WaPo's Eugene Robinson: "When Slapped, Slap Back" re: Obama-Chavez PLUS an excellent response

[magbana]

Here is the URL for Eugene Robinson's WaPo article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/20/AR2009042002814.html


Here is an excellent response that a friend of mine sent Robinson:
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: When Slapped?
From: "Gunnar B Gundersen" <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, April 21, 2009 10:25 am
To: [e-mail]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr. Robinson,

I read your article, "When Slapped, Slap Back."

It is a sign of the arrogance of people in the United States that having
Latin Americans discuss the atrocities, interference, and undemocratic
manipulation in the affairs of our hemispheric neighbors is considered a
"slap." I suppose it would be a "slap" if it were not the simple truth. I
wonder what Rigoberta Menchu would have to say about your analysis.

Also, you fall into the trap of describing these actions and attitudes as
something of the "past."

You know full well that these actions and attitudes are ongoing right now.
Just ask Evo Morales who has recently escaped an assassination attempt
and concluded that he should expel the U.S. ambassador from his country
because of U.S. meddling. I'm sure he did not take such an action lightly
or without reason.

Mr. Obama was right to take a "listen and learn" attitude. More arrogance
and more "slapping back" is not going to get us anywhere.

I'm surprised that someone who has shown a commitment to seeking the truth
and to social justice, such as yourself, would find offense at the leaders
of the Nicaragua, Venezuela, Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, Bolivia, Chile,
etc. standing up and stating simple truths and also arguing,
appropriately, that our policy toward Cuba should change - and that our
relations should be based on mutual respect.

Why do you question Chavez' motives but you don't say anything critical
about Lula da Silva, Cristina Kirchner, or Michele Bachelet? They all
have the same positions about the Cuba issue and about the need for mutual
respect among nations. Why are you picking on Chavez?

Why would you expect President Obama to be intimidated or angered by
someone giving him a book that accurately describes the history of how
Latin America and the U.S/European - Latin America relationship got to be
in this state of affairs?

I would expect George Bush to be cowardly and to walk out of a meeting -
or just not show up - or to run away if he saw Chavez or Morales across
the room; something he basically did several times in such summit
meetings. However, President Obama showed that he is not a coward as is
GW Bush. He showed the courage to walk the walk and not just talk the
talk. As we all know from life experience, bullies are really cowards.
Do you want President Obama to be a bully?

You also clearly mis-represent who President Chavez is and what the
situation is in Venezuela.

I have been visiting Venezuela for more than 30 years, and have lived and
worked there (23 years ago). So, I have witnessed firsthand the
administration of all of the governments of Venezuela since 1977. I now
visit about once a year. I can testify that democracy, freedom of speech,
freedom of movement, freedom to associate, freedom to protest, freedom to
start businesses is at the highest level I have ever seen it, plus there
is more equity in terms of access to education, health care, and the legal
and political system. Of course, there are problems but we, in the U.S.,
have a lot of problems too.

Would you have us return to the days of "backyard" diplomacy?

You correctly stated that to pretend that Venezuela, or any other country
in Latin America (including Cuba) represent a threat to the U.S. is
absurd.

If so, then why use underhanded and opaque political and financial means
through the National Endowment for Democracy, USIA, and USAID to interfere
in the affairs of our neighbors?

Imagine the outrage if Brazil, Argentina, or Venezuela were actively
funding and directing so-called "civic society" groups in the United
States to launch campaigns in opposition to the U.S. government, including
the funding of electoral politics, including dirty tricks and outright
violence. I believe such actions would be illegal, condemned, and
prosecuted. Yet, through NED, USIA, USAID and other even more obscure
means the United States Government and U.S. corporations frequently
interfere in Venezuela and throughout Latin America.

Why don't you investigate the NED and see what they are really doing in
Latin America and around the world?

Your analysis is off this time Mr. Robinson. President Obama handled
himself very well and you could tell in one exchange that was videotaped
but not heard that he and President Chavez had a very direct and frank
exchange. It seemed clear by the body language that President Obama was
clearly saying, "Well, Mr. Chavez, you do this, and we can do that."
Neither of them were smiling but they also were not disrespectful of each
other. It looked like two self-confident individuals having a serious and
substantive exchange. By focusing on the "window dressing" moments of the
summit you have missed the point of what was important about the
encounter. The USA has re-joined America in a way that creates an opening
for a positive future in the region rather than one overshadowed by
bullying, intimidation, back-stabbing, bribery, and coercion.

