|
parts (the true explanations of things), and sometimes even get the grammar wrong, as they try to convey the latest U.S. corpo/fascist spin. They are not to be trusted even when they are not doing their usual demonization number on Chavez, "friend of Fidel Castro."
The CIA no doubt understands very well why "the often outspoken Venezuelan leader" ("friend of Fidel Castro") has been "critical of the U.S.," and (heh-heh) critical of Obama "in the past." They and the Bushwhack operatives who remain lurking in the State Department have worked overtime to prevent any accord between this quite good democratic leader and our new administration. Indeed, I think the Associated Pukes were their waterboys in the Obama inauguration week spat. (Someone handed Obama an "exporting terrorism" script and arranged a Univision (rightwing Spanish language 'news' monopoly) interview amidst the festivities of Obama's inauguration; then AP went trotting to Chavez for a negative quote on Obama, and got one. Classic CIA psyops.)
So Chavez, the injured party--in that Obama faux pas, and of course in the U.S.-backed 2002 violent fascist coup attempt, and numerous other plots to topple Venezuelan democracy and destroy Chavez--"continued to soften his stance." :puke:
They also sometimes mistranslate Chavez, to make him look irrational, "dictatorial," anti-Semitic, or whatever else their purposes might be. I suspect a mistranslation of this "missile" remark. It doesn't make much sense. Perhaps Chavez was speaking idiomatically, or deliberately punning and AP just couldn't pick up the nuance, or didn't choose to? He said Obama's "missile has landed"? Or, "it's as if" Obama's "missile" has landed? The man is perfectly literate and well-read. He also generally speaks clearly, and says what he means. I suspect this is yet another AP gaffe, possibly deliberate (to garble his message of potential accord?). They almost never quote Chavez completely--that is, give him a few sentences in his own words, that might reveal his intended context. They paraphrase him, and then sometimes (as here) stick in a few phrases in quotation marks, in the course of the paraphrase. This is extremely bad journalism, but that is not all that it is. It is a crude propaganda technique to create the desired "spin."
This article also has the typical Associated Pukes' black-holes where information should be. They leave out Obama calling him a terrorist-lover in January. They leave out the Bushwhack attempted violent white separatist coup against Chavez ally, Evo Morales, in Bolivia this last September, in which the secessionists tried to split off Bolivia's gas and oil rich provinces into a fascist mini-state in control of the resources. They leave out why Chavez threw the U.S. ambassador out of Venezuela, recently (the attempted coup against Morales, and U.S. (Bushwhack) spying, funding of the rightwing opposition and colluding with secessionists in Venezuela's oil province--Zulia). And they leave out every other bit of crap the U.S./Bushwhacks have tried to pull against Chavez over the last eight years. And, of course, they leave out the whole history of the last century, in which the U.S. inflicted heinous dictatorships on Latin America.
Now to the gist of the article. Those who belittle Chavez--in this thread, with snarky remarks about Chavez's unimportance to the Obama administration, to us and to the world--fail to understand who this article came from, and what it is about. The Associated Pukes publish nothing that does not serve our corpo/fascist establishment, and nothing that is not vetted by those interests. What this article means is that our corpo/fascist establishment has been defeated in its efforts, a) to "divide and conquer" within the leadership of South America (mostly leftists), and b) to prevent a peaceful accord between Obama and Chavez. This establishment knows very well how popular Chavez is, in his own country and throughout the region, and leaders like Lula da Silva, president of Brazil, have gone out of their to stress this reality in South America to the new U.S. administration. They have urged Obama to abandon the Bushwhack tactic of "divide and conquer." They will not have it. They will not be "divided and conquered" as they have been in past decades. They are in accord with Chavez, personally, and in his government's social justice and sovereignty goals for Latin America.
The Associated Pukes would not be publishing this Chavez overture to Obama if they had not been told that there is a new U.S. policy in Latin America (something like, the U.S. will be working with the new leftist leadership, and leaving off the "divide and conquer" tactic, at least for now). That is what the article means, and why it was published. AP would have no scruples whatever about ignoring positive remarks by Chavez, if it suited the corpo/fascist establishment. As to garbling his message (with the "missile" thing--if that's what they did), they probably can't help themselves. They've apparently been asked to do a 180 on Chavez, because leaders like Lulu will not cooperate with the U.S. if the U.S., and the CIA, and its corpo/fascist 'news' monopolies keep up this bullshit.
So I take this article as possible good news. I must say, though, that Obama policy on Latin America has been wildly erratic. One week, they're practically calling Chavez a terrorist; the next week, they're praising Venezuela's democracy (re the referendum on term limits). This may be an artifact of the transition from Bushwhackism to Obama, and of course Obama's preoccupation with the Bushwhack Financial 9/11 and wars. Obama has been handed a pile of disasters and Bushwhack excrement to get us out of. This article may mean that he's finally climbing out of that stinking mountain to look around in our hemisphere, to see what putrid excrement he has to clean up here. I hope this is the case.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
