CIA caught on tape training Venezuelan Terrorists to Overthrow elected Pre

democrats.com


CIA Allegedly Caught on Videotape Training Venezuelan Terrorists to Overthrow Elected President Chavez

Venezuelan "Lawmakers allied with President Hugo Chavez showed a videotape Wednesday which they claimed was evidence that the CIA was working with Venezuelan dissidents to overthrow the government. The video, shown at a news conference at Congress, displayed three men speaking in Spanish about espionage, making contacts with an unspecified embassy, and avoiding detection... Nicolas Maduro said the video showed U.S. secret agents training dissident military officers and municipal police in espionage and 'terrorist' tactics. He said it was filmed in Venezuela in June... Maduro said that dissident soldiers trained by the CIA were responsible for the bombings of two diplomatic missions in Caracas in February and another Caracas building in April... The video was given to Chavez allies by a police officer who decided to abandon the alleged CIA training program, Maduro said. He said the tape would be turned over to the U.S. Congress." We demand prosecution of American sponsors of terrorism!



http://www.santafenewmexican.com/main.asp?SectionID=2&SubSectionID=8&ArticleID=34504


Wednesday, October 22, 2003

Ruling Party Lawmakers Say Video is Evidence CIA is Plotting to Overthrow Venezuela's Chavez


CARACAS, Venezuela - Lawmakers allied with President Hugo Chavez showed a videotape Wednesday which they claimed was evidence that the CIA was working with Venezuelan dissidents to overthrow the government.

The video, shown at a news conference at Congress, displayed three men speaking in Spanish about espionage, making contacts with an unspecified embassy, and avoiding detection. The identities of those on the tape were unknown.

Ruling party lawmaker Nicolas Maduro said the video showed U.S. secret agents training dissident military officers and municipal police in espionage and "terrorist" tactics. He said it was filmed in Venezuela in June.

In September, Chavez claimed that his government had a videotape showing a CIA officer training Venezuelan police and civilians in spying.

MORE...........

re-post from earlier ....

May 2002.......

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0218/cotts.php


The 'Times' Condones Censorship, Venezuelan Style
Quid Pro Coup

by Cynthia Cotts


Question for media tycoons: How do you land a puff piece on the front page of the New York Times business section on Sunday? Answer: Attempt to secretly stage a political coup, and then try to censor any critical news coverage of the coup.

That's how a cynic might see the Times' April 28 profile of Venezuelan billionaire Gustavo Cisneros. The story included lots of info about Cisneros's business holdings and political connections, but only a passing reference to the fact that he is suspected of having masterminded the failed coup against Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez. As Newsweek, The Miami Herald, and the St. Petersburg Times had already reported, Cisneros is accused not only of bankrolling the coup, but also of promoting it on his TV network Venevisión, and then censoring TV news on the day the coup fell apart.

The Times has a history of cheerleading for the oligarchs of Venezuela. As readers of this column will recall, on April 13, the pivotal day after Chávez was removed, the Times failed to denounce the coup d'état, instead praising dictator-for-a-day Pedro Carmona. The Times ran a pro-Carmona editorial and a fluffy profile dubbing Carmona a "mild-mannered businessman," even as he was dismantling his country's Congress and Supreme Court.

Welcome to the Times Lite. The Cisneros story, by reporter Simon Romero, appeared on the front page of Money & Business under the winking headline "Coup? Not His Style. But Power? Oh, Yes." As if to remind upscale readers that Cisneros is "one of us," the Times featured a photo of the tycoon in a tuxedo with his blond wife, describing them as "fixtures in an international social scene that combines finance, media, art collecting, and philanthropy." Another photo showed Cisneros next to AOL Time Warner chairman Steve Case, with whom he does business in Latin America.

The story surveyed Cisneros's business empire, which includes his Venezuelan brewery and baseball team as well as investments in satellite TV, Internet services, and Spanish-language TV networks in Venezuela and elsewhere. The apparent point was to promote foreign investment in Venezuela.


SKIPPED LARGE SECTIONS......

SKIP.........


