Unofficial thread about Chavez; A poster boy for Diebold..

[question everything]

September 22, 2006

In Chávez's Crosshairs
By MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY
September 22, 2006; Page A11

(snip)


The battleground is Bolivia, which Mr. Chávez badly wants to control so he can seize that country's natural-gas reserves and become the sole energy supplier in the Southern Cone. In doing so, he hopes to seriously damage the Brazilian economy and crush Brazil's geopolitical ambitions as the leader in South America. In its place he wants to plant the flag of Venezuelan hegemony. If he gets away with it, Argentine and Chilean sovereignty would also be diminished and continental stability lost.

(snip)

Democratic Congressman William Delahunt, former Republican Congressman Jack Kemp and the Washington law firm of Patton Boggs all worked to give Mr. Chávez an image makeover in the U.S. so that Venezuelan cries for help might be ignored even as the aspiring dictator was consolidating power. It seems to have worked too. Let's not forget what happened when Venezuelans tried to remove Mr. Chávez in a 2004 recall referendum. The European Union refused to act as an observer, citing lack of transparency. But that didn't stop Jimmy Carter or the Organization of American States, both of which went along to "observe" a vote cloaked in state secrets. When OAS mission director Fernando Jaramillo cried foul at the many government pre-referendum pranks and Mr. Chávez complained about him, OAS chief César Gaviria yanked Mr. Jaramillo from the country just ahead of the vote.

Exit polls showed that the Venezuelan president was badly beaten in the contest but the chavista-stacked electoral council declared him the winner. Mr. Chávez refused to allow independent auditing of voting machine software or a count of paper ballots against machine tallies. Mr. Carter together with U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for the Western Hemisphere Roger Noriega and the OAS, rushed to endorse the vote despite the lack of transparency and many testimonies to state-sponsored intimidation and dirty tricks. In the heat of the battle, the National Endowment for Democracy cruelly threatened the country's most important independent electoral watchdog that if it didn't accept Mr. Chávez's victory, NED would pull its support.

(snip)

Both Mexico and Peru rejected Chávez proxies this year in presidential elections. While he might still get a foothold in Nicaragua if Daniel Ortega wins there in November, what he really wants to do is knock Brazil down a few notches. And there is no better way to do that than to hit its energy supply. This explains the blitz the chavistas are now putting on in Bolivia to make that country a (hydro) carbon copy of Venezuela. Mr. Morales rose to executive power by first using violence to bring down two constitutional presidents and then forcing a new election, which he won. He dreams of an indigenous, collectivist Bolivian economy under the thumb of an authoritarian government. Never mind that most native Bolivians are highly entrepreneurial.

(snip)

Mr. Morales's party has just over 50% of the constitutional assembly seats. That means that in order to steamroll the opposition the government must force a change in the approval requirement to a simple majority from a two-thirds vote, which is now the law. Seven of the nine state governors have objected to this but Evo's side is again threatening violence. Bolivia could use some help from the international community. One thing the U.S. could do to weaken Evo is end insistence on coca eradication, which while failing to reduce drug use has alienated peasants. What is clear is that doing nothing while Mr. Chávez seizes power on the continent is not an option.

URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115888737577670829.html (subscription)

[eleny]

1. Ah yes - Mary O'Grady, darling of The Heritage Foundation

So tell me, question everything, when did you start embracing right wing hacks?

[question everything]

15. Can you offer concrete data to refute the claims

instead of just shooting the messenger?

[scarletwoman]

18. You go first. Where's O'Grady's concrete data to support HER claims? (nt)

[eleny]

22. Yes...

I Googled her name and found articles by people on the left who talked about her right wing writings. And The Heritage Foundation also sells her book from its site.

http://narcosphere.narconews.com/story/2005/6/28/155339/172
https://secure.heritage.org/Bookstore/browseauthor.cfm?ID=7
http://www.haitiaction.net/News/RAW/10_10_4.html

[sam sarrha]

2. first i have heard of this, hard to believe. anyone who calls * the Devil

cant be all bad.....

i would have to see some reputable information before i change my mind on him... this is fertle ground for Rove, the Devil's understudy, to spin lies to discredit Chavez...

