Venezuela's Chavez welcomes ally Ahmadinejad

[Little Tich]

Source: Reuters

(Reuters) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez dismissed a U.S. warning to avoid close ties with Iran on Sunday, denouncing what he said was Washington's attempt to dominate the world as he welcomed the Iranian president to the Latin American nation.

Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad arrived at the start of a tour to shore up support from the region's leftist leaders, as tough new Western sanctions aim to isolate the Islamic republic and target its vital oil exports.

"A spokesman or spokeswoman in Washington from the State Department or the White House said it was not convenient for any country to get close to Iran. Well, the truth is, it made you laugh," Chavez said in a televised speech.

"They're not going to be able to dominate this world. Forget about it (President Barack) Obama, forget about it. It would be better to think about the problems in your country, which are many," he said.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/09/us-venezuela-iran-idUSTRE8070Q120120109

[Enrique]

1. only the worst people in the world do business with Iran

Dick Cheney and Carly Fiorina among them.

[vminfla]

55. Yes

Don't forget the French too.

[David__77]

2. Good.

It's time for normalization of US relations with Iran as well.

[sabrina 1]

3. Yes, hopefully South America can lead the way.

[ooglymoogly]

18. +1 nt

[CJvR]

13. Kind of hard...

...to normalize relations with a fundie nutcase who is convinced you are satan incarnate.

[ronnie624]

22. The Iranian president is subordinate to the Supreme Leader on issues of foreign policy. n/t

[CJvR]

67. &

You think that is an improvement? That is the guy who called down Allah's blessing on the cheating in an alreaddy rigged election!

[Cleita]

4. We do business with Saudi Arabia. They aren't much better.n/t

[DissedByBush]

23. It's a bit more personal with Iran

You know, the current power brokers there having supported the seizure of our embassy and its occupants a while back.

[Cleita]

25. I remember, but it wasn't just a planeload of Americans who suffered then. Thousands of Iranians

were killed or went into exile. I knew a lot of Persian immigrants who had been through the worst. It helps to hear another part of the story other than the official one. Also, we were responsible for installing the Shah, a puppet we liked better than their democratically elected leaders that we covertly helped to over throw.

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/coup53/coup53p1.php

We seem to not like to lie in beds that we have made.

The Saudis are no better with their own people who don't toe the religious line. We shouldn't be in bed with any of them.

[Prometheus Bound]

30. "a while back" is right.

Over 3 decades!

[Blue_Tires]

41. and we "accidentally" shot down one of their airliners with 290 people

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

[DissedByBush]

56. We were kind of paranoid after "accidentally" almost losing a ship the year before

Remember the USS Stark?

[MADem]

57. They are getting ready to execute an Iranian American (former USMC) they are accusing of spying.

I don't care much for the regime in Iran. I'd like to see them gone.

The people, OTOH, are delightful.

[DissedByBush]

60. Was he spying?

It is possible. It would be absurd to think we didn't have spying operations going on there.

Every country of any means has spies in other countries that are of importance.

But that is a hazard of the job. There are two kinds of spies, those covered by diplomatic immunity and those that aren't. Those that aren't risk arrest and punishment. OTOH, Iran has shown they don't care much about diplomatic immunity either.

What's strange to me is that we haven't simply arrested one of their own spies and called for a trade.

As far as the people, yes, I know many Iranians, all pleasant. IMHO, it's the Persian culture they've managed to keep alive under centuries of Muslim rule.

[MADem]

63. I see you've already convicted him. He says he was visiting his grandmother. NT

[DissedByBush]

69. Actually, they've already convicted him

I've noticed news reports only say "accused."

No, not just accused, but also tried, convicted and sentenced.

It is possible this is a power play as with the hikers, but the plain fact of the world is we do have spies in other countries, and sometimes they do get caught. You can't automatically assume it's just the Iranian government grabbing an innocent off the street.

[MADem]

71. From what I have read of this kid, I don't think he's spy material.

Despite his USMC background. At best, but not even likely, maybe one of those "If you happen to be anywhere near (name of installation) try to squeeze off a few pictures" one-offs, at best.

I saw some footage of him, to me he looks like a kid who was visiting his grandmother.

Who knows, maybe he's a great actor as well, but I get the impression that he's being used by Iran because they want to goad the US, not that he had much if any talent as a spy.

[DissedByBush]

75. Sounds like a perfect spy

Very deniable.

But then many spies aren't cloak and dagger, but exactly as you said, not professionals, but asked by case officers to do some spying.

In any case I hope we arrange something. Even we haven't executed a spy in decades, probably the Rosenbergs in the 50s. I think we either imprisoned or traded our Soviet spies (for example, we traded one for Francis Gary Powers of shot down U2 fame).

[MADem]

77. More like a courier, not a spy, though.

Spies have pension and health plans, couriers or "operatives" are simply patriots or getting a few bucks for their trouble.

