(Chavez)...Revolution will not be Televised...fact or fiction??

[windansea]

Many here have seen this "documentary" on the Venezuelan coup of 2002...however I doubt many have read this debunking of the film which details numerous tricks in editing and outright fabrications regarding some of the events portrayed in the film.

To: BBC Governors and Chairmen, Executive Officers and Editorial Content Producers of RTE, ZDF, ARTE, NPS/COBO, YLETV

Caracas, October 21, 2003

Sirs
Chairmen, Executive Officers and Editorial Content Producers
BBC of London (United Kingdom)
ZDF (Germany)
RTE (Ireland)
Arte (France)
NPS/Cobo (The Netherlands)

Dear Sirs:

On April 13, 2003, the film “The Revolution will not be Televised”, also known in other countries under the alternating titles “Chavez Inside the coup” or “Chavez-the film” with different editions and versions, was broadcast for all Venezuela on channel 8, Venezolana de Televisión. At that opportunity, thousands of Venezuelans thought that the documentary did not reflect the truth of the events that happened in our country during those days. However, as it was a one-time transmission and we did not have copies to review it more thoroughly, we could not appreciate in further detail the contents and the narrative strategies used to transmit them.

In Venezuela during the last days, the former student of the BBC, Eng. Wolgang Schalk, and the film producer, Thaelman Urgelles, have presented a series of allegations that confirm our initial impression about the inaccuracies and distortions of the film, in which this important TV station appears as a sponsor. On October 3 and October 10, 2003, during a broadcast by the national television channel Venevisión, they explained the several failures of production ethics in detail.

Further, today, October 21, 2003, a group of citizens have gathered together for a Public Film Forum, convoked by the Venezuelan web page “El Gusano de Luz” (www.elgusanodeluz.com), where we have reviewed and discussed this documentary in the presence of audiovisual specialists, other professionals of the social sciences, witnesses of the events reported by the film and general public.

The attendants at this Film Forum have been able to confirm numerous falsehoods, distortions, and biased interpretations of the events that occurred in Venezuela during the month of April 2002, which constitute a clear breach of the information and investigation ethics on the part of the producers of this documentary. Among the several manipulations that have been cleared up during this Forum, we can tell you the most evident:

more....

http://www.vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/bbc1001

[enki23]

1. are they implying there was no coup?

that he wasn't kidnapped? that there was no illegal overthrow of a democratically elected government?

[htuttle]

2. Probably...

More right-wing-apologist crypto-facist claptrap from windnsea -- but I mean that in a nice way, of course.

I suppose everyone has to make a living...

[el_gato]

3. exactly splitting hairs is a common tactic

trying to focus people on minutae

meanwhile phoney groups like the NED are actively funding
unrest in Venenzuela

[windansea]

24. no they are not denying the coup

just many falacies in the film

[9215]

31. So the particulars, debatable as they are, are more at issue than

the big tamale (the coup)? What kind of story is that?

[windansea]

37. they are just pointing out that its not a true documentary

for instance..they do not show video of the 1,000,000 person opposition march that shows the magnitude of the opposition, and they also try to paint the opposition as only rich white europeans

many people here accept this portrayal of the opposition as it suits their rich vs the poor arguments, but the fact is the opposition has people from all statas of society and many of them are former Chavez supporters who saw thru the lies and rhetoric

[htuttle]

48. Name one 'true documentary' by your standards

I'd like to know if there are any films that would be considered documentaries by your standards.

[windansea]

50. ok..just off the top of my head

3 mile island....a documentary to me is one which films events as they happen without political bias and DOES NOT use false video clips and present them as the truth...if you read the entire article you can see many instances where the film makers used video from other locations, or from diferent times, than what they were purported to be

the most damning example of this being about the shootings

"The so called “case of the gun shooters on the Llaguno Bridge” is more complicated. Those who are not experts in audiovisual matters cannot have perceived what Eng. Wolfgang Schalk could notice and demonstrate. As you can remember, the images of a group of President Chavez’s supporters shooting from a bridge in the direction of the place where the opposition rally was coming became famous (the journalistic team that took the images was awarded the King of Spain’s Journalism Prize for this report). The film supported by you backed up the government “propaganda version” that those people were not shooting at any rally, and for this, film makers used images from an amateur video taken from a different angle than the one used by the journalistic team that won the prize in Spain. In this second video, the bridge and the avenue underneath are completely empty, without persons or rally walking and no person shooting from the bridge. Using a “shadow analysis” procedure similar to the ancient sun dials, Mr. Schalk showed that the images of this amateur video were taken from about 1:00 to 1:30 in the afternoon, when the opposition rally was not even near that location, while the images taken by the prize-winning journalists were taken between 4:30 and 5:00 in the afternoon, when the tragic events were indeed happening. If the film makers had access to that amateur video, they could have also shown the images of the same place three hours later, when tens of people could be seen running and falling dead or injured in the same avenue, which was empty before."

the above describes an outright distortion of the facts by the film which I believe many here have been taken in by...the existance of the spanish film contradicts what the "documentary" portrays...Chavez people killed the protesters and then they tried to blame it on the opposition....

