Without ambassadors, US-Venezuela tensions grow

[discocrisco01]

Source: Associated Pres

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) — The United States and Venezuela are starting the year without ambassadors in Caracas and Washington due to an intensifying diplomatic dispute that is likely to persist and boost President Hugo Chavez's long-standing antagonism.

Both sides have shown firmly entrenched stances and no willingness to compromise in the past week as the U.S. government revoked the Venezuelan ambassador's visa in response to Chavez's refusal to accept the chosen U.S. envoy.

"They thought we were going to back down. Anything negative that happens will be the responsibility of the United States," veteran Venezuelan diplomat Roy Chaderton told the Caracas-based television channel Telesur on Thursday.

Chaderton, a close Chavez ally and former foreign minister, said the Venezuelan government is "studying the case with sensitivity ... and will make the respective decisions


Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gRCYl-KVptzG0xEV3ugKDE1Hn4yA?docId=539ef5ec7b40435481e0f9de09de4481

[bemildred]

1. Oh my goodness, can the planet survive?

:popcorn:

[me b zola]

15. If the US keeps the pressure up, not likely

The US needs to keep their hands off of Latin America

[Bacchus39]

16. I'm OK with it n/t

s

[JDPriestly]

2. This is really dumb on the part of the Obama administration.

If they don't like Chavez (something I can understand), then why strengthen him by giving him a cause around which to organize and excite his supporters?

It would have been much smarter to send an envoy who was quite neutral and then just let the Venezuelan people deal with Chavez without interference.

It was stupid to appoint such an openly offensive ambassador at this time.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

[Zorro]

4. What was openly offensive?

[RaleighNCDUer]

44. What else would you call a professional diplomat disrespecting

the country he is nominated to be Ambassador to?

What would OUR response be if the Ambassador-nominee from Chile came here after saying in his own country that Obama is too weak to control the American military, and is probably not a legitimate president to begin with? Would WE accept his credentials? Or send him packing?

[EFerrari]

5. It's dumb because it makes the US look thuggish and clumsy

not because people in Latin America sit around waiting for the American government to tell them what to think of their own.

[Zorro]

6. Here are the responses in question

Care to point out what in the letter makes the US look thuggish and clumsy?

Seems to me to be rather diplomatic responses by Palmer.

http://lugar.senate.gov/issues/foreign/lac/venezuela/pdf/LugarPalmerQFR.pdf

[EFerrari]

9. For the Senate to invite a prospective ambassador to criticize the country

where he hopes to serve is a moment of self parody for everyone involved. The content of his responses are irrelevant, the country in question is irrelevant. It makes a mockery of the American diplomatic process and far from making Venezuela look bad, it only makes the participants look ham-fisted and churlish.

Which they are. Maybe Wikileaks should start posting a comic strip, too. :)

[Lasher]

51. It seems a fair and relevant question.

Why don't you answer it if you can?

[EFerrari]

69. It's not, actually. It's a reframing of the issue.

Asking a prospective ambassador to openly accuse his hosts of crimes is a perversion of the diplomatic process if your intent is good faith relations with the host country.

And, it's typical of the US government's ham fistedness in Latin America which, as you may imagine, it not appreciated there.

[Lasher]

71. Isn't it you who is trying to reframe this?

Chavez says Palmer is unacceptable as the US ambassador to Venezuela. He is not rejecting any other representative of the US government at this time, in part or in general, besides Palmer. Otherwise, wouldn't Chavez have said he doesn't want any US ambassador?

If Chavez is justified in this, it is incumbent on him and his defenders to show just what it is that makes Palmer unacceptable. Otherwise he is just thumbing his nose at the US, as the US government asserts. Don't you agree? If not, please show where my logic is flawed.

[EFerrari]

72. Venezuela doesn't need my support.

It is a sovereign nation. :)

I really don't know how to make this more plain. If a prospective ambassador to the United States accused Obama of war crimes in an open session of Parliament or of the Knesset, it's unlikely that diplomat would be welcomed to Washington.

Would Obama be thumbing his nose at the UK or at Israel? I suppose it depends on your viewpoint.

[Lasher]

94. I don't know if Palmer said anything like that or not.

Will you please specifically cite Palmer's objectionable quotes? That is how you can make this more plain.

[EFerrari]

96. Mark Weisbrot lays it out very clearly here.

There's no need for me to rehash what has already been said in many venues and much better than I can say it, even were I willing to muck around in neo con bullshit, which I'm not. Weisbrot is a director at the Center for Economic Policy Research.

Does Washington Want Normal Diplomatic Relations With Venezuela?
Mark Weisbrot
The Guardian Unlimited, August 18, 2010

While President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela and the new President of Colombia, Manuel Santos, met in Santa Marta, Colombia, last Tuesday and agreed to normalize relations after a fierce diplomatic fight, there are no indications that such détente is in the cards for Venezuela and the United States. Washington, it now appears, may not even want to maintain ambassadorial relations. This could be a significant turn towards the worse for the United States’ already rocky relationship with its third-largest oil supplier.

