|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 5:17 pm Post subject: What Evidence Exists on Alleged U.S. Coup in Venezuela? |
 |
|
| Here is a space for you, Ddeubel. I am anxious to see what you have found. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 7:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As I understand it, they were aware that it was going to happen and didn't overtly oppose it. A world of difference from "they tried to overthrow me".
Am I wrong? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
happeningthang
Joined: 26 Apr 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 8:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Who's saying there was one? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 10:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You are not wrong on either count, BJWD. And that is indeed a tactic of the far left on other such events, such as the CIA-sponsored covert operation that very much, although not decisively by any means, contributed to Pinochet's coup against Allende in 1973.
When faced with such an analysis, supported by facts, far left critics, in their annoyingly and neverending value-laden way, tend to shift their allegations to this: "Fine. Then CIA knew it was coming and did nothing to stop it." But that (protecting foreign govts, especially foreign govts hostile to the United States from coups d'etat) is not CIA's job.
| happeningthang wrote: |
| Who's saying there was one? |
Chavez and his groupies.
I think that Ddeubel's position is that whereas the U.S. has moved against Caribbean govts before, whereas Chavez has made such allegations now, particularly given that there was indeed a move against him, such a claim is plausible and probable.
My objection is that the U.S. govt, particularly CIA, has been through many profound changes since the 1953-1975 period (I can detail them if necessary), and this was particularly evinced by the apparent return to overt military intervention (when deemed necessary) as in Operation Just Cause against Noriega in 1989. Also, internally, CIA has had no enthusiasm for these kinds of covert ops since the Bay of Pigs and this has particularly been so since the Church hearings.
In any case, I have attempted to shift the debate into dealing with raw, direct evidence.
What evidence is there to show that Washington/the Pentagon/CIA moved against Chavez as he claims? In the absence of such evidence, how do people know for sure what they are talking about? I, for one, although I find the allegations unlikely, am open to seeing any evidence whatsoever. But if one wants to convince me of this, then please, convince and do not harangue me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
happeningthang
Joined: 26 Apr 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 12:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
You are not wrong on either count, BJWD. And that is indeed a tactic of the far left on other such events, such as the CIA-sponsored covert operation that very much, although not decisively by any means, contributed to Pinochet's coup against Allende in 1973.
When faced with such an analysis, supported by facts, far left critics, in their annoyingly and neverending value-laden way, tend to shift their allegations to this: "Fine. Then CIA knew it was coming and did nothing to stop it." But that (protecting foreign govts, especially foreign govts hostile to the United States from coups d'etat) is not CIA's job.
| happeningthang wrote: |
| Who's saying there was one? |
Chavez and his groupies.
I think that Ddeubel's position is that whereas the U.S. has moved against Caribbean govts before, whereas Chavez has made such allegations now, particularly given that there was indeed a move against him, such a claim is plausible and probable.
My objection is that the U.S. govt, particularly CIA, has been through many profound changes since the 1953-1975 period (I can detail them if necessary), and this was particularly evinced by the apparent return to overt military intervention (when deemed necessary) as in Operation Just Cause against Noriega in 1989. Also, internally, CIA has had no enthusiasm for these kinds of covert ops since the Bay of Pigs and this has particularly been so since the Church hearings.
In any case, I have attempted to shift the debate into dealing with raw, direct evidence.
What evidence is there to show that Washington/the Pentagon/CIA moved against Chavez as he claims? In the absence of such evidence, how do people know for sure what they are talking about? I, for one, although I find the allegations unlikely, am open to seeing any evidence whatsoever. But if one wants to convince me of this, then please, convince and do not harangue me. |
OK, fair enough, but can I just point something out...
Let's, please be realistic in the non-haranguing debates we're conducting here. There is no way, anyone contributing to this board has access to any evidence, either raw or direct. You're basing opinions on what you find likely, I'm guesssing so does DD and everyone else here. Why are people disagreeing with you held to a different standard of accountability? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 8:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| happeningthang wrote: |
| Why are people disagreeing with you held to a different standard of accountability? |
The only standard that I cite is that the burden of proof rests squarely with those who make claims and allegations -- as it always has.
You are disengenuously suggesting that I am somehow setting up the rules unfairly because I am unable to prove a negative.