[Jcrowley]

3. Mary O' Grady Poster Child For Savage Capitalism

and Heritage Foundation favorite.



Mary Anastasia O'Grady

https://secure.heritage.org/Bookstore/browseauthor.cfm?ID=7

More from Mary:
Mary Anastia O'Grady has a column in this morning's Wall Street Journal on the "growing relationship between Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Venezuela's President Hugo Chávez." Ms. O'Grady writes that "Venezuela has made it clear that it backs Iran's nuclear ambitions and embraces the mullahs' hateful anti-Semitism. What remains more speculative is just how far along Iran is in putting down roots in Venezuela."

Mary O'Grady is an editor of the Wall Street Journal and member of the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board since 2005.

"Venezuela's Voters Have Spoken" --Jimmy Carter responding to a WSJ article by O'Grady
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter

A few lessons for Mary Anastasia O Grady
Mar 04, 2005

I do not expect to consistently agree with the oped page of the Wall Street Journal. But I do not think it is too much to ask that the columnists on oped page of the Journal try to square their arguments with reality, not with a cartoon version of reality.

Mary Anastasia O'Grady's column today is centered on a cartoon version of reality -- a world where the "Clinonistas fueled moral hazard by bailing out Wall Street cronies, who were up to their ears in high yielding debt," a world where the IMF "lost political support for unrestrained lending to insolvent governments -- aka bailouts" after Argentina's default in 2001, and a world the "IMF's good housekeeping seal of approval on Argentina" was the only reason why "markets pumped in money so liberally."

All three arguments are myths.

1) The claim: "The Clintonistas" fueled moral hazard by bailing out Wall Street cronies"

The facts: The Clinton Administration pulled the plug on the IMF's bailout of Russia in the summer of 1998 after only $5 billion of the roughly $15 billion IMF package ($20 billion including the World bank and others) had been lent out. As Rubin's memoirs make clear, this was not an easy decision. Russia was considered too nuclear to fail for a reason (Argentina, in contrast, is "a dagger pointed at the heart of Antarctica, to use Kissinger's memorable phrase). But Rubin strongly believed that there was no point throwing good money after bad; he prevailed against the rest of the NSC, which wanted to keep on lending. "Wall Street cronies" were left holding lots of exposure to Russia -- whether ruble denominated GKOS or London Club debt. Russia's default certainly should have eliminated any expectation that every country would get a bailout large enough to let Wall Street get off scott-free.
http://www.rgemonitor.com/blog/setser/91360

With this in mind, among journalism and academic circles, O'Grady has the reputation of being ultra-conservative and therefore holding very little credibility. While O'Grady has nothing positive to say about President Chavez and his policies, Wall Street Journal reporters have reported favorably on the government. For instance, Wall Street Journal reporter Jose de Cordoba recently penned the article, "As Venezuela Tilts Left, a Rum Mogul Reaches Out to Poor," (11-10-2004) on the Proyecto Alcatraz, a social rehabilitation program for gang members initiated by Alberto Vollmer, a rum magnate and member of the opposition. This article depicts a situation of coexistence and cooperation between the government and opposition members.

According to the Wall Street Journal website, Mary Anastasia O'Grady has worked as an options strategist for Advest Inc., Thomson McKinnon Securities, and Merrill Lynch & Co. More importantly, she has been awarded the Inter American Press Association's (IAPA)—an association of private media owners and corporations—Daily Gleaner Award for editorial commentary and an honorable mention in IAPA's opinion award category in 1999.<4> O'Grady has also developed reports for the Heritage Foundation, a think tank in Washington DC "whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense."<5>

A detailed analysis of O'Grady's editorials on Venezuela throughout 2004 and 2005 follows. Overall, O'Grady's analyses are biased and one-sided, presenting multiple opinions by opposition members and Chavez critics and failing to include even brief mentions of the positive contributions by the Chavez administration to the Venezuelan population. Government voices are notably absent and she constantly uses harsh and disrespectful language to describe Chavez and his policies.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1375

Mary Anastasia O'Grady lives to enhance the global capital accumulation of the Polyarchy

[Missy M]

4. The whole rant is so ridiculous it's laughable.....

O'Grady is the writer of some really bad fiction with help from the White House.