Back in June the Obama Administration announced the appointment of Larry Palmer, President and CEO of the Inter-American Foundation, to replace the current ambassador in Caracas. The Venezuelans gave their initial approval. But then came the U.S. Senate confirmation process. Although there were no major problems in Palmer’s testimony before the Senate on July 27, Palmer was subsequently asked to respond to questions from Senator Richard Lugar, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Palmer’s answers to these questions were presumed to be for the Senators and not for the public, but a week later they were posted on Senator Lugar’s website. Unfortunately Palmer wrote some things that a candidate for ambassador would not say publicly about the host country. He referred to “morale” in the Venezuelan armed forces as “considerably low” and to “clear ties between the Venezuelan government and Colombian guerrillas.” There were a number of other remarks about Venezuela that most governments would consider quite unfriendly or even insulting.

Alan K. Henrikson is director of diplomatic studies at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. "While we would expect candid answers to queries from a Senator that were supposed to be confidential, the publication of such comments -- considered hostile and demeaning by the host country -- is extremely unusual,” he said in a telephone interview. “Many countries would not accept as ambassador, someone who made such comments while being considered for appointment."

more

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-&-columns/op-eds-&-columns/does-washington-want-normal-diplomatic-relations-with-venezuela

[Lasher]

100. OK, now we're getting somewhere.

So the Venezuelans initially said Palmer would be acceptable. He said noting objectionable during his confirmation hearing. He subsequently responded to the Senators in a candid communication that was presumed to be private.

But Senator Lugar torpedoed Palmer by publishing the document on his website. Chavez and the Venezuelan media picked up on this, condemning Palmer and rejecting him as ambassador.

Without these details, one could incorrectly conclude that Palmer had been reckless and irresponsible with his statements. And if this Washington Post editorial is accurate, he was telling the truth.

So what is the right thing for the US to do? Democrats obviously need to learn this lesson over and over: Never, ever trust a Republican for any reason. Right now Obama should be condemning Lugar, loudly and often, for sabotaging US foreign policy to further his partisan political agenda. But you and I both know he is not going to do that.

Should we now send Chavez a different ambassador as he demands? I'm still not sure. But with Obama halfway through his presidency, I wonder if he'd ever get another one confirmed - which is exactly what Republican obstructionists want.

Thanks for the scoop. I understand the issue better now.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ronnie624]

55. All of it is offensive.

It perpetuates a lie as reality.

It is the U.S. government that seeks military dominance in Central and South America, not the Venezuelan government. Just last year, the Pentagon was requesting hundreds of billions of dollars for that purpose. It would take Venezuela decades to burn through that much money at the current rate of expenditure on its military. Militarism, by its very nature, is what threatens security, not building schools and feeding the poor.

[molly77]

8. JDPriestly

I can understand why the clinton administration doesn't like Chavez too. He is brown with oil under his feet. Reason enough for the lead up to war for fascist land.

[Beacool]

21. The Clinton administration???

:shrug:

[PufPuf23]

84. Plan Colombia started under POTUS Clinton

The USA is the aggressor and instigator of tension in Latin America.

[JDPriestly]

50. I don't like Chavez because he acts like a megalomaniac.

He is extremely full of himself. He thrives on being the center of a cult.

Democracy is about institutions and systems that allow everyone to take responsibility and have a voice. It isn't just about a beloved personality.

Our democracy in America is in serious trouble, but we don't have a cult of personality. Venezuela's democracy at this point, dominated as it is by Chavez' personality and the adoration of Chavez by so many people in Venezuela, is a cult.

Chavez has been in power since 1998. That is 14 years, longer than any American president has ever served. What will happen when Chavez steps down? He has to do that sooner or later.

Has he created a legacy of institutions and governmental organization that will survive his strong personality? (I don't think so.) It is that legacy of a structure that empowers the people that is the hallmark of a founder of a democratic country.

So, now you know why I do not care for Chavez. It isn't personal. I just think he is doing a lousy job.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Chávez

[johnroshan]

95. Thats the problem with socialism.

"Has he created a legacy of institutions and governmental organization that will survive his strong personality? (I don't think so.) It is that legacy of a structure that empowers the people that is the hallmark of a founder of a democratic country."

Here lies the case for the libertarian viewpoint. It is not possible for a socialist government to create a structure that is immune to the vagaries of their all too human leaders. Socialism creates a big government that needs constant monitoring and enforced transparency to avoid dictators from taking over.

Even if you assume that Chavez is an angel from heaven who will not abuse, the system he has created WILL be misused by those who follow. Politics is a magnet for the power hungry, and they are usually never satisfied.

John.

