The latest CIA coup, or Let's Learn about Venezuela

[Clucky]

Sorry about the cutesie title. Trying to get your attention and all.

A few of you might have read a previous thread in which I contended that the corporate media do not keep us well informed on foreign relations issues. I have also posted a thread questioning whether the media cowers from authority, or takes its cues from authority figures and officials.

Obviously, I'm interested in, and dubious about, the process by which Americans are fed the news from our established media -- the mainstream media, if you will. I don't buy the argument that Americans simply don't care about other cultures. I feel that they don't know enough about what's going on in other cultures because they are being misled as to what's going on.

I'm going to use Venezuela as an example. I will argue that the CIA inspired the attempted coup in April against the rightfully elected nationalist leader, Hugo Chavez, as it has with so many Third World countries that have decided to stray from the U.S. vision of globalization. Or, I think I can at least show that there's enough evidence that the media should be investigating this distinct possibility.

First, some background on Chavez's Bolivarian party from this article:

CHAVEZ AND THE "BOLIVARIAN REVOLUTION"

Venezuela is a mineral-rich South American country bordering the Caribbean Sea. It is the third-largest exporter of oil to the United States--down from the largest when Chavez was elected in 1998.

But the tremendous wealth that the oil industry generates has never impacted the lives of Venezuela's working class. More than 80 percent live in poverty. One percent of the population owns 60 percent of the arable land.

The tremendous social inequities have caused tremendous explosions of popular outrage. In 1989, the ruling class unleashed a military assault on tens of thousands of people demanding lower food prices; more than 3,000 were massacred.

In 1992, junior military officers led by Lt. Col. Hugo Chavez staged a coup attempt in solidarity with huge demonstrations against International Monetary Fund-dictated austerity measures.

After spending two years in prison, Chavez toured the country, advocating what he described as a "Bolivarian Revolution" against the pro-U.S. Venezuelan oligarchy. Named for the great South American independence leader Simon Bolivar, Bolivarianism has come to mean using Venezuela's wealth for the benefit of the people of Latin America, and Latin American unity against U.S. domination.

His 1998 election was the result of an alliance between his Fifth Republic Movement, based on progressive junior military officers and rank-and-file soldiers, and the parties of the working class and left.

His new government began to dismantle the political power base of the rich oligarchy. The two main political parties of the ruling class--the Democratic Alliance and the Social Christian COPEI party--essentially collapsed. A new constitution and National Assembly enshrined many of the key progressive political features of the new Bolivarian Republic.

In the arena of foreign relations, the Chavez government steered clear of the traditional servile position to U.S. imperialism. Chavez traveled to visit Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. He encouraged an independent OPEC. He brokered a deal providing Cuba with oil at terms favorable to Havana. He refused to participate in the Pentagon's military campaign against Colombia's Marxist insurgencies.

Beginning in June, the Venezuelan government began to turn its attention from the political arena to the economy. In November, Chavez signed a package of 49 laws aimed at addressing the social disparities in the country. At the heart of these laws were a land reform law and legislation aimed at restricting the power of the old oligarchy in the state industries, especially the state oil company Petroleos de Venezuela.

The pro-U.S. ruling class in Venezuela had been grumbling since the 1998 elections about Chavez's independent foreign policy and populist rhetoric. But when he began to make moves that affected their vast wealth and private property, grumbling changed to outright opposition.

A populist leader gets elected to lead a nation, the rich people who support U.S. globalization get pissed off, and this is where the U.S., through the CIA, gets involved. Our leaders have decided that our nation's "best interests" are keeping foreign markets open for our business. Our mainstream media outlets seem to still believe that this is somehow linked with democracy and liberation, I guess.

I tried to find news stories about Venezuela's coup attempt in April (more on that in a bit) in the mainstream media. I didn't get many hits on Google.
This article on a conservative site came up and mentions Venezuela only with vague sources linking Chavez with terrorism:

Reports that Venezuela's president, Hugo Chavez, is allowing Colombian rebels and militant Islamist groups to operate in his country are meanwhile becoming more credible, as are claims that Venezuela's Margarita Island has become a terrorist haven.

Expect to see more and more of this in the mainstream U.S. media: Chavez will be demonized as a terrorist soon enough. Until then, the CIA's underground shenanigans will have to do.

Back to the coup: Chavez's opponents set up the government takeover so that it looked like a popular uprising. Instead, what happened is that after Chavez escaped harm, an actual popular uprising overthrew the conspirators who pulled off the coup. The people of Venezuela fought for their autonomy, and won. Really, it's a great story. If the media would touch it.

Some articles I found about the coup and the situation in Venezuela:

This one describes the coup and the uprising to defeat it. A portion:

Committees in Solidarity with Latin America and the Caribbean member Jorge Jorquera writes: The popular response to the April 2002 coup revealed the embryonic development of a counter-power ... the organization of an uprising against the coup d'etat began in all these sectors and across them within hours of Chavez’s kidnapping on April 11.

In the early hours of the evening of April 12, radios began to report strong cacerolazos and protests in El Valle._

* The people in Caracas’ poor hillside suburbs started to come out onto the streets.
* Protests were reported in Catia, el 23 de Enero, Guarenas, Antimano and other areas of the greater-capital.
* The Caracas-La Guaira highway was blockaded.
* At the same time protest action began throughout the country’s interior.

...

By 10:00 a.m. on the morning of April 13, the Palace regiment had already taken over the Palace and forced coup leaders to flee ... they, too, were in contact with General Garcia Carneiro ... they called a Spanish television crew to the palace and videotaped a message making it clear that the Carmona regime was not recognized. Then lieutenant-colonels Zambrano Mata and Francisco Guyon went to Canal 8 to get the recorded message out.

Here's one article that declares this a CIA coup and talks about other CIA coups, including Guatemala, Chile, and the CIA coup in Iran in 1954, which eventually steered that country to religious zealotry and hatred for the U.S. I'll print portions of the text, and I've bolded the evidence that America was involved (something, you'd think, that our citizens would like to know about, and U.S. media might want to check out):

By now you've heard the official story: An unpopular
dictator, Hugo Chavez, who had praised Osama Bin Laden, was
confronted by an angry mob who demanded an end to his undemocratic rule in
Venezuela.

His troops opened fireon the crowd, provoking the disciplined and
principled military to force him to resign his office. His State
media tried to pretend that nothing was happening, but the democratic
media showed that he was lying as they ran his statements on split
screens showing what was really happening. Later, due to pressure
from questionable governments, he was restored to office, where he faces
bad feelings due to his dictatorial actions.

Every sentence of the official story, however, is a lie.

Before there was Hugo Chavez, there was the CIA . The CIA is a secret
war and secret police organization. Its annual budget is well in
excess of $30 billion. The Congress members who approve its budget
are not allowed to see what the budget is for. It has
deposed dozens of governments, using techniques ranging from
propaganda and assassination to torture and anticivilian warfare.
One of its greatest accomplishments in terms of black propaganda
is convincing the American public that it is primarily a spy organization.

...

Chavez saw that Venezuelans were needlessly poor in
a nation that produced a major proportion of the world's oil. He
took measures to correct the situation. Why should Venezuelans watch
all that wealth be exported while their classrooms did without books
and their graveyards filled with the uncared-for and unfed?
Chavez introduced legislation that nearly doubled the puny royalties
that the multinationals paid for Venezuelan oil. "This is a
liberating law,"Chavez said, " because it breaks the chains that have
bound us for so many years." "This is a law for the poor." You can
see that the poor man was doomed from the start.

