US considering naming a new envoy to Venezuela following Caracas' rejection of first choice

[Judi Lynn]

US considering naming a new envoy to Venezuela following Caracas' rejection of first choice
By Associated Press

3:50 p.m. EST, January 3, 2011

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration says it may nominate a new ambassador to Venezuela after its previous choice was rejected by the government of President Hugo Chavez.

State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said the U.S. believes it is important to have an ambassador in Caracas in order to manage relations, which have been strained by Chavez's condemnations of the U.S. and by U.S. criticisms that democracy is deteriorating in Venezuela.

Crowley said Monday the administration regrets that Chavez refused to accept Larry Palmer as ambassador. It said that if a decision is made to seek Venezuela's agreement on another envoy, that candidate's nomination would have to be submitted to the Senate for confirmation. Crowley said this was now under consideration.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/nationworld/sns-bc-us-venezuela,0,2175771.story

[roody]

1. Did Obama put his finger to the wind? I hope so.

[rabs]

2. It may have been Hil's finger put to the wind in Brasilia

After that 15-minute encounter she had with Hugo in Brasilia on Saturday. Dilma may have clued in Hil too, as well as the other leftie leaders.

If it is true, score one for Hugo because it is a 180-degree turnaround from what Hil's State flack was saying last week.

[social_critic]

3. Indeed, she put her finger up, and knows which way the wind blows.

Chavez didn't go to Dilma's reception and failed to meet her on Sunday. Evidently there's a movement to treat Chavez with kids gloves - he's probably considered to be irrational by now - and the best thing to do is not give him any excuses but at the same time isolate him gradually to minimize his ability to stir up a war or conflicts.

The US therefore is likely to name another professional, Senate leaders will be briefed about Chavez' instability, and it will be pointed out the best way to isolate him is to play along with his royal highness as his country implodes. The next nominee will be very bland, and his job will be to make sure US citizens in Venezuela are as safe as possible as the drama unfolds.

[Peace Patriot]

5. I've only just realized how useful an "Alice in Wonderland" comment like this can be...

...in figuring out what is really going on. It's rather like my "rule of thumb" about Bushwhacks: Whatever they assert, the opposite is true; and, whatever they accuse others of doing, they are doing or planning to do.

Thus...

"Chavez didn't go to Dilma's reception and failed to meet her on Sunday." = This has no meaning at all, or not the meaning that this rightwinger gives it.

"Evidently there's a movement to treat Chavez with kids gloves..." = The truth of the matter--and what there is actually voluminous evidence for--is that Latin America's leaders have REFUSED, time and again, to obey Washington's dictate that they must "isolate Chavez." Dilma Rousseff's predecessor and mentor, Lula da Silva, is especially notable for this policy.

"...he's probably considered to be irrational by now..." = The truth of the matter--and what there is actually voluminous evidence for--is that Chavez is not only the sanest of men but also the first and most courageous leader of the leftist democracy movement in the region, who has spurred the others to achieve independence from the U.S. and to pull together for collective strength in dealing with U.S. aggression and bullying. (But the CIA new "talking point" is now clear--that Chavez is crazy.)

"...and the best thing to do is not give him any excuses but at the same time isolate him gradually to minimize his ability to stir up a war or conflicts." = The truth of the matter--and what there is actually voluminous evidence for--is that Chavez is a peacemaker. (The Pentagon and corpo-fascists here may be planning another provocation.)

"The US therefore is likely to name another professional, Senate leaders will be briefed about Chavez' instability, and it will be pointed out the best way to isolate him is to play along with his royal highness as his country implodes." = Huh?

"The next nominee will be very bland, and his job will be to make sure US citizens in Venezuela are as safe as possible as the drama unfolds." = The next nominee will be John Bolton or William Brownfield or John Negroponte, or someone equally bad, who plans to stir up some shit in Venezuela.

Upside down, inside out and backwards, as in "Alice in Wonderland."

:crazy:

[bemildred]

6. "Chavez is crazy" is not a new talking point. Just saying ...