[DeSwiss]

98. +1000

:thumbsup:

[martymar64]

106. Like him or not, he's legally elected by his countrymen.

Venezuelan elections have been monitored closely and are well known for their transparency. As long as the people of Venezuela have the right and the ability to elect their leaders, I'll trust in their choice whether I like their leader or not.

And like him or not, you gotta admit the man is tenacious and a force to be reckoned with. He counts the leaders of the other South American countries (maybe Colombia excepted) as his friends. They are united in their solidarity to prevent the return of US interventionism that caused some much misery in South America for so long.

The US would attack him at the peril of turning the rest of South America against us. It would benefit us to just butt out of their affairs.

[sabrina 1]

20. Why do you understand that this administration would not like

Chavez? And, btw, the reason they won't let the Venezuelan people speak for themselves if they can help it, is because Chavez remains very popular with his own people even after ten years so letting the people decide means Chavez will be their choice. And that is as it should be.

I understood the Bush Administration 'not liking Chavez' but I fail to understand why this Democratic Administration would support Bush policies in Latin America. It has been another huge disappointment for those of us who supported this administration.

Latin American countries have made it clear they want an end to U.S. policies in that region of the world. The past history has been devastating to democracy there. Why would anyone who calls themselves a democrat want to continue Rightwing 'Dirty War' policies there especially when the people themselves have already spoken in so many of those countries?

The U.S. needs to get our of other people's business and I had hoped that with Democrats in power we would see changes in these old, cold war policies. But, it was not to be apparently.

[Zorro]

22. Chavez is a self-declared adversary of the US

and the Venezuelan people made it pretty clear in their last election they're growing tired of him.

Hugo reaches out to embrace and express solidarity with governments that do suppress the free expressions of their citizens -- like Iran, Zimbabwe, and Cuba.

Maybe that's why the US is disinclined to coddle his administration.

[sabrina 1]

24. No, he is not and has said so over and over again.

He was a self-declared adversary, as were we all, of the Bush administration. He looked forward to a different relationship once Bush was gone and extended his hand in friendship to President Obama. Sadly, this administration has continued the abhorrent Bush policies in South and Central American and it would be far more accurate to say that the U.S. is a self-declared adversary of the emerging democracies in South and Central America. See Hondurus eg, and see our close relationship with the criminal Uribe government in Colombia. Nothing has changed in U.S. policy since the old Cold War habit of supporting puppet governments in that region of the world and dictators like Pinochet eg.

So, the blame for this lies squarely with the U.S.

However, all Chavez has to do is to start embracing the wealthy while instituting 'austerity programs' for the poor and the working class, returning them to the 80% poverty rate they were in before his election, put Venezuela back under the control of the World Bank, sell his country's oil interests to foreign Multi-Nationals, and the U.S. will quickly forget any issues they have with him right now.

But as a man who cares about the people of Venezuela, unlike our former allies in that region of the world, that is unlikely to happen.

Maybe one day the U.S. government will start placing the needs of ordinary people over the interests of Major Global Corporations. But that too, is unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future.

[Zorro]

27. This administration has continued the abhorrent Bush Policies?

Care to name these "abhorrent policies"?

You must not have been paying attention, because the US did not interfere with the events that transpired in Honduras -- so it's disingenuous to imply the US should have directly engaged in the internal affairs of that country to force Zelaya's reinstatement.

And Colombia's remarkable recovery from a near failed-state status because of Uribe's policy and US support is a sign of success, despite all the FARCie whining because their favorite narcoterrorist organization is in decline.

If Chavez truly cared about the welfare of the citizens of Venezuela, he'd be doing more about the rampant crime rates and failing economy instead of having the assembly give him authority to legislate by decree.

And if you think Chavez hasn't declared himself an adversary of the US, then you are being deliberately obtuse.

[EFerrari]

29. WikiLeaks Honduras: State Department Busted on Support of Coup

Tuesday 30 November 2010
by: Robert Naiman, t r u t h o u t | News Analysis

WikiLeaks Honduras: State Department Busted on Support of Coup

By July 24, 2009, the US government was totally clear about the basic facts of what took place in Honduras on June 28, 2009. The US embassy in Tegucigalpa sent a cable to Washington with the subject, "Open and Shut: The Case of the Honduran Coup," asserting that "there is no doubt" that the events of June 28 "constituted an illegal and unconstitutional coup." The embassy listed arguments being made by supporters of the coup to claim its legality, and dismissed them thus: "None ... has any substantive validity under the Honduran constitution." The Honduran military clearly had no legal authority to remove President Manuel Zelaya from office or from Honduras, the embassy said, and their action - the embassy described it as an "abduction" and "kidnapping" - was clearly unconstitutional.

