John Kerry Says Venezuela's Chavez is Becoming a Dictator

Thursday, May 6, 2004 (Venezuelanalysis.com): For the second time in the first quarter of the campaign trail, John Kerry, the democratic candidate for president of the United States, has declared that “democracy is a risk” in Venezuela. Kerry also said that Venezuela’s democratically–elected President Chavez is becoming a dictator.

The statements were made on Wednesday night during Kerry’s first interview with the U.S. Spanish-language network, Univision, in an obvious attempt to garner the Hispanic vote. The 38 million strong Hispanic population in the United States is considered to be an important voting block in the upcoming 2004 presidential elections.

The Univision interview, conducted by Jorge Ramos, was clearly targeted at Southern Florida Spanish-speaking voters, known to be opposed to Cuban President Fidel Castro and with strong ties with the Republican Party. Yet in recent months, South Florida’s Hispanic population seems to have placed its votes up for grabs; the candidate with the firmest stance on Cuba and Venezuela is likely to acquire its support – democrat or republican aside.

For the last two years, the anti-Castro Cuban American community in South Florida has attempted to link anti-Chavez sentiments to its four-decade old battle against Cuba’s government. Cooperation between Venezuela and Cuba during the Chavez administration has prompted the Cuban conservative community in Southern Florida to join forces with Venezuelan Chavez opponents, as the Venezuelan President is seen as helping Castro stay in power.

...


Twice democratically-elected President Hugo Chavez has critiziced President Bush's aggressive foreign policy. Kerry's would not be any different, at least when dealing with Latin America.
Photo: Venpres


http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=1265

that he's got their backs.

I guess it shows they think FL is in play.

I'm not a single issue voter, so this doesn't change by vote.

But I do find it absolutely disgusting to use this to get votes. I place this up with, say, pandering to racists to get votes. LBJ pandered to racists to get the Civil Rights Act passed. However, 40 years later, I'd be extremely disturbed by any politician who pandered to racists.

I'm disturbed by pandering to neoliberals and pandering to fascists to get votes.

in democratically elected leaders. Understandable, since he was appointed the presumptive nominee.

:eyes:

NH

You want them all on the same day so that the richest guy whom everyone already knows about always wins?

The media and party machine (DLC/DNC) appointed him.

As far as the process goes, is it logical to have a little mid Western state like Iowa decide the outcome of the nomination when the big states of California and New York had no say? Can the nomination process be improved? I think so.

Why does Kerry keep bringing it up? To show there's no daylight between him and Bush?

Their vote in Florida is up for grabs.

This is not so different form Gore saying Elian Gonzalez should stay in FL.

State: Purge felon voters on list (Florida)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x535319

Unnerving, even.

Bush is the guy who joked repeatedly how easier life would be if he were a dictator. Consider the loss of democracy at home, Kerry. Venezuela can do without your meddling.

so this doesn't really hurt him.

If Kerry started talking this shit before the recall petitions were signed, it might have actually hurt Chavez.

and are totally ignorant of American's bloody history of aggression and oppression of other nations.

How many Americans still believe that we "liberated" Grenada and Panama?

God, it kills me to read those words. Dad was involved on the U.S. side.

Makes me ill just to remember.

for his DLC backers. We gotta protect the status quo for the power elite, while maintaining the facade of Democracy. He's just a different face of the same coin. All we can hope for is that we might see some benefits from a more industrious effort to maintain the facade.

RC

either. :scared: I really wish Kerry hadn't said that. Chavez has many supporters here on DU. We didn't need to hear that Kerry is pandering to Fla votes when we don't know if it's that or if he has "intentions."

He is catering to the Republicans, who will vote for Bush anyway. It's a losing strategy on Kerry's part.

vote? Has he even looked at the demographic breakdown of Venezuelan voters?

Many of the right leaning Cuban voters consider Chavez aligned with Castro. In fact that was what most of the interview was about.
I posted this yesterday and included an article that discussed the Cuba angle as well. It was moved to GD2004 I guess.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x518876

How can Kerry say these things. He will have my vote, but he will also hear from me how I feel about Chavez. I am so disappointed.

The arrogance is appalling.