[AP]

54. The truest documentary: Thin Blue Line, and it's loaded with music, re-

enacted scenes, weird shots of clocks, and total bias on the part of the filmmaker.

Morris was convinced the police and the prosecutors were evil, lying sacks of shit, and didn't hide his contempt for them.

He was also totally right.

Randally Terry was on death row when before the documentary was releases, and got out of jail after people saw it because it revealed the truth.

Cross-cutting, editorializing, and continuity editing don't make a documentary true or untrue. The simple decisioin to point a camera at something is editorializing.

What makes a documentary true is if it reveals the truth.

The Revolution Will Not be Televised revealed the truth about Venezuela. It's a battle over neoliberalism and the oligopoly is extremely reluctant to give up its power.

It also shows that when good people have guns, democracy can be protected (which was a hard lesson for this liberal to accept).

It also showed that carring about people (answering letters, knowing the guards' names and singing songs with developmentally disabled people) in conjunction with devolving power down to those people is a pretty good way to keep power if you're the president.

[windansea]

59. there's a lot more people involved

besides those 2 groups...you are projecting your own politics

and the fim has several irregularities that were conciously applied which means it was skewed on purpose for political purposes

a lawsuit continues against the BBC because they had a hand in the production

[AP]

70. Call me when you can say "there's a lawsuit that was won"

"irregularities that were consciously applied" -- you don't know how funny that sounds, do you?

Once again, the simple decisions to decide what to point a camera at is an editorial decision. That's basically the level of your criticism.

And it's absolutely hysterical that someone defending the VZ opposition which lies constantly and editorializes constantly (and told PROFOUND lies about the incident on the bridge, or even about the fact that they were in Miraflores when they had already run from it, which CNN reported as true, and who robbed from the palace safe) would be upset with documentary which starts from a different point of view.

At the very least, you should be recognizing that both sides should be entitled to make arguments from their own points of view.

Do you have a cite for that law suit? I'd love to laugh at it.

[AP]

73. By the way, Schalk dropped his complaint against RTE

probably because it was stupid.

Here's a funny article about him:

However the documentary has been subjected to fierce criticism, Wolfgang Chalk, A Venezuelan TV Producer, and Engineer, has spearhead a campaign backed by such figures as private Venezuelan televisions producers, Generals and the Caracas chief of Police. They have campaigned on the internet, with the petition calling for its banning. Harassing film festivals and TV stations planning on showing the film, calling on them to withdraw the film from screenings. Judges from one important documentary award even tell of receiving phone calls demanding they dont choose this film in the days before votes were cast.

This group seized on a decision by Amnesty international in Vancouver; to withdraw the film from its forthcoming Human rights festival. Schalk's, curiously well organised pressure group, took this as proof of their claims of that the documentary was lying and began another round of calls to festivals and TV stations, backed up with this argument.

However Amnestys reasons for the withdrawal have nothing to do with Schalks harassment and in their statement they say;

"In the final two weeks of October, we received from individuals and groups calls for the cancellation of the screening of the film. During this time we were also contacted by the chair and director of the Venezuelan section who requested us not to show the film. AI Venezuela believed the screening of the film created the perception of an association between Amnesty International and the views portrayed in the film. At the time of the showing, in the highly polarized climate in Venezuela, the perception of association created a security risk for AI Venezuela staff and members, described by the Director as "a real threat against our security and safety".



http://boston.indymedia.org/newswire/display/18417/index.php

[AP]

55. I don't think people are denying that. They're just saying it's important

to help the poor the most, even if it upsets the rich and much of the middle class, because 80% of the country is poor.