It is inconceivable that any top US official responsible for US policy in Honduras was not familiar with the contents of the July 24 cable, which summarized the assessment of the US embassy in Honduras on key facts that were politically disputed by supporters of the coup regime. The cable was addressed to Tom Shannon, then assistant secretary of state for western hemisphere affairs; Harold Koh, the State Department's legal adviser; and Dan Restrepo, senior director for western hemisphere affairs at the National Security Council. The cable was sent to the White House and to Secretary of State Clinton.

But despite the fact that the US government was crystal clear on what had transpired, the US did not immediately cut off all aid to Honduras except "democracy assistance," as required by US law.

Instead, a month after this cable was sent, the State Department, in its public pronouncements, pretended that the events of June 28 - in particular, "who did what to whom" and the constitutionality of these actions - were murky and needed further study by State Department lawyers, despite the fact that the State Department's top lawyer, Harold Koh, knew exactly "who did what to whom" and that these actions were unconstitutional at least one month earlier. The State Department, to justify its delay in carrying out US law, invented a legal distinction between a "coup" and a "military coup," claiming that the State Department's lawyers had to determine whether a "military coup" took place, because only that determination would meet the legal threshold for the aid cutoff.

http://www.truth-out.org/wikileaks-honduras-state-deptartment-busted-support-coup65515

And speaking of failed states and US backed butchers,

Over 10,000 unidentified bodies found in Colombia

A survey to determine the number of unidentified corpses found by authorities in Colombia has returned a count of 10,084 so far, with more than half of the country's municipalities yet to report their figures, reports El Espectador.

The survey, which is being conducted by the Justice and Peace tribunal with the Prosecutor General's Office, was distributed in July to mayor's offices in an attempt to get an accurate count of the unidentified bodies registered by authorities across the country. As yet, less than half of the 1,034 municipalities have responded.

According to reports, the departments with the largest amount of unidentified bodies found correspond to areas where conflict has been heightened recently. The department of Antioquia registered the largest amount of dead thus far with 3,573 corpses. This is followed by Meta, with 1,363, and Santander, with 776.

The Prosecutor General's Office said it is important that efforts to count the bodies are centralized nationally to ensure all bodies are counted and families are given the opportunity to be identify their kin. There is often confusion in matching an autopsy number with the proper body.

http://colombiareports.com/colombia-news/news/12793-10000-unidentified-bodies.html

[Zorro]

34. So was it a "military" coup?

Did the military take over the government? Nope. So no "military" coup, which I believe was the legal determination.

It's a simple concept all but the willfully ignorant can comprehend.

And how many unidentified corpses were murder victims of the FARC? Wouldn't you agree that the Prosecutor General's office is doing the right thing, and the Colombian government and society is on the road to recovery?

[EFerrari]

37. According to your government, it absolutely was.

Are you calling the State Department "willfully ignorant"?

WikiLeaks on Latin America: Honduras coup 'illegal'

snip

The cable, dated July 24, 2009, and signed by the U.S. ambassador to Honduras, Hugo Llorens, is directed to the White House and senior State Department officials. It says the Honduran legislative and judicial branches "conspired" with the military to remove Zelaya from power. Zelaya was yanked from bed on the night of June 28 and put on a plane to Costa Rica. His foes alleged he was planning an illegal referendum to help him keep in power, a goal the cable labeled a "supposition."

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/laplaza/2010/11/wikileaks-latin-america-venezuela-honduras-paraguay-argentina.html

[Zorro]

41. Pay attention now

Military coup = military officers assume control over the government.

Still no evidence the US actively supported Zelaya's removal, despite all your obfuscations.

[EFerrari]

43. You need to direct your incorrect analysis to the State Department.

:)

[Zorro]

35. Dupe

[sabrina 1]

32. Evo Morales, among other South American leaders disagree with

you regarding the U.S. role in the Honduran coup:

"Maybe I do not know Obama, but the imperial structure remains in force," he went on, accusing Washington of inciting civil violence in Bolivia and plotting his assassination.

Diplomatic relations between Bolivia and the United States have been strained since Morales took office in 2006. Last September, Morales expelled the U.S. ambassador, declaring him persona non grata for allegedly assisting separatists.

We aren't doing very well in South America regardless of your opinions. The people have decided they do not want the U.S. interfering in their business. That should be respected. THEY get to chose their leaders, IF the U.S. believes in democracy as it claims.

Chavez is not the only one the U.S. is having trouble with. They can't all be wrong, can they?

As for Colombia and Uribe, if slaughtering your own people means success, then you prove my point. Of course we supported Uribe. We supported Pinochet. So thanks for making my point for me.

[Zorro]

33. Evo Morales is an expert on the US role in Honduras?

Morales didn't even realize that Bolivians would riot over the reduction of gasoline subsidies. But I guess that's due to US "imperial" policies, also.

And like it or not, the Colombian people overwhelmingly supported Uribe and his efforts to bring order out of a chaos. The last time I looked FARC support was polling at 1% in Colombia; is that who you would prefer controlling Colombia?

