Chavez Says He Has White House Informant

The man spouts nonsense, just to feel his jaw move.

hating bush is popular worldwide... whether or not this is true just like in iran i am sure this gets him good political points.
Plus if something mysterious happens to chavez, we have a suspect. I know if someone powerful was trying to kill me I would want to make it public as well.

I disagree. I think he has made an incredibly smart move. After this, in order to dispute this claim, the US government may even need to ensure that he won't get killed by anyone else that Chavez has offended, because it would now be blamed on them anyway.

YES!!! I'm a stain on humanity!!!! I can sleep good at night now knowing what other people think of me. And people wonder why we get offended when people referr to as 'a stain on humanity'. What if I referred to you as a pain in my ass?

I really do take offence to that and I am NOT a supporter or Bush. "Americans are becoming a Stain on humanity". I had nothing to do with it. If i could change it I would. Really you need to learn to separate the citizens of a country with the policies of that nation.

Dont get me wrong, you have a point. But I can't see anything the US can achieve by assassinating Chavez the clown. Really, his mouth is his handicap, as he's proven time and time over.

Waste of a bullet. We have plenty of better people to assasinate.

Really you need to learn to separate the citizens of a country with the policies of that nation.

I think this is sincerely interesting. Would there not be some informal statute of limitations on this concept? How many election cycles handicap are the citizens allowed before they are indistinguishable from the policies of their elected representitives?
Could you not equally say that the citizens of a developed, rich country should accept that the policies of that country reflect them?
If not why not?

he is on pnacs list... from before bush came into power... i think it is plausible

so is castro. why isn't he dead.. oh thats right

I call bull@!$%#. He may be annoying, but we're not going to assassinate someone for being annoying.

Remember Chile in the year 1973?

Remember Chile in the year 1973?

The US didn't assassinate Allende, and I could find no evidence that they helped overthrow him. See here and here. Do you have some inside information not available to the rest of the world?

It is widely accepted, historically and politically, that the coup was financed, supported, and partly executed by the US government. Same with the following 16 years of dictatorship (you know, tortures, assassinations, missed people, etc etc).
There are no declassified CIA papers on either, but you will find no US official denying them... like Mr Powell in your linked article:

citing the Chilean coup as an example of U.S. intervention that went against the wishes of the local population. Powell responded: "With respect to your earlier comments about Chile in the 1970s and what happened with Mr. Allende, it is not a part of American history that we're proud of."

As I said, I don't doubt the US (CIA) involvement in the coup, but you could since there are no official papers on it, but anyway, there are historical facts that confirm the US involvement in creating the previous climate for the coup, and the extensive support to maintain it over time.
And BTW, Allende committed suicide ;)

Oh, I forgot to quote this:

One of these documents establishes that U.S. military aid to the Chilean armed forces was raised dramatically between the coming to power of Allende in 1970, when it amounted to US$800,000 annually, to US$10.9 million in 1972.

We're talking about assassinations in this article, not coups. I have little doubt that the US is capable of covertly helping a coup if the administration in power thinks it might be advantageous, but I think they tend to be a little more cautious when considering assassination attempts. Castro is the only person I can think of who we have tried to assassinate, and he once posed a much more serious threat to us (real or imagined) than Chavez. I just don't think even this administration could justify the PR risks involved in assassinating Chavez.

Agree... I guess all I'm trying to say is that an US supported attempt on Chavez's head is not as outrageous as some people think, due to previous actions in recent history, and the general attitude the US has towards South-America.
I also think that it would be a very dumb and wrong political move, however, those adjectives are very frequently used to describe US external agenda.

Adam kemp We're talking about assassinations in this article, not coups

I think they have more in common than they have major differences, but hey if you want to hide behind the fact that the united states has never publicly admitted to assassinating another country's leader then that's your call, stand on that unstained bit.

You know for someone so blatantly misinformed you certainly enjoy a good bluff.

