Robin, thank you for both incisive and insightful posts. I read your link to Daniel's as well. I have been following this story on sites like v-crisis.com and others.

I think we should all be very concerned about this, because I am far more concerned about this than I am about Islamofascism. I think we are going to see this emerge as a much greater threat than we are currently acknowledging.

It should be noted that Chavez is also making efforts to consolidate continental media, interfering with the political process in Bolivia, and funding the FARC.

I don't know about you, but I think it is only a matter of time before we are forced to intervene.

And didn't Machado recently meet with President Bush?

Yes - but not until this past month.

According to Bush and Machado, the meeting allowed the Director of the "non-partisan, civil society organization" Súmate, to share her concerns with Bush about what she considers to be the endangered state of democracy in Venezuela.

Venezuela’s Foreign Minister Ali Rodriguez interpreted the visit differently, calling the Bush-Machado meeting "a provocation," and warned that Washington's not-so-tacit support for Chávez' political adversaries could deteriorate an already tense relation and reach "a point of no return." Rodríguez speculated that the meeting "was the platform for launching Machado's US-backed presidential candidacy."

The Foreign Minister went on to add that the White House invitation clearly proves that this "civil society organization" is a mere agent of the U.S. government and plays a key role in the U.S.'s strategy of intervening in Venezuelan affairs. ''All we want is respect for our domestic affairs,'' Rodriguez said. ''We don't interfere in the internal affairs of the United States.''

Referring to White House and State Department spokespersons' now almost daily statements about improving US-Venezuelan relations, Rodríguez pointed out that while Machado was received by Bush in the White House, the Venezuelan Ambassador to the U.S., Bernardo Alvarez, still has not been able to meet with State Department officials.

Given the venomous personal attacks Chavez has made on Bush, Rice and others, I'm not really surprised .....

There was also this bit of info at the BBC yesterday:

Venezuela's central bank is bracing itself for a hostile takeover bid by an unlikely suitor: the government of President Hugo Chávez. Legislators loyal to Mr Chávez are close to approving a law that will allow the government to withdraw and spend at least $5bn (€4.2bn, £2.9bn) of the bank's international reserves, which currently stand at $29bn.

Thanks Jeff - you can read more of my analysis about that move here.

I remember months ago listening to Pacifica radio on the topic of Venuazelia. They see things radically different. It is kinda funny, and yet very sad and disturbing.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/19/1510210&mode=thread&tid=25

LARRY BIRNS: Well, not only has the United States -- the Bush administration -- been disrespectful, it abetted a coup. I think that you can't be much more disrespectful than that. Also, it's had a policy of glaring double standards and misrepresentation of the facts. The fact is that President Chavez, no matter how noisy and ravish he might be, has pretty much been a constitutional president. There have been minor human rights violations, if you take the opposition's charges seriously. But they're minor. He has respected free press, freedom of opinion. What nettles the opposition and the United States is he has got the numbers. That is, 90% of the Venezuelans are poor. That's his constituency. [Chavez wouldn't want to keep them poor would he?] 10%, the middle class and the upper class, have most of the consecrated wealth of the country, but they don't have the votes. And the middle class is becoming increasingly frustrated over this, and in fact, a former democratic president of Venezuela recently said that this isn't a matter of discussion. We have to kill Chavez. And, of course, recently, the administration -- I think it was Condoleezza Rice herself -- denounced the packing of the Supreme Court that President Chavez had done. I mean, he expanded the number of judges favorable to him, yes, but it’s interesting that in adjoining Colombia, which is Washington's principal ally in Latin America, President Uribe stormed through a piece of legislation that would not only deny Congress any later option to deny him the ability of a second term, but would ban the constitutional court from ruling -- which has been an opposition factor in the country -- from ruling that he cannot stand for another election. That is pure stuffing of the court as well, but this, of course, wasn't on the administration's agenda.

See it is OK for Chavez to be in power rather than...