If one cannot prove what one is claiming or alleging, then, I guess one can still believe it (we can believe whatever we want, right?). But that this is belief based on no substantial evidence or data at all, then I also think that this should be clearly pointed out to everyone else here: it is mere worldview, and usually an exagerratedly cynical one at that.
My favorite response to the questions I raise, by the way, goes something like this: "But there would not be any evidence!" These kinds of objections can only be spoken by those who have never read any of the literature (the real literature; not ThirdWorldTraveler.com, et al.) on covert operations.
And, in any case, there is much evidence and data available on the web, through State's Freedom of Information Act reading room to George Washington University's National Security Archive. I have posted links to these and other sources more times than I can recall.
So, if you want to believe something, whatever it may be, that is your business and indeed your right. But if you want to come here and campaign for others to share your beliefs, then please be prepared to explain how you know what you say is true. Otherwise, you should stop campaigning...
P.S. I note that zero evidence has thus far been presented here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 9:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Good points G.
The most troubling thing about historical debates like this is that as soon as one academic makes an assertion "x", that assertion will commonly be referenced as 'proof'. "Oh, well, then you haven't read XXXX, because if you had, I can tell you that he proves blah blah".
Specifically, I am thinking about how it is a commonly held position, by those on the Left, that the USA is totally responsible for the overthrow of the democratic Chilean government. Richard Pipes, the Harvard historian, has said time and time again that there is zero evidence that this is true, but since Chomsky and his ilk started asserting that which they thought or assumed to be true as Truth the history changed.
My point is that all Uncle Hugo has to do is assert his position and his admirers will take him at his word, the problem being, that many of his admirers are in academia and have the power to ensure their truth becomes the accepted truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
...and it is fascinating what kind of assertions and opinions the far left studiously and stubbornly ignores and refuses to accept...
| Former Soviet Ambassador to Santiago de Chile during the Allende Administration Yuri Pavlov wrote: |
| ...it was well understood in Moscow that although CIA had a lot to do with the coup d'etat, it was not the main reason[emphasis added]. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
happeningthang
Joined: 26 Apr 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Fair enough Gopher, well said. I read your post and took in "raw and direct evidence" and coupled that with, "I find the allegations unlikely". Hard evidence and opinion respectively, seemed contradictory to me. But your reply is well put and good advice for those contributing here. I hope that some of the rabid right pay attention as well.
Anyway, I don't have anything on Chavez, but Allende?? Come on that's easy...
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8.htm
And that's the first hit on a Google search!!
I don't know why you can bandy about Richard Pipes and his attendent Harvard credibilty. Chomsky goes to MIT so there.  What's it matter? These are both undoubtedly smart guys. I haven't read anything from Pipes, but I can tell you that Chomsky is a serious scholar. He's not making this stuff up. He scrupulously researches and gives all his citations for every assertion he makes. Perhaps you can argue with his interpretation, but he shouldn't be dismissed as someone like Michael Moore just because you don't like his conclusions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 11:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| happeningthang wrote: |
| Anyway, I don't have anything on Chavez, but Allende? Come on that's easy... |
Sorry, there is no question that CIA, ordered to by Nixon and Kissinger, ran several ops against Allende, starting in 1962. There is no question that Washington was disproportionately involved in the events that led to Allende's overthrow and Pinochet's assumption of power and subsequent human rights abuses. The evidence is clear and we have CIA's own admission of this...
http://foia.state.gov/Reports/HincheyReport.asp
What I question is whether said involvement, disproportionate or not (and it was clearly disproportionate), was the decisive factor in bringing about Allende's fall and the subsequent dictatorship. Allende was disorganized, confrontational (with the U.S. but more importantly with the Chilean Christian Democrats whom he might have negotiated with and compromised with and made allies of), and not in full control over his own govt (see esp. Alatmirano and his attempt to subvert the Chilean armed forces). Not to mention that Chilean (indeed most of Latin America's) armed forces held a rigidly "antipolitical" outlook that made military intervention in civilian politics likely under certain conditions.
In any case, many others, including the former Soviet ambassador I cite above and leftist political scientist Brian Loveman who cites "bad politics" on behalf of Allende, seem to share my suspicions (and at least some of my convictions, actually). In any case, I hope you can see the point I make and do not see it as the usual "denial of U.S. involvement and/or complicity" that many on the far left accuse me of.
As far as Chomsky goes: he has become wholly predictable and is no longer educating us inasmuch as indoctrinating and, of course, preaching to his choir...