Mr. Obama clearly knows little about Latin America, by his own admission.
Well, I'd say the Summit was a good primer. Maybe you should also read
Galeano's book, which is available in translation by the way.

Thank you,

Gunnar Gundersen
Salem, Oregon

[Judi Lynn]

1. Sure hope Mr. Robinson will read this message from Mr. Gunderson.

I am so sorry Robinson veered off in that direction. He does work for the Wash. Post, however, which has been hard driving in it's anti-leftist constant hammering for years. They are notorious for this, and the Post hasn't been really "straight" for decades, anyway, which was duly noted in the Senator Church investigion of CIA input in our own media. The Post has been a conspicuous source of State Department propaganda.

From an excellent journalist:

The Media

Journalism is a perfect cover for CIA agents. People talk freely to journalists, and few think suspiciously of a journalist aggressively searching for information. Journalists also have power, influence and clout. Not surprisingly, the CIA began a mission in the late 1940s to recruit American journalists on a wide scale, a mission it dubbed Operation MOCKINGBIRD. The agency wanted these journalists not only to relay any sensitive information they discovered, but also to write anti-communist, pro-capitalist propaganda when needed.

The instigators of MOCKINGBIRD were Frank Wisner, Allan Dulles, Richard Helms and Philip Graham. Graham was the husband of Katherine Graham, today’s publisher of the Washington Post. In fact, it was the Post’s ties to the CIA that allowed it to grow so quickly after the war, both in readership and influence. (8)

MOCKINGBIRD was extraordinarily successful. In no time, the agency had recruited at least 25 media organizations to disseminate CIA propaganda. At least 400 journalists would eventually join the CIA payroll, according to the CIA’s testimony before a stunned Church Committee in 1975. (The committee felt the true number was considerably higher.) The names of those recruited reads like a Who's Who of journalism:

• Philip and Katharine Graham (Publishers, Washington Post)
  
• William Paley (President, CBS)
  
• Henry Luce (Publisher, Time and Life magazine)
  
• Arthur Hays Sulzberger (Publisher, N.Y. Times)
  
• Jerry O'Leary (Washington Star)
  
• Hal Hendrix (Pulitzer Prize winner, Miami News)
  
• Barry Bingham Sr., (Louisville Courier-Journal)
  
• James Copley (Copley News Services)
  
• Joseph Harrison (Editor, Christian Science Monitor)
  
• C.D. Jackson (Fortune)
  
• Walter Pincus (Reporter, Washington Post)
  
• ABC
  
• NBC
  
• Associated Press
  
• United Press International
  
• Reuters
  
• Hearst Newspapers
  
• Scripps-Howard
  
• Newsweek magazine
  
• Mutual Broadcasting System
  
• Miami Herald
  
• Old Saturday Evening Post
  
• New York Herald-Tribune

Perhaps no newspaper is more important to the CIA than the Washington Post, one of the nation’s most right-wing dailies. Its location in the nation’s capitol enables the paper to maintain valuable personal contacts with leading intelligence, political and business figures. Unlike other newspapers, the Post operates its own bureaus around the world, rather than relying on AP wire services. Owner Philip Graham was a military intelligence officer in World War II, and later became close friends with CIA figures like Frank Wisner, Allen Dulles, Desmond FitzGerald and Richard Helms. He inherited the Post by marrying Katherine Graham, whose father owned it.

After Philip’s suicide in 1963, Katharine Graham took over the Post. Seduced by her husband’s world of government and espionage, she expanded her newspaper’s relationship with the CIA. In a 1988 speech before CIA officials at Langley, Virginia, she stated:

We live in a dirty and dangerous world. There are some things that the general public does not need to know and shouldn’t. I believe democracy flourishes when the government can take legitimate steps to keep its secrets and when the press can decide whether to print what it knows.

This quote has since become a classic among CIA critics for its belittlement of democracy and its admission that there is a political agenda behind the Post’s headlines.

