The New York Times should also be reminded that not only was Chavez democraticly elected in a landslide vote, the CIA sponsored military coup that they hailed as "democratic" was overwhelmed and overturned by a groundswell of the Venezuelan people themselves in what can only be described as the ultimate expression of real "peoples" democracy!                                           mart

=============================================================

Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 23:14:46 -0400
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Subject: CH�VEZ COMEBACK EXPOSES US GOVT & MEDIA LIES

CH�VEZ COMEBACK EXPOSES US GOVT & MEDIA LIES

Via NY Transfer News * All the News That Doesn't Fit


http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/haste.htm

[Emperor's Clothes] - 14 April 2002


CH�VEZ COMEBACK EXPOSES U.S. GOVERNMENT & MEDIA LIES 

By D. Baatar, Jared Israel, Nestor Gorojovsky & Nico Varkevisser


To paraphrase an old proverb: "Celebrate in haste; repent at
leisure."

On September 13th the New York Times rushed to gloat that one more
opponent of the US Empire had been crushed.

Never you mind that Venezuelan President Hugo Ch�vez had been elected
by overwhelming popular vote. (In contrast, might we note, to George
Walker Bush.)

An editorial in the Times described the Venezuelan military/big
business coup d'�tat as an effort to reassert democracy:

"Venezuelan democracy is no longer threatened by a would-be
dictator...[because] the military intervened and handed power to a
respected business leader." - N Y Times (1)

And the Times added:

"But democracy has not yet been restored, and won't be until a new
president is elected." (1)

In the bad old Cold War days, the US Establishment used to attack its
opponents for not holding multiparty elections.

Well, Venezuela did hold multiparty elections and Ch�vez won by a
landslide. But this was not sufficient.

In the New World Order, democracy is not defined any longer as
holding elections. Democracy is defined as supporting US polices. No
matter how many elections Ch�vez won by how many landslides, his
resistance to US Diktat made him by definition antidemocratic, that
is, "a would-be dictator."

Thus when the military took over Venezuela three days ago and
installed a pro-Washington big business leader as President, the
Times did not describe this military coup d'�tat as a threat to
democracy. Rather, they described it as *ending* a threat to
democracy.

Similarly, in the past, NY Times editorials have immediately
applauded coup d'�tats in Yugoslavia (overthrowing elected President
Slobodan Milosevic) and the Philippines (overthrowing elected
President Joseph Estrada).

But this time the Times gloated a bit too soon.

EVERYBODY IS IN SUCH A HURRY

Since the New World Order has re-defined democracy as subservience to
US diktat, it is only fair that the democratic content of every event
should be given a rating by the US government.

Thus it is by no means surprising that the US State Department issued
a Press Statement rating the democratic content of the Venezuelan
coup d'�tat.

The only problem is, the State Department, like the New York Times,
published a bit too soon.

Within hours of the coup, a State Department Press Statement declared
unqualified support for the coup. This document praised the military,
which had just seized power, for acting with "restraint" and blamed
Hugo Ch�vez for the coup d'�tat because under his government:

"essential elements of democracy...have been weakened in recent
- months." State Dep't Statement (2)

To what "essential elements of democracy" might State be referring?
They didn't say, but all the newspapers have pointed out that the big
dispute in Venezuela has been over the State-owned oil company.

Venezuelan President Ch�vez had weakened "essential elements of
democracy" by appointing as leaders of the state-owned oil company
people that were (horrors!) loyal to his administration rather than
to Chevron Oil and, perhaps even worse, by selling oil to Cuba at an
affordable price.

Ch�vez must not have been aware that that willingness to strangle
Cuba is a crucial component of the New World Order's definition of
"democracy."

The State Department declaration repeated the common media line,
without introducing a shred of evidence, that:

"Ch�vez supporters, on orders, fired on unarmed, peaceful protestors,
resulting in more than 100 wounded or killed." (2)

And:

"The results of these provocations are: Ch�vez resigned the
presidency. Before resigning, he dismissed the Vice President and the
Cabinet. A transition civilian government has promised early
elections." (2)

So let's get this right.

First, Ch�vez ordered his supporters to kill a few opponents. This
could hardly have been expected to disperse a large demonstration
which had been called by leading TV stations and part of the
military. But it could certainly have been expected to assist
military leaders who were openly looking for - or trying to
manufacture - an excuse to stage a coup d'�tat.

Having provided this excuse by murdering said opponents Ch�vez then
switched character and acted with remorse by firing himself and
everyone else who was (we are told) involved. This Ch�vez is very
mercurial, no?

We can now state with certainty that a) Ch�vez never resigned; b) he
never dismissed his vice president and cabinet. In other words, the
State Department, confident that Ch�vez had been silenced for good,
was lying.

But why?

Because they wanted the military takeover to appear as a "Change of
Government" (which, by the way is the title of the State Department
declaration) rather than what it was: a US instigated military coup
d'�tat.

To allow this, it was necessary that before departing the scene
Ch�vez should dismiss every single top government official, and then
himself.

Mind you, it would have been entirely unacceptable for Ch�vez to
begin by firing himself. Once he dismissed himself he would no longer
have had the authority to dismiss the vice president and all cabinet
members. This would have violated prescribed State Department
procedures, making it undemocratic.

Since we know for sure that the State Department was lying through
its teeth when it claimed Ch�vez had resigned and fired everyone,
isn't it reasonable to believe they were also lying through their
teeth when they claimed he ordered supporters to shoot some
opponents?

Keep in mind that shooting opponents was an act which (like
dismissing his government) could only have helped his opponents by
giving them a seeming justification for the coup d'�tat which had
been openly called for by some military officers, appearing on
"opposition" TV stations.

Even as the Mighty and their Media congratulated themselves on the
"democratic" coup and admired this reassertion of their
invincibility, another voice was heard.

The wretched of this earth, residents of the slums of Caracas, whose
suffering is the ugly secret of the glossy US Empire, came in their
thousands, in from the countryside, down from the hills around
Caracas, and with loyalist soldiers they took Venezuela back from the
hands of what the CIA boys like to call "Civil society," and all we
can say is this is how the current worldwide empire of lies will end:
by just such actions of the ordinary, wonderful, decent people of
this world, God bless them.


FOOTNOTES

1) The New York Times April 13, 2002, Saturday, Late Edition - Final
Section A; Page 16; Column 1; Editorial Desk "Hugo Ch�vez Departs"

2) Press Statement Philip T. Reeker, Deputy Spokesman Washington, DC
April 12, 2002 "Venezuela: Change of Government"
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2002/9316.htm

Join our email list at http://emperors-clothes.com/f.htm. Receive
articles posted on emperor's clothes.

This article may be reproduced in any non-commercial medium but
please include the entire text and the URL. For commercial use
contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 
=================================================================
  NY Transfer News Collective   *   A Service of Blythe Systems 
           Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us          
              339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012             
  http://www.blythe.org                  e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
=================================================================
 



Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax

Reply via email to