In my South American travels I find many people that respect and admire the Obama administration. What's your experience been?

Oh, never mind. You do all your travelling on the internet.

[EFerrari]

36. Order out of chaos? You mean, the silence of the grave, don't you?

Mass graves uncovered in Colombia
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6629217.stm

Or maybe you mean, the kind of order from chaos displacement brings?

Colombia's Internally Displaced People
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-solis/colombias-internally-disp_b_715186.html

Or, maybe you refer to the tidiness of the simply disappeared.

Colombia has 50,000 disappeared: Official
http://colombiareports.com/colombia-news/news/12486-colombia-has-50000-disappeared-official.html

[sabrina 1]

38. You are apparently someone who assumes a lot.

I have many friends in South American countries and while I have not yet been there, I do intend to go, maybe even to work there as some of my American friends are already doing right now. One friend who works in Venezuela and was meant to stay there only temporarily, has fallen in love with the country and its people AND its government which, she says, clearly cares about the Venezuelan people in a way that the U.S. government never has in her lifetime. I hear they welcome teachers there as education is a very big deal in Chavez' Venezuela. I am looking into maybe spending a year there and looking forward to it. Maybe if I were from a big Multi National Corp, or if she was, we would view things differently.

Some of my friends are Venezuelan. From a fairly well-off family, they initially did not support Chavez, but are now very supportive of his policies as they are aware of the horrendous conditions that existed for over 80% of their fellow citizens before he took over.

One of my co-workers and another friend, and her family from Colombia tell an entirely different story regarding the 'successes' of the Uribe government than you do. Of course if you are wealthy, Uribe is your friend.

I have traveled to many places btw and found that people are not much different from Europe to the ME to this continent. They all want the same things and in most places to which I have traveled, they only get them when they have a government that puts the people first, like the chavez government, who btw, is popular in most places I have traveled to around the world.

[Zorro]

39. I am a member of the reality-based community

and Chavez is not highly regarded in Latin America, despite your earnest belief otherwise.

[EFerrari]

42. He seems to be universally shunned, for sure.

lol

[COLGATE4]

47. Wow. Those photo ops are certainly conclusive proof that he is

universally loved and respected. Wish I had seen them before.

[ronnie624]

56. There is genuine warmth and camaraderie in the photos.

One sees it over and over again, anytime those leaders are photographed together.

[EFerrari]

66. I made no such claim. n/t

[Judi Lynn]

52. Thanks for posting these photos. They are completely representative of EVERYTHING we've learned

in the last 10 years.

Very kind of you to take the time to post them. They are terrific.

[Zorro]

Dupe

[Zorro]

58. The 2010 Latinobarometro polling

shows Latin Americans having the least favorable opinions of Fidel and his poodle Hugo. And both Danny and Evo share the bottom of the barrel with them.

Got something substantive that contradicts that polling? The Latinobarometro polling has been pointed out to you, but the zombie lies about how the masses admire Hugo and Fidel still persist.

And another slew of chummy photos doesn't qualify as substantive.

P.S. lol.

(credit to Bacchus)

[Zorro]

61. Here I'll make it easy for you

http://www.latinobarometro.org/

and download the December 3rd report.

[EFerrari]

67. This is a claim made over and over and over and for years

and still Chavez is re-elected in clean votes and still he is seen everywhere with a majority of Latin American leaders.

What a puzzle that is. :)

[Zorro]

73. I see

You've got nothing of substance to contradict current polling that clearly shows the majority of Latin Americans think Hugo's a douchebag.

Or that Obama is widely admired.

[EFerrari]

74. You have an entire -- poll vs. repeated, clean re-election

and good relations between Venezuela and all of Latin America but our two lapdogs, Peru and Colombia.

It's a mystery, for sure. :)

[Zorro]

83. Heard you the first time

You've got nothing.

[DeSwiss]

99. Ahh, the DLC....

...well at least now that explains your posts.

Buh-bye.

[COLGATE4]

48. With that vast background in Latin America I can see how you

feel qualified to opine on the subject.

[EFerrari]

68. The butchery of Uribe is not a secret.

You don't have to be a Latin American specialist to read the papers.

[sabrina 1]

92. Why, thank you. I can opine on the Civil War also, and even the

American Revolution, WW11, the Holocaust, the Vietnam War, and even the reign of Henry V111. How about you? Any opinions on how George Washington came to be our first president? Why not John Adams or Jefferson, or even Ben Franklin?

Oh wait, you couldn't possibly opine on these matters, you weren't even alive back then :eyes:

[bitchkitty]

85. You find many people who love the US and hate Chavez.

I wonder why that is?

Could it be because you hang out with like minded elitists?

[Zorro]

86. You obviously didn't read the 2010 Latinobarometro report either

Try it -- you might learn something.

[RaleighNCDUer]

46. Well duh. When has the US EVER interfered when there was a coup

against a leftist government? We only interfere on behalf of fascists.