[bobbolink]

20. It would be very laughable--if it weren't swallowed whole by so many

ignoramuses!

I'd like to laugh, but these are the ones who get the coverage.

Bad fiction, indeed!

[omega minimo]

5. So you don't actually "question everything" do you?

Bringing unsubstantiated crap in here?

[question everything]

17. How do you know it is unsubstantiated?

It would be nice if someone would post hard data instead of just trashing the messenger

[eleny]

27. I replied to your request above

Look, it seems to me that maybe you were offended by Chavez' remarks of this week at the UN. And maybe you looked for an article that would speak against him. In your haste, you chose O'Grady who happens to be a right winger. What can I say but better luck next time.

We're probably on the opposite side of the Chavez issue. But I believe that we'll both be voting Dem this November.

[Nabia2004]

6. This propaganda was fully debunked in 2004 - nt

[ima_sinnic]

7. this is propaganda--you really do need to "question everything"

since when is the WSJ a credible source?

[Selatius]

10. They're credible if you're a corporate baron with interests in oil

The last thing you want is to be forced into actually compensating the people of the land you sucked the oil out. It cuts into the bottom line, and the shareholders on the board demand as big a bottom line as possible.

[Selatius]

8. Human Rights Watch said the elections were largely clean

Even though they have criticized Chavez in the past. There's facts, and then there's outright lies.

[Greyhound]

9. In case anyone is actually interested in what this corporate whore

has to say, here's a brief overview of her credibility from the other side.

http://narcosphere.narconews.com/story/2005/6/28/155339/172

From her (still unsubstantiated) claims that Venezuela's government is funding Evo Morales and the coca growers' movements in Bolivia, to her frequent defenses of disgraced Bush advisor on Latin America Otto Reich, to her inferences that Jimmy Carter and Cesar Gaviria covered up what she claimed (without evidence) was an electoral fraud in Caracas last year, it seemed that O'Grady and we were destined to always view the same hemisphere through opposite lenses.

**break**

Again, no documentation or fact: just simple innuendo about what "could be" and an unsubstantiated claim that someone (else) is funding the protests in Bolivia. But I'll forgive her, for now, for her inability to grasp that poor folks who have had to do for themselves under repressive conditions for more than 500 years are probably better able to organize blockades of the roads that run through their towns than, say, the staff at the Heritage Foundation, or Wall Street journalists, would be if they attempted to do the same!

** Big finish**

Her argument is a mirror image of that of Narco News (after all, mirrors invert left and right): She says, in effect, They're winning the South! Therefore we have to legalize drugs to stop them! We've said, for five years, We're winning the South! Therefore drugs will be legalized! Poetic, ain't it! We both seem to agree, though: the social movements on the rise in Latin America are the sword by which the United States is going to have to, sooner or later, repeal drug prohibition.

Thank you comrade O'Grady!

Link to her thoroughly discredited hit-piece;
http://www.opinionjournal.com/wsj/?id=110005509

How does this crap keep getting repeated? :think:

[Marr]

11. The Wall Street Journal opinion page? And the Heritage Foundation to boot!

Jesus Christ.

[stillcool]

