An interesting response from Eva Golinger to Kerry re Venezueala:

[AP]

Dear Senator Kerry:

As a registered democrat who supports major changes to current U.S. governance, I must express my utmost disappointment and disillusionment with your March 19, 2004 Statement on Venezuela. ... I must tell you that your statement on Venezuela is not only highly misplaced, but also demonstrates how truly uninformed you are about the situation in Venezuela. It also leads me to believe that you have been influenced by interested parties insisting you take a stand on this issue in their favor.

You declare that international pressure should bear on President Chávez to allow the referendum to proceed, which clearly demonstrates your ignorance of the referendum process in Venezuela. As per the Venezuelan Constitution, certain procedures must first be completed before a recall referendum can be held on President Chávez’s mandate, and those clamoring for the referendum have yet to fulfill the necessary requirements that would permit such a vote to take place. It may be easy for you to make a statement on an issue you do not fully understand or care about, merely to acquire approval from a targeted voting pool, yet I would warn you to not make such whimsical declarations without first examining the entire situation.

...

more accurate report of the events in Venezuela would demonstrate to you that President Chávez has taken no steps whatsoever to impede a recall referendum. Venezuela’s Electoral Council and Supreme Court are currently determining whether hundreds of thousands of potentially fraudulent signatures are subject to further review and certification. Determining whether substantial numbers of signatures on a very important petition is an issue, which I hope, you would consider worthy of scrutiny and absolute certainty. Or would you permit such a situation to occur in your own election and just let potentially fraudulent votes against you be counted without any further verification or review?

...

You also mention in your March 19th Statement that President Chávez has “repeatedly undermined democratic institutions using extra-legal means, including politically motivated incarcerations, to consolidate power”. Honestly, Mr. Kerry, are you speaking of the same President Chávez who has been democratically governing Venezuela since 1998, has implemented one of the most progressive constitutions in the world in the area of human rights, has developed successful social programs that are benefiting millions of Venezuelans in the areas of health care, education, housing and jobs, and has brought more Venezuelans into the political process than any government in the nation’s history? The same President Chávez who survived a coup d’etat in April 2002 by an opposition movement that violently ousted him from his democratically elected post and then proceeded to dissolve all of Venezuela’s most treasured institutions, such as the Supreme Court, the National Assembly, the Constitution, the Public Defender and the Attorney General?

Prior to President Chávez’s administration, there were hosts of political prisoners in Venezuela. Yet since Chávez has been in office, there have been no political prisoners. This is a fact documented by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, and even the U.S. State Department’s Country Report on Venezuela. And more power is in the hands of the Venezuelan people than ever before. Finally, under Chávez’s governance, more Venezuelans actually have a say in their government and feel a part of their country’s progress, development and political process.

I would also ask you, Mr. Kerry, to verify just what exactly you mean by “Chávez’s policies have been detrimental to our interests…” Such a statement is not supported by fact. Under Chávez, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) has been revitalized and the oil industry has surged in production and growth. This has benefited U.S. investors, companies and refineries substantially. Venezuela has paid off a substantial portion of its foreign debt and its own domestic industries are growing. Chávez has supported legislation in the area of indigenous rights and anti-discrimination laws, and has implemented education and social welfare policies that are far more advanced than those of the United States. If anything, Venezuela has become a world leader in socially humane governance.

...

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1138

[slor]

1. I was very disappointed...

that Kerry made those statements. I hope he issues some sort of clarification regarding this matter.

[vicman]

4. This really disturbs me, too,

more than anything else Kerry has done or said. I've felt for some time that should Bush be elected this year, Chavez can pretty much kiss his butt goodby, and probably his life as well. The fact that he is alive today is due solely to the incompetence of this U.S. Administration. I mean, let's face it, if the 2002 coup - covertly backed and overtly supported by Bushco - had occurred under the Nixon/Kissinger watch, Chavez would have had a load of bullets where his brain used to be. There would have been no last minute capitulation to overwhelming public sentiment and no president to return to the country. If Kerry is signaling a sign-on to this sort of policy, the world will continue its slide into the handbasket on the way to hell - courtesy mostly of our very own leaders - ever faster year by year. Scary stuff. I hope what other people have stated on this forum will be proven correct, and Kerry simply realizes that he can't afford to appear soft (before the election, anyway) on truly Democratic leaders around the world because of the inevitable smears Bushco will plaster him with. But I do wish he had a tad bit more courage. Or....

[Aquarian_Conspirator]

16. The Bolivarian movement has more to thank then Bush's Incompetence.

It has the incredible bravery of the imprisoned Hugo Chavez and the millions of people who poured into the streets and surrounded the presidential palace demanding his return, exposing the corporate media lie that Chavez was just a thug with no popular support.

