The most obvious folly to be watched out for here is the mushroom-like proliferation of blogs by folks without journalistic credentials and ethics and absolutely zero knowledge of or information about what is really happening in Latin America who are continuing to beat their chests about what the US can do to "maintain" its influence in the region by trying to smear the most democratic AND influential leader in the hemisphere, Hugo Chavez.

Sadly, this is one of those blogs.

Clavos,

BRAVO! Well Said.

I see that your first guest walks in the path of Martha Wolfe Raymonds foot steps. I do not think though they are in her class, but sould be interesting none the less.

Looking forward to this.

Franco

Moonraven, nice to see you come in and make an absolute fool of yourself by describing Clavos as having "zero knowledge of or information about what is really happening in Latin America." But I doubt that the fact that he's intimately familiar with the region would actually make any difference to you. You'd find some other way to denigrate him solely because he hasn't been fooled by Chavez the way that you have chosen to be.

BTW, good piece, Clavos. I was going to write something on the election in Venezuela - I found some fantastic quotes from zombielike government stooges praising Chavez - but you did so well the topic is pretty much put to rest.

Dave

well presented but I do wish the author had spent some effort creating links to sources as por ejemplo:

*More ominously, he has proposed to eliminate term limits, setting himself up for a Haitian style "president for life" regime*

make it easy for us slobs

I fear that with Chavez we will get to watch the saying - 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions' proven true once again

moonraven,

I have spent most of my life growing up in, living in, and working in Latin America. I'm all too painfully aware of the widespread poverty in the region, and also of the great disparity between the tiny ruling classes in each country and the poor. It is for that reason, I advocate that the US help LatAm countries in their development, rather than simply send aid, as we have in the past.

As for my knowledge of what is going on in the region: I have friends in almost every country with whom I correspond on a regular basis; I speak Spanish (it's actually my first language), and I regularly read the major LatAm newspapers.

Please tell me where I "smeared" Chávez in this article. Virtually everything in quotes is something he said, either in his speech Sunday night, or recently.

And finally, I'm also interested in knowing how you can justify judging my ethics based on what you read in this this article?

¡Gracias, Dave! Much appreciated, coming from you.

troll, gracias as well, and point taken; I should have provided some links. Yours, BTW, is an excellent one, thanks.

Y Franco: Muy agradecido. ¿Sigues en Chile?

#1 -- moonraven

moonraven sez...

The most obvious folly to be watched out for here is the mushroom-like proliferation of blogs by folks without journalistic credentials

This assertion is faults. Since when did having journalistic credentials over a blogger, or even the man in the street, make one an intelligent seer and speaker of truth?

moonraven sez...

absolutely zero knowledge of or information about what is really happening in Latin America.

This assertion is faults. Not only dose the publisher of this article, Clavos, happen to know more about Latin American and more what he is talking about then you do, he has spend half of his live living in Latin America. Then there is me. I know Latin America, I live in Chile and we are watching Hugo with both eyes wide open my friend.

moonraven sez...

what the US can do to "maintain" its influence in the region by trying to smear the most democratic AND influential leader in the hemisphere, Hugo Chavez.

This assertion is faults. The US does not smear Hugo in efforts to maintain its influences in Latin America. It is in fact exactly the other way around. Hugo needs to try and smear the US in his attempt to influence Latin America away from the US. His means will be to buy his way into attempts at more influence. Sounds a little capitalist to me. But hell, what do I know, I don't have journalistic credentials

#4 -- troll

as por ejemplo

I didn't know you spoke español. Bravo!

(Franco - living in the US southwest I can smell the cafe and despite a proven crappy language learning ability I'm working on it...again)

moonraven,

Jumping into a pool of blogcritics with teeth from first hand knowledge and experience on this topic and having your ass ripped apart, is I'm sure, not a pleasant experience.

I believe everyone has something important to say and contribute to any discussion/debate. Therefor I would encourage you to rejoin this blog and voice your views and opinions, but obviously doing so from a more sound and logical stand point in presenting them. Just a thought.

Franco,
I think Moonraven may have graduated from the Jimmy Carter school of politics.

#11 -- Jerry

Hi Jerry,

It's probably worse then that, but until he offers up something other then block paragraph spam , we'll never know.

But now that you mention Jimmy Carter, I wonder what "two cents" has he been offering up on this lately.

let's see....

Clavos says - *Venezuela is a majority Catholic country, as are most Latin American nations, and Catholic traditions are deeply rooted throughout the region, which could explain Chávez' bizarre conflation of Christ with a political philosophy which, in most of the rest of the world, is atheistic, or at least, agnostic.*

there is nothing new about the 'Marxist' Chavez's appeal to religion - in fact 'leftist' movements throughout South America have been based on a coalition of atheists and Christian humanists...there were many observant Catholics in the Sandinista movement

for more on this google up 'liberation theology'

I liked your article Clavos because I have been watching Hugo with interest because I enjoy watching the way he tells Bush off...I have zero knowledge of Latin America but have always why we can't have better relations with our neighbors..how the hell do we expect to influence the Islam region when we can't even have good relations with our neighbors..I don't know if Socialism works or not for Venezuela but the extreme difference between rich and poor isn't right either..Not talking to Castro or Hugo is in my opinion just as stupid as not talking to Iran or NK..

Clavos,

Latin America for the most part is a poor region, and as such is fertile ground for the siren song of the socialist "Bolivarian Revolution." If we want to maintain our influence in the region, we need to help the Latin American countries to develop their potential in a meaningful way.

That is the heart of it all right there in those two sentences.

As I, a gringo born and rased on S. California, sit her living and working in Chile writing this, I am racking my brain for meaningful ideas for helping Latin America develop their potential, I am ashamed to say that they do not come easily. The world over all is complex and growing smaller everyday, which also forces more complexity into it.

Clavos, can you help me rack my brain.

Franco

Franco,

You present a real challenge with that question.

I don't have any specifics in mind; if I did, I would be trying to run for President, or at the very least trying to aim for Dr. Rice's job.

What I as a US citizen would like to see is the government structuring our aid to the region along the lines of the old cliche that says, "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach him to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime," rather than continue with the same old methods of giving money and foodstuffs, which only "feed for a day" if they even actually get to the people they're intended to help.

We've certainly been very good, with the Army's School Of The Americas, at teaching them how to make war on each other; why can't we set up similar programs to teach them to how stabilize and grow their economies, improve their agriculture and infrastructure, etc?

Mexico, for example has made much progress with its economy in recent years; not because of direct assistance from the US, but because they have had a number of US trained economists in key government positions (including the presidency) for a number of years. Those economists have gradually moved Mexico away from its traditional protectionist mode into a more open ambience which encourages foreign investment.

As a result, their economy is today one of the stronger ones in Latin America (though it certainly has a long way to go; but the point is, they're making progress).

This is the kind of direction our regional assistance programs should be taking, IMO.

Clavos,

Nice job with the article. I might have written it from a slightly different slant, but you know the region far better than I could ever pretend to.

From what little I can see, the guy may have wobbled on the side of populism for a while, but it appears that he is a totalitarian Jew-hating bastard who worships a Jew - always an interesting combination.

#17 -- Clavos

You brought some very good points up.

If we want to maintain our influence in the region.........maybe we have to learn the art of romance and dancing again.

You know the scenario in a dating relationship of two people when one becomes a bit too possessive of the other, caused by either their own insecurities, or their impatience, or to the cleaver political aloofness of the other in this game of love. The latter is the point I want to carry forward.

What would happen if the US foreign policy was to shift away from appearing to try to police and or dominate states and adapted the opposite approach of the skillful, yet real romantic art, of political aloofness with states we want to influence most. Let those states watch us dancing with our other friends and see how beneficial and rewarding those relationships are. Some of those states outside the party will want to get in, some sooner then others, but the powerful attraction that emanates from a women playing it a bit aloof has been the downfall of a many a good men. Why wouldn't this work for states as well.

Nobody is holding sanctions over someone's head, if there not dancing with us were not trading with them anyway. If some of our other dance partners trade with them that is their business. Nobody is using military force. If their not dancing with us we won't protect them, they are some other state dance partners responsibly. They don't have to come to our dance and if they don't want to. That is the way it should be.

If we really have the greatest dance hall going, which I still believe we do, as do so many all over the world even if it is unpopular to admit it, inside they know our dance hall offers the greatest freedoms and opportunities the world has ever known.

Getting our attractiveness back again is not impossible. Getting states re-attracted to us isn't either. When they want into the dance they know they have to dress for it. Then when we were dancing again we could help develop their potential in a meaningful way. Meaningful is ways you already have racked your brain to come up with and they are good ones.