Last edited by Gopher on Thu Oct 05, 2006 8:03 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
happeningthang
Joined: 26 Apr 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 11:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
You're obviously well informed on this issue Gopher, and you're cleary not denying US involvement. I can't see how anyone could claim otherwise.
I think the fact that an American president and Secretary of State and CIA were contributing to Allende's downfall constitutes an attempted coup for most people. Wether or not the American contribution to this coup was the decidisive factor is beside the point. The American leadership was overtly meddling in a democratically elected country's affairs. I think the dispute between right and left over this issue is the matter of justification for the Nixon/Kissinger involvement in installing Pinochet, not the degree of that involvement.
For those on the right who want to deny American involvement in overt regime change, to my mind, they are denying having to answer some hard questions about what American foreign policy was, or is, trying to achieve.
I think Chomsky has made some conclusions regarding this, and has been pointing them out for a long time. To my mind he's simply continuing to do so, but with the politically polarised in America he now has more people interested in hearing his ideas. Yes, perhaps he doesn't have anything new to say. It doesn't neccesarily mean that his old message is irrelevant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 12:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| happeningthang wrote: |
| I think the fact that an American president and Secretary of State and CIA were contributing to Allende's downfall constitutes an attempted coup for most people. Whether or not the American contribution to this coup was the decidisive factor is beside the point. |
This is really the crux of the argument, then, because I think it is likely that this coup was coming whether the U.S. govt was involved or not, just as I believe the Guatemalan conflagration (partly and perhaps decisively driven by the elites' unwillingness to give an inch on the issue of land reform and ladino racism against Guatemala's Indian peoples and cultures) was coming whether Arbenz finished his term in office or not.
There have been coups d'etat in Latin America and elsehwere in the world where the U.S. was not involved and, indeed, before the United States was even a nation-state.
| happeningthang wrote: |
| The American leadership was overtly meddling in a democratically elected country's affairs. I think the dispute between right and left over this issue is the matter of justification... |
I do not know what the right's issues are in this debate. But I know exactly what the left's issues are and you summarize them here quite nicely with one word: "justification."
This entire debate is distorted and indeed ruined by the left's chronic insistence in constantly demanding that everyone judge whether the U.S. position was "justified" or worse: "right."
I have attempted to get around this value-laden obstacle for a while now and enjoyed little success.
Can you seek to understand and explain something, for example, without necessarily having to pronounce it morally right or wrong? Do doctors who research and explain cancer necessarily imply that cancer is "justified"? Why must discussions on U.S. international affairs constantly revolve around this issue: whether the U.S. is "good" or "right," and even whether we deserved 9/11, as some allege?
And, by the way, you are aware that people have been "meddling" in each others' affairs since the Persians and the Greeks, the Romans, multiple and uncountable feudal princes, the Spaniards, Napoleon, the British, post-Napoleon France, the Americans, the West Germans, the Italian Christian Democrats, and the Vatican, the Soviets, the Chinese, Arevalo, Betancourt, and Trujillo in the Caribbean, Castro and Che Guevara in Latin America and Africa, the Brazilians in the Guyanas and also in Allende's Chile, the Iranians, the Syrians, and now, and not very subtly, Hugo Chavez?
Value-laden discussions that punish the U.S. for simply behaving as any other nation-state with interests in world affairs seem extremely hypocritical to me -- particularly when Europeans (that is, those who come from traditions like the Belgians in the Congo or the French in Indochina or the British in Egypt and elsewhere in the Middle East) are leading the charge. Not to mention that it is simply disengenuous when people like Chavez make the charge.
Chomsky knows all of this, by the way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 4:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gopher,
Thank you for laying out the "red" carpet here for me. I will address my points concerning the Venezuelan coup here and return to the other thread to address the contention that I can't write and don't know my conjugate from my watergate. To them, I can only in advance suggest a quick read of that codgy fascist, Ezra Pound and his fine, "The ABCs of Reading."
I am glad the discussion here is not only about past CIA attempts to overthrow govts (Latin America or elsewhere) but also IF the CIA has changed its spots and further, IF it is wrong to condemn them for only doing something other nations do.