Here's what Greg Wilpert, a Chavez supporter says about this issue:

I don’t think there is any such thing as “the expectations of the electorate.” Voters expect all kinds of different things from a government, even those who all vote for the same candidate. It seems to me, though, that the ones who are most disappointed by Chavez are in the middle class. Chavez has done little to nothing for them and they had high hopes that they would benefit, once again, from Venezuela’s supposed wealth if Chavez were elected. Instead, they have suffered from economic and political (and by extension severe psychological) crises. I think this sector of the electorate was crucial in electing Chavez and will most likely vote overwhelmingly against him in any future elections.

As for the other main voting block which voted for Chavez, the poor, the degree of fulfillment is mixed. I think those who have benefited from government programs, whether the old one, such as Plan Bolivar 2000, new educational opportunities via Bolivarian schools, rural or urban land reform or more recent programs, such as the Missions Robinson, Sucre, Mercal, Ribas, etc., the support is bound to be there. I also think there is a large group of people who live in the barrios who have not benefited from government programs, but support Chavez nonetheless because of either his charisma, his ability to speak in a way that the poor can relate to, his addressing of their concerns, of speaking from their perspective in many cases. All of this has produced a large segment of people who support Chavez and whose expectations he has perhaps not met completely, but come a lot closer to meeting than any other president in recent Venezuelan history. On the other hand, one also has to recognize that there is a sizable segment in the barrios who have not benefited from government policies and who are not attracted by Chavez’ rhetorical style or charisma.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1081

[windansea]

64. wow..very honest assesment

by Mr Wilpert...who can see Chavez support is soft...even in his base

and the more he tries to hold onto power through autocratic methods the more his support erodes...sorry but he is not delivering...even his private land redistribution is kind of a sham...they don't give title to the poor...they are co-operatives and owned by the state.

[AP]

71. No. That's strong support for Chavez. But your reaction is interesting.

You need to think harder about what the opposition stands for. You need to think harder about whether it's really better for the rich to have a government that is interested in concentrated wealth or if it's going to be better in VZ when everyone is better off.

[AP]

35. Lets's debate. Itemize the fallacies.

[windansea]

39. they are itemized in the article

and we can't really debate it as we were not there...these people had witnesses from all the events portrayed in the film and also video expoerts who showed how many sequences were not what they were purported to be

They are not saying the coup did not happen nor supporting Perez..just many erroneous clips used in the film that purportsa to be a straight documentary

[AP]

42. There you go again saying you can't debate because you weren't there.

Why bother posting any of this if we can't debate.

Pick the thing from that article which you find the most damning, and let's argue it.

I'm sure your girlfriend would want you to do that, since GD04 is so boring now.

[windansea]

43. this is the most damning part to me

"The so called “case of the gun shooters on the Llaguno Bridge” is more complicated. Those who are not experts in audiovisual matters cannot have perceived what Eng. Wolfgang Schalk could notice and demonstrate. As you can remember, the images of a group of President Chavez’s supporters shooting from a bridge in the direction of the place where the opposition rally was coming became famous (the journalistic team that took the images was awarded the King of Spain’s Journalism Prize for this report). The film supported by you backed up the government “propaganda version” that those people were not shooting at any rally, and for this, film makers used images from an amateur video taken from a different angle than the one used by the journalistic team that won the prize in Spain. In this second video, the bridge and the avenue underneath are completely empty, without persons or rally walking and no person shooting from the bridge. Using a “shadow analysis” procedure similar to the ancient sun dials, Mr. Schalk showed that the images of this amateur video were taken from about 1:00 to 1:30 in the afternoon, when the opposition rally was not even near that location, while the images taken by the prize-winning journalists were taken between 4:30 and 5:00 in the afternoon, when the tragic events were indeed happening. If the film makers had access to that amateur video, they could have also shown the images of the same place three hours later, when tens of people could be seen running and falling dead or injured in the same avenue, which was empty before."

but to really debate it would require watching the film at the same time and having eyewitnesses who were there and know the real sequence of events...plus professional video experts etc

if I could invite the people who did this to discuss it here I would..but they are much to busy trying to get the recall vote and signatures passed.

[AP]

49. A study of SHADOWS convinces you that this is lie. Yet the movie shows

the shot from two different angles with the same people huddled to the side of the bridge, and then showed the way that the commercial media shot the scene, and then showed that the people were shooting up, not down, and then showed the pro-Chavez people with gaping bullet holes in their heads and blood pouring from those holes like someone turned on a fuacet, and you'd rather believe in shadows.

Get a clue. If you saw the movie, you'd appreciate how incredibly damning that scene was and you'd understand why "shadow experts" would be required to cast doubt on it.