Don't ya think we could use a couple of cool black cats in the Whitehorse. Clavos for President!

1. My ass is perfectly intact--not any of you wannabe bloggers has presented a single fact in regard to Venezuela. Not one. Nor any links to support your OPINIONS. Regarding asses, you might consider practicing the art of finding one's own.

2. The US has no right whatsoever to influence the politics of Latin America. The Monroe Doctrine was just another gringo bully-on-the-corner jingoist assertion--directed specifically at Great Britain. Latin America is not the US's back patio, and the image itself is highly offensive to those of us who live there.

3. If Clavos had journalist credentials and ethics, he would know that just making something up is not journalism. Admittedly, operations such as Fox News have so debased the concept of journalism that now everyone in the street thinks he/she should be editing the New York Times. That is a symptom of the abrupt plummeting of reportage standards and the substition of propaganda for information. We have a saying in Spanish: "Zapatero, a sus zapatos". In this context it would mean "Boat salesman, sell boats."

4. Chavez has made it perfectly clear that he couldn't care less about whether the US wants to engage him in dialog or not. He has other fish to fry: the realization of Bolivar's dream of integration of South America.

As I type, if it were a clear day instead of an overcast one, I would be able to see Iran on the other side of the gulf. There's a US navy base on this little island I am visiting. If the US government persists in its refusal to engage the up-and-coming countries in a dialog, and bombs Tehran, the navy base here will be the number one short-range target.

Guess I had better start packing my bags....

I don't know whose pipedream this quote came from:

"Mexico, for example has made much progress with its economy in recent years; not because of direct assistance from the US, but because they have had a number of US trained economists in key government positions (including the presidency) for a number of years. Those economists have gradually moved Mexico away from its traditional protectionist mode into a more open ambience which encourages foreign investment."

Mexico is on the brink of another civil war--in large part due to the complete indifference of the PAN government during the past 6 years to promote the economy for anyone except their relatives and cronies.

Poverty statistics are always highly suspect in Mexico--and the Fox government sat on last year's figures until after the controversial July election--the most optimistic of the government groups places poverty at 47% in 2005--a full 10 points above that of Venezuela.

Yes, neo-liberalism has devastated the economy of Mexico--which is why 500,000 folks are forced to leave their country every year to cross the border to the US and work for jobs that--according to ex-president Fox "even blacks won't do".

Foreign investment in Mexico means sweatshops where folks work 12 hours a day for less than 5 dollars (a day--not an hour) and the goods and PROFITS are exported to the country of origin of the company. It also means a banking industry with all but one bank (Banorte) being owned by foreign capital and usuury rates upwards of 50% for credit card holders.

In 1810 Mexico revolted against the Spanish and the War of Independence began.

In 1910 Mexico revolted against Porfirio Diaz after 30 plus years of dictatorship and the Mexico Revolution began.

We are very close to 2010. Given the polarization created by the PAN government, maybe it will come early.

Zapata vive, la lucha sigue.

Welcome back, Martita.

You didn't add anything new or substantive to your previous unfounded fulminations, so I'll not waste time responding to this new set (which is actually not new at all; simply a rehash of your crap from a couple of months ago), except to point out that, neither in the article nor in my comments have I advocated "engaging Chavez in dialogue"; my focus was and is on the nations which are recoiling from Chávez' brand of neo-communism.

Anyway, I see you finally made it over to the Middle East, did you remember to take your burkha?

moonraver - does it not concern you that Chavez talks like he intends to push for alterations in the V constitution to avoid having to step down - ?

good people throughout history have been overcome by hubris and seduced by power...it looks to me like Chavez is going down this path

btw - you seem to miss the point of blogging which in large part is to enable 'shoe salesmen' to express their views

#19 -- moonraven

moonraven sez...

The US has no right whatsoever to influence the politics of Latin America.

Moonraven did not finish this sentence which says, "But Chavez has every right to influence the politics of other Latin American states.

Here is another classic and embarrassingly obvious "New Left" concept blatantly being asserted more and more.

Now for anyone thinking I am putting words in moonravens mouth, bullshit, just ask moony if he/she agrees.

Franco,

Moonraving is our old friend Marthe. See the passage in her #20 about being in the Middle East.

Plus, the whole style (?) of the writing is the same as it was a couple of months ago, and she's rehashing the same tired old points we already refuted back then.

La vieja ha vuelto.

#21 -- Clavos

Anyway, I see you finally made it over to the Middle East, did you remember to take your burkha?

LOL

CLAVOS: Please don't forget the comments policy precludes ad hominem attacks so, much as you may disagree with Moonraven's views, let's leave out the snide insults like calling her Moonraving, lest I find myself compelled to start editing this thread. Also, as a BC writer, you could consider setting a better example to our visitors...

Quite right, Mr. Editor.

My lapse is probably due to my lack of "journalist credentials and ethics."

If so Clavos, what's the excuse for editors Bambinek and Nalle?

Don't let it get to you, though we may disagree at times ourselves, I give you full credit for being reasonable and willing to discuss sticky points.

One would hope all that still counts for something among readers, it does to me.

Clavos,

I have to say that you're one of blogcrites most ethical and cleanest discussion/debaters out there. You are also one of the true champions against ad hominem attacks on others. In ever blog I have ever been involved in with you, you are always to one calling down others for ad hominem attacks regardless if they are directed at you or at others. All of BC management should be thankful for it..

Christopher Rose is politically correct on his statement of BC's ad hominem attack policy, and about his authority to start editing this thread. However, he must have been away from or asleep at the switch for a few weeks when moonraven (AKA) marthe raymond (assuming another name is also a BC violation) posted more then 30 posts riddled with some of the nastiest ad hominem attacks I had ever seen at BC or other blogs as well. I never saw anything quite like it. I clearly remember it and Dave surly would too. Where was Christopher Rose then.

I have to say that though all that ugly besiegement, you remained a gentleman, you held on to your ethics and did not let her drag you down into the mud. A feat that Christopher Rose would have had to admit was almost super human considering at voracity of the attacks. You held up BC policy as good or better then anyone I have ever seen. You earned the Purple Heart and the Silver Star in that battle. However, it is obvious from Christopher's post, one clearly doesn't get any credit for those metals in another battle to even commit the tiny of sins..

I look at it this way. After experiencing that besiegement of ad hominem attacks first hand, which we all did, no one could blame even Mother Teresa for shipping in an appropriate name change on such an attacker. I certainly forgive you.

I guess you are really getting called out more for being a BC writer with example standards to uphold then anything else. I hope that is truly the case even though Chris did use the word "also" which I found disturbing

Well Clavos, when you're at the top making the big bucks, it has to stop somewhere.

sorry 'bout that Clavos -

CR: Please don't forget the comments policy precludes ad hominem attacks

I thought the policy was against personal attacks, not ad hominems as such. I mean, there's no problem if I say "Eurocentrists like Christopher are often mistaken for socialists," but if I say "Eurocentrists like Christopher are usually fatuous nannynoses," that might be unacceptable.

D'oh: If so Clavos, what's the excuse for editors Bambinek and Nalle?

I can't speak for JB, but much of my editorial experience has been working for partisan political house organs, so a certain amount of excessive rhetoric was tolerated or even encouraged. I think it makes life more fun.

Dave

D'oh, Franco and troll,

Thank you, gentlemen.

Mister Comments Editor,

Dave Nalley has raised an interesting question here:

"I thought the policy was against personal attacks, not ad hominems as such."

What say you?

You're just saying that because you're ugly.

Suss,

I know you are, but what am I?

Clavos & Franco:

Ireland was an impoverished nation of small farms and big slums until it realized it's small size and young population meant it was poised to cash in on the new economy. They got their financial house in order (painful, in a poor country), shook off traditional views, invested whatever they could in education, and offered incentives for foriegn investment (also painful in a poor country)
They then (largely) skipped industrialization and became a leader in high tech services. In one generation they've become one of the wealthiest countries (in terms of per capita income) in the world (14th wealthiest, I believe)
It seems like Costa Rica should be poised to do the same. I don't see any reason all of Central America and the larger Carribean countries couldn't do just as well with that strategy, though it may take a while a longer.

For the larger countries, like Mexico, competing with an emerging China seems to be a kick in the ass with no easy answer.
Ican't claim to be an expert, but that's how it looks to me.

As far as America trying to maintain it's influence, I'm with moonraven on that, though for different reasons.