Ben Bradlee was the Post’s managing editor during most of the Cold War. He worked in the U.S. Paris embassy from 1951 to 1953, where he followed orders by the CIA station chief to place propaganda in the European press. (9) Most Americans incorrectly believe that Bradlee personifies the liberal slant of the Post, given his role in publishing the Pentagon Papers and the Watergate investigations. But neither of these two incidents are what they seem. The Post merely published the Pentagon Papers after The New York Times already had, because it wanted to appear competitive. As for Watergate, we’ll examine the CIA’s reasons for wanting to bring down Nixon in a moment. Someone once asked Bradlee: "Does it irk you when The Washington Post is made out to be a bastion of slanted liberal thinkers instead of champion journalists just because of Watergate?" Bradlee responded: "Damn right it does!" (10)

More:
http://www.aliveness.com/kangaroo/L-overclass.html

Robinson does seem basically kind, good, conscientious. I hope he'll see and read this message from Gunderson. He really doesn't seem like someone who would go ahead and push an evil agenda, if he knew the truth, unlike some people we know.

[EFerrari]

2. .mine

Dear Gene:

First, congratulations on your Pulitzer. Those of us who post to Democratic Underground were thrilled to hear the news. We are big fans of you and of your work.

I wanted to remind you, though, that the US government did its best to get both Ortega and Chavez killed. Once a government tries to kill you, your future relationships with its leaders are problematized, to say the least. The past isn't very past, is it, when there were three Latin American leaders at that summit, with Morales, that were targeted by our government.

I also doubt that Chavez would have gifted Obama with Galeano had Obama not made some very serious accusations about him the week of the inauguration. Obama said Chavez suppresses the media, exports terror and is holding the region back.

All three of these very, very serious allegations are demonstrably false. The media in Venezuela is 70% owned by the oligarchy. There is not a shred of evidence that Chavez supports the FARC in Colombia -- in fact, he has told them very publicly to lay down their arms. And finally, Mr. Chavez has been instrumental in helping other countries in the region cut loose from the predations of the IMF and the World Bank.

These three talking points originated at the Heritage Foundation and have been repeated by Doug Schoen in that abortion of a book on Chavez. To hear Obama repeat them baffled students of Latin America -- just as his assertion that Cubans aren't free to worship baffled us.

Obama's remarks must have stung, especially when left leaning leaders in Latin America went out of their way not to speak in support of him publicly during the election in order to avoid burdening him with that support.

Lastly, Mr. Chavez has never been anti-American. I'm bilingual and can listen to him in the Spanish. He was certainly anti-Bush and anti-corporate vampirism -- which resolve to the same thing, don't they? But not anti-American.

One bit of fallout from the Cheney Rumsfeld obsession with the Middle East is that he wasn't active in Latin America. The region has now enjoyed some years of freedom from the attentions of the Pentagon. They have been good years. I don't think anyone wants them to end and in fact, it looks as though most lefty leaders in Latin America are hoping to build on them during a successful Obama administration.

best,
Elizabeth Ferrari

San Francisco

[Bacchus39]

3. thanks for today's lie

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctBiC_Y5Ih4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuMf21t4ccc&feature=related

[Judi Lynn]

4. Great message to send to Gene Robinson, EFerrari. It's perfect.

Sure hope he will read it.

Thanks for sharing it here.

[magbana]

5. Excellent response, EFerrari!

[magbana]

6. And my two cents - "Eugene Robinson - Shame on You"

http://hcvanalysis.wordpress.com/2009/04/21/eugene-robinson-shame-on-you/

EUGENE ROBINSON - Shame on You

"Eugene Robinson, I don’t know where to start regarding your utterly unnecessary article, “When Slapped, Slap Back.” For some reason, you think it is a good idea to jump on the Republican bandwagon, albeit very temporarily, to hurl insults at Chavez and ding President Obama concerning their interaction at the Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago last weekend.

Although you can’t declare it openly, I know you are a liberal kind of guy. I see you on Keith Olbermann’s show generally making alot of sense. But, something is “off” about your article — it’s as if you didn’t write it. Now I know you wrote it, but it is a mosaic of the vituperative kind of stuff that you find in Wikipedia and Fox News. This article is not you, my friend.

Let’s take a look at some of the themes in your article and see why a highly successful columnist at the Washington Post would espouse them.

Let’s deal with the toughest one first. Why did Chavez and Ortega “insult” the United States and Obama? I don’t know how telling the truth constitutes an insult. It might have made Obama reach for an aspirin, but he could not (should not) have been offended. After all, this was a Summit among “equals,” said Obama.

Actually, it was Obama who insulted virtually every head of state at the Summit when he said he was not going to dwell on the past and would, instead, look to the future. This is a tantamount to a “get over it” and is like a dagger in the heart of Latin Americans. Obama, along with many others, will have to deal with the past because it is the only way to go forward. The past must be dealt with because millions and millions of lives will continue to be negatively affected if it is not done. You said, “the history of U.S. involvement in Latin America is pretty sordid.” Sordid? Merriam-Webbster defines sordid as “marked by baseness or grossness.” Ortegea would be delighted if this was all that the US did to his country. It’s an insult for you to use this word to describe the US relationship with Latin America that has been marked by (yes, ALL of these apply): genocide, assassination, starvation, illiteracy, crop devastation, bombings, invasions, massive funding of mercenary-animals whose purpose was to murder the peasantry in several Latin American countries, etc. No, Ortega is not going to “get over it” and neither will Chavez, Lula da Silva, Lugo, Bachelet, Morales, etc. They can’t because the pain is ever present and hurts too much. To get over it is to sell your people out. These issues can only be dealt with through reparations and public mea culpas.

Your article used highly charged word associations that are inaccurate and here is where I think Fox News comes in. The problem with using them is that when repeated often enough they belie reality and are passed off for the truth. I am sure you are sensitive to the role of the media in demonizing democratically-elected leaders so that the US could topple or murder them. In this century alone, the media collaborated with the US in taking down Aristide in Haiti, a coup in Venezuela and most recently, an attempted assassination of Morales. I urge you to be careful about who you call what. Here are some examples from your article:

Chavez “wants to be president-for-life.” Wrong. He wants to be president long enough to make sure that the life-saving, enabling movement that is the Bolivarian revolution takes root. Without the revolution, it all goes to hell and the elite rules again.

Chavez uses “anti-democratic methods of silencing critics” and “neutralizing potential opposition.” I’d say it was quite the opposite. During the coup, private TV stations outnumbered the state TV five to one. And, his critics cut the power of the state TV station. Now, I call that anti-democratic! Remember, the private TV stations were all on the side of the opposition and collaborated in the coup in the most treasonous of ways.

Now, Ortega. So, you thought it a good idea for Obama and others to deliver a “pushback against those who would rather relive the insults of the past than move forward.” Good lord, Robinson. If it was just US insults that were used on the Sandinistas, I think Ortega could hold his own in Spanish with insults that would burn the hair off of your ears. By suggesting that Ortega was reliving insults, you show an embarrassing lack of context and you belittle the pain of the US’ murderous involvement in Nicaragua.

I think before you write another word about Latin America, you need to order yourself a copy of Eduardo Galeano’s “Open Veins of Latin America.”

Finally, shame on you, Mr. Robinson. I think you are a better man than this, but you will need to show us now.
"

[EFerrari]

7. Great response, magbana.

So disappointed in Robinson. Cavalier with the suffering of others and so ill informed.

[Judi Lynn]

8. Excellent message to Gene Robinson. He has always seemed so well balanced before this.

Your, and EFerrari's remarks to him are respectful, and firm. He has always seemed capable, and fair enough to be able to read them, and think it all over.

I have a feeling he may have been pressured by his employer to do this. They have a fiendish record against Chavez, via Jackson Diehl, et al. Maybe they figure their best bet for success is to have one of their respected voices say what Diehl has ordinarily been spewing!

All your points were extremely well honed, well expressed.

[magbana]

9. Thanks, Judi Lynn. There are nearly 1,000 comments to the WaPo . . .

concerning Robinson's article. I'm sure that regardless of the nature of the comments, the WaPo will want Robinson to do a similarly "controversial" article in order to keep the number of hits way up.