I don't think this guy is a "spy" in the Valerie Plame sense of the word.

I don't know if he's even one of those--he could be a kid who went to visit granny. Iranian families are close, and grannies often don't like to/are not able to travel. She's stuck in the Islamic Republic, he's a US-born American of Iranian heritage.

[DissedByBush]

78. It's still espionage

Either way you name it, there's a good chance he's guilty.

I'm not exactly a sympathizer with Iran's misogynist, gay-murdering, oppressive regime, but we can't really complain if they arrest an American who was committing espionage.

[MADem]

79. I am not going to buy that quite yet.

It's way easier to pay a Baluchi to get that kind of info than risk having a young, dumb kid who speaks Farsi with a foreign accent go get it. Those Baluchis will do anything to bring down the regime, and they'll do it for cheap or travel expenses. Enemy of my enemy, and all that.

[JackRiddler]

80. The Saudis aren't much BETTER?

Seriously?

[Cleita]

82. Really.

Saudi's commit the same human rights abuses that the Iranians do. And towards women, they are worse. Look it up.

[JackRiddler]

83. Yes of course, I agree with that.

I was wondering why you'd say Saudi Arabia is "not much better," when it is indisputably so much worse. Especially with regard to women.

[Cleita]

87. Just a figure of speech. n/t

[MellowDem]

5. Chavez isn't a leftist progressive...

it's hard for me to see why any committed progressive would want to be the ally of Iran's government. Seems to go against everything the left stands for.

But Chavez isn't really a leftist, he's just an authoritarian demagogue that pretends to be a leftist, and it works for the most part, at least so far it has kept him in power.

[Arctic Dave]

10. Riiiight.

He's just a big ol meanie.

[ooglymoogly]

26. Yes of course you have it right....

The Venezuelans are soooo wrong. They should not be trusted to elect their own leader, particularly if our $tate dept does not approve. Why on earth should all that oil revenue be wasted on the folks of Venezuela. Oil, after all, is the great military equalizer in U $ politics.

[MellowDem]

53. Yes, I do have it right....

not because what our state department says. The fact that you have to resort to odd assumptions and accusations of what I want with Venezuela is proof enough that you don't want a discussion.

And who says people in democracies don't make bad choices for who leads them. I think I've seen quite enough bad choices made by majorities before. Right here in the US, but all over really as well.

[MADem]

62. Well said.

I associate myself with your remarks.

We may not have to worry about Hugo for much longer, anyway. However, it looks like he may be grooming a successor who won't be any less problematic--these Friends of Hugo don't sound like they're enthusiasts of free or fair elections:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/08/world/americas/state-of-politics-in-venezuela-unsettled-by-chavez-appointments.html
On Thursday, a top official in Mr. Chávez’s political party, Diosdado Cabello, was sworn in as president of the National Assembly. Mr. Cabello, a former vice president with close ties to the military and an on-again off-again relationship with Mr. Chávez’s inner circle, wasted no time in announcing to opposition legislators that he had no intention of negotiating with them over issues.

Then came a bombshell with international implications: On Friday, Mr. Chávez announced that his new defense minister would be Gen. Henry Rangel Silva, a longtime military ally who has been accused by the United States of links to drug traffickers and by opposition politicians in Venezuela of being hostile to the democratic process. A former head of the Venezuelan intelligence service, General Rangel was accused by the United States Treasury Department in 2008 of working closely with the main leftist Colombian rebel group, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, to help them transport drugs through Venezuela. Since then, further evidence has emerged fleshing out allegations that General Rangel aided the FARC’s efforts to move both drugs and weapons....

The announcement was sure to play well to Mr. Chávez’s base, which cheers his frequent taunting of the United States as an imperialist power seeking to trample on Venezuelan sovereignty. (Mr. Chávez will burnish his anti-American credentials further on Sunday when he hosts a visit by Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.)

The appointment may have been equally calculated to infuriate the opposition. In 2010, General Rangel gave an interview in which he said that the military was deeply loyal to Mr. Chávez and “married” to his political project. Some of his remarks were interpreted as suggesting that the military would not accept the formation of an opposition government if Mr. Chávez lost the 2012 presidential election, although the government later said his words were misinterpreted.

[DissedByBush]

58. Remember the quote, "We don't have any gays in Iran"

It's because Iran executes them when they're found.

This is a country we want to be sympathetic with, to have good relations with?

[ronnie624]

65. And as heinous as that is, it isn't the reason for U.S. intervention in the ME.

There are glaringly obvious geo-strategic reasons for that.

But if you are going to rationalize U.S. intervention with a human rights issue, I feel compelled to point out that the U.S. record on human rights is much worse than Iran's. Not all of the civilians our government kills in other countries are gay, but they certainly die in much larger numbers.

[DissedByBush]

70. Don't even go there

Do not equate accidental civilian deaths during wartime with mass oppression of the local population during peacetime.

