The Washington Times: US campaign against Venezuela fails

[Judi Lynn]

Published: Thursday, May 12, 2005
Bylined to: Armando Núñez

Washington Times: US campaign against Venezuela fails

Washington May 11. ABN. - The government of US President George W. Bush has failed to condemn Venezuela before the Organization of American States (OAS), the Washington Times has reported today.

According to the conservative newspaper, if the United States is looking for a South American country to sponsor a resolution against Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, the truth is that “it is going to come out empty-handed.”

It further cites that Washington’s campaign against Caracas has failed despite recent international tours by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and US Defense Minister Donald Rumsfeld. The newspaper further affirms that US officials tried to pressure both Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and Chilean President Ricardo Lagos to side against Chavez, but they did not get the answer they were expecting.

"Lula said relations between Brazil and Venezuela have never been more intimate…a remark that knocked the wind out of Rumsfeld and Rice’s request,” Prensa Latina quoted the Washington Times as saying.
(snip/...)

http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=33936

[knowbody0]

1. chavez is brilliant

and ready for the likes of george

[hector459]

25. So you know Chavez's life is in danger from US special ops.

We can't have this happen...a democracy in our own hemisphere that is practicing what America pretends....no way.

[knowbody0]

27. i fear that as well

and love how he's getting so much press, and gathering allies and public support, he is amazing

[dhinojosa]

2. Why are we interested in Venezuela anyways?

oil?

[Robbien]

5. Oil is only part of it, Chavez is leading a movement

against global privatization which is working in Venezuela and is giving the masses in South America hope that it could work in their countries. Bolivia and Ecuador have had to back off some of the privatization due to the masses revolting.

[bennywhale]

16. Remember the Sandinista?

Reagan could not allow such an "experiment" to be succesful within the american sphere of influence.

[ovidsen]

6. Oh yes, oil! Plus

US oligarchs have a singular, pathological hatred of anything that threatens the right-wing status quo in Latin America. Cuba, Chile, Nicaragua, et. al. have consequently suffered.

[joefree1]

7. You betcha!

Venezuela flexes oil muscle

US sees oil and Chavez's ambitions as a troublesome mix

By Jim Bencivenga | csmonitor.com

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice may be in Moscow, but she has Caracas on her mind.

Ms. Rice, who arrived in Russia Tuesday for talks with that country's leaders is "concerned" about some arms sales in Latin America, specifically Venezuela, reports Bloomberg News.

The Russian government played down US concerns by countering that any of its proposed arms deals with Venezuela are in line with international agreements and international law.
more ...
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0420/dailyUpdate.html

How dare Venezuela do what we do!


Seating now available in the Smoking Section:
Politics, humor, death and the Devil - http://www.eDiablo.com

[calimary]

9. Chavez evidently thinks so, and so help me, I can't find a lot to disagree

with...

"Speaking during the South American and Arab League Summit on Tuesday, President Chávez reiterated that Venezuela is currently being threatened by the United States because it possesses vast oil reserves like those of Saudi Arabia 'and that stirs up imperialist voracity.'”

You know, these "people" we have representing us and running our affairs for us are doing NOTHING for us but creating new adversaries, and alienating former friends. We don't have any influence with the international community anymore. They see the bushies for what they are - pirates, robber barons, and opportunists. Opportunistic infections. I can't blame them for rejecting our pressure and not giving our "leaders" what they want. Can't blame 'em at all. I'd do the same thing in their position. Good ol' george has us painted into a corner, AGAIN. How to win friends and influence people. Shit. I can't even count the many ways he's blown it by now.

[AP]

10. Why were we interested in Papa Doc, Stroessner, Batista, Somoza, Pinochet,

Ubico, and the Brazilian military in the past?

I think if you can answer that question, you'll also answer your question.

It's not just oil, but it is about profits and which direction they flow.

