HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Places » International » Latin America (Group) » Chavez sees plot to kill ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 11:01 PM

Chavez sees plot to kill Venezuela opposition rival

Chavez sees plot to kill Venezuela opposition rival
Reuters

9:02 p.m. CDT, March 19, 2012

CARACAS (Reuters) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said on Monday he had information about a planned assassination attempt against opposition rival Henrique Capriles, who hopes to block his bid for re-election in October.

"The head of intelligence met with a team of the Miranda governor, because there's some information out there that they want to kill him," Chavez said in a phone call to state TV. "It's not the government, not at all, on the contrary."

Chavez gave few details of the alleged plot, but said his government had offered protection to the 39-year-old opposition leader and governor of Miranda state, who is on a nationwide tour to drum up support for his presidential bid.

Raising tensions in the polarized South American nation, shots were fired during a recent Capriles visit to a Caracas slum that is a Chavez stronghold.

More:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-venezuela-election-oppositionbre82j024-20120319,0,7466366.story

16 replies, 2097 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 16 replies Author Time Post
Reply Chavez sees plot to kill Venezuela opposition rival (Original post)
Judi Lynn Mar 2012 OP
Bacchus4.0 Mar 2012 #1
Peace Patriot Mar 2012 #2
joshcryer Mar 2012 #3
Peace Patriot Mar 2012 #5
joshcryer Mar 2012 #6
Zorro Mar 2012 #7
Peace Patriot Mar 2012 #8
joshcryer Mar 2012 #9
Bacchus4.0 Mar 2012 #10
joshcryer Mar 2012 #11
Bacchus4.0 Mar 2012 #12
Judi Lynn Mar 2012 #13
joshcryer Mar 2012 #15
Peace Patriot Mar 2012 #14
joshcryer Mar 2012 #16
Bacchus4.0 Mar 2012 #4

Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Tue Mar 20, 2012, 09:20 AM

1. I wonder if Capriles will survive until the election n/t

s

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Tue Mar 20, 2012, 06:26 PM

2. The U.S. goal in Venezuela, for a decade now, has been instability...

--U.S. supported rightwing/military coup attempt in 2002.

--Oil Bosses' lockout (Exxon Mobil) in 2003 (trying to destroy Venezuela's economy).

--USAID-funded recall election in 2004 to try to keep the legitimacy of the government in dispute (Chavez won it, hands down).

--Infusion of $7 billion in military aid to neighboring Colombia and installation of a warmonger president (Alvaro Uribe--also a cocaine mafia don), with the following results, re Venezuela: floods of tens of thousands of refugees fleeing from the Colombian military into Venezuela, infiltration of rightwing death squads/narco traffickers into Venezuela and other impacts, to destabilize the border areas; Uribe's attempts to instigate war with Venezuela and Ecuador; U.S. military presence and activity at numerous bases in Colombia, including the building a new military base only 20 miles from Venezuela's border overlooking the Gulf of Venezuela and its oil facilities, and other acts of intimidation aimed at making the government of Venezuela jittery and defensive (including, for instance, forbidding U.S. manufacturers of Venezuela's military aircraft from providing replacement parts for those aircraft and USAF surveillance flights from its base in the Dutch Antilles, right off Venezuela's coast).

--Intense CIA, U.S. State Department and Global Corporate Media propaganda against the duly elected and overwhelmingly popular Chavez government--including non-stop accusations that he is a "dictator" (when in truth he is nothing more than a strong leftist like our own FDR), that he is anti-"free speech" (not true either), incompetent (a ridiculous accusation) and is destroying Venezuela. (Venezuelans never had it so good; among other, overwhelming evidence, the UN Economic Commission on Latin America and the Caribbean recently designated Venezuela "THE most equal country in Latin America" on income distribution). This propaganda campaign against Chavez and his government--and, indeed, if the truth were known, against the people of Venezuela who have repeatedly voted for this government--is also guilty of EXCLUDING all evidence to the contrary. NEVER--ever, EVER--do these U.S. and Corporate propaganda sources acknowledge ANY accomplishments of the Chavez government, which have been stunning in many respects (big reductions in poverty, big increases in access to education, five straight years of amazing economic growth, 2003 to 2008, despite every obstacle, etc.). That is the most telling feature of this worldwide propaganda campaign against Chavez--its utter lack of objectivity.