Well, on the last point Gopher, I have to chastize you.
| Quote: |
| Why must discussions on U.S. international affairs constantly revolve around this issue: whether the U.S. is "good" or "right," and even whether we deserved 9/11, as some allege? |
Firstly, as every good father teaches their child -- because others do it, doesn't make it right. Secondly, morals enter into ALL questions of this nature. It is what all current affairs is essentially about -- Right or Wrong (not left or right, conservative or liberal , or Bush / Chavez for that matter). Thirdly, it is very honest to frame things with this question WHEN innocent people die, others imprisoned and life and death are on a razor's edge. Maybe not our life, distant as we are in our bubbles but a life or lives in any case.
People did lose their lives in the 2002 Venezuelan coup and we would do well to place blame where blame needs be.
I also think that maybe you are right, the CIA has changed. But unfortunately, with new imperialists in power (read, Cheney, especially Abrams, who we can't trust as far as we could throw the lout, at the time, senior director of the National Security Council for 'democracy, human rights and international opera tions'. A leading theoretician of the school known as 'Hemispherism', which put a priority on combating Marxism in the Americas. ) I think maybe the CIA has gone back to old tricks.
Also, I think that not only as I contend , given prior U.S. meddling, it is more than likely because of both factual and reported evidence that at the very least, the U.S. through various agencies created this tempest in a tea pot.
Also, before listing this evidence, direct or otherwise, let me suggest too that "a coup" can be directed from abroad in very covert ways. You can topple a government not only by directly armying the opposition or supporting them. You can topple a government by correctly placing your chips on the table and most importantly offering the opposition more of your cookies, post surprise. This is precisely what happened in Venezuela. You can also topple a govt with just the right amount of provocation, at the right time -- I believe (but it can't be substantiated, )that the CIA has a hand in the murders of April 11th that gave the opposition and military generals the excuse to go for Chavez. It is factual that the first to be murdered were pro Chavez protesters, shot in the head from short range. Subsequently all hell broke loose and as Human rights Watch concluded -- both parties bear responsibility. But the course of events had been set in motion............
I would suggest , in particular for a notion of the timing of events and also evidence of this shooting, others view "This Revolution will not be broadcast." Award winning documentary which the directors (Irish) claim got a lot of attention from U.S. officials -- they had much trouble broadcasting the film. Even better in my opinion, is the film Venezuela Boliviarana. http://www.chavezthefilm.com/html/backgrd/backgrd_home.htm
dbee did a good job mentioning much factual evidence in his post on a previous thread. If I remember correctly, he talked about how the U.S. navy were in Venezuelan coastal waters at the time. How Chavez states it was a U.S. military plane that took him to La Orchila, a prison very familiar to Chavez (and let's not forget that Chavez himself had his own experience in "coup making"). Also dbee very correctly points out that the U.S. govt was first and last. First to declare and legitimize the new Carmona govt and last to condemn the coup. (all on the pretext as they put it, that Chavez had "resigned". .........what spin.).
I also find it illuminating , the evidence that the U.S. had knowledge of the coup and did its best to help, so long as it wasn't messy. Here are just two reports from newspapers which verify their information.
| Quote: |
| Newsday noted that long before the coup, business, union and civic leaders were meeting to plan opposition to Chavez, and at one such meeting--attended by Carmona and held at the US Embassy--a coup was proposed |
another.
| Quote: |
| The newspaper quoted one Venezuelan source familiar with these discussions as saying, "All the United States really cared about was that it was done neatly, with a resignation letter or something to show for it." |
And the L.A. Times,
| Quote: |
| "Venezuelan leader who visited Washington for an official meeting said he concluded after talks with US officials that the Americans would not necessarily punish the leaders of a government that overthrew Chavez." |
What it all adds up to, is that the U.S. sure the hell wanted Chavez out and was doing its best to make it happen WITHOUT direct assistance. But still coup making.
But there are more serious allegations, evidence. But first let's just rhetorically ask -- Why would the U.S. waste its energy here? It is already very busy internationally. Why? Well it is an easy answer once again. OIL. In particular Chavez's attempts to take the profits (and for the U.S. , control and supply) away from the few who'd been siphoning all the money from the oil. PDVSA had high connections in the U.S. administration, most of all, the former Venezuelan ambassador, Otto Reich. Reich received (factual) Carmona at the White House, as Bush's man for policy making in S. America (what a laugh.....we all know how crooked he is/was, let's remember Oliver North????).
| Quote: |
| Reich is said by OAS sources to have had 'a number of meetings with Carmona and other leaders of the coup' over several months. The coup was discussed in some detail, right down to its timing and chances of success, which were deemed to be excellent. |
Further, directly after the coup, Reich summoned latin America ambassadors into his office and as if making a toast, stated the U.S. saw the Carmona govt as legit and would lend all its support to it.