There's a great documentary called 'Our Brand is Crisis' that details mistakes made by several American politicos that actually helped Evo Morales expand his base of support and eventually take over by riot induced elections
These mistakes include

1) American free market development experts forced American raised President Quiroga into unpopular decisions concerning a deal for using a port with a neighboring country (I've forgotten which one) that the neighbor had actually taken from Bolivia in a war 100+ yrs ago,
2) An American political consulting firm brought Quiroga from behind to win election, but did it by smearing a rival who was a moderate populist (at least compared to Evo)
3) An American ambassador who evoked the War on Terror, compared Morales to bin Ladin, and threaten the Bolivian people with sanctions if they elected Morales. As a result, Morales found new support in the cities and among the middle class

As I said, the end result of these moves was a President to unpopular to sustain his own government and the only opposition left standing, Morales, istigated unrest and moved in and took control

Personally, I wouldn't be surprised to find out we had a hand in the failed coup against Chavez. Since he kept power, it seems to have made him even bolder and given him an even freer hand to buy rifles, arm his thugs, stifle critism, and rewrite the constitution as he sees fit.

In short, we (in the US) are now so bad at meddling in other peoples affairs that the more we do the more likely we'll get the result that hurts ourselves the most AND hurts the country where we meddle the most.
We should just stop thinking of other countries as ours to manipulate before we manage to make it any worse.

This doesn't mean I support American isolationism, but the arraogant, our way or else approach is even worse.

An excellent example, ss.

This is just the kind of thing I would like to see the US helping our neighbor nations to accomplish.

As I pointed out in #16, instead of (or perhaps in addition to) simply giving them money, or even foodstuffs, we should be helping them to improve their own economies along the lines of the Irish example you cite.

For one thing, too often the money (and even the food) is stolen by corrupt officials, and doesn't reach those it's supposed to help. For another, even when distributed properly, the money and food are soon gone, the problems of the people aren't resolved, and they've learned nothing to help them work their way out of the morass.

Then the question would be - do you still feed them while you are thinking up this new plan?

Just curious.

Newsflash: Ad hominem attacks ARE by definition personal attacks--ad hominem means, literally, DIRECTED AT THE PERSON:

"A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest. In some cases, this fallacy involves substituting an attack on a person's circumstances (such as the person's religion, political affiliation, ethnic background, etc.)."

Ad hominem attacks are the only response I have ever received from any of the posters on this forum--I have been attacked for both my SUPPOSED political affiliation as well as for my Native American background.

The twisted logic of those attacks boils down to this: that I cannot possibly be right because I am a commie pinko with whom you all have ideological differences.

However, I deal in information--carefully checked out IN THE FIELD--and have zero tolerance for ideological discussions, since I subscribe to no ideology.

As for Clavos' ethics--he's now saying that he's a used boat salesman in Carl Hiasson Country--but a few months back he was supposedly living in Mexico and therefore said he had credentials to challenge me, a longtime Mexico resident. By his own admission he did not have the money for a plane ticket to Caracas, so I find it astonishing that in this short period of time he packed up, moved to Florida and established a thriving business in used boats (although I suppose if those boats are the high speed launches used by the drug cartels maybe it would be possible). I don't believe it for a minute. And an ad hominem logical fallacy application would be the following: Clavos lied about his place of residence and his occupation, so he couldn't possibly be telling the truth about anything else.

He also has spent most of his energy "outing" me in the sense of posting personal information that is available from a Google search. (If that is not an ad hominem approach, I'll eat it.)

He has NEVER refuted--with facts--a single statement or piece of information I have posted on this site. NOR have any of the rest of you.

The group of posters that crops up on this site whenever there is a piece involving Venezuela appear to have no experience of the country, nor of its president, but the very word SOCIALISM sets them off like a car bomb in downtown Bagdad.

Do you do the same thing when there is a piece about one of the SCANDINAVIAN SOCIALIST countries--NORWAY, for example, which is a major petroleum producer and has had a revenue distribution scheme in place for many years that is considerably more radical than that of Venezuela?

Norway is the second richest country per capita in the world--right after Luxembourg and right above Switzerland.

Try calling a few of those Norwegians raving commie pinkos and see how they react to you.

calling you 'moonraver' is not an attack on your politics or ethnicity...it's a statement about how you come across in your comments

I've tried a couple of time to tap your impressions of Venezuela and Chavez's behavior...you've responded with generalized vitriol

so with all due respect [Edited] imo people who are in perpetual attack mode are useless

Specific to troll: I am not the least concerned by anything Chavez does. Most of the folks in Venezuela are not concerned either. The country is in an ecoonomic boom--19% growth in 2004, almost 10% in 2005 and so far more than 10% this year. That's higher than China's! The dicussion of changing the term limits specified in the Constitution has been raised because most folks in Venezuela want to see the Bolivarian project conotinur to unfold.

Term limits in Latin America have provided AT BEST for alteration of two corrupt parties (Venezuela and Mexico are both good examples of that--and in fact the alteration of parties in Mexico has put the country in the worst straits it has seen for almost 100 years).

The Mexican Revolution of 1910 was supposedly fought because Diaz was in power for more than 30 years. The result: the PRI party was in power for over 70. (Neoliberal pundit Mario Vargas Llosa called it "The Perfect Dictatorship".)

What's happening in Venezuela--or even as I type this in Cochabamba, Bolivia, at the South American Summit--has nothing to do with political parties or ideology. It's about the recovery of human dignity and integration to form a power bloc.

Someone mentioned Bolivia earlier--about how it became landlocked: as a result of losing The War of the Pacific. A few years back Chavez said "I dream of swimming on a Bolivian beach" and Chile withdrew its ambassador in Caracas. It may not be such a far-fetched, radical idea anymore....Bolivia's new presidents are discussing that--and a host of other changes--at this very moment.

The world of politics is a fast-moving arena--where only the reactionaries like Bush/Cheney dig in their heels and refuse to move forward, to consider alternative ways of dealing with the rest of the folks on the planet.

I don't think they are models worth imitating. Not by a longshot.
s

Wow, troll--talk about projection! You wrote:

"so with all due respect - fuck you...imo people who are in perpetual attack mode are useless"

They may well be useless--I am not at all sure that whether someone is useful is the question to discuss here. What concerns me is that you don't seem to see is that you are one of them. I certainly interpret the phrase, "fuck you", as being attack mode.

And you have the audacity to wonder why I don't spend my time giving you ALL of my impressions of Venezuela and Chavez?!

I have given the ONLY information about Venezuela and Chavez that has ever been posted on blogcritics.org. Everything else posted on this site in regard to those two topics has been either libelous or unsubstantiated opinions.

Nobody on this forum has ever shown the slightest inclination to actually inform himself about the country or the president in question.

That's what I find reprehensible.

This piece from Mark Weisbrot speaks to the original topic in the mature, well-documented manner: (Just in the offchance that someone reading this forum might actually be interested in information.)

Venezuela's Election Provides Opportunity for Washington to Change Course Friday, Dec 08, 2006 By: Mark Weisbrot - Common Dreams

President Hugo Chavez's landslide victory in Sunday's election provides an opportunity to open a new chapter of US-Venezuelan relations. It was one of the most internationally monitored elections in recent memory, with observers from the Organization of American States and the European Union once again approving the results and the process. This is the fourth time that Chavez has stood for election and won, if we include the recall referendum of August 2004, which he won by a similar margin. As the famous Brazilian sociologist Helio Jaguaribi recently remarked, Chavez is "the most elected president in the hemisphere."

This would be a good time for President Bush to call and congratulate President Chavez, and bury the hatchet with our fourth largest oil supplier. To those who object that Chavez called President Bush "the devil" just last September at the United Nations, it is worth noting that on Thursday President Bush called to congratulate left economist Rafael Correa, the newly elected president of Ecuador. When asked about Chavez' UN speech last September, Correa had commented that it was an "insult to the devil," and added a couple of choice remarks of his own about President Bush which do not need to be repeated here.

Correa responded graciously to President Bush's overture and praised him as "noble" for calling. The day after our own Congressional elections, a reporter reminded President Bush that the new House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi had recently called him a liar, incompetent, and dangerous, and asked how he could work with her. He replied that "if you hold grudges in this line of work, you're never going to get anything done."

Well said. Now why not apply that philosophy to Venezuela? The Congressionally appointed Iraq Study Group is calling for dialogue with Iran and Syria. Here is a democracy just a few hours flight from Miami, which has never done anything to injure the United States and has always been a reliable energy supplier. Why not have engagement in this hemisphere as well?

