Random imageNew forum topicsSponsorUser loginActive forum topicsRecent blog postsRecent comments
Currency Rate
|
U.S on ChavezSubmitted by fyl on 20 March, 2008 - 16:16.
No matter what you think of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, it is pretty clear he is on the U.S. government "shitlist". An article in Venezuelan Analysis asserts that the U.S. information war against Chavez has been recently stepped up.
It offers a cronology to support its position. For example, -2 February 2006: “Presidente Chávez continues to use his control to repress the opposition, reduce freedom of the press and restrict democracy….it’s a threat.” -John Negroponte, ex-Director of National Intelligence I picked this quote in particular as it seems Negroponte has a less than "democratic" record in the region. Rather than try to detail that myself, I think Cele Castillo, an Vietnam vet, ex-DEA agent and clearly someone that is very pro-U.S. seems to do a great job. He offers a whole detailed web page about Negroponte on his site. With the U.S. government's ability to pretty much watch each of us walk down the street, it just seems that if the U.S. government really wanted to make some changes it could get beyond this type of rhetoric. As you are taking off your shoes in order to pass muster to get on a U.S.-based airplane, think about how many tons of cocaine managed to make it into the U.S. Something sure doesn't make sense. Or, maybe it does and Cele Castillo explains it on other pages on his site. ( categories: )
|
NavigationWho's onlineThere are currently 2 users and 16 guests online.
Online users
Who's new
PollIn Nicaragua, my income will come from Job in Nicaragua 5% Run business in Nicaragua 33% Pension/investments/savings 33% External work (e.g., on-line) 21% No clue 7% Total votes: 42 A ThoughtThe test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much, it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little |
And here is my point
I started this pointless exchange by asking what the point of fyi's original comment was. Since then the answer has drifted far afield. First look at this link:
http://www.vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200503250937
You will see a site that, on the surface, discredits Golinger and Bigwood. Pretty good stuff if you don't like what they say. And, of course, if you look just a bit deeper you will see that Aleksander Boyd and others of his ilk are, in turn, discredited: he as a US agent, or at the least a right wing sympatizer, and they as Venezuelan agents or just crooks. Looks like what we used to call in my rural hometown a circle jerk.
Who is right?
Who knows? One of my points is that you can always find some good stuff (sometimes written by good/smart/well meaning people that is not indisputably credible (or maybe not even close) but which if it happens to coincide with what you believe or want to hear is what you listen to and repeat.
So, I usually resort to logic to sort it out. I do not think anyone who knows anything about LA (which is pretty much everyone on this site) would dispute the fact that the USA has often interfered down here, and that most of the time that has been a bad thing and sometime disastrous. And I doubt that we don't know it's still happening with regard to Chavez.....ranging from open and legitimate diplomatic bitching and moaning to back room stuff which is legal to other stuff which may not be legal or at best counterproductive.
I also would wager that most on here feel the USA should butt out and limit their involvement to non-coercive aid. some for moral reasons and some because the other kind of interference is counter productive in the long run.
If my assumptions in the preceding two paragraphs are anywhere near correct, then I again ask what is the point of going on about the fact that the US has Chavez on their shitlist. FYI sounds like a fairly smart guy and is doing interesting stuff up there in the boonies....so I guess selfishly I wish he would tell us more about building his road or stuff like that. In a broader sense, I guess it is my way of saying that this pretty constant bitching and moaning about stuff like this detracts from the stated purpose of the site.
ATZ
Discredited by good stuff?
"You will see a site that, on the surface, discredits Golinger and Bigwood. Pretty good stuff if you don't like what they say"
I don't particularly like what they have to say but still don't see anything on the referenced website as being "pretty good stuff". I am not sure what makes professional memberships and tax records (or the lack thereof), "good stuff", exactly. They might be interesting in some unrelated way, but they are irrelevant to the thesis of the books (I hope Pythagoras paid his taxes or else his theory might be called into question). "Good stuff", good as being something noteworthy against the authors, is demonstrating that the FOIA-released documents reproduced in their books and more or less used as full support of their theses, either do not exist or were doctored. Either one of these things is possible (but I haven't seen claims like that). It may or may not be that the book cannot easily be refuted; this is, as a political matter, arguably the best explanation for why the focus is not on the thesis, and is instead on unrelated details regarding the author's personal and/or business ventures.
