READING
THIS WEB PAGE WILL HELP MAKE IT CRYSTAL CLEAR WHO TO
BLAME FOR HIGHER OIL PRICES.
WHEN YOU HEAR ABOUT THE SPECTER OF $3 OIL YOU
BETTER HAVE READ THE MATERIAL ON THE SENDERBERL WEB SITE
BEFORE YOU READ WHAT WE HAVE TO SAY. GOVERNMENT
PSYCHOLOGISTS AND SOCIOLOGISTS POINT TO THE SUPPORT FOR
SEIZURE OF IRAQI OIL IF OIL PRICES MOVE OUT OF HAND FOR
AMERICAN MOTORISTS AND ARE ARGUED TO BE THE REASON FOR
ECONOMIC RECESSION.
HOWEVER, WHO
BENEFITS FROM HIGHER OIL PRICES? LET'S PUT IT AS
DIPLOMATICALLY AS POSSIBLE: THOSE WHO HAVE BACKED THE
OVERTHROW OF CHAVEZ RIGHT INTO THE AGENDA OF ATTACKING
IRAQ.
HAVE
YOU READ ANYTHING ABOUT IT? NO? THE AMERICAN MEDIA PLAYS
THE NEW WORLD ORDER AGENDA AS THE OBEDIENT SERVANTS THEY
ARE TO THEIR MASTERS' VOICES. IF THE GOVERNMENT MOANS
ABOUT HIGH OIL PRICES, AND PUTS IT INTO THE BACKGROUND TO
BAIT YOUR SUPPORT FOR ITS POLICIES IN THE MIDDLE EAST,
KEEP IN MIND THAT IT IS THE
DECISIONS OF THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION THAT HAVE JUST
ABOUT EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THE HIGHER OIL PRICES.
THE BUSH OIL CARTEL PLAY THE AMERICAN PUBLIC AS THE FOOLS
THEY DEEM THEM TO BE AND IT'S JUST ABOUT TIME THAT THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE WISE UP AND NOT PLAY THE ROLE ANY LONGER.
IF
BUSH DOESN'T GET THE OIL, COHORTS GET THE BENEFIT OF
LONGER TERM HIGH OIL PRICES WARRANTING EXPANSION OF
EXPLORATION AGAINST ENVIRONMENTAL PROTESTS (NOT TO SAY
GREATER PROFITS) IF BUSH GETS THE OIL, COHORTS CONTROL
ONE OF THE LARGEST OIL ASSETS ON THE PLANET, AND WILL USE
IT TO FINANCE SEIZING AND CONTROLLING ALL MIDDLE EAST OIL
INTERESTS.
SYNOPSIS
OF THE SITUATION IN VENEZUELA: CHAVEZ DEMOCRATICALLY
ELECTED, BUT NOT ALIGNED WITH NEW WORLD ORDER INTERESTS
OR ITS AGENDA. US BUYS OFF MILITARY TO STAGE COUP IN
APRIL COUP FAILS. US PAWN PUT IN POWER REMAINS IN
POWER TWO DAYS AND IS REMOVED AND CHAVEZ IS
RESTORED TO POWER.
US IS
BACKED FOR CHAVEZ OVERTHROW VIA STRIKE BY A RELATIVELY
SMALL GROUP: THE OIL PRODUCERS AND CAPITALISTS ALL TIED
IN BIG TIME TO NEW WORLD ORDER INTERESTS AND AGENDA.
BUSH'S
FAILED COUP IN APRIL AND SUBSEQUENT EVENTS ALLOW CHINA TO
EFFECTUATE BOND BETWEEN CHINA AND CHAVEZ. WITHOUT
QUESTION TO SENDERBERL'S VIEWPOINT CHINA'S INTERCESSION
THE RESULT OF BUSH'S FAILING. WHO DID BUSH FAIL? WHO DID
HE SERVE, KNOWING THAT THE STRIKE WHICH HE,SUPPORTED WAS
GOING TO PLAY INTO THE IRAQI WAR PLAN AND RESULT IN THE
EXTREME OIL PRICES SEEN TODAY, ALLOWING THE MEDIA TO PUT
FORTH THE SPECTER OF $3 OIL?
THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE BEING MOLESTED AND THERE SEEMS TO BE
NO ONE TO STOP THE CRIME. PRESIDENT BUSH WAS A MISTAKE
FOR THIS NATION. WHO IS THERE TO TAKE THE PLACE OF PAUL
REVERE TO DECLARE THE DANGER WHEN THE MEDIA AND PRESS ARE
BUSH'S PAWNS AND POODLES, BEING PART OF THE CORPORATE
EMPIRE PART AND PARCEL OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER AGENDA?
HOW DOES BUSH RESPOND
TO SUCH CRITICISM? BY BACKING A STRIKE AND USING THE
MEDIA TO PLAY IT TO THE WORLD RIGHT INTO THE PLANS TO
LAUNCH AGAINST IRAQ. IT IS SURPRISING WE DON'T HAVE $3
OIL ALREADY.
WILL BUSH
ASK CHAVEZ TO HELP HIM LOWER US OIL PRICES?
Pacific News Service April 19,
2002:
President Bush’s effort on Thursday to admonish
Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez “to embrace those
institutions that are fundamental to democracy” is
ringing hollow in Latin America. Last week, in the first
serious test of the new Inter-American Democratic Charter
— which calls on signatories to condemn coups —
the Bush administration failed. It first appeared to
endorse the military coup in Venezuela, then backed down
only after it had become clear that Chavez had regained
power.The White House’s initial flagrant disregard
of the Charter is straining relationships with
hemispheric allies.From Mexico to Argentina, headlines
and commentaries are condemning the U.S. response.
The Charter, adopted by 34 nations in Lima, Peru, last
Sept. 11, calls for suspension of any state in which
there is “an unconstitutional alteration of the
constitutional regime that seriously impairs the
democratic order.
”Consider what happened in Venezuela. The military
chiefs seized the elected president of the country and
held him incommunicado. They then appointed the head of
the country’s most prominent business association as
interim president, ignoring the normal order of
succession. Then the interim president suspended the
constitution, and dissolved the parliament and supreme
court. It would be difficult to conjure up a more
complete and brazen violation of the constitutional and
democratic order.Rather than defend democracy in
Venezuela, the White House said that Chávez got what he
deserved. President Bush implied as much again Thursday,
when he called on Chávez “to address the reasons
why there was so much turmoil on the streets.
”Those actions and that tone sets the United States
at odds with every other government in the hemisphere
except El Salvador, whose president is from a party that
supported death squads in the 1980s. At news of the coup,
19 Latin American heads of states immediately issued a
joint statement, saying, “we condemn the
interruption of constitutional order.” Invoking the
Democratic Charter, they called for a special session of
the OAS General Assembly. Leading the charge was Mexican
President Vicente Fox, President Bush’s closest ally
in the region.
None of these presidents
has much sympathy for Chávez. Most would love to see him
removed from office at the ballot box. But they all
understand there is something far more important at stake
— development of respect for democracy and the rule
of law in a region long vulnerable to military overthrows
of elected governments.
By aligning himself with a
failed coup, President Bush has done incalculable damage
to long-term U.S. interests in Latin America.
He has made it seem that ensuring a steady supply of
Venezuelan oil means more to Washington than the future
of constitutional government in Latin America.
Once again, U.S. support
for democracy in Latin America is seen as hollow: only in
cases where its friends are elected does support
materialize.
In 1973, the Nixon administration backed the overthrow of
the duly elected, but socialist, government of President
Salvador Allende in Chile. Now, critics of the United
States in Latin America can — with undeniable truth
— say that little has changed.