Amy Goodman: Chavez was removed from power by a coalition of military officials and business leaders but returned to office two days later.

evil business leaders.

Man I really destroyed the spelling of Venezuela. Sorry.

Jeffrey,

I hate to be a defeatist, but I think we are going to look back on what you just posted 20 years from now and wonder why we missed that opportunity to be rid of him. Jimmy Carter will likewise be revealed historically, for the incompetent that he is. Like England before us, we are watching a fascist dictatorship take shape before our eyes; one that has significant resources, and one that that will have little or no opposition in toppling the rest of the countries immediately nearby; and one actively cavorting with known enemies like Iran, and pretending that its either not happening or that if we ignore it, it will get better.

I have read, Robin, a number of people argue that it is better for the United States to avoid directly or in the press confronting Chavez and his consolidation of power; arguing that his hold on power is tenuous, and that the undivided attention of the United States will only empower him and give credence to his paranoid US "oppression" rhetoric. (Of course, Jose Serrano D-NY isn't helping either)

But I don't see that Chavez is having any difficulty whatsoever consolidating power now. And lust for power never satisfies. I have no doubt that when the man has finished consolidating power in South America that he will look northward. I suspect he is even now, although I don't buy that the Atlantic's apocalyptic scenario is believable, even though Chavez and the Chinese may be contemplating it.

It is difficult to reverse the direction of past decisions. Carter had a choice to make.

http://www.odci.gov/csi/monograph/afghanistan/index.html

"Views among US policy officials were divided. Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, citing the absence of information indicating Soviet complicity in the communist coup, held out hope that even though the Afghan Government had now been seized by what he described as "radical leftists in the army," Soviet influence could be contained. He believed the best way to "maintain a measure of influence" was to sustain the limited US economic assistance that had been underway before the coup. He also reportedly supported arguments by the State Department's Bureau of Middle East and South Asian Affairs that the US should avoid actions that could push the new Afghan regime even closer to the USSR. President Carter's National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, saw the coup as part of a Soviet plan to acquire hegemony in the region. He is said to have favored cutting off US relations with Afghanistan and mounting covert operations to counter Soviet aspirations in the region. One former US Government official has said that Brzezinski was not concerned that such a policy course might provoke the Soviets because he believed they already were intent on taking control of Afghanistan.36

The State Department's approach for the most part prevailed. Washington officially recognized the new Afghan Government, maintained normal diplomatic relations, and continued modest economic aid at the pre-coup level. In July—about the same time the Parcham leaders were departing for their exile posts and Moscow was bolstering its advisory contingents—the United States named a new ambassador to Afghanistan, Adolph Dubs. Dubs vigorously supported a "holding action," which was designed to avoid driving the Afghan regime closer to Moscow and, hopefully, to encourage the regime eventually to lean in the opposite direction. Also in July, Undersecretary of State David Newsom made an official visit to Kabul to review the US economic aid program. He returned pessimistic about the situation there, but nonetheless met with the Shah of Iran on the same trip to reinforce US requests that Iran also try to work with the new Afghan regime.37"

It has taken decades of toil and as Bush likes to say "hard work" to overcome that moment in history. Afghanistan now has a chance.

It may seem that all is lost in South America. That there is much to overcome, however there can be positive change. The United States, like it or not, is acting forcefully on the world stage. Confrontation is a good means to shine light upon both sides. Will Chavez be seen to be in the right? Is the United States acting in the wrong? Not to most rational people, and those at Pacifica radio, to me, are far from rational. I guess that I am saying Robin's post is more accurate about the situation. Which one has more influence? I believe Robin does.

So there are problems rectifying past mistakes and there are problems which require decisions or choices to take effect in the coming years. See this post and decide if there is hope that history reports positivly on crucial decisions by this administration, and those that support them.

http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/007092.php

I am not smart enough to prescibe the cure for the ills of those like Chavez, but I am smart enough to research and decide if the actions are rightous. I guess that I hold onto the hope that the current Sec. of State believes in exporting freedom and supporting those that love democracy. Especially those in Venezuela.

