Blame it on Caracas

[Judi Lynn]

Blame it on Caracas
By Gregory Wilpert
Source: NYTX
Thursday, October 03, 2013

Stepping up hostilities with the United States, President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela expelled the top American diplomat,” reads the first sentence of the New York Times’s coverage of the three diplomats President Maduro expelled on Monday (“With Accusations of Sabotage, Venezuela Expels 3 U.S. Embassy Officials,” by William Neuman, NYT, Oct. 1, 2013, p.A6). After explaining that Maduro accused the diplomats of fomenting sabotage and protest activity among the opposition, the rest of the article goes on to say, “The expulsions were the latest diplomatic swipe at Washington by Mr. Maduro since he took over for the country’s longtime president…” and that Maduro is intent on “painting the United States as an imperialist aggressor out to undermine his government.”

In other words, it is the Venezuelan government that is worsening relations between Caracas and Washington and that the U.S. government is an innocent victim of Maduro’s verbal and presumably not-so-diplomatic onslaught. The fact that the U.S. first initiated almost every turn in the worsening relations between the U.S. and Venezuela is conveniently omitted in Neuman’s article.

For example, it was ambassador-designate Larry Palmer, in August 2010, who first cast aspersions on Venezuela’s military and thereby torpedoed his acceptance as U.S. ambassador to Venezuela. Then, in May of 2011, the U.S. imposed sanctions on Venezuela’s state oil company PDVSA for doing business with Iran. Later in that same year the Obama administration accused four Venezuelan government officials of providing support to Colombia’s guerrilla, the FARC, and levying sanctions in these officials. Shortly thereafter Obama himself accused the Chávez government of restricting human rights and of violating democratic principles in Venezuela. In January of 2012 Obama proceeded to expel Venezuela’s consul general in Miami for allegedly engaging in a spying operation against the U.S. while she was stationed in Mexico a year earlier. What happened was that she had met with someone connected to the Venezuelan opposition who tried to entrap her by claiming to have information about U.S. nuclear facilities. Other than meeting with someone who unsuccessfully tried to give her false information, she never actually engaged in any spying activity. Finally, the day that Chávez died, Maduro revealed that two U.S. diplomats were meeting with Venezuelan military officials, proposing destabilization plans.

Reading the New York Times on U.S-Venezuelan relations, one could get the impression that either none of these above-named incidents happened or that if they did, they were meaningless and do not deserve a reaction from the Venezuelan government. The fact that the Venezuelan government did react each time and did not tolerate these actions can—in the NYT worldview—only mean that the Venezuelan government is either hell-bent on sabotaging U.S.-Venezuela relations and/or that these actions are merely a smokescreen to distract from domestic Venezuelan problems.

More:
http://www.zcommunications.org/blame-it-on-caracas-by-gregory-wilpert.html

[Bacchus4.0]

1. wow, there are actually idiots who defend the Ven admin

Wilpert used to be an employee of the ven information office. It must be difficult tofor chavistas to accept what is happening in the country.

[Zorro]

2. Well he is married to Venezuela's New York Consul General

Of course our resident LatAm pedant knows that, but hopes that no one else that reads this forum does.

[Socialistlemur]

3. Wilpert writes one of the weakest articles he has ever written...must be out of ideas

This is one of the weakest, blandest, softest and most convoluted defenses of the Madurista regime ever written. Mr Wilpert must have been making 10 hamburgers on a grill and holding a cell phone conversation as he dreamed up and wrote this piece, because it sure lacks punch.

After I read it and nodded my head, I wondered..lets say I have a vested interest in defending Maduro....what would I publish in his defense? The last thing I would do is mention this diplomatic dispute. I think I would bring up something like the hassles Maduro had to suffer when his Cuban owned presidential plane had to sit on the Seattle-Tacoma airport Tarmac because it couldn't be refueled due to the Cuban embargo rules.

