the creation of hundreds of new and independent community radio and television stations across the country. Previous governments persecuted community media, but state institutions now actively support them - not with ongoing financing, but with training and start-up equipment.

The combination of greater inclusion and greater participation has led to a greater acceptance of Venezuela’s democratic political system, according to the annual Latinobarometro opinion polls, which allow for comparisons with other democracies in Latin America. That is, more Venezuelans believe in democracy than citizens of any other country in Latin America. Eighty-four percent of Venezuelans say, “democracy is preferable to any other system of government.” ("An Assessment of Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution at Twelve Years", Gregory Wilpert, Venezuelanalysis.com)

Last week, Chavez joined the battle against Coca-Cola by attending a rally of striking workers in the city of Valencia, home to the main Coca-Cola bottling plant in Venezuela. Chavez blasted Coke saying that if they didn't want to follow "the constitution and the laws" then Venezuela could "live without Coca-Cola".

Right on, Hugo! Tell Coke to pack sand!

The 1,3000 striking workers are only asking for a meager raise to meet their growing expenses, but of course that cuts into corporate profits, so Coke is fighting their demands tooth-and-nail.

Try to imagine a scenario in which "business-friendly" Obama would do-battle with a major corporation?

Last week, Chavez announced that his government would spend another $700 million to fight homelessness and build another 40,000 houses. The president has stepped up his efforts since floods ravaged the country earlier in the year leaving tens of thousands without shelter. Chavez is determined not to make the same mistakes George Bush following Katrina, when disaster victims were left to fend for themselves forcing a third of the New Orleans population to flee to other parts of the country to find refuge.

And what effect has Chavez had on the Venezuelan economy? Here's Wilpert again:

"Just as the Chavez government has democratized Venezuela’s political system over the past 12 years; it has done the same with its economic system, both on a macro-economic level and on a micro-economic level.

On a macro-economic level this has been achieved by increasing state control over the economy and by dismantling neo-liberalism in Venezuela. The Chavez government has regained state control over the previously quasi-independent national oil industry. The government nationalized private sub-contractors of the oil industry and incorporated them into the state oil company, giving workers full benefits and better pay. It also partially nationalized transnational oil company operations so that they control no more than 40% of any given oil production site. Then, the government eliminated the practice of “service agreements,” whereby transnational oil companies enjoyed lucrative concessions for oil production. Perhaps most importantly, the government increased royalties from oil production from as low as 1% to a minimum of 33%.

In the non-oil sector the government nationalized key (previously privatized) industries, such as: steel production (Sidor), telecommunications (Cantv), electricity distribution (production was already in state hands), cement production (Cemex), banking (Banco de Venezuela), and food distribution (Éxito)." ("An Assessment of Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution at Twelve Years", Gregory Wilpert, Venezuelanalysis.com)

So, are people better off with the telecommunications and electric companies privately owned by cutthroats like Enron (and the other Wall Street pirates) or should they be turned into public utilities?

How about oil? Are BP and Exxon better suited for the task than the public sector?

What about banking: Would you feel safer with Uncle Sam or Goldman Sachs?

Chavez has slashed the poverty rate in half, lowered unemployment from 15% in 1999 to 7% today, and shrunk inequality to the lowest level in Latin America. In Venezuela people are getting healthier and living longer. They're better paid and more politically engaged. "84% of Venezuelans say that they are satisfied with life, which is the second highest level in Latin America." And, guess what, Chavez is strengthening social security and retirement programs, not trying to destroy them by handing them over to Wall Street in the form of private accounts.

And, Chavez's generosity has not been limited to Venezuela either. In fact, he was the first world leader to offer medical and food aid to Katrina victims. And, he still provides free heating fuel to poor people in the northeast United States. Venezuela-owned Citgo joined with Citizens Energy "to provide hundreds of thousands of gallons of free and low-cost heating oil to needy American families and homeless shelters across the US." According to Citizens Energy President Joseph P. Kennedy, "Every year, we ask major oil companies and oil-producing nations to help our senior citizens and the poor make it through winter, and only one company, CITGO, and one country, Venezuela, has responded to our appeals."

That's right; no other oil company has given even one stinking dime to the charity. Chavez has provided over over 170 million gallons of heating oil since 2005.

In contrast, Barack Obama has done nothing for the poor, the homeless, ordinary workers, or the middle class. Zilch. He's been a dead-loss for everyone except the richest of the rich. Maybe we should swap him for Chavez?

It's worth a try.

- - - - -

American Hypocrisy is Really Starting To Piss Me Off - Venezuela: Obama 'Voices Concern'

The Gor Blimey quote of the year, Obama having the effrontery to talk about "basic democratic values."

US President Barack Obama has accused the government of Venezuela of threatening "basic democratic values" ahead of elections next year.

As he readies his pen to sign the Indefinite Detention Act.

Mr Obama also said Venezuela's close relations with Iran and Cuba did not serve the interests of its people.

Does not serve the interests of the US he means, Hugo Chavez has done more for his people than any other head of state past or present.

Previous:

.....Chavez came across as a genuine man, a genuine statesman in fact, that enjoys the undeniable support and affection from the majority of Venezuela's people. As Pilger notes, little wonder Chavez is hated by Washington, implementing as he has, free full time schooling for all children, free health care for all, adult literacy classes throughout the country and many more things beside. More US Hegemony Exposed: The War on Democracy

Obama:

But he said he looked forward to the day when the US and Venezuela could work together more closely.

'Work together,' is that the latest euphemism for invasion, because this is what it's really all about, the end game. Or is just the old euphemism for supporting and funding a coup? (Hegemony link)

Try a bit more.

"We have felt great concern at actions taken to restrict the freedom of the press and to erode the separation of powers that are so necessary for a democracy to flourish," he said.

"We are concerned about government actions that have restricted the universal rights of the Venezuelan people, threatened basic democratic values, and failed to contribute to the security of the region."

I think I'm in grave danger of wearing out the phrase, you just couldn't make this shit up.

Enough! drive on.

Obama voices US concern over Venezuela democracy
19 December 2011

US President Barack Obama has accused the government of Venezuela of threatening "basic democratic values" ahead of elections next year.