Here's the facts: people got hit in the head by snipers. The people who got hit were chavez supporters. People in the crowd turned around and shot UP at the snipers (which is obvious from the footage). Because the people who got shot were shot at from high to low, the opposition had to come up with some story by which you could plausibly argue that any Chavez supporter was higher off the ground than anyone who was shot. Thus the bridge. Yet there isn't a single shot showing anyone beneath that bridge at any time when there was shooting.

The major media could have pulled back on that shot they showed over and over again, but they didn't. Why not? So that a "shadow expert" could give them out months later, in the event the coup failed? Maybe. But if there people under that bridge, they could have proved it easily enough by pulling back on that shot.

[windansea]

51. the spanish film crew has footage showing

the images of a group of President Chavez’s supporters shooting from a bridge in the direction of the place where the opposition rally was coming became famous (the journalistic team that took the images was awarded the King of Spain’s Journalism Prize for this report).

Mr. Schalk showed that the images of this amateur video were taken from about 1:00 to 1:30 in the afternoon, when the opposition rally was not even near that location, while the images taken by the prize-winning journalists were taken between 4:30 and 5:00 in the afternoon, when the tragic events were indeed happening. If the film makers had access to that amateur video, they could have also shown the images of the same place three hours later, when tens of people could be seen running and falling dead or injured in the same avenue, which was empty before.

the shadow analysis confirms when each video was shot

[AP]

52. Do you have links to the pictures?

[AP]

53. More on the bridge:

Eight, it is a fact that journalist Luis Alfredo Fernandez of TV network Venevision, who recorded a video of Chavez supporters shooting from a bridge the day of the coup, confessed during the trial of these men, that at the moment of shooting the video, he did not know whom these pro-Chavez civilians were shooting at. Nevertheless, at the time that the video was shown by all the commercial TV channels, the news anchor at Venevision asserted that "they are shooting against hundreds of innocent demonstrators", with the clear intention to incriminate these men and President Chavez. Del Valle Canelon, a journalist for the Globovision TV network, declared during the same trial that in her video one can see the group of pro-Chavez supporters shooting, but against the Metropolitan Police, not against “innocent demonstrators”. Globovision did not broadcast that video (See  www.aporrea.org/dameverbo.php?docid=8595 - in Spanish).



Ninth, it is a fact that those accused of the killings of several people that day by shooting from that bridge, were acquitted of all charges during a trial after spending a year and 5 months in jail. During the trial it was proven that the shootings were in self-defense against Metropolitan Police officers and sharpshooters. The trial of police officers accused of the killings is set to start in November of 2003. The Metropolitan Police is controlled by the Mayor of Caracas Alfredo Peña, a prominent leader of the opposition.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1047

[AP]

72. Amensty didn't beleive any of these criticisms of the film, by the way:

And if the movie is full of lies, why are opposition supporters threatening violence?

From BridgetBurke's link:

Amnesty International (AI) has publicly confirmed that a fear of violence directed at their staff forced the organisation to withdraw 'The Revolution Will Not Be Televised' from their recent film festival in Vancouver, Canada.
In an article in the Guardian newspaper
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/venezuela/story/0,12716,1090788,00.html), an Amnesty spokesman said the organisation had been forced to pull the film after staff at their Venezuelan office expressed fears for their safety if the film was screened.

Prior to this, Amnesty has received a series of representations alleging that the film had distorted key events. These representations were rejected. The film was only pulled after the safety fears were raised.

The Guardian confirmed that the campaign to halt screenings of the film is connected to opponents of the Venezuelan government.

[AP]

4. This argument bascially plagiarizes criticism of Bowling for Columbine.

I'm shocked, SHOCKED that movies are edited out of sequence.

And that's very amusing coming from a person with a photoshopped picture of Chavez in his post.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1047

In defense of "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised"
Tuesday, Nov 04, 2003
By: Martín Sánchez

...

We would like to address some of the specific points raised by the opposition regarding the film’s content:

First, those who are promoting the censorship of this documentary deny that a coup even occurred, contradicting international consensus on the matter, including Amnesty International’s own description of the events. El Gusano de Luz refers to the dictatorship that briefly replaced Chavez as “the transition presidency”, and Chavez’s removal from power by force as “Chavez’s exit”. They claim that Pedro Carmona, the business leader who assumed dictatorial powers after Chavez’s overthrow, “took refuge in the Embassy of Colombia,” after he was deposed, not mentioning the fact that the former dictator took advantage of the privilege of house arrest to escape from state authorities.

