What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Much Are You Over-Paying For Your Auto Insurance view!
howlifeworks.com - Car insurance rates have dropped leaving many people paying far more than they need to...
258 Comments
- notque, on 11/29/2007, -30/+100A repeat of 2002. This time with multiple plans so they don't fail. The World Bank working together with the CIA to destroy a country trying to not be owned and run by the U.S.
Watch the revolution will not be televised, or read John Perkin's confessions of an economic hitman.
Or ask me questions. I study this stuff heavily. I can only do so much thoroughly, and for some strange reason I chose Venezuela a few years ago. I think it was the coup.
Anyway. Study the issue. - inactive, on 11/29/2007, -8/+41John Perkin's Confessions of an Economic Hitman is great a book.
Our media seldom talks about the atrocities of our terrorist organizations like the CIA and one would think we have a “free” press. - georgemason01, on 11/29/2007, -5/+35Even if there was an armed rebellion against Chavez, it wouldn't justify the U.S. military intervening. By intervening, it would only lead credence to the fact they were responsible for the insurrection in the first place.
Of course, that hasn't stopped them in the past - BobSconce, on 11/29/2007, -16/+45Better headline: Venezuela government invents propaganda to (1) convince its people that the US is trying to subvert their role, so they should vote for Chavez and (2) if there is an uprising, blame it on the US and not on dissatisfaction with Chavez.
It's asinine to think that the US is going to go into Venezuela when it doesn't have enough troops for Iraq and Afghanistan. - edebolt, on 11/29/2007, -11/+35Venezuela counter intelligence??? Have you ever traveled there? they can't even schedule flights.
Its a sympathy ploy to win his referendum - mstoneburner, on 11/29/2007, -8/+31Since when did the CIA start composing its memos in Spanish?
- aloeveraone, on 11/29/2007, -4/+24Whatever your opinion of Chavez, I don't think anyone can make a good case for US intervention. Particularly in Latin America, every time something like this has been carried out it has led to decades of right-wing military rule or civil war. Not to mention, this would completely destroy the little amount of support the US has left in South America.
- nodream, on 11/29/2007, -6/+25Guatemala 50's... Not like they haven't done this before.... Only cost a couple of hundred thousend lives last time... Incidentally removing a Democracy and installing a Dicator in the process. Google it.
- poidh, on 11/29/2007, -18/+34The sooner the Venezuelans get rid of Chavez, the better. He is ***** crazy
- phybere, on 11/29/2007, -6/+21This rings like propaganda for some reason - anybody have more sources/evidence supporting this article?
- arjie, on 11/29/2007, -11/+26They've been dabbling their fingers in South America so much, and set it back decades already. Why can't they just leave it alone? It's disgusting. They care about democracy my ass.
- wmtrader, on 11/29/2007, -13/+28
Absolute Bull ***** - aloeveraone, on 11/29/2007, -10/+23Yep. That's why in the eleven national elections since Chavez took office, international observers from the European Union, the Organization of American States, the Carter Center, and several other organizations have rated them all free and fair.
- wakananda, on 11/29/2007, -6/+19And for an example of a contrasting rigged election, read BBC reporter Greg Palast's "Armed Madhouse." US elections are totally cooked now.
- Ub3rg33k, on 11/29/2007, -4/+17Is there a link to this document? Not a link to what Chavez claimed it said or a "transcription", but an actual scanned copy of the document? If it was sent electronically, how about the email with full headers in tact?
- radink360, on 11/29/2007, -8/+21Doesn't our country have anything better to do?
- biggyfred, on 11/29/2007, -4/+16This is obviously a difficult thing to source, but how could someone authenticate something like this? I don't doubt my government's ability or desire to do this, but how does one go about proving that this actually happened?
It's not out of character for the US, but it's not out of character for the Chavez government either. Both sides have motive and opportunity. - notque, on 11/29/2007, -7/+18China, 1945-49:
Intervened in a civil war, taking the side of Chiang Kai-shek against the Communists, even though the latter had been a much closer ally of the United States in the world war. The U.S. used defeated Japanese soldiers to fight for its side. The Communists forced Chiang to flee to Taiwan in 1949.
Italy, 1947-48:
Using every trick in the book, the U.S. interfered in the elections to prevent the Communist Party from coming to power legally and fairly. This perversion of democracy was done in the name of "saving democracy" in Italy. The Communists lost. For the next few decades, the CIA, along with American corporations, continued to intervene in Italian elections, pouring in hundreds of millions of dollars and much psychological warfare to block the specter that was haunting Europe.
Greece, 1947-49:
Intervened in a civil war, taking the side of the neo-fascists against the Greek left which had fought the Nazis courageously. The neo-fascists won and instituted a highly brutal regime, for which the CIA created a new internal security agency, KYP. Before long, KYP was carrying out all the endearing practices of secret police everywhere, including systematic torture.
Philippines, 1945-53:
U.S. military fought against leftist forces (Huks) even while the Huks were still fighting against the Japanese invaders. After the war, the U. S. continued its fight against the Huks, defeating them, and then installing a series of puppets as president, culminating in the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos.