[RaleighNCDUer]

45. Not to mention this administration's support of the coup in Honduras

which was practically a mirror image of the one attempted against Chavez in '02 - I reckon that would give him reason to believe that the change in administrations made no difference in regards to US meddling in Central/South America.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ronnie624]

57. The goal of the U.S. political power structure,

is political, economic and military dominance over South America. The future course of action for the foreign policy establishment, is spelled out clearly in the Pentagon budget request in 2009.

The Venezuelan government has never even hinted at any military goals outside the borders of Venezuela.

Simple logic works wonders when drawing conclusions about this situation.

You need to read more, if you truly wish to gain an understanding of reality.

[Bluest Dog]

75. If the US wanted to dominate SA, they would have done it long ago.

[EFerrari]

77. Um, they did since long ago. However, BushCo was so obsessed

with the Middle East that they dropped the ball on Latin America. And in the process, Latin America started slipping away from the State Department's grasp.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[fascisthunter]

64. nobody here thinks he's a god, but some do think he is the devil

the attention people give him is due to the obvious propaganda we see from those who are threatened by democracy and a socialistic system. We know what's going on here...

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hardrada]

97. Go away.

[EFerrari]

25. Chavez is a self-described adversary of imperial policy

which is as bad for the US as it is for Venezuela or any other country in this hemisphere. As Chalmers Johnson said, you can have a foreign empire or a domestic democracy but not both.

And it's a little hypocritical to ding Chavez for Iran, Zimbabwe and Cuba when our presidents kiss the Saudis like Bush or snuggle up with Uribe and fund the Kopassus death squads in Indonesia as Obama has chosen to do.

As far as "coddling", Latin America is not a baby and US paternalism is unwelcome there.

[roody]

30. +1

[roody]

3. Is Obama getting ready for another war?

[tularetom]

7. Well as somebody pointed out here recently

We here in the US of A don't do much of anything very well.

We don't manufacture things, we don't maintain our infrastructure, we don't take care of our poor and elderly, and we don't educate our kids.

But by god, we sure as hell are good at starting wars. Maybe not so good at finishing 'em, but nobody in the world can start a war like we can.

Starting wars is the American way. We're number one at it! USA! USA!

[Ghost Dog]

10. "Wars". Without legally-declaring them, naturally.

'Nuff said.

[jaxx]

11. And the unhappys are #1 in complaining about the USA.

It's easy to complain, you don't need solutions.

[InkAddict]

12. Excuse me, but some of us find solutions to the problems that

get thrown our own personal way every freakin' day. Have you come to the conclusion that voting provides a suitable solution for NEW policies to work for the general welfare...i.e. change you can believe in? Have you found the funds necessary to hire the "best" attorneys to plead for justice...what corporations do you take to your "marriage" bed?

I've had it with being criticized for the laziness of "dissent" about policies that lower the standard of living for most Americans. What will it take to overcome the greed and corruption...one cannot compromise policies and principles and expect goodness to flow; it won't work to simply quietly acquiesce to that simpler evil either, the rewards, save for a clear conscience, just aren't there, though we can always continue to beat ourselves up for being overly responsible.

[jaxx]

18. Yes, you made my point quite well.

[roody]

31. Compare the US' defense budget with the rest of the world's.

I teach kids every day to solve their conflicts nonviolently. Would like some backup from my government and/or culture.

[fascisthunter]

62. let us all know when you find solutions from those you defend

thanks

[EFerrari]

14. Sometimes I think my problem is I remember when Jackie Kennedy went to Paris

with JFK and a whole different world of good faith negotiating seemed not only desirable but possible.

Man, I'm old.

lol

[me b zola]

17. You're not old, just reasonable

Something that bothers those who would sell out our principles would not understand.

[EFerrari]

19. It's not hard to be more reasonable than Senate Republicans.

lol

Happy New Year, me b zola. :hi:

[me b zola]

49. Happy New Year to you, E

:hi:

[fascisthunter]

63. no, your wisdom is shared and ageless

[Posteritatis]

28. No. (nt)

[roody]

60. I hope you are right.

[dipsydoodle]

23. Why would the tension grow

if they're not talking to each other ?

[ret5hd]

26. Ever been in a bad marriage?

[CJvR]

40. Not too disturbing.

The US and Chavez hardly needs ambassadors to trade insults and threats when they have reporters eager to serve as messengers.

[hack89]

53. The lack of attention must drive Chavez nuts. nt

[ronnie624]

59. On the contrary,

corporate owned media disseminate negative propaganda about the Venezuelan government on a regular basis. If one clicks on LBN, it is likely there are several extensive threads going at any given time. No other Latin American leader receives more attention in the U.S., than the Venezuelan president.

Your message is one of myriad examples of how critics of President Chavez use empty memes to generate negativity.

