VIO asking for reponses to NYTs editorial (it's really ugly):

[EFerrari]

Venezuelans’ Right to Say No
Published: February 13, 2009

Hugo Chávez apparently doesn’t believe Venezuelan voters, who just more than a year ago rejected his bid to eliminate the term limits that are blocking his continued rule. On Sunday, he is giving them another chance. For the sake of Venezuela’s democracy, they should again vote no on changing the nation’s constitution.

Mr. Chávez became president 10 years ago as a champion of the poor and promised to combat Venezuela’s vast inequities. He has since turned into a standard-issue autocrat — hoarding power, stifling dissent, spending the nation’s oil wealth on political support.

His supporters now control the National Assembly, the Supreme Court and the nation’s oil monopoly. He has nationalized large swaths of industry. When the opposition won the governorship in the state of Miranda last year, Mr. Chávez’s government transferred control of state clinics and hospitals to the national health ministry.

The government has attacked unsympathetic unions, harassed human rights advocates and clamped down on free speech. In a scathing report released in Caracas last year, Human Rights Watch said Mr. Chávez’s policies “have degraded the country’s democracy.” Mr. Chávez responded by sending armed security agents to abduct two Human Rights Watch representatives from their hotel and put them on a plane to São Paulo, Brazil.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/14/opinion/14sat2.html?_r=1

Respond to [e-mail], shorter is better (150-200 wrds) and please include full contact information.

[EFerrari]

1. This is mine. It's too long by about half, though

It is difficult to say if the news side of the New York Times skews its Venezuela reporting more than the editorial side spins to the right. Sunday, Simon Romero ("Chávez Reaches Out to Obama Ahead of Vote") manages to insert the thoroughly debunked accusation that Mr. Chavez supports Colomibian guerillas into a story about easing relations with the new Obama administration.

That accusation was made by President Bush and by Uribe of Colombia. Their story was that emails from Chavez had been found on a captured FARC laptop. It turned out to be a complete fabrication. Not a single email was found on that machine.

Similarly, the Sunday editorial ("Venezuelans’ Right to Say No") makes the accusation that two Human Rights Watch workers were abducted when they issued an unfavorable report. Mr. Vivanco, who began his career in human rights as an apologist for Agosto Pinochet, was expelled along with his assistant for interfering in the internal affairs of Venezuela. And very rightfully so.

A cursory search for his name in news items shows that Mr. Vivanco inserted himself in the press whenever there was a vote or a crisis in Venezuela. The very release of the report itself was politicized by him -- its release was moved up by nearly five months and coincided with Bush Administration destabilization attempts in Venezuela and in Bolivia. Students of Venezuela and the intellectual community around the world have protested both the report and the false claims of abuse repeated yet again in this unsigned editorial.

It's precisely because of such biased coverage that F.A.I.R.'s February report concluded, American coverage of Venezuela serves a political agenda more than it serves its readers.

Elizabeth Ferrari
(contact info)

[Judi Lynn]

2. Thanks for posting this. It could not be a filthier, more intentionally deceitful attack.

Unattributed, too. No wonder! Sounds as if a DU troll wrote it!

What a damned shame. Lowest I've seen from them.

Your response was great. Hope to be able to focus well enough to get one off, too.

Thanks for the information.

[EFerrari]

3. Shocking, even for the NYTs. So much disinfo, it was hard to know

where to start. I'm so grateful to have this forum where there's so much good material to draw from, though!

[Joe Chi Minh]

14. Chomsky's contempt for it is fathomless.

[EFerrari]

17. And that lent pique to Chavez holding one of his books up at the UN.

No wonder they hate him so much. lol

:rofl:

[Joanne98]

4. I sent an email. It was really short. It said "You must be related to Judy Miller"

Do you think they'll "get it"

[EFerrari]

7. LOL!

:yourock:

[Zorro]

5. From the Annual Threat Assessment of the Intelligence Committee

for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, presented earlier last week.