The Times did not respond to a request for comment.

in Arizona Republic :


Hurray for Venezuela

May 01, 2002

Congratulations to the people of Venezuela for doing what the people of the U.S. could not do - prevent a coup by George W. Bush.

When President Bush tried a coup there to ensure oil from a friendly government, two days of street protests put the democratically-elected president back in power.

It helped that other South American countries refused to recognize the military coup leaders. Too bad other countries didn't refuse to recognize Bush when he illegally usurped the U.S. presidency.

Will this illegal administration destroy, invade or bomb every country in the world for a cup of oil? Will we stand up and say no?

Dianne Post
Phoenix

http://www.arizonarepublic.com/opinions/articles/0501wedlet013.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,706877,00.html

Comment

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

The good dictators

America cares whether the world's leaders support its interests, not whether they have been freely elected

Gary Younge
Monday April 29, 2002
The Guardian

After the US encouraged the secession of Panama from Colombia in 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt suffered a qualm of conscience. Having promised the new state American military protection to secure a good price for the construction and future ownership of the Panama Canal, Roosevelt asked his attorney general, Philander Knox, to articulate a principled defence for his actions. "Oh, Mr President, do not let so great an achievement suffer from any taint of legality."
Almost a century later, one wonders whether President Bush has the same qualms and what the response around his cabinet table would be if he did. Two weeks ago, the democratically elected leader of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, was ousted in a coup that lasted only 48 hours. Where a populist president once stood, the head of a private business lobby briefly became head of state.

No conclusive evidence has yet emerged to suggest that the US supported the botched overthrow. But it is clear that it knew it was going to happen and did nothing to stop it. Throughout the ordeal America, which has roamed the globe since September 11 declaring its determination to protect "democracy and civilisation" at the barrel of a gun, lost its tongue. When the coup crumbled, Chavez emerged not to warm support but a stern warning from Bush that he "hoped Chavez had learned his lesson".

The lesson is clear, if double-edged. America supports democracy when democracy supports America. But when there is no democracy, dictatorships will do just as well - and at times even better. The sticking point is not whether citizens of all nations have the right to choose their leaders, but whether leaders, freely elected or not, of any nation have the right to choose a course which runs against whatever the US perceives its interests to be at a given moment.

MORE..............

4/21 UKGuardian


Negroponte, Reich, Abrams fingered in failed Venezuela coup

http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,7369,688154,00.html
-----------------------------------------------------


Venezuela coup linked to Bush team

Specialists in the 'dirty wars' of the Eighties encouraged the plotters who tried to topple President Chavez

Observer Worldview

Ed Vulliamy in New York
Sunday April 21, 2002
The Observer

The failed coup in Venezuela was closely tied to senior officials in the US government, The Observer has established. They have long histories in the 'dirty wars' of the 1980s, and links to death squads working in Central America at that time.
Washington's involvement in the turbulent events that briefly removed left-wing leader Hugo Chavez from power last weekend resurrects fears about US ambitions in the hemisphere.

It also also deepens doubts about policy in the region being made by appointees to the Bush administration, all of whom owe their careers to serving in the dirty wars under President Reagan.

One of them, Elliot Abrams, who gave a nod to the attempted Venezuelan coup, has a conviction for misleading Congress over the infamous Iran-Contra affair.

The Bush administration has tried to distance itself from the coup. It immediately endorsed the new government under businessman Pedro Carmona. But the coup was sent dramatically into reverse after 48 hours.

MORE...........

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/april0203.html#041802144am

(from Joshua Mica Marshall "Talking points" )

"...I just now notice that tomorrow the Times reports that the State Department has now changed its story -- 'revised' is the term they use. Reich didn't contact Carmona on Friday. He asked Ambassador Shapiro to talk to Carmona. And Shapiro talked to Carmona on Friday. First, that's a pretty big change in the story. Second, the discrepancy in the day when contact is made still stands, even though the personnel is different.
Then there's another strange thing that pops out from the apparently hastily written and indifferently copyedited Post story. Read these four grafs nestled more than half way down into the article ...
At least three people who landed key jobs within the provisional government have acknowledged that they met with U.S. officials in the past six months. One of them was Vice Adm. Carlos Molina, who said that he had a meeting with a U.S. official outside the U.S. Embassy within the past six weeks.
But U.S. officials say that although they were aware of the growing dissent, they sought to distance the United States from opposition figures that might be plotting a coup. In November, the U.S. ambassador at the time, Donna Hrinak, took the unusual step of ordering the embassy's military attache to stop meeting with a group of dissident officers, according to a U.S. official.