[gula]

2. Excellent response

[rinsd]

3. Amnesty and Human Rights watch....

are not thrilled with Chavez.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engamr530012004

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR530032004?open&of=ENG-VEN

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR530142003?open&of=ENG-VEN

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR530072003?open&of=ENG-VEN

http://www.hrw.org/doc?t=americas&c=venezu (this is just a link to a Venezuela search under human right watch)

Venezuela Analysis is also not a fav of Human Rights watch;

http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/10/venezuela102803.htm

Or any of the other "state run" media outlets;

http://hrw.org/press/2003/06/venezuela062303-ltr.htm

Though they do give Chavez credit for allowing the press to operate somewhat freely.

[AP]

5. The media is "somewhat" free in VZ!!!

The media is totally controlled by the oligarchs and spew lies all day long!!

[Aquarian_Conspirator]

17. Yes, wealthy corporate oligarchs.

Not Chavez, who is under constant attack from the corporate media in his own nation.

[AP]

6. Your first article: Please don't criticize us. We're beyond reproach

Amnesty wouldn't show The Revolution Will Not Be Televised at their Vancouver film festival because they were afraid that the opposition would carry out acts of violence against Amnesty operations in VZ. And they're complaining about Chavez criticizing NGOs!!!

Furthermore, there have been many people criticizing NGOs as tools of their corporate benefactors in the last couple years. The CBC did a show about this.

If Chavez is voicing the same criticisms I heard on the CBC about NGOs, I say, 'go chavez!"

Amnesty should also issue this exact same warning against the Canadian government for allowing the state-run media to air reports criticizing NGOs.

[AP]

7. Second article: demonstrators.

I saw lots of AP pictures of protesters throwing Molotov cocktails and shooting wrist-rockets. This complaint not only totally relies on the oppostion for information, but seems a little premature. There's also plenty of information about who got arrested and how those cases are proceeding available. I haven't seen any outrages subtantiated in the three weeks since this letter was issued.

[AP]

8. Third article: has nothing to do with Chavez.

That's a local matter -- a complaint about local police. I read it quickly, but it doesn't seem to even have anything to do with the national government. I guess if you're trying to pad out a resume, you'd throw it in because it happened in VZ. But, so far as making an argument about Chavez goes, I'm not sure I see the relevance.

[AP]

9. Fourth article: local matter again.

There's no allegation hear that this has anythign to do with the national government. You have anything more to say about this?

[AP]

10. 5th article: the freedom of the press to tell lies:

This quote sums it up:

Human Rights Watch has repeatedly stated that Venezuelans enjoy ample margins of freedom of expression. It has pointed out that the country’s major newspapers and television channels are highly critical of or even opposed to the current government, and do not hesitate to express their views. Nevertheless, Human Rights Watch has also firmly opposed actions or legislation that might restrict this freedom.

It's funny that DU'ers who spend all day complaining about how the lying press in the US is undermining democracy, but then criticize a country which takes that threat seriously.

[rinsd]

12. The press should be free...period

"It's funny that DU'ers who spend all day complaining about how the lying press in the US is undermining democracy, but then criticize a country which takes that threat seriously."

So by publishing the "truth" (ie: Chavez's position) and going after your opposition who are obviously lying(ie: criticizing you) you save democracy?

Has Venezuela Analysis EVER published anything critical of Chavez?

It seems like FoxNews type "media" to me in regards to unwavering defense of the current leader. Thta's just a different slant of propaganda. Granted I think an "objective" press is a unicorn waititg to be found but recognize such and work from there.

[AP]

13. It's a nice balance. Has the private media ever said anything nice (and...

...honest) about Chavez, ever?

If you have a problem with Vz Analysis, say what it is. Not even that article you cited said anything very disturbing.

Have you seen The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, by the way. If you have, I have some specific questions for you about the behaviour of the press, and what you think might be appropriate government responses.

And what do you think is an appropriate response to Fox News? Do you know that the UK government sanctioned Sky News (Fox's UK news) for playing clasical music over news about a bombing in Iraq (which was exactly the kind of rascism Apocalypse Now criticizes in the scene with the Wagner music). They said they'd revoke Sky's license if they did BS like that again.

What do you think of that?

[rinsd]

14. Sounds like our own FCC which I'm not happy with...

"If you have a problem with Vz Analysis, say what it is. Not even that article you cited said anything very disturbing."

It's outright bias. Just because it's a different key doesn't mean its not the same song. HRC also doesn't make comments about Fox News, I don;t tkae that as absolution in my eyes. If you want to make the argument that people are sheep and at least with the left in charge of propaganda they have a fighting chance, I could see that. Not agree with it but see it.


"Have you seen The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, by the way. If you have, I have some specific questions for you about the behaviour of the press, and what you think might be appropriate government responses."

I have not as of yet.

"And what do you think is an appropriate response to Fox News?"

More news. I'm not a fan of media consolidation OR government sanction.

"Do you know that the UK government sanctioned Sky News (Fox's UK news) for playing clasical music over news about a bombing in Iraq (which was exactly the kind of rascism Apocalypse Now criticizes in the scene with the Wagner music). They said they'd revoke Sky's license if they did BS like that again."

Government determines appropriateness of example above threatens shut down. Do you really have to ask what I think about that?