Especially don't when we spend billions of dollars to AVOID such deaths.

Cost of a smart artillery round that can pinpoint the enemy within a few meters after a 40 kilometer trip to avoid hitting innocents: $85,000 each

Cost of equivalent dumb artillery round that will land anywhere within a couple hundred meters after an even shorter trip: a few hundred dollars each

Long ago this country, under FDR and other presidents you probably like, had no problem bombing tightly packed urban centers with bombs having an error probably of hundreds of meters. We bombed dams, drowning those who lived downstream. We sunk commercial ships since their trade enriched and supplied the enemy nation. That's war. It sucks. But we do far better now than we ever did then.

And as for purposeful deaths recently, notice those who have been prosecuted for it. We used to execute the offenders, we have a whole graveyard full of them from WWII. Maybe you suggest bringing that practice against the offenders?

Besides, Iran has its quota, look at the Iran-Iraq war. And they don't exactly do things to minimize civilian casualties. Check out Operation Karbala-5, where they purposely and indiscriminately bombarded the city of Basra for over a month, causing the evacuation of millions of civilians and killing untold numbers. In retaliation the Iraqis shelled Iranian cities, killing thousands. Then the Iranians returned the favor for other Iraqi cities.

[MADem]

72. Excellent rebuttal. nt

[ronnie624]

73. You rationalized U.S. intervention in the Middle East

with Iran's persecution of gays, when in fact, the U.S. government's rationale is Iran's attempt to produce nuclear weapons. The U.S. has, over the years, supported many countries where people of all kinds have been openly persecuted, so that rationalization wouldn't fly, anyway.

And the U.S. has targeted civilians many times. The Philippines, Korea, and Vietnam come to mind immediately, where millions of women and children alone, died as a direct result of U.S. state violence. In the case of Korea, Curtis Le May said on a number of occasions that civilians were targeted in very large numbers.

The sanctions against Iraq in the 90s also targeted civilians in an attempt to pressure them to depose Saddam Hussein. Hundreds of thousands of society's most vulnerable (like children) died through lack of clean water and treated sewage. Various medicines were also withheld because they presumably fit the description of biological and chemical weapons.

The invasion of Iraq was justified through lies and conspiracy, where perhaps as many as a million people died as a result, but apparently your contention is, that the U.S. government isn't responsible because it claims civilians were not targeted. The flaws in that line of reasoning are obvious, so I'll just let it lie there.

[DissedByBush]

76. I'm not the one who tied the two together

Someone else did that, and I replied.

I mentioned the US has targeted civilians many times. People treat this as a modern Bush phenomenon, yet it was considered normal during the tenures of Democratic demigods such as FDR, JFK and Truman. The fact is that in the last few decades the US has made extensive efforts to reverse this, to prevent civilian casualties.

As far as sanctions, talk to the UN, since they were UN sanctions. Their corrupt programs allowed money to go to Saddam's personal coffers to support his regime, leaving little for the people.

There is a very distinct difference between civilians who die as "collateral damage" in a war and the direct, purposeful targeting of civilians. The former is inevitable, especially with the Arab habit of mixing troops and weapons with civilian populations in order to increase civilian casualties. We try hard to reduce it. The latter we never do anymore, although both Iran and Iraq are very guilty of it.

[JackRiddler]

81. Not if "collateral" casualties are predictable on a mass scale.

If you know that thousands of civilian non-combatants will die and be maimed as a predictable and necessary consequence of your actions, then even if you are not targeting them, and even if you are striving to minimize how many of them die, you are still making the choice to kill them.

Now any effort you might make to split hairs about how this deliberate killing of civilians is nevertheless not mass murder becomes superfluous once we identify and reject your unspoken premise: that war somehow happens, when in fact the wars that the US has engaged in after WW2 have never been in self-defense, and in the case of the invasions of Iraq and Vietnam they were clear cut wars of aggression waged on false pretexts, the worst conceivable international crime. Not only is the predictable and therefore deliberate choice to kill civilians as "collateral damage" an act of mass murder and arguably genocide (only a legal definition would preclude that, not a moral difference), but in fact killing anyone, including insurgents against invaders and occupiers of their country, is murder.

[MellowDem]

92. This is a bad argument...

You are bringing the US into it. You are deflecting. The question is whether a progressive would ally with the government of Iran. Your deflection shows a weakness in your argument.

[ronnie624]

93. There wasn't much of an argument.

I just pointed out some of the hypocrisy in the rationalizations, both official and non-official, for U.S. foreign policy regarding Iran. The duplicity inherent to U.S. foreign policy, and the arrogance of the U.S. government issuing warnings and orders to other countries as if they weren't even sovereign entities with their own interests to look out for, are actually central to this issue. I didn't bring the U.S. into it. The State Department's words beg for a review of the history of U.S. conduct.