The Bush Administration's strategy of trying to isolate Venezuela from its neighbors has clearly failed. Two weeks ago President Lula da Silva of Brazil took his first foreign trip, after re-election, to Venezuela, where he presided with Chavez over the inauguration of a $1.2 billion bridge financed by the Brazilian government, praising Chavez and pretty much endorsing him publicly as he headed for re-election. Most of Latin America supported Venezuela's unsuccessful bid for a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council, despite warnings and pleadings from the Bush Administration. It seems that Washington has succeeded more in isolating itself in the hemisphere, rather than Venezuela.

It is likely that Chavez would respond positively to an olive branch, although his grudges against the Bush Administration go beyond the exchange of unpleasantries - such as Donald Rumsfeld comparing him to Hitler. The Administration openly supported the military coup against his democratically elected government in 2002, and according to the US State Department, gave financial and other support "to individuals and organizations understood to be actively involved in the brief ouster of the Chavez government." It is this and other support for Venezuela's political opposition that have done the most to poison the relationship between the two governments.*

But the hard-liners who saw Venezuela as "another Cuba" and regime change as the preferred strategy - people like Otto Reich and Roger Noriega - are now gone from the Bush Administration, and many career diplomats at the State Department would welcome a new policy of engagement, especially since Chavez is going to be president of Venezuela for another six years.

Chavez is well-known for his undiplomatic outbursts, but he also has a pragmatic side: he has very good relations with his ideological opposite, President Alvaro Uribe of Colombia, despite the problems of guerilla and paramilitary violence along their 2,000 kilometer border that have led to serious friction between previous governments.

The rest of the region would also like to see this dispute put to rest. Most countries clearly reject the new "Cold War" framework on which it is based, and do not want to choose sides. And we who live in the United States really don't need more enemies in the world.

Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington.

*Note to the editors: since these facts are well-documented but not well known in the United States, I am attaching the following explanation and documentation of the Bush Administration's support for the coup. It is also worth noting that the Administration stepped up financial support to opposition groups after the coup, including people involved in the economically devastating oil strike of 2002-2003, and USAID continues to fund organizations in Venezuela with millions of dollars but refuses to disclose the recipients.

First, according to the U.S. State Department's Office of Inspector General, "it is clear that NED [the National Endowment for Democracy], Department of Defense (DOD), and other U.S. assistance programs provided training, institution building, and other support to individuals and organizations understood to be actively involved in the brief ouster of the Chavez government." [1]

Second, and even more importantly, the Bush Administration had advance knowledge of the coup but then denied that knowledge when it occurred, claiming that it was not a coup at all, in an attempt to make it succeed. This is a form of involvement. To take an analogy: imagine that someone tells me that they are going to kill someone, and then does so. He then claim's self-defense. If I then go to the police, with full knowledge that the crime was planned, and say that it was self-defense, I am participating in the crime. In that sense, then, Washington was involved in the coup.

During the April 16, 2002 White House press briefing, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer stated that the U.S. government had no prior knowledge of a pending coup in Venezuela: "events were combustible, events were fluid. Those events were not anticipated." [2]

However, an April 6, 2002 CIA Senior Intelligence Brief (several days before the coup) states that "[d]issident military factions, including some disgruntled senior officers and a group of radical junior officers, are stepping up efforts to organize a coup against President Chavez, possibly as early as this month To provoke military action, plotters may try to exploit unrest stemming from opposition demonstrations slated for later this month or ongoing strikes at the state-owned oil company PDVSA." [3] Intelligence briefs such as this one are typically read by as many as 200 officials in the Bush Administration.

Earlier, a March 11, 2002 CIA Senior Intelligence Brief had warned: "If the situation further deteriorates and demonstrations become more violent or if Chavez attempts an unconstitutional move to add to his powers, the military may move to overthrow him." [4]

It is thus clear that U.S. officials were briefed at the highest level about an anticipated and likely military coup against the Chavez government. Yet when the coup occurred, White House and State Department officials attempted to convince the public that it was not a coup but rather a popular uprising. (See below).

Third, the White House supported the coup government in other ways:

White House spokesperson Ari Fleischer said on April 12, one day after the attempted coup: "We know that the action encouraged by the Chavez government provoked this crisis. According to the best information available, the Chavez government suppressed peaceful demonstrations. The results of these events are now that President Chavez has resigned the presidency. Before resigning, he dismissed the vice president and the cabinet, and a transitional civilian government has been installed. [5]"

The U.S. State Department Deputy Spokesman Philip Reeker followed the White House line stating that "undemocratic actions committed or encouraged by the Chavez administration provoked yesterday's crisis in Venezuela." [6]

Jorge Castaneda, former Foreign Minister of Mexico stated that "Effectively, there was a proposition made by the United States and Spain, to issue a declaration with Mexico, Brazil, Argentina and France recognizing the government of [coup leader] Pedro Carmona." [7]

Similar allegations were made by Castaneda in a New York Times article that after the coup Mexico and Chile countered a coordinated effort by the U.S., Colombia, El Salvador and Spain to cobble together diplomatic support for the interim coup government. [8]

[1] A review of U.S. Policy Toward Venezuela: November 2001 April 2002, Report 02-OIG-003, July 2002, state.gov
[2] White House Press Briefing, April 16, 2002. Available online at: whitehouse.gov
[3] Full document available at: venezuelafoia.info
[4] Full document available at: venezuelafoia.info
[5] White House press briefing, April 12, 2002. Available online at: whitehouse.gov
[6] Venezuela: Change of Government, Press Statement by Philip T. Reeker, Deputy Spokesman, U.S. Department of State, April 12, 2002. Available online at: state.gov
[7] Jorge Castaneda, former Foreign Minister of Mexico, in "Colombia, Espana, El Salvador y EE.UU. Apoyaron el Golpe," by Nancy Fara, Agence France-Presse, November 28, 2004
[8] Documents Show C.I.A. Knew of Coup Plot in Venezuela, by Juan Forero, New York Times, December 3, 2004.

Original source / relevant link: Common Dreams

Any further comments on this thread that are not on the subject of Clavos' original article will be deleted in their entirety regardless of their source.

The Comments Editor

Marthe, while I appreciate your desire to reprint Socialist propaganda here, please don't paste entire articles into comments. Summarize and use a link. Editors have warned you about this before. It's often a violation of copyright - though in this case likely not since it's propaganda - but it's always an abuse of the comments system.

Dave

A couple of notes on the recent election in Venezuela to get things back on track.

Were you aware that Venezuela has over 3 million potential voters who don't exist? I bet you can guess who they voted for. And I'm not sure that figure counts the various middle eastern terrorists who go there for training. For more on the amusing case of the 1921 fraudulent Gonzales registrations see the Miami Herald.

And consider this. Why do the same people who object to electronic voting machines as easily used for fraud here in the US believe that the Venezuelan elections are legitimate when they are done almost entirely using these machines and run by the government which underwrites the manufacture of one of the machines most criticized here in the US. He who controls the voting machines controls the outcome of the election.

Dave

Clavos,

Great article. You reserved a lot of judgment and stopped just short of the childish "socialism bad, capitalism good, ALWAYS" position.

So far Chavez has been intelligent and thoughtful about the future of the region. The truth be told, he offers hope for this dead part of the world. The same patterns of governance and economic depletion, U.S. manipulation, have eroded the landscape, so he is a breath of fresh air, for now. I appreciate his stand against our bullying. He should speak up against what he sees as imperialism. It's no secret that we have played around with the politics in that part of the world for quite some time. Besides, if Bush can name an Axis of EVIL, he can call Bush a devil, "El Diablo". That was hysterical. I loved that. When he said it, it was really dramatic. The statement about the smell of sulfur still lingering in the halls was poetic. I wish the Decider was that riveting... Anyway, I thought it was funny. It keeps us in check and helps us have a reasonable perspective on the level of influence that we have instead of becoming bullies because no one ever confronts us. It's a good thing. Everyone needs someone to keep them on the ground. Besides, he is saying what a lot of people are thinking and we need to pay attention, for our own safety. Judging from the chuckles in the seats of the UN I am not the only one who enjoyed the speech.

The ending of term limits is THE alarm about Chavez. He's entering into kook mode and yes he needs to be watched closely. We however may not have the clout any longer to affect this region, thanks to Bush. Also our years of manipulation, starting wars, supporting dictators, has worn out our welcome. Our influence and contribution to the chaos over the years has been exposed and I am not sure especially now with Bush in place, if we could regain respect and influence.

