----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 2:43 PM Subject: RE: Venezuela
> > > > > > That is true, of course, only if you believe all accusations > > that cast the US in a bad light and ignore all evidence to > > the contrary. The US did not, of course, support the coup. > > Why is it an "of course" case? I agree that its more a case of "failure > to act" than "actively supported" but why is it a matter of simplicity? > > Me: > Because if we _were_ actively supporting the coup, the military probably > wouldn't have dropped Cardona like a hot potato. And because the > statements of the Administration were pretty clear in that department. > They didn't say "Woo hoo! Chavez is gone!" as, well, a lot of people did. Well, not that strong, but let me quote from the NY Times quoting the administration: "The Bush administration laid the blame for Mr. Ch�vez's overthrow firmly with the ousted leader. Officials portrayed the ouster as a victory for democracy, even though Mr. Ch�vez was a legitimately elected president. 'We know that the action encouraged by the Ch�vez government provoked this crisis,' said Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesman. The Ch�vez government, he added, suppressed a peaceful demonstration and fired on unarmed protesters. However, Latin American leaders at a summit meeting in Costa Rica criticized Mr. Ch�vez's ouster as an 'interruption of the constitutional order.'" > I find it particularly ironic the way Chavez is instantly converted into > some popular champion. Actually, what I read does not indicate that. Let me give an example from http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/world/americas/3085494.htm "But a vast majority of those who condemned the coup early on, including the presidents of Mexico, Brazil and Argentina, did exactly what the United States should have done: demand that Ch�vez's removal be carried out in a constitutional way -- be it by a legal resignation or an impeachment by the Venezuelan Congress -- in order not to set a precedent that could have unleashed a wave of military coups in the region." That seems fairly reasonable to me. It may very well have been that the military had to act to give the process time to stop Chavez from instituting an autocratic rule, but the US should have been a lot clearer in its support of the democratic process catching up with events instead of apparently claiming that the action of the military was the democratic process at work. Dan M.