That group, according to a Western diplomat here, included Molina, Air Force Col. Pedro Soto and several other officers who in February publicly demand Chavez's removal. The U.S. diplomat said Soto and Molina each received $100,000 from a Miami bank account for denouncing Chavez.
Soto and Molina could not be reached for comment today. Molina is under arrest and was the subject of a military hearing today. Soto is among three officers seeking asylum in the Bolivian Embassy.

Hold on a second. They each got $100,000 from a bank account in Miami? What's that about? This really gives new meaning to the phrase 'burying your lede.' The article just drops it there and provides no explanation or discussion. But this seems like something well worth discussing, doesn't it? Two members of the Venezuelan military who later participated in the coup each got $100,000 from a bank account in the United States "for denouncing Chavez."
That's a bit of money. Whose was it? And how does this American diplomat know about it?
Also, let's be frank: Miami isn't just any American city. One of America's big beefs with Chavez is that he's close to Fidel Castro. So I think you can assume that the Cuban exiles in South Florida don't much care for him. And again, let's be frank, Otto Reich, the Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America is himself a Cuban exile with close ties to the anti-Castro firebrands in South Florida. Not to put too fine a point on it, but whose money was that?

If a "U.S. Diplomat" -- a good catch-all phrase for someone who wants to remain both very anonymous and very credible -- knows that two of the key coup plotters got paid off for turning against Chavez, and that the money came from a US bank account, isn't this worth looking into? ..."

One Wild Weekend in Venezuela

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/02/04/20_wild.html

April 20, 2002
By Richard Prasad

On Friday, April 12, 2002, a Venezuelan businessman led a coup against the democratically elected leader of that country, Hugo Chavez. The question now is, did the US meet with the leaders of that coup, and encourage them to overthrow a democratically elected government? And if the US didn't encourage the coup, did it give tacit approval of the action by its denouncement of Chavez and his policies?

The man who took over Venezuela, amid violent protests that left twelve people dead, was a man by the name of Pedro Carmona Estanga, the head of the country's largest business organization, and an economist, according to an April 12th CNN.com article. Estanga would lead a military junta until new elections were called. Estanga had led an economic revolt since becoming head of Fredecameras, against Chavez' state run economic policies. One of the fist actions the interim president took was to reinstate several military leaders fired by Chavez. Estanga thought that would cement his reign for at least a little while. He was mistaken.

In the two days that they held power the military did some troubling and undemocratic things. They abolished Congress and the Supreme Court, The military leaders promised congressional elections by this December, and a Presidential election in a year, according to an April 13th Washington Post article. The history of military juntas in Latin America suggests that democratic elections would have probably never taken place.

The military coup was short lived, however, because by Sunday, April 14th, 2002 Hugo Chavez was back in power and sounding somewhat conciliatory. According to an April 15th Washington Post article, Chavez said he was ready to have round table discussions with opposition leaders, this is a far cry from the Chavez who called those opposition leaders "subversives who should move to Miami." He also reached out to the Catholic church saying that his government could be accepting of any differences he had with the church and could work together with the church. In the past, Chavez had called church leaders "devils in vestments"

What was the US reaction toward this three day rollercoaster? The Bush Administration's line was clear. A terse statement released by the state department on the day of coup, blamed the Chavez government for the coup. "Undemocratic actions committed or encouraged by the Chavez government provoked the crisis in Venezuela." The State Department statement actually went on to thank the Venezuelan military for showing restraint and not firing into the crowds of demonstrators. The US was clearly taking sides here and they were siding with the people who pulled off the coup, and not with the democratically elected leader of Venezuela.