I read Maduro was extremely upset because now that he uses a Cuban registered plane for his travels (rather than the Venezuelan owned Airbus Chavez had been using) he has so much trouble making sure the "presidential plane" doesn't get embargoed by entities trying to recover unpaid bills from the Cuban government. This upset him so much he decided to kick the three diplomats out. And here we are, Mr Wilpert managed to write something which got posted here, and now I'm tossing dirt at Wilpert and Maduro. Talk about blowback. Next time he writes he needs to do it after the hamburgers are done.

[Bacchus4.0]

4. he gets paid by the word but that is best he could come up with

Then again his payment is in bolivares so you really cannot blame him. He can use them to get the grill started.

[Peace Patriot]

5. Of course our hard right DUers, above, don't address the substance of the article.

They're all snark just like their brethren in the Diebold Congress who are trying to destroy the U.S. government to prevent people from getting health care.

Snarky disinformation gets seriously tiresome after a while. It is not meant to inform, or to get you to think and analyze what your read in the corporate press or see/hear in the corporate broadcast media. Instead, it is intended, a) to include you in a mob 'lynching' of the leftist president of Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro, and b) to prevent you from seeking information that might contradict their sneers and jeers. You're supposed to sneer and jeer with them, and not think.

Wilpert makes a good case for the New York Slimes getting that nickname from me. The Slimes don't inform you about Venezuela; they slime Venezuela. They did this throughout Chavez's tenure. Now they're doing it to Maduro. Wilpert mentions all kinds of ways that the U.S. has insulted the Venezuelan government, recently--some I didn't know about. He doesn't mention the one that stands out to me: The U.S. has yet to recognize Maduro's election (in a special election after Chavez's death), though all of the rest of the world has done so. There was absolutely nothing wrong with Maduro's election. It was merely close (and not nearly as close as some elections we've had here). Could there be anything more insulting regarding an election system that Jimmy Carter called "the best in the world" and that is demonstrably, provably far, FAR more honest and transparent than our own?

Not to mention the hypocrisy. Though I feel that Obama was, in truth, elected by our voters here, neither Obama nor anyone else can prove it. The proof has been hidden from us by ES&S/Diebold and their 'TRADE SECRET' programming code in about 75% of the voting systems in the U.S. Half of those voting systems DO NO AUDIT AT ALL (comparison of machine totals with ballots) and the other half do only a miserably inadequate 1% audit. Experts whom I respect say that at least a 10% audit is needed to ensure the accuracy of electronic voting totals.

Venezuela does a FIFTY-FIVE PERCENT audit on their electronic voting system, for every election, on the day of the election! That is more than five times the audit needed to verify electronic results. RW snarks in Venezuela (the RW opposition) forced them to do a completely unnecessary 99.9% audit, which further confirmed that Maduro won.

And President Obama spits on that election, when he can't verify his own?

Anyway, we can be sure, with President Obama going out of his way to insult President Maduro and his government in reported incidents, that our secret government and its corporate and war profiteer elements, are working on covert subversion and destabilization. That is what the U.S. government does. Its hatred of socialist governments, particularly in Latin America, is legendary. And the Chavez/Maduro government has earned the special bile of our corporate/war profiteer rulers by BEING SUCCESSFUL at dramatically reducing poverty in Venezuela, by providing health care and greatly expanding educational opportunity for all Venezuelans and by inspiring a leftist revolution throughout South America and into Central America.

There is simply no question that those who rule over our government want this leftist movement ended, that our government has been trying to destroy it from the beginning--from way back in 2002 and the U.S. supported, failed coup d'etat in Venezuela, through 2008 and the U.S.-supported, failed, white separatist coup d'etat in Bolivia, through the recent U.S.-supported, successful coup d'etats in Honduras and Paraguay--and that our government continues to contrive new tactics, and revamp old ones, for this purpose: ending leftist governments in Latin America.

But don't expect the New York Slimes to expose this dastardly U.S. policy. They ceased being even a decent newspaper a long time ago--about the time when they delayed their knowledge of vast U.S. government domestic spying in order to help Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld stay in power in 2004. And their malfeasance on the 'TRADE SECRET' code voting systems that were spread like a plague throughout our land between 2002 to 2004 is disgusting.

