US revokes envoy's visa: Venezuelan deputy FM

[cal04]

Source: AFP

Washington has revoked the visa of Venezuela's ambassador to the United States, Venezuela's deputy foreign minister said Wednesday on his Twitter account, amid a bilateral row over diplomatic envoys.

"I can confirm. USA revoked the visa of ambassador Bernardo Alvarez," Temir Porras wrote in a tweet.

The US State Department refused to say whether Washington was prepared to expel Alvarez, who is currently visiting La Paz.

But a State Department spokesman reiterated earlier US warnings that there could be "consequences" over President Hugo Chavez's recent rejection of Washington's nominee for ambassador to Caracas.





http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40846053/ns/world_news-venezuela/

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101230/pl_afp/venezuelapoliticsusdiplomacy_20101230004114

[rug]

1. Stupid.

[davidinalameda]

2. you're right

Chavez should have never rejected the US ambassador

[sabrina 1]

10. Chavez was absolutely right to object to the U.S. choice of

ambassador. Venezuela should simply recall their ambassador and hopefully other South American countries who've been having trouble with U.S. interference, will do the same. Time for U.S. bullying of other nations to end. And I think it will, certainly South America has had more than enough of U.S. policies of supporting brutal dictators and then having to deal with the aftermath even still.

South America can deal with China, as they are doing, and get the respect they do not get from the U.S. which seems to think they own all those countries south of their border.

The world will soon move on without the U.S. if they continue to go down this path of 'my way or the highway'. The world is sick of it.

[davidinalameda]

18. you think China cares about respect?

you're funny

[sabrina 1]

30. I don't know what they care about, but they are making deals

with oil producing countries rather than illegally invading them and killing and torturing their citizens. Showing respect to customers and clients is simply good business.

Do you think the U.S. cares about respect? Is slaughtering people as a result of illegal wars, respectful?

[davidinalameda]

34. so we've invaded Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Indonesia

and a host of other oil producing countries?

and how about the Chinese killing and torturing their own citizens or don't you care about that

[sabrina 1]

35. We do not invade countries that cooperate or in which we have

helped establish puppet governments. The reason we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan is because their leaders refused to cooperate. As long as Saddam Hussein was compliant, we rewarded him no matter how brutal he was to his own people and others. Only when he decided to deal with the Russians and Chinese did the U.S. decide to invade and remove him. Now we have an agreement with the puppet government there, over the objections of the Iraqi people, to allow the control of over 80% of Iraq's oil to multi-national corps.

Saudi Arabia and Kuwait torture their citizens also, but they are allies of the U.S., don't we care about that? The answer is 'no' we don't.

As for China, yes, I do care and wonder why the U.S. has given them Favored Nation status. So clearly our government is not concerned about human rights anywhere, only when they can use it against a non-compliant government.

[davidinalameda]

36. we invaded Afghanistan why?

I guess you forgot about 9/11 or are you one of those who thinks Bush was behind it

I could give a rat's ass that Saddam is dead; one less dictator that the world has to worry about

if you care so much about the Chinese, then why are you so happy that St. Hugo and his flock are getting in bed with them UNLESS you're one of those who thinks that anyone who spits in the eyes of the US is a good guy

[ProgressiveProfessor]

3. I agree, Chavez blew this one

Rejecting an ambassador is a real slap and in this case a gratuitous ones. He must feel he has not been getting his fair share of column inches recently.

[Pavulon]

5. Its Assange's fault. Stole all his mojo..(nt)

[PufPuf23]

8. Look at the rejected Ambassdor's history.

Certainly, there could be a better choice. The proposed Ambassador was an in your face fuck you.

[davidinalameda]

19. thought you were going to post his "history"

:shrug:

[bbinacan]

4. Good! n/t

[PufPuf23]

6. Stupid from the USA

We have been fucking needlessly with Venezuela from coup, to oil strike, to recall relection, to gross misrepresentations in media; the USA is not the party that has acted in bad faith in Latin America. There is plenty of transparency to the UN, OAS, and Latin America but not in the USA media

Chavez has a right to a personality as a charistmatic leader of People and USA policy and media has been anti-Chavez when Venezuela would likely be a friend by giving up unfair claims by minority interest groups willing to commit crimes.

Chavez is Chavez and has helped Venezuela despite the USA and has many friends in Latin America.

Sometimes I cannot fathom the tactical much less strategic leadership of the USA. The leadership regardless of major party, is an embarassment as to reality and morality. Hey what about that pragmatism? Clinton and Biden and the Pentagon and the alphabet intelligence agencies piss me off more than POTUS Obama.

[cowcommander]

7. Obama doesn't seem to care much either

[EFerrari]

9. Look who Chavez sent here -- Bernardo Alvarez is a cultured person

multi-lingual and can speak to just about any subject.

[sabrina 1]

11. Yes, because they showed the U.S. respect which was not returned.

I cannot believe the past two years of Bush policies basically continued in South and Central America. I thought we were voting for 'change'.

[go west young man]

12. Obama has acted pretty stupidly down there.

Nothing changed at all. It's further proof that others pull Obama's strings.
We continue with the same failed policies.

[Bacchus39]

13. so he is nothing like Chavez then n/t

s

[davidinalameda]

20. and you know this how?

or are you just regurgitating talking points as usual

[EFerrari]

22. By paying attention?

He's hosted literary events at the Embassy in flawless English. I just caught one on BookTv not too long ago. I think the speaker was Tariq Ali. He's written articles in English that appeared in the American press.