South Korea, 1945-53:
After World War II, the United States suppressed the popular progressive forces in favor of the conservatives who had collaborated with the Japanese. This led to a long era of corrupt, reactionary, and brutal governments.
Albania, 1949-53:
The U.S. and Britain tried unsuccessfully to overthrow the communist government and install a new one that would have been pro-Western and composed largely of monarchists and collaborators with Italian fascists and Nazis.
Germany, 1950s:
The CIA orchestrated a wide-ranging campaign of sabotage, terrorism, dirty tricks, and psychological warfare against East Germany. This was one of the factors which led to the building of the Berlin Wall in 1961.
Iran, 1953:
Prime Minister Mossadegh was overthrown in a joint U.S./British operation. Mossadegh had been elected to his position by a large majority of parliament, but he had made the fateful mistake of spearheading the movement to nationalize a British-owned oil company, the sole oil company operating in Iran. The coup restored the Shah to absolute power and began a period of 25 years of repression and torture, with the oil industry being restored to foreign ownership, as follows: Britain and the U.S., each 40 percent, other nations 20 percent.
Guatemala, 1953-1990s:
A CIA-organized coup overthrew the democratically-elected and progressive government of Jacobo Arbenz, initiating 40 years of death-squads, torture, disappearances, mass executions, and unimaginable cruelty, totaling well over 100,000 victims -indisputably one of the most inhuman chapters of the 20th century. Arbenz had nationalized the U.S. firm, United Fruit Company, which had extremely close ties to the American power elite. As justification for the coup, Washington declared that Guatemala had been on the verge of a Soviet takeover, when in fact the Russians had so little interest in the country that it didn't even maintain diplomatic relations. The real problem in the eyes of Washington, in addition to United Fruit, was the danger of Guatemala's social democracy spreading to other countries in Latin America.
Middle East, 1956-58:
The Eisenhower Doctrine stated that the United States "is prepared to use armed forces to assist" any Middle East country "requesting assistance against armed aggression from any country controlled by international communism." The English translation of this was that no one would be allowed to dominate, or have excessive influence over, the middle east and its oil fields except the United States, and that anyone who tried would be, by definition, "Communist." In keeping with this policy, the United States twice attempted to overthrow the Syrian government, staged several shows-of-force in the Mediterranean to intimidate movements opposed to U.S.-supported governments in Jordan and Lebanon, landed 14,000 troops in Lebanon, and conspired to overthrow or assassinate Nasser of Egypt and his troublesome middle-east nationalism.
Indonesia, 1957-58:
Sukarno, like Nasser, was the kind of Third World leader the United States could not abide. He took neutralism in the cold war seriously, making trips to the Soviet Union and China (though to the White House as well). He nationalized many private holdings of the Dutch, the former colonial power. He refused to crack down on the Indonesian Communist Party, which was walking the legal, peaceful road and making impressive gains electorally. Such policies could easily give other Third World leaders "wrong ideas." The CIA began throwing money into the elections, plotted Sukarno's assassination, tried to blackmail him with a phony sex film, and joined forces with dissident military officers to wage a full-scale war against the government. Sukarno survived it all.
British Guiana/Guyana, 1953-64:
For 11 years, two of the oldest democracies in the world, Great Britain and the United States, went to great lengths to prevent a democratically elected leader from occupying his office. Cheddi Jagan was another Third World leader who tried to remain neutral and independent. He was elected three times. Although a leftist-more so than Sukarno or Arbenz-his policies in office were not revolutionary. But he was still a marked man, for he represented Washington's greatest fear: building a society that might be a successful example of an alternative to the capitalist model. Using a wide variety of tactics-from general strikes and disinformation to terrorism and British legalisms, the U. S. and Britain finally forced Jagan out in 1964. John F. Kennedy had given a direct order for his ouster, as, presumably, had Eisenhower.
One of the better-off countries in the region under Jagan, Guyana, by the 1980s, was one of the poorest. Its principal export became people.
Vietnam, 1950-73:
The slippery slope began with siding with ~ French, the former colonizers and collaborators with the Japanese, against Ho Chi Minh and his followers who had worked closely with the Allied war effort and admired all things American. Ho Chi Minh was, after all, some kind of Communist. He had written numerous letters to President Truman and the State Department asking for America's help in winning Vietnamese independence from the French and finding a peaceful solution for his country. All his entreaties were ignored. Ho Chi Minh modeled the new Vietnamese declaration of independence on the American, beginning it with "All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with ..." But this would count for nothing in Washington. Ho Chi Minh was some kind of Communist.
Twenty-three years and more than a million dead, later, the United States withdrew its military forces from Vietnam. Most people say that the U.S. lost the war. But by destroying Vietnam to its core, and poisoning the earth and the gene pool for generations, Washington had achieved its main purpose: preventing what might have been the rise of a good development option for Asia. Ho Chi Minh was, after all, some kind of communist.
Cambodia, 1955-73:
Prince Sihanouk was yet another leader who did not fancy being an American client. After many years of hostility towards his regime, including assassination plots and the infamous Nixon/Kissinger secret "carpet bombings" of 1969-70, Washington finally overthrew Sihanouk in a coup in 1970. This was all that was needed to impel Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge forces to enter the fray. Five years later, they took power. But five years of American bombing had caused Cambodia's traditional economy to vanish. The old Cambodia had been destroyed forever.