However the religious spin is not new. This format is being utilized by Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua. The Sandinista, in a 1997 CNN interview, said that his two role models in life are the Nicaraguan patriot Sandino, and Jesus Christ. Ha ha ha. He won his bid for president a month ago with 37% of the vote. It seems as if Chavez is joining the band wagon. I think they are both adopting a Rovian approach myself. They see how WE get all goo-goo eyed whenever a politician said something vaguely religious. They have tapped into an electorate that is fool proof (I mean GWP... come on). It's a great tactic and it will work... for a while.

Troll,

I don't think you have a grasp of what liberation theology is.

D'oh #40:

Then the question would be - do you still feed them while you are thinking up this new plan?

Of course. In fact, I believe I said that (though as an aside) in my #39.

The most troubling aspect of our aid worldwide is that so much of it never actually gets to the people it's intended to help, but is stolen by corrupt officials for resale on black markets.

The first time I became aware of this was in Vietnam, where I found bags of rice, clearly marked with the USAID logo, for sale in village markets on more than one occasion. I even have pictures of them tucked away someplace.

Later, I looked into it further, and found that it happens just about everywhere we send aid.

I know this is not news, but my point is that if we're going to give aid in whatever form, we need to take measures to ensure that it actually reaches the end users.

Ruvy:

Not everything is about the Jews. Can you give us a break? I mean really. We are spending a lot of money and are being attacked all for the sake of Israel. Can we talk about OUR region without you interjecting JEWNESS into it? GEEZZ!! Bad enough that you have declared yourselves to be GOD'S PEOPLE (no one else) and soberly want everyone in the world to go along with you, don't you think? Put the mirror down. Enough with the self absorption.

A lot of people are thinking this... aren't you?? he he he. Seriously, enough is enough. And no I am not an anti-Semite. I'm sure you'd love that.... Another reason to go on nauseatingly about your Jewish ness and how oppressed you are in that oasis in the desert that we pay for.

Dave #48:

Just stop it with the "Libertarian" claim. You are way too partisain. Let it go. You are getting way too paranoid about Dems. Relax guy. THEY are not everywhere lurking and plotting.

Look democrats come in many forms. Those who complained about the machines may not be the same ones who championed what is going on in South America. Take a deep breath. The election is over, Bush is an idiot, the republicans lost. Lets move on.

Just stop it with the "Libertarian" claim. You are way too partisain. Let it go. You are getting way too paranoid about Dems. Relax guy. THEY are not everywhere lurking and plotting.

Comment #48 wasn't terribly long. Certainly short enough that you should have noticed that I didn't mention Democrats once in it.

As for my 'partisanship', you seem to have leapt to an erroneous conclusion. I'm not partisan, I'm anti-partisan. I'm mostly just against socialists, communists and other leftist fifth columnists working against the best interests of the US if that makes it look like I'm anti-democrat it's kind of an illusion. It also makes me equally strongly opposed to the Neocons for the same reasons.

Dave

When did "partisan" become a dirty word?

Certainly, there are situations where partisanship is anappropriate and not acceptable -- news reports, for example.

There are other scenarios where I see nothing whatever wrong with partisanship -- an opinion piece, by definition, is "partisan."

"Partisan" used to mean an individual supported a specific point of view in a discipline, and didn't, if memory serves, carry any pejorative baggage with it. Now. it seems, one of the worst epithets one can hurl at another is that of partisan.

How did that happen? And why?

Zedd,

"Not everything is about the Jews. Can you give us a break? I mean really. We are spending a lot of money and are being attacked all for the sake of Israel. Can we talk about OUR region without you interjecting JEWNESS into it? GEEZZ!!"

Aww, that's just too damned bad, Zedd. I didn't hear the author whine at all about my comment.

If it pisses you off, so much the better. When the politics and politicians in YOUR region shut their fucking mouths and stay out of OUR lives in OUR region, I'll keep my long Jewish nose out of your region. By the way, take your money and your damned soldiers and their shitty weapons with you when you leave. We don't need any of it. And don't let the door crack your skull as you slam it on the way out - I wouldn't want nice people with class like you to get hurt.

"When did "partisan" become a dirty word?"
- Clavvy

About 15-20 years after "liberal" became a dirty word.

#37 & #38 -- ss

#37 - The Ireland example you post is excellent and the sacrifices the poor made to achieve this success. However these advancements from poverty to prosperity seem to be always a success story more for the North then the South.

That in and of itself is a question that needs to be studied and explained so what ever is lacking can be addressed to bridge this seeming short fall correctly so proven principle can be successfully applied, even in bigger countris like Mexico.

#38 - If you knew moonraven like Clavos, Dave, and I do, you would not able to say with a straight face that you were with moonraven on anything. That point aside, you make very good points about US failed foreign policy that has a less then successful history. Your suggestions are well heard. I posted an over simplified concept on this too in post #18.

In your comment.......American free market development experts forced American raised President Quiroga into unpopular decisions concerning a deal for using a port with a neighboring country (I've forgotten which one) that the neighbor had actually taken from Bolivia in a war 100+ yrs ago

That port you are referring to is Arica at the northern most point in Chile. The conflict you refer to was "The War of the Pacific" which involved Bolivia, Chile and Peru.

The wars roots can be traced back to Simon Boliva when he declared Bolivia's independence from Spain in 1825, yet he failed to clearly define pacific coast National boundaries with Peru or Chile. Being a dry and seemingly useless territory no one got hot and bothered until many years later when the discovery of quno and saltpeter was found in abundance for use in fertilizers and explosives that wwere coming into international demand.

Chile was already working the area and had established industrial processing. The arguments over this once unimportant area lead to the War of the Pacific which Chile eventually won.

Both Bolivia and Peru lost territory. The results of this left Bolivia loosing its one time sea port access called Antofagasta (now part of Chile) leaving it land lock. Peru lost the port of Arica (now part of Chile) but sill Peru maintained its port access at all is Pacific ports North of Arica which Chile had captured but returned to Peru.

The unpopular decision you refer to when Bolivia worked out a deal with Chile for the right to tax-free access at the Chilean port of Arica. This arrangement still exists today and accounts for all of Bolivian exports.

I have spent a lot of time in Bolivia and Peru and have friends there and I now live in Chile. I can tell you first hand that the resentments left over from this war are still deeply rooted in the people of each country. It's a good topic not to bring up.

Here is a classic example of current events to further my point. The Sea, The Sea, The Sea

You can googel more but its all the same emotional shit.

When you say the Americans forced the Bolivian President into an unpopular decision as if the unpopularity of it was some how the fault of the US government, it would not have mattered what foreign government, let alone the US. Anybody would be dealing with a deeply rooted and extremely unpopular topic that no one to even this day can discuss with any of these countries absent of irrational emotions running out of control. If America had not helped Bolivia with Chile to get tax-free access to the sea, they would still be without sea port access to this day. So I'm not sure if that can be considered a failed US foreign intervention. However your point is well taken. The US creates a lot of its own messes through bad decisions.

Getting back more on topic, one of Hugo Chavezs publicly stated goals for Bolivia is to swim in the Pacific Ocean of Bolivia. Nothing short of another war involving Bolivia, Chile and Peru would see his dream come true. I guess he has plans for those new Russian AK103 fully automatic rifles under his new licensing contract with Russia to build the arms factories in Venezuela, which will be cranking out hundreds of thousands if not millions in the next few years.

Chavezs failed attempt at influencing the recent Peruvian presidential elections was a set back for him and a plus for Peru and Chile. Yet Peru still deeply resents Chile over the results of the War of the Pacific. Had the Peruvian elections gone Chavezs way, I think Chile would have considered it time to increase its military capabilities and focus its military strategies.

Chavezs recent success in influencing Ecuador's presidential election is a plus for him and a problem for Columbia and Peru.

The fact that Hugo can not contain himself to just Venezuela is making it more and more dangerous in South America each and every year.

Chavez knows he can not pull Chile in under his wings for his Bolivian Revolution. It will become a larger sticking point for him in the future as will as Columbia also. This isn't getting any better, it is getting worse and in the worse kind of way.

I think the US should leave it up to South America to deal with Hugo. If he pisses off Chile and Columbia and Peru too much, Latin's have a way of taking care of things too, and they can always call on the US for assistance if they so choose.

Just my opinion.

Franco,

Thanks for the excellent recap of the history of the War of The Pacific, as well as the insight into international relationships in southern South America.

As you point out, Chavez has had setbacks, most notably in Peru and in the recent election in Mexico.

Nonetheless, what makes him a "person of interest" as the saying goes, is the huge petrodollar wealth he controls and the speed with which he's arming Venezuela. It's only a matter of time before he begins to esacalate to the arming of those countries which are aligning themselves with him.