[Zorro]

6. So you think it's "snarky disinformation" to point out that Wilpert

--"political sociologist, activist, and freelance writer" -- is also married to Venezuela's New York Consul General?

[Peace Patriot]

8. Does that give him goobers? Who he's married to?

That's how you use it.

Nobody should pay attention to his analysis; he doesn't know what he's talking about; he's prejudiced--because of who he's married to???

THAT is prejudice!

Who he's married to might actually make his views even more interesting because of the insider edge he may have as to the Venezuelan government. But he doesn't NEED that edge to lay out the facts on the New York Slimes' exceedingly biased articles about Venezuela, nor incident after incident of U.S. government insults to the Chavez/Maduro government. The facts speak for themselves.

Wilpert is a LEFTIST. He has never hidden that fact. And it's damn REFRESHING to get a LEFTIST perspective on the egregious anti-Chavez/Maduro propaganda that the New York Slimes has been publishing for a decade now. I don't care who his WIFE is. His analysis of this series of events is accurate, and, furthermore, needs to be known. We need to get out from under the "Iron Curtain" of corporate propaganda that attempts to force our people to view the world the way that Wall Street does and the way that the Pentagon and the CIA do. It is a totally screwed up perspective and one that does not serve the interests of most people, here or anywhere else. We need ALTERNATIVE analysis, such as Wilpert's, in order to understand what is really going on in the world. You would deny us this alternative perspective because of who he's married to? THAT is snark.

Irrelevant.
Nasty.
Bitchy.
Presumptuous.
Unthinking.
Mob mentality snark.

[Zorro]

10. I guess the answer is "yes"

How amusing it is see you dismiss a legitimate FACT that rational readers might consider when assessing the author's objectivity -- especially when any and every article by international news agencies causes you to reflexively bombard the forum with unhinged rants about how you automatically believe the opposite of what's reported because of purported inherent bias.

Wilpert is a paid propagandist for the Venezuelan government, and Manuro is an ignorant asshole who is doubling down on policies to wreck Venezuela economically, politically, and socially.

But since he's blaming the US for his incompetence, it's not surprising to see the usual claque of Chavez/Manuro worshipers swallow whatever BS Wilpert and his cohorts on venezuelanalysis and granma serve up and declare it's righteously delicious.

[Judi Lynn]

14. "rational readers" can spot the right-wingers here a mile away.

While you spend your time attacking someone who has so many readers here, so many friends who thank her repeatedly, who share her beliefs, there are pathetic right-wing trolls who've infested this progressive message board for the sole reason of disrupting and attempting to combat progressives DESPITE the fact this boards was NOT created for right-wingers.

You know that, so do the others of your cluster.

Very sad, pathetic. Pitiful seeing people wasting their lives trying to get in the road.

[center][/center]

[Oele]

15. Supporting failing governments doesn't make you a "good leftist".

It just shows that you're unable to think for yourself. You just support whatever you think "your side" thinks, regardless of the mistakes they are making.

It also won't do the "leftist cause" any good. In the end, when what's left of Venezuela finally collapses, it is going to be used as another example of why socialism doesn't work by those right wingers that you talk about all the time. And you will have lost credibility because all the time you were supporting a government that wrecked a whole country.

Please stop portraying everyone who doesn't agree with you as a "right wing asshole". The world is not just black and white or left and right.

[Zorro]

16. "Rational readers" appreciate having hidden relationships revealed

Authoritarians sing the praises of the Cuban, Nicaraguan, and Venezuelan governments, cheer their anti-US pronouncements, and constantly attack this administration's Latin American policies. Progressive Democrats may criticize but generally support those policies. Which policies do you support? From what I have read from your years of pompous, ponderous flapdoodle, that would be exactly none.

Authoritarian right wingers blare their uninformed opinions about regions they have never even visited. Progressive Democrats offer their insights and observations based on actual involvement in foreign countries. How was your last trip to South America? Oh, never mind.

And you're a self-proclaimed progressive? Hardeharhar.