Jeff, I should have been more specific. I was referring to Carter's overseeing of the distinctly corrupt Venezuelan elections that allowed Chavez to take power.

Chavez is an excellent example of how all our problems are not solved through the spread of democracy.

Johnnymozart

I know a lot of Venezuelans, and everyone of them despises Chavez.

But none of them have managed to delude themselves into believing that he wasn't legally elected under Venezuelan law.

Johnnymozart,

When you mention Carter and incompetence in the same sentence, it is sad that so much can come to mind. I had forgotten about his role overseeing the Venezuelan election. What may have been the last election for a long while. There certainly is much work to do to stem this tide.

Davebo, despite your slur about my so called "delusions", there was plenty of evidence of fraud in the Venezuelan elections, far more than the imaginary "disenfranchisement" in this country. Mary Anastasia O'Grady from Wall Street Journal, and Doug Schoen's firm characterized this. And then, of course, there's this.

At 3:00 on Monday morning two members of the National Electoral Council who are politically opposed to Chávez announced that they had been shut out of the audit process and warned the public that the established protocol had been violated. Some 50 minutes later pro-Chávez Electoral Council member Francisco Carrasquero emerged alone to proclaim Chávez the winner. There is much to question. Mr. ter Horst cites one example: "In the town of Valle de la Pascua, where papers were counted at the initiative of those manning the voting center, the "yes" vote had been cut by more than 75%, and the entire voting material was seized by the national guard shortly after the difference was established." "Yes" was a vote to remove Chávez.

I, too, have friends in Venezuela, and they are not as confident in the "legal election" of Chavez as you and Jimmy Carter seem to be. Delusion, indeed.

Chavez is an excellent example of how all our problems are not solved through the spread of democracy.

Actually, I think Chavez is an excellent example of the reliability of liberal assessments of free and fair elections.

Johnnymozart

I've read the Wall Street Journal Editorial pages take on the election.

Lets just say I'm less than impressed by the fact that the editorial page was willing to take up the fight but their news division was not.

The OAS and Carter's group certified the election. Meanwhile the we have the valiant efforts of the State Dept's National Endowment for Elections.

As you may recall, that's the federally funded organization that funneled more than $877,000 into Venezuela opposition groups in the weeks and months before the recently aborted coup attempt." More than $150,000 went to a Venezuelan labor union that led the opposition work stoppages and worked closely with Pedro Carmona Estanga, the businessman who led the coup.

Venezuela's election in 2002 wasn't perfect to be sure. But Chavez isn't the only person to blame for that.

As I inferred, I don't care for Chavez one bit. But I am forced to deal with facts, not editorials.

336 voting stations had almost identical result tallies, davebo. Even (as I posted) the statistician who made the original model for the Carter Center had to back down from that likelihood.

That's a fact.

Even Felten, from the Computer Science Department at Princeton, couldn't deny that absence of statistical evidence did not mean absence of fraud. He did not, hoever, note overt fraud, to your point. Here is their original paper:

http://www.venezuela-referendum.com/paper_en.pdf

There are also two Venezuelan professors from Harvard who take the opposite viewpoint and argue that there was a 99% chance of fraud.

http://www.vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200409061610

Perhaps you were right, and there was no fraud, but that is still debatable, and Jimmy Carter used his considerable clout to put a seal of approval on an election with limited observing staff, a flawed mathematical model, only one percent of precincts observed, long before it was appropriate to do so. And we can see the result.

This follow-up post fills in more of the regional story. I'm very concerned about trends in the area.

Democracy in action - one election one time.

Chavez is an excellent example of how all our problems are not solved through the spread of democracy.

Chavez is not a constitutional democrat; in a constitutional democracy, the man with the most votes doesn't get to change the rules.