As for the alliance between Iran and Venezuela, clearly they have common cause, as they have found themselves to be central players in the geo-strategic goals of U.S. foreign policy planners, which can't possibly be much fun for anyone. Who am I to pass judgment? I don't regard either county -- or the two of them together -- as a threat to others, and most certainly not to the United States.

[MellowDem]

94. Well, I was the one making the claim, not the US government...

so you were simply deflecting the issue.

As for whether you or anyone else can pass judgement, of course you can.

I think it's a very poor excuse to say that Chavez should be able to ally with whoever he wants without criticism because it's in his interest to do so. That really makes no sense.

I never claimed that either country was a threat to the United States.

Basically, you are bringing up completley unrelated topics.

[ronnie624]

96. The article is about the foreign policies of Iran, Venezuela and the U.S.

If the U.S. State Department criticizes the foreign policies of other countries, it opens itself up to examination in that area, it's just that simple.

[unkachuck]

6. how arrogant and presumptuous of us....

'"We are making absolutely clear to countries around the world that now is not the time to be deepening ties, not security ties, not economic ties, with Iran," a U.S. State Department spokeswoman said on Friday.'

....who are we to be dictating to sovereign nations whom they may or may not associate?....maybe Venezuelas' association with Iran is pragmatic....

....as we fuck with Venezuela and Venezuelan interests, Venezuela might want to join forces in fucking with our interests....

[wordpix]

9. I just met a refugee family from Chavez' Venezuela who fled to US for asylum

The head of household's life was threatened b/c he exposed aspects of Chavez' government that were not, um, positive. What I heard was amazing re: the extent of ineptitude, corruption and taking of people's properties and business. And if you are even caught on camera protesting or if you broadcast protests against the government, there's a big target on your back.

I would not be so quick to defend Chavez. He sounds like a thug.

[Arctic Dave]

11. Oh really.

Well then, it must be true.


LOL

[Bicoastal]

16. So either wordpix is a liar...

...or the people he met are? That's what I'm getting from this post.

[ronnie624]

24. Or maybe the poster is a skeptic, who prefers evidence over anecdote. n/t

Last edited Mon Jan 9, 2012, 03:50 AM - Edit history (1)

[wordpix]

84. sorry but I'm not naming names--prefer to protect this family

I will try to get you some info about a particular incident, though, that I was informed about.

[wordpix]

85. here's a link re: 80,000 TONS of rotting meat in Chavez' well run country, food shortages

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/venezuela/7849749/Chavez-pushes-Venezuela-into-food-war.html

My source said that food is so scarce there is almost nothing in the supermarkets. And Chavez leaves 80,000 tons of meat to rot, and then goes after the journalists when they inform people about it.

Of course, those like Arctic Dave won't believe such accounts, I'm sure.

[bitchkitty]

95. wait a minute

They are in the US, and you can't name them because you're protecting them. Uh huh...

[wordpix]

97. "uh huh," that's the way you treat sensitive information

obviously, you don't know anything about that.

How do I know a family member is not still in Venezuela? I am not going to blab names around and then put people in jeopardy. The information about food shortages and rotten meat is in the post.

Get over it.

[bitchkitty]

98. Hey, far be it from me to deny you your intrigue.

I'm just saying it sounds like bullshit to me.

[LanternWaste]

37. I didn't get either truth or lies...

I didn't get either truth or lies... simply a second-hand, subjective anecdote. The kind we often use to better validate our own opinions.

[Dreamer Tatum]

20. Odd how Chavez supporters are also the ultimate arbiters of truth.

Positively spooky how that works.

[Judi Lynn]

31. Clearly what the media here tells US Americans is what some automatically believe.

The U.S. also tells the Venezuelan media what to write:

Buying Venezuela's Press With U.S. Tax Dollars
Posted: 7/19/10 02:28 PM ET

Originaly published in NACLA

The U.S. State Department is secretly funneling millions of dollars to Latin American journalists, according to documents obtained in June under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The 20 documents released to this author--including grant proposals, awards, and quarterly reports--show that between 2007 and 2009, the State Department's little-known Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor channeled at least $4 million to journalists in Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Venezuela through the Pan American Development Foundation (PADF), a Washington-based grant maker that has worked in Latin America since 1962. Thus far, only documents pertaining to Venezuela have been released. They reveal that the PADF, collaborating with Venezuelan NGOs associated with the country's political opposition, has been supplied with at least $700,000 to give out journalism grants and sponsor journalism education programs.

Until now, the State Department has hidden its role in funding the Venezuelan news media, one of the opposition's most powerful weapons against President Hugo Chavez and his Bolivarian movement. The PADF, serving as an intermediary, effectively removed the government's fingerprints from the money. Yet, as noted in a State Department document titled "Bureau/Program Specific Requirements," the State Department's own policies require that "all publications" funded by the department "acknowledge the support." But the provision was simply waived for the PADF. "For the purposes of this award," the requirements document adds, " . . . the recipient is not required to publicly acknowledge the support of the U.S. Department of State."