--"Training" and funding of the rightwing opposition, which has engaged in several anti-democratic actions, such as the coup attempt and its riotous mobs, boycotting by-elections for no good reason (other than that they were going to lose them), falsely crying "rigged" (Venezuela has one of the most honest, transparent election systems in the world), planning riots and destabilization based on falsified exit polls in '06 (a plot that was aimed at toppling the government and probably included assassination of Chavez, and that was more than likely designed in Washington DC), hoarding by business interests to wreck the economy and more.

--The above efforts at destabilization have been supplemented with even more covert plots (harder to see) such as the CIA "suitcase full of money" caper out of Miami (aimed at smearing Chavez and his leftist ally in Argentina, Cristina Fernandez) and the Rumsfeldian "miracle laptop" plot (creation of false evidence that Chavez supported the FARC guerrillas in Colombia).

They haven't been able to topple the Chavez government democratically--even with the help of the corporate media machine in Venezuela (which is even worse than our own) and at great expense to U.S. taxpayers--and they haven't been able to infiltrate the Venezuelan military (since the '02 coup attempt)--so the goal was switched to destabilization (creating unrest, confusion and fear, with a non-stop stream of slander and lies, to foster better conditions for rightwing electoral victories). Most of the above was the work of the Bush Junta. The Obama administration is subtler in its methods--at least on the surface--for instance, producing this air-brushed candidate, Henrique Capriles--a wolf in sheep's clothing if I ever saw one (as to the distribution of wealth).

However, the Obama administration may be less subtle in their methods than they appear to be, if the underlying plot is assassination of Capriles. This is possible, in my opinion, but not likely. What is more likely is that rightwing/fascists here--who, for instance, designed and carried out the coup in Honduras (I don't believe that it was of Obamaite design but was inflicted on them, only six months into the Obama administration, and to which they reacted very badly)--may be carrying out a plot of their own (or as rightwing/fascist operatives embedded in the U.S. government/military). BECAUSE of how I believe that the Honduran coup played out, I think this is a good possibility--that embedded Bushwhacks would assassinate a candidate groomed by the Obama administration, to plunge Venezuela into chaos. If Chavez dies of cancer this year, it is a double-plus for them. No Chavez. No Capriles (cosmetic "free trade for the rich" candidate). In that circumstance, and if Diebold chooses Romney, we will very likely see Oil War II starting in Venezuela. If Diebold chooses Obama (and he really hasn't given them much reason not to), we may see something less than war but still very bad for the Venezuelan people and the people of the region (U.S. completion of its "circle the wagons" region--Central America/the Caribbean--with control of Venezuela's oil included, i.e., an interim government that will give control of that oil back to Exxon Mobil and the Pentagon, by an operative that is easier to install than Capriles).

One thing I love about Chavez is his openness and chattiness. He says probably more than he should, as to the diplomatic games played by the rest of the world's leaders--but it is a good quality in him. You want to know what the Venezuelan government is really thinking? Ask Chavez--and he will tell you at length, most of it true. He is an unusual politician in this respect. Putting aside my generic suspicion of the Corporate Press (which is not above outright lying) on articles about Chavez, I think he probably did say this--that they have evidence that Capriles is in danger--and it is probably true. For one thing, why would he lie about it? No advantage to him--and many downsides. Would he engage in a devious plot to pretend to care about Capriles' safety and then assassinate him? I would say 99.9% not possible, of Chavez. (You always have to leave a little room for doubt about any politician.) Who would benefit from such an assassination? Not Chavez. Believe me. It would throw his government and the country into chaos--and that is the last thing in the world they want. They are way ahead in the polls and they've been fending off destabilization plots for more than a decade. Could it be some ambitious operatives embedded in the Chavez government (on their own or with U.S. support)? That is possible and could be part of the plot (arranging it so that the Chavez government looks guilty).

But as to political governance, really, an assassination of Capriles is about the worst thing that could happen to Chavez and his government.

Who would benefit? That is the question. And who would benefit from the combination of events--Capriles getting killed and Chavez dying?