As I said in the article, he's scarier than Fidel because of all the money, though I don't think he's as smart and crafty as Castro. Castro wouldn't have let US keep him out of that UN seat.

There's an interesting opinion piece by Enrique ter Horst, a political analyst in Caracas, published in the International Herald Tribune a few days ago which says, in part:

"In the present climate, it is probably impossible to carry out a dogmatic, neocommunist revolution in Venezuela. The enormous amount of oil money has transformed the regime into a gang of accomplices, much in the mold of Haiti in the time of François Duvalier, and the socialist discourse and other ideological rituals only provide the regime with a fig leaf for what is already fast becoming a mafia- type power structure. The seeds of its destruction are already within it, even though it might take time for them to grow.

Venezuela has purchased arms worth more than $10 billion this year and is planning to purchase an equivalent amount in 2007, deeply upsetting the strategic balance in South America."

OOps, I left off the last graf of the ter Horst piece I quoted:

"Chávez's narcissistic nature has been satisfied for a while with this electoral victory, but his appetite for power is insatiable. Chávez's opponents and his neighbors must brace for a time of ever- increasing outrage and danger."

#63 -- Clavos

Thanks for the link artical. Excellen read.

If I wanted to post under my name, I would do so, Nalle. I am not spending my time outing clavos and posting his real name. (As if he had one....) Your disrespect is without bounds.

And I posted an entire article--and will continue to do so--because when links are posted on this forum you folks invent stuff supposedly from the stories, post it and others are too lazy to read the original article. If you behaved in an ethical manner posting the entire article with notes would not be necessary.

This has got to be the most incestuous forum I have ever looked at.

No discussion here. Just Franco posting stuff he found in a google search as if it were his own, and clavos telling him how smart and cute he is. And franco telling clavos how smart and cute HE is.

I thought that mutual stroking stuff only happened at British boarding schools.

So?

Just stating what anyone can see from even glancing at this thread.

Information you copied from your google search without citing the source doesn't qualify--it was about The War of the Pacific--in which Venezuela was not a participant--as information about Venezuela.

Just in passing:

Chile y Bolivia intercambian mensaje de buena vecindad
Reuters

09/12/2006 13:04

Cochabamba, Bolivia. Los presidentes de Bolivia y Chile intercambiaron este sábado mensajes de hermandad y buena vecindad y reafirmaron su voluntad de diálogo para resolver cuestiones bilaterales, incluida la antigua demanda boliviana de una salida soberana al mar.

El acercamiento entre el gobernante boliviano Evo Morales y la mandataria chilena Michelle Bachelet, ambos en funciones desde principios de año, se produjo en la sesión plenaria de la II Cumbre de la Comunidad Sudamericana de Naciones, en la ciudad de Cochabamba.

Morales dijo, en el discurso de apertura, que tras una historia de enfrentamientos en la región, algunos provocados por intereses externos, se abría la oportunidad de "cerrar las venas abiertas de América Latina".

Precisó que, en esa línea, Bolivia y Chile, que no tienen relaciones diplomáticas desde 1978, han comenzado a acercarse en un proceso que envuelve no sólo a los gobiernos sino fundamentalmente a los pueblos.

"Es impresionante lo que sienten nuestros pueblos", dijo Morales al mencionar encuestas que muestran en Bolivia un amplio respaldo al acercamiento con Chile, incluso a una venta de gas y electricidad "sin condicionamientos", y voces chilenas a favor de un acceso al mar para los bolivianos.

Bolivia perdió su salida al océano Pacífico a manos de Chile, por una guerra de fines del siglo XIX y lleva reclamando por décadas lo que denomina también la recuperación de su "cualidad marítima".
*
Franco, I believe Ms. Bachelet is the president of the country in which you reside?

Chavez will be swimming on a Bolivian beach before you know it.

Perhaps if you spent less time writing misogynist "reports" on this forum you could keep up with the news that involves Chile?

Just a thought.

Dear Dave,
your last line was quite amusing'If we want to maintain our influence in the region, we need to help the Latin American countries to develop their potential in a meaningful way.'
If US continues to help Latin America the way it does it may end up losing the entire region to Chavez.And who knows with the mess in Iraq and the creeping recession the American people may throw their lot with Chavez.

correction- Dear Clavos,
your last line was quite amusing'If we want to maintain our influence in the region, we need to help the Latin American countries to develop their potential in a meaningful way.'
If US continues to help Latin America the way it does it may end up losing the entire region to Chavez.And who knows with the mess in Iraq and the creeping recession the American people may throw their lot with Chavez.

Dear moonraven,
Excellent comments.Your views on Latin America/ Hugo Chavez are honest, blunt and refreshing.

A fair number of folks in the US already HAVE thrown their lot in with Chavez--despite the propaganda machines of Fox News, CNN and the Washington Times.

Especially the folks in the 16 states who are benefitting from Citgo's program of cut-rate fuel oil.

The recent election showed that not ALL of the folks in the US are snoozing their lives away in a post-9/11 coma.

On Friday, Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney submitted articles of impeachment against Bush, Vice President Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

When a critical mass of awake citizens is finally reached, those articles will be acted on.

I hope it happens before they bomb another country--specifically, my neighbor Iran.

Although--if they do that, Israel will cease to exist--so there's always some good that comes from bad things happening.

If anyone feels that wiping Israel off the map to get rid of our Jerusalem poster is a bit extreme--may I remind them of the precedent of 1) Murdering 3500 plus Panamanians to go after Manuel Noriega because he refused to be Oliver North's boy, and 2) Murdering an arrogantly uncounted (Rumsfeld dixit) number of Iraquis to go after Saddam Hussein because he wasn't the US government's boy any longer.

The two current leaders in the voting for Time's Man of the Year for 2006 are:

1. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran, with 25%

2. Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela, with 23%

The times they are a-changing....

Thanks, Socrates.

Nice to know there is someone reading this thread who isn't here to stroke another male's virtual body parts.

3 things:

1st...Zedd says - *Troll, I don't think you have a grasp of what liberation theology is.*

...thanks for sharing - your gratuity is appreciated

2nd...moonraven - pardon my 'audacity' in asking for your opinion and 'attacking' you to get it

rave on and enjoy

3rd...to the editor - by editing the phrase 'fuck you' you've taken BC over the line you seem to forget that most participants can take care of themselves

[Edited. Troll, you seem to forget that we have a comments policy and it's my responsibility to judge how to apply it, not some anonymous commenter such as yourself. It has nothing to do with the ability of participants ability to take care of themselves. Thanks for caring mind you. Feel free to visit a heavy metal or rap article and use all the street language that fits. Your Comments Editor.]

@#68,

Whichever of those two creeps becomes Time man of the year, he'll join such spiritual brethren as:

Adolf Hitler 1938
Joseph Stalin 1939 and 1942
Nikita Kruschev 1957
Ayatullah Khomeini 1979

An illustrious group in which either Ahmadinejad or Chavez will fit well. Perhaps they both should be named?

socrates writes:

your last line was quite amusing'If we want to maintain our influence in the region, we need to help the Latin American countries to develop their potential in a meaningful way.'
If US continues to help Latin America the way it does it may end up losing the entire region to Chavez.

Excellent point, and exactly why I say we need to address our relationships in LatAm in a meaningful way.

To continue the way we have in the past serves neither the interests of our hemispheric neighbors nor our own.

Nice to see an intelligent response to the article -- it's been somewhat dry the last few hours...

I'm with Socrates and Clavos. Let's by all means help out the nations of Latin America. IMO it's about time for a Marshall Plan for that region to surround Venezuela with prosperous, hostile and pro-democracy countries so that Chavez' expansionism will wither on the vine.

It's quite true that his type of demagoguery and socialist dictatorship can only flourish where people are poor and oppressed. Address that problem and Chavez and his efforts to enslave the region go away.

Dave

#73 -- Dave Nalle

I'm with Socrates and Clavos. Let's by all means help out the nations of Latin America. IMO it's about time for a Marshall Plan for that region to surround Venezuela with prosperous, hostile and pro-democracy countries so that Chavez' expansionism will wither on the vine.

Dave, are we having a bad day? You've a little quick to jump Clavos considering he has already discredited the Marchial plan in an earlier post, and even came up with ideas on how to deal with what you say in your next paragraph. Which are not easy answers.

It's quite true that his type of demagoguery and socialist dictatorship can only flourish where people are poor and oppressed. Address that problem and Chavez and his efforts to enslave the region go away.

There ya go Dave, now you back in the grove and on target again with a bulls eye. Paragraph #2 is well said and gives us the bottom line. Have any ideas on how to do it?