I think the point is that the absence of ambassadors is an empty threat, nobody really gives a shit if there are ambassadors or not, it just looks bad, sort of, causes some inconvenience. The first rule of threats is you have to use something that your proposed threatenee is afraid of, and Chavez has no reason whatsoever to feel threatened by ambassadorlessness, or by any associated threats of US government huffiness.

If the US State Departments proposes to start dealing with that fact, it's a good thing.

[Peace Patriot]

7. Well, you may have a point, but U.S. policy in Latin America has been so lethal

that it doesn't seem like a minor point when the U.S. does something provocative, like the President's appointee to Venezuela insulting the country before he is even confirmed. Palmer should have been immediately withdrawn, if it was a goof. Diplomats aren't supposed to make goofs like that. So we can only presume that it was intentional. Why? What further wretched business does the U.S. have in mind for Venezuela?

Also, U.S. ambassadors are NOT neutral agents in Latin America. They collude with, and funnel USAID and other money to, rightwing groups and coup groups. The U.S. ambassador to Bolivia, for instance, was funding/organizing the violent white separatist insurrection right out of the U.S. embassy. Morales threw the U.S. ambassador out of Bolivia because of it. In fact, that was the first diplomatic breach between Venezuela and the U.S.--when Chavez threw the U.S. ambassador out of Venezuela in solidarity with Morales. This is another reason why this particular flap doesn't seem small to me. It has not happened in a neutral environment but in a very charged one.

There are numerous instances of U.S. ambassadors actively interfering in Latin American countries. The U.S. embassy is a hub for such activity. This is true generally. But clearly Chavez is a particular target of our multinational corporate/war profiteer rulers; thus, U.S. maneuverings around the U.S. ambassador to Venezuela need to be looked at closely. It may be nothing. It may be a prelude to something worse.

Also, this has occurred in the context of Lula da Silva's speech as outgoing president of Brazil, blasting the U.S. and saying that U.S. policy under Obama "is no different" from Bushwhack policy. Possibly da Silva is the one who convinced Clinton to stop persisting in this appointment. In any case, the "flap" has not occurred in a vacuum.

Again, you could be right. It may be nothing. But I would not presume that, at the outset, given the parties involved and all of the above.

[bemildred]

8. Incompetence and stupidity will do the job here.

That is all I'm saying. I was not intending some overall defense of US Latin American policy, or any denial that the US generally speaking hates Chavez, just that this is so stupid that - if it were a conspiracy - it would be one that Chavez could safely play along with.

"No! No! Brer Fox don't throw me into that briar patch!"

I take it mainly as evidence of more incompetence in the US foreign affairs establishment, not a well-oiled machine.

[ChangoLoa]

10. Maybe they're trying to destabilize Chavez

through unpredictable silliness...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdWGlJrG6sQ&NR=1&feature=fvwp

[social_critic]

11. US Ambassadors are not supposed to be neutral

Whatever gave you the idea? They are supposed to look after US interests - as defined by the White House.

[Judi Lynn]

12. They have traditionally been expected to be professional, and DIPLOMATIC.

Otherwise, they'd simply send any piece of crap.

Why on earth do you imagine ambassadors like the late Richard Hollbrooke are held to be absolutely perfect in that position? Would you ever in a million years find anyone of his stature behaving like a mad dog idiot?

http://newsinhindi.freshnews.in.nyud.net:8090/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/richard-holbrook2.jpg

[social_critic]

13. That's right

But the GOP isn't well known for its diplomatic skills, and the Ambassador was providing answers to the US Senate's right wing. Any other government would just sigh and let it go by, but Chavez is known to be like a bamtam rooster, always itching for a fight.

This controversy doesn't do much for his image. Why do you think Chavez' popularity is so low in Latin America in general, and is now so much lower in Venezuela? He is doing his best to paint himself as a big mouth with a tendency to pick fights. His behavior has become so unusual, I'd say he needs a shrink.

[EFerrari]

9. LOL

[dipsydoodle]

4. Maybe Hugo just used his thumb

and said "Sit on that" :shrug:

[social_critic]

14. Probably

He keeps digging himself into a deeper and deeper hole.