Condemnation, skewering by other media, hell maybe even censure from Parliment but the threat to take one off the air by those in power to do so is a dangerous path. I'm not going slippery slope here, I'll spare you that. But an example from home should cast light on what I am talking about.

Our FCC has a cow about Janet's S&M titty show(sexual violence against women was my problem not the brief boob shot), goes on the warpath. In fining whatever it deems inappropriate, the result is the loss of jobs for several people including those who cases seem ridiculous(PBS woman, forget her name this second).

[AP]

15. ...

1) How is VZ Analysis biased? I don't think the article you cited makes such a broad argument. I'm not even sure if it made even a plausible narrow argument.

It just said, "sure we said there weren't human rights violations in VZ, but that doesn't mean we aren't happy with the talk about cracking down on the media corporations who feed us."

2) You need to see The Revolution Will Not Be Televised to have an informed opinion on this issue, if you ask me.

3) You think that the people with the most money, who control the media should be free to lie? I think an approrpiate resonse would be, perhaps, progressive taxation, good anti-monopoly regulation, and a well-funded state media as a counterbalance (ie, the kind of stuff VZ is trying to do).

4) Do you understand what Apocolypse Now was trying to say about fascism in that scene? Do you realize how dangerous it is to present "news" with such an agressive editorial agenda (which "soundtracking" clearly does)?

This isn't about "titties" it's about fascism. Our FCC cares more about corporate profits than it does about telling the truth, and that's a big reason why they're focussing on "titties" right now.

[rinsd]

20. ......

"1) How is VZ Analysis biased? I don't think the article you cited makes such a broad argument. I'm not even sure if it made even a plausible narrow argument."

I am making that assertion based on looking over their site and articles. It's my opinion, I don't need a HRW cite for that.

"2) You need to see The Revolution Will Not Be Televised to have an informed opinion on this issue, if you ask me."

Viewing a prop flick may give me some insight but I don't regard that as becoming "informed". That said, I still have to see it.

"3) You think that the people with the most money, who control the media should be free to lie?"

The problems with that is "lies" are often more complaints of slant or even ommission. Outright lies are obvious.

"I think an approrpiate resonse would be, perhaps, progressive taxation,"

To the point of rendering wealth as not being a weapon? Good luck.

"good anti-monopoly regulation,"

I agree on media consolidation.

"and a well-funded state media as a counterbalance (ie, the kind of stuff VZ is trying to do)."

That depends whther you get the BBC which is pretty fair to both sides vs. a state prop organ. The temptation for Chavez will likely be the latter if he is as you say fighting against the media.

"4) Do you understand what Apocolypse Now was trying to say about fascism in that scene?" "

The irony of US troops coming to "liberate" Vietnamese while playing a favorite Nazi tune?

"Do you realize how dangerous it is to present "news" with such an agressive editorial agenda (which "soundtracking" clearly does)?"

Vs. the danger of state deeming content appropriateness and threatening severe sanction? I don't view the state as benevolent and prefer the protections fall on the side of the press even with abuses.

"This isn't about "titties" it's about fascism. Our FCC cares more about corporate profits than it does about telling the truth, and that's a big reason why they're focussing on "titties" right now."

It does go to media consolidation but that wasn't my point.

I see no point in swapping on sides propaganda for the other. We should simply have both and the choices people make can be their own.

[Aquarian_Conspirator]

18. I don't agree with Chavez threatening to revoke corporate media licenses,.

It set's a very bad, undemocratic, example, and it hands propaganda ammunition to the right-wing opposition. He has a valid reason to defend the Bolivarian movement against the corporate media monopolies, but he should open the airwaves to the public and provide economic assistance to those trying to produce their own radio, TV, and print, media. Instead of shrinking the number of news sources, he should *increase* the number of news sources. This is just constructive criticism, and does not in anyway validate Kerry's recycled Otto Reich conspiracy theories about narco-terrorists and Columbian communist guerrillas.

[rinsd]

21. Agree here....

"Instead of shrinking the number of news sources, he should *increase* the number of news sources."

Let a thousand stations bloom!

[AP]

11. Your last article brings us around to the first. What's wrong with NGOs?

They won't criticize things that threaten their corporate benefactors.

They're all about human rights until a country does something to limit the control of the most powerful corporations in the world -- banking, energy and media companies. Why? Because those are the same companies financing the operations of the NGOs.

[Aquarian_Conspirator]

19. I have allot of respect for Amnesty, and am a paying member, but...

unfortunately, they have a hard time recognizing the very real, very sinister, covert operations which use otherwise angelic looking NGO's as fronts for drug, money, and weapons, smuggling. I can understand their concerns, but in todays world, this is not so black and white an issue as it appears to them.

[Judi Lynn]

22. I REALLY hope somehow Sen. Kerry will get a chance to read this message.

It's so important.

Are we expected to simply allow the monsters to win every time they want to repeal real progress?

Can you IMAGINE what our world would be like if these people got their way every time? Wouldn't be pretty.