Chavez offers olive branch to next US president

Source: Associated Press

Chavez offers olive branch to next US president
Sun, 08 Jun 2008 11:48a.m.

President Hugo Chavez said Saturday he wants to work together with the next US president and that Venezuela and the United States should cooperate to resolve problems including world hunger, energy shortages and climate change.

But Chavez also warned that George W. Bush "will be much more dangerous during the last months that he has left" in the White House, and accused the outgoing US president of attempting to orchestrate his assassination or spur a military rebellion in Venezuela.

"Whoever is the next president of the United States, I'd like start preparing the way to start working together," said Venezuela's socialist leader.
By cooperating, both countries could "help save the world from the food crisis, energy crisis and climate crisis", he added.
~snip~

Washington has long seen Chavez as a threat to democracy in Latin America, but some US officials are aiming for a pragmatic approach to diplomacy with Venezuela that would acknowledge political differences while allowing progress in areas like counter-drug cooperation.

Read more: http://www.tv3.co.nz/News/ChavezoffersolivebranchtonextUSpresident/tabid/209/articleID/58679/Default.aspx?ArticleID=58679

wow, that sure beats the hell out of bombing, killing, burning, raping and generally doing what we do best now. I find Hugo to be an ok guy, am I some sort of a commie or what?

You'll be visiting the 1950's, and reliving the experiences
of the good old days of sneering insults and accusations
from chronic alcoholic Sen. Joseph McCarthy in no time at all.

You're going to learn you only THOUGHT red baiting was dead. Ah, ha ha ha ha.

NT!

President Hugo Chavez said Saturday he wants to work together with the next US president and that Venezuela and the United States should cooperate to resolve problems including world hunger, energy shortages and climate change.



Imagine that, this would mean we would be condoning some sort of inherent need for goodness, and equality, and as we all have been taught since birth, Socialism BAD, liberalism BAD, feminism BAD by our corporate watchdogs.

So much brainwashing for our population to overcome, so little time. Let's get to work.

Anybody who smells sulfur on W can't be all bad.

Bush, Chavez and Ahmadinejad as being like the three stooges.

Having said that, a return to sanity in the form of DIPLOMACY will be refreshing and productive. Fuck what the republicans think.

His 100 free gallons of oil to heat my home, for the last 2 winters has probably kept me from freezing to death,.
Or draining my pipes and going to live with my Daughter & the kids. THAT would mean giving away my beloved 3 cats as my Grandson is allergic! It would also keep me from doing my artwork!
NOT my idea of FREEDOM & DEMOCRACY!
I'll take Chavz' socialism over Bush's Democracy any day!

PORTRAYED by OUR MEDIA! Are they REALLY stooges?????????

It is a human right to have food and health care.

and she seemed to like Hugo just fine, but she was afraid in 2002 and wanted out of this country quick. She said that Hugo would not be afraid of Bush and would stand his ground, which he has, and that she wanted to be home in case there did develop problems between the two countries. I have not heard from her since she left here, so I do not know how things are in her country.

But unfortunately not for cheap-labor mega-corporate elites.

might want to start by apologizing for seizing those fields from the oil companies, not saying give the fields back but just apologize because I think it was a cheesy thing for him to do.
Not that I am crying for the oil companies though, they gouge us all as it is especially these days but its just that in my opinion he could have worked it out with them without resorting to siezing the fields.

They also paid for them.... they did not 'seize' them.

and was only privatized for a handful of years.

You should take some time to do your homework, so you actually understand what's being discussed.

I am just saying he should consider apologizing, it was atleast in my opinion at a minimum high handed of him to do and I didnt say he should pay more money nor did I say he should give them back but just apologize, it could be something as simple as "I am sorry to have to take this action but I felt it was necessary for my country".

forcing them to take whatever amount I offer and you gotta admit thats sort of what happened or am I mistaken, if so then just explain to me a little of how you see it as not similar and I promise that I will try to keep an open mind as you explain your viewpoint.

So far as I know it was all done legally, and a fair price was paid. I don't know all of the details, but if I remember correctly, all of the criticism was about the process of nationalization as a policy, not in terms of legality. There are cases where such things are done in the US (usually in terms of eminent domain), and it can be an inconvenience, but is certainly legal. If any of it had been legal, I would think it would have gone to court, and also become a row in the UN, but I don't think either of those things happened. As I say, I could not be remembering all of this correctly, but that's how I recall it happening. Even before Chavez was in power, I tried to gas up at the local Chevron station, because it was the cheapest, and I think it's always been a state-owned oil company.

I thought, you know pretty much saying "hey we are the state, we are offering you this much $ for the stuff and no more and you are going to take it regardless if you want to or not or we will take the stuff and not pay you for it at all, either way we are taking it".
As for it being done in the US, I know there was alot of raised voices in the US recently when a bunch of peoples homes were siezed and then sold to a developer, case went to the supreme court if I recall and they said it was legal and that the states need to pass laws to disallow it if they dont like it.

The case with the oil would be different if the government had then sold them to other oil companies, but they didn't. This is the kind of thing that governments do all of the time, and have the power to do in the public interest. I don't see any problem with it.

Do you actually think there's a secretary there taking down every word who would hand it off to our treacherous media who would come rushing to write it up for articles to share with readers in the U.S.?

Is that what happens HERE? Do we get the complete poop on everything uttered by our own politicians to the people with whom they do business? We don't get anything but the lies they crank out for public consumption. What on earth can you possibly mean?

He was sorry? Oil and steel were BOTH nationalized long before Chavez came along, and were only NOT nationalized for a few years, when a corporate tool got in there and started giving away the store.

Apologize! Oh, that's a hot one. Corporations, profits for stockholders really do matter more than a country's own citizens, right? That's not the way people with consciences see it.

He would apologize if he stole it from them on behalf of the country, not if they recouped their expenses. What on earth do you use for a brain these days?