But the real evidence of U.S. involvement comes in the form of the NED, the quasi govt agency charged with doing officially, what the CIA can't do . The National Endowment for Democracy supports many legitimate projects but in Venezuela had become just an office for agitating for Chavez's removal. This is from the perspective of many.
I won't list them all, nor all the factual evidence for that matter . all contained in an article by Corn in the Nation.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020805/corn
A well thought out and damning article. In particular we should read about the role of the media magnate Cisnernos and also Pena through the CTV, the main anti-Chavez union. Theses men appeared as big winners in the announced Carmona govt and in fact, most of his appointees had direct links to supported NED groups or individuals.
I stand behind the article's premise;
| Quote: |
| ." For months before the coup, Americans--including US government officials and officials of NED and its core grantees--were in contact with Venezuelans and political parties that became involved or possibly involved with the coup. This has provided Latin Americans cause to wonder if the United States is continuing its tradition of underhandedly meddling in the affairs of its neighbors to the south. And these contacts have prompted some, though not much, official probing in Washington. The issue is not only whether the United States in advance OK'd this particular coup (of which there is little evidence) or tried to help it once it occurred (of which there is more evidence). But did discussions between Americans and Chavez foes--such as those involving NED--encourage or embolden the coup-makers and their supporters? Give them reason to believe the United States would not protest should they move against Chavez in an unconstitutional manner? |
There is more I could go on about. But it seems clear to me that there is more than just the smell of U.S. meddling. I think it sanctimonious to suggest (especially with the current regime in America) that they don't try their best to topple even elected , democratic governments. And this is WRONG, especially when so many innocents also die, as did in the streets of Caracas.
There is a lot I've left out but this is the meat , if not the bones.
DD
Please also see this observer article
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,688071,00.html
also wikipedia links to and has a good synopsis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_coup_attempt_of_2002
P.S. And I would ask others -- how would we react if we knew that foreign governments were funding opposition intent on overthrowing the state through the military?? Yeah, there would be bombers in the sky in a matter of minutes...... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for the reply Ddeubel: I must say that I have more respect for you now, and I refer to your link in your signature line. I am a former Marine and still run three miles on a treadmill four days a week or so, but could probably not hack it with you in a marathon, even though I am about seven years younger...
For the record, I think peacetime covert political operations are a bad idea and ought to be avoided. It is intelligence-gathering, counterintelligence, and collation and analysis that CIA should stick to. The U.S. govt should simply not run (and should never have run) any covert operations.
CIA was at its best when it ran the U-2 over Soviet Russia, producing intelligence that allowed Eisenhower to relax on military spending, knowing that Khrushchev was lying when he claimed nuclear and military superiority and many in the U.S. demanded a drastic increase in defense spending; when it acquired Khrushchev's secret speech and then published it; when it provided advanced warning that the Soviets were placing missiles on Cuba and warned the Kennedy Administration before it was too late; when it assessed the various orders of battle and predicted the 1967 Six-Day War and its outcome; when it evaluated Vietnam and consistently reported to LBJ that U.S. interests were not threatened and that Washington would not win the war; and when it stood against the Pentagon on the SS-18 missile capabilities debate. Indeed, when Rostow attempted to rework CIA's data on Vietnam to produce a "feel-good" politicized estimate for the public, R.J. Smith reports that virtually the entire Southeast Asian staff threatened to resign in protest. Or during the Nixon Administration, employees like Gates protested the war on the mall, and, also according to Gates...
| Robert M. Gates wrote: |
| ...in the late 1960s and early 1970s not only was antiwar sentiment strong at the Agency, we were also influenced by the counterculture...Antiwar and anti-Nixon posters and bumper stickers festooned CIA office walls. |
In any case, this (partial listing) represents CIA at its best. This CIA still remains, by the way.
It was at its worst when Eishenhower employed it as a cheap and easy weapon against Mossadeq and Arbenz, or when JFK and RFK used it against Castro, and the list goes on and is well known, including the ops against Lumumba and Allende, for example. I agree that all of these operations were grave mistakes, ill-advised, often-times desperate, emotional responses, at others malicious reactions to Third-World processes Washington barely, if at all, comprehended, and, as a general rule, should not have been run in any way, shape, or form.