Mr Obama also said Venezuela's close relations with Iran and Cuba did not serve the interests of its people.

But he said he looked forward to the day when the US and Venezuela could work together more closely.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is a staunch critic of US "imperialism" in Latin America and around the world.

Press freedom

President Obama made his comments in an interview with the Venezuelan newspaper, El Universal.

He said the US was closely watching the build-up to Venezuela's general elections, due in October 2012, when President Chavez is seeking re-election.

"We have felt great concern at actions taken to restrict the freedom of the press and to erode the separation of powers that are so necessary for a democracy to flourish," he said.

"We are concerned about government actions that have restricted the universal rights of the Venezuelan people, threatened basic democratic values, and failed to contribute to the security of the region."

Mr Obama said the US did not "pretend to dictate" foreign policy to sovereign nations but said Venezuela had not benefited from its close ties with Cuba and Iran.

"It is up to the Venezuelan people to determine what they gain from a relationship with a country that violates universal human rights and is isolated from much of the rest of the world," he said.

War of words

Since taking office in 1999, President Chavez has forged a close alliance with communist Cuba and cultivated political and business ties with Iran.

He has also been a relentless critic of US policy around the world, and accused Washington of being behind an attempted coup against him in 2002.

Mr Obama's election in 2008 led to a brief warming of ties, but Mr Chavez soon expressed disappointment that there had been little change in US foreign policy.

Last year the US revoked the visa of the Venezuelan ambassador in Washington after Mr Chavez rejected Mr Obama's choice of a new envoy to Caracas.

But despite the diplomatic tension and rhetoric on both sides, trade links remain strong, with the US importing about a million barrels of oil a day from Venezuela.

In his interview, Mr Obama said he thought people in the region had had enough of the war of words.

"I think most Latin Americans are tired of re-fighting old ideological battles that contribute absolutely nothing towards improving their lives," he said. BBC

Prediction: US troops (or proxy) on the ground in Venezuela within five years; sooner, if Hugo croaks in the meantime.

The David Kelly post has been updated, but one hardly needed a crystal ball to predict the outcome of that one.

- - - - -

Is Chavez Next?

After Iran, Venezuela?
Mike Whitney
January 10, 2012

“The build-up against Venezuela that began during the George W. Bush administration has rapidly accelerated under Obama.”

– Eva Golinger, author of “The Chávez Code: Cracking US Intervention in Venezuela”

Attorney and activist Eva Golinger has written an excellent piece on US-Venezuela relations that’s posted on her website Postcards from the Revolution. Golinger details the astonishing turnaround that Chavez has effected since he took office 12 years ago. Not only has Chavez routed the predatory oligarchs who once dominated Venezuelan politics, but his revolutionary social programs have also raised the standard of living for the poor and middle classes while strengthening the institutions that have transformed Venezuela into one of the hemishpere’s most vibrant democracies. Venezuela has seen a 50 percent reduction in poverty since Chavez took office in February, 1999. Venezuelans are now guaranteed free, universal healthcare, a K-through-college education, and civil liberties that are protected under the constitution. US citizens have every reason to be envious of the social safety net Chavez has created for his people via his Bolivarian Revolution.

Naturally, Chavez’s progressive policies have raised a few eyebrows in Washington where his successes are seen as a threat to the established order. Corporate mandarins regard Chavez as a troublemaker and they’re doing whatever they can to get rid of him ASAP. This is why one never reads anything positive about Chavez or his accomplishments in the US media, because the corporate bosses hate him, as they do anyone who diverts money from the 1 percent at the top of the economic foodchain to the 99 percent at the bottom.

US-Venezuela relations have continued to deteriorate under Barack Obama, who has turned out to be as big a disappointment to Chavez as he has to his supporters in the US. The Obama administration continues to fund the stealth network of US-backed NGOs that have been working around-the-clock to depose the democratically-elected leader for more than a decade. Golinger has written extensively on U.S. government agencies and their persistent meddling in Venezuela’s politics. Here’s an excerpt from Golinger’s post:

“Ever since the US-supported coup attempt against President Hugo Chavez in Venezuela failed in April 2002, Washington has been pursuing a variety of strategies to remove the overwhelmingly popular South American head of state from power. Multimillion-dollar funding to anti-Chavez groups in Venezuela through US government agencies, such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the US Agency for International Development (USAID), has increased exponentially over the past ten years, as has direct political support through advisors, strategists and consultants- all aiming to help an unpopular and outdated opposition rise to power.

US government agencies, including the State Department, Central Intelligence Agency, National Directorate of Intelligence and the Pentagon, have pumped up their hostile language towards the Venezuelan government in recent years. The major oil-producing nation has been placed on the countless, and baseless “lists” produced annually by Washington, including “failure to cooperate with counter-narcotics efforts”, “failure to aid in the war on terror”, “trafficking in persons”, and others, that are based on political decisions instead of concrete, substantial evidence to support their accusations. These classifications have enabled Washington to justify not only the millions of US taxpayer dollars channeled to anti-Chavez groups fronting as NGOs, but also to increase military presence in the region and convince public opinion that Hugo Chavez is an enemy.” (“War on Venezuela: Washington’s False Accusations Against The Chavez Government”, Eva Golinger, Postcards from the Revolution)

So, things have not improved under Obama at all, in fact, they’ve gotten worse. The US congress–whose public approval rating has plunged to single digits–is also beating the war drums against Chavez trying to garner support for direct intervention.

While Obama has refrained from name-calling or explicit accusations; his underlings in and out of the bureaucracy never hesitate to connect Chavez to Iran or to suggest links between Chavez and terrorism. Obama’s role in the smear campaign is as clear as his role in eviscerating the Bill of Rights with his recently-passed NDAA.

Here’s more from Golinger: “Other “commentators” and “analysts” are busy writing blogs and columns warning of the growing terrorist threat south of the US border. These dangerous, unfounded accusations could easily be used to justify an attack against Venezuela, as weapons of mass destruction was used against Iraq and “protecting the population” was used against Libya. ….Time again, Venezuela has shown there are no “terrorist training camps” on its soil. Nor is it secretly building a bomb to attack the US. Venezuela is a nation of peace. It does not invade, attack or threaten other countries.”