I think the worst of the matter is the fact that he is playing these remarks to such a small group of WEALTHY and INFLUENTIAL supporters, as opposed to the people of Venezuala. Kerry is showing he can pander with the big boys, and while 98% of Americans couldn't find Venezuela on an unmarked map, this was just for those that have money and will give it to him for saying this BS.

~Almost

...happens to Chavez.

I really feel like neoliberalism is going to destory the middle class in America just as fast as it's going to destroy the chance of a middle class in places like Venezuela, Haite, the rest of the Americas, in Africa, and all over the world.

;-)

I mean if you used a timer or something you could probably still stump a good portion :)

and Kerry wants to create another one??

Is it too late to vote for Kucinich?

when the U$ triggers the coup are we going to transfer our troops from Iraq to Venezuela?

And, speaking of South and Central America, I've got a doozy of a question...

Considering Senator Kerry's role in helping to investigate the Iran-Contra scandal, one would assume that he knows all about the players involved.

So, I'd like an honest answer to this question: when Kerry has the chance to use this acquired knowledge to stop one of the players from gaining a position of influence, why does he not even bother to vote?

I refer, of course, to the utterly disgusting and horrifying Senate confirmation of one John Negroponte, death-squad supporter and figure in the Iran-Contra debacle.

Kerry investigated Iran-Contra, yes?

He knows exactly how Negroponte was involved, yes?

So, why did he not even show up to vote against a man he knows from his own investigations is a criminal and a supporter of death squads?

Anyone care to ante up? Kerry's decision not to oppose Negroponte is wrong, wrong, wrong. And we all know it.

that I would love to hear the answer to, as well.

that members of the OAS (Organization of American States) are not suppose to invade each other, also the U$ is not suppose to .... Oh Hell! forget it!
The U$ is running AMOK! Is Kerry Bu$h with a better environmental record?

supporters who have their eyes on the prize. Not many of them are rabid. Almost all of them have a pretty good idea about what it's going to take to win.

Most people will discuss intelligently, without bile or invective or automatically-used barbs like "Naderite" or other gems.

A few, however, do - and as they use Kerry's past BCCI and Iran-Contra investigations (the latter involving investigating Negroponte) as a club to bludgeon anyone who criticizes Kerry in any way, they are to whom my question was largely posed.

This Negroponte 95-3 nomination is a disgrace to our party, and I am very bothered by the fact that Kerry didn't vote against the bastard. He knows about Negroponte - he should have voted against him, to reinforce that he will not put up with criminals like him in any position of authority.

My senators voted Yes - I have written them off as of tonight - and that angers me. That Kerry chose not to vote at all disappoints me greatly.

I'd like an answer from those who can find no fault with Kerry why I should not be unhappy about this.

I can name a few of them but I won't because I don't want a flame war

With a lot of the Bush voters in 2000, the guy's strategy to drive hard to center before the election worked like a charm. It convinced quite a number of moderates I know to actually believe Bush's claim that he was a moderate - regardless of warnings from those of us who knew better. On the plus side, the moderates I know who were suckered in 2000 plan to vote differently this time around.

I'm hoping that Kerry is just following that successful (sadly) strategy. Won't know for sure until he's in office, but that's my hope and I'm clinging to it.

Of course, all I need to think about when I fill out my absentee Florida ballot can be summed up in three little words: the Supreme Court. That's enough for me, no matter what Kerry does/says from here until November.

Is that if Kerry has to act the way he is now to get elected, he may act the same way for the next 4 years to get re-elected.

with facts friend.

I feel hurt somehow. Is it really all about oil with Kerry too?

But this is a campaign promise I hope he doesn't keep.

State: Purge felon voters on list (Florida)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x535319

And I'm a typical Democrat who always votes party line.

I was prepared to vote for anyone but Bush and Lieberman but some of this stuff Kerry is saying....and not saying is starting to make me reconsider. It's going to be really hard to vote for him. So far I am able to force myself to do so because I think of Wolfowitz as the Director of the CIA, Condi as the Head of State and Doug Feith as NSA...and 3 right wing Supreme Court judges as well as further destruction of domestic programs that help needy people like my friends and relatives. But damn, I am starting to be disgusted with John Kerry because I feel like he might end up being a moderate, right wing ruler who's only in office because Bush is an extreme right winger. It's disheartening and if Kerry keeps it up, I might not even bother to vote.

and leave Venezuela alone. I love Chavez' aggressive, in your face, foreign policy. I swear everyday Kerry gives me another reason not to support him! Did you folks who supported Kerry in the primaries know how right wing he is, or has he decided to become Bush's shadow just recently!