Incredibly, the Khmer Rouge were to inflict even greater misery on this unhappy land. To add to the irony, the United States supported Pol Pot, militarily and diplomatically, after their subsequent defeat by the Vietnamese. - cheesehead, on 11/29/2007, -7/+18Also recommended viewing would be "The War on Democracy". It covers 50 years of Whitehouse secret wars on Latin American countries. It's on utube.
- benjpw, on 11/29/2007, -4/+14Did you really just call the press liberal? I'm digging you down. The press is money driven - it has no liberal ideology. (Or really conservative for that matter).
- notque, on 11/29/2007, -7/+17You should blame American first for it's atrocities because you live here.
In Soviet Russia, you were allowed to talk about others atrocities. That was acceptable and encouraged. Just not your own.
All government's allow you to talk about atrocities of official enemies. Real freedom is discussing your own. - notque, on 11/29/2007, -3/+12Then why did we target Venezuela before that even became an issue?
He's wrong. It may be another straw on the camel's back, but it certainly isn't primary. The primary reason is that we are unable to profit off their natural resources. By Hugo Chavez following the populations wishes, we lose a ton of money, and access.
It also becomes what planners have called a "domino effect." If one country gets out of line, others will follow. That's shown by Bolivia and Ecuador, although they are under much more CIA control (I could explain why... ask..)
It's not just Oil. In Bolivia it's gas. (and oil..)
Latin America is complete U.S. Domination, no one is allowed to get out of line from U.S. policy and they have a variety of tricks to keep them there.
We used to fund it entirely out of the CIA. Now we use the World Bank as the middle man. - foopirata, on 11/29/2007, -10/+18FTA: "On a scarier note, an internal CIA memorandum has been obtained by Venezuelan counterintelligence from the US Embassy in Caracas that reveals a very sinister"
It's interesting that so many people are ready to make the CIA the worst bunch of people in the world (which I personally don't think they are), while giving all the credibility to the "Venezuelan counterintelligence", without an iota of doubt. Do we see the memo? No. But you fools take their words just as well.
Just pointing out the inherent hypocrisy in that position. - notque, on 11/29/2007, -2/+10Excellent video.
- notque, on 11/29/2007, -4/+12http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjPoeQRewiE
Video of him interviewed on Democracy Now!
Watch and listen to his videos. Him talking. He explains our techniques explicitly, and there is a ton of collaborating evidence. - Lebrun, on 11/29/2007, -12/+20More fake US plots from the fake "revolution".
Buried as Inacurate. - biggyfred, on 11/29/2007, -3/+10That detail stuck out for me as well. Why would you translate the entire thing, but not release the original at the same time?
- notque, on 11/29/2007, -4/+11I have done work on the other side, but the important part is understanding where you live, because you can actually do something about it. I'm responsible for America's crimes, I'm not responsible for other countries crimes. It's useful to understand them, but it has no moral value whatsoever complaining about other countries crimes I have no control over.
It doesn't make them any less bad, but all countries allow you to do research on other countries crimes. In Russia you could talk all you wanted to about America'a crimes, but couldn't speak of Russian crimes.
Here, our crimes aren't considered either. It takes real effort and work to understand them since they are kept off public discourse.
They are not the opposite of Russia and China. We act as all superpowers do. For our hegmony. For our benefit.
I am not a communist, or a marxist.
If I harbor such feelings against the government then I should stay and change it. You just wish to marginalize people who want to openly discuss our actions. That's unamerican.
You show your lack of dignity and maturity at the end. - benjpw, on 11/29/2007, -7/+14BTW - Look up the CIA's dealing in South America in the past 20 years to realize why South America is so anti-American.
I know everyone loves Ronald Regan but when you look at his actions in South America you cant help but to come to the conclusion that he was one of the worst presidents in American history for foreign policy. The Iran-Contra scandal, supplying Pinochet and training his troops with the Army School of the Americas (they even assassinated an American citizen-journalist in the stadium with the CIA STANDING there giving the OK). (There is a great story about this by the father of the son who was assassinated - he was a huge Regan republican - then went down to South America, learned what happened and made it his lifes mission to fight for his sons memory after that). Check out the assisntation of the arch-bishop by an American trained sniper. Check out our intervention in Panama.
Since Bush follows the Reganite doctrine (talk about conservative fiscal policy (which is a whole other ballgame), hit up on moral issues, and then ruin other countries economies and politics for our own economic gain - this is not surprising. - davidlow, on 11/29/2007, -5/+12@notque, What do you think of Ron Paul's notion that the U.S. is targetting Venezuela, Iraq and Iran only because of their willingness to accept non-U.S. currency in exchange for oil? Ron Paul's essay describing this, which he read before the House of Representatives on February 15th, 2006, is here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul303.html
- davidlow, on 11/29/2007, -1/+8Mr. Paul addresses you question, above, in the essay when he says, "In 2001, Venezuela’s ambassador to Russia spoke of Venezuela switching to the Euro for all their oil sales. Within a year there was a coup attempt against Chavez, reportedly with assistance from our CIA."