So, what does a peaceful country like Venezuela need to do to avert a confrontation with the United States?

Venezuela needs to become more like neighboring Colombia that Obama and others regularly hold up as a model of “democracy” in the region. Colombia –where human rights abuses and targeted assassinations are routine and where the US spends billions on a drug eradication program (Plan Colombia) that routinely sprays toxic (re: poison) chemicals on crops, livestock, water supplies and children.

Here’s a little background from Aljazeera: “In 2008, Colombian soldiers were revealed to have murdered possibly thousands of civilians and then dressed the corpses in FARC attire in order to receive bonus pay and extra holiday time. Juan Manuel Santos (who is now Colombia’s president) was serving as defence minister …when the “false positives” scandal broke…. Despite this and other details – such as that, since Uribe’s assumption of office, more trade unionists have been assassinated in Colombia than in the rest of the world combined …(Even so)…..the country has been applauded by the US State Department and the Inter-American Development Bank as a regional role model in confronting security threats ensures the fortification of a system in which profits depend on the perpetuation of insecurity.”(“Private security and ‘the Israelites of Latin America’”, Belen Fernandez, Aljazeera)

So, this is how one becomes America’s friend; just follow orders, kill and imprison your own people, (preferably trade unionists) and allow the corporate looting to go unchecked. No wonder the repressive Saudi dictatorship consistantly ranks so high on Washington’s Friend’s List.

So, what’s in store for Chavez, who’s done nothing except raise living standards, strengthen the rule of law, and make the world a better place for ordinary working people?

The Obama administration presently has its hands full with its wars in Central Asia, the Middle East and Africa. But as soon as Obama is finished “liberating” Tehran, it’ll be on to Venezuela. You can bet on it. After all, Venezuela sits on the biggest ocean of oil in the world, “over 500 billion barrels”. That means it’s only a matter of time before WMD and Al Qaida training camps are discovered in Caracas. Counterpunch

- - - - -

Previous by Eva Golinger
It Still Smells of Sulphur Polly

Wikileaks: Documents Confirm US Plans Against Venezuela
By Eva Golinger link

American Hypocrisy is Really Starting To Piss Me Off - Venezuela: Obama 'Voices Concern'

The Gor Blimey quote of the year, Obama having the effrontery to talk about "basic democratic values."

US President Barack Obama has accused the government of Venezuela of threatening "basic democratic values" ahead of elections next year.

As he readies his pen to sign the Indefinite Detention Act.

Mr Obama also said Venezuela's close relations with Iran and Cuba did not serve the interests of its people.

Does not serve the interests of the US he means, Hugo Chavez has done more for his people than any other head of state past or present.

Previous:

.....Chavez came across as a genuine man, a genuine statesman in fact, that enjoys the undeniable support and affection from the majority of Venezuela's people. As Pilger notes, little wonder Chavez is hated by Washington, implementing as he has, free full time schooling for all children, free health care for all, adult literacy classes throughout the country and many more things beside. More US Hegemony Exposed: The War on Democracy

Obama:

But he said he looked forward to the day when the US and Venezuela could work together more closely.

'Work together,' is that the latest euphemism for invasion, because this is what it's really all about, the end game. Or is just the old euphemism for supporting and funding a coup? (Hegemony link)

Try a bit more.

"We have felt great concern at actions taken to restrict the freedom of the press and to erode the separation of powers that are so necessary for a democracy to flourish," he said.

"We are concerned about government actions that have restricted the universal rights of the Venezuelan people, threatened basic democratic values, and failed to contribute to the security of the region."

I think I'm in grave danger of wearing out the phrase, you just couldn't make this shit up.

Enough! drive on.

Obama voices US concern over Venezuela democracy
19 December 2011

US President Barack Obama has accused the government of Venezuela of threatening "basic democratic values" ahead of elections next year.

Mr Obama also said Venezuela's close relations with Iran and Cuba did not serve the interests of its people.

But he said he looked forward to the day when the US and Venezuela could work together more closely.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is a staunch critic of US "imperialism" in Latin America and around the world.

Press freedom

President Obama made his comments in an interview with the Venezuelan newspaper, El Universal.

He said the US was closely watching the build-up to Venezuela's general elections, due in October 2012, when President Chavez is seeking re-election.

"We have felt great concern at actions taken to restrict the freedom of the press and to erode the separation of powers that are so necessary for a democracy to flourish," he said.

"We are concerned about government actions that have restricted the universal rights of the Venezuelan people, threatened basic democratic values, and failed to contribute to the security of the region."

Mr Obama said the US did not "pretend to dictate" foreign policy to sovereign nations but said Venezuela had not benefited from its close ties with Cuba and Iran.

"It is up to the Venezuelan people to determine what they gain from a relationship with a country that violates universal human rights and is isolated from much of the rest of the world," he said.

War of words

Since taking office in 1999, President Chavez has forged a close alliance with communist Cuba and cultivated political and business ties with Iran.

He has also been a relentless critic of US policy around the world, and accused Washington of being behind an attempted coup against him in 2002.

Mr Obama's election in 2008 led to a brief warming of ties, but Mr Chavez soon expressed disappointment that there had been little change in US foreign policy.

Last year the US revoked the visa of the Venezuelan ambassador in Washington after Mr Chavez rejected Mr Obama's choice of a new envoy to Caracas.

But despite the diplomatic tension and rhetoric on both sides, trade links remain strong, with the US importing about a million barrels of oil a day from Venezuela.

In his interview, Mr Obama said he thought people in the region had had enough of the war of words.

"I think most Latin Americans are tired of re-fighting old ideological battles that contribute absolutely nothing towards improving their lives," he said. BBC

Prediction: US troops (or proxy) on the ground in Venezuela within five years; sooner, if Hugo croaks in the meantime.

The David Kelly post has been updated, but one hardly needed a crystal ball to predict the outcome of that one.