Chavez didn't stop there. He visited Cuba and made an
offer to Fidel: Send us some teachers and doctors, and we'll send you
some oil. Meanwhile, the rich started plotting against Chavez.
As of the beginning of this year, the Venezuelan people get a
51% stake in all new Venezuelan oil development. One might argue: Why
shouldn't thepeople have a cut of the oil profits? But that's not
the sort of argument that you make where the rich can hear. And
Chavez infuriated them still further by cutting a deal with Venezuelan
indigenous peoples, guaranteeing their autonomy in regions where
the mighty gas pipelines pass. Obviously something had to be done.


The team was in place and began the long-practiced
CIA tango. CIA money was doubtless funneled to minor
henchmen in order to buy demonstrators. The media--TV this time,
since we're past the age of radio--beat the drums of dissent,
saying that Chavez was corrupt, Chavez was finished. A "General Strike"
without workers was announced on the TV stations owned by Otto Reich's
confidante, Gustavo Cisneros. It failed miserably, but the
corporate media repeated close-up clips of protesting crowds and
shuttered shops, to make people believe that all was lost, that most
people supported the coup. One particularly effective technique was
showing governmentannouncements of the failure of the strike while
showing pictures thatseemed to say the opposite.

...

There is little doubt now of the fact that the CIA set up the
attempted overthrow of the elected government of
Venezuela. Members of the Venezuelan Parliament, notably Juan
Barreto, PedroCarrenyo and Jorge Rondon, have presented recordings
of the voices of the coup plotters, naming the Americans involved.
The American sniper is in custody. Even Newsweek has reported that
the American Embassy, read the CIA, knew of what was happening
weeks beforehand -- how could they not, since their man Eliot Abrams,
convicted criminal and CIA liaison, was in charge of the whole shebang.


The outcome is still uncertain. Will the CIA simply
assassinate Chavez? Is another coup in the offing? Will there be
a Panama-style invasion, in which Chavez' suporters can look forward
to being burned alive like the supporters of Noreiga in El Chorrilo?
Or can Venezuelans look forward to a new era in which their
oil wealth is spread to every citizen?

Certainly, nothing has changed here in the US.
Consider the quotes of official Washington, of Secretary of State Colin
Powell, who said Sunday, "I know of no basis for a report that we were
trying to get Chavez out....We support democracy, we support the
community of democracy that exists in our hemisphere." And this
gem from the President appointed by the right-wing cabal of the
Supreme Court, George Walker Bush, who claims that he told the
Venezuelan coup plotters "we support democracy and did not support any
extra-constitutional action."

Author William Blum writes here that it's an obvious CIA coup.

Blum has written some books detailing how the CIA has its tentacles in nations around the world. From the article:

How do we know that the CIA was behind the coup that overthrew Hugo Chavez?

Same way we know that the sun will rise tomorrow morning. That's what it's always done and there's no reason to think that tomorrow morning will be any different.

He goes on to list Chavez's transgressions, which mainly have to do with not playing ball with the U.S. in the areas of trade, commerce, war and propaganda.

Then Blum says:

The Washington Post reported from Venezuela on April 13: "Members of the country's diverse opposition had been visiting the U.S. Embassy here in recent weeks, hoping to enlist U.S. help in toppling Chavez. The visitors included active and retired members of the military, media leaders and opposition politicians.

"The opposition has been coming in with an assortment of 'what ifs'," said a U.S. official familiar with the effort. "What if this happened? What if that happened? What if you held it up and looked at it sideways? To every scenario we say no. We know what a coup looks like, and we won't support it."

Right. They won't support a coup. So what happens when a coup occurs which they want to support? Simple. They don't call it a coup. They call it a "change of government" and say that Chavez was ousted "as a result of the message of the Venezuelan people." Veritable grass-roots democracy it was.

If you look through this stuff, you'll see that there's some mainstream papers quoted. In other words, it's not like the mainstream media didn't know about the situation. They just didn't care to learn more, and didn't care to do any more than quote official sources.

According to this article by a Venezuelan reporter, the Venezuelan media, which is part of the wealthy opposition, played a big part in trying to kick Chavez out of power.

This paragraph was particularly eye-opening:

An ex-correspondent of CNN who covered the coup in April revealed before journalism students that one day before the coup, an informant anticipated the death of various people in Caracas, and the subsequent rebellion of a group of military officials against the Government. He also declared that the message of the military dissidents, which spoke of 6 deaths in Caracas, was recorded in his presence before the first person was killed the day of the coup. After the State television channel disseminated his testimony, the journalist retracted his statements. One day later, after being beat up by the private media, he appeared surrounded by opposition lawyers, saying that his statements were just “speculations” and accusing the Government of the deaths during the coup. The press then pardoned him and awarded him with the prize of forgetting his statements.

[RexDart]

Yipes, that was a long post.

Well, I'm pretty skeptical whenever people start claiming that the CIA is secretly behind some action down there.

If this Chavez fellow is trying to steal private property for the benefit of "the people", I have very little sympathy for him. He's just another crook. I have no desire for us to get involved toppling him, but I'd be glad to see him and all his thieving brethren gone from the earth.

I have a friend at Exxon Mobil, and he tells me that unfortunately this is how most of the world runs it's oil industry. The government either runs the industry outright, or takes a giant chunk in "royalties" or whatever they want to call them. The goal in negotiating with those countries is to find the lowest possible rate, the most favorable contract, and hope that the contract will be honored. In nations where the gov't has absolute power over the economy, nothing can be trusted. The way it's looking in Venezuela from your articles, any company would be wise to stay away from investing there, as complete nationalization (aka wholesale theft) of the entire industry and all related private properties could be on the horizon.

Anyways, a couple of those articles just sound like leftist conspiracy theory ramblings, especially the one from pepperface.com. Surely you recognize that writing style as that of a paranoid nutjob, and not a serious journalist, right? Why should the US mainstream media jump on a story that so far has no credibility?

[El_Kabong]

I wrote a lengthy response to the above, but as usual the Baord had one of it's hiccups and it got dumped, so sorry, but here's the short version.

I read both the Presswatch piece and Blum's article, and failed to find a single statement of fact relating to possible CIA participation in the failed Venzuelan coup. There was not a single name, place or date of an specific event that showed positive CIA involvment. All I saw were a number of assertions of CIA involvement with no other factual backing than "well, they did it years ago in Guatemala/Iran/Indonesia back in the '50s/'60s/'70s, so they must have done it here". Hell, the Presswatch pice doesn't even attribute an AUTHOR, much less any source material on which it bases its conclusions.

Also, I would like to highlight again Blum's statement:

How do we know that the CIA was behind the coup that overthrew Hugo Chavez?

Same way we know that the sun will rise tomorrow morning. That's what it's always done and there's no reason to think that tomorrow morning will be any different.

In its utter lack of anything approaching objectivity, and in the author's complete failure to provide a single verifiable supporting fact in support of this this thesis, this has to be one of the most assinine statements I have ever seen from someone purporting to be a journalist.

You want to make your case? Fine. Show me something that A) indicates positivley the CIA had a hand in this failed coup, not one thirty years ago; and/or B) that the coup ONLY TOOK PLACE because of CIA involvement. I'll be happy to evaluate the evidence when there actually is some to evaluate.

[PatriotX]

Wasn't there a lawsuit against a jourtnalist who published some nasty things about what was happening in Venezuela and how they related to some congressman or another. The court ruled that because what was published was true that there was no case for libel.

I think that there may actually be something to this'n.

[PatriotX]

Go to it Clucky!

[Clucky]

Originally posted by RexDart
Yipes, that was a long post.

I know. I've found that if I don't fully document my "nutjob" arguments, I leave myself open to personal attacks. Americans don't hear this stuff enough to have a collective knowledge about it, so you have to cite, cite, cite.

[quote]Originally posted by RexDart
Well, I'm pretty skeptical whenever people start claiming that the CIA is secretly behind some action down there.