You don't need super secret briefings to watch CSPAN or to read the LA Times. :)

[Bacchus39]

25. so what??? Palmer speaks Spanish. p.s. lol n/t

z

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Peace Patriot]

14. It's interesting to try to figure out what kind of game Leon Panetta is playing here.

The U.S. ambassador appointee (Palmer) who mouthed off with insults to Venezuela in public, in a U.S. Senate hearing, before he was even confirmed, was following a script. If he hadn't been, his nomination would have been withdrawn. So, first of all, by this means, they were trying to put the onus of broken diplomatic relations on Chavez, who can hardly accept the credentials of a U.S. ambassador who hurls such insults even before he lands in Caracas. The question is, why did they do this?

Some of the possibilities are that,

1) our multinational corporate/war profiteer rulers don't want the Venezuelan ambassador in Washington constantly countering the lies that the CIA, the State Dept and the corpo-fascist press are telling about the Chavez government;

2) our multinational corporate/war profiteer rulers' servant, the CIA, has something planned that they don't want to have an easy blame target in Venezuela for, i.e., an official ambassador;

3) Wikileaks cables indicate that the U.S. embassy has been unable to penetrate Venezuelan security; the embassy will not be so usable as the spy/dirty tricks central and piggy bank for rightwing groups--it will be under intense scrutiny from Venezuelan intelligence, while it can't mount equal counter-spying--so, why have an ambassador there directing such activities?; and/or

4) the Bushwhacks were unable to "isolate Chavez" in Latin America (he has too many loyal friends and allies, such as Lula da Silva), so this is a substitute way to try to accomplish the same thing, and it will possibly be followed by some sort of enticement program, to lure other leaders of the region to U.S. deals or meetings that Chavez is excluded from (--the other excludee would be Evo Morales, another U.S.-targeted leader, who threw the U.S. ambassador and the DEA out of Bolivia in Sept 2008, for colluding with U.S.-supported, violent white separatists--the initial breach in U.S.-Venezuelan relations, when Chavez threw the U.S. ambassador out of Venezuela in solidarity with Morales).

This U.S. action is a bit surprising to me, because, in my read of CIA Director Panetta's methods--less stupid and brutal and more subtle, nuanced and potentially successful than the Bushwacks'--I would think he would want a U.S. ambassador in place. I thought, for instance, that Panetta ousting Uribe in Colombia and okaying (or designing?) the new Colombian president's peace deal with Chavez, had the purpose of opening the borders to infiltration into Venezuela for a long term siege of attrition (drugs/weapons trafficking, death squad hits, violent protests, dirty tricks, etc.) which, combined with millions of our tax dollars to rightwing groups and "journalists" and other covert and overt efforts, might rid the Empire of Chavez the legal way, in the 2012 election. The Bush Junta's meat-head methods (coup d'etats, assassination plots, trying to start a war with the bombing of Ecuador) simply didn't work, and the CIA capers during the Bush Junta era were absurd and unconvincing (like the "suitcase full of money" caper out of Miami and the Rumsfeld-smelling "miracle laptop"). To "get" Chavez, they really have to be more inspired and they have to convince regional leaders. It appeared to me that the blowback from items like the unsuccessful coup in Venezuela in 2002 and the 'successful' one in Honduras in 2009, both of Bushwhack design, had caused Panetta to revise U.S. strategy.

But this ambassador business gives me pause. The most obvious reason not to have a U.S. ambassador in Caracas is an assassination plot against Chavez. But I can't believe that Panetta is that stupid. The blowback would be even more profound for the U.S. and its multinational corporate/war profiteers' interests than the 2002 coup attempt, which brought on a firestorm of elected leftist governments throughout the region. So I'm going to guess that it's not #2 (that they don't want an ambassadorial target in country for some dire plot) and go with some combination of #1, 3 and 4. This is a guess about Panetta and his style.

One other thing--methods may have been changed with the new Diebold/Puke Congress coming in. Miami fascists have already held a meeting with other Latin American fascists, under the auspices of the U.S. Congress, and basically called for a U.S. war on Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua. They are drooling over the prospect of more bloodshed in Latin America in the fascist cause. So this contretemps with the Chavez government over ambassadors may be a show for their benefit, or it may be a harbinger of yet more U.S. horror in Latin America.

[arendt]

17. +10 for lots of analysis n/t

[Zorro]

15. Hugo has quite a prickly ego

If he gets in such high dudgeon over Palmer's remarks.

For those who reflexively side with Chavez, here are the on-the-record responses that he found so highly offensive. Seems pretty tame to me and hardly insulting, despite all the hand-wringing and wailing.

http://lugar.senate.gov/issues/foreign/lac/venezuela/pdf/LugarPalmerQFR.pdf

[boppers]

16. Henry Rangel Silva is an interesting character.

Thanks for the link!

[EFerrari]

23. Yeah, this situation is caused by the enormous Chavez ego and not

by the multi million dollar 24/7 propaganda campaign the State Department funds with our tax money. lol

[Zorro]

26. Or maybe Hugo really is the dick he appears to be

to those who aren't afflicted by blind adoration for every self-declared US adversary.

[EFerrari]

29. Venezuela doesn't seem to have any diplomatic problems

except with the US and its lapdogs in Colombia. Too bad we can't say the same. :)

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lunasun]

31. cant wait 'til they compare him with Saddam.........coming soon to you

hey he has oil

[Tx4obama]

21. Article up at HuffPo, link below

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/29/venezuelan-ambassador-visa-revoked_n_802524.html

[DeSwiss]

24. Consequences is a double-edged sword. K&R - n/t

[Bacchus39]

28. called fat boy's bluff, and also to express displeasure with Chavez rule by decree

good job Obama. who needs that pendejo????

[dipsydoodle]

32. Presumably

its actually the Secretery of State who's behind this.

Spelling purely intentional.