As with Honduras, the biggest beneficiaries would be the far right and its corporate/war profiteer sponsors here. Their ikon is Donald Rumsfeld, and he made no secret of his belief in sheer chaos as the optimal condition for making this "The New American Century." Indeed, he applauded the looters in Iraq as evidence of "freedom" and his every action contributed to destabilization, looting, tribal warfare and incivility of every kind including the brutal torture of random prisoners. THIS is where the far right here and the worst of our Corporate/War Profiteer rulers want to go--back into profitable murder and mayhem. And Iraq isn't the only place they did this to. Colombia is another example. Bloody chaos is their first choice of methods of domination.

I think there is a criminal underworld intimately tied to these powerful bad actors--which I think is perhaps most evident, recently, in the Bushwhack conduct of the U.S. "war on drugs" in Colombia. (FIVE MILLION peasant farmers driven from their lands; big drug lords take over.) Though he has ties to the '02 coup attempt, my gut feeling is that Capriles is not directly tied to this criminal underworld--i.e., is not a "made man" and is thus ok as a sacrificial victim. It will certainly be interesting to learn the details of this plot, if and when they are revealed. (As with other such criminal plots, it would be unsafe and stupid to reveal details of how it was uncovered and who is involved or suspected. Corporate news lines like "Chavez gave few details of the alleged plot" are intended to make you question Chavez's veracity. It is standard procedure, in any police investigation, NOT to reveal details until it is safe and wise to do so.) My guess: far right elements in Venezuela in collusion with far right elements here, either within the U.S. government or operating outside of it, in opposition to Obama policy.

One more item of possible importance to this situation: The far right in Colombia, and here, are livid about the Obama administration's (and Leon Panetta's) removal of Uribe from power and approval of the new president, Manual Santos, whose first action as president was to make peace with Venezuela. Panetta--who has close ties to Bush Senior--likely did this because Colombian prosecutors are on Uribe's trail and Uribe was close to Bush Jr. and likely knows too much about the Bush Junta's criminal activity in Colombia. But Uribe was left free to maneuver to get back into power and to put his criminal organization back in place in the Colombian government. Uribe and his syndicate may not like Capriles (not far right enough, i.e., not into murder and mayhem as methods of rule). So this element, in neighboring Colombia, is on my short list of possible perps of this plot (or co-conspirators).

The "Black Eagles" (Uribe-connected rightwing death squads and drug lords) have been discovered and routed out in a couple of places in Venezuela. They have assassinated many people in Colombia whom Uribe identified as "enemies" (for instance, many trade union leaders). Their purpose in Venezuela may not be merely corruption and lower-scale destabilization, but to be conveniently in place and entrenched for more series destabilization and overthrow.

Uribe hates Chavez and Santos. If Capriles is pro-peace (and, say, would not be recruited), Uribe may hate him as well. Panetta (and, by implication, Obama--?) may have Uribe on a short leash but he has what I would call a "Napoleon complex"--ambition far beyond his power and talents--and might decide to act on his own and/or with far right elements, here, that are subverting U.S. government policy.

The way that plots like this work is compartmentalization and "need to know" to protect the uppermucks if the lowermucks are caught. We now have private operatives (funded, initially, by you and me) all over the world, subverting national governments and pursuing Corporate/War Profiteer objectives (or their own particular objectives) quite independently of any government purpose or control. (Blackwater, for instance, is now headquartered in the U.A.E.) (They were active in Colombia.) Venezuelan authorities may never find out who designed and instigated this plot. It may be just another jab--in a long series of jabs--to create government jitters. It may be serious, as outlined above. Those behind it may stay forever out of sight. If so, we should not let their invisibility fool us into superficial reading of the news--for instance, this particular effort of the Chicago Tribune (aren't they now owned by the New York Slimes?) to make Chavez look kind of silly and paranoid. He has good reason to take this potential attack on Venezuela's democracy seriously and no reason whatever to say it, if it isn't true. The downsides for him--including being portrayed as silly and paranoid, and Venezuela being portrayed as lawless under his government--are too many. Unless you believe what I consider to be absurd, on its face--that Chavez is involved in a plot to kill Capriles--he would be guilty of gross malfeasance NOT to take this threat seriously, NOT to warn Capriles (did Capriles brush him off?) and NOT to offer him as much protection as he needs.

