News Venezuelans protest Chavez's referendum

[fourier jr]

Nonsense. Making common cause with foreign opposition to tyrants or wannabe tyrants is not an 'overthrow' of the government any more than criticizing the Chavez government here is an attempt to 'overthrow' it.
It is my take on the various media reports (and my hope that) the United States broadly and publicly: supports democratic opposition to the mullahs in Iran; publicly supports the monks in opposition to the generals in Burma; has supported democratic opposition to the totalitarian government in China; urges Pakistan to reverse marshal law. And the '02 Venezuela OIG report clearly shows that the US supports, i.e. has talked with, makes common cause with democratic groups in V., as supported by acts of congress, that oppose moves towards totalitarian government in V. This is all to be applauded as none of it is anything close an to an attempt to 'overthrow' or stage a US 'coup' in Venezuela. The 'overthrow' comment should be retracted.

Chavez was democratically elected twice & is hardly a tyrant. That lie should be retracted. You're saying Chavez's government compares with a military dictatorship like the one in Burma? That lie should be retracted. When democratically-elected Chavez was overthrown in 2002, it was the military that supported it, and the US (the CIA-front "National Endowment for Democracy") supporting the Venezuelan military. That short-lived government had more in common with the current situation in Burma than having a democratically-elected president. I'm sure if MI6 or Canada's CSIS did any of the things that the CIA has done on the list above to the US the US would be furious. If the truth is so painful to you maybe you're not cut out to be a scientist, which makes me wonder why you post here. I also read that the US supports the opposition in Burma. That probably just means that Halliburton & Blackwater don't have interests there, Burma has no oil, and Israel's government hasn't accused Burma of anti-semitism.

 

[fourier jr]

I don't know, this whole Chavez-president-for-life idea seems like a Catch-22. If there's any intervention, then the rest of the world is "interfering with democracy", but sit back and watch and it becomes "Why was nothing done while a country went down the drain?".

That's a lie, there's no other way to put it. Chavez's government proposed lifting term limits, and nothing more.

 

[mheslep]

Chavez was democratically elected twice ...

Yes, and that's why its improper and illegal for that government to be forcibly overthrown. But before putting him on a democratic pedestal recall the Nazis came to power democratically in '32, and then promptly chucked the democracy.

& is hardly a tyrant. That lie should be retracted.

I suggest he's a wannabe, on the order of Fidel, an admittedly subjective claim based on this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez"
"A career military officer, Chávez founded the left-wing Fifth Republic Movement after orchestrating a failed 1992 coup d'état against former President
Carlos Andrés Pérez."
http://www.cjr.org/issues/2005/4/dinges.asp"
...media outlets have accused the Chávez administration of intimidating their journalists using specially-dispatched gangs.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6215815.stm"
on TV station shut down
Argentinian Business daily http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Chávez#_note-140"
"a concentration of power without precedent in Venezuela"

You're saying Chavez's government compares with a military dictatorship like the one in Burma? That lie should be retracted.

No, of course not. Strawman.

When democratically-elected Chavez was overthrown in 2002, it was the military that supported it, and the US (the CIA-front "National Endowment for Democracy") supporting the Venezuelan military.

So you say. I say BS.

Edit:
Attached is your boy in action in '92.

 

[mheslep]

CIA Operation "Pliers" Uncovered in Venezuela
November 28th 2007, by Eva Golinger
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/2914

Golinger? Will there be an equally informed follow up from Britney Spears? Hopefully the two, working together, can solve the grassy knoll mystery.

 

[mjsd]

Yes, and that's why its improper and illegal for that government to be forcibly overthrown. But before putting him on a democratic pedestal recall the Nazis came to power democratically in '32, and then promptly chucked the democracy.

democracy is an ideal. just like many other systems, they never tend to work in the way they were initially intended. That's why as common ppl we should not always just take everything at face-value or straight away believe in anything our govt propagandists throw at us.

But more often than not, we tend to think that our own democracy is great while others' version of democracy is crap just because they don't elect ppl who agree with us or share our own vision.

 

[Burnsys]

Hi guys, i am from argentina, and let me tell you something, venezuela in the past 8 years had more elections that any other latin american country.