[Judi Lynn]

17. Right-wingers going to other countries don't become enlightened.

They remain the right-wing a-holes they were before they left, and after they come back. They take their scummy politics with them.

That's why we get some people here claiming they have homes in Ecuador while maintaining hatred for Rafael Correa, etc.

Henry Kissinger enjoyed visiting his fascist brethren in Argentina during their reign of terror. You don't learn a thing by traveling anywhere if you're simply stupid.

Why would you suddenly become enlightened because you've been somewhere?

It takes time to get to know about a country from inside it. Knowing about it comes from knowing the people, not knowing the right-wing a-holes there. They represent no-one other than sociopathic greedy dirtbags.

Good people are not military-minded, and they aren't vicariously power-mad.

[Zorro]

21. Right wingers going to other countries don't become enlightened?

That's quite a definitive -- and totally unsupported -- assertion spoken by someone with no real foreign experience, but making such specious claims is your hallmark.

Your self-anointed regional "expertise" apparently consists of recycling decades-old protest photos, total ignorance of the Cold War, and grubbing around the internet "researching" for any website -- especially known propaganda sources -- that support your myopic views.

There's not been any anti-US asshole you don't automatically swoon over, and your years of pedantic assaults on Obama's Latin American policies certainly calls into question your honest support for this administration. I'm sure you'd feel perfectly at home dunking your teabag with the rest of the coven.

[Socialistlemur]

20. Wilpert didn't do analysis..face it he's running out of gas

Guys like Wilpert and Mark W. are running out of gas. They are losing energy because right now the Venezuelan regime is seen as such a bizarre collection of incompetents, whatever they write gets no traction.

You know, sometimes I read what you and Judy write and I agree 100 %. Most of the time I keep out of debates because I don't like to discuss things unless I know them very well. Take for example her comment about Judy Miller, it was spot on.

But I do know about Venezuela's economy, and what that regime has done is criminal. They had no right to be so stupid and to allow so much to be stolen. Spending $11 billion on useless Russian weapons brought them nothing. Who the hell cares if they have a small satellite if they can't even afford decent hospitals? That was a regime made out of cardboard. Everything was focused on propaganda. And the personality worship was sickening. This is why with Chavez dead that idiot Maduro tried to create a religious cult. But a religion won't save his behind if the people see food disappear off the shelves. And no this isn't Chile, buddies. They had 14 years in power already. This regime is the establishment. Whatever is there is their fault. What that country needs is a competent government to patch things up urgently.

[Judi Lynn]

7. The NY Times always shows us it can be even slimier than before, incredibly.

The sky's the limit.

Their own Judith Miller has carved out a special place in "journalistic" history for herself as a complete, shameless liar, backed fully by her paper, spreading the whoppers the Bush admin gave her to drag the US public down into deeper pits of ignorance, but so supportive of the immoral destruction of the Iraqi people and their entire way of life.

[Oele]

9. The Venezuelan election controversy was not invented by the US.

The elections were very controversial, in Venezuela, regardless of what any foreigner thinks.

And as stated numerous times before, the 55% audit that was later expanded to 99.9%, was only on a certain aspect of the election: whether the paper ballots match with the electronic votes. It completely ignores the fact that there were lots of complaints about "dead voters" and other irregularities that could have been verified by checking the voter rolls. When the system was introduced, the main point that made everyone (including Jimmy Carter) so happy about it, was that *everything* , including the voter rolls, could be checked.

I find it a bit disturbing that people on this forum focus on the U.S. vs Venezuela or Right vs Left aspect so much. The current problems in Venezuela are not caused by US politicians. Venezuela is a mess right now and it's caused by Venezuelan politicians.

The same Venezuelan politicians try to divert attention from their real problems by expelling a few US diplomats. Have you heard of what they're actually being accused? They met with the opposition.

They succeeded, once again, at least on DU - we are, discussing "US empire" vs Latin America, right-left nonsense again, instead of focussing on what's really happening in Venezuela right now.