Moreover, based on the memoirs I have read and the testimony I have reviewed, and excepting a handful of covert operations cowboys and OSS WWII-era vets, including Allen W. Dulles, Frank Wisner, Tracy Barnes, Des FitzGerald, Richard Bissell, William Harvey, William J. Casey and his very few followers, and others outside of the Agency like John Foster Dulles, Eisenhower, Robert F. Kennedy, John F. Kennedy, Nixon and Kissinger, and the Reagan Administration and Ollie North (except for Shultz who adamantly opposed them), nearly everyone else agrees with me.
Indeed, Gates explains and details in his memoirs how, when Casey came on board and tried to get CIA's operations division to start fighting the Cold War again (they had been out of that business since the Church hearings and the so-called Year of Intelligence grounded them once and for all), the operators made end-runs around Casey and found a million bureaucratic ways to resist him, even to the point of sabotaging his own can-do appointee to head the directorate, Max Hugel. If you know your history on this, you will already know that, to run the covert ops he wanted, including the Iranian arms deals and the Contra War in Central America, Casey had to use his White House and not his CIA office, and the NSC staff and not the Directorate of Operations, to run these ops. The Directorate of Operations was simply not responsive to him and his demands. (Executives like McMahon, Gates, and Inman supported Congressional oversight, and, more than this, they had excellent relations with Congress and wanted to keep it so.)
There were no moral objections. Let me be clear about that. But they did not want to ever face the wrath of Congress again. And since 1975, Congress had placed itself in a position to know about, approve of, or veto any and all covert operations. Reagan resisted this and attempted to get around it, and he paid a heavy price for that. But, as far as I know, CIA has not crossed Congress since then.
Most people who talk about CIA and covert operations have not taken the time to take a good nuanced look at what the Agency is and how it operates, and who staffs and runs it, etc. For that reason most of what people like dbee say strikes me as wholly uninformed, and just reflects a repeating of op-eds and gossip, a carless handling of facts and evidence, and a reliance on cynical worldviews and innuendo to know that they are "right" in their beliefs. They hear something that resonates well with them and they take it at face value.
And, on the Chavez case specifically, I still disagree with you on nearly all points above, however.
I see nothing but allegations, unproven assertions, and a lot of circumstantial evidence referenced. And that is simply not the case in any covert operation the CIA has ever run but this alleged one. Dbee's claims about the U.S. Navy are also unproven and more importatly, just too vague.
Simply put, knowing that a coup is coming and doing nothing to stop it, or even hoping that it succeeds is not the same as planning and/or executing it. And that is the worst-case scenario for U.S. involvement as I see it based on what we now know.
From the Wikipedia summary you reference:
| Quote: |
Ch�vez has repeatedly stated that he believes that the Bush Administration and the CIA orchestrated the coup. [Chavez says but has produced no photos or any other evidence:] A US airplane was seen landing at the prison where Chavez was held captive. In September 2003, he refused to travel to the United States to address the United Nations, saying that he had received intelligence information that the United States government had prepared an assassination attempt against him. The Guardian published a statement by Wayne Madsen alleging U.S. Navy involvement. It was later alleged that Bush administration officials Elliott Abrams, whom Ch�vez had accused of supervising the planning of the operation, and Otto Reich, ex-US ambassador to Venezuela, were aware that something was about to take place. It is not surprising that U.S. officials knew of the level of unrest that existed in Venezuela, considering the days of massive public protests against Ch�vez leading up to the events of April 11; however, an investigation conducted by the U.S. Inspector General, at the request of U.S. Senator Christopher Dodd, D-CT, stated that "U.S. officials acted appropriately and did nothing to encourage an April coup against Venezuela's president."
According to a report in the New York Times, Reich warned Congressional aides that there was more at stake in Venezuela than the success or failure of Ch�vez. He accused Ch�vez of meddling with the historically government-owned state oil company, providing a haven for Colombian guerrillas, and bailing out Cuba with preferential rates on oil. He also said that the administration had received reports that "foreign paramilitary forces" - whom they suspected of being Cubans - were involved in the bloody suppression of anti-Ch�vez demonstrators (none of this has ever been proven). The United States did not condemn the coup until it became clear that Ch�vez would be reinstated... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
