OAS' Insulza rejects statements made by Venezuelan general

[ChangoLoa]

Source: El Universal

Jose Miguel Insulza, the Secretary General of the Organization of American States (OAS), labelled on Wednesday as "unacceptable" the statements made by General Henry Rangel Silva, head of the Strategic Operational Command National, who said that a hypothetical opposition government "would amount to selling away the country."

"I do not have a view about statements made by senior government officials, but in this case I make an exception," Insulza said in an interview with Andrés Oppenheimer, a Miami Herald columnist.

"The fact that an army commander threatens with an a priori insubordination is unacceptable. Venezuela's ruling civilian authority should correct that," Insulza said, as reported by Oppenheimer.

Read more: http://english.eluniversal.com/2010/11/11/en_pol_esp_oas-insulza-rejects_11A4717493.shtml

[jonathan_seer]

1. Imagine if every single media outlet was like Fox News

If you can imagine such a horror, you'll see what Chavez has had to deal with or had to for the first years of his administration.

All the major media were owned by lackey's of the oligarchy that he ousted in an election.

They did not care that he was elected with large majorities, only that he didn't obey the former masters of the nation.

Eventually after passing various laws to spread the wealth of the nation around to help the middle class and poor, they tried to oust him.

Most people aren't aware of the coup that happened right after 2002 to oust Chavez.

Even fewer are aware of how the media only gave positive coverage to the coup plotters.

Even before they announced it, the media all the stations read a statement they wrote "from Chavez" saying he resigned.

Once it became clear the coup didn't succeed, they went dark. They refused to cover how he reclaimed his office.

Once he got his office back, eventually he took away the licenses of the stations and ousted the backers of the former right wing oligarchy that ran them.

We should remember that any time we see an Anti-Chavez post, it's from one of those people who worked feverishly to oust a democratically elected president in their effort to bring back the oligarchy that sold the nation to rich corporations whose sole interest was to extract the wealth of the nation and sell it for huge profits overseas, while the oligarchy got a piece big enough to ensure they'd keep the boots on the heads of their fellow citizens.

[COLGATE4]

2. Are you saying that the quote from El Universal is incorrect, or is

Insulza lying?

[naaman fletcher]

3. Let me understand this:

Is your point that because there a bunch of "fox news" wannabe's opposing Chavez that the comments of this general are therefore acceptable?

[bemildred]

4. Ah, the new sheriff is in town.

[ChangoLoa]

5. Rangel Silva or Insulza?

"...it's the things you know that ain't so."

[bemildred]

6. Which one do you think most resembles Barney Fife? nt

[bemildred]

7. Look, it's like this:

1.) I might be willing to concede that the General would have done better to speak more circumspectly. That would be a long discussion and I don't care enough - and what we say does not matter enough - for me to slog through it, so let's just disagree there.

2.) Nevertheless Mr Insulza, being head of an international organization, ought not be emotionally inserting himself into local politics in this way, it undermines whatever effectiveness he might have. Diplomats are supposed to be diplomatic, reserved, and not inclined to run off at the mouth, or anxious to take sides in the political disputes of other countries.

[ChangoLoa]

8. Rangel Silva is the institutional warrant of the impartiality and the normality of the elections

in Venezuela, along with the CNE. It's called Plan Republica. So when Rangel Silva declares that the army wouldn't accept a Chavez defeat two years from now, it's not as insignificant as you are apparently interpreting it.

[bemildred]

9. You are assuming your desired conclusion.

His reluctance to accept an opposition government is natural, he is not required to stifle his feelings. What would matter, in the unlikely event that such an election should happen, is what he does then. If he violates the constitutional order first, then he is culpable, just as the Golpistas were in 2002.

But absent that course of events, this is all empty blather.