I would agree with you about there being many straws, but I'm not well enough informed to take on Mr. Paul's points. I present them to you as a student with questions. Your book recommendations are appreciated. Thanks again. - edwards2004, on 11/29/2007, -12/+19You won't read this in the liberal press. Rory Carroll wrote a piece in the Guardian about Venezuela today. Not a word about the CIA memo.
- ithinkican, on 11/29/2007, -5/+12Chances are a memo released by the Venezuelan Government inditing the US in a plot to over throw the government is directed at creating US opposition, and thus support for passing their referendum of an unlimited term for there so called president.
- SirFoxx, on 11/29/2007, -2/+8This has been going on since Teddy Roosevelt. He said then that we would intervene in any country to make sure as to maintain American dominance on this side of the planet.
- zombies187, on 11/29/2007, -1/+7"I'm responsible for America's crimes, I'm not responsible for other countries crimes. It's useful to understand them, but it has no moral value whatsoever complaining about other countries crimes I have no control over."
Well said! I hope that people who aren't bothered by our efforts to destabilize countries realize soon that it hurts real people and makes us look bad. If Venezuela is so awful, it should ***** up on it's own. The fact that we need to destabilize it for it to fall apart should really tell us something. - mastreips, on 11/29/2007, -5/+11While it would be naive to believe that the US does not manipulate politics beyond own its borders I have to say - given the source of the information and the nature of the Chavez regime - that this is pure alarmist propaganda issued by supporters of the Chavez constitutional reform movement before the coming election. I wouldn't give it another thought except that it certainly shows a lot of creativity on the part of the author.
- llvllatrix, on 11/29/2007, -1/+7It's a matter of consistency. Based on historical records, the CIA has had it's hand in South America for a long time. I would be surprised if they are not there now. If you don't believe me then do the research yourself. Here are some wikipedia links to start you off:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Noriega
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro#Assassin ...
On the other hand, I've experienced major news networks like CNN and FOX lying via confirmation bias first hand. I was in Venezuela when the country went on strike, as the news would have you believe. I saw about 50 people on the side of the road and about 15 on bicycles over the span of a week.
To answer your question directly, I don't give much stature to Fox news at all. Again, I encourage you to check your sources. The most consistent I've found thus far are historical records. - llvllatrix, on 11/29/2007, -5/+11While I admire your rigor, and don't get me wrong, I'm waiting for the source of this information my self, I give more credence to a report like this than something I hear on say Fox news; you know, stuff like WMDs in Iraq and a potential terrorist attack on the 2k8 elections (which was pure speculation for those keeping score).
- biggyfred, on 11/29/2007, -11/+16Perhaps you should actually ensure the accuracy of the report before you believe it. If you accept any source that supports your beliefs, then I have to question your "study" habits.
If you can authenticate the accuracy, I'm all ears. Otherwise you're part of the problem, even if this turns out to be true. - sovereign3, on 11/29/2007, -5/+10It is propaganda. I amazed this is even on Digg... twice! I dugg the first bogus story down as 'inaccurate' and did the same for this one as well. The timing of this alleged CIA memo works solely to the advantage of Chavez because this memo is leaked ahead of a referendum intended to give Chavez more power. If he can convince his citizens that our intelligence service is actively intervening in Venezuelan politics, he can gain votes in spite of his unpopularity and continue to rule that country as the dictator he is.
This story is complete and utter nonsense. The alleged US intel memo was created in Spanish for crying out loud! - notque, on 11/29/2007, -0/+5Also, An official inquiry 30 years after the coup found evidence of approximately 30,000 cases of torture during the Pinochet regime.
- aman78, on 11/29/2007, -1/+6Great. these imperialist bastards have nothing better to do then kill people and destabilize countries so that they can rape a country's resources.
- BobsYourUncle, on 11/29/2007, -7/+12No, this doesn't look biased at all... I'm not American and this still stinks.
- notque, on 11/29/2007, -0/+55 thousand people rounded up and slaughtered don't count?
- notque, on 11/29/2007, -13/+18What are you questioning specifically? Our previous coup of Hugo Chavez? Do you want evidence?
- notque, on 11/29/2007, -7/+12The Congo/Zaire, 1960-65:
In June 1960, Patrice Lumumba became the Congo's first prime minister after independence from Belgium. But Belgium retained its vast mineral wealth in Katanga province, prominent Eisenhower administration officials had financial ties to the same wealth, and Lumumba, at Independence Day ceremonies before a host of foreign dignitaries, called for the nation's economic as well as its political liberation, and recounted a list of injustices against the natives by the white owners of the country. The man was obviously a "Communist." The poor man was obviously doomed.
Eleven days later, Katanga province seceded, in September, Lumumba was dismissed by the president at the instigation of the United States, and in January 1961 he was assassinated at the express request of Dwight Eisenhower. There followed several years of civil conflict and chaos and the rise to power of Mobutu Sese Seko, a man not a stranger to the CIA. Mobutu went on to rule the country for more than 30 years, with a level of corruption and cruelty that shocked even his CIA handlers. The Zairian people lived in abject poverty despite the plentiful natural wealth, while Mobutu became a multibillionaire.