As I said, only if you want to believe it...
is it good stuff. I agree that one transgression (especially in an unrelated area) does not mean the facts are wrong. The point is not about the facts on either side, but about looking a bit deeper than a "fact" you really want to believe. A lot of people wanted to believe they could afford that house on a sub prime loan.
But if you go deeper on both sides you see a lot of things that make you think at least some of the facts get lost in the rush to make a point. I don't need to labor over it, as I think the main premise is correct and...well I said it in my last note.
ATZ
Eva Golinger's book
There is an interesting though less than perfect book by Eva Golinger (so popular it is printed in pirated editions in some parts of South America - which is remarkable for a book by an academic): "The Chavez Code: Cracking US Intervention in Venezuela", a translation of, "El Código Chávez: Descifrando la Intervención de los Estados Unidos en Venezuela" (Olive Branch Press, c2006). The book is based on FOIA research by journalist Jeremy Bigwood. The whole thesis of the book is to examine what the U.S. has done (and often denied doing) in Venezuela, not according to a particular political theory or via anonymous sources, but based solely on U.S. government documents released under a barrage of Freedom of Information Act requests. Golinger doesn't quite succeed on the "solely" part, but the book is otherwise quite interesting and worth reading. Golinger is, in theory, only concerned with U.S. actions against Chavez - irrespective of what Chavez represents or actually "is". The beauty of the book then, as she sees it, is that the evidence cannot be questioned by those intending to defend U.S. intervention, given that the evidence comes directly from those U.S. agencies engaged in the matters in question (the second half of the book is made up of reproductions of these FOIA-released documents). A revised version or second book was said to be due out early 2008; she released an obviously related book, late in 2007: "Bush Versus Chávez: Washington's War on Venezuela", published by Monthly Review Press. I cannot comment on these later items since I have not read them.
You win
After all six people who say basically the same thing HAVE to be right.
And, of course, two dead men must mean they are so right they had to be eliminated. And the other with a nerve disease is most likely being poisoned to eliminate him too.
Got to be something to all of that. Thanks for pointing that out. Your analysis is so insightful, I think I will just leave this thread to you.
ATZ
Nerve disorder
Poor Bloke, wouldn't have happened if he was scottish. What has Chavez really got to do with Nicaragua? Probably the same more or less, compared to the States? I'm guessing Not much to the average Nica.
A lot
You can write this different depending on your political position but the reality is that Chavez is currently selling Nicaragua oil at 50% down and 2%/year interest. That means that Nicaragua "could" invest the difference today.
All the players, Negroponte in particular, are inter-related in the Latin America scene. Now, the average Nica may not know about the oil deal (lots certainly do) and less will know about Negroponte's involvement in the Contras but that's exactly the problem. That lack of knowledge makes "divide and conquer" easier.
What's different today (compared to 20 years ago) is that the majority of the Latin American countries have figured out what happened--something that Perkins describes very well in his Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.
While the U.S. press seems to marginalize Chavez, most of Latin America sees him as an important player. If you look at what Latin America has today (serious natural resources, serious manufacturing capabilities, trade outside the western hemisphere, ...) it really no longer needs U.S. products and its need to sell products to the U.S. continues to diminish. (For example, our Stihl chain saw was made in Brazil.) Some countries (Panama is a good example) seem to nod at a U.S. suggestion and then go on their way, Brazil and Argentina do their own thing, ... Chavez, on the other hand, is the vocal one.
While some like to say "George Bush lost Latin America", it doesn't seem that simple. Latin America just grew up and anything short of a few wars here were not going to prevent that. So, today, Venezuela is a country that can supply oil and a country that is currently a food importer. That makes them an important trading partner in the region.