I've seen all these pictures from torture chambers in Venezuela after the liberation,I've seen all the WMD's in Venezuela before the liberation, I've seen the Demopublican party everywhere and there's no alternative and nothing to vote for or against,
'cause “democracy is a risk” for the profits of the corporations, Kerry, Bush, Cheney, Clinton and their comrades defend.
Democrazy is a terrible risk and must be replaced with torture chambers, prisons, Kerrys and Bushs to defend freedom.
This "lesser evil" is too evil.
Why the hell don't the UN invade America to liberate it from Kerry and Bush,
Puking in Germany,
Dirk
P.S. was "democracy is a risk" a freudian mistake by Kerry or the poster?

To deny that is to be blinded by your own agenda. Just because Kerry comes out and says so meting you don't like about the leadership of Venez., you suddenly decide he is Bush's mirror image?

Maybe President Kerry is beating Bush at his own game..
Fla IS important.
Maybe he speaks what he believes..
Doesn't matter to me at this point.

What are we left with if "anyone but Bush" does not sit in the White House after Nov '05?

who wants more soldiers in Iraq, at a moment, where all these illegal actions of the U.S. intelligence in Iraq are revealed, dares to speak about "democracy a risk" (not "aT risk") in Venezuela, is there anything more, one has to think about?

Kerry is concerned about the actions and the behaviour of the government in Venezuela; 'cause it is violating democratic principles?
After he demanded to put the whole Bush-Administration into prison and all the corporate whores and criminals behind the government in the USA, I listen to him again, talking about Venezuela.
This is just so incredible pervert, absurd and corrupt.
It's as if in Nazi-Germany, there would have been an "opposition" speaking about human-rights violation in the USA and demanding more soldiers to occupy Poland. If Kerry would have been a German in the 30's than Hitler would have allowed a two-party system.

Dirk

"It's as if in Nazi-Germany, there would have been an "opposition" speaking about human-rights violation in the USA and demanding more soldiers to occupy Poland. If Kerry would have been a German in the 30's than Hitler would have allowed a two-party system."

LOL! evilDUers gotta give kerry hell 4 this...

:hi:

Meet the Press (NBC News) - Sunday, April 18, 2004

MR. RUSSERT: On Thursday, President Bush broke with the tradition and policy of six predecessors when he said that Israel can keep part of the land seized in the 1967 Middle East War and asserted the Palestinian refugees cannot go back to their particular homes. Do you support President Bush?

SEN. KERRY: Yes.

MR. RUSSERT: Completely?

SEN. KERRY: Yes.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4772030

There it is, folks, in black and white. Kerry is no different from b*sh on at least one issue.

His own words support this conclusion. There is no denying that he supports b*sh's exact position on this. And it's a position of madness!

Note that I did not single you out in my post. One wonders why you decide to reply to a post not aimed at you.

Pretty obvious, so you can stop wondering now.

Bush is a pro-war, pro-PATRIOT ACT, pro Nafta/WTO, rich elitist corporate-sponsored Skull-and-Bones guy, and Kerry is a...oh wait.

Nevermind.

due to the absolute desperate situation the DEMOCRATIC PARTY has put us in, we, the hardcore democratic base of liberals and leftleaners, most members of du being a prime example, are willing to bite the bullet and do our best to put kerry in the whitehouse.

but, and i hope they are reading this closely, if they think that they are going to get back into the whitehouse, and possibly (hopefully) take back congress, and then the party is going to go back to it's usual song and dance, controlled by the dnc/dlc, being whores to the corporations, they are sadly mistaken.

this is the make or break time for the democratic party.

they can either choose to do what is right and respond to their constituents, instead of tring to outdo the republicans by being republican lite, or we, the democratic base of liberals and leftleaners, will bring them to their knees.

they can either address the issues of their constituents, or we will go elsewhere.

where? i don't know, but i do know that a lot of us feel so strongly about this that we CAN sit our ass at home, come 2008.

they can agree to dance with their own, or they can be left standing on the dance floor.

i, for one, have had it with those who have basically turned their back on just about everything the democratic party used to stand for.

let them all lose their seats, at every level of government. something will rise to take their places.

meanwhile, i will do everything i can to get george fuckwad bush OUT of al gore's whitehouse.

after that, all bets are off.