12. per Steve Kangas and William Blum

U.S. Government Assassination Plots
by William Blum
The U.S. bombing of Iraq, June 26, 1993, in retaliation for an alleged Iraqi plot to assassinate former president George Bush, "was essential," said President Clinton, "to send a message to those who engage in state-sponsored terrorism ... and to affirm the expectation of civilized behavior among nations."
Following is a list of prominent foreign individuals whose assassination (or planning for same) the United States has been involved in since the end of the Second World War.
The list does not include several assassinations in various parts of the world carried out by anti-Castro Cubans employed by the CIA and headquartered in the United States.
1949 - Kim Koo, Korean opposition leader
1950s - CIA/Neo-Nazi hit list of numerous political figures in West Germany
1950s - Chou En-lai, Prime minister of China, several attempts on his life
1950s - Sukarno, President of Indonesia
1951 - Kim Il Sung, Premier of North Korea
1950s (mid) - Claro M. Recto, Philippines opposition leader
1955 - Jawaharlal Nehru, Prime Minister of India
1957 - Gamal Abdul Nasser, President of Egypt
1959 - Norodom Sihanouk, leader of Cambodia
1960 - Brig. Gen. Abdul Karim Kassem, leader of Iraq
1950s-70s - José Figueres, President of Costa Rica, two attempts on his life
1961 - Francois "Papa Doc" Duvalier, leader of Haiti
1961 - Patrice Lumumba, Prime Minister of the Congo (Zaire)
1961 - Gen. Rafael Trujillo, leader of Dominican Republic
1963 - Ngo Dinh Diem, President of South Vietnam
1960s - Fidel Castro, President of Cuba, many attempts on his life
1960s - Raúl Castro, high official in government of Cuba
1965 - Francisco Caamaño, Dominican Republic opposition leader
1965-6 - Charles de Gaulle, President of France
1967 - Che Guevara, Cuban leader
1970 - Salvador Allende, President of Chile
1970 - Gen. Rene Schneider, Commander-in-Chief of Army, Chile
1970s, 1981 - General Omar Torrijos, leader of Panama
1972 - General Manuel Noriega, Chief of Panama Intelligence
1975 - Mobutu Sese Seko, President of Zaire
1976 - Michael Manley, Prime Minister of Jamaica
1980-1986 - Muammar Qaddafi, leader of Libya, several plots and attempts upon his life
1982 - Ayatollah Khomeini, leader of Iran
1983 - Gen. Ahmed Dlimi, Moroccan Army commander
1983 - Miguel d'Escoto, Foreign Minister of Nicaragua
1984 - The nine comandantes of the Sandinista National Directorate
1985 - Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, Lebanese Shiite leader (80 people killed in the attempt)
1991 - Saddam Hussein, leader of Iraq

and by Steve Kangas...
The following timeline describes just a few of the hundreds of atrocities and crimes committed by the CIA. (1)
CIA operations follow the same recurring script. First, American business interests abroad are threatened by a popular or democratically elected leader. The people support their leader because he intends to conduct land reform, strengthen unions, redistribute wealth, nationalize foreign-owned industry, and regulate business to protect workers, consumers and the environment. So, on behalf of American business, and often with their help, the CIA mobilizes the opposition. First it identifies right-wing groups within the country (usually the military), and offers them a deal: "We'll put you in power if you maintain a favorable business climate for us." The Agency then hires, trains and works with them to overthrow the existing government (usually a democracy). It uses every trick in the book: propaganda, stuffed ballot boxes, purchased elections, extortion, blackmail, sexual intrigue, false stories about opponents in the local media, infiltration and disruption of opposing political parties, kidnapping, beating, torture, intimidation, economic sabotage, death squads and even assassination. These efforts culminate in a military coup, which installs a right-wing dictator. The CIA trains the dictator’s security apparatus to crack down on the traditional enemies of big business, using interrogation, torture and murder. The victims are said to be "communists," but almost always they are just peasants, liberals, moderates, labor union leaders, political opponents and advocates of free speech and democracy. Widespread human rights abuses follow.
http://home.att.net/~resurgence/L-overclass.html

also by William Blum...
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/American_Empire_Dummies.html

Following its bombing of Iraq, the United States wound up with military bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates. Following its bombing of Yugoslavia, the United States wound up with military bases in Kosovo, Albania, Macedonia, Hungary, Bosnia and Croatia. Following its bombing of Afghanistan, the United States is now winding up with military bases in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia and perhaps elsewhere in the region. That's not very subtle, is it? Not really covert. The men who run the empire are not easily embarrassed.
And that's the way the empire grows, a base on every corner, ready to be mobilized to put down any threat to imperial rule, real or imagined. 57 years after World War II ended, the US still has major bases in Germany and Japan; and 49 years after the Korean War ended, the US military is still in Korea. A Pentagon report of a few years ago said: Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere ... we must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.