Before 2007, the largest funder of U.S. "democracy promotion" activities in Venezuela was not the State Department but the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), together with the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). But in 2005, these organizations' underhanded funding was exposed by Venezuelan American attorney Eva Golinger in a series of articles, books, and lectures (disclosure: This author obtained many of the documents). After the USAID and NED covers were blown wide open--forcing USAID's main intermediary, Development Alternatives Inc. (DAI), a Maryland-based contractor, to close its office in Caracas--the U.S. government apparently sought new funding channels, one of which the PADF appears to have provided.

Although the $700,000 allocated to the PADF, which is noted in the State Department's requirements document, may not seem like a lot of money, the funds have been strategically used to buy off the best of Venezuela's news media and recruit young journalists. This has been achieved by collaborating with opposition NGOs, many of which have a strong media focus. The requirements document is the only document that names any of these organizations--which was probably an oversight on the State Department's part, since the recipients' names and a lot of other information are excised in the rest of the documents. The requirements document names Espacio Publico and Instituto Prensa y Sociedad, two leading organizations linked to the Venezuelan opposition, as recipients of "subgrants."

More:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeremy-bigwood/buying-venezuelas-press-w_b_650178.html

Your tax dollars are used to create the "information" used in keeping you in the dark.

This happened large scale when Richard M Nixon poured millions into Chile's El Mercurio, owned by Augustin Edwards, and into his other newspapers and radio stations to feed anti-Allende material to the Chilean people about the socialist President, Salvador Allende they had elected in a landslide.

Nixon also had CIA people working in the laqest newspaper in Chile, and they continued the propaganda blitz before the election, during the election, and for a long time after the U.S. supported violent coup, in order to sell the fiendish right-wing monster, the coup-installed General Augusto Pinochet, who tortured and murdered thousands of Chilean imagined leftists, including two U.S. American journalists.

That was a very long time ago, and this manipulation of information has been with us since this, and, in fact, with us from the U.S. overthrow of Guatemala's beloved leftist president, Jacob Arbenz in 1954.

[Dreamer Tatum]

64. Which is the undisputed truth - I know this because a Chavez supporter said it.

[Judi Lynn]

28. You're the first to claim expatriot Venezuelans are "refugees." What a twist.

We have an American DU'er who lives in Venezuela now, who would undoubtedly have something to say to you if she sees your post.

This might might throw some light on your charges:
Venezuela is no tyranny

~snip~
What cannot be said of Venezuela is that the right to protest is threatened. This year alone, the opposition have staged dozens of marches free from state harassment. On numerous occasions opponents and marchers have been invited to address the nation from the National Assembly.

In contrast, it was only 20 years ago that protests were met by brutal repression in Venezuela, with the Caracazo massacre by state security forces leaving 276 dead according to official figures and up to 3,000, according to claims, once mass graves were uncovered.

The opposition's hostile views of the Chávez government dominate the Venezuelan media. But that is not the reason why some radio stations were recently closed. These were operating illegally without proper licences and continued to refuse to comply with the law. More than 200 radio stations, most of which identify with the opposition, that were also operating irregularly but did renew their franchises continue to operate freely.

Respect for democracy is intrinsic to the particular model being followed by the Chávez government. It does not resort to violence – it wins elections. In contrast, it is noteworthy that the notable elements of the Venezuelan opposition have broadly sympathised with the illegal de facto government of Micheletti in Honduras. Maybe in Honduras we have a serious glimpse of what "democracy" would have been like in Venezuela had its violent attempts to overthrow Chávez been successful?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/14/venezuela-democracy-honduras-chavez


Have your friends never heard the word "guarimba," which means "violent protest" which has been employed by the right-wing opposition idiots in Venezuela from the first of Chavez' time in office. It was fathered by Cuban-Venezuelan Roberto Alonso, who also has many ties to the right-wing reactionary Cubans in Miami.



From the rabidly anti-Chavez major "newspaper" in Venezuela, El Universal.



A well-known image from an earlier demonstration showing an
anti-Chavezdemonstrator with her slingshot. Her fellow
demonstrators entertained themselves shooting at pro-Chavez
demonstrators, resulting in the death of one man, when they
shot a marble directly into his brain, embedding it there. That's
how scared spitless they are of voicing their opinions.

See photos at this link:

~snip~
These photos can be seen by everyone, but the opposition media and leaders do not condemn these types of actions. It should be noted that if this had occurred in the United States, national guard tanks would have rolled in with firm orders to shoot on sight. Instead, the big debate today was whether street violence was only occurring in upper/midlle class areas or in lower-class barrios.

http://www.zonaeuropa.com/20040303_4.htm

ETC., ETC., ETC., ETC., ETC., ETC.