[roody]

11. What is Carter's belief about the

election that Maduro won?

[Oele]

12. I don't know what Mr. Carter's personal opinion is, but here is what the Carter Center said:

The Carter Center today released a preliminary report (PDF) on Venezuela's April 14, 2013, special presidential elections recommending electoral reforms to ensure greater campaign equity, increased efforts to improve the electoral climate for voters, and more information about the effectiveness of the biometric identification system and procedures to prevent usurpation of voter identity and multiple voting.

The report finds that the Venezuelan population, and the political parties and candidates in general, have demonstrated confidence in the performance and integrity of the automated touch-screen voting machines in accurately counting the votes cast on April 14.

There is not agreement, however, about the quality of the voting conditions and whether every registered voter is able to vote one time, and only one time. In addition, the report finds a series of inequities in campaign conditions in terms of both access to financial resources and access to the media, which diminish the competitiveness of elections, particularly in a legal framework that permits indefinite reelection of public officials.

more @ http://www.cartercenter.org/news/pr/venezuela-070313.html

[roody]

13. Thanks.

[Socialistlemur]

19. Hard to tell if Maduro won or not

The refusal to carry out a full audit by the regime, coupled to the abuses and irregularities mentioned indicate the election was a toss up. It's hard to tell who won. But even if Maduro won, he did so by paying a terrible price: the regime put the economy on steroids borrowing money from abroad and printing paper money to cover holes they had created. Economic policy was beyond irresponsible and went into the criminal realm. They allowed a huge surge in corruption, and then tried to cover the mess with price controls and forcing the release of the last ounce of food out of the warehouses.

Thus Maduro may have won, but he did so at a terrible price, and the bill has to be paid.

They are now arguing sabotage, actions by the CIA, and even have the gall to compare Venezuela to Chile, as if they hadn't had power since 1999. They control everything. They have had tons of time to improve the economy for many years, and they chose to destroy it and borrow money to cover the gaps they created.

This regime has now gone beyond incompetent and stupid into the realm of criminal because people are starting to lack food and they are going hungry. And I don't want to see statistics from 2011 and 2012 about how happy they were. Of course they were happy, Chavez was alive and money rained form the sky. What they didn't know was that the whole thing was a set up, that money has to be paid, and there's no way pay it. I think they'll default soon, and this will likely end in another of those miserable outcomes with a tinhorn military dictatorship. You mark my words.

[Socialistlemur]

18. Get real, Wilpert wrote a wimpy article

Wilpert wrote an article which cited events from 2010 to justify what Maduro did in 2013. You got to be kidding me when you complain because I pointed out the article was weak and he was running out of material.

Furthermore, it's a really weak tactic to devolve into USA internal politics when discussing a minor diplomatic row between the USA and Venezuela, which was clearly caused by Maduro.

I'll tell you what I discern here: Maduro went to China to borrow $5 billion to try to get by. The Chinese told him no. At the same time he had a hard time because he chooses to fly in a Cuban owned plane and not Chavez' presidential Airbus owned by the Venezuelan Air Force.

There's high tension in Caracas because they are out of money. Maduro is way out of his league, he has gone haywire and won't listen to Raul, or the Cubans are seeking a violent outcome because that's what Raul has learned over the years. In other words, the current mess may be a result of "the Cubans don't do internal politics" syndrome. Being a Stalinist style dictatorship they may have chosen violence as the preferred way out. A military and popular revolt may be what they are aiming at? Who knows, they are smart but they are a bit out of their familiar grounds.

Playing on the other side of the court is Capriles and the Venezuelan people. Capriles seems to have them figured out. So he's counseling that nobody fall into the violence game. Evidently he wants it to get to the elections in December. At that time the government will have lost the last remaining shred of legitimacy it may have had. So where will it end? Who knows? This is an interesting game. But superficial and lame writing by Wilpert won't alter the outcome. This is a great game, the Cuban dictatorship trying to survive as a fascist mini empire on Venezuela's back, versus the Venezuelan people. Maduro and his gang are merely bystanders and pawns.