[GCP]

3. Good, in the old days they would have just sent in the Marines

It's a bit harder to do that when they're tied up in Iraq. The world knows what's going on here, and we're not going to be able to sling our weight around like in the "good old days".

[Cha]

8. Fortunately for Chavez

and the Venezuelans..not so fortunate for the Iraqis and the US(+ coalition)soldiers.

I buy Citgo!

[AP]

11. In the old days -- the '70s -- we would have turned off the economic...

...spigot and we would have financed RW opposition groups.

Well, I guess they tried that too.

[Spazito]

4. Not only has it failed...

it has hardened the opposition to the US interference in Central and South American internal affairs. This is another indication of the tremendous damage the bush cabal is doing to the US reputation and influence world-wide, imo.

[calimary]

12. It may be "imo" but it also happens to be an accurate assessment.

This is EXACTLY what IS happening, Spazito. Tremendous damage. Astonishingly colossal damage. I HOPE we can recover. I HOPE there's enough little sprinklings of forgiveness left for us to scrape up when these jackals finally LEAVE THE WHITE HOUSE. All the more reason to send the world a signal in 2006. We HAVE TO WIN BACK THE HOUSE and start impeachment proceedings. I would say those two objectives go hand-in-hand, and are both PRIORITY ONE.

And BESIDES: if this is being referenced to the WASHINGTON TIMES of all papers - then you've GOT to know it's bad. The Washington Times does nothing but spin FOR these people. And if they're actually coming out and describing the adverse things that are happening - acknowledging them, in effect, then you've got to know things are probably even worse than what they're willing to admit. It's like with the Gallup Poll. Gallup always just conveniently happens to poll more republi-CONS than Democrats, for some strange reason (!), and when the Gallup Poll shows bush support is dropping, that indicates that it's really approaching the "in the toilet" stage. Where it belongs, imo.

[MrPrax]

13. Why would this be 'damage'?

One would think that 'opposition to interference' would be a good thing, but apparantly this is just a temporary situation that will hopefully come to end, if an more effective US government comes to power and uses it's 'reputation and influence' to stave off Central and South American self-determination?

Hmmm...yeah too bad all those Marines are tied up in Iraq :eyes:

[Spazito]

14. I specifically said the bush cabal with reference to 'damage'

and it goes far beyond Venezuela. There is no question damage is being done by the bush cabal to the US's reputation and influence world-wide. I suspect you would not disagree with this.

I applaud Chavez and the other leaders in their work to ensure the independence and sovereignty of their countries and provide for their citizens without the interference of the US.

I differentiate between the United States as a country that has done both good and bad as has every other country in the world throughout history and the bush cabal which is damaging the United States by it's actions and policies.

[MrPrax]

29. Your're still not making a whole lot of sense...

The US 'reputation and influence' in Latin America has never been peaches and cream and this notion that somehow it started with Bush is more of 'myth-making' than reality.

Also I am concerned about this: "United States as a country that has done both good and bad as has every other country in the world throughout history" ?

Really?

I don't recall Sweden blundering into Vietnam and wasting 2.5 million people (the bad) in order to free them from the yoke of 'communism'(the good?) based on executive branch fictions...

But suffice it to say, yes, nations do generally pursue their OWN national interests and sometimes the odd benefit might fall from this interaction to the 'client' country--this benefit can then be cited by apologists to rationalize economic dominance.

[Spazito]

30. Economic dominance simply shifts from country to country

era to era. To tar and feather the US as the bad guy above others is, imo, myopic. Whether it be Britain and it's historic dominance, or, further back, Rome, dominance for self-interest will be the driving factor for the foreseeable future, imo. China and India are the growing forces now,

My comments, again, were broader than the US policy in Central and South America, and were pointing out that what was happening was a microcosm of what was happening in the rest of the world.

I, in no way, intimated that economic dominance began and will end with the bush cabal, only that their actions and policies have cause the world to move away.

In no way was I intimating it was good or bad, only that it was and that it was damaging the US's influence and power, that is simply a fact.