But you know and this is a personal opinion. You unstained americans with paddling pool memories, delusions of superiority and if all else fails, persecution complexes. (We're not talking about coups were talking about assassinations and we're not just talking about assassinations we're talking about assassinations using calibres larger than 303 and we're not blah blah blah )

Tell me two things Adam, in which year did you last admit to knowing @!$%# all about that which you speak and do you enjoy being an american at present?

Now you all may think this a bit harsh but I've had a gutsful of pontificating empty drums insulting my and our intelligences.

I'll address you both:

My original comment was this:

we're not going to assassinate someone for being annoying.

Note how I'm talking about assassinations. I'm not talking about the morality of the US government, or implying that the US government never does anything questionable, or that they never helped overthrow a government, or even that they never assassinated anyone. I'm not an idiot. All I said was that the US government would not assassinate Chavez just because he's annoying, and that there's no other reason to assassinate him right now. All of your comments are trying to drag me into a debate that is entirely unrelated to what I actually said, and I'm not biting. Get over it.

Read the article, read my comment, and then respond to that. I'm not responding to arguments against things I didn't even say.

I'll try to say it more clearly:
I believe that the US government planned to overthrow Allende (which would have mean his assassination), and helped in the coup's execution, which, if he wouldn't have killed himself, would have resulted in his death anyway (together with the thousands of people that were murdered during the US-supported dictatorship).
All of this because Allende's regime annoyed US officials... same kind of situation as with Chavez.

I'll leave you with some more quotes:

* "I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves." — Henry Kissinger

* "Not a nut or bolt shall reach Chile under Allende. Once Allende comes to power we shall do all within our power to condemn Chile and all Chileans to utmost deprivation and poverty." — Edward M. Korry, U.S. Ambassador to Chile, upon hearing of Allende's election.

* "Make the economy scream [in Chile to] prevent Allende from coming to power or to unseat him" — Richard Nixon, orders to CIA director Richard Helms on September 15, 1970.

* "It is firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup. It would be much preferable to have this transpire prior to 24 October but efforts in this regard will continue vigorously beyond this date. We are to continue to generate maximum pressure toward this end, utilizing every appropriate resource. It is imperative that these actions be implemented clandestinely and securely so that the USG and American hand be well hidden..." — A communique to the CIA base in Chile, issued on October 16, 1970

* "We didn't do it. I mean we helped them. [Garbled] created the conditions as great as possible. — Henry Kissinger conversing with President Nixon about the coup.

I simply cannot say it more clearly.
I am not nor ever have been interested in your original quote.

The relationship between it and your admission of ignorance about the US role in the coup of 73, (supported by your research and provided links which is sincerely mitigating) and your request for "inside information not available to the rest of the world?" escapes me.

Well you have the information now. Learn anything?

I am not nor ever have been interested in your original quote.

Then don't respond. You're wasting our time. Whether I'm ignorant about a coup attempt or not is completely irrelevant to what I was actually talking about. Get over yourself.

Vent: This article may actually give credence to your point of view.

There certainly are many allegations. Didnt the US try to assasinate Saddam? In Nigeria people believe that the US killed MKO Abiola, the country's President-elect then under arrest by the country's then dictator.

Whether I'm ignorant about a coup attempt or not is completely irrelevant to what I was actually talking about.

There you go, much better thank you.
You've gone from the snide

Do you have some inside information not available to the rest of the world?

to an admission of ignorance.
that in itself is you getting over yourself, I'm sure i can try and follow your example.

I was asking if he had inside information about an assassination, which is what he originally implied. My comment about the coup was a throw-away comment that wasn't really related to what we were even talking about. If you read my original comment and his original comment then you can see that we were always talking about assassinations, not coups.