What is the point of your post
ATZ
Alternative sources
We expected more rhetoric against Ortega but it hasn't happened. My opinion is that the U.S. sees picking on Chavez is a more efficient way to discredit Ortega, Morales, Correa, ...
My point is that each of us should look for credible information sources that either can substantiate their position or don't have their own agenda. This is, of course, not an easy task.
I remember how my mother used to send me press clippings from what seemed to be "wacko sources". One of her favorites was The Thunderbolt, the American Nazi paper. On some issues (where they would have a vested interest) their position was pretty wacko. But, on others, they tended to report things which was not in the mainstream press that turned out to be true.
On the other end of the political spectrum, I could say the same for People's Daily World. In Nicaragua, I like to read both La Prensa and El Nuevo Diario. If they agree on something it is likely the truth. If they don't, it is research time.
Unfortunately, this simple 2-paper approach doesn't work in the U.S. in most cases. Why? Because many things are not really politically aligned as much as they are "big business" aligned. So, bottom line, it takes brave Americans such as Cele Castillo, John Stockwell, Gary Webb, Mike Layton, Daniel Hopsicker, and Chip Tatum to name a few to be willing to tell it like it is.
Never could tell it from what you first wrote
You are correct, we should look for credible information. Also in the fact that it is difficult to judge what is and what is not credible.....even in the unbiased press. I missed that in your first post....I guess it was hidden in the slant you put on what you said (no one is immune!!!).
The people you list at the end of your note are no more credible than any other source. All have a point of view (which is good) so what they say needs to be balanced by other things. The problem often (but not always) is that people gravitate towards reading people who express a position which coincides with their particular views. Understandable, but can lead to problems. Usually the truth is somewhere in between. I would not give you much for what either Negroponte or Chavez say for precisely that reason.
ATZ
Personal Press Experience
I just want to point out that I have some first-hand experience to back this up. Of particular interest was when the Seattle Times decided to cover our Seattle-based magazine publishing business. The magazine is Linux Journal--it is about software that competes with products from another local business named Microsoft.
The author told us the day the article would be published. We rushed out and bought some copies of the paper. It an impressively-placed article appearing above the fold on the front of the business section with a big photo.
Later in the day, we bought some more copies of the paper. In that later edition of the paper, the article with a tiny photo appeared at the bottom of the page. The above the fold location now contained what was basically a lame, un-timely, un-newsworthy Microsoft glorified press release. But, of course, Microsoft was an advertiser.
Yet another conspiracy on another front
Man, they pop up all around you. a bit of critical examination might reveal something in that. As I said in my comment to another post of yours, more than 5 employees does not always make for a bad company. But I guess I am wrong there too and you will soon prove it through another personal story.
ATZ
Hamlet Act 1, scene 5, 159–167.....
" Hamlet: Swear by my sword Never to speak of this that you have heard.
Ghost: [Beneath] Swear by his sword.
Hamlet: Well said, old mole, canst work i' th' earth so fast? A worthy pioner! Once more remove, good friends.
Horatio: O day and night, but this is wondrous strange!
Hamlet: And therefore as a stranger give it welcome. There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. "
-the Bard of Avon... -W.Shakespeare ? -F.Bacon ?
-Doug, emphasis added by me
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate
Their agendas?
The people I listed, to me, seem pretty agenda-free. They were:
Chip Tatum has "disappeared" after being open. Gary Webb comitted suicide with two gunshots to the head, Mike Layton almost got fired for writing what he saw as an editorial in the paper he worked for after a vacation trip to El Salvador, John Stockwell ended up with a degenerative nerve disorder.
Now, if one ex-CIA agent had a story, that would be one thing. But when all of these people seem to see the same thing, it is hard to see what their agenda could be. This is a serious question--I would love to have an explanation other than an agency and possibly a whole government out of control.
Hypocrites
Them who live in glass houses should be wary of throwing stones. Restricting the press? in the states if you want good news you had better understand spanish its the only source left. Pushing the oposition around it seems the oposition in the US is hiding under stones. Our government especialy this guy needs to look in the mirror exactly on these issues. Listen to democrate and republican alike beside the wording they same they want the same thing, it just sounds different.