Second, those who oppose the showing of the documentary try to justify the coup d’etat by insisting on the absurd argument that President Chavez had resigned. The film clearly shows government officials emerging from a meeting with the military high command late that evening, saying “Chavez has not resigned,” as the President is led away by soldiers. The fact is that Chavez did not sign any resignation, and that in the event that he had done so, the Vice President should have properly assumed power, not an opposition businessman supported by military officers.

Third, the argument that the showing of a neighbors meeting held in June 2002 to defend against “Bolivarian Circles,” was done as if it happened before the coup, is pointless. The filmmakers don’t claim that the meeting took place before April 11. They present the meeting as an example of how the upper class resents Chavez. It is not presented as subversive or as proof of coup plotting by rich housewives, which is what El Gusano de Luz implies. Arguments by the neighbors, and their concern for their safety, has more to do with the opposition leaders’ and the media’s campaign to implant fear in the minds of the rich and middle classes with claims that hordes of poor Chavez supporters are ready to take away their personal fortunes. It is also a manifestation of the white elite’s fear of a politically active mass of the population, who are mostly mestizo, black and Amerindian.

Fourth, the massive character of the opposition demonstration the day of the coup can’t be denied, and the film does show and say that opposition leaders managed to mobilize massive numbers of people after an extensive media campaign of continuous anti-Chavez political shows and ads during the three days before the coup.

....

{it goes on...}

[ParanoidPat]

6. I've got to agree with you there.....

....."I'm shocked, SHOCKED that movies are edited out of sequence."

"And that's very amusing coming from a person with a photoshopped picture of Chavez in his post."

Does someone have an agenda? LOL! :evilgrin:

It's been said that "The empty barrel makes the most noise", check out the contents of the posts in this thread and count the number of empty posts by the same person. Who's the empty barrel? ;-)

[AP]

21. Continuity editing...the devil's workshop!

[windansea]

25. empty barrel??

how many links did you come up with to support your opinion in that thread????

I started post with article from the Guardian, and then followed up with cites from the Carter Center, EU, UN, Barney Frank etc etc

somebody has an agenda and an empty magazine full of rhetoric and opinions



:evilgrin:

[windansea]

26. are you shocked that they used film that was not

what it was purported to be?

"When showing the presence of presumed working classes in front of the Presidential Palace “Miraflores” on the morning of April 11, 2002, the film used images of a concentration that happened on a different day and in a different city in Venezuela"

"Indeed, to show the opposition rally, the filmmakers used only closed takes and horizontal angulations to avoid showing the gigantic magnitude of the rally, close to one million people, according to the abundant available audiovisual registries"

or this example that shows how the film outright lies about true events

" The so called “case of the gun shooters on the Llaguno Bridge” is more complicated. Those who are not experts in audiovisual matters cannot have perceived what Eng. Wolfgang Schalk could notice and demonstrate. As you can remember, the images of a group of President Chavez’s supporters shooting from a bridge in the direction of the place where the opposition rally was coming became famous (the journalistic team that took the images was awarded the King of Spain’s Journalism Prize for this report). The film supported by you backed up the government “propaganda version” that those people were not shooting at any rally, and for this, film makers used images from an amateur video taken from a different angle than the one used by the journalistic team that won the prize in Spain. In this second video, the bridge and the avenue underneath are completely empty, without persons or rally walking and no person shooting from the bridge. Using a “shadow analysis” procedure similar to the ancient sun dials, Mr. Schalk showed that the images of this amateur video were taken from about 1:00 to 1:30 in the afternoon, when the opposition rally was not even near that location, while the images taken by the prize-winning journalists were taken between 4:30 and 5:00 in the afternoon, when the tragic events were indeed happening. If the film makers had access to that amateur video, they could have also shown the images of the same place three hours later, when tens of people could be seen running and falling dead or injured in the same avenue, which was empty before."

[AP]

36. Oh come on.

If you want to talk about angulations, why don't you talk about the angles of the commercial media's shots of the event. Why couldnt' they show what was happening below the bridge?

[Bridget Burke]

5. Checking the film's website....

"In July 2003 Mr Wolfgang Schalk made a detailed complaint to RTE (Ireland), one of the broadcasters of the film. In accordance with its established procedures RTE replied to Mr Schalk in September setting out a detailed response to his complaints. The complaint procedures of RTE allowed for Mr Schalk to then bring his complaints to the next stage, the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, an independent body established to deal with such matters. This was not pursued by Mr Schalk."

www.chavezthefilm.com/html/film/amnesty.htm

Lots more interesting stuff here. Including Amnesty Canada deciding to withdraw the film from a festival because of threats of violence made against Amnesty Venezuela. Here's the Guardian's account:

www.guardian.co.uk/venezuela/story/0,12716,1090788,00.html

Thanks to windansea for the inspiration to seek out this interesting information.