Don't be. It's well documented that the CIA has been heavily involved in Latin America's government. You just won't hear about it in the mainstream press, unless you dig for it, or happen across the occasional article referring to it. The stuff that's put in those "nutjob" articles are good background. There's a new book out about the CIA coup in Iran. You can look it up here at a "serious" news source. Of course, it's a little late to do anything about screwing up Iran, but maybe we can avoid future mistakes if we can keep the U.S. from overthrowing democracies.

Originally posted by RexDart
If this Chavez fellow is trying to steal private property for the benefit of "the people", I have very little sympathy for him. He's just another crook. I have no desire for us to get involved toppling him, but I'd be glad to see him and all his thieving brethren gone from the earth.

I see "the people" in quotation marks, noting that you don't believe it, but read the articles and see what laws his party has passed. Besides, what's it to you what another nation's legislature decides to pass? Why should the U.S. get to make final judgments on it?

Originally posted by RexDart
I have a friend at Exxon Mobil, and he tells me that unfortunately this is how most of the world runs it's oil industry. The government either runs the industry outright, or takes a giant chunk in "royalties" or whatever they want to call them. The goal in negotiating with those countries is to find the lowest possible rate, the most favorable contract, and hope that the contract will be honored. In nations where the gov't has absolute power over the economy, nothing can be trusted. The way it's looking in Venezuela from your articles, any company would be wise to stay away from investing there, as complete nationalization (aka wholesale theft) of the entire industry and all related private properties could be on the horizon.

Hmmm. Well, this explains your point of view. You're getting your info from Exxon Mobil. I see that this type of nationalist movement surely would create great heartburn for a company that's coming in to use another nation's oil for its own profits. What that nation does with its natural resources and products should be up to that nation. In this case, Chavez was elected democratically, so there's no "absolute power" involved, unless you can provide proof otherwise.

Originally posted by RexDart
Anyways, a couple of those articles just sound like leftist conspiracy theory ramblings, especially the one from pepperface.com. Surely you recognize that writing style as that of a paranoid nutjob, and not a serious journalist, right? Why should the US mainstream media jump on a story that so far has no credibility?

No credibility, huh? Well, this is what I'm saying. Unless people see the "serious" media as taking up an issue, they never see it as an issue. And, if the "serious" media never take up an issue, it therefore isn't important to us. So, if another nation's being toppled, and it isn't reported, it just doesn't matter, because our corporate media, acting as just a wing of Big Business, and not as "government watchdog," has decided it a nonissue.

It's all part of the cycle. It seems impossible to break.

[Clucky]

Originally posted by El_Kabong
You want to make your case? Fine. Show me something that A) indicates positivley the CIA had a hand in this failed coup, not one thirty years ago; and/or B) that the coup ONLY TOOK PLACE because of CIA involvement. I'll be happy to evaluate the evidence when there actually is some to evaluate.

What about this?

There is little doubt now of the fact that the CIA set up the
attempted overthrow of the elected government of
Venezuela. Members of the Venezuelan Parliament, notably Juan
Barreto, PedroCarrenyo and Jorge Rondon, have presented recordings
of the voices of the coup plotters, naming the Americans involved.
The American sniper is in custody. Even Newsweek has reported that
the American Embassy, read the CIA, knew of what was happening
weeks beforehand -- how could they not, since their man Eliot Abrams,
convicted criminal and CIA liaison, was in charge of the whole shebang.

I will research this further, but it appears from the Venezuelan Parliament, that America is involved. If it ain't the CIA, who else would be involved from the U.S., and does it matter if it was the CIA or the School of Americas or whomever?

Blum, btw, has studied this stuff for years. He worked for the State Department. Here's a biography:

William Blum left the U.S. State Department in 1967, abandoning his aspiration of becoming a Foreign Service Officer because of his opposition to what the United States was doing in Viet Nam. Two years later he published an exposé of the CIA which was followed by numerous writings which unmasked Washington's interventions around the world. Blum was in Chile writing about the government of Salvador Allende, who wasoverthrown by the CIA in 1973; he worked with former CIA agent Philip Agee to expose CIA personnel and their misdeeds in London; and he authored two book, Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II and Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower. Blum was honored with a 1998 Project Censored award for his "exemplary journalism"

While that doesn't automatically mean he's correct on this issue, it does make him an expert -- one that the mainstream media could use as a source if they wanted to report outside an "official, P.R." look at the matter.

At the least, you'd think the mainstream media could interview some of those Venezuelan lawmakers who say the U.S. is involved. Remember, it took the BBC to interview the Iranian doctors about Jessica Lynch to get the ball rolling on the truth there.

Btw, and off the OP, did you see the most recent Newsweek story about Lynch? I think it might have come directly from a government news release. I am planning on starting a thread on that alone.

[Dreaming of Maria Callas]

The CIA may or may not have been involved, but the NSA certainly was. Venezuelan government transmissions were being intercepted by intel folk at MRSOC and passed on to supporters of the opposition.

UnuMondo

[Clucky]

Originally posted by SimonX
Wasn't there a lawsuit against a jourtnalist who published some nasty things about what was happening in Venezuela and how they related to some congressman or another. The court ruled that because what was published was true that there was no case for libel.

I think that there may actually be something to this'n.

Any cites at all on this, Simon? Or, any clues on where the congressman or journalist was from?

[akrako1]

Originally posted by RexDart
If this Chavez fellow is trying to steal private property for the benefit of "the people", I have very little sympathy for him. He's just another crook. I have no desire for us to get involved toppling him, but I'd be glad to see him and all his thieving brethren gone from the earth.

I have a friend at Exxon Mobil, and he tells me that unfortunately this is how most of the world runs it's oil industry. The government either runs the industry outright, or takes a giant chunk in "royalties" or whatever they want to call them.

Wow! aren't you heartless. Wouldn't you think that a country's natural resources should somehow benefit the people? Unfortunately, most of the world is NOT run like this. Most of the world's oil is controlled by either dictators (hording all the proceeds for themselves) or by huge corporations (which are only motivated by profit - ie. hording all the proceeds for themselves). Maybe if we had a system in place where natural resources would actually benefit the people, instead of just benefiting the rich, we wouldn't currently have a fascist government. If only you could go back in time to Saddam controlled Iraq - now that's a system it seems you could enjoy. The system in the U.S. is just as good. We'll take over a country, plunder all their natural resources, and leave them poorer and dirtier than when we started. All for the benefit of the corrupt CEO's and their pals. Ever notice that Enron was an energy company? And good friends of the Bush's. Cheney's Halliburton is under investigation for accounting fraud. Ah, and the evergy taskforce and the GAO, need I go on? Put these folks in a room with their dictator pals and these are the true 'thieving bretheren'.


Benito Mussolini - "Fascism should rightly be called corporatism as it is a merger of state and corporate power."

[Clucky]

Originally posted by UnuMondo
The CIA may or may not have been involved, but the NSA certainly was. Venezuelan government transmissions were being intercepted by intel folk at MRSOC and passed on to supporters of the opposition.

UnuMondo

I wasn't aware of that. Did a Google search. Found this:

US Support for the April Coup in Venezuela

Richard Bennett is the host of Intel Briefing. Wayne Madsen is a former National Security Agency officer. The following is from "US returns to bad old ways in Venezuela," an Intel briefing posted on 4/13/02 at www.intelbriefing.com/afi/afi020413a.htm.

Under the cover of training exercises in the Caribbean the US Navy provided signals intelligence and communications-jamming support to the Venezuelan military. Particular focus by US Navy SIGINT vessels was on communications to and from the Cuban, Libyan, Iranian, and Iraqi diplomatic missions in Caracas. The National Security Agency (NSA) supported the coup using personnel attached to the US Southern Command's Joint Interagency Task Force East (JIATF-E) in Key West, Florida. NSA's Spanish-language linguists and signals interception operators in Key West, Sabana Seca on Puerto Rico, and the Regional Security Operating Centre in Medina, Texas also assisted in providing communications intelligence to US military and national command authorities on the progress of the coup d'etat.

