"Chavez Bashing" by Anthony DiMaggio, Z Magazine

[Peace Patriot]

CHAVEZ BASHING

By Anthony DiMaggio
July 22, 2009 - zmag.org

(The first part of the article details the latest NYT, Washington Post and Time magazine Chavez bashing in mid-July 2009)

(SNIP)

A number of points are worth reflecting upon when assessing the attacks on Chávez. Regarding the Colombia issue, literally no context is provided in Times and Post reporting on the instrumental role the U.S. has played in creating the drug crisis. No attention is directed to the fact that U.S. leaders have spent billions of dollars training and supplying right-wing, anti-FARC paramilitary groups in Colombia (which are allied with the Colombian government), and are heavily involved in the cocaine trade themselves. Additionally, there is no discussion of the ambiguity surrounding Chávez's supposed incitement of the Colombian-Venezuelan conflict. Much ambiguity does exist, nonetheless, on this question. Human Rights Watch, although it has been extremely critical of Chávez (perhaps justifiably so), is unable to uncover any convincing evidence that Chávez is supporting FARC guerillas. We should also remember that it was Chávez himself who publicly railed against the FARC, stating that the age of "guerilla warfare is history." He has supported a return to peace negotiations between the FARC and Colombian government, and pushed the FARC to end their terrorist practice of abducting civilians and government officials as hostages.

On the issue of Chávez's "dictatorial" politics, the U.S. media's coverage resembles more propaganda than reality. U.S. papers have an awfully difficult time explaining how a dictator can be democratically elected four times in the last ten years - in 1998, 2000, 2004, and 2006, particularly in contests certified as transparent and legitimate by international elections monitors. The Times is also at a loss to explain the results of the 2009 referendum, which in repealing presidential term limits, was certified as fair and democratic by international observers.

The most obvious explanation for the Times' attacks on Chávez is that the paper is contemptuous of Venezuelan democracy. Chávez has long enjoyed strong democratic support from the majority of Venezuelans, while provoking the outrage of American politicians who see Venezuela as fertile, but unutilized ground for corporate investment. Let's consider the evidence: 1. Chávez has been repeatedly re-elected by margins that George W. Bush could have never dreamed of attaining. 2. A Gallup International poll from 2007 reaffirms the democratic legitimacy of Venezuelan politics in a number of ways. 53 percent of Venezuelans generally feel that their country is "governed by the will of the people" under Chávez. Additionally, 67 percent feel that elections in Venezuela are conducted in a "fair" as opposed to "unfair" manner.

(SNIP)

Chávez's popularity, as American journalists begrudgingly admit, is based upon his willingness to put the needs of Venezuela's poor masses ahead of those of business elites. This does not mean that he's a saint or that political repression should not be a serious concern for those living throughout the hemisphere. No political leader deserves a blank check to consolidate political power. But what seems to escape U.S. leaders is that Venezuelan democracy assigns the task of holding leaders accountable to the people of Venezuela, rather than to "enlightened" U.S. elites.

Chávez's "Bolivarian Revolution" is indeed wildly popular ... amongst Venezuelans. He is succeeding in promoting a plethora of social welfare programs paid for by the country's oil export revenues. Chávez is spearheading efforts to promote gender equality, government sponsored health care, universal higher education, increased state pension funding, land redistribution, and an expansion of public housing, amongst other programs. Chávez's welfare revolution is significantly improving the lives of the citizenry. A 50 percent increase in social welfare spending from 1999-2005 (in the first 6 years of Chávez's presidency) was accompanied by decreases in infant mortality, an increase in school enrollment, an increase in individual disposable income, and a decrease in poverty. From 1997-2005, the national poverty rate fell from 56 to 38 percent of the population. By 2005, an estimated 50 percent of the Venezuelan people enjoyed government health care, while the same number also enjoyed government food subsidies. The Bolivarian Revolution, one should remember, also took place under fairly stable economic growth, ranging from 6-18 percent of GDP a year from 2004-2008. This trend stands on its head the assumptions of U.S. reporters that socialist policies are a major obstacle to economic stability and prosperity.

(MORE)

http://trinicenter.com/cgi-bin/selfnews/viewnews.cgi?newsid1248402290,38621,.shtml

Anthony DiMaggio teaches Global and American Politics at Illinois State University. He is the author of Mass Media, Mass Propaganda: Examining American News in the "War on Terror (2008) and When Media Goes to War (forthcoming February 2010).