[bobbyboucher]

7. Give the Chavez bashing a rest. Is it your job?

Man, your protest a great deal about that DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED leader down there. Seems like you have the same respect for Democracy as the Bush gang. Which is none.

[ParanoidPat]

8. It's a full time job with forced overtime hours but take heart.....

.....he's going to lose his overtime pay because of the level of specialized training involved. :evilgrin:

It's one thing to have a legitimate difference of opinion but the sheer volume of propaganda posts is just unbelievable! :)

[Judi Lynn]

10. Makes you wonder if perhaps it's a group effort

as in a Mrs. windandsea, and some young windandseas helping to man the computer, while windandsea cops some z's.

So much effort, so minimal the results.

On edit:

Speaking of photos, this looks like a good place to post the likeness of the man who was President, Carlos Andres Perez, during the time Chavez launched one of TWO coup attempts. He ordered an attack on citizens protesting a harsh economic measure taken against ONLY THE POOR, who had to depend on buses for their transportation, killing over 200 in some reports, up to many hundreds in others. He was impeached for corruption. He fled to the U.S. and the Dominican Republic. He is ALSO a friend of George H. W. Bush.



These names are entertwined over and over in links you can find for yourself. Perez is connected to the coup plotters, even though he's a corrupt, vicious old ####:

CTV union’s Ortega, who works closely with Carmona in the anti-Chávez movement, is not the only influential Chávez foe with U.S. ties. Media tycoon Gustavo Cisneros, one of Latin America’s richest men, is a longtime friend of former President George Bush. Cisneros recently took Bush on a fishing trip in Venezuela.

Some Chávez supporters suspect Cisneros of helping to organize the coup. On Thursday, April 11, at 11:30 a.m., hours before the coup unfolded, leaders of Venezuelan business groups and traditional parties opposed to Chávez gathered with U.S. Ambassador Shapiro for a private luncheon hosted by Cisneros at his mansion.

Cisneros denies he played any role in the coup, though he spoke to Reich, the administration’s top Latin America policymaker, by telephone during the overthrow. Reich says it was strictly to exchange information on the situation. Cisneros and other Venezuelan media magnates met with Carmona in the presidential palace Saturday, April 13, before he had even sworn in his cabinet.

Venezuelan officials also have publicly accused former Venezuelan President Carlos Andres Perez of helping organize the coup. Perez, who lives in New York and Miami and is a close ally of Carmona and Ortega, laughs at the allegation. Perez survived a coup attempt in 1992 led by former paratrooper Chávez and is a fugitive wanted in Venezuela on corruption charges.
(snip/...)

http://www.natcath.com/NCR_Online/archives/053102/053102j.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The leadership of the oil workers union, which operated in close
alliance with the two political parties that ran Venezuela for 40
years before Chávez, also became involved. And information continues
to surface about the role played by the Confederation of Venezuelan
Workers (CTV) leadership, especially its president, Carlos Ortega, in
the coup attempt and his ongoing role in efforts to bring down
Chávez. Tayler notes that former Venezuelan president Carlos Andres
Perez, currently living in Miami, who is wanted on corruption charges
in Venezuela and has been accused of involvement in the plot, is a
mentor of both Ortega and Carmona.
(snip)

http://www.blythe.org/nytransfer-subs/Covert_Actions/Coup-Making_in_Venezuela:_Bush-Oil_Factors

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Who is on the short list of presidential replacements? Is it going to be Pedro Carmona back for an extended term? Or should the strike leaders Carlos Ortega, Carlos Fernandez and Juan Fernandez take charge of the economy? Or should former president Carlos Andres Perez return, assuming that his prior conviction for corruption is no barrier? And then there is the mysterious richest man in Venezuela, Gustavo Cisneros, who has difficulty coming up with US$10,000 to send Miss Venezuela to the Miss Universe contest, but is now spending hundreds of millions of dollars to bid for the Aston Villa soccer club in the UK after losing out in the bid for the Chelsea club ...
(snip)



Carlos Ortega congratulating Pedro Carmona on April 12th
unphotoshopped!

http://www.zonaeuropa.com/00457.htm

[Bridget Burke]

12. Yes, it's a group effort

And some of the team members use different names. They all have the same message, though.