[vminfla]

48. Is the hot chick with the sling a "freedom fighter"?

nt

[wordpix]

86. hey, Judi L, "refugee" is what the Venezuelan called herself and family

But I guess you know better because you weren't sitting there speaking with her like I was.

[Judi Lynn]

33. Re: your claim you don't dare "broadcast protests against the government," you must check that info.

Anyone who takes the time to look beyond the propaganda knows otherwise in no time at all.

The Myth of the Muzzled Media
By Steve Rendall

Following Hugo Chávez’s September 20 speech at the U.N., which included a mocking reference to George W. Bush as “the devil,” U.S. ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton told reporters “the real issue” was that Chávez was not “giving the same freedom of speech” to Venezuelans (Daily News, 9/21/06).

Editorials condemning Chávez and approvingly citing Bolton’s accusation appeared in several newspapers (e.g., Augusta Chronicle, 9/22/06; Omaha World-Herald, 9/22/06), but one pundit, John McLaughlin of television’s McLaughlin Group (9/22/06), challenged Bolton’s claim, responding on air, “Well, Ambassador Bolton, maybe they already have freedom of speech.”

Seconding McLaughlin’s point, columnist Mark Weisbrot, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, wrote (Augusta Chronicle, 10/9/06), “Indeed they do, with the most anti-government media in the hemisphere.”

Following a 2005 Venezuela visit, Weisbrot found (Extra!, 11–12/05) that on Venezuelan TV, “There were commentators and experts trashing the government in ways that do not happen in the United States or indeed most countries in the world.”

More:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3022

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Television in Venezuela:
Who Dominates the Media?
by Mark Weisbrot and Tara Ruttenberg

It is commonly reported in the international press, and widely believed, that the government of President Hugo Chávez controls the media in Venezuela. For example, writing about Venezuela's September elections for the National Assembly, the Washington Post's deputy editorial page editor and columnist, Jackson Diehl, referred to the Chávez "regime's domination of the media. . . ."1 In an interview on CNN, Lucy Morillon of Reporters Without Borders stated, "President Chávez controls most of the TV stations."2 And on PBS in November 2010, former Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Roger Noriega stated that the Venezuelan media is "virtually under the control of Chávez."3 Such statements are made regularly in the major media and almost never challenged.

Table 1 shows the evolution of Venezuelan television audience share from 2000-2010. There are three categories: private broadcast channels, which are privately owned and available on broadcast television without payment; the state channels, which are run by the government and also broadcast without payment4 by the viewer; and private paid TV, which includes cable and satellite, for which the subscriber must pay a fee; and other paid programming that is being watched during the time of the survey.

As can be seen from the table, as of September 2010, Venezuelan state TV channels had just a 5.4 percent audience share. Of the other 94.6 percent of the audience, 61.4 percent were watching privately owned television channels, and 33.1 percent were watching paid TV.

Since the private TV owners are mostly against the government, it is clear that more than 94 percent of the TV that is seen by Venezuelans is not pro-government. In fact, much of the private media is stridently anti-government, in ways that go beyond the boundaries of what is permitted in the United States, for example.5 There are no data that describe the breakdown of audience share of the various TV channels on the basis of political bias. However, it is clear from this data, based on household surveys over a 10-year period, that statements about the Venezuelan government "controlling" or "dominating" the media are not only exaggerated, but simply false.

More:
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2010/wr131210.html

[wordpix]

90. I'm sure there are alternate ways of looking at one's gov in Venezuela, just like in the US

so you're still not convincing me. My acquaintance is a refugee, that is her view, and if she and her family had stayed, their lives were threatened.

But YOU know better than THEY, Venezuelans who lived in Venezuela all their lives, about the Chavez gov., right?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

14. It reminds me of when I was in graduate school and knew a member of the Kuwaiti

royal family, the Al-Sabahs.

I was present when she sat at lunch and announced that she did not approve of a certain acquaintance who had said something pro-Israel. (She could barely tolerate Jews being pro-Israel, but thought that no Gentile should be.)

She said in her British boarding school accent, "I shall not speak to him again, nor shall I allow any of my friends to speak to him."

I rolled my eyes. Fortunately, the two of us had only been passing acquaintances, so I didn't care whether she spoke to me or not.

That's how I feel about the U.S. telling other countries who they may or may not associate with.

[jimlup]

7. The enemy of my enemy is my friend...

Or so it would seem... Chavez is often over the top. Ahmadinejad is always over the top.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

8. Oy. This isn't good news. Call Sean Penn!

[MMJjestic]

12. Is it me, or are people here at DU jonesing for war with Iran

and probably Venezuela too? Are some of so obtuse that you did not pay attention the last 10 years? Are telling me that if Bush goes to war that is wrong but President Obama does it that is OK? You know what if you guys want to engage in this foolishness, knock yourselves out. The recruiting office is around the corner for you or your loved ones, leave me out of it, I will not support it!

