2007 November 22

Institutionally unwilling to consider America’s responsibility for the bloodbath, the traditional media have refused to acknowledge the massive number of Iraqis killed since the invasion.

Institutionally unwilling to consider America’s responsibility for the bloodbath, the traditional media have refused to acknowledge the massive number of Iraqis killed since the invasion.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad’s flirtation with those who deny the reality of the Nazi genocide has rightly been met with disgust. But another holocaust denial is taking place with little notice: the holocaust in Iraq. The average American believes that 10,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since the US invasion in March 2003. The most commonly cited figure in the media is 70,000. But the actual number of people who have been killed is most likely more than one million.

This is five times more than the estimates of killings in Darfur and even more than the genocide in Rwanda 13 years ago.

The estimate of more than one million violent deaths in Iraq was confirmed again two months ago in a poll by the British polling firm Opinion Research Business, which estimated 1,220,580 violent deaths since the US invasion. This is consistent with the study conducted by doctors and scientists from the Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health more than a year ago. Their study was published in the Lancet, Britain’s leading medical journal. It estimated 601,000 people killed due to violence as of July 2006; but if updated on the basis of deaths since the study, this estimate would also be more than a million. These estimates do not include those who have died because of public health problems created by the war, including breakdowns in sewerage systems and electricity, shortages of medicines, etc.

Amazingly, some journalists and editors - and of course some politicians - dismiss such measurements because they are based on random sampling of the population rather than a complete count of the dead. While it would be wrong to blame anyone for their lack of education, this disregard for scientific methods and results is inexcusable. As one observer succinctly put it: if you don’t believe in random sampling, the next time your doctor orders a blood test, tell him that he needs to take all of it.

The methods used in the estimates of Iraqi deaths are the same as those used to estimate the deaths in Darfur, which are widely accepted in the media. They are also consistent with the large numbers of refugees from the violence (estimated at more than four million). There is no reason to disbelieve them, or to accept tallies such as that the Iraq Body Count (73,305 - 84,222), which include only a small proportion of those killed, as an estimate of the overall death toll.

Of course, acknowledging the holocaust in Iraq might change the debate over the war. While Iraqi lives do not count for much in US politics, recognizing that a mass slaughter of this magnitude is taking place could lead to more questions about how this horrible situation came to be. Right now a convenient myth dominates the discussion: the fall of Saddam Hussein simply unleashed a civil war that was waiting to happen, and the violence is all due to Iraqis’ inherent hatred of each other.

In fact, there is considerable evidence that the occupation itself - including the strategy of the occupying forces - has played a large role in escalating the violence to holocaust proportions. It is in the nature of such an occupation, where the vast majority of the people are opposed to the occupation and according to polls believe it is right to try and kill the occupiers, to pit one ethnic group against another. This was clear when Shiite troops were sent into Sunni Fallujah in 2004; it is obvious in the nature of the death-squad government, where officials from the highest levels of the Interior Ministry to the lowest ranking police officers - all trained and supported by the US military - have carried out a violent, sectarian mission of “ethnic cleansing.” (The largest proportion of the killings in Iraq are from gunfire and executions, not from car bombs). It has become even more obvious in recent months as the United States is now arming both sides of the civil war, including Sunni militias in Anbar province as well as the Shiite government militias.

Is Washington responsible for a holocaust in Iraq? That is the question that almost everyone here wants to avoid. So the holocaust is denied

Coup D’Etat Rumblings in Venezuela

The Bush administration tried and failed three prior times to oust Hugo Chavez since its first aborted two-day coup attempt in April, 2002. Through FOIA requests, lawyer, activist and author Eva Golinger uncovered top secret CIA documents of US involvement that included an intricate financing scheme involving the quasi-governmental agency, National Endowment of Democracy (NED), and US Agency for International Development (USAID). The documents also showed the White House, State Department and National Security Agency had full knowledge of the scheme, had to have approved it, and there’s little doubt of CIA involvement as it’s always part of this kind of dirty business. What’s worrying now is what went on then may be happening again in what looks like a prelude to a fourth made-in-Washington attempt to oust the Venezuelan leader that must be monitored closely as events develop.

Since he took office in February, 1999, and especially after George Bush’s election, Chavez has been a US target, and this time he believes credible sources point to a plot to assassinate him. That information comes from Alimamy Bakarr Sankoh, president of the Hugo Chavez International-Foundation for Peace, Friendship & Solidarity (HCI-FPFS) in a November 11 press release. Sankoh supports Chavez as “a man of peace and flamboyant champion of human dignity (who persists in his efforts in spite of) growing US blackmail, sabotage and political blasphemy.”

HCI-FPFS sources revealed the plot’s code name - “Operation Cleanse Venezuela” that now may be unfolding ahead of the December 2 referendum on constitutional reforms. According to Sankoh, the scheme sounds familiar - CIA and other foreign secret service operatives (including anti-Castro terrorists) aiming to destabilize the Chavez government by using “at least three concrete subversive plans” to destroy the country’s social democracy and kill Chavez.

It involves infiltrating subversive elements into the country, inciting opposition within the military, ordering region-based US forces to shoot down any aircraft used by Chavez, employing trained snipers with shoot to kill orders, and having the dominant US and Venezuelan media act as supportive attack dogs. Chavez is targeted because he represents the greatest of all threats to US hegemony in the region - a good example that’s spreading. Venezuela also has Latin America’s largest proved oil reserves at a time supplies are tight and prices are at all-time highs.

Sankoh calls Washington-directed threats “real” and to “be treated seriously” to avoid extending Bush’s Middle East adventurism to Latin America. He calls for support from the region and world community to denounce the scheme and help stop another Bush administration regime change attempt.

More information on a possible coup plot also came from a November 13 Party for Socialism and Liberation article headlined “New US plots against the Venezuelan Revolution.” It states Tribuna Popular (the Communist Party of Venezuela) and Prensa Latina (the Latin American News Agency) reported: “Between Oct. 7 and Oct 9, high-ranking US officials met in Prague, Czech Republic, with parts of the Venezuelan opposition (where they were) urged to convene social uprisings, sabotage the economy and infrastructure, destroy the food transportation chain and plan a military coup.” It said Paul Wolfowitz and Madeleine Albright attended along with Humberto Celli, “a well-known coup-plotter from the Venezuelan party Accion Democratica.”

The article further reported Tibisay Lucena, The National Electoral Council chairman, said the Venezuelan corporate media was “stoking a mood of violence amongst right-wing students” through a campaign of agitprop, and Hermann Escarra from the “pro-coup” Comando Nacional de la Resistencia openly incited “rebellion” last August and then called for constitutional changes to be stopped “through all means possible.”

The Venezuelan news agency, Diaria VEA, also weighed in saying “anonymous students planned on committing acts of destabilization” as the December 2 vote approaches. Venezuelan Radio Trans Mundial provided proof with a recorded video of a youth dumping gasoline into an armored vehicle, ramming metal barricades into police on top of other vehicles, and knocking them from their roofs and hoods onto the ground.

For weeks, protests with sporadic violence have been on Venezuela’s streets as anti-Chavistas use middle and upper class students as imperial tools to destabilize the government and disrupt the constitutional process. The aim is to discredit and oust the Chavez government and return the country to its ugly past with Washington and local oligarchs in charge and the neoliberal model reinstated.

Venezuela’s Foreign Minister, Nicolas Maduro, weighed in on this on November 8. He accused Washington of meddling by staging violent Caracas street protests against proposed constitutional reforms to extend the country’s participatory social democracy. Referring to a November 7 shootout at Caracas’ Central University, he said: “We don’t have any doubt that the government of the United States has their hands in the scheme that led to the ambush yesterday” that Chavez calls a “fascist offensive.” Several students were wounded on the streets from a clash between pro and anti-Chavez elements.

“We know the whole scheme,” Maduro added, and he should as it happened before in 2002, again during the disruptive 2002-03 oil management lockout, and most often as well when elections are held to disrupt the democratic process. These are standard CIA operating tactics used many times before for 50 years in the Agency’s efforts to topple independent leaders and kill them. Chavez understands what’s happening, and he’s well briefed and alerted by his ally, Fidel Castro, who survived over 600 US attempts to kill him since 1959. He’s now 81 and very much alive but going through a difficult recovery from major surgery 15 months ago.

Chavez has widespread popular support throughout the region and from allies like Ecuador’s Raphael Correa and Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega who expressed his “solidarity with the revolutionary people of Venezuela and our friend Hugo Chavez, who is being subjected to aggression from a counterrevolution fed by the traitors from inside the country and by the empire (referring to the US).” He compared the situation to his own country where similar efforts are being “financed by the United States Embassy” in Managua to support elements opposed to his Sandinista government even though it’s very accommodative to Washington.

Even Brazil’s Lula chimed in by calling Chavez’s proposed reforms consistent with Venezuela’s democratic norms, and he added: “Please, invent anything to criticize Chavez, except for lack of democracy.”

Washington’s goal from all this is clear, but why now? Last July, Chavez announced he’d be sending Venezuela’s National Assembly (AN) a proposed list of constitutional reforms to debate, consider and vote on. Under Venezuelan law, the President, National Assembly or 15% of registered voters (by petition) may propose constitutional changes. Under articles 342, 343, 344 and 345, they must then be debated three times in the legislature, amended if needed, and then submitted to a vote that requires a two-thirds majority to pass. Finally within 30 days, the public gets the last word, up or down, in a national referendum. It represents the true spirit of democracy that’s unimaginable in the US where elitists control everything, elections are a sham, and the people have no say.

That was true for Venezuela earlier, but no longer. In its history, there have been 26 Constitutions since its first in 1821, but none like the 1999 Bolivarian one under Chavez that’s worlds apart from the others. It created a model participatory social democracy that gave all citizens the right to vote it up or down by national referendum and then empowered them (or the government) later on to petition for change.

On August 15, Chavez did that by submitting 33 suggested amendment reforms to the Constitution’s 350 articles and explained it this way: The 1999 Constitution needed updating because it’s “ambiguous (and) a product of that moment. The world (today) is very different from (then). (Reforms are) essential for continuing the process of revolutionary transition” to deepen and broaden Venezuelan democracy. That’s his central aim - to create a “new geometry of power” for the people along with more government accountability to them.

Proposed reforms will have little impact on the nation’s fundamental political structure. They will, however, change laws with regard to politics, the economy, property, the military, the national territory as well as the culture and society and will deepen the country’s social democracy.

The National Assembly (AN) completed its work on November 2 adding 25 additional articles to Chavez’s proposal plus another 11 changes for a total of 69 articles that amend one-fifth of the nation’s Constitution. The most important ones include:

– extending existing constitutional law that guarantees human rights and recognizes the country’s social and cultural diversity;

– building a “social economy” to replace the failed neoliberal Washington Consensus model;

– officially prohibiting monopolies and unjust consolidation of economic resources;

– allowing unlimited presidential reelections so that option is “the sovereign decision of the constituent people of Venezuela” and is a similar to the political process in countries like England, France, Germany and Australia;

– strengthening grassroots communal councils, increasing their funding, and promoting more of them;

– ending the autonomy of Venezuela’s Central Bank to reclaim the country’s financial sovereignty the way it should be everywhere; today nearly all central banks are controlled by private for-profit banking cartels; Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul wants to end that status in the US and correctly explains the Federal Reserve Bank is neither federal nor does it have reserves; it’s owned and run by Wall Street and the major banks;

– adding new forms of collective property under five categories: public for the state, social for citizens, collective for people or social groups, mixed for public and private, and private for individuals or private entities;

– territorial redefinition to distribute resources more equitably to communities instead of being used largely by economic and political elites;

– prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination and enacting gender parity rights for political candidates;

– in cases where property is appropriated for the public good, fair and timely compensation to be paid for it;

The National Assembly also approved 15 important transitional dispositions. They relate to how constitutional changes will be implemented if approved until laws are passed to regulate them. One provision is for the legislature to pass 15 so-called “organic laws” that include the following ones:

– a law on “popular power” to govern grassroots communal councils (that may number 50,000 by year end) that Chavez called “one of the central ideas….to open, at the constitutional level, the roads to accelerate the transfer of power to the people (in an) Explosion of Communal (or popular) Power;” five percent of state revenues will be set aside to fund it;

– another promoting a socialist economy for the 21st century that Chavez champions even though he remains friendly to business; and

– one relating to the country’s territorial organization; plus others on education, a shorter workweek and more democratic changes.

Under Venezuelan law, and in the true spirit of democracy, these proposed changes will be for citizens to vote up or down on December 2. The process will be in two parts reversing an earlier decision to do it as one package, yea or nay. One part will be Chavez’s 33 reforms plus 13 National Assembly additions, and the other for the remaining 23 articles.

Now battle lines are drawn, opposition forces are mobilized and events are playing out violently on Venezuela’s streets. The worst so far was on November 7 when CNN falsely reported “80,000″ anti-Chavez students demonstrated “peacefully” in Caracas to denounce “Hugo Chavez’s attempts to expand his power.” The actual best estimates put it between 2000 and 10,000, and long-time Latin American expert James Petras calls the protesters “privileged middle and upper middle class university students,” once again being used as an imperial tool.

In their anti-government zeal, CNN and other dominant media ignore the many pro-Chavez events writer Fred Fuentes calls a “red hurricane” sweeping the country. An impressive one was held on November 4 when the President addressed hundreds of thousands of supporters who participated in an 8.5 kilometer Caracas march while similar pro-reform rallies took place at the same time around the country. They’re the start of a “yes” campaign for a large December 2 turnout that’s vital as polls show strong pro-reform support by a near two to one margin.

In an effort to defuse it, orchestrated opposition turned violent and officials reported eight people were injured in the November 7 incident. No one was killed, but one was wounded by gunfire when at least “four (masked) gunmen (who looked like provocateur plants, not students) fir(ed) handguns at the anti-Chavez crowd.” In an earlier October demonstration, opposition students clashed with police who kept them from reaching the National Assembly building and a direct confrontation with pro-Chavez supporters that might have turned ugly.

It did on November 7 when violence erupted between pro and anti-government students, but it wasn’t as reported. Venezuelan and US corporate media claimed pro-Chavez supporters initiated the attack. In fact, they WERE attacked by elements opposing the President. They seized this time to act ahead of the referendum to disrupt it and destabilize the government as prelude to a possible planned coup.

One pro-Chavez student explained what happened. She and others were erecting posters supporting a “yes” referendum vote when they were attacked with tear gas and crowds yelling they were going to be lynched. Avila TV had the evidence. Its unedited footage showed an opposition student mob surrounding the School of Social Work area where pro-Chavez students hid for safety. They threw Molotov cocktails, rocks, chairs and other objects, smashed windows, and tried to burn down the building as university authorities (responsible for security) stood aside doing nothing to curtail the violence. Another report was that corporate-owned Univision operatives posing as reporters had guns and accompanied the elements attacking the school in an overt act of complicity by the media.

The pattern now unfolding on Caracas streets is similar to what happened ahead of the April, 2002 aborted coup attempt, and Petras calls it “the most serious threat (to the President) since” that time. The corporate media then claimed pro-government supporters instigated street violence and fired on “unarmed” opposition protesters. In fact, that was later proved a lie as anti-Chavez “snipers” did the firing as part of the plot that became the coup. A similar scheme may now be unfolding in Caracas and on other campuses around the country as well.

In his public comments, Foreign Minister Maduro accused the major media and CNN of misrepresenting events and poisoning the political atmosphere. It’s happening in Venezuela and the US as the dominant media attacks Hugo Chavez through a campaign of vilification and black propaganda.

On November 12, The Venezuela Information Office (VIO) reported that growing numbers of “US print newspapers lodged attacks against Venezuela” using “outdated cold-war generalizations” and without explaining any of the proposed democratic changes. Among others, they came from the Houston Chronicle that claimed:

– constitutional reforms will “eliminate the vestiges of democracy” in Venezuela when, in fact, they’ll strengthen it, and the people will vote them up or down;

– Chavez controls the electoral system when, in fact, Venezuela is a model free, fair and open democracy that shames its US equivalent. The Chronicle falsely said reforms will strip people of their right to due process. In fact, that’s guaranteed under article 337 that won’t be changed.

VIO also reported on a Los Angeles Times editorial comparing Chavez to Bin Laden. It compounded that whopper by claiming reforms will cause a global recession due to higher oil prices that, of course, have nothing to do with changes in law. In another piece, the LA Times inverted the truth by falsely claiming a public majority opposes reforms. Then there’s the Miami Herald predicting an end to freedom of expression if changes pass and the Washington Post commenting on how high oil prices let Chavez buy influence.

The Post then ran an inflamatory November 15 editorial headlined “Mr. Chavez’s Coup” if which it lied by saying November 7 student protesters “were fired on by gunmen (whom) university officials later ‘identified’….as members of government-sponsored ‘paramilitary groups’ when, in fact, there are no such groups. The editorial went on to say Chavez wants to “complete his transformation into an autocrat (to be able to) seize property….dispose of Venezuela’s foreign exchange reserves….impose central government rule on local jurisdictions and declare indefinite states of emergency” as well as suspend due process and freedom of information. Again, misinformation, deliberate distortion and outright lies from a leading quasi-official US house organ.

Rupert Murdock’s Wall Street Journal weighed in as well with its lead anti-Chavez attack dog and all-round character assassin extraordinaire, Mary Anastasia O’Grady. This writer has tangled with her several times before and earlier commented how one day she’ll have a serious back problem because of her rigid position of genuflection to the most extreme hard-right elements she supports. Her latest November 12 column was vintage O’Grady and headlined “More Trouble for Chavez (as) Students and former allies unite against his latest power grab.”

Like most of her others, this one drips with vitriol and outrageous distortions like calling Chavez a “dictator” when, in fact, he’s a model democrat, but that’s the problem for writers like O’Grady. Absent the facts, they use agitprop instead. O’Grady writes: “Mr. Chavez has been working to remove any counterbalances to his power for almost nine years (and) has met strong resistance from property owners, businesses, labor leaders, the Catholic Church and the media.” Now add opposition well-off students. Omitted is that the opposition is a minority, it represents elitist interests, and Chavez has overwhelming public support for his social democracy and proposed reform changes including from most students O’Grady calls “pro-Chavez goons.”

Once again, she’s on a rampage, but that’s her job. She claims the absurd and people believe her - like saying the media will be censored, civil liberties can be suspended, and government will be empowered to seize private property. He’s a “demagogue,” says O’Grady, waging “class warfare,” but opposition to reform “has led to increased speculation (his) days are numbered.” Wishing won’t make it so, and O’Grady uses that line all the time.

The New York Times is also on the attack in its latest anti-Chavez crusade. It’s been a leading Chavez critic for years, and Simon Romero is its man in Caracas. On November 3, he reported “Lawmakers in Venezuela Approve Expanded Power for Chavez (in a) constitutional overhaul (to) enhance (Chavez’s) authority, (allow) him to be reelected indefinitely, and (give) him the power to handpick rulers, to be called vice-presidents, (and) for various new regions to be created in the country….The new amendments would facilitate expropriations of private property (and allow state) security forces to round up citizens (stripped of their) legal protections” if Chavez declares a state of emergency - to make him look like Pakistan’s Musharraf when he’s mirror opposite.

Romero also quoted Jose Manuel Gonzales, president of Venezuela’s Fedecamaras (chamber of commerce), saying “Venezuelan democracy was buried today” and anti-Chavez Roman Catholic church leaders (always allied with elitists) calling the changes “morally unacceptable.” Then on November 8, Romero followed with an article titled “Gunmen Attack Opponents of Chavez’s Bid to Extend Power” and implied they were pro-Chavez supporters. Again false. Still more came on November 10 headlined “Students Emerge as a Leading Force Against Chavez” in an effort to imply most students oppose him when, in fact, these elements are a minority.

His latest so far is on November 17 titled “Chavez’s Vision Shares Wealth and Centers Power” that in fairness shows the President addressing a huge crowd of supporters in Maturin on November 16. But Romero spoiled it by calling his vision “centralized, oil-fueled socialism (with) Chavez (having) significantly enhanced powers.” Then he quotes Chavez biographer Alberto Barrera Tyszka who embarrassed himself and Romero saying the President is seizing and redirecting “power through legitimate means (and this) is not a dictatorship but something more complex,” the ‘tyranny’ of popularity.” In other words, he’s saying democracy is “tyranny.” The rest of the article is just as bad with alternating subtle and hammer blow attacks against a popular President’s aim to deepen his socially democratic agenda and help his people.

Romero’s measured tone outclasses O’Grady’s crudeness that’s pretty standard fare on the Journal’s notorious opinion page. He’s much more dangerous, however, with a byline in the influential “newspaper of record” because of the important audience it commands.

One other notable anti-Chavez piece is in the November 26 issue of the magazine calling itself “the capitalist tool” - Forbes. It shows in its one-sided commentary and intolerance of opposing views. The article in question, headlined “Latin Sinkholes,” is by right wing economist and long-time flack for empire, Steve Hanke. In it, he aims right at Chavez with outrageous comments like calling him a “negative reformer (who) turned back the clock (and) hails Cuba, the largest open-air prison in the Americas, as his model. His revolution’s enemy is the marketplace.” He then cites a World Bank report saying “Venezuela is tied with Zimbabwe as this year’s champion in smothering economic freedom,” and compounds that lie with another whopper.

Point of fact - Venezuela and Argentina have the highest growth rates in the region and are near the top of world rankings in recent years. Following the devastating oil management 2002-03 lockout, Venezuela’s economy took off and grew at double digit rates in 2004, 05 and 06 and will grow a likely 8% this year. Hanke, however, says “Venezuela’s economic performance under Chavez has been anemic (growing) at an average rate of only 2% per year. In the same article, he aims in similar fashion at Ecuador’s Raphael Correa calling him “ruthlessly efficient (for wanting to) pull off a Bolivarian Revolution in Ecuador.” Hanke and most others in the dominant media are of one mind and never let facts contradict their opinions. Outliers won’t be tolerated even when it’s proved their way works best.

There’s lots more criticism like this throughout the dominant media along with commentators calling Chavez “a dictator, another Hitler (and) a threat to democracy.” Ignoring the rules of imperial management has a price. This type media assault is part of it as a prelude for what often follows - attempted regime change.

On November 15, VIO issued an alert update to dispel media inaccuracies “about Venezuela’s constitutional reforms and the student protests” accompanying them. They’re listed below:

– Caracas has a student population of around 200,000; at most 10,000 participated in the largest protest to date, and VIO estimates it was 6000;

– the major media ignore how the government cooperates with students and made various accommodations to them to be fair to the opposition;

– Venezuelan police have protected student protesters, and article 68 of the Constitution requires they do it; it affirms the right of all Venezuelans to assemble peacefully;

– in addition, student protest leaders linked to opposition parties were granted high-level meetings with government officials to present their concerns;

– on November 1, their student representatives met with directors of the National Electoral Council (CNE) and presented a petition to delay the referendum;

– on November 7, they again met with National Tribunal of Justice officials and presented the same petition;

– on November 12, Minister of Interior and Justice Minister, Pedro Carreno, met 20 university presidents to assure them the government respects university autonomy and their students’ right to assemble peacefully;

– VIO reported what really happened at another November 1 protest after students met with CNE officials; some of them then tried to chain themselves to the building while others charged through police lines and injured six officers; in addition, one student had 20 liters of gasoline but never got to use it criminally; after the incident, the CNE president, Tibisay Lucena, issued a public statement expressing his disappointment about this kind of response to the government’s good faith efforts; and

– VIO said students and university presidents from across the nation filed a document with the Supreme Court on November 14 supporting constitutional reform. Chief justice Luisa Estela Morales praised their coming and said the court’s doors are open to anyone wanting to give an opinion. The dominant media reported nothing on this. It also ignored the government’s 9000 public events throughout the country in past weeks to explain and discuss proposed reforms and that a hotline was installed for comments on them, pro or con.

– finally, when protests of any kind happen in the US, police usually attack them with tear gas, beatings and mass arrests to crush their democratic spirit and prevent it from being expressed as our Constitution’s First and most important amendment guarantees. In Venezuela, the spirit of democracy lives. It never existed in the US, and we want to export our way to everyone and by force if necessary.

Here’s a November 15 breaking news example of our way in action. At 8:00AM, 12 FBI and Secret Service agents raided the Liberty Dollar Company’s office in Evansville, IN and for the next six hours removed two tons of legal Ron Paul Dollars along with all the gold, silver and platinum at the location. They also took all location files and computers and froze Liberty Dollar’s bank accounts in an outrageous police state action against a legitimate business. This move also seems intended to impugn the integrity of a presidential candidate gaining popularity because he defies the bellicose mainstream and wants more people empowerment.

Chavez champions another way and answered his critics at a November 14 Miraflores Presidential Palace press conference where he denounced them for lying about his reform package. He explained his aim is to strengthen Venezuela’s independence and transfer power to the people, not increase his own. “For many years in Venezuela,” he said, “they weakened the powers of the state as part of the neoliberal imperial plan….to weaken the economies of countries to insure domination. While we remained weak, imperialism was strengthened,” and he elaborated.

He then continued to stress his most important reform “is the transfer of power to the people” through an explosion of grassroots communal, worker, student and campesino councils, formations of them into regional and national federations, and the formation of “communes (to) constitute the basic nucleus of the socialist state.” Earlier Chavez stated that democratizing the economy “is the only way to defeat poverty, to defeat misery and achieve the largest sum of happiness for the people.” He’s not just saying this. He believes and acts on it, and that’s why elitists target him for removal even though he wants equity for everyone, even his critics, and business continues to thrive under his government. But not like in the “good old” days when it was all one-way.

Business in Venezuela is indeed booming, and in 2006 the Financial Times said bankers were “having a party” it was so good. So what’s the problem? It’s not good enough for corporate interests wanting it all for themselves and nothing for the people the way it used to be pre-Chavez. Unfair? Sure, but in a corporate-dominated world, that’s how it is and no outliers are tolerated. Thus Hugo Chavez’s dilemma.

Last June, Business Week (BW) magazine captured the mood in an article called “A Love-Hate Relationship with Chavez - Companies are chafing under the fiery socialist. But in some respects, business has never been better.” Writer Geri Smith asked: “Just how hard is it to do business in Venezuela” and then exaggerated by saying “hardly a day passes without another change in the rules restricting companies.” Hardly so, but what is true is new rules require a more equitable relationship between government and business. They provide more benefits to the people and greater attention to small Venezuelan business and other commercial undertakings like an explosion of cooperatives (100,000 or more) that under neoliberal rules have no chance against the giants.

Nonetheless, the economy under Chavez is booming, and business loves it even while it complains. It’s because oil revenues are high, Chavez spends heavily on social benefits, and the poor have seen their incomes more than double since 2004 when all their benefits are included. The result, as BW explains: “Sales of everything from basics” to luxury items “have taken off….and local and foreign companies alike are raking in more money than ever in Venezuela.” In addition, bilateral trade has never been higher, but American business complains it’s caught in the middle of a Washington - Caracas political struggle.

The article continues to show how all kinds of foreign business is benefitting from cola to cars to computer chips. Yet, it restates the dilemma saying “As Chavez continues his socialist crusade, there are signs of rising discontent,” and it’s showing up now on the country’s streets with the latest confrontation still to be resolved, one way or another.

Through the dominant media, Washington and Venezuelan anti-Chavez elements are using constitutional reform as a pretext for what they may have in mind - “to arouse the military to intervene” and oust Chavez, as Petras notes in his article titled “Venezuela: Between Ballots and Bullets.” He explains the opposition “rich and privileged (coalition) fear constitutional reforms because they will have to grant a greater share of their (considerable) profits to the working class, lose their monopoly over market transactions to publicly owned firms, and see political power evolve toward local community councils and the executive branch.”

Petras is worried and says “class polarization….has reached its most extreme expression” as December 2 approaches: “the remains of the multi-class coalition embracing a minority of the middle class and the great majority of (workers) is disintegrating (and) political defections have increased (including 14) deputies in the National Assembly.” Add to them former Chavez Defense Minister, Raul Baduel, who Petras believes may be “an aspirant to head up a US-backed right-wing seizure of power.”

The situation is ugly and dangerous, and lots of US money and influence fuels it. Petras puts it this way: “Venezuelan democracy, the Presidency of Hugo Chavez and the great majority of the popular classes face a mortal threat.” An alliance between Washington, local oligarchs and elitist supporters of the “right” are committed to ousting Chavez and may feel now is their best chance. Venezuela’s social democracy is on the line in the crucial December 2 vote, and the entire region depends on it solidifying and surviving.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Steve Lendman News and Information Hour on TheMicroEffect.com Mondays at noon US Central time.

Spy warns there could be a war over water

HE is the spy who came in from the cold, endured the heat, experienced the chill and was burned in the process. Little wonder Lance Collins is pushing the cause of climate change.

Lt-Col Collins, head of intelligence operations for General Peter Cosgrove during the East Timor conflict, triggered a series of high-level Government inquiries three years ago with explosive claims about a series of failures by Australia’s spy agencies.

Now he is forecasting that unless global warming and the effects of climate change are addressed, Australia and the Asian region face a bleak future in which countries will go to war over dwindling resources, including the nation’s most precious commodity - water.

“Water is going to be a crucial resource in the years to come,” he said yesterday.

“Wars have always been fought over resources and with climate change, if most of our water is to be found in the north, which is relatively undefended, then we’ll have to rethink our strategies on defending northern Australia.

Lt-Col Collins, who co-wrote a book about the Australian intelligence scene, has now entered the political arena as an adviser to Margherita Tracanelli, the Climate Change Coalition candidate for the Prime Minister’s seat of Bennelong. Lt-Col Collins, who says he has not seriously contemplated a future role in politics despite several approaches to stand for Parliament, first met Ms Tracanelli while serving in Dili in 1999.

Ms Tracanelli, a human rights advocate , said yesterday Lt-Col Collins’ advice “has been invaluable”.

Lt-Col Collins’ move into the political arena follows the decision by former intelligence officer Andrew Wilkie to run on the Greens Senate ticket in Tasmania. Mr Wilkie unsuccessfully challenged Mr Howard in Bennelong as an independent in the 2004 federal election.

Is Brown re-thinking ID cards?

The creation of a giant register of every card-carrying member of the British public was always one of the more controversial elements of the ID cards proposal.

The missing data crisis could not have provided a more spectacular example of what might happen if such databases are not secure.

It has sparked widespread fears over the security of personal information and raised the inevitable demands for the entire ID card scheme to be abandoned - with signs the government may now be having second thoughts.

The legislation has already been passed by Parliament, despite some severe cross-party reservations.

But the campaign against it, backed by the opposition parties and civil liberties groups, has been given fresh impetus by the data crisis.

Now might just be the last chance the prime minister gets to put this whole thing onto the back burner, or trim it in an attempt to answer some of the biggest criticisms.

A tactical retreat at this point, after reviews of the system and the new inquiries already launched by Mr Brown into what went wrong with the child benefit information, might cause far less damage than seeing a top-level and possibly growing revolt against the proposal - specifically the pledge to eventually make the cards compulsory - up to the next general election.

That election, even delayed until the last moment, is still far too close for ministers to feel at all confident the data crisis will not still be fresh in voters’ minds.

Indeed it is likely that any Labour manifesto commitment to making the scheme compulsory would see the Tories turning it into a key election platform around the bigger issue of competence.

For the moment, ministers insist ID cards would be essential in stopping just the sort of identity theft and fraud which might be carried out by anyone using the child benefit information illegally.

But Tory leader David Cameron has said voters will think it is plain “bizarre and weird” if Mr Brown does not at least have another look at the proposals.

Liberal Democrat president has said: “We need to assess the stupidity of that proposal early so we don’t waste any more public money going down that completely unhelpful road.”

They have been joined by some senior Labour MPs, including Karen Buck, a member of the Commons home affairs committee, and Andy Love, a member of the Treasury committee.

Both have suggested it is time to stand back and have a period of reflection over the proposals.

Perhaps crucially, the information commissioner, Richard Thomas, has urged ministers to review the amount of data they intend to amass on the national identity register.

And some in Westminster were pointing to Gordon Brown’s words during question time in which he told David Cameron: “What we must ensure is that identity fraud is avoided, and the way to avoid identity fraud is to say that for passport information we will have the biometric support that is necessary, so that people can feel confident that their identity is protected.”

Some have read that as a sign Mr Brown might be ready to abandon any plans to make ID cards compulsory, widely seen as the only way to ensure they are effective.

It is even being speculated he is ready to make do with biometric passports which are gradually being rolled out, with no immediate move to go further down the road to ID cards.

Under the current legislation, everyone over the age of 16 applying for a passport will have their “biometric” details - including fingerprints, eye or facial scans - added to a national identity register from 2008.

The first identity cards will be issued in 2009 to those wanting one, but from 2010 anyone renewing or getting a passport will have to get one.

It would be possible for the prime minister to go no further than the first - passports - phase of the scheme and delay moving to the further steps indefinitely if necessary.

Can we trust Government over ID cards?

The loss of two computer discs containing the personal and banking details of 25 million people has inevitably cast fresh doubts over the Government’s plans to make us all have identity cards. There is good reason for these concerns.

If the Government cannot be trusted to safeguard the sensitive information contained on the lost discs can it be trusted to look after a national identity register which would contain a wealth of useful information for criminals and terrorists. Ministers will no doubt assure us that the system for protecting the data on the national identity register will be so robust that we need have no fears. A few weeks ago, however, they probably would have said the same about the information provided by child benefit claimants - the information which has now gone astray.

There is a fundamental point here. We live in a society where the Government and other authorities are entrusted with more and more information about us. We are under almost constant surveillance from a battery of CCTV cameras in every town and city. The police have a growing database of people’s DNA profiles, many of whom have not been convicted of any crime. ID cards will shortly mean that even more information will be stored about us.

All of this sensitive data is held on trust. We have no idea whether Governments in the future might misuse this information or, more likely, simply mislay it in a similar blunder to the one we have witnessed this week.

This error should give us all pause for thought, particularly over the issue of ID cards. Are we really happy to have yet more data stored about us? Will it really make us more secure, as the Government claims, or more vulnerable? It is difficult not to feel a sense of deep unease about the further cataloguing of the entire population.

VIDEO: Paul Bremer and 9/11

In the early hours right after the 9/11 attacks, Paul Bremer appeared on NBC suggesting that Osama bin Laden was responsible. He was one of the first to float the name.

What Bremer failed to mention is that as he appeared on television calmly speculating about who was responsible, 1,700 of the employees the company he worked for were “missing” as a result of the attack on the South Tower of the World Trade Center.

It later turned out that over 200 were killed, one of the biggest losses of any organization that day.

Are Bush and Cheney guilty of treason?

By Carol WolmanUS Constitution Article 3 Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

On Sept 20th, 2001, George W. Bush announced a “war on terror”. “Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.” http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html

If we are engaged in a war on terrorist groups, then anyone who gives aid and comfort to terrorist groups is an enemy.

One major aim of terrorist groups is to get hold of weapons of mass destruction, in order to better terrorize a target population, such as the people of the US.

At the time Bush gave his speech, Valerie Plame was an undercover CIA agent, running an international ring of CIA assets, whose job was tracking WMD’s through world black markets and preventing them from falling into the hands of terrorists. Two years later, her undercover identity was leaked to the press. Her outing did serious and lasting damage.

Several intelligence officials described the damage in terms of how long it would take for the agency to recover. According to their own assessment, the CIA would be impaired for up to “ten years” in its capacity to adequately monitor nuclear proliferation on the level of efficiency and accuracy it had prior to the White House leak of Plame Wilson’s identity. http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Outed_CIA_officer_was_working_on_0213.html In other words, the outing of Valerie Plame made it much easier for “every terrorist group of global reach” to acquire WMD’s.

Cannabis lowers greenhouse emissions

As environmental consciousness increases, a plant with great potential to accommodate our generation’s awareness has re-emerged, but its negative associations leave some obstacles to overcome.

Hemp, which is too often associated with marijuana, does come from the same family of plants, but yields a fraction of the active ingredient, THC.

Hemp has the uncanny ability to help in solving many of the world’s major dilemmas from nutrition problems to the greenhouse effect.

In 1938, Popular Mechanics named hemp the first “billion dollar crop” for the U.S., which it could use to produce everything from fuel, paper and oil to medicine and dynamite. According to Jack Herer in his book The Emperor Wears No Clothes, if we still used the same process being used in 1916 to produce hemp paper today, it could replace 40 to 70 per cent of all pulp paper.

Today, hemp will produce 4.1 times more pulp for paper over a 20-year rotation compared to trees. For example, supermarket paper bags from trees and chemical-based plastic bags would be replaced with a biodegradable, more durable paper that’s acquired from an annually renewable source: cannabis hemp.

In the U.S., 82 per cent of spending goes towards energy to maintain a home or to produce its products. Development in biomass energy has exploded in the last few years, and cellulose from things like corn and sugar cane can be converted to methanol and then to a high-octane lead-free gasoline.

Hemp prevails again, as it produces the most net biomass, and has from four to 100 times more cellulose than other products currently in use. This variation is due to inadequate research, but suggests hemp’s equivalent potential to corn and sugar. This idea is not as novel as it seems; Ford Motor Co. was operating this process in the 1930s using tree cellulose, and Henry Ford himself partially constructed a car using hemp.

Both paper and fuel show major benefits for combating the greenhouse effect, as we would keep trees alive and allow them to grow and keep 10 times more carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.

Hemp is an annually renewable resource, such that the carbon dioxide it emits when used as gasoline is recycled to keep the plant alive during its next generation. In the ground it expels oxygen and recycles the carbon for our energy uses.

The seed of the hemp plant also offers critical support to humanity, as it is one of the most complete sources of nutrition. It provides all the essential amino acids that provide support for our immune system, skin, hair and thought processes. It can also be made into butter, much like peanut butter. As Udo Erasmus, a PhD nutritionist and lecturer, said, “Hemp butter puts our peanut butter to shame for nutritional value.”

Since hemp can grow in virtually any climate including northern and dessert climates, it offers nutritional support and protein for developing countries.

These are only a few of the countless benefits of hemp. It’s about time we opened our minds and implemented some thoughtful solutions to secure humanity’s future on mother earth.

HILLARY QUOTES: How Common?

Where is the G-damn f**king flag? I want the G-damn f**king flag up every f**king morning at f**king sunrise.” (From the book “Inside The White House” by Ronald Kessler, p. 244 - Hillary to the staff at the Arkansas Governor’s mansion on Labor Day, 1991)

“You sold out, you mother f**ker! You sold out!” (From the book “Inside” by Joseph Califano, p. 213 - Hillary yelling at Democrat lawyer.)

“It’s been said, and I think it’s accurate, that my husband was obsessed by terrorism in general and al-Qaida in particular.” (Hillary telling a post-9/11 world what a ‘great’ commander in chief her husband was; Dateline, NBC 4/16/2004.)

“I have to admit that a good deal of what my husband and I have learned [about Islam] has come from our daughter.” (TruthInMedia.org 8/8/1999 - Hillary at a White House function, proudly tells some Muslim groups she is gaining a greater appreciation of Islam because Chelsea was then taking a class on the “religion of peace”)

F**k off! It’s enough that I have to see you shit-kickers every day, I’m not going to talk to you too!! Just do your G*damn job and keep your mouth shut.” (From the book “American Evita” by Christopher Anderson, p. 90 - Hillary to her State Trooper bodyguards after one of them greeted her with “Good morning.”

“You f**king idiot.” (From the book “Crossfire” p. 84 - Hillary to a State Trooper who was driving her to an event.)

“If you want to remain on this detail, get your f**king ass over here and grab those bags!” (From the book “The First Partner” p. 259 - Hillary to a Secret Service Agent who was reluctant to carry her luggage because he wanted to keep his hands free in case of an incident.)

“Get f**ked! Get the f**k out of my way!!! Get out of my face!!!”(From the book “Hillary’s Scheme” p. 89 - Hillary’s various comments to her Secret Service detail agents.)

“Stay the f**k back, stay the f**k away from me! Don’t come within ten yards of me, or else! Just f**king do as I s ay, Okay!!!?” (From the book “Unlimited Access”, by Clinton FBI Agent in Charge, Gary Aldrige, p. 139 - Hillary screaming at her Secret Service detail.)

“Many of you are well enough off that [President Bush’s] tax cuts may have helped you. We’re saying that for America to get back on track, we’re probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We’re going to have to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.” (Hillary grandstanding at a fund raising speech in San Francisco; SFGate.com 6/28/2004.)

“Why do I have to keep proving to people that I am not a liar?!”(From the book “The Survivor,” by John Harris, p. 382 - Hillary in her 2000 Senate campaign)

“Where’s the miserable c*ck sucker?” (From the book “The Truth About Hillary” by Edward Klein, p. 5 - Hillary shouting at a Secret Service officer)

“No matter what you think about the Iraq war, there is one thing we can all agree on for the next days - we have to salute the courage and bravery of those who are risking their lives to vote and those brave Iraqi and American soldiers fighting to protect their right to vote.” (Was posted on Hillary Clinton’s senate.gov web site on 1/28/05)

“Put this on the ground! I left my sunglasses in the limo. I need those sunglasses. We need to go back!” (From the book “Dereliction of Duty” p. 71-72 - Hillary to Marine One helicopter pilot to turn back while en route to Air Force One.)

A right-wing network was after his presidency…including perverting the Constitution.” (To Barbara Walters about the Republicans who impeached her husband; 20/20, ABC 6/8/2003.)

“What are you doing inviting these people into my home? These people are our enemies! They are trying to destroy us!” (From the book “The Survivor” by John Harris, p. 99 - Hillary screaming to an aide, when she found out that some Republicans had been invited to the White House)

“I mean, you’ve got a conservative and right-wing press presence with really nothing on the other end of the political spectrum.” (C-Span, 1/19/1997 - Hillary complains about the mainstream media, which are all conservatives in her opinion)

“Come on Bill, put your dick up! You can’t f**k her here!!” (From the book “Inside The White House” by Ronald Kessler, p. 243 - Hillary to Gov. Clinton when she spots him talking with an attractive female at an Arkansas political rally)

“You know, I’m going to start thanking the woman who cleans the restroom in the building I work in. I’m going to start thinking of her as a human being” (From the book “The Case Against Hillary Clinton” by Peggy Noonan, p. 55)

“You show people what you’re willing to fight for when you fight your friends.” (From the book “The Agenda” by Bob Woodward, ch. 14)

“We are at a stage in history in which remolding society is one of the great challenges facing all of us in the West.” (From the book “I’ve Always Been A Yankee Fan” by Thomas D. Kuiper, p 119 - During her 1993 commencement address at the University of Texas)

“The only way to make a difference is to acquire power” (From the book “I’ve Always Been A Yankee Fan” by Thomas D. Kuiper, p 68 - Hillary to a friend before starting law school.)

“We just can’t trust the American people to make those types of choices…. Government has to make those choices for people” (From the book “I’ve Always Been A Yankee Fan” by Thomas D. Kuiper, p 20 - Hillary to Rep. Dennis Hastert in 1993 discussing her expensive, disastrous taxpayer-funded health care plan)

“I am a fan of the social policies that you find in Europe” (From the book “I’ve Always Been A Yankee Fan” by Thomas D. Kuiper, p. 76 - Hillary in 1996)

NYC Fire Chief: Giuliani ‘Not a Hero’ ‘He Ran That Day’

Rudy is now “trumpeting his leadership in the wake of 9/11 in campaign mailings to voters in Iowa and New Hampshire” despite claiming all along that he wasn’t running on his 9/11 record. Dan Abrams has on FDNY Deputy Fire Chief Jim Riches, whose group, 9/11 Firefighters and Families, vows to not let Giuliani get away with it.

Riches: “We are going to follow him around and tell the true story of what happened on 9/11.” … “and get the message out to all of America and every state to let them know that Rudy Giuliani is not Mr 9/11. He’s not a hero. He ran that day.”

What the Giuliani campaign is now outwardly touting as his strength could very well become his achilles heel. This is not the first NYC firefighter group to take on Rudy ( http://therealrudy.org/radios ). Under pressure from these groups, NYC has just launched an investigation into “how the FDNY ended up using faulty equipment during the terrorist attacks and why Giuliani gave a no-bid contract to Motorola for that equipment.” ( http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/11… )

School of the Americas

Twenty thousand people staged a protest at Fort Benning, home of the School of Americas, now known as the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC)Veterans of WWII, Korea, Vietnam and the never-ending Gulf Wars marched side by side with Catholic sisters and Buddhist monks.

Eleven were arrested and are facing six months imprisonment for “trespass.” The individual being interviewed in this clip is a CIA employee named Duane Clarridge.

Child benefit: Civil servant’s error led to fiasco

The records fiasco was triggered a month ago when a junior civil servant put a brown envelope with two compact discs into a general post basket in his office.