[hack89]

80. Chavez's actions generate plenty of negativity

he doesn't need my help. Bypassing a popularly elected opposition by having a lame duck legislature pass a rule letting him rule by decree is a prime example. Why is he scared of the results of a free election?

[EFerrari]

70. It's sort of bizarre that our government pushes 2 or 3 negative articles a week

about Chavez in our corporate media and then HE is accused of attention mongering as if those articles were his doing.

lol

[hack89]

79. He can't stand the idea that we don't really need an ambassador

that what happens in his country is so inconsequential to America. He is nothing without the American bogey man - being ignored by Obama must really frustrate him.

[EFerrari]

81. And you know this how?

The wholesale projection around Hugo Chavez is fascinating if at times, repetitive.

[hack89]

82. Well, he really is insignificant on the world stage.

he has to sell oil to us so it is not like he has any leverage on America. And he certainly poses no threat to us. It is hard to imagine how he impacts my life in any way.

[sabrina 1]

87. True, so why is the U.S. government so obsessed with him?

Why are the spending millions of dollars on anti-Chavez propaganda and backing the opposition in Venezuela? Why don't they just mind their own business and let Venezuela mind theirs? IF he is so insignificant that is.

[hack89]

88. I don't think they are

I can't remember the last time I saw a story about Chavez on the national news. He is certainly not a mainstream topic of conversation - I can't remember the last time his name came up in casual conversation. I just think that his supporters are simply hypersensitive to any criticism of him. Who in his right mind would ever consider him anything but a minor distraction? What possible threat does represent to America?

[sabrina 1]

89. He represents one of the biggest oil-producing countries in the world.

His refusal to hand over his oil to Multi Nationals causes fear that other oil producing countries might get the insane idea that their oil belongs to them.

You could say the same thing about Saddam Hussein. How many people had even heard of him in this country until the first Gulf War? But those who stand to profit from oil were obsessed with him. Why? Because he stopped being a compliant puppet regarding Iraq's oil.

All the denials that the War in Iraq was about oil, were shot down when Kucinich revealed the clause in one of the war funding bills, demanding that Iraq's new government hand over over 80% of their oil to Multi Nationals. Kucinich was threatened with sanctions for informing the American people of what the war was really all about.

Ordinary people may not talk or care about Chavez, but to the PTBs, he is an obsession. If you've missed the obsession with Chavez over the past ten years, then you haven't been paying attention. This is not about him specifically, it is about oil, as it always is. And he is standing in the way of all those profits because he has the crazy idea that Venezuela's oil belongs to the people of Venezuela.

We weren't paying attention to Iraq and as a result were taken by surprise when the leaders of this country took this country to war there. Most people fell for the lies, that it was about 'terror'. This time, I hope people will not be taken by surprise regarding Venezuela.

[hack89]

90. Yet he has no choice but to sell us all they oil he can

otherwise his house of cards collapses. Do you understand that for all his rhetoric, he has never refused to sell us oil? He is the one in a bind - he is dependent on oil revenues for his survival. He is dependent on America, not the other way around. Only 11 percent of our oil comes from Venezuela and that percentage has been steadily declining.

The 'PTB' are not obsessed with Chavez - his followers are simply hyper sensitive to any perceived criticism of him.

[sabrina 1]

91. No, we are the ones in the bind as one of the most voracious

oil guzzling nations on the planet. We need his oil. He, otoh, has been making business deals with China who also need his oil, and that is one of the reasons he is hated by the Multi Nationals. How dare HE make such deals and let the profits pay for education and healthcare for the people of Venezuela. What a criminal to do. Take care of your own population with the profits from your own resources.

And for all the chest thumping about him here, we still buy his oil, don't we? In fact, if he refused to sell it to us this country would not be able to function. So, I'd say we need his oil as much as he needs to sell it. And in a sane world, we would be satisfied to buy it, rather than take it, as we've done in Iraq. The Chinese are satisfied to work with him, to sign business contracts rather than declare war on the country or fund opposition forces there to try to destabilize the government. They get what they want, and he gets what he wants. What is wrong with the U.S. that they cannot do the same thing?

[hack89]

101. So he gets in bed with the most cut throat capitalists in the world?

namely China? The second most voracious oil guzzling nation in the world? That has its own Multi Nationals? Yea - that will end well.

Oil is fungible - there is plenty of oil to go around. No one really cares that much about a tin horn Castro wanna be.

[sabrina 1]

103. Lol, so it's okay for the U.S. to get in bed with China.

Even while China was cracking down on dissidents after Tiananmen Sq. this country was sending envoys to China to make business deals, and 'open up their capitalist market' there. The U.S. helped China become what they are today. Without the 'friendship' of the U.S. it would have taken China a lot longer to become the threat that they are to the standing of the U.S. as the most powerful country in the world, financially.