Chavez was voted for presidency by more than 50% of the people twice, and he was confirmed in charge again by more than 50% of the people twice, he has proposed a constitutional reform and called the people to vote, he won one and lost another.
So for what i see, he is far away of being a dictator, his methods are those of democracy, at least they have more democracy that in my country.


Mheslep:
You said:
"on TV station shut down
Argentinian Business daily 'Ambito Financiero':
"a concentration of power without precedent in Venezuela"

Just for you to know, "ambito Financiero" is an very Right Wing newspaper usualy related with people who participated in the dictatorship of the 70's who killed 30.000 people here in argentina!

 

[mjsd]

Chavez was voted for presidency by more than 50% of the people twice, and he was confirmed in charge again by more than 50% of the people twice, he has proposed a constitutional reform and called the people to vote, he won one and lost another.
So for what i see, he is far away of being a dictator, his methods are those of democracy, at least they have more democracy that in my country.

The sad reality, it seems, is that as long as Venezuela has oil, those would not be viewed (by the US and others) as fair elections... if you ask me what is fair and what is not?... well... there is nothing fair about me getting a good education while many in other parts of the world do not.

 

[mheslep]

Argentinian Business daily 'Ambito Financiero':
"a concentration of power without precedent in Venezuela"

Just for you to know, "ambito Financiero" is an very Right Wing newspaper ...

Gracias. No sabia eso

 

[Burnsys]

Well, the usa always looked with skepticism the elections in venezuela when Chavez was president, but in the illegal armed coup carried by the opposition, their were the first country to accept the illegitimate undemocratic and violent government that lasted for 2 days!

 

[mheslep]

Well, the usa always looked with skepticism the elections in venezuela when Chavez was president, but in the illegal armed coup carried by the opposition, their were the first country to accept the illegitimate undemocratic and violent government that lasted for 2 days!

Source please?

 

[Yonoz]

Yes it is. That's the only government that has attempted to overthrow Chavez.

I believe that is called a strawman argument.

The next worst thing I know of is Spain's King telling Chavez to shut up.

Well then here's a list of a few more things for you to "know of", from just one source, Human Rights Watch:
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/11/29/venezu17447.htm"
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/10/16/venezu17104.htm"
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/05/22/venezu15986.htm"
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/09/07/global11694.htm"

Human Rights Watch, Oxfam International and Amnesty International call on a small number of “spoiler” countries to stop holding the UN World Summit hostage over crucial measures on human rights, security, genocide and poverty reduction. These governments have thrown negotiations on the final outcome text into crisis just days away from the biggest meeting of world leaders in history, September 14-16 in New York.

How is that more "Orwellian" than Kevin Rudd appearing on ABC or Gordon Brown appearing on BBC, or Stephen Harper appearing on CBC? Did you know Canada's throne speech (kind of like a state of the union address) was broadcast all over the country in September, at primetime, on state television? Explain to me how that is any less "Orwellian" than Chavez having a Sunday morning spot on Venezuela state tv.

Chavez gets all that regular media coverage, as well as a 6 hour program every Sunday on state television and radio. Dedicated 6 hours on all live state media outlets vs. regular news coverage, spot the difference.

 

[Burnsys]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7n3SamkYq8U&feature=related
Look at: 6:33s

 

[Burnsys]

Chavez gets all that regular media coverage, as well as a 6 hour program every Sunday on state television and radio. Dedicated 6 hours on all live state media outlets vs. regular news coverage, spot the difference.

Yonoz, do you understand spanish? if you do i can give you a couple of videos where yo can see free speech in venezuela, Beliveme Private media is constanly speaking against chavez, and they are not very polite either, i have ear thinks like:
"The president is crazy", "Suporters of chavez are like Hitler's Support troops", etc, etc. And they were never censored.
That tv station that closed, was only the end of a contract for using the public frecuency, nothing more.
The only time that a tv channel was ilegaly closed, was the day of the coup against chavez, and the chanel was state TV, and was closed by force by the oposition.

 

[Burnsys]

Declassified Documents that proves Us involvement in the illegal coup:

http://www.venezuelafoia.info/english.html

 

[mheslep]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7n3SamkYq8U&feature=related
Look at: 6:33s

Yep viewed the clip. As I thought, you provide no source of formal US recognition. That was simply a report of what was occurring down there. The US Ambassador met w/ Carbona for an hour, probably a dumb move, but it might have been just to ask him not to shoot up the place. You should retract your earlier post w/out further support.