Brazil, 1961-64:
President Joao Goulart was guilty of the usual crimes: He took an independent stand in foreign policy, resuming relations with socialist countries and opposing sanctions against Cuba; his administration passed a law limiting the amount of profits multinationals could transmit outside the country; a subsidiary of ITT was nationalized; he promoted economic and social reforms. And Attorney-General Robert Kennedy was uneasy about Goulart allowing "communists" to hold positions in government agencies. Yet the man was no radical. He was a millionaire land-owner and a Catholic who wore a medal of the Virgin around his neck. That, however, was not enough to save him. In 1964, he was overthrown in a military coup which had deep, covert American involvement. The official Washington line was...yes, it's unfortunate that democracy has been overthrown in Brazil...but, still, the country has been saved from communism.
For the next 15 years, all the features of military dictatorship that Latin America has come to know were instituted: Congress was shut down, political opposition was reduced to virtual extinction, habeas corpus for "political crimes" was suspended, criticism of the president was forbidden by law, labor unions were taken over by government interveners, mounting protests were met by police and military firing into crowds, peasants' homes were burned down, priests were brutalized...disappearances, death squads, a remarkable degree and depravity of torture...the government had a name for its program: the "moral rehabilitation" of Brazil.
Washington was very pleased. Brazil broke relations with Cuba and became one of the United States' most reliable allies in Latin America.
Dominican Republic, 1963-66:
In February 1963, Juan Bosch took office as the first democratically elected president of the Dominican Republic since 1924. Here at last was John F. Kennedy's liberal anti-Communist, to counter the charge that the U.S. supported only military dictatorships. Bosch's government was to be the long sought " showcase of democracy " that would put the lie to Fidel Castro. He was given the grand treatment in Washington shortly before he took office.
Bosch was true to his beliefs. He called for land reform, low-rent housing, modest nationalization of business, and foreign investment provided it was not excessively exploitative of the country and other policies making up the program of any liberal Third World leader serious about social change. He was likewise serious about civil liberties: Communists, or those labeled as such, were not to be persecuted unless they actually violated the law.
A number of American officials and congresspeople expressed their discomfort with Bosch's plans, as well as his stance of independence from the United States. Land reform and nationalization are always touchy issues in Washington, the stuff that "creeping socialism" is made of. In several quarters of the U.S. press Bosch was red-baited.
In September, the military boots marched. Bosch was out. The United States, which could discourage a military coup in Latin America with a frown, did nothing.
Nineteen months later, a revolt broke out which promised to put the exiled Bosch back into power. The United States sent 23,000 troops to help crush it.
Cuba, 1959 to present:
Fidel Castro came to power at the beginning of 1959. A U.S. National Security Council meeting of March 10, 1959 included on its agenda the feasibility of bringing "another government to power in Cuba." There followed 40 years of terrorist attacks, bombings, full-scale military invasion, sanctions, embargoes, isolation, assassinations...Cuba had carried out The Unforgivable Revolution, a very serious threat of setting a "good example" in Latin America.
The saddest part of this is that the world will never know what kind of society Cuba could have produced if left alone, if not constantly under the gun and the threat of invasion, if allowed to relax its control at home. The idealism, the vision, the talent were all there. But we'll never know. And that of course was the idea.
Indonesia, 1965:
A complex series of events, involving a supposed coup attempt, a counter-coup, and perhaps a counter-counter-coup, with American fingerprints apparent at various points, resulted in the ouster from power of Sukarno and his replacement by a military coup led by General Suharto. The massacre that began immediately-of Communists, Communist sympathizers, suspected Communists, suspected Communist sympathizers, and none of the above-was called by the New York Times "one of the most savage mass slayings of modern political history." The estimates of the number killed in the course of a few years begin at half a million and go above a million.
It was later learned that the U.S. embassy had compiled lists of "Communist" operatives, from top echelons down to village cadres, as many as 5,000 names, and turned them over to the army, which then hunted those persons down and killed them. The Americans would then check off the names of those who had been killed or captured. "It really was a big help to the army. They probably killed a lot of people, and I probably have a lot of blood on my hands," said one U.S. diplomat. "But that's not all bad. There's a time when you have to strike hard at a decisive moment. "
Chile, 1964-73:
Salvador Allende was the worst possible scenario for a Washington imperialist. He could imagine only one thing worse than a Marxist in power-an elected Marxist in power, who honored the constitution, and became increasingly popular. This shook the very foundation stones on which the anti-Communist tower was built: the doctrine, painstakingly cultivated for decades, that "communists" can take power only through force and deception, that they can retain that power only through terrorizing and brainwashing the population.
After sabotaging Allende's electoral endeavor in 1964, and failing to do so in 1970, despite their best efforts, the CIA and the rest of the American foreign policy machine left no stone unturned in their attempt to destabilize the Allende government over the next three years, paying particular attention to building up military hostility. Finally, in September 1973, the military overthrew the government, Allende dying in the process.
They closed the country to the outside world for a week, while the tanks rolled and the soldiers broke down doors; the stadiums rang with the sounds of execution and the bodies piled up along the streets and floated in the river; the torture centers opened for business; the subversive books were thrown into bonfires; soldiers slit the trouser legs of women, shouting that "In Chile women wear dresses!"; the poor returned to their natural state; and the men of the world in Washington and in the halls of international finance opened up their check- books. In the end, more than 3,000 had been executed, thousands more tortured or disappeared.