-----------------------------------

What I think DiMaggio misses--and almost all well-intended commenters miss--is the close resemblance between the relentless psyops/disinformation campaign against Chavez and his government and the relentless psyops/disinformation campaign on WMDs in Iraq that preceded the slaughter of one million innocent Iraqis to steal their oil.

The New York Slimes, the Washington Psst and Slime magazine earned these epithets from me as the resemblance between these "Big Lie" campaigns became evident to me, and it was around the same time that the signs and omens of a Pentagon war plan targeting Venezuela's oil began emerging.

The first clear indication of war planning that I noticed was Donald Rumsfeld's op-ed in the Washington Psst of 12/1/07, entitled "The Smart Way to Defeat Tyrants Like Chavez," in which Rumsfeld urges "swift action" by the US in support of "friends and allies" in Latin America. Rumsfeld's article begins with the odd statement that Chavez's help with FARC guerrilla hostage release negotiations "is not welcome in Colombia." It had been in the days, weeks and months before. Colombia's Alvaro Uribe had publicly asked Chavez for this help, but when Chavez started succeeding, Uribe tried to pull the plug three days before the first hostages were to be released--the same weekend as Rumsfeld's editorial. Uribe announced that, because Chavez had phoned someone in the Colombian military--which he actually didn't do--he had broken some obscure protocol and negotiations were off. Two hostages were on route to their freedom at that point, and Chavez did not halt the process. The Colombian military, however, sent rocket fire at the hostages' positions on their way out of the jungle, sending them back on a 20 mile hike--something that went universally unreported here. Chavez eventually got them out by a different route (and four others).

Donald Rumsfeld.

The case for a Rumsfeld war plan is now nearly overwhelming, with the recent disclosure of the establishment of SEVEN new US military bases in Colombia, for "full spectrum" military operations "throughout South America"; US military access to Colombian commercial airports and other facilities as well; no limit on the number of US military personnel and "contractors"; and full diplomatic immunity for US military personnel and contractors. Colombia--a country with the second worst human rights record on earth, and with out of control rightwing paramilitary death squads closely tied to the Colombian military and the Uribe government--is already the recipient of $6 BILLION in US taxpayer-funded military booty. The failed, corrupt, murderous US 'war on drugs' is the main excuse for this extravagant military spending, and this program of turning Colombia into South Vietnam--along with other related events such as the recent rightwing military coup in Honduras, and the reconstitution of the US 4th Fleet in the Caribbean (mothballed since WW II)--have alarmed the region's other leaders.

There were other hints along the way--including the US/Colombia bombing/raid on Ecuador and more psyops (including the astounding treachery of accusing Chavez of supporting the FARC guerrillas--and producing a FARC laptop supposedly containing emails between the FARC and Chavez (emails that did not exist)--after asking him to contact the FARC for hostage negotiations); and the Bushwhack-supported white separatist coup attempt in Bolivia--a harbinger of what I think the war strategy will be--working with fascists in Venezuela's oil provinces, adjacent to Colombia, to declare their "independence," with the US military then taking "swift action" in support of these "friends and allies" in their effort to secede from Venezuela.

The "Chavez bashing" that this writer describes--and that many people have noticed--is not just hatred of social justice and transparent elections. It is, in my opinion, the preliminary to another oil war.

When the US/Colombia bombing/raid on Ecuador occurred, in March 2008--an action that nearly started a war between the US/Colombia and Ecuador/Venezuela--the target was Raul Reyes, the chief FARC hostage negotiator who was trying to achieve a peace settlement in Colombia's 40+ year civil war. With that brutal attack (ten 500 lb US "smart bombs" were dropped on his temporary hostage release camp just inside Ecuador's border, slaughtering 25 people, including Reyes, in their sleep--according to the Ecuadoran military), all hope for peace in the region was smashed. There were many people working on hostage releases and a peace settlement at that moment--including the governments of France, Spain, Switzerland, Ecuador, Venezuela, Argentina, Brazil and more. With the US/Colombian obliteration of FARC's negotiator, more bloodshed was virtually assured, and the path to a regional oil war was laid out. It will likely begin with a border incident very like this one. And there have been several Colombia/Venezuela border incidents recently, any one of which could have been the next "Gulf of Tonkin" had US military troops been involved.

Lulu da Silva credits Chavez with preventing that war (in March 2008). He called him "the great peacemaker." Lulu has also said, of Chavez, that "they can invent a lot of things to criticize Chavez, but not on democracy!"

Who are we to believe? Lula da Silva and the Venezuelan people? Or Donald Rumsfeld and the Slimebag warmongers of the corporate media?