Like Bush himself, Pedro Carmona,
the interim president who was backed by the White House,
is a former oil executive. Until recently, he headed the
country’s most prominent big business lobbying
organization. Carmona lent substance to the worst
caricatures of the United States — and President
Bush in particular — as an ally of wealthy foreign
elites with despotic tendencies.In just one day in power,
Carmona suspended the constitution, dismissed Congress
and the supreme court, and dispatched security forces to
arrest cabinet members and members of Congress.
In other words, he did
more harm to the constitutional order in one day than
Chávez had done in years.
President Bush likes to portray himself as a special
friend of Latin America, with frequent photo
opportunities with Mexican President Fox, and by showing
he can speak Spanish. That may help him win Latino votes
at home. But in Latin America itself, his flagrant
disregard of the Inter-American Democratic Charter is
costing the United States dearly, by making it appear
that the United States only values democracy when it
serves its political and economic interests.
Andrew Reding directs the Americas Project of the World
Policy Institute in New York.
HOW DOES BUSH RESPOND TO SUCH CRITICISM? BY
BACKING A STRIKE AND USING THE MEDIA TO PLAY IT TO THE
WORLD RIGHT INTO THE PLANS TO LAUNCH AGAINST IRAQ. IT IS
SURPRISING WE DON'T HAVE $3 OIL ALREADY.
WILL BUSH ASK CHAVEZ TO HELP HIM LOWER US OIL PRICES?
The following material received undated:
EDITORIAL
W's Venezuela Disgrace
The Bush administration disgraced the USA's
commitment to democracy and also bungled relations with
one of our top oil suppliers when it
embraced the April 12 military/business coup against
Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez. Congress must step up
to investigate what role the Bush administration played
in the abortive coup that tried to replace the populist
Chávez with a business-oriented dictator more palatable
to the Bush White House.
The Bush administration has denied any role in the
48-hour coup, which claimed more than 100 lives, but
the White House certainly endorsed the regime under
businessman Pedro Carmona even after he dissolved the
National Assembly and Supreme Court in favor of rule by
decree.
The Venezuela coup was reversed when enraged Chávez
partisans took to the streets and seized the presidential
palace while labor unions and junior officers of the
military objected to Carmona's dictatorial
powers and Latin American democracies defied the United
States in opposing the coup.
The Bush administration's denials of complicity would be
easier to believe if they didn't involve government
officials with histories of lying to Congress and the
public about previous covert operations in Latin America.
The irony that Bush, who was put in office by
the Supreme Court in 2000 after he lost the popular vote,
would lecture Chávez, who was overwhelmingly elected in
1998, is not lost on other nations who are used to
self-righteous rhetoric from the norteamericanos.
Further irony: The Organization of American States, a
body long dominated by Washington, last Sept. 11 had
ratified a Democratic Charter to condemn and investigate
the overthrow of any democratically elected member
government and, if necessary, suspend the offender's
membership. Bush had hailed the charter in his
Pan-American Day proclamation on April 12, as the coup
was progressing. But instead of condemning it, White
House spokesman Ari Fleischer announced that Chávez had
provoked the crisis and resigned in a "change of
government," rather than a coup. "A
transitional civilian government has been
installed," Fleischer said, noting that it
"promised early elections."
The Observer of London on April 21 reported that Bush
aides with long histories in the "dirty wars"
of Central and South America during the 1980s were tied
to the Venezuelan intrigue. One of them, Elliot Abrams,
whom the Observer said "gave a nod to the attempted
Venezuelan coup," was convicted for misleading
Congress over the infamous Iran-Contra arms smuggling
affair. Abrams was pardoned by President George Bush I
and is now "senior director for democracy, human
rights and international operations" at the National
Security Council.
OAS officials and other diplomatic sources told the
Observer the White House was not only aware the coup was
about to take place, but had sanctioned it, presuming it
to be destined for success. Coup plotters reportedly were
received at the White House by Bush's point man for Latin
American affairs, Otto Reich, who was Ronald Reagan's
ambassador to Venezuela in the 1980s and was placed in
his current post as a "recess appointment" in
defiance of Senate opposition.