The US went further, not even referring to the coup as a coup, but as a "change in government," according to an April 13th Washington Post article. How's that for a euphemism ladies and gentlemen? White House spokesman Ari Fleisher stated quite untruthfully, "Chavez lost his job because of a message sent by his people." Wrong, Ari. True the people were demonstrating against Chavez, as is allowed in democratic nations, but Chavez lost his job because he was removed by a military coup.

George W. Bush's personal disdain for Chavez was evidenced as early as last month, when he met with four of Venezuela's neighbors but refused to meet with Chavez himself. The administration said that last month's meetings with Andean leaders discussed trade, and therefore did not need to include Venezuela.

Not only were the members of the Bush administration cheering the coup from the sidelines, it is now clear that Bush Administration officials actually met with coup leaders. According to an April 16th New York Times article, several members of the Bush Administration met with the coalition who were plotting the coup over the last few months. There are conflicting accounts of what the US told opposition leaders at that meeting. One US official said, "We were very clear: There is a Constitutional process, we didn't even wink at anyone." But a Defense Department official says the message was not as clear. "We were not discouraging people." That clearly meant: Do what you want and the US will look the other way. And that is exactly what happened. It doesn't really matter if the Bush administration actively sought a coup or not, the administration's indifference to the coup spoke volumes about their intentions.

Why is there such disrespect for Hugo Chavez from the Bush Administration? Part of it is undoubtedly ideological, Chavez tried to mix Marxist-Lenninist economic ideas with populism, and this appealed to the four out of five Venezuelans living below the poverty line right now in Venezuela. According to an April 13th Washington Post article, Chavez sought to weaken the power of institutions in Venezuela, increase his own power and that of the military, by rewriting the Constitution, and tried to seize private property. This caused many of his early supporters to doubt his sincerity about trying to help the poor. The fact that Chavez picked fights with popular institutions like labor unions, the Catholic Church and the media didn't help his cause either. His alliance with leaders like Fidel Casto has perhaps hurt him most in Venezuela, a country yearning for freedom and democracy. Chavez' legacy is hardly a positive one, his tenure has been marked by corruption and class warfare. Chavez also criticized the Bush administration's war on terror as "fighting terror with terror" and further alienated the Bush Administration by meeting with Muammar Khadafi. Having said all that, Chavez was still democratically elected and should have been democratically removed.

The second reason for the Bush Administration's antagonistic relationship with Hugo Chavez is more clear. It is oil. Venezuela is the world's fourth leading exporter of oil, and is the second leading exporter of oil to the US. Chavez believes in sticking to OPEC restrictions in oil supply. His opposition believes in market forces controlling the price of oil. With Iraq shutting down oil production, and Iran threatening to do the same, the Bush administration clearly saw saying nothing while the coup was taking place as an economic advantage for the US. As increasing gas prices hurt the American economy, getting in good with Estenga, a free market economist, would definitely mean more oil and cheaper gas for the US. It didn't matter that Estenga was backed by the miitary. Tacit approval of Estenga's regime had a lot to do with the economics and politics of petroleum.

How did Latin America see the coup attempt? They did not like it. The Organization of American States Secretary General said in an April 16th article in CNN.com, as he met with Chavez. Venezuelans must find a way to express dissent Constitutionally." "Polarization must give way to reconciliation and understanding." The OAS universally condemned the coup, and the military's attempt to overthrow the democratically elected government. The vacillation of Bush policy in this instance, alternating from silence to seeming to side with the coup leaders has done nothing to enhance the Bush Administration's reputation as a force for democracy in Latin America.

Ironically, Bush hailed Friday, April 12th as Pan American day and hailed the Democratic Charter signed by the OAS in 1991. But in his first chance to use the charter as an example, George W. waffled.