:grr:

/end rant

If you want change, and I mean real governmental/electoral reform, it's going to take a revolution.

They are still smarting about Kerry's previous anti-Chavez and pro-oligarchy statement, as well as his embrace of the Sharon Plan.

To the people of Venezuela, it won't make any difference whether Bush or Kerry is elected President in November. They will become targets of American imperialism!

Thank you for posting this!

Published on Friday, March 26, 2004 by CommonDreams.org
Why John Kerry Must Retract his Position on Venezuela
by VenezuelAnalysis.com

Seeking for the Right's Vote

It is almost unexplainable that Kerry, as a Democrat, maintains almost the same positions as Bush and his ultra-conservative cabinet. Many in the progressive community had hoped that Kerry could bring a fundamental change to the foreign policies implemented by Bush towards Latin America. Statements such as this lead us to believe that there may be little change in the arrogant US government foreign policy, and unfortunately, mistrust and resentment towards the United States in Latin America would probably continue to grow as a result.

Without offering any evidence, Kerry, follows the line of the Venezuelan opposition, accusing Chavez of aiding the Colombian guerrilla forces, permitting narcotrafficking, undermining democratic institutions, attempting to impede a possible recall referendum on his mandate, and of implementing policies that are detrimental to US interests.

Chavez is a President who has been elected twice by clear majorities in democratic elections, and who, at this time, still enjoys one of the highest levels of popularity amongst Latin American leaders. Chavez's policies have earned him the support of millions of progressive and liberal voices throughout Latin America as well as in North America.

Kerry's recent statement makes it clear that he has taken the side of the Venezuelan opposition, an opposition which is unequivocally responsible for the political instability in Venezuela due to its failure and refusal to accept Chavez as the President of Venezuela, despite his clear support by a majority of Venezuelans proven through numerous electoral victories.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0326-01.htm

Or at least, so says some hopelessly ignorant DUer (I forget who).

:eyes:

ever to set foot in the wh.

The stakes are high, this nutcase has to go.

in this adorable PR shot.

I'm not criticizing really. It is probably from his weekly show Alo Presidente and who could blame him to need some help taking calls from citizens every week. I could live with a Bush ear piece if he would do that!! And the young one is adorable.

Mark my words, the millions of people of Arab, Hispanic, Asian heritage are going to find it very difficult to vote for Kerry with his stances against the Palestinians and his positions on S. America. Without their votes, he loses. They have no where to go with their votes so they will stay home.

in Venezuela. It is at risk because Chavez doesn't quite know what he wants to do in the face of foreign backed plotters - whether to crack down or try to follow the letter of the law - when his opponents themselves have no respect for the same law. Why the coup plotters of 2002 are by and large free I will never understand. I suppose its pointless to try and second-guess Chavez, but I certainly hope he knows what he is doing. Venezuela can't afford for him to get this wrong.

And the USA looks like a wolf with 2 faces to him

same as the old boss.

Unfortunately Kerry knows the Dem. base will turn out in support of him... because Bush is simply that bad. But positions like this certainly don't make me an enthusiastic supporter.

Honestly, he will have to go with someone like Clark for VP because his foreign policy is simply too far right for my tastes. Positions like thinking Chavez is becoming a dictator are why we are in the Iraq mess right now.

I hope for the day when we not only have truly visionary candidates in Democratic primaries, but people who can actually win the nomination.

I never liked Kerry--but I've tried to be supportive but now I like him even less. Kerry, Bush--what's the difference?

Invading countries 'cuz we can and we feel like it and want their oil
Chief Justice Scalia

You think Bush is bad now, imagine his second term. He won't need to put a pretty face on everything, because he doesn't need to be re-elected. He can do whatever he wants. He can't be impeached--Republicans control the House. He won't take questions--doesn't have to. Patriot Act III? Surely, it's the least you can do for your country, puny citizen. All hail the Dictator.

You could have that, or President Kerry.