[EarthNeedsHope]

13. Wait, so this oped-ish style piece

Takes a little bit of a sideswipe at Carter. It is saying that Carter's election monitoring purposely wanted to validate Chavez? I see a little gap in logic here.

The very opinionated piece also calls Obrador a "Chavez proxy."

It all makes sense once you look at the source: The Wall Street Journal. Pure fact is not enough for them. They also called war opponents "against the liberation of Iraq/Afghanistan."

[scarletwoman]

14. It's crap right wing propaganda - the writer is a Heritage Foundation hack

Notice that there's no sourcing for any of her assertions -- mainly because they're pure fantasy.

sw

[scarletwoman]

16. Why you'd post the propaganda fantasies of Heritage Foundation hack,

from the pages in the notoriously mendacious right wing swamp of the Wall Street Journal editorial section on a Democratic, Liberal board is beyond me.

If you want to make a case against Hugo Chavez, at least use credible sources, not this kind of filth that no good Democrat ought to have truck with -- unless it's to debunk all its falsehoods.

You call yourself "question everything"? How about questioning why this opinion piece offers absolutely no citations to back up its scurrilous allegations?

sw

[question everything]

21. Oh yes, the bad, bad, unreliable WSJ... including that piece by Howard

Dean, from the very same pages:

The Wall Street Journal

'Democrats Offer a New Direction'
By HOWARD DEAN
September 22, 2006; Page A10

We need a Democratic Congress to fight the war on terror -- and to end the war on America's families. Republican policies of the last five years have damaged our economy and failed Americans. Democrats believe strengthening the middle class is essential for a thriving economy that rewards work, provides economic opportunity to all and makes it easier for parents to devote time to their families. An economy that favors the top 1% at the expense of everyone else might be good for President Bush's politics, but a shrinking middle class is bad for capitalism, democracy and America. We need a new direction.

The Republican record on managing the federal budget is dismal. Republicans have turned surplus into debt, hope into lost opportunity; they have become the party of borrow-and-spend. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that the total cost this year of the president's tax cuts is $258 billion. This means that even with spending for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the response to Hurricane Katrina, the federal budget would essentially be in balance if the tax cuts had not been enacted, or if they had been offset as required under the pay-as-you-go rules that Republicans allowed to expire. These economic policies amount to a war on American families:

• Under Mr. Bush and the Republican Congress, incomes today are $1,000 less for the typical household than during Bill Clinton's final year in office; incomes for the typical working-age household have declined every year since the president took office. Black and Hispanic households have fared worse over the same period: Black household income has fallen every year, after rising every year (except for a one-year $60 dip) under Mr. Clinton. Incomes for Hispanic households are down $1,000, after rising more than $7,000 under Mr. Clinton.

• Incomes have fallen because wages -- which provide 75% of income for typical families -- are stagnant for most workers. Under Mr. Bush, wages for college-educated workers increased only 1.3% between 2000 and 2005, as compared to 11.3% during Mr. Clinton's last five years. For the nation's lowest-paid workers, the situation is even worse, as the minimum wage is worth less now than at any time in at least 50 years.

(snip)

Mr. Dean is chairman of the Democratic National Committee.
URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115888827162370858.html (subscription)

[scarletwoman]

23. Dean is a Democrat -- and he's not a member of the WSJ editorial board.

I mean, c'mon, if this is your counter-argument, it's really pathetic.

[Greyhound]

24. Or how about even replying to his own thread?

Hit and run flame bait. :grr:

[scarletwoman]

25. He's replying, he just ain't got nothin'... (nt)

[Greyhound]

26. My mistake, I guess he was away. n/t

[stepnw1f]

19. NICE TRY.... BUULLLSSHHIIT (nt)

[Peace Patriot]

28. "Question everything" questions nothing. This article is 100% lies and

disinformation, from what I can see. On a par with Colin Powell's speech to the UN about Iraq WMDs. It is unworthy of refutation, and similar to many WSJ editorials--unreasonable rantings of the rightwing with no basis in fact, and no effort at reasonable discourse or fact-based argument. Try www.venezuelanalysis for the antidote--or maybe a wreath of garlic.