Greece, 1964-74:
The military coup took place in April 1967, just two days before the campaign for j national elections was to begin, elections which appeared certain to bring the veteran liberal leader George Papandreou back as prime minister. Papandreou had been elected in February 1964 with the only outright majority in the history of modern Greek elections. The successful machinations to unseat him had begun immediately, a joint effort of the Royal Court, the Greek military, and the American military and CIA stationed in Greece. The 1967 coup was followed immediately by the traditional martial law, censorship, arrests, beatings, torture, and killings, the victims totaling some 8,000 in the first month. This was accompanied by the equally traditional declaration that this was all being done to save the nation from a "Communist takeover." Corrupting and subversive influences in Greek life were to be removed. Among these were miniskirts, long hair, and foreign newspapers; church attendance for the young would be compulsory.
It was torture, however, which most indelibly marked the seven-year Greek nightmare. James Becket, an American attorney sent to Greece by Amnesty International, wrote in December 1969 that "a conservative estimate would place at not less than two thousand" the number of people tortured, usually in the most gruesome of ways, often with equipment supplied by the United States.
Becket reported the following: Hundreds of prisoners have listened to the little speech given by Inspector Basil Lambrou, who sits behind his desk which displays the red, white, and blue clasped-hand symbol of American aid. He tries to show the prisoner the absolute futility of resistance: "You make yourself ridiculous by thinking you can do anything. The world is divided in two. There are the communists on that side and on this side the free world. The Russians and the Americans, no one else. What are we? Americans. Behind me there is the government, behind the government is NATO, behind NATO is the U.S. You can't fight us, we are Americans."
George Papandreou was not any kind of radical. He was a liberal anti-Communist type. But his son Andreas, the heir-apparent, while only a little to the left of his father had not disguised his wish to take Greece out of the Cold War, and had questioned remaining in NATO, or at least as a satellite of the United States.
East Timor, 1975 to present:
In December 1975, Indonesia invaded East Timor, which lies at the eastern end of the Indonesian archipelago, and which had proclaimed its independence after Portugal had relinquished control of it. The invasion was launched the day after U. S. President Gerald Ford and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had left Indonesia after giving Suharto permission to use American arms, which, under U.S. Iaw, could not be used for aggression. Indonesia was Washington's most valuable tool in Southeast Asia.
Amnesty International estimated that by 1989, Indonesian troops, with the aim of forcibly annexing East Timor, had killed 200,000 people out of a population of between 600,000 and 700,000. The United States consistently supported Indonesia's claim to East Timor (unlike the UN and the EU), and downplayed the slaughter to a remarkable degree, at the same time supplying Indonesia with all the military hardware and training it needed to carry out the job.
Nicaragua, 1978-89:
When the Sandinistas overthrew the Somoza dictatorship in 1978, it was clear to Washington that they might well be that long-dreaded beast-"another Cuba." Under President Carter, attempts to sabotage the revolution took diplomatic and economic forms. Under Reagan, violence was the method of choice. For eight terribly long years, the people of Nicaragua were under attack by Washington's proxy army, the Contras, formed from Somoza's vicious National Guard and other supporters of the dictator. It was all-out war, aiming to destroy the progressive social and economic programs of the government, burning down schools and medical clinics, raping, torturing, mining harbors, bombing and strafing. These were Ronald Reagan's "freedom fighters." There would be no revolution in Nicaragua.
Grenada, 1979-84:
What would drive the most powerful nation in the world to invade a country of 110,000? Maurice Bishop and his followers had taken power in a 1979 coup, and though their actual policies were not as revolutionary as Castro's, Washington was again driven by its fear of "another Cuba," particularly when public appearances by the Grenadian leaders in other countries of the region met with great enthusiasm.
U. S. destabilization tactics against the Bishop government began soon after the coup and continued until 1983, featuring numerous acts of disinformation and dirty tricks. The American invasion in October 1983 met minimal resistance, although the U.S. suffered 135 killed or wounded; there were also some 400 Grenadian casualties, and 84 Cubans, mainly construction workers.
At the end of 1984, a questionable election was held which was won by a man supported by the Reagan administration. One year later, the human rights organization, Council on Hemispheric Affairs, reported that Grenada's new U.S.-trained police force and counter-insurgency forces had acquired a reputation for brutality, arbitrary arrest, and abuse of - nicku, on 11/29/2007, -3/+8Henry Kissinger involved?
- robfis, on 11/29/2007, -5/+10November 20,2007
MEMORANDUM CONFIDENCIAL
De: Michael Middleton Steere, US Embassy
Para: Michael Hayden, Director Agencia Central de Inteligencia.
Asunto: Avance de la Fase Terminal de la Operación Tenaza
Tomando en consideración los anteriores avances documentales en torno a la Operación Tenaza que coordina Humint en Venezuela según la directiva 3623-g-0217, cumplo en informarle para los fines consiguientes, del status actual de dicha operación, la cual entra en su fase terminal según lo estimado.