[ehcross]

22. Whichever way one looks at it, it Venezuela is doomed.

Nicolás Maduro is at the center of a shameful intent on keeping Venezuela going despite the stupidity of a rookie president who knows NOTHING about neither Economics nor Politics.

Venezuela floats on an ocean of petroleum and developed to be a strong democracy until the bad guys led by Hugo Chávez accepted
Cuba's military advice in exchange for oil. Chávez was an ignorant who managed to grab control of the government by force, only to
become Cuba's pupil (mostly in military matters) in exchange for more oil.

Chávez left a country in turmoil and had decided to appoint Nicolás Maduro his successor. Maduro quickly adopted a controversial stand against the United States which marked much of his time in government. The economy collapsed as a result of mismanagement, a product of Maduro's stubborn and blind posture.

Maduro's role has been one of open challenge to U.S. policies, a poor effort to emulate Chávez.

The present outlook is one of growing conflict, with Maduro ready to expel further U.S. Embassy personnel.

[Judi Lynn]

23. Do you have an opinion on what "El Caracazo" massacre was?

Maybe you would want to explain how that happened.

By the way, Hugo Chavez did NOT seize the Presidency by force. Forve was used against him during HIS Presidency.

[Socialistlemur]

24. I don't think he/she said seized the presidency

The statement was "gained control of government", I believe. Chavez did go into a carefully planned campaign to gain control of everything.....this means today the regime controls everything with very few exceptions.

Chavez was a Fidel Castro disciple, and Fidel Castro is an autocratic Stalinist. This means no democracy, and extremely centralized power. The implications are the elimination of independent powers such as the judiciary, the national electoral commission, and the national comptroller (a post intended to audit accounts and root out corrupt officials).

For those readers who may not have a sense of history, it's very true that power corrupts. To avoid an excessive amount of power political systems divide such powers. These systems have flaws, so it's important for new generations to focus on strengthening this separation of powers.

But autocratic Stalinists seek power. Castro was able to concentrate power because he had the guns. Chavez did it because he had Castro serving as his chess master and a truly dumb, divided and infantile opposition. Interestingly, the chemotherapy applied by Chavez has served to cleanse the opposition and today it has emerged as a much stronger force led by Capriles, who is as good a chess master as Raul Castro, Diaz Canel, and the others who are guiding Maduro.

So although Chavez managed to gut the independent powers, and today Maduro (meaning the Cubans) controls almost everything, Maduro is in trouble because the sheer incompetence he displays, and the terrible corruption Chavez encouraged and preserved, are like a cancer eating his regime. To make matters even worse for them, they lack an uniting ideology. They claim to be communists, but the Cubans know communism doesn't work and are dismantling it, turning fascists like the Chinese. So the Cubans are merely trying to become an imperialist power, using Venezuelan oil to gradually control the political centers of power in Latin America.

It takes a lot of ambition to be in transition from Stalinism to fascism, throwing out the communist economic playbook and at the same time coopt a fifth column of confessed communists in Latin American countries. It's a masterpiece of putting together frankenstains monster with chewing gum and bailing wire. And I suspect the big imperial powers will step in to stop the Cuban move. I'm leaning more towards a move by Putin to slide in with the FSB and block the Cuban plans.

So Judy, Chavez indeed did take over government. The presidency isn't supposed to be an imperial power or create absolute rulers. But this is what Chavez had, what Maduro seeks with the law which gives him power to legislate, and what Stalinists think is the obvious end state.., the dictatorship of the proletariate is hogwash, this system is the dictatorship of an upper caste, the ones who move into palaces, fly private planes, and steal just the same way everybody steals when they think they can get away with it. You are being deceived.

[Judi Lynn]

25. The poster to whom I was speaking wrote the following:

Venezuela floats on an ocean of petroleum and developed to be a strong democracy until the bad guys led by Hugo Chávez accepted
Cuba's military advice in exchange for oil. Chávez was an ignorant who managed to grab control of the government by force, only to
become Cuba's pupil (mostly in military matters) in exchange for more oil.