Submitted for your reading pleasure:

<snip>

"...Public disclosure of Chavez’s close ties with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), which were reflected in documents from the hard drives captured after the death of a FARC Secretariat member in March, have forced Chavez, at least rhetorically, to improve relations with Bogota. We assess Chavez is likely to maintain his decade-long ties to the FARC by providing them safehaven because of his ideological affinity to the group and his interest in influencing Colombian politics..."

<snip>

http://www.dni.gov/testimonies/20090212_testimony.pdf

I would wager that Obama's DNI has good, validated information to back up the IC's public assessment of Chavez.

[EFerrari]

6. Oh, stuff it. We know very well that was bullshit. There was nothing on the magic laptop.

And, btw, Obama's DNI facilitated a massacre in East Timor. He needs to put his own shit in order before he moves on, no?

[Zorro]

8. The DNI undoubtedly knows a whole lot more about what was on those laptops

than you do, despite your desperate rhetorical attempts at self-delusion.

[EFerrari]

9. There was nothing on it, as you well know.

http://colombiareports.com/colombian-news/news/2215-police-investigator-there-were-no-e-mails-on-computer-raul-reyes.html

[Zorro]

10. The DNI indicates otherwise

I'd say he knows what he's talking about.

[EFerrari]

11. Right. We've got such a good record of smearing our enemies.

But, you go with that.

[Zorro]

12. Go with sworn public testimony by an Obama administration official?

vs. something you saw on the internet?

OK.

[EFerrari]

13. That would be the Obama administration official who elided his own role

in the Church killings during similar sworn public testimony. The guy lied under oath before, do you expect a different result this time? His only regret is probably that Allen Nairn and Amy Goodman weren't finished off because they brought the information home and they continue to expose him.

[Joe Chi Minh]

15. Don't humiliate the poor dope more than he does himself, whenever he posts on here.

[EFerrari]

16. I apologize. n/t

[Joe Chi Minh]

22. He tells me, he's accepted your apology! Though I must say it was grudging.

It seems apt that red is one of the chief emblems of your eponymous car, Effie. And there's a certain attractive raciness about its prancing horse badge, you know.

[Zorro]

19. Hello, Joe

You looking for some more special attention?

[Zorro]

18. Got any proof he "lied under oath"? I don't think so

It's obvious there's no unsubstantiated smear you won't mindlessly repeat, so long as it promotes your delusional agenda.

[EFerrari]

20. It must drive you nuts that my delusional agenda usually turns out to be right.

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/1/22/report_intel_nominee_adm_dennis_blair

[Judi Lynn]

21. Thank god you've posted this link to that info. from Democracy Now on Blair. Jesus!

From the link:

~snip~
Well, we already knew that Blair met the Indonesian commander just two days after the Liquica Church Massacre and, rather than telling him to stop the killing, offered him support . We also already knew that Blair had been defending himself by saying that when he went into that meeting with Wiranto, he didn’t even know that the Liquica massacre had occurred.

Now there are new US and Church documents which show that Blair has been lying when he has been claiming that he didn’t know. US officials who were there in Jakarta, as they were preparing for the meeting, sent messages at the time showing that they all already knew about the massacre. And Catholic Church records show that before Blair met with Wiranto, the Timorese bishop, Bishop Belo, the Nobel Peace Prize winner, had held a press conference in which he, Bishop Belo, and the pastor of the Liquica church that had been massacred described that massacre in detail. So when Admiral Blair, the prospective intelligence chief, says he went into that meeting not knowing what had happened, he is self-evidently lying, as most public and internal records show.

~snip~
Yes. Other separate cables show that Blair was told to tell Wiranto to stop the killings, to stop the massacres, to shut his militias down. But the cable which reports on the result of the meeting, by Blair’s own aide, shows that Blair did not do that. Instead, Blair supported Wiranto, and he offered him new US military assistance. And this was pivotal. This Blair-Wiranto meeting was absolutely crucial, because Wiranto naturally took it as encouragement, and Wiranto’s forces then increased the pace of killing in East Timor, and they went on to do a series of other church and other massacres.