But if Chavez makes a few business deals, he's doing business with 'cut-throat capitialists'. I think the Chinese we are dealing with on a far bigger scale, are the same ones he's dealing with. Are there two sets of Chinese officials, one 'cut throat capitalist' group Chavez is dealing with and the other, altruistic, democratic, fair-minded individuals who care about human rights that the U.S. is dealing with???

They need oil, they are not trying to take it from Venezuela, they are willing to buy it. The U.S. slapped the hand of friendship Chavez offered, so that left him free to do whatever is best for his country.

I wonder why, if Venezuela is so unimportant, so much effort goes into attempting to overthrow their democratically elected president, from U.S. backed coups to support for the attempt to destabilize the government? Someone is pouring money into those efforts. Maybe they just have money to burn :eyes:

[hack89]

105. You missed my point completely

the Chinese will treat him no differently than we do. They understand cutthroat imperialism and capitalism just as well as we do.

We are not trying to steal his oil - we have always been willing to pay market price for it.

I have no illusion about the Chinese.

This effort to overthrow Chavez is simply the hyper sensitivity to any criticism of him plus his constantly crying wolf to deflect attention from his domestic policies.

[sabrina 1]

107. You're saying there was no coup, backed by the U.S.

in Venezuela? There was no coup, backed by the U.S. in Honduras? That the U.S. is not backing the opposition forces in Venezuela and every other country in Latin America? Are you at all familiar with the history of the U.S. in that region of the world?

As for the Chinese, they need oil. Chavez will sell them oil. They don't need to invade countries to get it, neither do we, but then we have the biggest military apparatus in the history of the world, so we have to justify all that spending somehow.

We ARE trying to get our hands on Venezuela's oil. We are planning on taking most of the profits, as we are now doing in Iraq, for Multi National Corps. Just as soon as we can install a 'cooperative' leader, like Uribe in Colombia. I hope the Venezuelan people resist any such repetition of the history of U.S. installed dictators in Latin America.

Chavez' deal with China, and eventually other countries, has no middlemen eating up profits that should be going to the people who own those resources. Good luck to the Iraqis, at least under Saddam they had free medical care and free education, now they have nothing.

That's what we do to countries, wake up! History doesn't lie. Venezuela had a poverty rate of over 80% when Chavez came into office. He has reduced that rate by more than 20%.

He is not introducing 'austerity' programs for the poor and working classes, even in these corruption-induced global disastrous economic times, as we are and other western, capitalist countries are doing. He is on the side of the people, not the Corporations.

As for him selling directly to China? If he were to go along with what the U.S. wants, and allow Multi National Oil Cartels to control Venezuela's oil, as they are now doing in Iraq, who do you think THEY would be selling the oil to? Do you think they would be refusing to sell it to China because they have so many principles?

No, they WOULD be selling it to China, only THEY would be taking most of the profits. Now, Venezuelans will benefit directly from those profits. There are no profit guzzling middlemen. He has paid off Venezuela's debt to the World Bank. Making the country independent of their control. For all these reasons, he is hated by the corrupt, capitalist criminals who have eaten up profits from every country they could get their hands on, INCLUDING ours.

Why do we need BP drilling our oil, eg? What benefits do the American people get from the profits from that oil?

I wish we had a Chavez in this country who would kick out these greedy, brutal, corrupt Corps like BP. But that would take courage, which he has plenty of. And yes, they do want to kill him, and may succeed one day. But if they do, they will not get the results they hope for. Last time, the Venezuelan people came to the defense of their president. They don't want us there, or our proxy, puppet dictators. They've had enough of that. The Iraqis don't want us there either. THIS country is falling apart, I don't understand how they find the time to be interfering in the business of other countries.

[EFerrari]

93. Baloney. There is a concerted and ongoing multimilion dollar infowar

being conducted against him and Venezuela. And it's not because he is a threat to America, not at all.

He is a threat to the IMF and to the World Bank, along with Morales and with Correa and the others who are unaligned in the region and who are telling the economic hitmen to go cheney themselves. That is the heart of the matter. Not WMD and Iran and not even oil. They are bucking the international mafia that has been raping Latin America for hundreds of years, a mafia that the political elite in this country belong to.

That's why Chavez is always demonized where real anti-democratic and repressive @ssholes who co-operate with the vultures are never in the news at all. You don't have to be "hyper sensitive" to see that. You just have to read the news.

[hack89]

102. Only in your imagination.

it is the only way you can deflect criticism of Chavez and the mess he has made of his country.

[EFerrari]

104. Yeah, it's just my imagination!

[fascisthunter]

65. no real tension will arise, just posturing by an ineffective and dishonest US government

this government is reaping what it has sown proving to the world that these so-called capitalists demanding less socialism are nothing but crooks chipping away at "We the People's" solidarity, democracy and well being. They know a weaker society is defenseless against greed and criminality. Their game is coming to an end.