 

[mheslep]

Declassified Documents that proves Us involvement in the illegal coup:

http://www.venezuelafoia.info/english.html

No this does not prove any 'US involvement' in the coup. This is a cheap conspiracy site. There is "oig.state.gov/documents/organization/13682.pdf"[/URL] that the US told coup plotters it did not support an unconstitutional change:
[QUOTE]And, far from working to foment his overthrow, the United States alerted President Chávez to coup plots and warned him of an assassination threat that was deemed to be credible.[/QUOTE]

 

[Burnsys]

Yep viewed the clip. As I thought, you provide no source of formal US recognition. That was simply a report of what was occurring down there. The US Ambassador met w/ Carbona for an hour, probably a dumb move, but it might have been just to ask him not to shoot up the place. You should retract your earlier post w/out further support.

It was not a simple report of what was occurring, they referred to Carmona as a transitional government, and they clearly taken side with it, by blaming it to chavez, even when they had prior knowledge of the incoming coup.

 

[Burnsys]

No this does not prove any 'US involvement' in the coup. This is a cheap conspiracy site.

Cheap conspiracy sites?
All they have are links to declassified us documents.

http://venezuelafoia.info/seib11-02preCouprumors.pdf
CIA Document
"There are increased signs that Venezuelan business leader and military officers are becoming dissatisfied [...] The military may move to overthrow him"

Could you provide a reason of why is this a "Cheap conspiracy site" ?

There is "oig.state.gov/documents/organization/13682.pdf"[/URL] that the US told coup plotters it did not support an unconstitutional change:[/quote]
Are you kidding right?

From your evidence:

[QUOTE]Throughout the course of the weekend of April 12-14, Embassy Caracas and
the Department worked to support democracy and constitutionality in Venezuela.
Based [B]on credible reports[/B] that (a) pro-Chávez supporters had [B]fired on a huge crowd
of peaceful Chávez opponents,[/B] killing some and wounding others; (b) the Chávez
[B]government had attempted to keep the media from reporting [/B]on these developments;
and, bowing to the pressures, (c) [B]Chávez had fired his vice president and
cabinet and then resigned,[/B] the Department criticized the Chávez government for
using violent means to suppress peaceful demonstrators and for interfering with the
press. [B]Both the Department and the embassy worked behind the scenes to persuade
the interim government[/B] to hold early elections and to legitimize its provisional
rule by obtaining the sanction of the National Assembly and the Supreme
Court.[/QUOTE]

"pro-Chávez supporters had [B]fired on a huge crowd of peaceful Chavez opponents"
There are videos that show that pro-Chavez supporters where not firing against a crow, but against snippers..

"Chavez had fired his vice president and cabinet and then resigned"
He was kidnapped by opposition forces.

So the embassy was WORKING with the interim government? isn't that recognition

And what you show as evidence is not a proof of anything it's just the testimony of one of the accused parts

 

[Burnsys]

More from your "Evidence":

The strategy was to engage not only high-level civilian Venezuelan officials, but also the military, police, judicial system, media, non-governmental organizations, academia, and the business community, in efforts to strengthen existing democratic institutions and to build new ones.

Among numerous documented examples of warnings against coups and the like, we cite a luncheon with key Venezuelan businessmen in mid-March during which Ambassador Shapiro, responding to questions on “hypothetical situations,” stated flatly that the United States would not support a coup d’etat or any other extra-constitutional change of government. An officer of USOAS at about the same time told prominent anti-Chávez businessmen that any such change would be “unacceptable” to the United States and the international community. These declarations continued right up to the moment when Chávez’s opponents moved to
overthrow him

Yeah right, all they needed was the blink of an eye! They had dinners with the perpetrators of the coup, they "Engaged, the military, mass media, court etc," And after the coup, the US government just sayd: "Chavez provoked this crisis, now the transitional civilian government will call on early elections."

 

[mheslep]

It was not a simple report of what was occurring, they referred to Carmona as a transitional government,

Coup or no that is what it was, a transition, a truism. Sounds like simple reporting to me.

and they clearly taken side with it, by blaming it to chavez, .

Nonsense. The last thing the US did is 'clearly' side with Camona. What the US said is clear on the tape:
- US says Chavez government shot up some people on and before 4/12. They clearly did (Camona's people also responsible there). I would hope every government denounces that.
- US says there's a transition government in place.