There has been much talk about the so-called "Bush doctrine" in the war on terror and its so-called moral clarity. The US will not deal with terrorists or those countries who harbor terrorists. There is a corollary to the Bush doctrine, that very few people like to talk about. The neo-conservatives blithely refer to the corollary as regime change. The Bush administration currently controlled by neo cons like Paul Wolfowitz sees nothing wrong with undemocratic, militarily induced changing of regimes. They did it, quite rightly in Afghanistan, getting rid of some of the Taliban and Al-Queda, but currently the neo cons are pushing regime change in Iraq, Iran and North Korea. The so-called axis of evil. This is where the Bushites have gone too far.

The problem with regime change, is that the leaders of these regime changes, if they are favorable to the US, are soon seen as puppets of the US by the rest of the world, and that is why the US lacks credibility in the world. The US installed the Shah, and years later Islamic fundamentalism swept over Iran as a reaction to the Shah being perceived as a US puppet. The bottom line is, for the most part, the regime that takes over is hardly any better than the one it replaced.

It is the mindset of regime change that stopped the Bush administration from forcefully denouncing the regime change in Venezuela. As long as it benefits the US, in some way, it doesn't matter how the regime is changed. Or so the thinking goes. But where is the moral clarity in that policy? The morally clear position in this instance would have been to clearly and forcefully denounce the coup, and stand up for democracy.

Yet another failure for the morally clear Bush foreign policy.

Irish Filmmaker's eyewitness account of Coup & media's propaganda


Another impartial observer completely refutes the Bush version.

Once again, any truthful reporting we get in this country has to be brought in from overseas!

Slainte, Irish Times. Pints all around!



FILMMAKER'S EYEWITNESS ACCOUNT OF VENZ. COUP D'ÉTAT
=======================================
IRISH FILMMAKER'S EYEWITNESS ACCOUNT OF
VENEZUELAN COUP D'ÉTAT

Michael McCaughan speaks to Kim Bartley, who witnessed last
weekend's coup attempt in Venezuela
Reprinted from Irish Times 16 April 2002

(Thanks to Karl Sanchez for this article)
=======================================


Ms Kim Bartley and Mr Donnacha O'Brien have spent the past three
months filming a documentary on Venezuelan President Mr Hugo
Chavez for Power Productions, an independent film company based
in Galway.

"I arrived in the centre of town just as the shooting started,"
says Kim. "I filmed a while then took cover in a doorway.
Whoever was firing aimed directly at the crowd, which was
pro-Chavez. I filmed two dead bodies, both of them beside the
podium set up to rally Chavistas to defend the presidential
palace.

"A woman working in the vice-president's office identified the
bodies as a legal secretary and an archivist, both working
inside the building. A 10-year-old girl was then taken away,
fatally injured.

"More shots. We ran for cover like everyone else. We made it to
the palace through back streets as the firing continued and as
soon as we got in the gate another sniper started aiming at the
crowd. We were all thrown to the ground behind a wall and later
ran for cover into the building. Three of the snipers were
arrested . . . "Chavez was about to explain what was happening
in a live television broadcast but the state channel's signal
was cut just as he began to speak.

"The army generals arrived and went off for a meeting with
Chavez. The evening passed in a flash as we waited for news
inside the presidential palace. A tearful Environmental
Minister, Ms Analisa Osorio, emerged in the early hours of
Friday, announcing the end of an era. 'He's under arrest,' she
said. Chavez emerged, barely visible with all the bodyguards and
junta soldiers jostling both to protect and arrest him.

"The atmosphere turned ugly. Radio and television immediately
announced the resignation of Chavez and began broadcasting
upbeat messages: 'Venezuela is finally free' was the banner
across all private TV channels.

"The government went into hiding. Everyone fled for their lives.
The witch-hunt began. We decided not to go home, checking into a
hotel instead, for safety . . .

"The media kept repeating footage of the swearing-in ceremony of
the interim president which was followed by
images of empty streets, everything in perfect tranquillity. We
were about to book a ticket to Panama when a well-dressed
passer-by told us to get off the streets. 'The Chavistas are
coming' he said. It was Saturday afternoon.