[frank frankly]

13. correct-o!

they are transparent

[windansea]

30. aawwww...little windanseas...how cute!!

Mrs Windansea (to be) will love that!!

PS we are not fans of Perez either

:7

[frank frankly]

9. zing!

oh windansea!!!

you are something else!!!

seriously, I do hope someone's paying you!

[windansea]

46. Mrs Windansea pays me well

but not in money

:evilgrin:

[windansea]

27. wrong...

I have the same respect for democracy as Jimmy Carter, Kofi Annan, Barney Frank, Amnesty International, Human Rights watch and many others who are condemining Chavez for trying to thwart the constitutional right of venezuelans to hold a recall.

Even Lulu in Brazil is losing patience with Chavez....

next??

[bobbyboucher]

68. You don't have a damn thing.

I don't buy your bullshit. So stop selling it.

[Bombtrack]

11. Chavez is a thug, not some hero, plain and simple

unfortunatly in Latin America you have largely a struggle between left wing thugs and right wing thugs.

Hugo Chavez attempted his own coup himself before he was elected. And he now does use strongarm practices to keep the nation devided.

It's really to bad that center-left or center-right or just moderate parties cannot bridge these gaps because of the nature of the corrupt status quo there.

Are more powerful countries like the US free of any responsibility in making it so? Yes. But some people here take that blame America for everything way too far.

Chavez is closer to authoritarian supporting nuts like Ramsey Clark than admirable progressives like the Kennedys of old or the Wellstones and Kucinich's of today

[Bridget Burke]

14. He may not be a hero, but it's not that simple.

He was legally elected and our government did support the coup that failed.

No, he's not a Wellstone. Who is?

[Freddie Stubbs]

17. It may be hard for some to understand

But sometimes there aren't good guys versus bad guys. There are only bad guys.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

20. That's true. Many people in the US somehow think we're the good guys.

Imagine that!

[windansea]

63. YEP

[Judi Lynn]

15. He was also pardoned for that coup attempt.

His was one of two coup attempts tried during the presence of Carlos Andres Perez. We DU'ers are just starting to get educated on what kind of filth that bustard was.

Fortunately, there's no end of information upon his corruption, and his vicious disrespect for the vast majority of the Venezuelan people.

[windansea]

61. ummm... he was in on both of them

Visconti and Chavez worked together.

[G_j]

16. the US could care less

if someone is a thug.
We would just as soon install a thug to enforce our interests, as we have traditionally done in the region.

[windansea]

45. thank you BombTrack for getting it

:thumbsup:

[Vladimir]

58. Yeah, because

the ignorant Latinos can't behave like the civilized Europeans/Americans/Japanese because the only thing 'they' respect is a big strong man with a stick...

That's the crux of your post mate. Do you honestly believe that?

V

[hang a left]

18. Awfully quiet for some time now Windansea.

Are you on your lunch break? Maybe digging up some more propoganda on Haiti or maybe Zimbabwe will be next.

[windansea]

28. sorry..had to pick up my paycheck

at Langley

[hang a left]

66. your overpaid

n/t

[windansea]

77. ya think??

http://www.cia.gov/employment/clan_flash.html

[Judi Lynn]

19. Speaking of photos, here's the lil' fella the coupsters tried to seat

[The Magistrate]

22. It Seems To Me, Ma'am

That persons who think a coup against Col. Chavez a good thing dislike a video account of that event by persons who think a coup against Col. Chavez is an unsurprising thing. To take the former's objections as gospel truth in the matter seems to me as unwise as taking Republican advertisements directed against Sen. Kerry as accurate accounts of his political life and plans.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[windansea]

34. it's sir not ma'am

many here think the film is gospel truth...just pointing out the other side of the story...film is a powerful medium and as the article states..its not a true "video account"

they used video from one place and said it was another...there are many factual errors if you read the whole article.

[AP]

40. Every presentation of the facts comes with a bias. I prefer the bias of

this film to your bias and the bias of the neoliberals.

It's bias was towards telling the truth.

[windansea]

44. by all means believe who you like

but this article points out some serious fallacies in the "documentary"

I'm not sure the opposition thinks of themselves as neo liberals either...they just want to have a recall vote...and the constitutional law granted that right was supported by Chavez

[AP]

56. If they don't think of themselves as neoliberals, they're certainly

helping the neoliberals.

As they say in the Matrix, comprehension is not a prerequisite for cooperation. That applies to the right as well as the left.