Hugo Chavez Has About Two Years to Live

I know he's not everybody's cup of Darjeeling, and yes, he does have his moments. But I think he is one of the world's great political leaders, a truly caring head of state and a fine man.

He will be greatly missed when his time comes.

Hugo Chavez, under the South America tag. Includes full length documentary, John Pilger's 2007 film, The War on Democracy and other good stuff.

Hugo Chavez has about two years to live
Pravda.Ru
17.10.2011

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who undergoes anti-cancer treatment, may live for not more than two years. This opinion was voiced by Salvador Navarrete, who had been Chavez's personal surgeon in Venezuela.

"When I say this, it means that he has no more than two years left. Judging by the information from his family, Chavez has a tumor in his pelvis, or sarcoma, and this is why he is receiving such aggressive chemotherapy treatment," the surgeon said in an interview with Mexican Milenio Semanal publication.

According to Navarrete, the decision to bring forward the presidential vote in Venezuela is based on the negative prognosis in Chavez's treatment. The surgeon served as one of Chavez's personal doctors since 2002, Gazeta.ru said.

The interview with Navarrete was published on Sunday, when the Venezuelan leader had flown to Cuba for medical examination and four courses of chemotherapy.

On June 10, Chavez received surgery in connection with the intrapelvic tumor. Ten days later, the Venezuelan leader was operated on again: doctors removed a malignant tumor from his intestines. Afterwards, the president received four courses of chemotherapy.

Hugo Chavez has been ruling Venezuela since 1999. He has recently announced an intention to run for presidency in 2012. Despite his health condition, Chavez is determined to win the vote, RBC reports. Pravda

Not All Looters Are On The Streets of London

I don't blame you Hugo, I think I'd be doing the same after the Libya debacle.

Venezuela Makes A Huge Transfer Of Gold From Switzerland To Banks In China, Russia, And Brazil
by Robert Johnson
Aug. 17, 2011

Just days after returning home from another round of chemotherapy in Cuba, Hugo Chavez has ordered billions of dollars in cash and hundreds of tons of gold to be relocated.

According to The Wall Street Journal, Venezuela will move the cash from Swiss and English banks to Russia, China, and Brazil while moving hundred of tons of bullion from abroad into its own central bank vaults.

No official statement has been released, but following the U.S. debt ceiling crisis senior Venezuelan officials have been vocal about "a crisis of uncertainty" with their dollar based monetary system.

Banking officials call the move a big risk that could be prompted, in part, by litigation to recover damages from the nationalization of Venezuela's oil fields -- a bill that could range from $10 to $40 billion.

Documents released by Venezuala's foreign minister also mention "the powers of the North" have "pillaged" Libya's European held reserves and notes a plan should be made to avoid a similar fate.

This leads to further speculation about Chavez's cancer, next year's elections, and potentially drastic political maneuvering that could incur international sanctions.

Following the announcement, three lines of credit for $4 billion were extended to Venezuala from China, Russia, and Brazil -- with a portion of the Russian funds specifically slated for military use. businessinsider.com

What Future For Venezuela/Oil?

Because anything that comes to pass will be just as much about the 710 as it will be about South America's political direction. Not for a minute though, am I putting Hugo prematurely in his box, heaven forbid.

Will US Take Advantage of Chavez's Serious Cancer and Possible Demise to Try to Derail Leftist Tilt in South America?

With a big question mark hanging over the health of Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez, many in Washington may see opportunity. Though Chávez initially claimed that he was merely suffering from a "pelvic abscess," the firebrand leader subsequently conceded that he had cancer. In a shock to the nation, Chávez announced that he had a tumor removed during a sojourn in Cuba, and that he would "continue battling."

Reporting over the past several weeks suggests that Chávez might be in worse shape than has been commonly let on. Though he returned to Venezuela after his operation in Cuba, Chávez recently announced that he would pay yet another visit to Cuba in order to undergo chemotherapy. The firebrand leader, however, still refuses to reveal what kind of cancer he has or its severity. Ominously, one medical source reported to Reuters that Chávez's cancer had spread to the rest of his body and was in an advanced stage.
http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
It's unclear how the president's shaky health might factor in the nation's upcoming 2012 election. The populist leader, who has closely identified himself with the so-called "Bolivarian Revolution," has never shown much interest in grooming a successor within his own United Socialist Party of Venezuela or PSUV, and so if Chávez should falter it is easy to imagine a scenario in which much of his political project could unravel or be derailed by the right. more

Previous: US Hegemony Exposed: The War on Democracy

US Hegemony Exposed: The War on Democracy

Sulphur, bottom of page.

You may by now be familiar with my pathological aversion to hypocrisy. Well it abounds throughout John Pilger's 2007 film, The War on Democracy (Wiki) and from all the usual sources, those sources being, unsurprisingly, every US President and every US politician that has been within living memory.

The same can't be said however, for the CIA operatives charged with the task of undermining democratically elected governments in South America during the same period. No, not a hint of hypocrisy, other than of course, playing down the death toll resulting from US backed coup d'etats or US trained death squads that operated throughout Latin America.

No, from the CIA, only arrogance, sheer bloody arrogance, and on a scale that truly boggles the mind. There are other CIA talking heads throughout the film, but pride of place in the arrogance stakes has to go to Duane Clarridge, CIA operations officer and supervisor for thirty years. (Wiki)

There being no need to embrace my opinion on this, you will no doubt form your own after watching just three minutes of this arrogant turd spout his American exceptionalist shite. Having watched this performance, I think you might find it hard to disagree me, but you may also experience that which I did, the overwhelming desire to grab the murdering little cocksucker by the collar and punch his lights out. Such fucking arrogance!





Before leaving the US side of things, I would be greatly remiss if I didn't make mention of Roger Noriega. (Haiti Action) I have watched many shabby pols lie through there teeth over the years, nobody, but nobody, can hold a candle to this fellow when it comes to, not just lying, but unadulterated barefaced lying as displayed by Noriega in an interview with Pilger, of all people.

Having supported and funded the 2002 attempted coup against Hugo Chavez through such organisations as USAID and the much misnamed, National Endowment for Democracy, Noriega gives such a performance that I think even John Pilger had a problem getting his head round it.