"We took a taxi to the centre, where huge crowds had surrounded
the palace, demanding the return of Chavez. We managed to get
inside and found several Chavez deputies calling round the
country to find out what was going on. A dozen people who were
working for the interim government had been taken to a room in
the basement for their own safety.

"Reports came in from around the country, barracks by barracks,
like a Eurovision song contest jury, that the military was
rebelling against the coup. Then came the rumours that a
commando had been sent to kill Chavez at the army base where he
was being kept.

"The television continued to broadcast a steady diet of soap
operas, saying nothing about the huge mobilisation, which was
now making a deafening racket outside. Then came the news that
Chavez had been freed and was taking a helicopter to Miraflores.
The crowds went wild. The presidential guard made a tunnel from
the palace gates to a helicopter pad across the street. The
sound of choppers buzzing overhead.

"Then he was there, striding toward the palace, mobbed by
supporters. It was like a dream, it's still hard to believe it
really happened."


The Irish Times * Reprinted for Fair Use Only

Join our email list at http://emperors-clothes.com/f.htm.
Receive articles posted at Emperor's Clothes.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,7369,685718,00.html

US 'gave the nod' to Venezuelan coup

Julian Borger in Washington and Alex Bellos, South America correspondent
Wednesday April 17, 2002
The Guardian

The Bush administration was under intense scrutiny yesterday for its role in last weekend's abortive coup in Venezuela, after admitting that US officials had held a series of meetings in recent months with Venezuelan military officers and opposition activists.
The White House yesterday confirmed that a few weeks before the coup attempt, administration officials met Pedro Carmona, the business leader who took over the interim government after President Hugo Chavez was arrested on Friday. But the White House press secretary, Ari Fleischer, denied that the US had offered any support for a putsch.

The US defence department also confirmed that the Venezuelan army's chief of staff, General Lucas Romero Rincon, visited the Pentagon in December and met the assistant secretary of defence for western hemispheric affairs, Roger Pardo-Maurer.

The Pentagon said: "We made it very, very clear that the United States' intent was to support democracy and human rights, and that we would in no way support any coups or unconstitutional activity."

However, it was not made clear why the talks broached the subject of a coup, four months before the event. Mr Fleischer said the subject had been brought up at meetings with Venezuelan opposition leaders because US diplomats in Caracas had "for the past several months" been picking up coup rumours. "In the conversations they had they explicitly told opposition leaders the United States would not support a coup," he added.

However, a defence department official quoted by the New York Times yesterday said: "We were not discouraging people."

MORE.................

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,685907,00.html

Don't believe everything you read in the papers about Venezuela

Guardian UK
Wednesday April 17, 2002
by Greg Palast

Contrary to the reports of a spoonfed western press, Hugo Chavez was not unpopular and did not resign, says Greg Palast

Here's what we read this week:

***
"Best Democracy Money Can Buy" Hits NY Times Best Seller List and hear Palast Thursday April 18th at 9 AM on Democracy Now! with Amy Goodman
***

On Friday, Hugo Chavez, the unpopular, dictatorial potentate of Venezuela, resigned. When confronted over his ordering the shooting of antigovernment protestors, he turned over the presidency to progressive, democratic forces, namely, the military and the chief of Venezuela's business council.

Two things about the story caught my eye: First, every one of these factoids is dead wrong. And second, newspapers throughout the ruling hemisphere, from the New York Times to the Independent to (wince) the Guardian, used almost identical words - "dictatorial", "unpopular", "resignation" - in their reports.

Let's begin with the faux "resignation" that allowed the Bush and Blair governments to fall over their own feet rushing towards recognition of the coup leaders. I had seen no statement of this alleged resignation, nor heard it, nor received any reliable witness report of it. I was fascinated. In January, I had broadcast on US radio that Chavez would face a coup by the end of April. But resign? That was not the Chavez style.

I demanded answers from the Venezuelan embassy in London, and from there, at 2am on Saturday morning, I reached Miguel Madriz Bustamante, a cabinet member who had spoken with Chavez by phone after the president's kidnapping by armed rebels. Chavez, he said, went along with his "arrest" to avoid bloodshed, but added: "I am still president."

