Tuesday, August 03, 2010

Foreign Policy wants you to take Chavez seriously

For the kick of it read this entry on Foreign Policy as to why it is time to see Chavez more than a clown, a dangerous clown.  Short and to the point. (Hat tip J.R.)

And while you are at it read the latest Hitchens where you will learn interesting tidbits as to Chavez doubting the moon landing and the existence of Osama.  Somethings just cannot be invented....

PS: and you can also read the confirmation hearings questions by Senator Lugar to ambassador designated Palmer. (hat tip P.M.).  At least we know that if Palmer is confirmed he will now what he is getting himself to.


  1. Anonymous4:51 AM

    Thanks for the links. I really wish the advise contained therein would come to fruition. I especially wish the US would starting sourcing oil elsewhere. Venezuela would survive. Chavez wouldn't.

  2. The Foreign Policy article argues that the US has to initiate sanctions, etc. against Chavez becuae the " he's supporting FARC terrorists" issue.

    As with sanctions against Cuba, US intervention allows the mobilization of Venezuelan nationalism in support of Chavez' dictatorship.

    I much prefer the present policy, which requires that Venezuelans do what is necessary to remove Chavez. They, after all, decided they wanted him.

    More intervention would be called for--by international coalitions--only if Chavez's policies remove all democratic options.

  3. Go, Lugar! Great questions. Answers, not as great...but always good to see someone like Lugar paying attention. (Might be the only person in Congress who does, but better one than none.)

    I also like that they nominated a black man as Ambassador, which will cleverly undermine all of Chavez's crap racism accusations. Not sure that was a factor, but it is a bonus.

  4. AIO

    ambassadors are always evasive

  5. Of all the interesting points in the FP article it strikes me as incredible Obama's administration would suggest to Venezuela and Colombia that both sides tone it down.Perhaps they should tell Karzai and the Taliban to both tone it down.

    Also I guess that the presence of the Taliban in the border regions of Pakistan should not be of too much concern.Just like we can also live with the presence of the FARC in Venezuela.

  6. Correction, Daniel: people testifying before Congress are always evasive. :)

  7. 1979 Boat People10:11 PM

    Uribe wants Lula's head.

    Brazil's Lula is Ignoring Rebel Threat in Venezuela, Colombia's Uribe Says


  8. Firepigette, I too was bothered by that phrase. Only problem is, the State briefing on it (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2010/07/145102.htm , go about halfway in) doesn't support such a characterization. Rather, you've got comments like "we support what Colombia outlined in the meeting" and "Venezuela has clear responsibilities here."

    Prior day (apparently while the OAS meeting was taking place) http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2010/07/145065.htm has a quote about "we think that it’s important for both countries to work to reduce mutual suspicion" though when you follow that with "I don’t think that severing ties or communication is the proper way to achieve that" there's nothing to suggest that anyone thinks Colombia should "tone it down." Especially when you read the sentence in between those quotes.

  9. AIO,

    The best that can be said of the declaration is that it is wishy washy.

    Everyone knows that the US is an ally of Colombia in the struggle against the FARC,while on one hand they support what Colombia outlined in the meeting, they try to create an impression of undue objectivity and even-handedness toward this conflict.

    "we think that it’s important for both countries to work to reduce mutual suspicion"

    This kind of comment is not helpful.What is Colombia doing to create suspicion from Chavez?In this comment the onus is put on both sides.

  10. I agree that it's fairly wishy-washy, but in this case, I believe that it truly doesn't matter. The evidence provided by Colombia is significant all on its own, and Washington piling on would not make the case any more serious. The charges are clear, and harsh words from any third party won't give them additional weight.

    In fact, being too much on one side of this matter would be distracting, and it would give tremendous fodder to Chavez (and his supporters around the world) for harping on the U.S. for interference, conspiracy, you name it.

    It's a situation where the U.S. can hardly help the case, and certainly could have made things worse. In that light, this was pretty much a perfect statement. (Never mind that FP got it wrong...)

  11. Back to the PS, The Ven govt picked up on Palmer's comments: http://www.mre.gob.ve/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4303:gobierno-bolivariano-evalua-acciones-ante-declaraciones-inaceptables-de-palmer-&catid=3:comunicados&Itemid=108

    Note that they have absolutely no argument against specific "graves declaraciones," let alone can bother to say which ones are "inaceptable." Shoot the messenger, again. Anyone surprised?


Comments policy:

1) Comments are moderated after the fourth day of publication. It may take up to a day or two for your note to appear then.

2) Your post will appear if you follow the basic rules. I will be ruthless in erasing, as well as those who replied to any off rule comment.

Do not be repetitive.
Do not bring grudges and fights from other blogs here (this is the strictest rule).
This is an anti Chavez/chavismo blog, Readers have made up their minds long ago. Trying to prove us wrong is considered a troll. Still, you are welcome as a chavista to post if you want to explain us coherently as to why chavismo does this or that. We are still waiting for that to happen.
Insults and put downs are frowned upon and I will be sole judge on whether to publish them.