From eastern Colombia, CIA and US contract military personnel, ostensibly used for counter-narcotics operations, stood by to provide logistics support for the leading members of the coup. Patrol aircraft operating from the US Forward Operating Location (FOL) in Manta, Ecuador also provided intelligence support for the military move against Chavez. Additional US Navy vessels on a training exercise in the Outer Range of the US Navy's Southern Puerto Rican Operating Area also stood by; some of these vessels reportedly had NSA Direct Support Units aboard to provide additional signals intelligence support to US Special Operations and intelligence personnel deployed on the ground in close co-operation with the Venezuelan Army.

For its part, the CIA provided Special Operations Group personnel. They had been in the country since the summer of 2001. The group reportedly made contact with senior, pro-US military officers, and business and union leaders, especially those with the state-owned oil company, PDVSA, and the Venezualan Workers' Confederation (CTV).

The coup was also supported by Special Operations psychological warfare (PSYOPs) personnel deployed from Fort Bragg, North Carolina. They put together Spanish-language television announcements, purportedly from Venezuelan political and business leaders and aired by Venezuelan television and radio stations, saying Chavez "provoked" the crisis by ordering his supporters to fire on peaceful protesters in Caracas. US electronic warfare technicians also helped to jam cell phone and radio frequencies in Caracas and other major cities in co-operation with the Venezuelan Army High Command.

And this piece, quoting the same fellows quoted in the above article. A portion:

"The NSA supported the coup using personnel attached to the U.S. Southern Command's Joint Interagency Task Force East (JIATF-E) in Key West, Fla.," wrote Madsen and Richard M. Bennett on the Intel Briefing website. "NSA's Spanish-language linguists and signals interception operators in Key West; Sabana Seca on_Puerto Rico and the Regional Security Operating Center (RSOC) in Medina, Texas also assisted in providing communications intelligence to U.S. military and national command authorities on the progress of the coup d'etat.

"From eastern Colombia, CIA and U.S. contract military personnel, ostensibly used for counter-narcotics operations, stood by to provide logistics support for the leading members of the coup. Their activities were centered at the Marandua airfield and along the border with Venezuela. Patrol aircraft operating from the U.S. Forward Operating Location (FOL) in Manta, Ecuador also provided intelligence support for the military move against Chavez. Additional USN_vessels on_a training exercise in the Outer Range of the U.S. Navy's Southern Puerto Rican Operating Area also stood by in the event the coup against Chavez faltered, thus requiring a military evacuation of U.S. citizens in Venezuela. The ships included the aircraft carrier USS George Washington and the destroyers_USS Barry, Laboon, Mahan, and Arthur W. Radford. Some of the_latter vessels_reportedly had NSA Direct Support Units aboard to provide additional signals intelligence support to U.S. Special Operations and intelligence personnel deployed on the ground in close co-operation with the Venezuelan Army_and along the Colombian side of the border."


On how he learned of these U.S. coup connections, the intelligence analyst told FTW via e-mail, "It happened by circumstance that I was in attendance at a military banquet in Tysons Corner, near CIA HQ the night the coup took place, and I merely blended in with some of the active and retired contractor officers who were talking freely about what was occurring." Madsen also has a number of other sources, he said.

[Clucky]

Originally posted by akrako1
Wow! aren't you heartless. Wouldn't you think that a country's natural resources should somehow benefit the people? Unfortunately, most of the world is NOT run like this. Most of the world's oil is controlled by either dictators (hording all the proceeds for themselves) or by huge corporations (which are only motivated by profit - ie. hording all the proceeds for themselves).

akrako, I couldn't have said it better.

[capacitor]

Clucky, are you a writer for La Prensa? This is well presented.

[El_Kabong]

What about this?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is little doubt now of the fact that the CIA set up the
attempted overthrow of the elected government of
Venezuela. Members of the Venezuelan Parliament, notably Juan
Barreto, PedroCarrenyo and Jorge Rondon, have presented recordings
of the voices of the coup plotters, naming the Americans involved.
The American sniper is in custody. Even Newsweek has reported that
the American Embassy, read the CIA, knew of what was happening
weeks beforehand -- how could they not, since their man Eliot Abrams,
convicted criminal and CIA liaison, was in charge of the whole shebang.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Same problems as I stated: an assertion that "Americans were named" without, er, naming the Americans, and an assertion that Eliot Abrams is in charge of a destabilization program, but neither clearly dfiening the nature of the program nor how the author knows that Abrams is its head.

Look, what I'm trying to point out here is the difference between polemic and journalism. The item Unomundo posted, and that you have quoted, makes a far more credible case for US meddling in Venezuela than the vague rantings you quoted in your OP.

Also, not to be mean about this, but in your support of Blum you seem to to be employing the fallacy of "argument from authority". I don't care what Blum's background is, he fails to provide fact one to make his case.

With that out of the way, I guess we can finally get to the meat of the OP. It seems that the OP's position is that the major US media is deliberately avoiding discussion of a possible US covert role in the attempted Venezuelan coup. I can conceive of several reasons why this might be so, but I am curious as to which the OP thinks is the most likely case and why (or, if there's another reason, feel free to explain). The reasons, in no particular order:

1. Major media are afraid of losing access to administration sources if they investigate this issue

2. Major media reject non-government sources of information on this issue as either untrustworthy or agenda-driven

3. Major media are suppressing the story out of a misplaced sense of patriotism

4. Major media find the story to be of insufficient interest to the public at large (read: consumers) to bother investigating further

5. Major media are deliberately colluding with government officials to bury this story, in exchange for known or unknown considerations

6. Major media are deliberately colluding with government officials to bury this story, due to government threats or intimidation

7. Major media are afraid of losing advertising revenue, for one reason or another, if they pursue this story.

8. Major media are following a long-standing tradition of paying little attention to stories which do not directly affect domestic conditions or pose an immediate danger to US military or civilian lives.

Three comments, and my contribution to this thread is finished.

Firstly, I do not believe that while major media may be neglecting a potential story here, I do not see any compelling reason to believe they are deliberately suppressing it.

Secondly, I continue to fail to see why such emphasis on whether major US media lead the coverage on this or not; I have heard the argument about 'shaping the debate' and find it irrelevant. I submit it is not up to the major media, or any single organisation, to 'shape the debate', it is up to the individual, and anyone who looks to the major media do their thinking for them is a fool of the first rank.

Thirdly, I personally don't care from what organization a responsible journalist comes from If this story is getting out, it is more due to the unbelievably shoddy journalistic standards displayed in the articles quoted by the OP, than any overt or covert supression by the mass media.

Over to you.

[El_Kabong]

Sorry, as usual my proofreading is shoddy as well. Last sentence should start, "If this story is NOT getting out..."

[PatriotX]

[brief hijak]

Originally posted by Clucky

Btw, and off the OP, did you see the most recent Newsweek story about Lynch? I think it might have come directly from a government news release. I am planning on starting a thread on that alone.

You should start a file where you document different sources and resources. compile your cites.

[Clucky]

Originally posted by El_Kabong
Also, not to be mean about this, but in your support of Blum you seem to to be employing the fallacy of "argument from authority". I don't care what Blum's background is, he fails to provide fact one to make his case.

Well, no, I'm asserting that this guy is an expert, in that he's studied CIA affairs for a few decades now. I'm saying he seems to be someone who the media might want to talk to if they were interested in getting an unofficial look at the story. While he certainly didn't provide facts in the article I posted, he does give an expert opinion, no different than those "expert opinions" from official sources who inundated the air waves concerning Gulf War II.

Originally posted by El_Kabong
It seems that the OP's position is that the major US media is deliberately avoiding discussion of a possible US covert role in the attempted Venezuelan coup. I can conceive of several reasons why this might be so, but I am curious as to which the OP thinks is the most likely case and why (or, if there's another reason, feel free to explain). The reasons, in no particular order:

1. Major media are afraid of losing access to administration sources if they investigate this issue

2. Major media reject non-government sources of information on this issue as either untrustworthy or agenda-driven

3. Major media are suppressing the story out of a misplaced sense of patriotism

4. Major media find the story to be of insufficient interest to the public at large (read: consumers) to bother investigating further

5. Major media are deliberately colluding with government officials to bury this story, in exchange for known or unknown considerations

6. Major media are deliberately colluding with government officials to bury this story, due to government threats or intimidation

7. Major media are afraid of losing advertising revenue, for one reason or another, if they pursue this story.

8. Major media are following a long-standing tradition of paying little attention to stories which do not directly affect domestic conditions or pose an immediate danger to US military or civilian lives.

I think it's a number of reasons. I think No. 1 applies. Media certainly do pander to officials in hopes of getting the "inside scoop," regardless of whether the inside scoop comes only from official sources, thereby showing one side of the story.

No 2 certainly applies, because as part of the mainstream media, you begin to view yourself as THE voice of reason, THE holder of truth, THE official voice. The last being the only legitimate claim in our society.

No. 3 applies. The media have closely linked themselves with the interests of our government, which is in turn closely linked with the interests of Big Business, which also owns the major media. The people who own the media are the same as the people who run our country who are the same as the people who own Exxon Mobil and the like. There's a similiar mindframe. When they say "patriotism," have no doubt that this means supporting our troops overseas, because they are, with little doubt, fighting for liberation. If you buy that line of thinking, then you wouldn't see anything wrong with the way the Venezuelan story is being treated.

I don't buy No. 4. This has nothing to do with what the people want to see. With a story written well enough, and printed in major newspapers and aired on TV, you could easily sell Chavez the hero. Unless, of course, Chavez is immediately demonized as supporting terrorists. See my reply to No. 7.

Nos. 5 and 6 get into the conspiracy theory realm. I'm not saying these things haven't happened or couldn't happen, but that they'd have less to do with the media not covering the event than with the media identifying with the government and its objectives.

No. 7 is interesting. If the rest of the media are saying Chavez is a terrorist, of course it would be dangerous for a major media outlet to portray him as a hero. I don't think this reason applies so much, because the media won't even get to the point where they consider the Venezuelan coup and subsequent popular uprising as a story -- unless official government sources come out and tell them that it's a story.

No. 8 certainly applies. It's easy to ignore these stories, because the wealthy, privileged people who run the corporations, including the media, don't see this as important stuff. I would think their views would be similar to that of Rexdart -- "If this Chavez fellow is trying to steal private property for the benefit of 'the people', I have very little sympathy for him. He's just another crook."

Originally posted by El_Kabong
Three comments, and my contribution to this thread is finished.

Firstly, I do not believe that while major media may be neglecting a potential story here, I do not see any compelling reason to believe they are deliberately suppressing it.

Okay. They're indifferent. But, why? Why do we hear a lot of news of certain other foreign events, let's say terrorist attacks on Israel, but not about an attempted coup to overthrow a democratically elected government in Venezuela?

Originally posted by El_Kabong
Secondly, I continue to fail to see why such emphasis on whether major US media lead the coverage on this or not; I have heard the argument about 'shaping the debate' and find it irrelevant. I submit it is not up to the major media, or any single organisation, to 'shape the debate', it is up to the individual, and anyone who looks to the major media do their thinking for them is a fool of the first rank.

Well, an individual can shape the debate all he wants for those within earshot. He'll have very little effect. Give him access to mass media, and you have a different story. I think it's that simple. While you think that people who let the major media shape their thinking are fools, that doesn't change the fact that it's exactly what's happening. I don't fault them. I was one of them, and I understand how it can happen. We have "freedom of the press," and people think that this automatically means that the media will inform us. It's a propaganda tool, and it works.

Originally posted by El_Kabong
Thirdly, I personally don't care from what organization a responsible journalist comes from If this story is getting out, it is more due to the unbelievably shoddy journalistic standards displayed in the articles quoted by the OP, than any overt or covert supression by the mass media.

Well, I guess you could blame the alternative media for the mass media's failure to report this, based solely on your view of the quality of the initial articles I posted. I fail to see how this really relevant, given that the Venezuelan government is still there and open for interviews about their plight against the corporate plot to overthrow their democracy. All a reporter would have to do is try to contact these people and ask them their views.

I remember in Reporting 101, on the first day there, when the professor talked about getting information from all sides to write a balanced story. I guess that just doesn't apply to our media when they're coving an American transgression.

[PatriotX]

Here's the Right-Wing conspiracy version

What Really Happened in Venezuel

The Venezuelan coup and the seemingly easy return of Chavez to power smacked of a Soviet-style provocation.

During the Cold War, the KGB perfected this technique. A new communist leader, not firmly in power, would pretend that he was being ousted in a coup.

As word was announced that the leader was indeed ousted, his opponents, some of whom had been working quietly behind the scenes, would reveal themselves.

Soon, the "coup" would be crushed by forces friendly to the "ousted" dictator.

Once firmly back in power, the dictator would have a list of opponents from which to make reprisals and clean house. His grip on power would be firmer than ever, his opponents would fear him even more.

All Rights Reserved © NewsMax.com

[PatriotX]

Relevant bits from Auntie Beeb

Chronicle of a Coup

[sailor]

I have no sympathy for Chavez or his methods or for the USA meddling in Venezuela's internal affairs.

[TwistofFate]

That documentary wasn't a Beeb production, rather it was being made for Irish television when the coup happened.

It won World Best Television Programme earlier this year.

[PatriotX]

The page that i linked to is from the Beeb.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documen...e/chavez.shtml

[Clucky]

Originally posted by SimonX
Here's the Right-Wing conspiracy version

Simon, that's the same right-wing source I found that had actually referred to the coup. I especially appreciated the propaganda here:

The protest – a legitimate form of expression for Americans – was not taken nicely by the budding dictator Chavez. He callously ordered troops and snipers to fire upon the innocent protesters, as did members of his revolutionary guerrillas that he has been arming.

We now know that 12 people died under his orders.

Little of Chavez’s outrage, and his growing creation of a Marxist state, have made it on to CNN or in to the pages of the New York Times. Instead, the American media says Chavez is a "populist” leader.

Notice how they're already making it sound like The Big, Bad Liberal Media® is suppressing the "real truth" by making it appear Chavez is a "populist" leader. Well, the guy was elected to office twice, so you can't call him a dictator. You can only allege that he's "acting" like a dictator. (You know, like when a nation's leader makes up or supports lies to lead the nation into an illegal war trumped up by his circle of confidantes. )

Notice that the word Marxist is used. See, this is a propagandist's weapon. He uses a word that has an established, negative past in the U.S. Is Chavez a Marxist? What does it mean to be a Marxist? Nevermind. It's understood in this article that it means Chavez is bad.

The rest of that article's just a bunch of lies that surely came straight from the State Department.

[Shodan]

Clucky -

You seem to have skipped right past the part where you actually show that the CIA was involved.

You don't do your central thesis any favors by repeating "why won't the mainstream media accept the unsubstantiated accusations of the most extreme fringes of the Left as gospel? It must be a conspiracy!"

Where there is smoke, there is sometimes fire. But sometimes, it is just someone blowing smoke.

The "alternative media" is not ever going to become mainstream and credible until they do a lot better than this.

Regards,
Shodan

[El_Kabong]

Clucky, I suggest that you ask yourself why, if you can so readily apply that sort of critical eye (and rightly so, I might add) to the article that SimonX posted, can you not do the same to the material you posted in your OP?

[Clucky]

This Human Rights link gives more information on U.S. involvement (bullying) in Latin American virtually ignored by the mainstream media. Some quotes, in which I've bolded some items I found particularly interesting:

Colombia: U.S. "Misses an Opportunity"
Certification Not Based on Facts
(New York, July 8, 2003) The U.S. State Department's human rights certification for Colombia does not hold that country accountable for its failure to break persistent links between the military and abusive paramilitary groups, Human Rights Watch said today.

Today's certification releases approximately $27 million in military aid. It marks the fifth time in three years that the State Department has certified Colombia despite compelling evidence of non-compliance with six conditions contained in Public Law 108-7, which regulates foreign aid for fiscal year 2003. Colombia receives the third largest amount of U.S. military aid, after Israel and Egypt.

The most important condition requires Colombia's armed forces to sever links with paramilitary groups. Yet the Colombian military continues to work with paramilitaries that are included on the State Department's list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations.

"At a time when the United States has unprecedented influence over Colombian affairs, this is a missed opportunity to gain real advances," said José Miguel Vivanco, Executive Director of the Americas Division of Human Rights Watch. "The U.S. failure is especially striking now, since the bulk of the aid-over $300 million-is not subject to human rights conditions. In other words, certification can no longer be explained away as necessary to serve other policy goals, such as the fight against illegal narcotics."

Vivanco noted that the negative effect of the certification is compounded by the U.S. decision on July 1 to suspend $5 million in military aid to Colombia for its refusal to exempt American citizens from prosecution before the International Criminal Court.

"The Bush administration has consistently argued that it couldn't hold up aid to the Colombian military over its collusion with human rights abusers. Now, it turns out that they're perfectly willing to suspend aid, but only when countries like Colombia resist granting immunity for possible crimes against humanity. This sends a perverse signal about American priorities," Vivanco said.

Guatemala

Amnesty International Targets Guatemalan Intelligence Agency with Blood on Its Hands

Flash Animation is First on Portillo's de facto Death Squad


(New York) - Amnesty International (AI) today is releasing the first Internet "flash" movie addressing a Guatemalan military outfit that operates as a squad of spies and assassins and has a long history of human rights abuses. While Guatemalan President Alfonso Portillo† has promised to dismantle the EMP (Estado Mayor Presidencial)-his Presidential General Staff-he not only continues to fund the unit, but has consistently increased its budget by millions of dollars annually since he was elected to office.

...

The EMP has committed countless heinous human rights violations since it was formed in the early 1980s. Among human rights crimes suspected to be linked to the EMP are the 1990 murder of internationally known social scientist Myrna Mack, the 1994 murder of Constitutional Court President Eduardo Epaminondas González Dubón, and the 1998 murder of Catholic Bishop Juan José Gerardi. EMP "members" have also manipulated evidence, threatened and even killed witnesses in ongoing judicial proceedings for these and other human rights cases.

Portillo has promised every year since his January 2000 inauguration to dismantle the notorious EMP, as required under the Peace Accords signed by the Government in 1996. But as of mid-2003, just over 200 of the EMP's 650 members have been transferred from the EMP into service and administrative positions. These transfers have not included the EMP's notorious military specialists.

†The U.S. supports Portillo, and in this State Department press statement Powell "expressed appreciation for the counter-terrorism measures undertaken by the Guatemalan Government, including its public statements, its ratification of key international conventions and its passage of anti-money laundering legislation."

More importantly, Powell thanks Portillo for his "enthusiasm for President Bush’s proposal to explore a free trade area with Central America. We look forward to Guatemalan society participating fully in the process and benefits."

What's the free trade area? Think it favors the many poor people in Latin America over corporate interests waiting to turn a buck? Well, of course not. It's another piece of the American globalization puzzle, which you can either help put together and receive U.S. rewards (financial aid), or you can resist and pay the consequences (aid to opposition groups friendly to U.S. corporate interests).

Anyway, seems to me the U.S. could begin the fight against terrorism by ending its support of terrorism. Where's the media on this?

[5-HT]

I thought we were talking about Venezuela?

[Clucky]

Originally posted by Shodan
Clucky -

You seem to have skipped right past the part where you actually show that the CIA was involved

Well, quibble with whether it was the CIA. But, I think there's enough evidence that the U.S. was involved. Enough for the media to investigate. This was my original thesis:

I'm going to use Venezuela as an example. I will argue that the CIA inspired the attempted coup in April against the rightfully elected nationalist leader, Hugo Chavez, as it has with so many Third World countries that have decided to stray from the U.S. vision of globalization. Or, I think I can at least show that there's enough evidence that the media should be investigating this distinct possibility.

Originally posted by Shodan
You don't do your central thesis any favors by repeating "why won't the mainstream media accept the unsubstantiated accusations of the most extreme fringes of the Left as gospel? It must be a conspiracy!"

Heh. I didn't say that. That's not my argument. If you read carefully, you will see that I just want to know why the mainstream media won't investigate this more carefully. Why not take this opportunity to look seriously at how the U.S. can bully a Third World nation. They don't have to "accept" anything. But, they do regularly accept the word of official U.S. sources, giving us an "official" view when we look at the news.

Originally posted by Shodan
Where there is smoke, there is sometimes fire. But sometimes, it is just someone blowing smoke.

The "alternative media" is not ever going to become mainstream and credible until they do a lot better than this.

What you call "a lot better," can you expound on that a little? I've pieced together a decent amount of evidence, including a person who actually talked to CIA operatives who said that the U.S. was involved in this coup. I did this by going to alternative sources. I don't have to apologize.

Originally posted by Shodan
Clucky, I suggest that you ask yourself why, if you can so readily apply that sort of critical eye (and rightly so, I might add) to the article that SimonX posted, can you not do the same to the material you posted in your OP?

Well, I didn't say I was perfect, nor that every leftist writer is perfect, nor that I believe everything I read if it's from the left.

But, I will admit that I have my own biases, having been exposed to knowledge of how the U.S. exploits other nations, without little notice from the mainstream press. It's like what Blum said. You start paying attention to this stuff, and you can tell what's happening from similar circumstances that occurred in the past. The CIA regularly involves itself in these types of coups. It's part of history that gets largely ignored.

It matters who you believe. I believe the author who says that the Venezuelan legislators had American names involved with the coup and an American sniper in custody after the coup. That, to me, was enough evidence to show me that the U.S. was involved, when combined with my knowledge of other CIA coups.

Turns out, there was other legitimate evidence out there that the U.S. was involved, particularly the NSA and quite probably the CIA, since the one source says he got his information talking with CIA operatives. I couldn't find that info at first, and thank goodness it was out there, but it doesn't change the fact that, I believe, my point is valid.

[Clucky]

Originally posted by 5-HT
I thought we were talking about Venezuela?

We were. And, to bolster my arguments that the U.S. bullies Latin American nations, I wanted to expound and put the argument in context. A Venezuelan coup doesn't come as much of a shock if you know the history of our doings in the southern hemisphere.

Check out the Human Rights link I posted above and read through the problems they're having down there. You find that the U.S. usually is exacerbating the problems.

I've also thought about posting info about past coups led by the CIA, to put things in context. I just might.

[Roger_Mexico]

Yeah, Clucky, show us some real evidence, like a news release from
the CIA, saying "We did the coup in Venezuela." I am kidding of course...

Of course the CIA was involved, you idiots!!! This is exactly what
they are chartered to do, protect the interests of US corporations overseas. Read Philip Agee's book, "Inside the Company."

The CIA is the Ur-corporation, the corporation above all corporations. That is why they call it, "The Company."

BTW, nationalizing property of transnational corporations is NOT theft. The country pays a fair price for it. When Arbenz expropriated the property of United Fruit in order to institute land reforms, he paid United Fruit the price that they said the property was worth. United Fruit stole it right back after the CIA-backed coup.

When Castro nationalized property in Cuba, he offered to pay for it, but the US corporations refused to accept payment. That is their fault and their loss.

[Sam Stone]

Let me see if I have the thesis correct.

1. The CIA is evil.
2. As proof of this, we have the example of the CIA helping to bring about a coup in Venezuela.
3. How do we know the CIA was involved?
4. Because the CIA is evil.

Is that about it?

[Clucky]

Originally posted by Sam Stone
Let me see if I have the thesis correct.

1. The CIA is evil.
2. As proof of this, we have the example of the CIA helping to bring about a coup in Venezuela.
3. How do we know the CIA was involved?
4. Because the CIA is evil.

Is that about it?

You know, I don't want to do this, I don't want to pull out the big guns, but, you know, you asked for it, so here it is:





Anyhoo, you can try to sum it up in this manner, Sam, but I don't think what you had to say at all reflects this thread, in tone or content. Please, if you will, look at some of the specific allegations and respond.

Another plea. Learn more about the CIA. Go to an "unofficial" source. Read the Agee book that Roger recommends. Or, read Blum's books. I haven't read them myself, although I've read enough of his interviews online to know what he knows. I plan on reading the books, too.

Maybe I can start a Leftist/Evil CIA/Corporate Amerika Book Club.



Sometimes I just have to lighten this subject matter up, or otherwise it depresses me.

[Daoloth]

Originally posted by Roger_Mexico

Of course the CIA was involved, you idiots!!! This is exactly what
they are chartered to do, protect the interests of US corporations overseas. Read Philip Agee's book, "Inside the Company."

When Castro nationalized property in Cuba, he offered to pay for it, but the US corporations refused to accept payment. That is their fault and their loss.

Conversely, I could argue the CIA wasn't involved because of the lack of activity and all encompassing ineptness of today's CIA, as Robert Baer notes in his book See No Evil.

As for Castro, one hijack:

Did Castro pay compensation for the thousands he had murdered at La Cabana? Just curious. :wally

[BrainGlutton]

Posted by SimonX:

Here's the Right-Wing conspiracy version

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Really Happened in Venezuel

The Venezuelan coup and the seemingly easy return of Chavez to power smacked of a Soviet-style provocation.

During the Cold War, the KGB perfected this technique. A new communist leader, not firmly in power, would pretend that he was being ousted in a coup.

As word was announced that the leader was indeed ousted, his opponents, some of whom had been working quietly behind the scenes, would reveal themselves.

Soon, the "coup" would be crushed by forces friendly to the "ousted" dictator.

Once firmly back in power, the dictator would have a list of opponents from which to make reprisals and clean house. His grip on power would be firmer than ever, his opponents would fear him even more.

All Rights Reserved © NewsMax.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Emphasis added.) That raises an interesting question: How much "cleaning house" has Chavez actually done since the coup? Did he have enemies who only came out in the open when the coup started? Has he since had any of them arrested? Fired? Snubbed? None of the news reports I've heard from Venezuela since the coup mention this.

[GIGObuster]

Just from memory: many of the coup plotters maintain positions in opposition groups, some are beginning to be removed by the opposition itself (about time!) and the law (although you could make a case that Chavez is behind) has arrested the most notorious coup plotters (reading about the evidence against them, I think those arrests were justified), others just have jumped ship, and sleeked asylum, not because they were going to be killed, but arrested also.

Still: some “dictator”! In contrast to countless others, he has allowed the very virulent anti-Chavez press to continue (even though it was a factor in the coup), and there is no concerted effort to hunt down and kill the opposition (harassing could be the word I use).

That, and taking into account what the opposition was planning to do to any Chavista in a post coup Venezuela, is the reason why I pragmatically support Chavez now; still, if I were Venezuelan, I would be working to get a good candidate against him in the next election.

[Roger_Mexico]

As for Castro, one hijack:

Did Castro pay compensation for the thousands he had murdered at La Cabana? Just curious. :wally [/b]

I don't know. Did the US government pay reparations to Nicaragua for the 30,000 people they murdered there, after being ordered to do so by the International Court of Justice?

[Mojo]

I would like to see a cite for the assertion that there's an American in custody for the sniper attacks during the protests. I can find a cite that anybody's in custody for it- I've been looking and found bubkus.

And if Chavez doesn't want to get demonized as a supporter of terrorists, maybe he shouldn't be pen pals with Carlos the Jackal. Just a suggestion.

[Clucky]

Originally posted by Daoloth
Conversely, I could argue the CIA wasn't involved because of the lack of activity and all encompassing ineptness of today's CIA, as Robert Baer notes in his book See No Evil.

Well, the coup failed, so maybe this supports the theory that an inept CIA was involved.

[Clucky]

Originally posted by Mojo
I would like to see a cite for the assertion that there's an American in custody for the sniper attacks during the protests. I can find a cite that anybody's in custody for it- I've been looking and found bubkus.

And if Chavez doesn't want to get demonized as a supporter of terrorists, maybe he shouldn't be pen pals with Carlos the Jackal. Just a suggestion.

I don't understand that letter, either. It is puzzling, and I'm not sure how Chavez identifies with Sanchez. I don't know much about Sanchez, actually, or his reasons for killing. Perhaps Chavez thinks Sanchez was wrongly accused for some reason, or justified in his cause. I have no idea.

Of course, if the U.S. welcomed Chavez as a justly elected leader, instead of working in consort with his political enemies, perhaps he'd identify with our leaders and our country. Just maybe. And, he wouldn't be looking to befriend our known enemies.

At any rate, Chavez isn't a Boy Scout. I know that. What he IS is democratically elected.

Here's more about snipers apprehended during the coup, written by a reporter/columnist who is in Venezuela.

After the shooting began, authorities of the government of President Hugo Chávez immediately apprehended some of the rooftop snipers who had lit the fuse to the violence. But after Chávez himself was placed into custody later that day by military generals, the rooftop assassins, whose identities are still unknown, were incredulously set free by the dictatorship of Pedro Carmona - and this tells us everything about which side hired those snipers - as the dictator-for-a-day Carmona simultaneously abolished the Congress, the Supreme Court and the Constitution.

The snipers were let go by Carmona, according to this report. NarcoNews is the Web site this comes from, and this reporter (well, he writes more like a columnist) obviously has been keeping close tabs on the situation. (I admit this sheds no light on the claim that the snipers were Americans. Have to keep looking for another source about this.)

Here, he details the coup. Lots of interesting items in this, including this:

Coup Central:


The CIA Bunker in Caracas



A report would appear two days later in the daily Panamá América newspaper that shed light on how oil union boss Carlos Ortega, the number-two coup organizer (among the Venezuelans involved) second only to oilman-turned-dictator-for-a-day Pedro Carmona, became head of the oil union and consequently of Venezuela's equivalent of the AFL-CIO.

Translated by The Narco News Bulletin:


"Months ago, we warned that the U.S. government had put a plan in march to topple Venezuela's president Hugo Chávez. Working with agents of the CIA and with members of the military group that the Pentagon maintains in Caracas to supervise U.S. arms sales in the region, the strategies from the Potomac joined forces with the opponents of the president. Bankers, businessmen and politicians donated funds to creat the marches and protest that detonated the crisis. Money from the opposition served to influence union elections and the control of the petroleum workers union, the most important in Venezuela…"


Narco News has learned that the CIA headquarters for organizing, distributing said cash, and engineering the attempted coup d'etat, was the office known as the MIL GROUP. That's the name by which the US Military Liason staff in Embassies - "usually a repository for fixers and grafters pitching Department of Defense sponsored weapons sales to third world satrapies," as one source colorfully explained to Narco News - had, according to another well-placed source, greatly increased its staff size in the weeks prior to the attempted coup.

We presume the increase in personnel - or individuals posing as personnel at the MIL GROUP - was not due to a sudden desire by Washington to sell more arms to the Chavez government.

Then, he quotes Madsden, the former NSA officer whose unique perspective was cited above, naming the Navy, NSA, CIA and US contract military personnel as being involved.

I'm reading all this guy has to say on the coup. I'll come back with another post talking about some of the points he makes, especially about how the U.S. media propagandized the situation beforehand to make Chavez look like another militaristic thug, setting the background for when they could report that it was a "popular uprising," not a coup.

[Daoloth]

Originally posted by Roger_Mexico
I don't know. Did the US government pay reparations to Nicaragua for the 30,000 people they murdered there, after being ordered to do so by the International Court of Justice?

Who said anything about Nicaragua?

[Clucky]

Originally posted by Daoloth
Who said anything about Nicaragua?

Not to speak for Roger, but my view is that you have to consider the U.S.'s involvement in Latin America in context. When discussing U.S. policy in Venezuela or any other single Latin American nation, it's important to look at the big picture. Our government has supported many brutal dictators in the southern hemisphere at the cost of many lives of innocent people and to the detriment of democracy and freedom. With that track record, the U.S. deserves a critical look during these types of issues.

So, I think it's fair to point out atrocities such as Roger's example in Nicaragua, one of many. Now, I'm not condoning Castro for his murders. But, the U.S. isn't any better. It's hard for us to point fingers. Well, on second thought, actually, I guess it's not, given the free pass the U.S. government is given at home in the media.

[Quartz]

I read the article and it seems to me that you've been sucked in by socialist propaganda. The article is in no way even-handed but blatantly biased. The byline

18.04.2002 (By Andy McInerney/ Workers World News Service)

should give people a clue right from the get-go.

You should read alternative opinions too. Like Chavez likening the Catholic Church to a tumour. And he doesn't have a problem with expelling troublemakers according to this article by the BBC.

The guy's no angel.

[Quartz]

That'll teach me to proofread - I meant to say imprisoning rather than expelling - he expelled the coup leaders which is understandable.

[Roger_Mexico]

Here is some more socialist propaganda, from Workers Vanguard. We need it to offset all of that capitalist propaganda we get every day.
This article gives specific info about the involvement of the National Endowment for Democracy (a well known CIA front) and the AFL-CIA.

"The April 12 coup had Washington’s paw prints all over it. In the months leading up to the coup, U.S. officials repeatedly met with Venezuelan business and military leaders who opposed Chávez
and later played prominent roles in the military takeover. The budget earmarked for Venezuelan opposition groups by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a CIA front, was quadrupled to more than $877,000. According to the London Guardian (29 April), U.S. navy
ships “helped with communications jamming support to the Venezuelan military.” The day of the coup, the head of the International Republican Institute, the Republican Party’s conduit for
international political subversion, proclaimed, “The Venezuelan people rose up to defend democracy in their country.” But as the coup quickly unraveled, within two days Washington was furiously backpedaling."

[snip]

"As in virtually all interventions by U.S. imperialism in Latin America, the wretched bureaucrats of the AFL-CIO, loyal servitors of their capitalist masters, were in the baggage train. The AFL-CIO’s
international arm, the American Center for International Labor Solidarity, served as a conduit for NED funds, channeling $154,377 to the Venezuelan CTV. Two months before the coup, the AFL-CIO sponsored a U.S. tour by CTV tops, paid for by the NED. The CTV bureaucrats who
participated in a closed forum in Washington reportedly “noted that they were here to discuss the chances for a coup” (Labor Notes, May 2002)."

http://www.icl-fi.org/ENGLISH/Ven787.htm

[Clucky]

Originally posted by qts
I read the article and it seems to me that you've been sucked in by socialist propaganda. The article is in no way even-handed but blatantly biased.

…

You should read alternative opinions too. Like Chavez likening the Catholic Church to a tumour. And he doesn't have a problem with expelling troublemakers according to this article by the BBC.

The guy's no angel.

Well, I'm not sure which article you're referring to, but of course the articles and columns I've posted are biased. The question is whether they're truthful. I think the saddest thing is when the U.S. mainstream media print propaganda for the government under the guise of being nonbiased, of being "the fourth estate."

As for the "tumour" article, that's just a feud between Chavez and the Catholic Church in Venezuela. I read the article, and it looks like Chavez has a point if this is true:

Simmering tensions between Church and State flared into an open feud in January 2002, when Chavez denounced bishops who had criticised a priest for officiating at a pro-government Mass. In his long weekly television broadcast, he accused them of living in swanky palaces, driving fast cars and rarely visiting slum-dwellers. "Listen, you'd better examine your consciences," he said. "Go in front of God, and pray 20 Our Fathers and 20 Hail Marys."

Just seems like a conflict in views. Nothing wrong there, in a democracy, that is. (Although, I hope he had no knowledge of the incident where someone threw a grenade in the Cardinal's home. That's uncool, and there was no evidence in the article suggesting Chavez was involved.)

And the other article you linked just confused me. I guess you're referring to this:

Another strike leader, Carlos Fernandez of the Venezuelan business confederation Fedecameras, is under house arrest facing treason charges.

A court ordered him to be released last week after deeming the evidence insufficient, but the attorney general has appealed the decision.

Seven former executives of the state oil company PDVSA emerged from hiding last week after a judge revoked warrants for their arrests on charges of interrupting the country's fuel supply.

One person was arrested on suspicion of treason. We'd do that here in the U.S., too, if the government thought someone was involved in trying to overthrow the government. Heck, they'd probably have fewer rights here, who knows?

The other seven former executives of PDVSA were accused of interrupting with the country's fuel supply. That's serious stuff, there, if true.

I'd sure like to know the political leanings of the judge who let these people go without further scrutiny. Seems to me that Chavez has been very restrained in many of these matters. He's letting the political process work on its own, even if it might be broken.

Just sounds like you're looking to quibble, with no substance.

At any rate, if the people of Venezuela have a problem with the way Chavez is running things, they should vote him out of office. Same as we do in our beloved republic.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Clucky
At any rate, if the people of Venezuela have a problem with the way Chavez is running things, they should vote him out of office. Same as we do in our beloved republic.

That's what they're trying to do.

[PatriotX]

this we don't do:

Experts said the deal is a tacit acknowledgement of victory for Chavez, who months ago agreed to hold a binding referendum midway through his term.

Though maybe we should sometimes.

[PatriotX]

Should've used this for my quoted part:

This is a positive development, but there are still a lot of issues to work out and continuing distrust," said Michael Shifter, a senior fellow at the Inter-American Dialogue in Washington.

"The referendum is the best mechanism at this time to resolve the crisis, but it's naive to think this will bring Venezuelans together. This will be a long process," he said.

Experts said the deal is a tacit acknowledgement of victory for Chavez, who months ago agreed to hold a binding referendum midway through his term.

[Clucky]

Originally posted by Mojo
That's what they're trying to do.

Interesting. Notice that this wasn't some kind of groundswell campaign, but an accord that Chavez voluntarily signed. He thinks he'll win the election. He'll have to deal with the corporate-run media and their shenanigans, but he's doing it anyway. That's pretty gutsy.

[Quartz]

Clucky, don't you think his tactics sound remarkably similar to Mugabe's?