~snip~
Dozens of refugees were hiding in the Liquica church and a rectory. The Indonesian forces of General Wiranto, militias, army and Brimob, attacked the church and the rectory, went in with machetes. They hacked the refugees to bits, and many dozens died.

At 10:00 this morning, the Senate Intelligence Committee will be considering Blair’s nomination. People can call the US Congress at [phone], ask to be connected to the Senate Intelligence Committee, and also the offices of Senator Wyden, Senator Feinstein, the intelligence chair, Senator Feingold, Senator Bond or Senator Mikulski, and tell them to ask Admiral Blair why he lied about his knowledge of the Liquica massacre and why he gave support to General Wiranto as his forces were in the midst of killing civilians.

You've done a good job, there, Blair, if filthy, evil massacres from the bowels of hell can be seen as "good."

Thank you so much, E. My God. This really puts things in a sobering perspective.

[Zorro]

23. Actually you keep proving my point over and over

No record of "lying under oath", just some guy who provides none of the "public documents" that he references as his proof.

You really have no standards of evidence, but that's a typical characteristic of you and the rest of the cellmates.

[EFerrari]

26. Nairn's work on this story is the standard and has been used by everyone.

Now would be a good time to stop embarrassing yourself.

[Zorro]

28. Keep making my point

Your source refers to a "classified" cable to support his argument (but doesn't provide it). If it did exist, it would have been produced at his confirmation hearing. And it wasn't.

Are you really that gullible to think that reporters can grab "classified" directives to senior flag officers willy-nilly? If you do, you're clearly displaying a profound ignorance on how the military handles and controls such messages.

Your disgusting allegation that Blair disobeyed orders and lied under oath is not surprising, since it's quite apparent you prefer red-shirted tin horn autocrats over talented and dedicated defenders of this country's interests.

[EFerrari]

31. LOL

[struggle4progress]

27. "Some guy"? For a period in the 1990s, Nairn was the only Western journalist covering Timor,

and he was there at some personal risk and sometimes illegally. In 1992, he testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about his experiences. Nairn is sometimes simply the only outside voice we have regarding what happened

US Complicity in Timor
By Allan Nairn
This article appeared in the September 27, 1999 edition of The Nation.
September 9, 1999
... Although State Department officials had been assured in writing that only police and no soldiers would be part of this training, Blair told Wiranto that, yes, soldiers could be included. So although Blair was sent in with the mission of telling Wiranto to shut the militias down, he did the opposite. Indonesian officers I spoke to said Wiranto was delighted by the meeting. They took this as a green light to proceed with the militia operation. The only reference in the classified cable to the militias was the following: "Wiranto was emphatic: as long as East Timor is an integral part of the territory of Indonesia, Armed Forces have responsibility to maintain peace and stability in the region. Wiranto said the military will take steps to disarm FALINTIL pro-independence group concurrently with the WANRA militia force. Admiral Blair reminded Wiranto that fairly or unfairly the international community looks at East Timor as a barometer of progress for Indonesian reform. Most importantly, the process of change in East Timor could proceed peacefully, he said" ... http://www.thenation.com/doc/19990927/nairn

September 16, 1999
East Timor: Journalist Allan Nairn Faces Ten Years Imprisonment by the Indonesian Military
... While in Timor on assignment for The New Yorker magazine, Allan Nairn was injured while attempting to stop the November 12, 1991 Santa Cruz massacre. His skull was fractured by Indonesian troops wielding U.S. M-16 rifles. After the massacre, Nairn (together with Amy Goodman of WBAI/Pacifica Radio) was banned from Indonesia and occupied Timor as “a threat to national security.” The ban has since been personally reaffirmed by the TNI commander, General Wiranto. Nairn returned to East Timor without the knowledge of the Indonesian armed forces in 1994 and 1998. Earlier this year, in defiance of the ban, Nairn again entered Indonesia. He has been in occupied East Timor since August ... http://i4.democracynow.org/1999/9/16/east_timor_journalist_allan_nairn_faces