Thats it. Look, if one doesn't like the stated US policies, fine, say so. One might argue that the US could have publicly attacked Camona as a different policy. But don't ascribe to it a bunch your own opinions, as anything else other than the two points above are your own imagination, or at least certainly not sourced here.

A formal recognition of a foreign government involves formal acceptance of the ambassador of that government. Acknowledgement and awareness of opposition in V., Russia, China, Burma, or anywhere else is not recognition.

even when they had prior knowledge of the incoming coup

Even? I hope US intelligence is adept enough to stay abreast of opposition movements in many countries, as no doubt are the intelligence services of many governments.

 

[mheslep]

Cheap conspiracy sites?
All they have are links to declassified us documents.
Could you provide a reason of why is this a "Cheap conspiracy site" ?

Its ridiculous to say that 'all they have are links ..'
They do have:
-A banner with a rifle site scrolling across the screen.
-The Golinger reported 'transcript' of Fleischer on the front page is grossly in conflict with the audio of the Fleischer video posted above (6:33)
-A gross, mostly fabricated, personal opinion editorial on the cover of the CIA folder.
-Its rife with smears by association ala 'linked to clandestine CIA actions', 'ex-Trotskyist gone awry'
-Unsupported opinions pretending to be backed by non sequitors.
and so on.

http://venezuelafoia.info/seib11-02preCouprumors.pdf
CIA Document
"There are increased signs that Venezuelan business leader and military officers are becoming dissatisfied [...] The military may move to overthrow him"

So someone was paying attention to the news in the embassy. Glad to hear it. The US opposed any non constitutional moves, told the military the same, and warned Chavez of plots though any bonehead could have read the tabloids and seen it coming. Maybe the 10000's of people protesting the Chavez govt. in the streets were a clue (great pictures in attachments to the IOG report, very end). I've yet to seen any credible evidence at all that says otherwise.

From your evidence:

"pro-Chávez supporters had fired on a huge crowd of peaceful Chavez opponents"
There are videos that show that pro-Chavez supporters where not firing against a crow, but against snippers..

Sure. And >100 civilians wounded while they were shooting at the snipers.

"Chavez had fired his vice president and cabinet and then resigned"
He was kidnapped by opposition forces.

Yes, but internationally the US wasn't the only one that thought he had resigned. See the letter from Giviria, president of the OAS in the annex of the state department report that he also thought Chavez had resigned. Unless you think he was in on the thing too.

So the embassy was WORKING with the interim government?

Nice subtle rewording of what was actually said to ascribe your opinion. No, as the quote says they tried to persuade the interim govt. to return to the rule of law. Hopefully, the US Embassy applied all the influence it could to prevent more violence.

isn't that recognition

No, of course not.

And what you show as evidence is not a proof of anything it's just the testimony of one of the accused parts

You're right in that by and of itself it is not proof. It is however a summary by the Inspector Generals office of the collected testimony of 80 people and a review of 2000 documents. I'm not aware that the IG is noted for bogus evidence. There's a dozen hard attachments at the end in support of the testimony. It is an official US govt. document, available directly from a govt. website, submitted to congress and falsification of such is punishable by law. None of this is true of "venezuelafoia.info"

 

[Yonoz]

Yonoz, do you understand spanish? if you do i can give you a couple of videos where yo can see free speech in venezuela, Beliveme Private media is constanly speaking against chavez, and they are not very polite either, i have ear thinks like:
"The president is crazy", "Suporters of chavez are like Hitler's Support troops", etc, etc. And they were never censored.

IYO, should they have been censored? Does any of this justify Chavez's abuse of state media, or consolidation of power?
If my PM used state media like Chavez does, I'd call him crazy (and a bunch of other words).
I don't remember claiming there was no free speech in Venezuela.

That tv station that closed, was only the end of a contract for using the public frecuency, nothing more.

Why didn't they extend the contract? Have any other stations' contracts ended?

 

[Anttech]

Chavez is a bit of harmless fun in a not so harmless world :D

HELLO PF...

 

[dst]

Source please?

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,688071,00.html

 

[mheslep]

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,688071,00.html

First, I was looking for a source to back the claim that the US was the 'first country to [diplomatically] accept the illegitimate .. govt' post above; this article says nothing about that.