[Bicoastal]

15. Whoah Whoah whoah. I don't welcome war with Iran, but I dislike its leaders...

...and I see that people are twisting themselves into pretzels to avoid ANY criticism of Hugo Chavez. Face it, a true leftist would not embrace the government of a authoritarian theocracy like Iran's.

[nyy1998]

21. +1, no one here should be defending Iran and their terrible human right's record.

[David__77]

27. Everyone should be defending Iran...

...by preventing any acts of aggression against it by the US government.

[nyy1998]

54. "Sanctions" is an act of aggression? Since when?

[ronnie624]

29. No one here 'embraces' a theocratic dictatorship.

Some people simply understand history.

The current situation in Iran has direct lineage to the destruction of Iran's parliamentary democracy in the early 50s. Only trouble will come of continued U.S. intervention in the Middle East.

[ooglymoogly]

17. +1 nt

[leftynyc]

35. It's just you

The rest of us seem to be perfectly comfortable with the notion that you can think someone is a scumbag and still not want to go to war with him. Both the madman from iran and chavez are assholes.

[onehandle]

19. Schmuck. nt

[Archae]

32. Chavez is an asshole with brutal dictator buddies.

Not only Ahmeananutjob, also Mugabe.
And he was good buddies with KaDaffy.

His digging up Simon Boliviar proved just what an asshole he is.

It would be the same if Obama dug up George Washington.

[EFerrari]

40. You want to run down a list of repressive brutal governments we are arming against their own people?

And yes, Chavez is an asshole who is interested in science, like those assholes at the VA and the University of Maryland.

ScienceDaily (Apr. 28, 2010) — Could one of South America's greatest military figures have died from a deadly poison, rather than the tuberculosis assumed at the time of his death in 1830? The mysterious illness and death of Simon Bolivar -- known as "El Libertador" or "The Liberator" -- is the medical mystery in question at this year's Historical Clinicopathological Conference (CPC), sponsored by the University of Maryland School of Medicine and the Veterans Affairs (VA) Maryland Health Care System in Baltimore.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100428110816.htm

[Vidar]

34. Bravo Chavez! The US has done far more harm to the world--South & Central America--than

Iran could possibly do. We are the evil empire; Iran is a mere wannabe.

[leftynyc]

36. We're the evil empire?

You may want to check with thoese 13 Iranian sailors we just saved from the pirates. What an over-the-top claim you foolishly made.

[EFerrari]

38. Vida is right, of course. Did you check how many people US drones killed on the same day?

Or how many immigrant famiies we destroyed? Or how many small farmers' were put out of business by the GMOs the State Department is pushing all around the world. You should before you call Vida foolish.

[vminfla]

42. Small farmers are put of business by GMOs

Small farmers are driven out of business for a variety of complex reasons - economies of scale when compared to corporate farming, overutilization of land, drought, bad luck, and a host of other reasons. But GMOs?

[EFerrari]

43. GMOs have been so bad for small farmers

that angry farmers have publicly burned the seed rather than plant it in India, Haiti, Hungry. It puts them in a cycle of debt, has a lower yield, kills off native strains and the pesticides sicken the people.

[vminfla]

45. Confusing Effect with Cause

Farmers refusing to use more competitive GMOs is a choice. That non-GMOs require greater pesticide utilization to achieve competitive yields with pesticide resistant GMOS are not driving farmers out of business.

[EFerrari]

49. Nope and in fact, GMOs do not have a greater yield.

Failure to Yield

Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Engineered Crops
Download: Failure to Yield (2009) | Oxfam Statement on "Failure to Yield" | Failure to Yield summary/issue briefing

For years the biotechnology industry has trumpeted that it will feed the world, promising that its genetically engineered crops will produce higher yields.

That promise has proven to be empty, according to Failure to Yield, a report by UCS expert Doug Gurian-Sherman released in March 2009. Despite 20 years of research and 13 years of commercialization, genetic engineering has failed to significantly increase U.S. crop yields.

http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/science/failure-to-yield.html

[vminfla]

52. For one , The UCS Study acknowledges Bt GE crops have higher yields

For another, again, a host of factors contribute to crop yields......


India is an important grower of cotton on a global scale. It ranks third in global cotton production after the United States and China; with 8-9 million hectares grown each year, India accounts for approximately 25% of the world's total cotton area and 16% of global cotton production. Most of the cotton in India is grown under rainfed conditions, and about a third is grown under irrigation (Sundaram, Basu, Krishna Iyer, Narayanan, & Rajendran, 1999). However, yields of cotton in India are low, with an average yield of 300 kg/ha compared to the world average of 580 kg/ha.

Cotton is a very important cash crop for Indian farmers and contributes around 30% to the gross domestic product of Indian agriculture. However, as with many cotton growing areas of the world, a major limiting factor is damage due to insect pests, especially the bollworm complex (American bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera; Spotted bollworm, Earias vittella; Pink bollworm, Pectinophora gossipiella). Sucking pests such as aphids (Aphis gossypii), jassids (Amrasca bigutulla), and whiteflies (Bemisia tabaci) are also a problem in terms of direct damage to the plant and the transmission of viruses.