The Case Against Henry Kissinger
Part Two: Crimes against humanity
by Christopher Hitchens
Harpers magazine, March 2001
... ALLAN NAIRN: Mr. Kissinger, my name is Allan Nairn. I'm a journalist in the United States. I'm one of the Americans who survived the massacre in East Timor on November 12, 1991, a massacre during which Indonesian troops armed with American M-16s gunned down at least 271 Timorese civilians in front of the Santa Cruz Catholic cemetery as they were gathered in the act of peaceful mourning and protest. Now you just said that in your meeting with Suharto on the afternoon of December 6, 1975, you did not discuss Timor, you did not discuss it until you came to the airport. Well, I have here the official State Department transcript of your and President Ford's conversation with General Suharto, the dictator of Indonesia ... It has been edited under the Freedom of Information Act, so the whole text isn't there. It's clear from the portion of the text that is here that in fact you did discuss the impending invasion of Timor with Suharto, a fact which was confirmed to me by President Ford himself in an interview I had with him. President Ford told me that in fact you discussed the impending invasion of Timor with Suharto and that you gave the U.S. ...
... My question, Mr. Kissinger, my question, Dr. Kissinger, is twofold: First, will you give a waiver under the Privacy Act to support full declassification of this memo so we can see exactly what you and President Ford said to Suharto? Secondly, would you support the convening of an international war-crimes tribunal under U.N. supervision on the subject of East Timor, and would you agree to abide by its verdict in regard to your own conduct?
KISSINGER: I mean, uh, really, this sort of comment is one of the reasons why the conduct of foreign policy is becoming nearly impossible under these conditions. Here is a fellow who's got one obsession ... he collects a bunch of documents, you don't know what is in these documents ...
NAIRN: I invite your audience to read them ... http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Kissinger/CaseAgainst2_Hitchens.html

Covering East Timor
Danny Schechter interviews Alan Nairn
... DS: Finally, What advice would you have to the media in terms of future coverage?
AN: My advice would be: Don't let Washington set your agenda. Don't let any national government set your agenda. Go to the places where the worst abuses, the worst mass killings are taking place, convey to the public the facts in their correct proportion—as big and dramatic as they are—and also talk about the accomplices. If those committing the crimes are getting support from anyone else—including foreign governments—if that's where their weapons and their training and their political sustenance comes from, talk about that. Put it on the front page. Make it a theme so people can decide if they want to be accomplices to these kinds of terrors ... http://www.mediachannel.org/video/nairn.shtml

[EFerrari]

30. Seeing as he was nearly executed there, it's amazing to me that he stuck with it.

Simply amazing. :shrug:

[EFerrari]

32. Some audio and some video of Amy and Allan confronting Kofi Annan,

Bill Clinton, Richard Holbrooke and Kissinger on East Timor.

http://www.archive.org/details/dn2002-0517_vid

[Bacchus39]

33. and Kofi Annan gave the correct answer. who else was the UN supposed to be dealing with?

other than those who are in charge? and Amy offers no response to that rhetorical question posed by Annan.

[Bacchus39]

29. even the link you provide to "prove" your claim says documents were found

http://www.interpol.int/public/icpo/pressreleases/pr2008/pr200817.asp

here is a more comprehensive list of what was found.


and I don't have emails "on my computer" either. they are located on webservers but if someone hacked my accounts they could access them from ANY computer. and one typically saves attachments like WORD documents to their harddrive rather than the actual email message. any 8 year old knows that.

typical lame attempt at obsfucation.

[Bacchus39]

24. yes, indeed. funny how Hugo changed his tune for the FARC after the killing of Reyes

from the army of the "pueblo" to the FARC should lay down their weapons. I wonder what other treasures Colombia has on Chavez.

[Bacchus39]

25. Hugo/FARC

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/03/venezuela.colombia