One more possibility--which I don't think is likely: The Chavez government wants to have eyes on Capriles and his campaign. This is more likely than Chavez being involved in an assassination plot and it would certainly be an abuse of power, if he was, a) lying about it, and b) using it to get spies close to Capriles. I can't rule this out-- on my 99.9% rule about politicians--but I would put it at 0.02% probability, because Chavez really doesn't need to do this, to win. If he doesn't die, he will win the election. I suppose there could be operatives within Chavez's government who have fooled him and are using him. That is always possible, in any government. But Chavez has quite enough on his mind--including his own mortality--to become involved in such a tangled web of deceit and abuse of power. It's not his style. And it IS the style of those who have been seeking to topple his legitimate and very popular government for the last decade, by every devious means possible.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peace Patriot (Reply #2)

Tue Mar 20, 2012, 08:02 PM

3. Capriles is Chavez-lite, I think that ultimately Chavez would benefit from Capriles being killed.

Capriles actually does stand a legitimate chance of winning the elections against Chavez this year, and Chavez and the chavista's know this. This is why there was an attempt on Capriles' life recently, by a well known party member (he was never arrested or charged, btw). They are terrified of the man who will go into the barrios with the people and take them by the hand.

They hate what he represents. Education. Progress. Justice for all Venezuelans.





I see no real downside from Capriles being killed for the opposition. If the opposition pulls an outcry, there exists no real candidate that can come in to take Capriles' place, no other candidate has Capriles' ground game. Extremely popular, extremely well liked, down to earth. Leopoldo López might be the only one who could benefit, but 1) again, no ground game, highly unlikely to win 2) there's the problem of him being actually disqualified to run (though the Venezuelan courts said he could run and they would see what they would do about it if he won, etc), which is one reason he didn't get many votes in the primaries, too much uncertainty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #3)

Wed Mar 21, 2012, 12:15 PM

5. Nonsense! Capriles being assassinated would only benefit the far right here and there

and their Corporate/War Profiteer sponsors. It would throw the country into chaos, with the worldwide and local corporate press, of course, blaming Chavez and his government for not protecting Capriles and even for assassinating him. I've identified a particularly malevolent regional force--Uribe and his criminal organization--that, a) would benefit, and b) make a practice of assassinating people. They are more than likely allied with the architects of the '02 coup attempt. Chavez has said that it's a foreign group. My nominee is Uribe and his "Black Eagles" who did the Bush Junta's dirty work for them in Colombia.

Capriles has almost no chance of winning if Chavez remains healthy enough to run the government (and even if he's just healthy enough to be a figurehead and general policymaker). Chavez is very like FDR. He's brought a "New Deal" to Venezuelans and they will never give that up if there is any chance that it can continue (even with an ill Chavez).

You say: "Capriles actually does stand a legitimate chance of winning the elections against Chavez this year." Show me a legitimate poll that reflects this rightwing hope--and not any of the rightwing's rigged polls, please (rigged by Washington DC P.R. firms). Chavez is as popular as he ever was and will likely trounce Capriles in the election even if he's ill.

You say: They (chavistas) are terrified of the man who will go into the barrios with the people and take them by the hand.

LOL! You sure you don't work for Lanny Davis?

You say: "They (chavistas) hate what he represents. Education. Progress. Justice for all Venezuelans."

The chavistas hate education? There has never been such an expansion of educational opportunities as with the Chavez government. Education is what they do. It is very nearly a definition of chavista-ism! As for "progress" and "justice for all," the Chavez government has met and exceeded all of its Millennium goals and was recently designated "THE most equal country in Latin America" on income distribution, by the UN Economic Commission on Latin America and the Caribbean. I really, really, REALLY distrust a rightwinger talking about "justice for all." We've learned what that means, here in the U.S., by bitter experience, and so have Venezuelans. They learned it before we did. They were the pioneers of learning what rightwingers really mean.

You are talking in slogans--rightwing slogans--with the usual lack of detail and fogginess that the 99% in this world have learned to expect from the 1%. If these slogans fool Venezuelans, then they are not the smart, well-informed voters that they have proven themselves to be over the last decade.