I don't see my first and second paragraphs as at all contradictory. The Marshal Plan was about spending American money in threatened countries bordering the iron curtain so that they wouldn't fall into the Soviet sphere of influence. What I was proposing was doing the same thing on a smaller scale to counter Chavez.

If Mathe objects to that then she can't hide behind humanitarianism any longer and might as well admit she's just a socialist stooge.

Dave

Dave,

After re-read I see your point. Sorry, I'm way to tired to be posting at the moment. Check ya latter. zzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzz

I feel your pain, Franco. I've posted when sleep deprived a few times myself.

[Edited]

Dave

WHERE on this thread did I say I was in Cochabamba, Bolivia? Absolutely nowhere.

I said the South American Summit was taking place in Cochabamba--but none of you noticed that since none of you knows anything about South America....

And those who supposedly are fluent in Spanish and who of course did not read the news article I posted which began with this dateline:

09/12/2006 13:04 Cochabamba, Bolivia. Los presidentes de Bolivia y Chile intercambiaron este sábado mensajes de....

If I post a news article about something happening in Moscow that HARDLY means that I am personally there!

We are using the Internet, guys--not two cans and a string.

Of course you guys think there should be no more Time Persons of the Year because Hitler and Stalin were among them. Which also means no more chancellors of Germany or presidents of Russia. Talk about twisted logic. Tell that to Angela Merkel and Putin....

But the biggest gaffe of all on this thread is that the poster who supposedly lives in Chile did not even mention the item that knocked everything else off the top of the news heap yesterday:

THE DEATH OF AUGUSTO PINOCHET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The sonofabitch did it--boogied off to prepare for his next lifetime, leaving everyone holding the bag--including Chile's current president.

Frano--Don't put on your best suit and cry for an invitation to tomorrow's funeral--it will not be a State funeral.

Even though Pinochet got out of going to jail for his crimes against humanity, it's nice to see another fascist pinup boy bite the dust.

Hugo Chavez was leading the voting for Time's Person of the Year last night at 28%.

Marshall Plan---hahahahahahahahaha. Absolutely not necessary anywhere in Latin America--which has the biggest share of ALL of the most desirable resources on the planet. What's needed is to throw the multinational company vultures out on their cans and nationalize EVERYTHING.

In 2007 we will see Chavez continuing to hold Exxon Mobil and Chevron's feet to the fire. Among others.

In case you haven't noticed: CHAVEZ IS THE ONE WITH THE MARSHALL PLAN FOR LATIN AMERICA. He's also dispensing charity to the poor--IN THE UNITED STATES. (Citgo site cited above in #67.)

Wake up and smell the coffee, guys.

I am in Al Manama, Bahrain.

No need to be a detective--or a weatherman--to know which way the wind's blowing.

Good guess, Clavos, but you should have read this quote first:

"What's needed is to throw the multinational company vultures out on their cans and nationalize EVERYTHING."

I'm sure she's in Bahrain as she says, but the fact that her IP address is in Beijing says it all, does it not?

I wonder exactly who she's working for there in Bahrain...

Dave

Martita asks,

WHERE on this thread did I say I was in Cochabamba, Bolivia? Absolutely nowhere.

Right here, girl, in your comment #43:

What's happening in Venezuela--or even as I type this in Cochabamba, Bolivia, at the South American Summit-

And if you didn't mean to imply you were typing that in Cochabamba, you should have punctuated it better -- tsk,tsk and you're an "academic" --disque.

You're right, Dave, I should have realized it.

Beijing, Huh? I'll be damned..

Hey Martita, do you have epicanthi?

Oh, right, you academic boat people are now complaining about MY punctuation.

Give me a break.

In post #19 I told you were I was. Reading is a useful skill to have.

Given all the cubans down there in S. Florida, there must be literacy classes you could take....

Never even been to Beijing. What it says is beyond me. Probably it says that you didn't read post #19, and just made something up. Standard operating procedure on this forum.

Yes, the old missing or added comma .... as in, "What's this thing called, love"?

Such a small thing, the comma, but poor use is absolutely fraught.

RACIST COMMENT BY CLAVOS: EPICANTHI.

Next he'll be calling me a "gook".

Are you a trip-wire vet? I understand there are many down there in the Florida swamps.

Wrong, actually. A comma was not the answer. However, I could have typed:
--or even as I type this--in Cochabamba....

But it really doesn't matter one damn as post 19 indicates I was in Bahrain on December 8, 2006 @ 03:24AM, and even I cannot get from the middle of the Persian Gulf to the fairly remote city of Cochabamba, Bolivia, THAT fast.

See, reading skills can do wonders for you? For want of a comma Clavos' kingdom was lost?

Don't believe it for a minute.

This thread nnow has more than 85 posts and I am the only one who has posted or cited any information.

Dave Nalle should get an award for The Person Who Has Nothing To Do But Make Things Up.

I'd vote for him.

Are you a trip-wire vet? I understand there are many down there in the Florida swamps.

What, pray tell, is a "trip-wire vet?" And actually, I lived on my boat until about a year and a half ago, when my wife became a paraplegic; now, unfortunately, we live in a house.

Oh, and BTW, the Everglades are not a swamp -- it's a common misconception among the ignorant, but actually it's a very wide, very shallow river; which is why Marjorie Stoneman Douglas titled her book The Everglades, River of Grass."

Wrong moonraven, a comma WOULD have been the answer. Trust me, this is my area of expertise.

Uh--Where did I mention the Everglades? Again, you are making it up.

Are you telling me there is NO swampland in South Florida?

Geez, those suckers I sold it to on blogcritics.org are going to be mad as hell....

They may even want their money back.

A tripwire vet (or trip-wire vet)--I will save you the google search because I am such a nice person--refers to a veteran of the Vietnam war who lives in isolated areas (such as swamps in S. Florida) because he cannot tolerate contact with other people (due to active symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder).

They set up booby traps around the perimeter of their area with wires that set off some kind of primtive alarm system when someone enters the area. If one "trips" the "wire" an alarm of some kind sounds to alert the veteran.

Thanks for the elucidation.

I assumed you meaqnt the 'Glades, because they're the only thing around here resembling swamps anymore -- everything else has been filled in and paved over.

No trip wires. When the voices start, I just go out and kill a few babies and them I'm fine for another few months...

STM:

Trust ME. Consistency is the ideal of all punctuation schemes. For that reason the double dash was indicated.

I have a PhD in English, many years teaching writing at the university level, plus many years as a professional journalist--including as an editor. That means I am the one with expertise in this topic.

I will continue to punctuate my senteneces however I damn well please.

Thank you.

Do you have something you'd like to say about the topic of the thread?

Clavos:

Do not assume ANYTHING--especially when it comes to me.

I am sorry to hear your wife is now paraplegic. That's your politically well-connected Mexican wife, right?

Apparently it's dangerous to leave the environs of Los Pinos to live on a boat in S. Florida with a vet with no tripwire sustem.

She has my deepest sympathy.

That's your politically well-connected Mexican wife, right?

When did I ever say my wife was Mexican? She's a gringa who doesn't even speak Spanish (which puts her at a distinct disadvantage here in Miami).

And while I'm at it, I never told you in the previous thread a few months ago, as you indicated in your comment #41 in this thread, that I was now living in Mexico. I did say that I was born there, and lived there most of my life, that I have dual citizenship, and that I continue to travel there frequently for business; all of which are true.

I also did not say I didn't have the money for a plane ticket to Caracas -- what I actually said on that thread was that I have been to Caracas a number of times in the past, though not since Chavez took over there. In fact I don't need money for a plane ticket--I'm retired from Mexicana De Aviación and can travel on passes.

Just for the record. You can go back to that other thread and check, if you don't believe me.

Hey, clavos, this is a virtual space were are typing in.

I don't believe anything any of you say. Why should I?

For all I know you are 13 years old--popping zits and whacking off as you type. In fact, I consider that a highly likey scenario.

What I DO know is that you know absolute squat about Latin America.

Living in Miami with all the Posada terrorist wanna-bes doesn't count.

Dame dos, por favor.

You don't have a Mexican wife?

Gee, I must have mistaken you for Jeb Bush.

My apologies.

Aha--so you are 13 beating off on this thread.

A true mexican would have used the verb chingar someplace in there.

Gave yourself away.

I have a PhD in English, many years teaching writing at the university level, plus many years as a professional journalist--including as an editor.

And yet, you're infantile...

I am adult enough not to spend my time posting drivel in the middle of the night.