But no matter who wins or loses big oil will win.

I think I'd stay home in November.

I love the sentiment in your sig line.

that bastard.

"US Ambassador to Venezuela, Charles Shapiro, commenting on Kerry’s statements today said they reflected Bush’s own policy. "I represent George W. Bush, and I can't speak for John Kerry, but there is consensus among these two politicians when it comes to Venezuela. There aren’t many differences among these two major parties," said Shapiro at a press conference in Caracas."

He must feel there's no difference to the parties.

This is the one thing making me want to leave the party most.
Our country's policies towards South American countries is the same no matter whose in office.

castro and chavez are dictators and need to stop oppressing their people.

of Chaves being a dictator.

in a foreign country.

Viva la Chavez!!! He's more a man than Kerry.

where he expresses the desire to overthrow Chavez?

Or has your "rational hatred" of Kerry once again trumped the need to make factual statements?

article posted a while ago where some woman from his campaign arrogantly stated, if you want Bush out you've got to vote Kerry.

Sure, that might fire up their base, but ya know what - they already have those votes. This sort of shit is just going to disenchant people who really wanted change, supporters of Kucinich, Dean, Clark - anyone that seemed more on the outside and not in the pockets of the corporate PTB (suits to some).

I myself am very close to saying screw it, I'm staying home or writing in my vote.

they have no where to go, and take the chance that if they are alienated enough they will vote Nader or stay home in disgust. The Repug crossover is the "target."

This is starting to get sickening though. We don't even get a bone with a scrap of meat, we get nothing but ignored since Dean went down and the press refuses to acknowledge that Kucinich is still running.

:grr:

Use the current events to your advantage. Why waste time on this?

...then his campaign is just being STUPID.

I think Bush owns the Cuban exile vote on a genetic level. Hell, his dad provided transportation for the Bay of Pigs invasion, and his brother lords over Florida. I see NO way for Kerry to win any significant portion of the Cuban exile population, and they are the only consituency who would likely be impressed with Chavez-bashing.

On the other hand, weigh that number (small) against the potential number of voters on the left who are alienated by his pointless stance on Venezuela, and it seems like this has a lot more downside than upside for him.

In addition, I think he's dead wrong on the issue.

either the New Yorker or NYT Magazine about this.

That vote is up for grabs this year.

I feel like an idiot becaue I can't remember the reason why. Apparently lots of those Cubans were huge fans of FDR and it was Jeb who organized them into becoming Republicans, and it was mostly around the wealth created by real estate development (with the anti-Castro shit being merely the red flag they waved, but not really being the organizing principle).

Apparently, somethings been going on in FL -- I can't remember what, but I think it has to do with real estate development -- and it has become harder for Jeb to hold together the coalition.

In any event, Bush isn't polling so well.

I may be totally mis-remembering the details, but I think the bottom line is that W is not polling well among Latinos in FL and the Cuban community is proving to be a very weak spot for him within the Lation community.

Chavez to be dictatorial in order to counter their destabilization activities. Look at what's been happening in our country with out Democratic leaders trying to carry on with politics as usual with the neocons and the BFEE. They make government by democratic processes difficult if not impossible.

Personally, I think Chavez is a hero and is doing the best he can with a dangerous situation and I just can't fathom how Kerry could truly believe Chavez is anti-democratic.

Bush is a dictator.

people, Bush above democracy. Somebody educate him.

we are suffering under. Don't tell me the "current
resident" isn't acting like one. I was hoping you
as my Senator and future president would certainly be better than what
you are now portraying.

(which according to The Nation is akin to courting genuine ignorance)

"There’s a good reason why nobody studies history, it just teaches you to damn much."

"One can learn a lot from looking at the documentary record, and one can learn a lot from the fact that certain people don't want you to look at it."

btw, these might be worth a look at, while they're still up: http://www.urru.or g/papers/20040430_PattonBoggs.htm

(on edit: urru is a very anti-chávez site, as i understand it - still this is interesting stuff - so i broke the link)

..a pro-war, pro-Patriot Act, pro-messing-with-every-democracy-that-doesn't-jump-when-we-say-jump candidate with little personal charm. This was probably one of the few elections in which someone outspoken like Dean or Clark could have done well with voters. I worry about the election.