Capriles is not "the future." He is the past--a slick, airbrushed version of "neo-liberalism" that sent Venezuela straight into a hell of poverty, neglect and repression, with the rich oil elite running things, who couldn't have cared less about their brother and sister Venezuelans. All they cared about was stuffing their Gucci bags with money that should have been going to education, and progress and justice for all.

Capriles may have a "great game" but he really can't change who he is. He wades into a barrio for a photo opportunity--not because he's comfortable there and not because he gives a damn about the poor. He is a slick alien in that context and stands out like a sore thumb.

But, say he's sincere. Say he's a good sort of "neo-liberal" who won't deconstruct Venezuela's "New Deal" all at once but will instead just begin the deconstruction, a la Reagan, to be gradually accomplished over several decades, and say Venezuelan voters suddenly turn stupid and buy his crapola ("It's morning in Venezuela!" Grin, grin.) And he starts moving in the polls and seems to have a chance--and gets assassinated. This scenario couldn't be worse for the Chavez government because it provides the opportunity for the far right and its sponsors to topple Venezuela's democracy itself and to install a coup government for the sake of "order." It would be the ideal plot for doing so--with both the right and left riled up to fever pitch and hired gangs on the scene to turn anger into riots--and that is just part of what such plotters would do, to destabilize the country and seize power. Their first actions in 2002 were to suspend the Constitution, the courts, the National Assembly and all civil rights. Their second actions were to begin "rounding up" the members of Chavez's government--sending mobs to hunt them down. And their third action was to appoint a "president."

I don't altogether buy the notion that Capriles is NOT a representative of the far right, but say that there is some truth to his campaign's assertion that he's something like Lula da Silva (left-center). If this is really true, it means that he would ally himself with other leftist leaders in Latin America (as Lula da Silva and his successor, Dilma Rousseff, have done), in their common effort to achieve Latin American independence and sovereignty (most especially vis a vis the U.S. and its Corporate/War Profiteer rulers), "south-south" trade, social justice and the use of Latin American resources to help Latin Americans. This would put him on a path of collision with the traitorous far right, which wants Exxon Mobil back in charge of Venezuela's oil, and with mafioso like Uribe, as well as with the far right here and its collaborators in the government and the Pentagon.

So, if what you and Capriles' campaign are saying about Capriles is true, the above forces have all the more reason to assassinate him--to prevent any kind of accommodation with Chavez policy and with leftist policy in the region and to install a far right traitor in the chaos that would follow an assassination. Capriles being a "left-centrist" would make Capriles even more of a target of the far right than if he is just a liar with a pretty face. And, again, assassination of Capriles would be one of the worst things that could happen to the Chavez government. Even if they won the election, with Capriles dead, Venezuela would be ungovernable and the next thing that would happen would be a far right coup (or possibly a military government). (And if it's a leftist military government--a likelihood--this would be used to discredit, "sanction" and isolate Venezuela--what the U.S. has been trying to do all along.)

There is NO upside to a Capriles assassination for the chavistas. The beneficiaries would be the traitorous far right and Exxon Mobil and its allies and servants.

My conclusion is that this assassination threat is real, that Chavez and his government are very much trying to prevent it, and that Capriles is a fool not to take it seriously (if he isn't--and he doesn't seem to be). My suspicion is (and there is evidence for this) that he is, in truth, a rep of the far right (a "wolf in sheep's clothing") and thinks that his sponsors would not kill him. (That is why he doesn't seem to be taking it seriously.) He may be wrong if their intent is chaos and gaining undemocratic power in the mess that would follow. The far right and the forces they represent have no scruples whatsoever about assassination. They would have assassinated Chavez long ago, if they could have. It's what they do. Murder and mayhem = opportunity to get filthy rich beyond the dreams of Croesus. We learned this from Rumsfeld and Cheney. I hope that Venezuelans don't have to learn it the hard way, as so many others have done (Iraqis, Afghanis, Colombians, Hondurans, Mexicans).



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peace Patriot (Reply #5)

Wed Mar 21, 2012, 08:52 PM

6. I could see Uribe doing it or other top drug kingpins.

They would benefit because Capriles wants to bring down the crime rate and shut down the cartels which Chavez' government has focused very little on (less than 1% of Fonden money is spent on security, which is why Venezuela's crime rate is the 4th highest in the world, even more so than places like Iraq or Afghanistan).