En forma resumida, presentamos los diversos escenarios puntualizados en los memoradum anteriores, los cuales en las últimas semanas adquieren nuevos desarrollos:
1) Escenario Electoral.
Tal como lo puntualicé en el informe precedente, las tendencias de intenciones de voto se mantienen. Hasta ahora las distintas mediciones realizadas, incluidas las nuestras, le dan al SI una ventaja entre 10 y 13 puntos ( 57 % SI, 44% NO ).Tal estimación porcentual se dan en el marco de una abstención que ronda el 60% de los votantes inscritos.
Nuestros análisis, observan que esta tendencia es irreversible en el corto plazo, es decir, en los próximos quince (15) días no se pueden modificar esos porcentajes de una manera significativa.
Por otro lado, la campaña publicitaria promovida por el Plan y las deserciones de las filas gubernamentales ( Podemos- Baduel, por ejemplo ) han logrado quitarle a Chávez 6 puntos en su posición de arranque inicial, tal como NO había ocurrido en otras campañas, donde ha partido con una ventaja entre 15 y 20 % Sin embargo, se puede esperar un congelamiento del impacto esperado, ya que tales tendencias tocaron piso.
En tal sentido, esta oficina recomienda ejecutar lo previsto en el Plan para la Operación Tenaza en el caso de consolidarse en los próximos días este escenario. Como es de su conocimiento hemos propuesto un abanico de respuestas, entre las que están:
Impedir el referéndum o desconocer sus resultados aún cuando se llame a votar por el NO.
En términos de orientación táctica estas bisagras pueden dar la impresión de ser contradictorias, pero para el momento político coyuntural es necesaria su combinación. En los días que quedan podemos seguir fortaleciendo las actividades que apuntan a impedir el referéndum y al mismo tiempo preparar las condiciones para desconocer los resultados del mismo.
En el acondicionamiento político del no reconocimiento de los resultados del referéndum, ha resultado importante la creación de la matriz de opinión sobre un triunfo seguro del NO y en tal sentido seguiremos trabajando con las encuestadoras que hemos contratado. Al mismo tiempo que mantenemos una sostenida campaña por el NO, se viene trabajando en la crítica al CNE y su conexión con una serie de trampas, lo cual genera en la opinión pública la sensación de fraude. En ese sentido hemos venido insistiendo en los tópicos referido a las inconsistencia del registro electoral permanente, donde contactamos con un equipo de expertos de las universidades, que por su prestigio académico hace creíble una manipulación de la data por parte del CNE, igual ocurre sobre las dudas sobre la tinta y el comportamiento de las máquinas de votación.
En este contexto, empantanar el acto de votación el día 2 de Diciembre es consustancial con la premisa de VOTA Y QUEDATE para poder producir una implosión que nos permita ejecutar la directiva ya establecida en la Operación Tenaza. En este último aspecto hemos convenido con fuerzas aliadas comenzar a dar información en las primeras horas de la tarde del Domingo 2 de Diciembre, explotando los sondeos preliminares en las mesas de votación. La operación montada requiere de una coordinación con medios de comunicación a nivel internacional, según lo pautado.
Como hemos explicado en otro documento, manejarnos en estos dos escenario no deja de ser políticamente peligroso, por la fractura que existe en los grupos opositores. A pesar de nuestro esfuerzo por unir a todos los sectores, hay opiniones encontradas en torno a algunos aspectos de nuestro Plan. Hemos realizado contactos y reuniones con Primero Justicia y Nuevo Tiempo y al parecer no van a suscribir nuestra estrategia. Todo lo contrario del Comando Nacional de la Resistencia y Acción Democrática, con quienes venimos trabajando las dos opciones. Aquí es necesario resaltar el papel que viene desempeñando Peña Esclusa y Guyon Cellis según las coordinaciones previas realizadas por Richard Nazario, en lo relativo a diseminar en todo el territorio nacional pequeños focos de protestas, que generen un clima de ingobernabilidad, permitiendo culminar en el levantamiento general de una parte sustancial de la población.
Sin embargo, considero conveniente que este nexo operacional lo canalice la oficina para evitarle complicaciones a la embajada
2) Las tareas inmediatas de la fase terminal
La combinación de las anteriores pinzas o bisagras (impedir el referéndum, denunciar el fraude y tomar la calle )para un cierre victorioso de nuestra operación, demanda de un sostenido esfuerzo diplomático para aislar aún más a Chávez en el terreno internacional, tratar de lograr la unidad de la oposición y buscar la alianza de los abstencionistas y los que votan por el NO, incrementar la presión de calle en los días previos al 2 de Diciembre, sostener con firmeza la propaganda contra el régimen, ejecutar las acciones militares de apoyo a las movilizaciones y tomas propagandísticas, culminar los aprestos operacionales de nuestras fuerzas acantonadas en la Base aledaña. El apoyo de los equipos externos provenientes del país verde y azul, esta coordinado, la acción marítima de azul esta prevista y, las fronteras con verde en los puntos determinados esta libre.