MORE.............

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,685189,00.html

After the coup, Venezuelan president ponders mystery
of American plane

Reuters in Caracas
Tuesday April 16, 2002
The Guardian

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said yesterday he would investigate the mysterious presence of a US plane at the island prison where he was briefly detained during last week's abortive military coup.
The military high command took Mr Chavez and demanded his resignation last Friday, blaming him for the deaths of at least 11 unarmed protesters killed during a massive anti-government demonstration on Thursday.

But power slipped from the inexperienced grasp of a newly appointed civilian government over the weekend as Chavez supporters demanded his return and army units came out in favour of the colourful president.

Mr Chavez said he was fascinated by the presence of a plane with US markings on the Venezuelan Caribbean island of Orchila where he was held after Friday's coup. At the time the military were trying to persuade him to resign and fly into foreign exile.

"I saw the plane. It bore the markings of a private plane from the United States, not an official plane. This is being investigated. What was it doing there?" Mr Chavez asked at a news conference.
But Mr Chavez, who was democratically elected in 1998, said he was prepared to give Washington the benefit of the doubt over its ambiguous statements appearing to welcome his shortlived downfall.

"I think they were victims of misinformation," he said, adding that he guaranteed no interruption of Venezuelan oil supplies to the US.

MORE........

S.F. Examiner had predicted Venezuela coup attempt 3 months before
coup attempt backed by USA's CIA. Col Hallinan lays it out right along the line in December 2001.

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

http://www.examiner.com/opinion/default.jsp?story=OPhallinan1228w

Publication date: 12/28/2001

U.S. cooking up a coup in Venezeula?
By Conn Hallinan
Special To The Examiner

THERE is the smell of a coup in the air these days. It was like this in Iran just before the 1953 U.S.-backed coup overthrew the Mossedeah government and installed the Shah. It has the feel of 1963 in South Vietnam, before the military takeover switched on the light at the end of the long and terrible Southeast Asian tunnel. It is hauntingly similar to early September 1973, before the coup in Chile ushered in 20 years of blood and darkness.

Early last month, the National Security Agency, the Pentagon and the U.S. State Department held a two-day meeting on U.S. policy toward Venezuela. Similar such meetings took place in 1953, 1963, and 1973, as well as before coups in Guatemala, Brazil and Argentina. It should send a deep chill down the backs of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and the populist coalition that took power in 1998.
The catalyst for the Nov. 5-7 interagency get-together was a comment by Chavez in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist assault on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. While Chavez sharply condemned the attack, he questioned the value of bombing Afghanistan, calling it "fighting terrorism with terrorism." In response, the Bush administration temporarily withdrew its ambassador and convened the meeting.

The outcome was a requirement that Venezuela "unequivocally" condemn terrorism, including repudiating anything and anyone the Bush administration defines as "terrorist." Since this includes both Cuba (with which Venezuela has extensive trade relations) and rebel groups in neighboring Colombia (to whom Chavez is sympathetic), the demand was the equivalent of throwing down the gauntlet.
The spark for the statement might have been Sept. 11, but the dark clouds gathering over Venezuela have much more to do with enduring matters -- like oil, land and power.

The Chavez government is presently trying to change the 60-year-old agreement with foreign oil companies that charges them as little as 1 percent in royalties and hands out huge tax breaks. There is a lot at stake here. Venezuela has 77 billion barrels of proven reserves and is the United States' third-biggest source of oil. It is also a major cash cow for the likes of Phillips Petroleum and ExxonMobil. If the new law goes through, U.S. and French oil companies will have to pony up a bigger slice of their take.

MORE...............

Look at Arnold Schwarzenegger, governor-elect of California, instead!

Or look at his wife, isn't she pretty?

How about Roger Clemens' family? Adorable, aren't they?

Don't look at that country way down south of us. Whatever happens there doesn't affect you, so just ignore it. <Claps hands over the ears of the American public, begins singing loudly, "La, la, la, la, You Can't Hear Anything!">

:kick: