Hugo to Hil: "to rectify is for the wise"

[rabs]

The prime minister of Portugal, José Sócrates, acted as interpreter.

The Venezuelan-government sponsored newspaper Correo del Orinoco today published details of the conversation between Chavez and Clinton in Brasilia last Saturday. Spanish news agency and French agency AFP have the story in Spanish. Do not know if U.S. or European media have it in English yet.

Main points from a Venezuelan government source who was privvy to the encounter (suspect the source may be Chavez himself):

-- Clinton took the initiative to bring up the Palmer issue. She asked whether it was possible to treat the issue of Palmer directly with Chavez.

-- Chavez replied yes, as long as there was a "rectification" by the United States.

-- Chavez said that "to rectify is for the wise," and as an example he cited Evo Morales' backing down on the drastic gasoline increases in Bolivia.

-- Chavez told Hil that since she brought up the question of treating the Palmer case directly, Hugo said "why not," but that Venezuela would be awaiting a signal from Washington -- that channel would remain open.

-- Chavez said that the fact that the United States had not expelled Amb. Bernardo Alvarez, had been a "positive gesture," as opposed to the U.S. media"s speculation of a possible total breaking of diplomatic relations.

-- Hugo said has government had no intention of breaking relations with the United States or any other nation.

-- Chavez reiterated that he was awaiting a signal, and that signal came on Monday when the State Department announced that it would no longer insist on Palmer and would seek a new nominee.


Full story, in Spanish.

http://www.correodelorinoco.gob.ve/impacto/presidente-chavez-solicito-a-hillary-clinton-una-rectificacion-caso-larry-palmer/

---------------------

Around Latin America, the episode is being seen as a diplomatic fiasco by Hil's State Department that left her and Obama looking foolish, and, at least for now, a diplomatic victory for Hugo.

[Judi Lynn]

1. His comments were wise, dignified, respectful, diplomatic. Hope she will take his words to heart.

Very diplomatic expression from Chavez, very well phrased, worded.

She was probably dreading that conversation knowing how much depended upon the way it would play out, and the fact their position is hardly a tenable one. He did beautifully.

Great photo. Tremendous news. Thanks, so much!

Recommending.

[dipsydoodle]

2. ditto

.

[Peace Patriot]

3. K&R! Hard to figure what Hillary intended to get by having her nominee Palmer insult Venezuela.

I thought maybe she didn't want an official ambassador in Venezuela--perhaps to have no easy U.S. target for blame if/when the latest U.S. plot against Chavez unfolded? --or perhaps to create a diplomatic flap for some other purpose--maybe to push some nasty stories out of the news about U.S. client state, Colombia? (Just read of a U.S. cable by Wm Brownfield--the Bushwhack operator in Colombia--where he admits that the "false positives" horror was widespread in the Colombian military but--the disinformation part?--that Uribe's then-Defense Minister, now prez of Colombia, Santos, wanted it investigated). It's quite possible that Wikileaks has even more damaging cables on U.S. activity in Colombia. Best "Big Lie" strategy is to demonize a leftist leader who has harmed no one.

Hillary was so long in withdrawing Palmer that it sure seemed like his public remarks about Venezuela were planned. Could be the whole thing was a 'narrative' by which to make the U.S. look more friendly (by withdrawing Palmer). ?? The U.S. could sure use some positive P.R. in Latin America where most of the leaders are disgusted with the U.S. and even Lula da Silva, who tries to be nice, blasted the U.S. on his last day in office.

[EFerrari]

4. Lugar posted the material to his website.

Maybe the admin decided to give this to the wingnuts for some reason. Maybe they traded it to Lugar for something else.

[Peace Patriot]

5. You got a link? I can't find it. What material did he post?

And what was his take on it?

[EFerrari]

6. He was the one who posted Palmer's written answers to his site

and that's how the material became public.

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

[Peace Patriot]

10. Comprende. Thanks. nt

[roody]

7. Making amends is never foolish. We should all do it more.

[social_critic]

8. Indeed, it's better to let Chavez boil in his own fat

Chavez is seeking a conflict because he's seeing his economy melt down. The word around is to play along and take it easy, so he doesn't have an excuse to start a war and then point fingers. He's going to have to live with the consequences of his economic mismanagement and his megalomania and mental disease. Or maybe I should say, the poor Venezuelan people will have to live with it. He'll keep on wearing gold rolexes, traveling a lot, and gorging himself with expensive food. Oh, and his family will keep on stealing, of course. By the time 2020 rolls around, the Chavez gang will quite wealthy.

[Peace Patriot]

9. You are living in "Alice in Wonderland." nt

[social_critic]

11. Read Wikileaks - countries are cooperating to contain Chavez

Wikileaks and recent events show a surge of cooperation to contain Chavez. The Venezuelan government has begun to behave irrationally, as if were Uganda under Idi Amin.

An interesting tidbit, here's what the BBC reported a while back, Chavez defending Carlos the Jackal and discussing Idi Amin:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8372250.stm

"In a speech to international socialist politicians, Mr Chavez said "Carlos", a Venezuelan, was not a terrorist but a key "revolutionary fighter". He is serving a life sentence in France for murders committed in 1975. Mr Chavez also hailed Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe, Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the late Ugandan dictator Idi Amin."
...................
"About former Ugandan President Idi Amin, Mr Chavez said: "We thought he was a cannibal... I don't know, maybe he was a great nationalist, a patriot." Idi Amin seized power in 1971. About 300,000 people were killed during his eight-year rule."

[Peace Patriot]

12. You believe U.S. diplomats' communiques? Right there, you are in La-La Land.

You don't cite any cable in support of this argument--you just cite some old comments by Chavez in which he says, "I don't know. Maybe...". The cables are full of "agendas"--ass-covering agendas, propaganda agendas, self-puffery agendas, internal politics agendas, etc. In one of them, the U.S. ambassador talks ONLY to rightwing/white separatist groups who oppose Evo Morales in Bolivia. He reports that they said that Evo stole an election, but the cable ignores--doesn't mention, doesn't cite--the hundreds of election monitors from the OAS, the EU, the UN, the Carter Center and other groups, all of whom certified the election as honest and aboveboard. This particular ambassador was colluding with these rightwing/white separatist groups in a violent, murderous insurrection. Morales threw him out of the country because of it.

Evo has had a consistent approval rating in the 60% to 70% range. He is not only very representative of his people, he is very popular among them and has no need to steal elections. The U.S. ambassador's cable was written down the Rabbit Hole in Wonderland. It was NOT a reflection of reality, but of the upside, inside out, backwards world of Bushwhacks, where--like the Red Queen--they seek out opinions that agree with their evil purposes. The ambassador was, a) trying to justify all the millions of USAID and other U.S. taxpayer money being larded on these racist greedbags and murderers, to try to overthrow Morales' government, and b) feeding "talking points" to the U.S. State Department for propagandistic use in the corpo-fascist press.

The evidence from the REAL world is simply OVERWHELMING that Latin American leaders DO NOT SUPPORT the U.S. agenda of "isolating Chavez." You are living in "Wonderland" if you believe otherwise. When that dictate--to "isolate Chavez"--came down from Bushworld, Nestor Kirchner, president of Argentina, replied, "BUT HE'S MY BROTHER!" That is the prevailing sentiment. Just after Chavez compared Bush to the Devil at the UN, and two weeks before the 2006 presidential election in Venezuela, Lula da Silva, president of Brazil, went to Venezuela for a big ceremonial event with Chavez (opening of the Orinoco Bridge) quite pointedly to ENDORSE Chavez and back him up in the face of intense U.S. criticism and plotting. He later said, of Chavez, that "They can think up all kinds of things to criticize Chavez but not on democracy." He met with Chavez MONTHLY for meetings about their common goals and projects. And the new president of Brazil--Lula's chief of staff, Dilma Rousseff--greeted Chavez with with delight, big smiles and a warm hug at her inauguration reception (cold-shouldering Hillary Clinton, by the way).

Rousseff was not only imprisoned for three years by U.S.-backed TRUE dictators, she was cruelly and repeatedly tortured with electric shock and other horrors. She invited the other 11 women who shared her cell in that prison to her inauguration. Neither she nor MOST of the leaders of Latin America are about to follow any U.S. dictate that is aimed at overthrowing democracy and at repeats of those kind of horrors in the interest of U.S. multinational corporations and war profiteers. A couple of U.S. client states have gone along with the U.S.-created horror in Honduras. MOST have absolutely refused to acknowledge that illegitimate regime.

Ecuador's president, when asked about Chavez's remark about Bush and the Devil at the UN, replied that it was "an insult to the Devil." They backed up Chavez then, and they are backing him up now. Recently, when Chavez invited Ahmadinejad to Venezuela, Lula da Silva not only did the same thing--invited Ahmadinejad to Brazil--he went much further. He traveled to Iran and Turkey and tried to broker a deal about nuclear materials, to foil U.S. plotting against Iran.

The point is that Chavez represents the widespread view in Latin America that Latin American countries can have THEIR OWN foreign policy, apart from U.S. dictates. He is a leader of this movement. And one of its key elements is the sovereignty of Latin American countries. Another is UNITY--backing each other up, cooperating, pulling together, providing aid--to fend off U.S. political and economic attacks.

The REALITY is that Chavez is an acknowledged, respected, honored leader of the leftist democracy revolution that has swept Latin America, with leftist governments elected--after Chavez was first elected in Venezuela-- in Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Bolivia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Uruguay, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras (until the coup), with an almost in Mexico. Chavez was the first. He, his government and the people of Venezuela have inspired this grass roots, majority movement throughout the region. He is neither a dictator nor crazy. But, since the "dictator" talking point has failed to convince anyone in Latin America--originated, as it was, from the rabid right and the CIA--new talking points are being invented, that Chavez is "incompetent" and now that Chavez is "crazy." It just won't wash. Chavez is none of these things. He is, quite simply, a STRONG leftist leader, along the lines of FDR (who was also called a "dictator" by the far right of his day) who has helped to revolutionize the region in a good way--democratically--WITHOUT HARMING ANYBODY.

...unless you think that the rich having to pay their taxes for the good of society, and megacorps like Exxon Mobil having to operate on a level playing field, and RCTV being denied use of the public airwaves to foment violent rightwing coups, and other such, actually very democratic policies of the Chavez government, are "harmful." Venezuela was just designated THE MOST EQUAL COUNTRY in Latin America, on income distribution, by the U.S. Economic Commission on Latin America and the Caribbean. The Chavez government has cut poverty in half and extreme poverty by over 70%. If you believe that that is bad, and if you believe that "liberty" is getting super-rich at the expense of everyone else, and multinational corporations have the "right" to dictate government policy and "freedom of speech" means corporate monopoly of the airwaves, then I guess that you would think that great harm is being done in Venezuela--by this "crazy," "incompetent," "dictator" Chavez. Welcome to "Wonderland."

We live in "Wonderland" here in the USA. We hear this crap every day: That "liberty" is getting rich, no matter how you get there; that multinational corporations have "rights"; that up is down, that war is peace, and on and on. We live in the midst of pervasive LIES about what is REAL. And you seem quite comfortable in this true craziness in which a DEMOCRACY REVOLUTION in Latin America is seen as a THREAT. And if it is obviously NOT threatening to MOST people--but, rather, very beneficial--then "talking points" have to be invented that make it SEEM like a threat. That Chavez is a "dictator." That Venezuela is "falling apart." That Chavez is "crazy." Yeah, and the "Red Queen" ordered her minions to paint the white roses RED, cuz red is HER COLOR and how dare the natural roses BE WHITE?!

That is true craziness--NOT being able to comprehend the reality in Latin America, or here. OUR leaders are crazy. Chavez and his many friends and allies in Latin America are NOT.