Once again, he is so damn disappointing.
I will vote for him, but I will hate it.

wtf
so my choice is fascist or junior fascist?

damnit.
im really not happy with his supporting sharon and assassination, where the hell is he on haiti? iraq? he is just not doing enough for me. and now chavez?

what about BUSH becoming a dictator?
Chavez WAS ELECTED.
Aristide WAS ELECTED.

WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

U.S. Envoy: Relations With Caracas Tense

Thu May 6,11:15 PM ET


CARACAS, Venezuela - Relations between the United States and Venezuela, strained by President Hugo Chavez's criticism of U.S. foreign policy, remain difficult, U.S. Ambassador Charles said Thursday. He said that there was a consensus among officials in Washington, regardless of their political leanings, regarding frequent political unrest in Venezuela and a possible vote on Chavez's rule.



"I don't think there's much difference between the two majority parties," said Shapiro, who will soon step down after a two-year assignment in Venezuela.


Shapiro was responding to questions by reporters regarding Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites)'s assessment of Venezuela's conflict.


"Democracy is at risk" in Venezuela, Kerry said in an interview this week.
(snip/...)

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040507/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/venezuela_us_1


Our precious little coup-promoting, coup President-for-a-day hugging, Chavez-backstabbing ambassador Charles Shapiro

for John Kerry's new position opposing Hugo Chavez, the twice elected President who concerns himself with the 80% poor people of Venezuela.

Here's a letter from their grubby President, Curtis Reed:

Letters



Published: Tuesday, March 23, 2004
Bylined to: Curtis Reed


Tampa-based Free Venezuela, Inc: Our goal is regime change in Venezuela

Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 17:39:42 GMT
From: Curtis Reed aguaventura@netzero.com
To: Editor@VHeadline.com
Subject: Error: It was Venezuelans in TAMPA

In David Coleman's article "Venezuela's relations with USA to improve if Bush 2 loses election this fall" you stated that Senator Kerry's statement regarding the Chavez regime amounted to "Parroting anti-Venezuelan Miami Herald propaganda."

In fact, the Kerry position statement was the result of the effort of Venezuelan-Americans from the Tampa area who contacted his camp and conducted an education campaign to be sure that Kerry understood what a threat the Chavez regime represents to US interests, regional stability, and how it endangers democracy across the hemisphere.

We have been working constantly over several years to establish good contacts with our representatives, and it was through those contacts that we made direct contact with John Kerry and delivered to him the message you will find below.

We are now in the process of publishing more Op-Ed articles, organizing round table discussions about the Chavez regime, and speaking out on nationally syndicated radio shows. Let there be no confusion: the "Miami Mafia" had nothing to do with this. It was the result of hard work by US citizens and Venezuelan expatriate organizations like FREE VENEZUELA that we influenced Kerry, and we will continue to push US policy until we achieve our goal.

Our goal: regime change in Venezuela.

Finally, let your communist friends know that their propaganda machines are failing, and the tide has turned against the Chavez dictatorship. We have convinced Democrats and Republicans alike that Chavez and his criminal henchmen are the antithesis to Democratic principles.

Have a nice day.

Curtis Reed
aguaventura@netzero.com

http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=16656
(Free registration required)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Also, for people who want to look around for more information, there was a joint parade composed of Venezuelan "exiles" and Miami Cuban "exiles" on one of the days over a year ago when the rest of the world was holding an anti-war parade.

Theirs was an anti-Chavez parade, and their two guests of honor were Pedro Carmona, a powerful business man in Venezuela, and Carlos Ortega, the USAID-funded labor boss who called strikes to help the business owners perpetrate the illusion the working people were on strike in protest against Hugo Chavez. Of course anyone who can spend time reading would know already this is wildly deceitful.

Ortega is currently "on the lam" as he's unpopular in Venezuela right now.

There is a true connection between the wealthy Venezuelans in Florida, and the wealthy Cubans.

March 25, 2004

Misreporting Venezuela
Hugo Chavez as Processed by The Independent
By TONI SOLO

Many people read the London based Independent newspaper because among its reporters is the outstanding Robert Fisk. The anti-war stance of the newspaper on Iraq and its stance on genetically manipulated foods and other environmental issues may give the impression that the Independent is a responsible newspaper across the board. But a look at its coverage of Venezuela reveals the same old story of distortion, omission and deceit on US intervention in Latin America that one finds everywhere else in the corporate media.

