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 Chávez 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'état as an effort to reassert democracy:And the Times added: 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 Chávez 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 Chávez 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'état 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'états 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.
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'état.
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 hávez for the coup d'état because under his government: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 Chávez 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. Chávez 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:And: So let's get this right.
First, Chávez 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'état. Having provided this excuse by murdering said opponents Chávez then switched character and acted with remorse by firing himself and everyone else who was (we are told) involved. This Chávez is very mercurial, no? We can now state with certainty that a) Chávez never resigned; b) he never dismissed his vice president and cabinet. In other words, the State Department, confident that Chávez 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'état.
To allow this, it was necessary that before departing the scene Chávez should dismiss every single top government official, and then himself. Mind you, it would have been entirely unacceptable for Chávez 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 Chávez 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'état 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
2) Press Statement Philip T. Reeker, Deputy Spokesman
April 12, 2002 "Venezuela: Change of Government" http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2002/9316.htm
Contact this site