Since when does a throw away comment contain not one but two links to wikipedia?
I don't buy your somewhat garbled justification but having said that I'm humbled by your admission you made a mistake and will now go back to focusing on getting over myself. (in all honesty i could probably do with a newsvine break, I seem to be getting increasingly aggressive) {I was molested by a debater as a child, it's not my fault)

Guido: Who said assassination is fine? I'm not sure who you're addressing here, because I never said anything like that.

I'm really confused about how you're misinterpreting what I said. I never said it was acceptable to assassinate anyone, nor did I imply it.

Guido, I'm going to ask one more time: What do any of my comments have to do with what you're talking about? I never said it was acceptable or that governments should do it. You're asking me as if I condone assassinations, and I never said anything even remotely like that. What exactly are you seeing in my comments that would suggest that I think the US government should assassinate people, or that if they did then they shouldn't be "punished"? I'm really confused about how you got onto this topic, and especially about how I was pulled into it.

Guido I think you're being unfair to Adam's position. He is defending the US on allegations of assasinations, pointing to a surfeit of hard evidence given that many of the records that will show them true or not are still classified.

Wouldn't he be the last one left......? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm!

He'd no doubt leave a few people so he could lie to them, life would be unbearable otherwise.

Well, that assumes that democracy is the means to end-all society system. It may not be, and shouldn't be. Look at our mess here.

On top of that, Chavez is indeed quite popular in Venezuela, unlike our President.

Oh yes our President is so unpopular he won a 4 year Presidential term, twice?!@ But that doesn't matter because polls in our country are 100% correct(2004 election proof?) and polls in Venezuela are accurate?@!

(sorry... indefinitely elected public official)

they have regular elections.

they have regular elections

So did Iraq.

So now does Iraq. Good work ComSen, your astute political analysis has prevailed once again.
I and all my left wing friends, surrender.

The Venezuelan president is elected by vote, with direct and universal suffrage, and functions as both head of state and head of government. The term of office is six years, and a president may be re-elected to a single consecutive term . ComSen, there's just no analogy and KevinR, no indefinitely elected public official. But of course I surrender too ;-)

Sorry KevinR that should have been aimed at Vaughnet.

One can't help but wonder even if this is not as farfetched as it sounds coming from him. If someone else reasonable said it, I'd think that I can understand in what circumstances the strategic decision could be made to do so.

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they really aren't out to get you.

Maybe Chavez is suffering from paranoid schizophrenia.

Hmm yeah, I can think of another leader in the Americas who is suffering from a disease. Some think it's A.D.D, others say it's dyslexia. It's too bad we're going to have to wait about 10 years after he leaves office to find out.

ADD and dyslexia are nowhere near as debilitating as paranoid schizophrenia. For all I know, I could have both the former, sometimes I suspect I do. Paranoid schizophrenics aren't dangerous because they're paranoid, they're dangerous because it's possible they'll do something about it.

They aren't dangerous. Trust me, I used to be schizophrenic, but we're okay now.

This guy is such a clown. I always have to laugh at his antics, like when he said he smelled sulphur. Hilarious! How can you take someone like that serious?

Sure he is a clown

But Bush is such a clown that the Venezulean clown is getting a lot of world wide attention and admiration for thumbing his nose at W.

The bigger related story is the new world block centered around China but including countries like Iran and Venezuela ... as well as many less whacko places. The US reign as sole super power is reapidly ending. The US has blown its opportunity to be a beacon of light and a an example for the rest of the world.

I think it's premature to say that this new power bloc has already won. Iran and Venezuela and so on are trying to become regional leaders, and quite possibly will succeed, but this may not necessarily give them huge amounts of power in a total international context.

However, I agree that we're not going to have a unipolar international system forever. We're quite possibly heading into a period of multipolarity, and it'll be fascinating to see how it turns out.

Sure they have yet to win anything but America has most certainly already lost and the citizens of america for very real reasons will be the last to know.

How do we know that America has already lost? (And how are we defining winning and losing, anyway? They may not be the best words to use, come to think of it.)