Also involved, according to the Observer, was John
Negroponte, ambassador to the United Nations. He was
Reagan's ambassador to Honduras from 1981 to 1985 when a
US-trained death squad tortured and murdered scores of
activists. Negroponte reportedly had been "informed
that there might be some movement in Venezuela on
Chávez" at the beginning of the year.
On the day Carmona claimed power, Reich summoned
ambassadors from Latin America to his office. When the
representative from Brazil said his country could not
condone a rupture of democratic rule in Venezuela, Reich
reportedly responded that the ouster of Chávez was not a
rupture of democratic rule because he had resigned and
was "responsible for his fate." Reich said the
US would support the Carmona government and other Latin
American countries "had to support the new
government," a diplomat told the New York Times. But while 19 Latin American heads
of state denounced the coup as a violation of democratic
principles, only the Bush administration in the name of
the USA endorsed the military action.
Newsweek reported in its April 29 issue that the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee was investigating contacts
between US officials and the Venezuelan military officers
involved in the botched takeover. Among those suspected
of financing the plot is Gustavo Cisneros, a media tycoon
and fishing buddy of former president George H.W. Bush.
(Cisneros denies any role, Newsweek said. But Pedro
Carmona, the president of Fedecámaras, the main national
business confederation, who was sworn in as Chavez's
replacement on April 12, was seen coming directly from
Cisneros' office.) After
Chavez's reinstatement, US National Security Adviser
Condoleezza Rice warned Chávez to "respect
constitutional processes."
Chávez played down the US role in the coup, saluting
the United States with "love and affection" as
he promised a more moderate government. Perhaps he
remembered that the first attempt to bring down the
elected government of socialist Chilean President
Salvador Allende, in June 1973, also failed. Three months
later, US-backed plotters succeeded in bringing down the
government and killing Allende.
We Deserve Answers, Not Scorn
US Rep. Cynthia McKinney deserves support, not mockery,
for her eminently reasonable proposal that Congress probe
events surrounding the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks [see
page 20]. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer and
mainstream media pundits have ridiculed the Georgia
Democrat for suggesting that there is a need to examine
what happened. George W. Bush reportedly has
sought to stymie such an investigation. We wonder what he
has to hide. As McKinney said, we hold thorough inquiries
for rail disasters, plane crashes and natural disasters
to understand what happened and to prevent them from
happening again. "Why does the administration remain
steadfast in its opposition to an investigation into the
biggest terrorism attack upon our nation?" she
wonders.
It's a good question. Reports from such respected news
sources as Der Spiegel in Germany, the London Observer,
Le Figaro of Paris and the Los Angeles Times, among
others, indicate that US government and intelligence
services received warnings of Al Qaeda threats and may
even have had contact with Osama Bin Laden last summer
but did little or nothing to prevent the attacks. The
BBC reports that the Bush administration actually
interfered with attempts to investigate the Bin Laden
family and other suspicious activities by Arab nationals.
The relationship of US intelligence services
to Muslim fundamentalists in Afghanistan and elsewhere
calls for explanation, as does the apparent US military
source of anthrax used to threaten Democratic Senate
leaders and news media.
Sen. Zell Miller, D-Ga., condemned her comments as
"very dangerous and irresponsible" and the
Atlanta Journal-Constitution called the probe idea
"nutty," but Salim Muwakkil noted in the
Chicago Tribune that even with that scorn an
(unscientific) poll showed nearly one-half of
Journal-Constitution readers agreed with McKinney's call
for a probe.
We are asked to accept
abridgement of civil liberties and a state of permanent
war against terrorism but we are not allowed to ask how
that war started? Our representatives are not allowed to
question how that war will be prosecuted and who benefits
from it? Even Republican congressmembers are starting to
grumble about the lack of accountability from the White
House and the Pentagon. As long as the United States
holds the pretense of democracy, the government must be
answerable to the people. If Congress won't demand those
answers we should send new representatives who will.
--JMC Posted February 25, 2003: Click here for Main Page
|