[cliss]

19. Would you believe -

I was at a meeting on Tuesday evening. The speaker was an accountant, and he was giving his "predictions" of how the US economy was going to change.

At one point, he predicted that US Manufacturing would move to Mexico and Central America.

He said, "We just have to take out some Dictators, first". I just stood there, dumbfounded. I looked around the room. The speaker made this statement, oh-so-casually, as if it is our right to go into countries wherever we please, and "take out" people we don't like.

It took my breath away. I thought to myself, this country has been poisoned by this type of thinking. THEY DON'T EVEN SEE WHAT WE'RE DOING, which is murder and trespassing in other countries and causing trouble all over the globe. OMG.

[Spazito]

28. Sadly, that doesn't surprise me

It is the epitome of the myopic view that is prevalent in some quarters of the U.S. In their view, nothing of importance happens if it is not the US in the forefront. It is not the truth, the world is moving more and more in a different direction than the bush cabal sees as it's 'manifest destiny' to control. For them to accept a wider reality, imo, it would mean accepting that the US is not the center of the 'universe' but only one country among many, a country who's current policies are reducing it's power and influence as opposed to increasing it, imo, and that reality is beyond their myopic capability to comprehend.

[David__77]

15. OAS should expel the U.S.

The U.S. doesn't belong in this group. It should be independent, non-aligned, and vigorously pursue the interests of the developing world.

[Robbien]

17. The US funds 60-75% of the OAS budget

I do not believe they will be kicking out the biggest money man.

But South America is forming several unions of their own. The three big oil countries formed a mini OPEC of their own for SA. Instead of accepting FTAA or Cafta, some South American countries are forming a SA trading partnership.

So there is some action on South America banding together.

[David__77]

18. Those dollars are sugar-coated bullets.

Better to reject aid and maintain sovereignty. But if they can maintain OAS with the US, while building more meaningful lateral institutions that do not include the US, than that is a good thing too.

[Robert Oak]

21. long run

I wonder if anyone has analyzed what it means economically
for corporations to stop domination and repressing so many nations
due to their interests?

I would imagine that having a strong S. America would actually
be a benefit economically for the US middle class....
but the stock market probably would end up flat is my guess.

[Robert Oak]

20. South America gets a clue

finally by joining forces can they beat the corporate machine
that has ripped their nations asunder for so long.

Of course this all will eventually mean we will have to completely
re-invent/rethink our lifestyle on energy.

But, nobody asked me if I wanted to drive a big honking SUV and
live in the burbs and therefore ruin entire nations and put up
dictators all for cheap oil and US corporate interests.

[silverweb]

22. Wonderful!

Viva, Chavez!

Maybe now our southern neighbors can teach the slower among US something about democracy and freedom and self-determination.

:woohoo:

[drduffy]

23. Can't help but express

some odd pleasure and a good bit of relief that the neocons' efforts towards global domination are being thwarted in South America and in Iraq. It does mean we will have to deal with the effects of Peak Oil but that's better than being the 21st Century's Nazi lookalike.

[oasis]

24. Memo to Chimpy: The OAS is NOT the U.S Congress.

:nopity:

[MasonJar]

26. Bush and his cohorts do not like the Venezuelean form of

democracy, in which the poor get a chance to be somebody and to work for something (as perhaps a future.) They only recognize the Bush democracy which is the neo-con/corporate republic of greed. These artificial leaders take from the poor and middle class and give to the filthy rich. I do not have anything against any financial segment of our population. In fact many wealthy Louisvillians (both Dem and Pug) came out adamantly against Bush and his destruction of the environment, etc. Many of the rich that I know are incredible corporate and individual citizens. They support our community and speak out against depravity such as is currently seen in DC. They do not respect a man who has never earned any respect in any endeavor and who obviously blew off an intrinsicly superior education. And as for sweet little (unstylish) Laura of the college drug sales days and the run over your boyfriend days and the current Stepford wives mantra, bah humbug!