Does Chavez really get any tract thumbing his nose at the US? I know there are many people who hate the US but it doesnt necessarily translate into support for Chavez does it?

Well, he's fairly popular in his own country for it, I think.

But more importantly, it establishes him as a leader of the emerging group of anti-American left wing leaders in South America and across the globe. See his visits to Cuba, Iran and Belarus and his strong relations with Chile and Bolivia. Becoming a leader in that group allows Venezuela to attempt to pick up more power internationally - for instance, his attempt to get a seat in the next Security Council.

I think it's the oil that gives Chavez and Venezuela any primacy or leadership, not his bashing Bush. Anti-Bush demoagogues are dime-a-dozen, but few head countries with so much oil.

You make a good point. (I'd actually forgot about the oil entirely, amnesiac that I am.)

Maybe Chavez has decided that he can stand out more if he aligns himself against the US than if he aligns himself with it. Going with the US would turn him into an obscure South American leader, whereas now he has international recognition and (from some quarters) respect.

Oh, brother. When will people stop believing everything they see in movies?

Or everything their govt tells them.
America was so involved in the first coup, there are public phone logs from the white house that alude to it. Nothing can be proven but simply because it was obviously in americas interests the coup happened and america has a history of undermining democratically elected govts when it suits them, for someone to suggest that anything but the Govts public denial is the truth deserves sympathy at best and a civil war in the middle of their next barbicue at worst.

I went to his link and the best evidence I saw was a camera shot showing that, *gasp*, from this angle the street looks empty! It looks to me like the same ignorant layman's analysis anomaly-hunting that led to all the moronic 9/11 conspiracy theories (Look!! The lawn is untouched and the hole is too small!!). To be fair, I haven't taken the time to watch the documentary, but from my experience all these conspiracy theories are just a waste of time.

My intent was not to spread conspiracy theories but to inform people that Chavez was briefly overthrown in 2002 and for it to happen again is not so far-fetched. I think everyone should watch the movie because it shows a rare and intimate portrayal into how governments can be changed without using democratic methods and the consequences of such attempts. This film is not a crackpot collection of slides and blurry pictures but real people making really difficult choices that will affect an entire country.

Sorry to post again but I just saw that the entire film is available at Google Video. You can watch it here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5832390545689805144

I don't mean to be technical, but if you have a friend among your enemies and this friend tells you that your enemies are going to attack you or your loved ones... Has that friend not just INFORMED you, and don't you think he/she would do it again?

I think he is simply trying to rally people behind him. If it's a story he made up, it will come back to bite him in the end :)

Only crazy conservative Americans can read "I have friends in the White House" as "I have an informant in the White House".

Or you could just read the title of the article.

@JK08

I don't mean to be technical, but if you have a friend among your enemies and this friend tells you that your enemies are going to attack you or your loved ones... Has that friend not just INFORMED you, and don't you think he/she would do it again?

They also said that Chavez thought Noam Chomsky was dead.

@Matt Kennedy

Or you could just read the title of the article.

I did, and this seems to be a repeating theme with you, but headlines contains little fact, lots of opinion and spin.

They also said that Chavez thought Noam Chomsky was dead.

I'm not sure how this statement applies to what I was saying... I was merely pointing out that having a friend among your enemies informing you what they are doing IS having an informant. It doesn't mean that the friends information is always accurate.

ajzzz,

Did I misunderstand what you said?

I'm saying that the quote is not complete, the context isn't concrete, this is what I was saying in my original comment, and I provided an example of it happening to Chavez recently. I haven't seen any other sources, only other news media that are using the AP.

And with the part that is quoted, "What he doesn't know is that I have friends in the White House" doesn't state he recieved any information at all, perhaps it implies it, but that doesn't have to be his meaning, I haven't heard Chavez speak English.

I did, and this seems to be a repeating theme with you, but headlines contains little fact, lots of opinion and spin.

Definition for "informant"

Sounds pretty accurate to me.