And I really don't think you've made the case that the movie is a "fabrication."

It's infinitely more honest than what passes as 'news' from the extensive and dominant opposition media in VZ.

[windansea]

57. ok

have to go..be back later...and thank you for discussing this with some manners..as many others here do not

:thumbsup:

[Redleg]

23. Chavez and Venezuela again? Don't you care about U.S. politics?

Sheesh.

[windansea]

32. sure I do

I supported Clark...we have a nominee now...and GD04 is kinda boring so my girlfriend wanted me to present the side for the opposition in Venezuela

[JanMichael]

33. Too bad she didn't just ask you to mow the lawn.

:-)

[windansea]

41. heh heh

no worries...the lawn is getting mowed, and I don't get to mow the lawn if I don't present the opposition's side of things



:)

[ParanoidPat]

47. ROFLMAO!

He shoots.....HE SCORES! :evilgrin:

A 3 pointer! :toast:

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[redqueen]

38. Surely we would have seen an equally vigorous defense

of Arnold's supporters as they diligently used the democratic method (compromised though it is by the RW media) to oust Davis and install the governator.

[JoeKSimmons]

60. The CBC needs to suport Chavez

Enought of the racial overtones. I know the CBC thinks all the Chavez people "look alike" but it's time to put that crap behind them and support Chavez!

Viva Chavez!!!

[windansea]

62. yes...the opposition are all blonds too!!

[Tinoire]

65. Urrrgghghghgh

I throw up.

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

Long live the corporations. Long live the wealthy.

Death in sweatshops to the poor.

There. Are you happy now?

I think so.

[windansea]

67. see post 55

the people I know there aren't corporations or wealthy elites

they are not happy, neither are a lot of the poor

they want to vote on it

[bobbyboucher]

69. Yeah, right.

Whatever.

[Redleg]

74. No offense intended, but how many Venezuelans do you know?

I have to confess that I don't have enough reliable information about Venezuela to know what to make of the situation there. I suspect that Chavez is neither an angel or a devil. I also suspect that Chavez is disliked by the capitalists, the conservatives, and our own Bush, Inc.

[windansea]

75. my girlfriend is venezuelan

we know hundreds of people there...and the opposition come from all statas of society and includes many former Chavez supporters

A fair recall vote is supported by 3.5 million venezuelans, the Carter Center, UN, EU, and staunch defenders of civil rights like Barney Frank.

[HEyHEY]

76. ouch.. that's one for windandsea

;-)

[AP]

78. too bad windansea doesn't know any poor people from venezueal. Ouch.

there's one for everyone else.

[windansea]

79. err....... wrong again

we know poor people...middle class people...my girlfriend is not from a rich family.

In the future it would be wise if you did not make statements on my behalf...

[JoeKSimmons]

80. It must be as factual as BFC at least

Everyone know that if a film is labeled a "Documentary" it MUST be 100% true. Combine that with the fact that Chavez is flawless and a perfect leader of the people it must be a FACT.

There you go...FACT not fiction.

[windansea]

81. hero of the people

Since 1998, the regime has lied about:

1. Lied about illegal funding during the 1998 election campaign: President Chavez took $1.5 million in illegal campaign contributions from Spain's Banco Bilbao Viscaya and lied about it. The contributions were only discovered due to a judicial investigation by judge Baltazar Garzon in Spain. No investigation was carried out in Venezuela before, during, or after the Spanish inquiry.

2. Lied about Bolivar's teachings: President Chavez has consistently portrayed Bolivar - Venezuela's 19th century national - as a proto-Marxist. Scholars agree that Bolivar was no such thing - he was a 19th century style liberal.

3. Lied about the legality of the June 1999 referendum: President Chavez claimed to have the legal authority to convene a referendum on whether to call a constituent assembly to write a new constitution. The legal framework in force at the time contained no such provision.

4. Lied about the missing payments to FIEM: The government has lied systematically over a period of years over the funding of the Macroeconomic Stabilization Fund - FIEM - designed to even out oil revenues between high oil price years and low oil price years. In 2001, payments worth $2 billion dollars earmarked for the fund simply disappeared.

only 96 more to go!

http://www.vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200403130647

[9215]

82. Give it the FUCK UP!!!!

You are calling for a saint and anything short of that is unacceptable. Your agenda is obvious and your outrage is so selective that it makes most sane people barf!!

Get serious about applying these standards in your own country before you force them on others.

[windansea]

83. nope..just calling for a vote

pretty obvious "agenda" huh??