A more indepth profile/bio of Roger Noriega can be found at Right Web. And if ever there was a must read about what I could only describe as Washington's man from hell, then it has to be this article.



Hugo Chavez: I saw nothing in Pilger's film that gave me reason to change any of my previous held beliefs regarding Hugo Chavez. Quite the opposite in fact, what I witnessed during Pilger's interview with Chavez only strengthened and endorsed those beliefs.

Chavez came across as a genuine man, a genuine statesman in fact, that enjoys the undeniable support and affection from the majority of Venezuela's people. As Pilger notes, little wonder Chavez is hated by Washington, implementing as he has, free full time schooling for all children, free health care for all, adult literacy classes throughout the country and many more things beside.

For those that may not have the bandwidth, I'm going to take the captions from the sub titles and post that part of the interview between Pilger and Chavez.

Starting off in English, though soon turning to Spanish, Chavez has a bit of craic with John Pilger.

HC: You want a cup of coffee?

JP: Yes, Yes,

HC: That was one of my English lessons in secondary school. Do you want a cup of coffee? Do you want a glass of milk? Do you want a glass of water? English lesson one!

JP: Let me ask about you,,,personally, I mean, travelling with you for the last couple of days, I've seen a man who's clearly deeply committed to what you want for the Venezuelan people. Could you describe where that came from?

HC: I was born in a very poor home,a peasant home, so I experienced poverty. I was a poor child, barefoot. My father was a teacher at a rural school, and my mother too.I had a beautiful grandmother, she was Indian, she filled me with love.

My grandmother taught me a lot, and I learned from her about solidarity with other people, about sharing the bread even when there's little to eat.

Later, I went into the army,the military academy, and I became a soldier. And there I found out about Bolivar and started to realise what the truth was. Simon Bolivar is venerated in Latin America as the liberator from Spanish colonialism.

Bolivar believed that freedom only came when people united against all invaders,
no matter their disguise. Today the people of Latin America are again rising up against an empire built on an extreme form of capitalism known as the Washington Consensus

Whole countries have been privatized put up for sale their natural wealth sold
too foreign companies for peanuts. In Venezuela they said "No more"

Program cuts. It was this below that really impressed me with Chavez. In his talking about giving dignity to the people, Chavez displayed a dignity of his own that I have seldom, if ever, seen in any political leader of any country.

JP: When you drive in from the airport at Caracas, the one thing that shocks a first-time visitor are the barrios, the numbers of poor people. Why is it, in Venezuela, which earns so many billions of dollars in oil money, that there still is this poverty, in spite of all the changes you've made?

HC: The poor of Venezuela carry on being poor, yes, I always say that we don't want to be rich, our aim is not material wealth, it is to live with dignity, of course to come out of poverty, and to come out of extreme poverty above all, And to live, to live with dignity, this is the objective.

Not to become millionaires, the American way of life, No, that is stupid, I'm telling you this because the issue of poverty affects us deeply, it's most of our daily struggle.

Program cuts. And here, Chavez displays a dignity combined with humility that the likes of it I have never witnessed before. And I beg you, don't think me naive, I'm far too cynical a bloke to be accused of that. But on this occasion, how nice to leave that cynicism behind.

HC: I think the supreme test was the coup d’état of 2002, I was made a prisoner, they took me away and I thought I was going to die.

Now, the Venezuelan people, the poor without weapons, went in, hundreds and thousands went onto the street to ask for my life, asking for Chavez to return.

And so, I have nothing left to do, especially after that, but dedicate all the life I have left to those people, and above all the most deprived, the poorest.

The film does move on from Chavez and Venezuela to cover other American involved coups and the mass murders, resulting therefrom.

And finally, before we get to the video and links and things, the media in Venezuela.

Having watched the program, the section covering the media (pre-coup) is no less an eye opener than any other chosen part of the film. And having watched it, I'm not surprised Chavez put the mockers on the media, it was truly outrageous. I think I would have done the same, as you might have done, if you witness it yourself.


Below then, the blurb and a pretty average embedded video, or see below for file links.

Award winning journalist John Pilger examines the role of Washington in America's manipulation of Latin American politics during the last 50 years leading up to the struggle by ordinary people to free themselves from poverty and racism. Since the mid 19th Century Latin America has been the 'backyard' of the US, a collection of mostly vassal states whose compliant and often brutal regimes have reinforced the 'invisibility' of their majority peoples. The film reveals similar CIA policies to be continuing in Iraq, Iran and Lebanon. The rise of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez despite ongoing Washington backed efforts to unseat him in spite of his overwhelming mass popularity, is democratic in a way that we have forgotten or abandoned in the west. True Democracy being a solid 80% voter turnout in support of Chavez in over 6 elections.

The War on Democracy

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised is a documentary about the 2002 coup and well worth watching. Unfortunately I can only find poor quality versions on Youtube, but I thought it worth a mention anyway.

A couple of Hugo and Polly pics from past posts.

Full speech here: It Still Smells of Sulphur Polly

More Obama Disaffection. Evo Morales: Rescind Peace Prize

Nobel Committee asked to strip Obama of Peace Prize

The Bolivian President and a Russian political leader have launched a campaign to revoke Obama's honour after the US attacked Libya.

Liberal Democratic Party of Russia leader and Vice-Chairman of the State Duma Vladimir Zhirinovsky released a statement today calling for the Nobel Prize Committee to take back the honour bestowed on US President Barack Obama in 2009.

Zhirinovsky said the attacks were "another outrageous act of aggression by NATO forces and, in particular, the United States," and that the attacks demonstrated a "colonial policy" with "one goal: to establish control over Libyan oil and the Libyan regime." He said the prize was now hypocritical as a result.

Bolivian President Evo Morales echoed the call: "How is it possible that a Nobel Peace Prize winner leads a gang to attack and invade? This is not a defence of human rights or self-determination."

Morales won the Gaddafi International Prize for Human Rights in 2006.

He is amongst a number of left-leaning Latin American leaders who have denounced the attacks against Libya. Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, Rafael Correa of Ecuador, Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua and Cristina Fernandez of Argentina have all criticised western media coverage of the Libyan crisis.