The world does NOT revolve around freepers, even though it has appeared to, at times, when our national policy got too dirty, too dishonest, too murderous.

unlike Uribe.

The act of showing subservience to Washington will guarantee his unpopularity among his loyal base in Venezuela.

Latin American leaders are largely independent of Washington these days, and Uribe is the exception to the rule. I would even question Uribe's so-called popularity, given only 43% of the eligible-voter turnout in Columbia, that's half of the turnout seen in most of the other Latin America counties, and obviously part of the reason is that the other majority, the poor Columbians, they have been largely terrorized over the decades into a silent submission to the right-wing state and thus do not show up in these numbers.

yet he rains down hellfire on those pesky peasants in Colombia, sending the troops, death squads out to massacre them, even the peace communities which believe their declaration of truce will save them from destruction. He's also hell on human rights workers, calling them out, targeting them until they start getting death threats from the death squads, and learn to shut the #### up and stop citing him on the gross Colombian human rights violations.

Even hired FOUR pubic relations firms in the States to help sell his image to our Democratic Congress so they will go ahead and approve _Bush's trade agreement for him.

But he sure loves to suck up to our ugly, malicious clown in the White House, to "hang out" with him, yuk it up, act like "one of the boys."



Meanwhile, his troops are busy killing peasants, and carefully leaving identification gear around them, as reported in the Washington Post, taken from their "kits," like throw-down guns, grenades, clothing, etc. which would appear to mark them as FARCs who had just been killed in action.

Apparently the thought is, if you scare enough people by killing almost everyone who's not wealthy, and powerful, there won't be anyone to oppose you, ever.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Anyway, Norway's Statoil, France's Total, British BP, and even Chevron agreed to the terms set by the SOVEREIGN government of Venezuela, without squawking about "apologies."

We're talking about GLOBAL CORPORATE PREDATORS, Cstanleytech! Not nice, lawful people. Did you notice what they did to more than one million Iraqis, to get their oil? Maybe the survivors should apologize to George Bush for not feeling real cooperative about it. If Exxon Mobil had any cannon fodder left, you can be sure they would be using U.S. troops against the people of Venezuela, to get their oil. And they may still try that, as a matter of fact--what with the 4th Fleet now at their disposal.

I don't get this thing about sovereign peoples having to "apologize" to monstrous, fascist corporations. What can you be thinking?

"Organized money hates me--and I welcome their hatred!" --Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

That's the attitude I want to see in our leaders--not toadyism and "win/win" politeness, while they steal us blind, destroy our democracy and slaughter and torture other people in our name.

I think you have mistaken notions about the sovereignty of corporations. They have NO sovereignty. They have no rights--not even the right to exist. They operate solely by the will of the sovereign people who charter them and PERMIT them to do business, so long as it is in the public interest. They can be dismantled and dissolved, and their assets seized for the common good, if only we could muster the political will to do it. And we owe them NO APOLOGIES! Your suggestion puts them into the category of a nation, due diplomatic respect. They are not a nation. And neither are they individual persons, with civil, human and political rights. They are an artificially constructed, business consortium, that exists only so long as a SOVEREIGN people will charter them. When their hirelings speak, they speak for the profit of the rich. And when they lobby and buy politicians, and write our laws, and hijack our military for corporate resources wars, is when we ought to start pulling their charters and dismantling them.

To paraphrase FDR, "Organized money hates us--and we should welcome their hatred, and offer no apologies, when we act in the interests of the people, and of the planet."

Chavez has nothing to apologize for! He was acting in the interests of his people--who have been so totally fucked over by these corporations in the past. He had the SOVEREIGN right to do what he did. And he was more than fair--he paid for the assets, and offered them a 40% share of the profits. Apologize? It is the U.S. who should be apologizing--to the Iraqis, to the Venezuelans--for backing these corporations up with war plots, and coup plots, and assassination plots, and dirty tricks of every kind, and, in the case of Iraq, mass slaughter.

It makes you uncomfortable that Chavez backed these corporations into a corner? I say, hoorah for Chavez! It's about time SOMEBODY did! That's what democracy is all about--to protect the people against the tyranny of "organized money"!

I would not want him to, if he did. Politics is all about being cheesy in any case.

Those fields belong to Venezuala...NOT Chevron, Shell, and whoever the hell thinks they have a right to them!

I am always kinda reluctant to trust any one site, maybe something thats impartial assuming such a thing exists in this day and age.

IS as impartial as you'll get. You could try NarcoNews.com, but their reporting is more scattered.

How do you think apologizing would have helped anyone?

Any US "newspaper" report is going to be biased, so don't even bother going there...


:shrug:

check it out..
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Venezuela_page/Venezuela_page.html

after all! Kinda hard to imagine for progressives, and liberals, isn't it?

How many people have used the word "re-nationalized," rather than the hypersensantional, anally terrifying to rightists "seized?"

Here's a report from a source a right-winger would grovel in front of, considering it's right-wing pandering all the time, anyway:

SUNDAY 8 JUNE 2008
Venezuela Pulls Control From Big Oil
Reuters

Tuesday 01 May 2007

President Hugo Chavez makes an attempt to reclaim resources by taking operational control of the Orinoco Belt.
Puerto Piritu, Venezuela - President Hugo Chavez's government took over Venezuela's last remaining privately run oil fields Tuesday, intensifying a decisive struggle with Big Oil over one of the world's most lucrative deposits.

Oil Minister Rafael Ramirez declared that the oil fields had reverted to state control just after midnight. Television footage showed workers in hard hats raising the flags of Venezuela and the national oil company at a refinery and four drilling fields in the oil-rich Orinoco River basin. Chavez planned a more elaborate celebration Tuesday afternoon with red-clad oil workers, soldiers and a fly over by Russian-made fighter jets.