The 3:42 a.m. dateline on this blog site refers to Eastern Standard Time--which, if I am not mistaken, is the time zone for Miami.

Here it is nearly noon.

Fun life you have there.

Marthe,

I see the great sage of latinoamerica is now writing from Manama.

Do try to stay away from this country. It's a small one and the stink of your kind of self-righteousness smells like a bad bean fart - or worse. I hope the locals can stand the stink. Fortunately, the wind blows to the east on this part of the planet, so your stinky variety of self-righteousness does not come our way...

"Although--if they do that, Israel will cease to exist--so there's always some good that comes from bad things happening."

#68 -- December 10, 2006 @ 07:40AM -- moonraven

"If anyone feels that wiping Israel off the map to get rid of our Jerusalem poster is a bit extreme--may I remind them of the precedent of 1) Murdering 3500 plus Panamanians to go after Manuel Noriega because he refused to be Oliver North's boy, and 2) Murdering an arrogantly uncounted (Rumsfeld dixit) number of Iraquis to go after Saddam Hussein because he wasn't the US government's boy any longer."

For all of your radical talk, you sound an awful lot like the great crusading Christians who thought it was a blast to kill Jews when Moslems weren't available.

Americans kill Panamanians - your solution? Kill the kikes! Americans kill Iraqis - your solution? Kill the kikes!

You're lucky I'm not as interested in seeing you dead as you appear to be interested in seeing me dead.

Actually, I am not interested in seeing you in any condition.

I am painfully aware of the east-to-west wind pattern in your area--which is why I was made very ill with radiation poisoning from the reactor at Dimona when I was in Amman last year: the waste from it is blown into Jordan and dumped there.

That's the reason thousands of Jordanian children are dying from various forms of cancers--many were being treated at the cancer center in Houston when afriend of mine was there having a bone marrow transplant last year.

I told my Palestinian students: Look to what lengths the Israelis will go to kill you folks off....

You have some nerve.

And you have NO sense of humor.

P.S.: FALAFEL farts. Not bean farts.

What kind of sabra are you, anyway?

I would be quite within my rights to delete most of the last 25 comments and if I'd been on duty at the time of them being posted, I would have.

As you've all read them already and seem to enjoy such childish behaviour I'll let them stand, but enough is enough. There will be no more namecalling or mudslinging on this thread.

[Edited]

Chavez is now leading the votes for Time's Person of the Year with 29%.

Still time for folks to get on the winning bandwagon.

Bush is at 8%--1 percentage point behind....Al Gore.

I thought Al would make a better showing--what with having a hit movie and all.

I guess the difference is, as our teenager friend Clavos has indicated, all about having Jesus Christ in your corner.

All kidding aside, I was sitting in front of Chavez when he said--3 years ago--that the 21st century would be the South American Century.

It remains to be seen who is right: Chavez (one of the brightest, most intuitive guys on the planet) or you guys with your Marshall Plan retreads, racist condescending and general misunderstanding of how the world turns.

The Venezuelan situation is unstable. There are many powerful people that want to rid the country of Chavez and any expectations that masses of working people have that they might actually rule.

One side or the other WILL be defeated.

Moonraven [Edited] wrote: "I thought that mutual stroking stuff only happened at British boarding schools."

Only of egos, moonraven and I'm told there's not much call now for that other stuff as everyone's allowed out on weekends these days to meet girls. And whilst not stroking each other, they ARE taught that Simon Bolivar was a genuine hero of the Americas.

I would take a punt that in 100 years' time, they won't be teaching the same thing about Hugo Chavez, who might best be described as a tin-pot dictator. It's an absurdity to regard Chavez as the most democratic and influential man in the hemisphere (especially when the hemisphere also contains South Africa, Australia and New Zealand and a plethora of quite civilised Pacific Islands). I believe that Graham Henry, the New Zealand rugby coach, wields far more influence in the southern hemisphere than Hugo Chavez.

He certainly commands a greater television audience.

And while coaching the All Blacks is regarded in New Zealand as a more important job than that of the Prime Minister, there is another person to consider in all this.

Yes, Nelson Mandela, that's him. The one who pales into insignificance when compared with Hugo Chavez. Bugger ... how could I have been so wrong all these years?

And I maintain: you still needed just a simple comma rather than a mish-mash of double dashes.

Consistency may well be the key both to good punctuation and economical writing, but it's not much use unless it's accompanied by simplicity, its old school chum. And let's not forget syntax, the literary equivalent of the bullying prefect. It will always get you in the end.

Les,

By all reports (and rumors) circulating here in Miami, you're right.

The fat lady has not yet sung...

Well now, all the carnage is still here, but much of the rest has been removed, including some commentary which does not violate the Comments Policy.

Clavos, thank you for some thoughtful reading.

That's about all that's left to say, except for a side inside Joke to Clavos...

now not only is the *Form* done, but this last ensures that certain *Content* is irrelevant.

if anyone reading this thread is interested in learning about recent US/Venezuelan relations written from a 'leftist' pov without moonraven's gutter rant here's an interesting pdf

(Chris - don't get me wrong...I appreciate you efforts as comments editor and am only expressing my dissatisfaction with this capricious instance

'fuck you' can be found unedited throughout the politics comments section...had I known that it is no longer acceptable I might have thought twice before using it

xxoo from troll aka some anonymous commenter)

troll: I try to be context sensitive to language usage rather than sticking to a rigid policy. That means there are good fucks and bad fucks!

troll,

Surely you don't expect anyone on this thread to read something by Deborah James after you described it as being written "from a leftist POV"....

I am going to leave you guys to smoke and stroke.

moonraven says - *I told my Palestinian students: Look to what lengths the Israelis will go to kill you folks off....*

before you fade away I want to thank you for your work with those students...I'm sure that the future peace makers will come from their ranks

Geez, the one thing even scarcer than knowledge of Latin America on this thread is...a sense of humor.

Here's an excerpt from an interesting op-ed piece by Frida Ghitis, nationally syndicated columnist, and recognized expert on Latin America, published in today's The Miami Herald.

In her column, Ms Ghitis points out that Chavez' support among other LatAm governments, even the left-leaning ones such as Chile and Brasil, is weak at best. She also notes, as we have in this thread, that the best path US can take in the region is to constructively address and assist with the issues of regional poverty:

Yes, Latin America has taken a leftward step. That, however, does not mean that Latin America is becoming Chávez Country. The true story of Latin American politics is that the left has moved to the center, advocating a new brand of capitalism with a heart. The new Latin American left is no threat to the United States. In fact, it has much to teach Washington.

If the United States truly wants to regain its standing, it could study the views of socialists like Bachelet and Lula, who don't turn their backs on democracy or capitalism but recognize that the state does have a role to play in alleviating the suffering of the poorest of the poor and in providing the tools to help them become productive citizens with a measure of human dignity. As one Buenos Aires resident told me, "The real danger in Latin America is not Chávez; it's poverty."

If the problem is poverty, then Chavez is the solution. Or one of the solutions. T

oo bad it causes some people so damn much pain to swallow their pride and admit that. (The OAS refused to release their statement about the prresidential election in Venezuela until the US and Canada swallowed their pride and agreed to the statement specifically congratulating Chavez for his re-election.)

Poverty in Venezuela is now 33%. Much lower than in the majority of Latin American countries. (In my home base, Mexico, for example, it's officially just under 50%.

Lula barely was re-elected because he did so little to address poverty.

Bachelet has been in power only a few months--and so obviously hasn't done a heck of a lot. Except endorse repression of the indigeous tribe, Mapuches--the poorest folks in Chile. That's not a good sign.

Chavez is an absolute shonk and at best a tin-pot dictator who cares far less about his people than he does for his own grasp on power.

There is nothing wrong with socialism provided it's pragmatic too, and I know because I live in a country that has a lot of socialist principles instituted in its laws.

When poverty levels in "socialist" latin-American countries come down to the levels they are in the US, Australia, Britain, Canada, New Zealand (notice how many former colonies are in that little grouping, and how different their stories have been to Latin America's) and most of Europe, start preaching to us then, monnraven.

Until then, I suspect we occupy the higher moral ground on this one.

What's really annoying about people like Chavez is that they don't recognise - or care - that much of the infrastructure provided for the industries they want to nationailise have been paid for by other people who have a reasonable right to expect some return on that.

Yes, I'm talking about oil in this particular case. He just joins the long list of tin-pot Latin American dictators who have tried to rattle sabres because it's the only way they can hang on to power.

And caring for your people has nothing to do with power. It's about good government, the will of the people and the setting up of institutions enshrined in law that enable that process to continue indefinitely.



</