Morales and Chavez repeated calls for peace talks with Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.

Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples." The Committee praised the "change in the international climate" affected by Obama's presidency.

In his Nobel Lecture, he discussed the "hard truth" of the inevitability of war, saying: "There will be times when nations — acting individually or in concert — will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified."

A message has been widely retweeted on Twitter today: "Obama has now fired more cruise missiles than all other Nobel Peace prize winners combined." digitaljournal

Obama "My Shoes Are too Tight" by Fidel Castro

'Twould appear the Chileans ain't too impressed with President 44, there again who is? And let me see if I can find a clip of Bill Maher on President Oreo, not a word I would normally use, but there again, I've seen the video. And let's face it, if Obama has lost Maher, he's lost it big style. I shall post it below when I find it.

Obama: "My Shoes Are too Tight"
"I wish him bon voyage and a bit more good sense..."
by Fidel Castro Ruz

While the damaged reactors spew radioactive smoke over Japan and monstrous-looking planes and nuclear submarines launch deadly charges tele-directed onto Libya, a North African Third World country with barely six million inhabitants, Barack Obama was spinning a tale for the Chileans that sounded like one I used to hear when I was 4 years old: "My shoes are too tight, my socks are too warm; and I carry in my heart the little kiss you gave me".

Some of his audience was taken aback in that Cultural Centre in Santiago de Chile.

When the president looked anxiously over his audience after mentioning perfidious Cuba, expecting an explosion of applause, there was icy silence. Behind him, oh, yes! felicitous coincidence! among all the other Latin American flags, there precisely was Cuba´s.

If he were to turn for a second, over his right shoulder he would have seen, like a shadow, the symbol of the Revolution on the rebel Island that his mighty country wanted to destroy, but could not.

Anybody would be, without a doubt, extraordinarily optimistic if they were expecting the peoples of Our America to applaud the 50th anniversary of the mercenary Bay of Pigs invasion, 50 years of cruel economic blockade of a sister country, 50 years of threats and terrorist attacks that cost thousands of lives, 50 years of plans to assassinate the leaders of the historic process.

I heard myself being mentioned in his words.

In truth, I gave my services to the Revolution for a long time, but I never eluded risks nor violated constitutional, ideological or ethical principles; I regret not having better health so that I could carry on serving the Revolution.

I resigned, without hesitation, all my state and political positions, including that of First Secretary of the Party, when I became ill and I never tried to exercise them after the Proclamation of July 31, 2006, even when I partially recovered my health more than a year later, although everyone continued to affectionately address me in that manner.

But I am and shall continue to be as I promised: a soldier of ideas, as long as I can think or breathe.

When they asked Obama about the coup against heroic President Salvador Allende, promoted as many others by the United States, and about the mysterious death of Eduardo Frei Montalva, murdered by agents of DINA, a creation of the American government, he lost his composure and began to stammer.

The commentary on Chilean television at the end of his speech was, without a doubt, accurate when it stated that Obama had nothing to offer the Hemisphere.

As for me, I don´t want to give the impression that I felt any hatred for his person, much less for the people of the United States; I acknowledge the contributions many of its sons and daughters have made to culture and science.

Obama now has before him a trip to El Salvador tomorrow, on Tuesday. There he is going to have to be quite inventive because, in that sister nation in Central America, the weapons and training received from the governments of his country spilt much blood.

I wish him bon voyage and a bit more good sense.

Fidel Castro Ruz Globalresearch

Previous: Libya,The One With The Oil, That Libya Fidel?



This is from 2009 in actual fact, but it is Obama's performance and Bill Maher's understandable reaction to it that we are interested in. Focus on what Maher has to say in the first four and a half/five minutes. He's pissed, or is it that he is more disappointed than pissed?

More Cuddle Cat.

The Best of The Best of Pepe Escobar

The short post that you can't see, the one at the very bottom of the page, initiated me to offer you this small re-post, and the true purpose of this post, a bunch of links to the collected works of Pepe Escobar.

For ease all-round then, and to save me a re-write, this post from 2007 followed by promised links.

Bolivia's New Constitution: Pepe Escobar


Having previously featured a couple of articles by Pepe Escobar I have on occasion wondered what he was all about. Wondered yes, but being the lazy git I am I have to admit to never actually looking the guy up.

Well he's popped up in this seven minute video talking about the conflict of Bolivia's proposed new constitution.
Here again I have to admit to knowing as much about Bolivia as I did about Escobar, so if you fall into this category with me then it's not a bad seven minutes. (03/2011 Link still good, still interesting, still relevant.)


Of the previous two articles by Escobar, Attack Iran and you attack Russia, and Baghdad is finished: Up close and Personal, the latter of the two I thought was a very worthy read.

I've just searched for a graphic, it seems Escobar is no slouch of a reporter, not that I thought he was given the various places he reports from.

Current articles on Arab unrest.

The Best of Pepe Escobar

Sinoroving Pepe Escobar in China

Silk Road Roving Pepe Escobar treks from Western China to the Caspian Sea. (And I think I shall start with this one.)

Roving USA Travels in pre-election America

Philippines with pictures

Saudi-backed Crackdown in Bahrain Bxposes U.S. Hypocrisy

By Michael Hughes

March 17, 2011 "Examiner" -- Although U.S. officials condemned Bahrain’s use of deadly force against unarmed protestors on Wednesday, experts say the Obama administration is reticent to support the people because the Bahraini monarchy best serves U.S. regional interests. Critics accuse the U.S. of employing a double-standard – reluctant to oust the monarchy in Bahrain but more than willing to encourage Libyans to topple Moammar Gaddafi.

The U.S. is also hesitant to criticize Sunni ally Saudi Arabia, which invaded Bahrain on Tuesday at the request of Bahrain’s Sunni royal family to quell Shiite protests. Mideast expert Pepe Escobar of the Asia Times can kick a door open in one’s mind with his perspectives on these events, as he did yesterday:

Let's imagine that neo-Napoleonic French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Italian Prime Minister Silvio "Bunga Bunga" Berlusconi decided to send North Atlantic Treaty Organization troops to help not the Libyan rebels but Muammar "King of Kings" Gaddafi to protect his "sensitive installations". After all, as Gaddafi assured the world, these rebels are "terrorists".