Then this guardian article piece is based on anonymous sources, does the usual guilt by association and labeling

Reich is a right-wing Cuban-American... was shown by congressional investigations to report directly to Reagan's National Security Aide, Colonel Oliver North, in the White House. North was convicted and shamed for his role in Iran-Contra ...

Come on, Col. North dug up again? Blah, blah. Blah. Ambassadors were invited to his office blah, blah. Where are the quotes from these ambassadors?

You won't find this 'US backed the coup' stuff reported by any responsible media outlet. NY Times, Post, UK Times, nobody.

 

[Burnsys]

IYO, should they have been censored?

Of course not!

Does any of this justify Chavez's abuse of state media, or consolidation of power?

How do you abuse of state media. Doesn't rupert murdoch "Abuse" of his own media corporations? i don't see the problem with that, that is what state media is for.

If my PM used state media like Chavez does, I'd call him crazy (and a bunch of other words).

That's ok, you can switch the channel! State media is not the only media.

Why didn't they extend the contract? Have any other stations' contracts ended?

And why would i have to extend a contract if it just expires. There is no obligation, That is why contracts have a lifetime.

 

[Burnsys]

First, I was looking for a source to back the claim that the US was the 'first country to [diplomatically] accept the illegitimate .. govt' post above; this article says nothing about that.

Then this guardian article piece is based on anonymous sources, does the usual guilt by association and labeling Come on, Col. North dug up again? Blah, blah. Blah. Ambassadors were invited to his office blah, blah. Where are the quotes from these ambassadors?

You won't find this 'US backed the coup' stuff reported by any responsible media outlet. NY Times, Post, UK Times, nobody.

That's ok, you decide in who to trust. But NY Times not reporting it, doesn't mean it didn't happened.
And the cia documents say they were having dinners, and engaging all the active members of the oposition, Acording to you, they was just telling them: "Play Fair, be democratic". Acording to me, they where ploting the coup. The true is we will never know, Not in vain the cia has a division called: "Clandestine Operations Group".

 

[mjsd]

And the cia documents say they were having dinners, and engaging all the active members of the oposition, Acording to you, they was just telling them: "Play Fair, be democratic". Acording to me, they where ploting the coup. The true is we will never know, Not in vain the cia has a division called: "Clandestine Operations Group".

we shall never know. In addition, it is probably not clear whether toppling Chavez would guarantee a better time for the Venezuelans either. At the moment they have a relatively stable society, sure there are corruptions, there are idiots running around taking stuffs from ppl and intimidating ppl, but whether such relative stability would remain after say Chavez is suddenly toppled or assassinated or simply disappear without a peaceful power transition, it is anyone's guess.

Democracy cannot happen overnight (if you think Venezuela has no real democracy), a coup or an uprising usually lead to chaos, falling economy and suffering for the common people whilst the factions fight for the vacant positions in govt.

we watch what's happening in Venezuela with interest only because it has economic ties with the world oil market, hence, directly affect the economy of other countries. Venezuela is a world power when it comes to oil, and it is not surprising that the US is a bit wary, and perhaps actively pushing for a change in the attitude of the Venezuelan administration.

 

[mheslep]

That's ok, you decide in who to trust.

I wouldn't call it trust. We all must look at info. sources and weigh them.

But NY Times not reporting it, doesn't mean it didn't happened.

Yep, can't prove a negative. NY Times also didn't report the Apollo landing was faked, didn't report the guy on the grassy knoll did it.

And the cia documents say they were having dinners, and engaging all the active members of the opposition. According to you, they was just telling them: "Play Fair, be democratic".

Its not 'according to' me. I cite the public US state department OIG report, and the public statements of the OAS president. Weigh them as you like.

Oh, found some pics of the coup plotters in action! April 11 2002, 100,000 of them:

 

[mheslep]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/12/05/venezuela.chavez/index.html" from El Jefe:

In contrast to the conciliatory tone he took in announcing the victory of the "No" forces early Monday, he heaped scorn on the opposition's "Pyrrhic" victory Wednesday, saying that "they're now filling it with sh--."

"It's a piece of sh-- victory, and ours -- they can call it a defeat, but -- it was courageous, full of valor, full of dignity," he said at the Miraflores presidential palace with his top military commanders.