CIA Behind Coup in Honduras, Said Chavez

CIA Behind Coup in Honduras, Said Chavez

Caracas, Jun 28 (PL) - Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez requested Sunday that US President Barack Obama pronounce against the military coup in Honduras, which he considered is carried out with the participation of the Central Intelligence Agency.

In statements to television channel Telesur, Chavez stated that he rejected the coup "right from its bone marrow" and asked the Honduran military troops not to face the people that went out to the streets to request the return of President Manuel Zelaya.

"The United States has a lot to do with this, Obama should be pronounced to reject the coup right from the marrow," the Venezuelan leader stated.

He specified that elements, such as the fact that the Honduran press media are braodcasting cartoons instead of information, corresponds with the format of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for the coup.

...

http://www.escambray.cu/Eng/Special/CoupHonduras/Cchavez090628152.htm

That doesn't even need mentioning.

The CIA pulls off this sh*t, the democratically elected leaders in neighboring countries respond with understandable paranoia and regrettable oppression, and then we turn around and smugly say, "See, we told you that guy was just a power-mad dictator!" It happens again and again and again. A self-fulfilling tactic that winds up demonizing leaders who initially sought an imperialist-free democracy. In the past 60 years, at least one democratically elected leader, Mohammed Mosaddeq, allowed the obviously CIA-sponsored insurgents to continue protesting (even though he was well aware of who was subsidizing them) because his belief in freedom of speech and democracy was unwavering. That proved to be a fatal mistake in his case.

Damn neocons. (Oh wait.) Well, I guess the CIA, like most things, is out of the control of our commander-in-chief. :shrug:

As I recall, a former president threatened to "splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the wind."

Come to think of it, you don't hear much from him these days.

sidekick Obama had with him was off message or he had his own, you decide.

There's a lot going on right now, imho. Remember the Bay of Pigs?

WOLF! WOLF! WOLF!

John Chuckman: Ahmadinejad Won Indeed and the Real Source of Interference in Iran's Election is Likely the US

is--he was supposed to, apparently, and stole it anyways, as if he couldn't afford to take chances. My rationale for saying it looks dodgy is that--it did! It was called too soon, the stats region-by-region aren't what anyone would expect, and now even some in Iran realize the numbers for some towns aren't possible--they exceed registered voters! I could genuinely buy that Ahmadinejad won on the basis of military support, hard-liner support, and rural support--it's not a bad coalition. But, why the utter denial of a full recount in favor of shooting people?

See--I think, if he really won, the numbers wouldn't scare him. Or Grand Ayatollah Khamenei. A ramdon recount? Please. How random? A recount--or a count for the first time?

My point--the U.S. neocons who would be most interested in a fight with Iran at least vocally supported "the devil they knew" in Ahmadinejad. My other point is--Moussavi isn't necessarily much better from the "dealing with the U.S." p.o.v. What exactly would we stand to gain?

I find it easier to think that because of what probably was real CIA involvment, Chavez is a little coup-coup-crazy. Also--I'm not the biggest Chavez fan.

Bottom-line--you need to have people shot at and call the Brits and the US out while people are getting beaten in the streets of your country (like Ahmadinejad?) To me, that means you lack legitimacy. And that goes double for Khomenei.

If there was U.S. involvement--it's like hypnotism, where they say you can not mesmerize one to do something they never would do. The U.S. couldn't drive hundreds of thousands of people into the street protesting, and to the roofs with "Allahu Akhbar" and "Ya Hossein, Mir Hossein". (we ain't that good.)How does the Great Satan make people ready to die?

(even though we know they've been the author of countless coups and assassinations before this), it is perhaps worth considering the possibility that, in this case, the bastard generals of Honduras pulled this off all by their lonesomes.

Also, since 'the US' (i.e. the Obama administration) has come out Quite Clearly against the coup (thus breaking decades of ugly precedent) http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3943244 , perhaps Hugo will modify his position somewhat.

Since there's tons of evidence of anything with CIA involvement.

precisely.

"There is no evidence, which is proof that the CIA did it!!!"

:crazy:

unless that's shorthand for some part of our government. It's hard to believe that this action went down without a green light from someone.

Please just go away Chavez.

:eyes:

Having problems at home??

Whether there's any evidence of it or not is another matter.

He could well be blowing smoke out his ass. I'm willing to entertain both possibilities.

Removing a center-right President and replacing him with another center-right President from the same party doesn't exactly strike me as a giant boon to anyone in the US. Especially considering said President was almost certainly going to be impeached and removed from office with the same result anyway.

What this appears to amount to is basically dick-waving on the part of some in the Honduran military, they took action to remove a guy who was going down anyway just to prove they could. A very stupid move, no question. But a stupid move is not evidence of some grand conspiracy.

took out one guy, arrested the envoys from Ven, Cuba and Bolivia, arrested his cabinet, took out the leftist next in line, for no reason? Just dick waving.

ETA: Actually, the leftist Ham is reportedly dead, not just arrested.

What a profound analysis.

This report is out of order. Chavez said this before the White House weighed in.

And, expect the news to be a little nuts like this for the duration.

Burden of proof is on you to show that.

unless they thought they had support from the north? I don't.

So it makes little sense to say that the Americans were behind it.

Whether the generals did this with or without the implicit instructions of their overseers is moot. Their predilections and training set the stage. The taking of the ambassadors might have been a mid-level fuckup or mebbe not, provocative in any case. I can see either case: either this is the opening salvo in a campaign to roll back the democratically elected left in Latin America or the generals are trying to polarize the situation by forcing the US to line up against the 'reds'. In either case, much opportunity for mischief.

If this coup succeeds it will encourage reactionaries throughout the region.

k&r