The companies ceding control include BP Plc (Charts), ConocoPhillips (Charts, Fortune 500), Exxon Mobil (Charts, Fortune 500)., Chevron (Charts, Fortune 500), France's Total SA (Charts) and Norway's Statoil ASA (Charts). All but ConocoPhillips have agreed in principle to state control, and Venezuela has warned it may expropriate that company's assets if it doesn't follow suit.

Despite the fanfare, these companies remain locked in a behind-the-scenes struggle with the Chavez government, and appear to be taking a decisive stand, demanding conditions - and presumably compensation - to convince them that Venezuela will continue to be good business.

Chevron's future in Venezuela "will very much be dependent on how we're treated in the current negotiation," said David O'Reilly, chief executive of the San Ramon, Calif.-based company. "That process is going to have a direct impact on our appetite going forward."

Chavez says the state oil company, PDVSA, is assuming at least 60 percent of each of the Orinoco operations, but has invited the companies to stay as minority partners. They have until June 26 to negotiate the terms, including compensation and reduced stakes.

"We are going to take over some oil fields that have continued to be in the hands of transnationals," Chavez said Sunday, calling it "the last step" in recovering state sovereignty over oil.

http://www.truthout.org/article/venezuela-pulls-control-from-big-oil

~~~~~~~~~~
Don't forget Exxon refused to accept the compensation, thinking it would just kick Venezuela's ass by playing some very hard-ball, and had their assets seized, and an injunction set up, and they fell flat on their faces, and sent packing. It did sane people a world of good to see somehow Exxon had not been able, somehow, to bribe the law and get their way in this instance.

Court reverses Exxon freeze on Venezuela assetsMarch 18, 2008 2:09 PM ET

LONDON (Reuters) - A UK judge has overturned a decision to freeze $12 billion of Venezuelan assets awarded to Exxon Mobil in a setback to the oil giant's fight to win compensation for a seized oil project but a boost for leftist President Hugo Chavez.

Exxon convinced an English court to freeze the assets of Venezuela's state oil company, PDVSA, in January so cash would be available if Exxon won arbitration over an oil project which was lost to Chavez's nationalization drive.

But after hearing PDVSA's argument, the judge ruled there was no urgent risk of the company hiding its assets to avoid paying compensation and discharged the injunction.

Venezuela's government bond prices, which had been battered by the freeze, rallied after the ruling.

More:
http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.aspx?feed=OBR&date=20080318&id=8353114

I have more pressing concerns.

Saying chavez should consider apologizing, guess that might look like it to some people *shrug* Sorry, not trying to defend them exactly just saying he should considering apologizing thats all, not calling for the return of the oil fields nor for him to pay more money but of course I said that before didnt I? You did read the post right?

:shrug:

You know, like Iraq, the American people, etc.

so my question would be: what exactly should Chavez apologize for?

That would be my question to the that poster also.

:hi:

And it's done by countries who suddenly realize that giving away control of a national resource is not in their citizen's best interest.

When you consider that they were allowed to buy them by the previous right-wing Venezuelan governments for almost nothing and then take all the profits away from Venezuela.

Sorry, "property rights" aren't something progressives should ever see as a human rights situation. The rights of the rich never really deserve to be cared about.

Like say higher tax on the income from the selling of the oil or was that not possible?

There's no such thing as an oil company being a "good corporate citizen".

I think Chavez is a very honest leader dealing w/ a VERY difficult situation (US CORPORATIST hegemony).

The game changes when you are fighting corporate imperialism bent on shattering their democracy into bits and pieces

Needs to work with leaders all over the world, thanks to Bush, in order to gain back the respect that we have lost in the last 8 years!

that I'm sure we are in agreement on to be distasteful, but I can't say clearly it is only his fault. This is evident in his re-election, in spite of evidence of election irregularities, that too many Americans support this asshole and his policies. I'm seeing a kind of selfish arrogance and downtrodden attitude from many here in our country when it comes to others in this world as bush didn't invent it, but he is an official that is acting on their behalf as well as his own. Sure we can site the repukes on these policies, but many dems hold these policies to be allying to their own beliefs and values too and it sickens me.

.... most counties don't actually hate "Americans". I mean I'm sure there are a few who really do. But there are also some....a greater number I'd guess... who really just hate the Bush Administration....and those like it (Reagan). Still, thanks Bushies for putting us in a position of apologizing and maybe some groveling.

and that is why I think this coming election is so important. If mccain gets elected, the rest of the world will judge us, the people of the USA, very harshly. They will no longer believe that we are the victims of bad elections, but the willing backers of these imperialistic policies.

If Obama is elected I believe the way the world sees us will change almost immediately. There will be a celebration in more places than just Democratic headquarters, organizations and homes in the USA. The world is watching with their fingers crossed, hoping that we make the right decision and we win this one.

Obama 08

As always, a recommended read. Thank you so much for freelancing as a journalist. :hug:

Kaleko, little by little.

So much is at stake now, so much needs to be corrected about what has happened to the people south of the U.S. border at the hands of some truly ugly people who got the upper hand in our right-wing Presidencies.

You are among some exceptional people at D.U. now who are all watching the moves being made by our government regarding the people who have been battered, tortured, abused, insulted, mocked by the lowest, and most criminal ones among us who got access to power, and the chance to run right over them for profit and for the joy of wielding power, nothing more. Very cheap, shabby way to sell their souls, when you think about it, by harming people they never knew.

Hope we are all going to be able to wave goodbye to these clowns together as their ship sinks one day, and the new union of the South will be created. We can only hope they will be far, FAR more gratious to the States than our right-wing leaders were to them.

Thank you so much, Kaleko.

:)

"Washington has long seen Chavez as a threat to democracy in Latin America" - really? I don't think that's ever been the case. Chavez has certainly been an inspiration for spreading democracy throughout Latin America. I can believe that the US government has seen it as a threat to US/corporate imperialism in Latin America, but not to democracy - democracy is what this administration fears most.

the OP provided. This isn't an opinion piece, it's what's supposedly happening even with the AP reporting it. Thanks!

I'm not disputing the reported facts, just the dressing. When has anyone suggested that Chavez is a threat to democracy? That's just insanity to say that, and spreading these slurs in the guise of impartial reporting is total bunk.

the possibilities once that war criminal is out of the White House, we may actually begin normal relations with other countries...ha ha fancy that for a change!

Those who do not learn from history, blah blah

From the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/22/opinion/22thrall.html?_r=3&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

He wouldn't have risked it otherwise.

From the NYT article on the lecturing of JFK:

".....hypocrisy of American foreign policy, cautioned America against supporting “old, moribund, reactionary regimes” and asserted that the United States, which had valiantly risen against the British, now stood “against other peoples following its suit.” Khrushchev used the opportunity of a face-to-face meeting to warn Kennedy that his country could not be intimidated and that it was “very unwise” for the United States to surround the Soviet Union with military bases."

Well, it turns out that all happens to be totally correct and accurate. After all, what did we accomplish with the Cold War?
And if the Russians were such a massive threat, how did the whole empire collapse without a shot being fired? Why dont you try to consider these points in context with Venezuela (if you can also imagine that Venezuela is as powerful as Russia- which it isnt)

Here is the bottom line-

We dont own the world.
We dont have a right to attack countries at will.
We dont have a say in what other countries choose to do with their own resources.

Your bottom lines are correct, tho' your comments beforehand are nonsense.

I think I was entirely accurate in my above post.
Do me a favor and show me why that is not accurate or applicable.

Thanks!

Duh. Pre-Vietnam comments, the US is re-building countries demolished by WWII (unlike Russia), and the primary international concern is a communist country whose avowed purpose internationally is to destroy the US and democracy. It agressively pursued a policy of communism over democracy where it could. My point was, and is, that Russia found a charismatic American leader at the time who appeared to be someone who would do anything for appeasement (think M. Albright) and that they could walk all over them (think M. Albright) because they would end up with an agreement. Fortunately, JFK proved to have backbone and learned much from the experience. However, the point remains that it was JFK's weakness in talks that led to the Cuban Missile Crisis.

1. These comments were not "pre-Vietnam". Kennedy was already attacking Vietnam in 1961, as "advisors" had been there since at least 1959.

2. The "primary concern" of US leaders in the era was actually expansion acros sthe hemisphere, and control of Middle East oil resources. Russia may have served as a convenient boogeyman, but they were of little 'real' concern as can be seen in the things we did during that period.

3. Russia's "avowed purpose" was nothing along the lines of "destroying the US". In fact, Russian leaders wanted no part of the Cold War as they were totally outmatched in every metric. The rhetoric used by Russian leaders may have been inflammatory, but the Russians never tried to install missles in Canada, nor did they criss-cross the globe taking over countries as we did.

4. Albright is a war criminal if judged by the Nuremberg standards. Appeasement is not a word I would use for any part of an administration which killed 1,000,000 Iraqi's, destroyed Yugoslavia, and so on.

5. There is one country which is avowed to destroy democracy, and it's the US. I could go back to Iran in the 1950's and go forward from there, counting dozens of Democracies that we overthrew so that we could install a fascist dictatorship subordinate to US investors.

The USSR was a despotic, tyrannical state to be sure, but the record clearly shows that we have been far worse going back to post WW2.

Lastly, if you believe that the Cuban Missle Crisis was a result of Kennedy appeasement I would like to strongly suggest that you do a bit of reading , as you have been misinformed- badly. While you are at it, read a little about the history of our war against Cuba- going back to the 1800's.

Thanks!

Your points:

1. Well, I started an elaborate (and eloquent:) ) response to this point, you are correct in practice, but the US public didn't know it. I'll just leave it at that right now.

2. I disagree. It really makes no sense when you consider where our battles were being fought at that time.

3. I disagree, as did the Russian leadership. "We will bury you" is a purpose, and it was, and is, a clear purpose of communism, and Islam, btw.

4. Agreed, to some extent, but the comment borders on rantings.

5. Disagree as far as the first part of your statement. Perhaps you could enlighten us as to countries where we fought democracy. That said, however, we have stupidly fought for democracy where it wasn't in the best interests of that country, and fought to keep democracy from countries where we had substantial influence with those in power. We have to recognize that democracy is not necessarily the best thing for every country.

2. Where were our battles being fought in the 1950's? Here is a great link that shows every military intervention in the last 125+ years.
http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html
From 1953 to 1963 alone, we overthrew democracies in Iraq, Iran, Guatemala, and prevented a possible democratic revolution in Lebanon.
How about Chile, Nicaragua, and on and on. US leadership has destroyed democracies almost everywhere they have tried to emerge...including Venezuela.
In fact I am having a hard time thinking of a single country where we wanted- and backed- a real democracy. Im not talking about a client state, im talking about a functioning democracy. Remember, Russia called itself "People's Democratic Republics'" so should we count that as well?

3. As I point out, there is a difference between rhetoric and reality, especially when you get the message from a US based media source. You think Pravda was serious? They have NOTHING on US media. The last 5 years show this starkly.
Further, what is with the Islam comment? Are you suggesting that everyone who follows Islam believes in destroying the US?
How about we just look at Bin Laden. Will that be ok for a reference? When OBL declared holy war against the US, he was interviewed by Robert Fisk. He gave 3 reasons for war:
1. American troops in the holy land. This was a reference to the troops stationed at the Bin Sultan Air Based in Saudi Arabia.
2. American support for the Israeli genocide and occupation in Gaza and the West Bank.
3. The deaths of more than 1,000,000 Iraqi children as a result of the US led sanctions regime.

4. I dont see how this borders on ranting at all. Im simply using the definitions of agression established at the Nazi trials. It's simple fact.

5. I think my response to #2 should cover this as well.

Here are a few links to do a bit of research.
http://www.drclas.harvard.edu/revista/articles/view/828
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/US_Interventions_WBlumZ.html

Lastly, here is a recap of a series of memo's between Eisenhower and the NSC in 1958- it speaks clearly to what US leaders were focused on:

"if someone went a little bit further with minimal effort, they would discover that this question -- you know: "Why do they hate us when we're so good?" -- George Bush's poignant question -- it's a very old question, for it was asked by President Eisenhower in 1958 -- actually, in secret at that time. But now it's a pretty free country, we have a lot of documentary evidence so we know what's been going on. Back in 1958 -- which turned out to be a very crucial year in world history -- that was the year, in particular, in which the US fought a major clandestine war to try to break up Indonesia, and a number of other things. ... The US at that time had three major crisis areas, according to the internal discussions, all in Islamic countries, all in oil-producers. One was Indonesia, one was Algeria, one was basically Iraq -- the Iraqi region. Those were the three crises. It was made explicit in the internal meetings. In fact, Eisenhower, vociferously, according to the minutes, insisted on this: there was no Russian involvement. The enemy is indigenous nationalism. In fact, that's true throughout the Cold War, but very explicit then, and Eisenhower did discuss it with his staff, said there is a campaign of hatred against us -- not on the part of governments but on the part of the people, and we wanna know why that's true. And he got some answers. John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State, said the problem is that the communist -- "communist" just means anybody who's a nationalist, and the CIA was telling them strongly that their main enemy wasn't communist but it didn't matter, "communist" just means the ones we don't like -- and they said the communists have an advantage over us, an unfair advantage. He said they can appeal to the masses of the population. That's an appeal that we can't counter. And the reason is they appeal to the poor and the poor have always wanted to plunder the rich. That's the big problem with world history."
"there was a more serious and considered answer given by the National Security Council, the highest planning agency. They pointed out that there's a perception in the Arab world that the United States supports status quo regimes which, of course, are brutal and oppressive, and does so in order to secure its own interests in obtaining oil, and then they said, well, it's hard to counter this perception because it's correct. They said it's natural for the United States to link itself up with the status quo regimes and try to sustain them and to pursue its interest in obtaining oil."

and your others.

Thanks for taking the time to share this information.

Can't imagine why people would do anything OTHER than try to find out the truth, can you? An illusion isn't worth anything.

Really appreciate your effort.

The first link is actually very interesting, as they are very pro-western. They really do go out of their way to avoid mentioning the worst crimes of US leaders. The war against South Vietnam and our support for Indonesia during the Timor genocide are the most obvious.

As to your second comment, although I do agree with you, I can understand why people dont want to know-

I think that when you spend your entire life believing things about your country that are actually the opposite of reality, it can be quite jarring to hear what has been carefully hidden from view. Ive been through this myself, and I remember feeling as if I'd been kicked in the gut.
Of course it also allowed me to start paying attention to things around me with a fresh perspective, which was great.

It was not well founded and I very much apologize.

and Bush overthrew Hugo and Venezuela's democracy, but only for a day.

Poor old George, he can't do anything right. The King of Incompetence, for sure!!

MORE propaganda: "Washington has long seen Chavez as a threat to democracy in Latin America,..."

Didn't Washington die in 1797? Bush proved to be the threat to democracy in Latin America.

to these disinformation specialists:



Can't be any worse than the Reuters stringer, or someone in another wire service who simply gets his information off the wildly anti-Chavez tv channel Globovisión.

Just found this article, wanted to post it here. It's important info., even though it was published December 18, 2002. It concerns all the "news" we get concerning Latin America:

AP’s One-Sided Venezuela Coverage
On Desk Reporters Who “Phone-in” the Spin


By Dan Feder

~snip~
Noriega recently served on the Senate Foreign Affairs committee. While in that post, he became notorious for his skill at manipulating reporters. Once, he was overheard bragging that New York Times’ Larry Rohter never made a move without consulting him. It seems that, rather than seek out independent analysis of the resolution, or do his own (did he even read it? one has to wonder), Ikeda has let a veteran Washington spin-doctor tell the story for him.

~snip~
The problem with the Associated Press

Some of AP’s other reporters have been producing simply awful journalism since long before Ikeda joined this round of the Venezuelan tug-of-war. AP stories are picked up by thousands of newspapers large and small across the country every day, and are often read by newscasters on the radio and television. So the tone they set and messages they break to the public are no small matter; they lie at the heart of the media-created reality through which most United States citizens and many English-speaking people in other countries experience the larger world.

Associated Press is technically a “non-profit” corporation owned by a cooperative of for-profit United States newspapers and media companies, and governed by the AP Managing Editors Association. No radio news show or daily newspaper editor has the resources to send a reporter to every part of the world she or he wants. So editors use the AP to cut costs; why pay twenty-five different journalists to write on an issue when you can pool your resources and just pay one? According to their website,


the AP is the backbone of the world’s information system. In the United States alone, AP serves 5,000 radio and television stations and 1,700 newspapers. Add to that the 8,500 newspaper, radio and television subscribers in 121 countries overseas, and you’ll have some idea of AP’s reach.

This role obviously gives the AP an unbelievable amount of power over the discussion of global events, especially in the English-speaking world. Yet AP correspondents write under much lower standards and with much less supervision than their counterparts at specific media organizations. In other words, they are largely unaccountable to their editors. At the same time, at a corporate level, the AP is unaccountable to its millions of readers. Unlike many newspapers, there is no AP ombudsman who “speaks for the readers.” There is no letters page for the AP, and individual newspapers rarely print letters responding to wire stories.

The very structure of the AP —the impersonal bureaucracy through which this huge volume of information is filtered—encourages “desk reporting” from foreign correspondents. This means gleaning stories from the local commercial newspapers and taking phone calls from Embassy, political, and corporate spin-doctors rather than going outside and talking to the real people their stories concern. According to many familiar with the organization, AP correspondents are typically wined and dined by the English-speaking elites in the Third World outposts where they are assigned.

A perfect example of what this leads to is the case of Peter McFarren, AP’s 18 year bureau chief in Bolivia. McFarren was exposed by this publication as having moonlighted as a lobbyist for an $80 million dollar water pipeline project. After two weeks of stonewalling, AP finally announced McFarren’s resignation after Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) and Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz inquired about the conflict. By the time he resigned, McFarren had become a regular figure among elite circles of Bolivian politicians and businessmen, completely alienated from and hostile towards the masses of people he was responsible for reporting on.

More:
http://www.narconews.com/Issue26/article567.html

from the press, apparently. Some photos, and Roger's Wiki, which explains Roger used to work for that fine Republican Senator Jesse Helms.



Roger's Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Noriega

america`s brand of "democracy" that is

Because he is a fool. I commend Chavez for reaching out for diplomatic solutions unlike our fearless leader bushie.

I do not like Chavez but if he wants to talk. Fine!

But I do not the next president acting all nice to that asshole!

but-- whatever, to you back. Ignorance is bliss, so you must be ecstatic.

But you go on right ahead. I've got better things to do than support a delusional leader in my view.

Why any Democrat would not support him is a mystery to me. But your answers are sufficiently vague that they hint you don't really know what you're talking about in relation to Chavez.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.com%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D5832390545689805144%26q%3Drevolution%2Bwill%2Bnot%2Bbe%2Btelevised%26total%3D198%26start%3D0%26num%3D10%26so%3D0%26type%3Dsearch%26plindex%3D0&ei=4PtLSOCBIIXAggKl6ZWoDA&usg=AFQjCNEE61GkAMpYHJOXDMluMBXG7wCrTA&sig2=INAuNlym_zGZ8EKyLkweng

It tells the real story of Chavez. He's a democratically elected leader, who's actually done something about the poverty in his country, and been opposed by the rich, the corporatists, and even the CIA.

at the helm in Washington since January 20, 2001 and "Washington has long seen Chavez as a threat to democracy in Latin America...."
The biggest threat to democracy is running our country into the ground and stealing everything in sight. They belong in leg irons and hand cuffs at the Hague.
Democracy means the people select their government via elections. Chavez was elected.
Imperialism is imposing political will through military intervention or fostering coups to remove foreign leaders who look out for their people's interests, not the interests of foreign corporations.
The United States owes civilization a big apology after the international crimes committed by the Bush Cartel in the name of the corporate bottom line under the guise of "bringing freedom."
Way back in the 60s we had a president from Texas who took office under unusual circumstances who started a war predicated on lies. We were told Ho Chi Minh was a ruthless dictator who enslaved his people, and we were bringing democracy to Vietnam.
Where are we going to invade next to impose our will on those with natural resources?

He's been carrying on the tradition of a string of criminals, hasn't he?

Here are photos of the notorious torturer used by Augusto Pinochet, put in place by Richard Nixon, Henry Kissinger and the CIA, after they disposed of the democratically elected Salvador Allende in Chile.

Just saw this man, Osvaldo Guatón Romo Mena, in a documentary on Chile on cable in the last year, as he gloated about how peoples' mouths twitching resemble their anuses when you are drowning them, or vice versa. (Was so shocked and horrified I can't remember, exactly.) God took this fine man from the world in the last year. What a loss! He was carrying out right-wing will against left-wingers, or even suspected left-wingers.

He tried to talk his right-wing bosses into killing ALL the left wingers they had in prison. Nice to know Richard Nixon made this all possible, isn't it? I say Nixon made it possible because Romo would have never had an opportunity to apply his craft if Nixon had allowed the choice of the Chilean people to be respected, and had left their President alone, rather than launching a campaign to prevent his election, then, after the election, to "make the economy scream," through grotesque strikes which tied up the country, stacked up ships bringing in food in the harbor, arranged assassinations through the C.I.A.

It's all right at the fingertips of anyone who wants to launch his/her own adventure breaking through the silence we were handed from our own corporate media, rather than the truth. This information comes out now, decades later, because some people kept asking for those declassified records, and kept up the search, themselves.

The right-wing needs to learn they're going to have to kill everyone to keep the truth from getting out, in the end. It damned near happened in Latin America, didn't it? They surely shut down left-wing dissent, by God.



On edit:

Couldn't let this moment go by without adding a couple of references to his "work:"

Osvaldo Romo made himself known in working classes' neighborhoods before Pinochet's coup in 1973 as a leftist activist, member of the Partido Socialista Popular and sympathizant of the MIR <1>. Following the coup, he reappeared in these neighborhoods with a military uniform, arresting his friends and contacts. Left-wing circles still debate to know if he suddenly changed political orientation or if he always was a mole for the security services <1>.

Known as Guatón Romo ("Fatso Romo") or Comandante Raúl, he was one of DINA's most important torturers, operating among others centers in Villa Grimaldi <1>. On April 11, 1995, in an interview televised by Univisión, he commented in great detail, and evidently without remorse, on the techniques that had been used. These included the application of electricity to women's nipples and genitals, the use of dogs, and the insertion of rats into women's vaginas <1>.

—Would you do it again? Would you do it the same way?
—Sure, I'd do the same and more. I wouldn't leave anybody alive (...) That was one of DINA's mistakes. I was always arguing with my general: don't leave that person alive, don't let that person go free. There are consequences.
—As for throwing the corpses of the prisoners into the sea...
—I think it could have happened. (...) Throwing them into the crater of a volcano would be better... (...) Who'd go looking for them in a volcano? Nobody.
—On the day you die... what would your epitaph say? "Here lies the hangman, the torturer, the murderer..."
—Logical, logical. I accept that. But for me it was a positive thing. (...) I am at peace with my conscience and my beliefs.

– Extract from the interview, <2>

Life in Brazil and arrest
In 1977, Romo was sent to Brazil by his superiors, where he may have participated in death squads according to human rights NGO <1>. During Chile's transition to democracy, Romo, as one of the most important figures of the Pinochet regime, was pursued by prosecutors and localized in Sao Paulo, living with his wife and his five children in June 1992 <1>. Arrested by the Brazilian police, he was extradited to Chile in November 1992 <1>. He was sentenced to ten years in prison for the kidnapping of MIR member Manuel Cortez Joo and five years and a day for the kidnapping of Ofelio Lazo, who was "disappeared"?title=in July of 1974.

http://www.britain.tv/wikipedia.php?title=Osvaldo_Romo

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On the Death of a Torturer

Osvaldo Romo Mena, former DINA operative who came to symbolize the merciless cruelty of the military dictatorship, died July 4, 2007 of cardiac arrest in the Penitentiary Hospital of Santiago.

“What you cannot say about me is that I was ever a scoundrel, you can not say that. You can say that I tortured, okay, that much is true and it was a good thing. But you can not say I was a scoundrel. You can say, right, that I fulfilled a phase and carried it out very well. My conscience is clean. I think I would do it all again."
Osvaldo Romo (Romo Confesiones de un Torturador by Nancy Guzman)

“…Unfortunately this torturer is not one of a kind in our national history, as many would have us believe. He was not a monster, nor was he a loose cannon who disregarded superior officers to satisfy his repulsive desires. Romo, as hundreds of other agents of the State of Chile who carried out its policy of terror, was a cog in a structure created for the objective of terminating, through torture, murder and disappearance, a century of social movements that sought to change the inoperable social structure."
Nancy Guzman in her book Romo Confesiones de UN Torturador

Association of Relatives of the Disappeared
Santiago, July 7, 2007

Osvaldo Romo Mena, the torturer who never questioned his miserable condition, died in the Penitentiary, convicted for some of his crimes but carrying with him to the grave the only valuable thing he had to offer in his detestable life: knowledge of the whereabouts of disappeared people as well as the identities of others like him for whom torture gave perverse meaning to their lives.

Like any other psychopath, while in prison, he declared that he would not hesitate to torture again, but with greater cruelty next time, perfecting techniques for making his victims disappear That was Osvaldo Romo, who together with Miguel Krassnoff Marchenko and his agents, had the mission to kidnap and annihilate with the cruelty that corresponds a executioner.

More than 250 men and women were murdered and forcibly disappeared through the participation of Osvaldo Romo.

More:
http://www.memoriayjusticia.cl/english/en_networks-romo.html

illegitimate bastard step brother.
Have you read Isabel Allende's House of the Spirits?
Sometimes there's more truth in fiction.

she had to write to get it all back out in order to keep from going mad!

Can't imagine what life would be for someone who had to witness what happened to her father over time, once the Nixon regime focused on him, and started out to destroy him.

I heard her say once, in an interview, that after the father was killed, she and her mother went to their home to gather their belongings to clear out, and they had been locked out already, by Pinochet, and had to leave with the clothes on their backs.

How a young woman would adjust to such brutal memories is a great mystery.

That book must be pretty rough to take, too, as the film was surely painful, itself. It definitely stands in a class of its own.
No doubt the book is exceptional.

She uses magical realism, something common to South American authors, and she also makes good use of foreshadowing to get you to keep turning pages.
The book had more magical realism, torture than the movie, and more character development. But that's usually how it works in a movie because of time constraints.
Interesting point: It ends with the same line it begins with. "Barabas came to us by sea." At least that's how I remember it from 20 years ago.

Thanks for taking the time to remember your impressions.

Looking forward.

what side his bread is buttered on.

sorry

he knows that obama will be our next president, and he's not going to say or do anything to put him off.

Watch how the Corp. media portrays this. McCain will be "tough and firm" to "Socialist strongman" Chavez to suit their contrivance of McCain's "America takes no guff" attitude. "Overly eager, inexperienced" Obama will seek out Chavez's approval? I'm going to follow this closely. As I predicted Chavez will be very interested in working with the next POTUS especially if it's Obama as McCain will follow Bush's ideals.

"But Chavez also warned that George W. Bush "will be much more dangerous during the last months that he has left" in the White House..."

He's right on this one, also. It's my worst fear at the moment....


Chavez speaks his mind. No fear. He's one of the good guys for sure, yet I admit to not being politically savvy on foreign affairs. From what I've read, and from what I know, have formed a positive opinion of him. He's for the people....seems rare these days.

peace~

I am just amazed at how many spout out the word facism and nationalist never fully understanding the words and what they symbolize. Nationalism is what breeds fascism, once you take the power away from the people you can impose your will. Throughout history it has been repeated with every fascist dictator. Most people say conservatives are fascist, not realizing fascist or a form of socialism and nationalism the NAZI party was the German National Socialist Party. Once you nationalize you, you make your word the truth, there is no other form of opinion or protest. If you let one leader control all facets of business the people have no power.

a winger staggered in and tried to claim socialists are the same as Nazis. I hope one of the better writers will see your post and help you out!

Here's a quick answer I located in a jiffy to assist you. You REALLY need to put in some time reading, and thinking about things, you know:

Nazis were not socialists. They did not believe in

government control of the means of production or nationalization of any industries. The Nazis believed in private property ownership and private ownership of businesses.

Most people incorrectly assume because they called themselves "National Socialists" that it means they had something to do with 'Socialism'. They can call themselves anything they want. If they are not for public ownership of industry and property, they are not Socialists.

Generally, right wingers want to try to distance themselves from the Nazis because to people who understand economics and politics, it is obvious that Nazism is the result of one tilting too far to the ideologial right. Republicans often try to head that off by claiming the Nazis were "Socialists" and using the proof of their name. Dont be fooled by this.

Hitler himself said (as quoted by wikipedia):

"Nazism "has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism... Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not." He stated "I absolutely insist on protecting private property... we must encourage private initiative".

Again, if you believe in Private property ownership and private ownership of business and industry, and the Nazis absolutely believed in those things, then you are not what we think of Socialists today at all.

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=5668

Wingers have tried SO HARD for several years to rewrite history so leftists come out as the ones responsible for Nazis, but it's not going to work, thanks for trying, anyway.



Better watch out, they're coming for you.

I am a Libertarian, I believe in smaller government and all people should be granted all liberties.

Second, you used wikipedia as a source.

Third, you didn't read it well, read below straight from Wiki.

The party grew out of smaller political groups with a nationalist orientation that formed in the last years of World War I. In the early months of 1918, a party called the Freier Ausschuss für einen deutschen Arbeiterfrieden ("Free Committee for a German Workers' Peace") was created in Bremen, Germany. Anton Drexler, an avid German nationalist, formed a branch of this league on 7 March 1918, in Munich. Drexler was a local locksmith in Munich who had been a member of the militarist Fatherland Party during World War I, and was bitterly opposed to the armistice of November 1918 and to the revolutionary

Forth, Just because Hitler said he was not socialist he was, Bush claims to be a conservative for smaller government yet he passed homeland security and the patriot act.

Believe me many politicians have said one thing and done another, that is why I don't want to grant them more controll especially over our health care.

perhaps you'll make some sense when you learn how to write.

Sorry, but I can't understand a darned thing you're trying to say. And I study socialist movements for a living. Not a single thing you just wrote made a shred of sense to me.

And note to most: wikipedia is a crapshoot source for most things except dates.

grammer ass or is that grama ass?.

It is funny that, you have stated that I don't belong here. What next clear out my comments. Who is the fascist.

These are points 10 through 14 of the Nazi regime

The first duty of a citizen is to work.

All payments to unemployed people should end.

All profits made by profiteers during the war must be shared.

Nationalisation of public industries*.

Large companies must share their profits.

It seems to read that the companies were and should be controlled by the government.

Don't read a one sided history.

nt

The boogie man for Chavez is now a horse of a different color
( his grudge was against his #1 enemy bushco )

Hugo can fool some of the people all of the time
but can he fool ALL of the people when he tables a "RBC" extension ?

to me it means you don't really know much about Chavez or his democratic election, his observance of and compliance with the terms of the Venezuelan constitution (which spells out RBD), his continuing efforts on behalf of the Venezuelan people in the face of threats from the U.S. government and the CIA, and the synergistic effect his administration is having on the rest of Latin America. While bushco is obsessed with the Middle East, South and Central America have "gone leftist," reclaiming their independence from U.S. hegemony, and I say, great!

"Rule by Decree" means Obama can't take a "wait and see" approach as to who the next leader in that country will be does it ? Sure, Hugo will step down as required by law ( now that his recent by-laws failed to make it under the radar );)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3330748&mesg_id=3330748

oh wait, you may be one of those that think bushco will remain in the WH after his term is over also !! LOL

At least you can be happy to pay at the pump supporting Hugo's social programs which he still has trouble pushing through




http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-03-18-chavez-venezuela_N.htm?fark

don't be so stupid as to buy into the MSM smears of Chavez. Do some homework.

Chavez has no intention of "being in power after his term is finished" -- DUH, where did you get that DUMBASS idea? He was democratically elected, and if he is democratically RE-elected he will serve another term. If not, he won't.

but, whatever, live in your world of lies and distortion. It's a lot easier that way than actually trying to be intelligent and informed.

But if I was Chavez, I would not expect anything from Obama. Because of that slimey, corrupt, mafia, group of terrorists in Miami Dade. The Cuban exiles who should have been thrown in prison a long time ago. I'm sure Chavez knows that. I'm hoping we can find a way to win with a new electoral map. I'm sick of be held hostage by a right-wing terrorist group.

powerful as the Israeli lobby?

Look, I'm also hoping that Obama can redraw the map so that our politics will not be hostage by right wing interest groups; be them the Cuban mafia or the Israeli Lobby.

President Ahmadinejad... Robert Mugabe... and all other countries... the only thing I can say is...

"To jaw jaw is better than to war war" - Churchill

Why is a leader who won three popular elections in a row and is helping the poor people of his country, considered a threat to democracy?

On the other hand, George Bush and the US supported (and possibly orchestrated) a military coup to remove a duly elected leader, dissolve the supreme court and suspend the constitution....

And who is the 'threat to democracy' ??

I don't believe anything the Bush administration makes claims to. They lied us into a war and are responsible for 4100+ dead US. soldiers, and all they can say is; "the intelligence we got was wrong?"

How come we are trying so hard in Iraq for democracy but the Palestinians and Venezualans get our scorn? If people vote for the socialist government then that is their choice right? I AM glad they threw the unlimited term back at him though.

Thanks to all that contributed. If there were marks for thought and substance then this thread rates high. I hope that it is something like what we will see in the forthcoming political campaigns.

Many paths to government of, for and by the people as well as the forms that government may take.

If we keep our eye on the real prize that we seek in our own way then the government that represents us in accordance with our constitution will recognize and support other people and their governments as they seek the same prize by their plan.

Normalized relations with these two countries will go far in helping out the whole region. Take the fucking corps (and repukes) out of the equation!

There certainly are some concerns about Hugo Chavez's personality...a little out spoken perhaps...but I haven't seen him be responsible for anything close to what this dictator and murdering SOB has done that we have in our White House.

Go Chavez!! I, for one, certainly appreciate the overture. I also happen to believe that Obama is a bright enough man to be able to work constructively with anyone...and Chavez will be the least of his worries...after the stinking mess this last asswipe leaves him.

We must not ignore the past or it will repeat!

George Bush Sr. May Face Charges: Conspiring to Kidnap and Murder Political Activists
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2459135