That's exactly what happened with the House of Saud sending armored carriers, tanks and 1,000 troops - part of "Peninsula Shield" forces - to Bahrain to repress an unarmed, civilian, domestic opposition (al-Qaeda or Iran "terrorists", take your pick) demanding political reform.

John Kerry said about the Libyan crisis that, "The US and world community must show they will not stand by while this thug Gaddafi uses air power to murder fellow Libyans.” But why are Kerry and the world community willing to stand by as Bahrain’s al-Khalifa family and the Saudis do the same? Escobar provides another mind-bending analogy:

Imagine the outrage in the "international community" - and the calls to start carpet-bombing right away - if this was Iran invading Lebanon.

The U.S. fears it will lose its naval base in Bahrain should the government come under the control of Shiites – who, despite making up 70% of Bahrain’s population, have lived under the thumb of Sunni royals for over 200 years. And such a move would tip the regional balance of power towards the Shiite Iranians.

Many believe Tehran is behind the current agitation and has future plans to install its own puppet government. Not only will the Iranians get rid of the U.S. 5th fleet if this should materailize, but they will then hold a strategic point near the straits of Hormuz where 20% of the U.S oil supply passes.

The defect in the Iranian bogeyman theory was highlighted by Defense Secretary Robert Gates a few days ago when he disclosed that the U.S. and its allies lack sufficient proof to substantiate claims of Iranian subversion. Gates told reporters:

“I expressed the view that we had no evidence that suggested that Iran started any of these popular revolutions or demonstrations across the region.”

Less definitive proof, it would be hard to justify supporting the repressive monarchy based on U.S. suspicion of Iranian covert shenanigans.

For those who refuse to believe the Bahraini movement is a legitimate peaceful struggle for democracy, look at the “tweets” of Bahraini citizens that capture the brutality of the crackdowns and reports from journalists on the ground, which have painted an image of repression not unlike what was seen in Tahrir Square in Cairo.

The West’s hankering for a military incursion into Libya has established a precedent of the worst sort, because it provides justification for the Saudis to do things like invade Bahrain, although they don’t have to explain anything to the U.S.

The Mideast tumult has elucidated the unholy alliance between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, illustrating that the globe’s leading democracy is in bed with one of the most repressive regimes on earth - a partnership fundamentally based on oil and containing Iran.

As a matter of fact, throughout the historic protests Saudi Arabia has acted as a safe haven for dictators. The House of Saud provided sanctuary to Tunisia's tyrant Zine El-Abidine Ben Ali, was more than willing to host Egypt’s Mubarak and will likely extend a hand to Yemen’s despot, Ali Abdullah Saleh, once his regime falls.

America’s sudden moral outrage with Gaddafi is comical considering that Libya at 158 ranked higher than U.S. ally Saudi Arabia, which came in at 160, in the Economist’s 2010 democracy index of 167 countries. Other U.S. allies didn’t fare much better, with Egypt ranked 138, Tunisia 144, and Yemen 146.

Especially since the invasion of Iraq, America’s “moral capital” has eroded over the years, exacerbated by duplicitous dealings with these repressive regimes, which is why the U.S. was practically irrelevant to the uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia; hence, the Obama administration’s Mideast policy is now suffering from acute paralysis.

Who knows what the solution is, but the U.S. should think twice before intervening for “humanitarian” reasons in Libya if it’s unwilling to do the same elsewhere. ICH

Rogue States

On occasion, little things catch the eye that give cause for a second look. (aka wtf!) This for instance, catching my eye in the dead tree version of that scurrilous rag, the Daily Mail.

Gaddafi himself was earlier said to have left for his home town in the south of the country – or even the rogue South American state of Venezuela, according to British Foreign Secretary William Hague. 22 Feb

– or even the rogue South American state of Venezuela, Dependant on your political leanings, WTF indeed, and slipped in so nicely you would hardly notice, well maybe not. And maybe not at all for someone not unfamiliar with the workings of said rag, n' slag editor, Paul, I'm such a cunt, Dacre.

Slipped in with ease, and with the same ease, the same article, slipping off into that big cyber hole that the Mail has been known to make use on the rarest of occasions. (Shurely shome mishtake?)

But disappeared nonetheless, given the date and the headline, written by 'Chief Reporter David Williams,' Libya protests: Gaddafi may have fled to Venezuela after air force attacks civilians perhaps not altogether surprisingly.

Disappeared as I say, but cached here, not that it matters in the slightest I must add, other than giving attribution to our phrase du jour: Rogue State.

I had a little feeling in me bones, this before I went of in search of examples for and what actually constituted a Rogue State. And me old bones said to me, in only the way old bones can, hegemony! refusing to succumb to American hegemony, I'll bet that is the first prerequisite before you can join the Rogue State Club.

I can hear your brain ticking now, your thinking, the next thing this bugger will be telling us, is that rocks fall to earth! Yes I do apologise, but a fellow has to indulge himself in at least a bit of rhetoric of his own now and then; you'll grant me that, surely?

And I think at this point, it might not be a bad idea to split this post in two, particularly in light of my decision to up the complete article, Of “Dictators” and “Rogues”: Media Give Clinton a Free Pass on Anti-Venezuela Rhetoric on this here page. It's not a unworthy thing to have it featured here, not at all at all it isn't.

More later, unedited.



Ah! dear Hillary, ever the shrinking violet.

Of “Dictators” and “Rogues”: Media Give Clinton a Free Pass on Anti-Venezuela Rhetoric
by Alejandro Reuss
Mar 27 2008

On February 25, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) made a major foreign-policy speech at George Washington University, in which she vowed that, as president of the United States, she would not meet with the “dictators” of various countries without “preconditions.”1 “I will not be penciling in the leaders of Iran or North Korea or Venezuela or Cuba on the presidential calendar without preconditions,” Clinton said, “until we have assessed through lower level diplomacy, the motivations and intentions of these dictators.” She also stated that she would not “legitimize rogue regimes … by impulsively agreeing to presidential level talks that have no preconditions.” Evidently, Clinton considers the countries on her list, including Venezuela, “rogue regimes” ruled by “dictators.”