De inmediato pasamos revista a las actividades realizadas para cumplir con tales metas:
A) En cuanto a las movilizaciones de calle, tal como lo contempla el Plan, hemos logrado persuadir a importantes sectores estudiantiles vinculados a las instituciones educativas privadas para que se incorporen orgánicamente a nuestras iniciativas para salir de Chávez. En la tercera semana de Noviembre se logró un acuerdo marco con los lideres emergentes que han acogido nuestro ideario de democracia y libertad, varias reuniones de trabajo hemos realizados, bajo la coordinación de los rectores Rudolph Benjamín Scharikker Podolski de la Universidad Simón Bolívar y Ugalde de la Universidad Católica Andrés Bellos. Estas autoridades han constituido un equipo donde participan unos grupos de profesores entre los que destacan Ángel Oropeza y su equipo del post-grado de Ciencias Políticas. A las reuniones han asistido dirigentes estudiantiles de varias universidades: Yon Goicochea de la Universidad Católica Andrés Bello (UCAB), Juan A. Mejías de la Universidad Simón Bolívar (USB), Douglas Barrios de la Universidad Metropolitana, Ronel Gaglio de la Universidad Monte Ávila, Gabriel Gallo de la Universidad Santa María. Entre estos líderes hay consenso en términos generales, pero con algunas diferencias en cuanto a las acciones concretas para los próximos días. Ha resulltado halagador la postura asumido por dirigentes estudiantiles de un grupo denominado Bandera Roja, antiguamente enemigo jurado de los intereses nuestros en el país. Su dirigente Ricardo Sánchez, de la Universidad Central de Venezuela, fue uno de los que apoyo nuestra propuesta de acciones de calle directas contra las instituciones: CNE, Tribunal Supremo de Justicia y el Palacio de Miraflores. De todos modos, hay que seguir trabajando la unidad de acción de estos grupos, ya que hay peligro de fractura bajo la premisa de la no violencia y las exigencias operacionales que se contemplan en el Plan, siendo parte de la misma realidad contradictoria que evaluamos en el escenario electoral, ya que en estos grupos estudiantiles influyen tanto el Comando Nacional de la Resistencia como Primero Justicia y en su seno se expresan las diversas posturas partidistas.
B) Como usted sabe, uno de los objetivos de la Operación Tenaza es controlar una franja territorial o institucional, con apoyo masivo de ciudadanos descontentos, en un lapso contemplado entre 72 y 120 horas, tiempo estimado como lapso mínimo para detonar la fase ascendente de las acciones prevista, donde se contempla el pronunciamiento militar. En esto no están comprometidos todos los sectores, por lo que demandamos una mayor actividad del equipo dedicado a construir nuestras alianzas. Particular importancia tiene los contactos y reuniones con los oficiales de los diversos componentes, particularmente de la Guardia Nacional. Si bien el enlace que anteriormente la oficina central envió hizo su tarea, la coordinación con esta fuerza clave no ha sido fácil por la dispersión de sus comandos.
En este ámbito, como ya está enterado por el mensaje de emergencia enviado, uno de los equipos coordinado por nuestro enlace operativo fue detectado y decomisado parte del armamento, lo cual ha generado algunas dificultades de seguridad. Ante los peligros de utilización política de los hechos conocidos públicamente, hay que preparar unas coartadas y contrapropaganda que evite el impacto desmoralizante de algunas imputaciones que de seguro hará el gobierno, dado a los rastros encontrados en algunos celulares y en la lapto decomisada.
C) En la esfera de la propaganda y las operaciones psicológicas contempladas en el Plan en curso, es donde hemos cosechado los mayores éxitos, hasta tal punto que en las últimas semanas hemos impuesto nuestra agenda y dominado la escena publicitaria. Los aportes de la SIP y de las agencias internacionales han sido clave. Especial reconocimiento merece Benjamín Gregg ZIF, AAPP de la Embajada , por este trabajo. El y el equipo organizado por Ravell viene rindiendo sus frutos y requiere en esta última fase mayores aportes nuestros.
En este último aspecto debo informarle que de los $8 millones que fueron transferidos casi todo han sido gastado en propaganda, publicidad y contribuciones a algunas de las organizaciones de fachada.
En este último caso, hemos tenido dificultades con la Development Alternative INC, ya que la inteligencia enemiga tiene ubicada nuestra conexión con el señor Gerson Patete y tienen monitoreada la cuenta corriente del Banco Mercantil, No 0105-0026-59-102636243-1. Es urgente no seguir haciendo transferencia a esa cuenta y establecer otro canal para el financiamiento contemplados en esta fase de la Operación Tenaza. - notque, on 11/29/2007, -4/+9Do you, or do you not believe it's credible that the U.S. may attempt another coup on Hugo Chavez after the unsuccessful one in 2002?
- biggyfred, on 11/29/2007, -8/+13I realize that many of you think quite poorly of America. I realize and appreciate the long and storied history of American abuse during its tenure.
Spouting off about something as obviously marginal as this is absurd. Seriously, what proof do you have, what proof have you seen that categorically supports evidence of this counter intelligence operation? Facts are fundamental, kids. People wonder why a significant portion of Americans are so put off by other views. Willingness to jump all over them for questionable and 100% unauthenticated material would be a significant and reasonable excuse.
Plus it makes you look like a major league ***** douchebag. -
Show 51 - 100 of 262 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is