It may be worth pointing out that the owner of the UK Independent is Tony O'Reilly, one of Ireland's most prominent businessmen, formerly head of H.J. Heinz. H.J. Heinz heiress Teresa Heinz is married to Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry. Also of note is that O'Reilly shares philanthropic concerns through the Ireland Fund with fellow fund member Peter Sutherland, former GATT and World Trade Organization chief, also chairman of oil giant BP-Amoco.1 It's unlikely their corporate philantropy extends to Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan president.

Three important stories on Venezuela have appeared in the Independent during March.2 One by Phil Gunson on March 2nd, one by Andrew Buncombe on March 13th and one by Rupert Cornwell on March 20th. Phil Gunson's article is crude anti-Chavez propaganda. Buncombe's is a straightforward account of US funding for the Venezuelan opposition. Cornwell's is a more insidious anti-Chavez piece employing classic BBC-style bonhomie and "balance". Both pieces depend on ignoring crucial facts.
(snip/...)

http://www.counterpunch.org/solo03252004.html

Thats just my gut speaking here..

I wouldn't be a bit surprised if he has a few moles in his employ.

He should be reviewing everything before it goes out for a press release. How long does it take to read a fax?

the extremity to which Bush coups have pushed the relationship have to reversed carefully. Without trying to overthrow Chavez illegally the anti-democratic stalemate in that necessary oil ally can be brokered.

So long as the duly elected President of Venezuela does not have to fear coup, assassination and fraud his strong use of protective power
will not need to carry over into kicking around a Dem President who won't punish him with ruthless illegality. Rightly or wrongly, Kerry does not now want to antagonize another Latino constituency like the Cuban exiles.

This calls for a lot of trust on the part of people who believe Kerry will be fair and promote real democracy and see the truth in the perilous sham that is current aggressive policy.
WE will not be satisfied with this stance and we do not know if this benign interpretation will turn out to be correct.

We have cause to raise noise about what this looks like from a truer perspective.

Does anyone remember? I'm embarassed to say that I never realy noticed what was going on in VZ until 2001.

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/americas/9909/22/chavez/

'We are more confident about him'

Clinton's special envoy for Latin America, Kenneth MacKay, who attended the meeting between Chavez and Clinton, said that "we are more confident about him," although the jury was still out on the direction Venezuela was taking.

Analysts said the Clinton administration appears to be willing to give Chavez a chance.

"There's a change of sentiment in Washington because the guy is right about the level of poverty and misery in Venezuela," said Russell Crandall, a Latin American expert at Johns Hopkins University.



http://www.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/americas/08/30/brazil.chavez.vietnam.ap/

It was the first time a South American leader cautioned that Plan Colombia, launched Wednesday by Colombian President Andres Pastrana and U.S. President Bill Clinton, could degenerate into guerrilla warfare of continental dimensions.

Colombia shares a 1,400-mile (2,240 kilometer) border with Venezuela and a 960-mile (1,550-kilometer) border with Brazil.

"Some sectors in Colombia and other places may think that the conflict has a military solution. That is incorrect," he said. "Peace negotiations are the only way to achieve a solution."

Chavez said Venezuela was "the most affected country by the conflicts in Colombia after Colombia itself." That was because the wave of refugees who over the years have crossed the border into Venezuela from Colombia, he said.

snip>

Commenting on U.S. criticism of his recent visit to Iraq, Chavez said: "If U.S. officials can travel wherever they want to, why can't I?"

Chavez's visit to Iraq was part of a tour to member nations of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, whose heads of state he invited to a summit meeting next month in Caracas.

...transition point (for the reasons noted by the Clinton administration commentator -- Chavez is right about poverty).

according to greg palast, clinton got on pretty well with chávez and his oil 'band' scheme. also bear in mind the chavistas thought there would be a coup in venezuela immediately after they won the election in '98 - but there wasn't. if b*sh had been in power u can bet there would've been...

http://www.thenewagenda.org/venezuela (look for "AAA talk", about 1'30 into it)

breathing room to set up something down there that couldn't easily be destroyed in April 2002 by, um, the CIA.