Numerous major news organizations carried news stories or commentary on the speech. The Wall Street Journal2, the Boston Globe3, CBSnews.com4, CNN.com5, FOXnews.com,6 the Miami Herald7, USA Today8, Bloomberg,9 and Agence France-Presse10 specifically quoted Clinton’s remarks about “preconditions,” “dictators,” or “rogue regimes”— remarks widely interpreted as a rejoinder to Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-IL) statement, in a debate in July, that if he were elected president he would meet, without preconditions, the leaders of Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Syria, and Venezuela (The Guardian)11.

None of the news organizations commented on, nor appear to have inquired with Clinton or her staff, whether she is aware that Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez won presidential elections in 1998, 2000, and 2006, survived a recall referendum in 2004, and accepted defeat in a constitutional reform referendum last year. Neither do the news organizations appear to have asked for Clinton’s definition of “dictator” or “rogue regime,” or by what definition Chávez or Venezuela would qualify.



Whether a head of government has come into and remains in power via competitive elections—as opposed to force, family succession, or other means—is a common criterion for judging if that leader is a “dictator” or not. The Carter Center (founded and led by former President Jimmy Carter) sent election monitors to all the recent Venezuelan elections mentioned above. Its reports frankly criticize some of the votes as “flawed,” but they do not report widespread violence, intimidation, or fraud. They do not conclude that Chávez’s victory in any of the presidential elections was stolen.12 The Carter Center’s findings are publicly available and, in fact, HuffingtonPost.com reported them in a critique of Clinton’s speech focusing specifically on Venezuela.13 None of the mainstream news organizations, however, mentioned the Carter Center reports or any other findings on the conduct of Venezuela’s recent elections or referenda in their reporting on Clinton’s speech.

None asked whether Clinton believes (contrary to the Carter Center’s findings) that Chávez achieved his election victories by force or fraud, or whether she had other criteria for this characterization, unrelated to the validity of the polling results. This suggests that reporters and editors themselves are either unaware of the contrary facts about Venezuela (by the Carter Center and others) or share some underlying view in which Clinton’s characterizations of the country and its government are uncontroversial.

During the same speech in February, Clinton referred to Pakistan’s General Pervez Musharraf not as a “dictator,” but with his self-granted title of “president” (even while criticizing the Bush administration’s uncritical support for his regime). She did describe him as moving “further and further away from democracy,” a rather understated description of someone who came to power via military coup, overthrowing an elected government. She did not call Pakistan a “rogue state.” Along with her characterization of Venezuela, this suggests that Clinton was using the terms “dictator” and “rogue regime” much as U.S. leaders have in the past. That is, heads of government perceived as “friendly” to the United States (e.g., anti-Communist, supportive of U.S. foreign policy, welcoming to U.S. investors) are not tagged with these labels, regardless of how they came to power or the means they use to retain it. The terms “dictator” or “rogue regime” are reserved for those who impinge on the interests of U.S. corporations or oppose U.S. foreign policy. By those criteria, Clinton’s characterizations of Chávez and Venezuela are not at all puzzling.

The mainstream media’s failure to raise these issues, even from the narrow standpoint of effective electoral reporting, is a serious failing. Reporters should certainly care whether a major presidential candidate knows if the government of another country—especially a major actor in regional politics and a country with which the U.S. government has a recent history of conflict—is a dictatorship or not. They should inquire as to whether the refusal to have certain kinds of relations (in this case, top-level talks, at least without “preconditions”) with certain kinds of countries (here, “dictatorships”) is meant as a general foreign-policy principle. Would the U.S., under a Clinton administration, impose “preconditions” for top-level talks with any non-democratic government—including such stalwart U.S. allies as Egypt, Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia? Would a Clinton administration, as a general principle, change other kinds of policy stances (e.g., military aid, or foreign aid generally) with respect to such governments? Above all, the media should demand to know whether labeling a country a “rogue state” or “dictatorship” may signal future aggression by the U.S. government.

The possibility of future U.S. aggression against Venezuela is hardly speculation. The current administration is known to have conspired with coup plotters who attempted to overthrow the Venezuelan government in 2002. Britain’s the Observer reported just days after the coup, in April 2002, that “officials at the Organization of American States and other diplomatic sources . . . assert that the US administration was not only aware the [Venezuela] coup was about to take place, but had sanctioned it, presuming it to be destined for success.” Coup plotters were received repeatedly at the White House in the months preceding the coup. “The coup was discussed in some detail,” the newspaper reported, “right down to its timing and chances of success, which were deemed to be excellent.”14 None of the coverage of Clinton’s recent speech raised the question of whether a future Clinton administration would follow a similar policy of “regime change.”

Presumably, almost all summit meetings between countries require prior negotiations (e.g., on what topics will be discussed), and so involve some “preconditions.” The current invocation of “preconditions,” however, sounds above all like an assertion of U.S. superiority and entitlement: The United States lays down “preconditions” before it deigns to meet with the leaders of other countries, like a lord who will only grant an audience to a peasant who appears hat in hand. The mainstream news media, unfortunately, have done nothing to question the premise of U.S. superiority, which pervades U.S. political discourse on foreign policy, especially with respect to poor countries.

If countries that engage in aggression against their neighbors are “rogue” nations, then is the United States a rogue nation? (Its attempt to overthrow the Venezuelan government being only one recent example of a long pattern of such behavior.) Isn’t it the government of Venezuela, therefore, that is entitled to demand “preconditions” from the United States government—such as a pledge that it will make no further such attempts—before its representatives will engage in talks with the U.S. president (rather than the other way around)? These are the kinds of questions that news reporters should be asking U.S. politicians and candidates for high office—but aren’t. mediaaccuracy

And of course, no show without punch.




2002 Hugo Chavez UN six minute version, Hugo smells sulphur. Full speech below.










Previous: South America tag in side bar.
.