In March 2002, the Indian government permitted commercial cultivation of genetically modified Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) cotton. The Bt gene produces a protein that is toxic to bollworms. Bt cotton has now been produced in India for two seasons—2002 and 2003. In 2002, some 38,000 hectares were planted with Bt cotton, with more than 12,000 hectares being grown by more than 17,000 farmers in the state of Maharashtra. Given the scale of the cotton industry in India and the current global debates over advantages/disadvantages of GM technology, it is not surprising that there has been considerable and vigorous debate regarding the agronomic and economic performance of Bt cotton in India with various reports claiming both successes and failures. Qaim (2003), for example, analyzed trial data from seed companies testing Bt cotton and concluded that quantities of insecticide can be reduced by about one third relative to conventional (non-Bt) varieties, and yield gains can be up to 80% in seasons with bad bollworm infestations (a typical increase may be 30-40%). However, trial data can be criticized as being untypical models of the real conditions that prevail on Indian farms, and yield benefits may as a result be far less than those projected from trials. Even so, other studies have also shown potential gains to producers from growing Bt cotton in a number of developing countries (James, 2002), including South Africa (Bennett, Buthelezi, Ismael, & Morse, 2003; Ismael, Bennett, & Morse, 2002), Argentina (Qaim & De Janvry, 2002), Mexico (Traxler, Godoy-Avilla, Falck-Zepeda, & Espinoza-Arellano, 2001), Indonesia (Manwan & Subagyo, 2002), China (Pray, Rozelle, Huang, & Wang, 2002), and India (Naik, 2001; Qaim & Zilberman, 2003).


http://www.agbioforum.org/v7n3/v7n3a01-morse.htm

[leftynyc]

46. I'm very well aware

of our foreign policy follies. I still think calling us the evil empire is not only foolish, it's hyperbolic bullshit.

But I guess if the poster agrees with you, they must be right - it's so typical of so many here.

[EFerrari]

50. I have given several reasons why I agree with Vida. You have posted insults. I think we're done.

[Scuba]

61. Sadly, I agree. We will go to war with Iran so that BP can steal their oil. n/t

[Broderick]

39. Seems to me some Mugabe supporters have morphed into

Chavez supporters in certain circles. History repeats itself time and time again I guess. Not pointing to anyone in particular at all here, but just an observation personally over the years.

[vminfla]

47. I noticed the same thing

There seems to be a Walter Duranty-ization of support for the Mugabes, Stalins, and Chavez' of the world. Like you said, history repeats itself, and the Durantys of today are doomed to repeat the mistakes of Duranty.

[EFerrari]

51. How you can compare Chavez, who has been praised by the UN

for cutting poverty in half in Venezuela and making it one of the most economically equal countries in the hemisphere, to STALIN, is a mystery, maybe one of those Miami things that I don't even want to understand. lol

[ronnie624]

66. In some cases, attempting rational discussion is utterly futile. n/t

[ChangoLoa]

68. Why do you exclude Europe from the "hemisphere"?

[joshcryer]

74. It only came at the cost of 100 thousand people ruthlessly murdered.

[UTUSN]

44. R#5 (for visibility) & K for, Huguito's daily breath is predictable, not news & not breaking n/t

[Scuba]

59. Bad move Hugo. You've now put yourself in company ...

... with the Koch brothers.

[Bacchus4.0]

88. Iran asks Venezuela to repay debts exceeding USD 290 million

http://www.eluniversal.com/economia/120111/iran-asks-venezuela-to-repay-debts-exceeding-usd-290-million

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may have visited Latin America to lead people to believe that he has allies in the region, but he also seized the opportunity of his visit to Venezuela to demand the payment of a USD 298 million debt that the Venezuelan government has contracted with state-run Iranian companies.

Venezuela has debts with Iranian firms in the areas of automotive industry, construction, and housing, which are three of the main pillars of the relationship between Caracas and Tehran.

"Ahmadinejad's delegation wanted to talk about the debts that the Venezuelan government has contracted with five Iranian corporations operating in Venezuela, whose activities have been hampered by a series of obstacles," sources close to those businesses told El Universal.

First, Venezuela owes USD 98 million to Iranian state-run company Ehdasse Sanat. Repayment of this debt has already been approved by the National Assembly. The representatives of the company are seeking repayment of the debt to meet their commitments, including bank loans.

[Little Tich]

89. Best Friends Forever! Lol.

[fascisthunter]

91. Come on DUers! You are supposed to Knee-jerk React to this news

Why can't you all be mainstream media(propaganda) meat heads? We need a reason to hate and distabilize Venezuela, because Chavez's socialism is a threat to the 1% way of doing business!!! Sheesh!!