Capriles has almost no chance of winning if Chavez remains healthy enough to run the government (and even if he's just healthy enough to be a figurehead and general policymaker).


Is that why you bought the dishonest smears against his record breaking primary in which a quarter, a whole 25% of Venezuelans who vote, voted? You actually do believe Capriles has "almost no chance of winning." Frankly, this is the primary reason I wish Chavez the best health possible, because when he does lose (and I think Capriles will win), people will claim it was because Chavez wasn't able to campaign as hard. People will blame the voting machines, even though it's all paper ballots and probably the cleanest elections in all of the hemisphere.

Consultores 21 is the most accurate pollster in Venezuela, they accurately predicted the last elections. They say that Capriles and Chavez are even odds.

The chavistas hate education? There has never been such an expansion of educational opportunities as with the Chavez government.


Yes, they have not nearly implemented education and schooling opportunities like Capriles has done in Miranda. His primary focus is education. Chavez' government refuses to raise the saleries of teachers and in fact calls for what I consider "shared sacrifice."

As for "progress" and "justice for all," the Chavez government has met and exceeded all of its Millennium goals


Was one of his goals to make the country the 4th deadliest on the planet? Justice for all doesn't mean simply equalizing income distribution, it means distributing the oil money fairly, without throwing money away to buy goods from companies who shaft you. There was a time when Chavez' government paid to buy some generators from Cuba under a no-bid contract for twice what they would've cost through GE. This is not justice for the Venezuelan people. It's cronyism. What about the overfilling prisons with people who haven't even been charged with anything? That's not justice. What about the union busting? That's not justice.

I really, really, REALLY distrust a rightwinger talking about "justice for all."


Are you calling me a right winger? You're the one placing so much faith in Chavez' effectively right wing government which is squandering Venezuelan resources because those at the top are invested heavily in cronyism. Just because the government does give the plebs some good stuff does not mean that it is left wing. The very fact that so much money is missing in the Fonden fund is proof of that. People are getting paid off very nicely, and I suspect a large number of them are in fact right wingers.

If these slogans fool Venezuelans, then they are not the smart, well-informed voters that they have proven themselves to be over the last decade.


Well, that didn't take long. I love the paternalist, insulting attitude, anyhow. Those record breaking primaries were also insulted. Those poor idiot Venezuelans couldn't take two minutes to vote, everyone knows that it takes longer to vote than that! Disgusting.

Capriles may have a "great game" but he really can't change who he is. He wades into a barrio for a photo opportunity--not because he's comfortable there and not because he gives a damn about the poor.


This is really insulting to my intelligence and the intelligence of Venezuelans. Capriles goes into the barrios because he's welcome there. You won't find Chavez walking through the barrios, taking people by the hand, talking to the people there. He pulls up in his caravan and sets up a place to speak and then douses Venezuelans with platitudes. Capriles goes into those same barrios, walks through the streets with the people, and takes their 'papelitos' (papers with grievances, requests, or written support on them), and marches on. Every where he goes he is mobbed by these people, which is why chavista's tried killing him.

And he starts moving in the polls and seems to have a chance--and gets assassinated. This scenario couldn't be worse for the Chavez government because it provides the opportunity for the far right and its sponsors to topple Venezuela's democracy itself and to install a coup government for the sake of "order."




And who will run the coup? Chavez's faithful generals? Shit, that scenario is more likely to happen if Capriles wins (what with Aden Chavez and top generals implications). If Capriles gets killed there would be condolences, and the opposition would scramble to find a new candidate, because Chavismo will say "The elections must go on!" The opposition would be unable to find any candidate that is remotely capable of filling Capriles' shoes. It's just impossible.

I don't altogether buy the notion that Capriles is NOT a representative of the far right, but say that there is some truth to his campaign's assertion that he's something like Lula da Silva (left-center).


People said the same shit about Santos but he's shown everyone that he's left of our own Democrats. You have no basis with which to claim that you don't buy the notion that Capriles is "not a representative of the far right." It's just some thought you have. It's patently false, spurred by far "left" (really right wing, paternalist) propaganda. Capriles is not going to stop building homes, he'll build more (he built more with less money in Miranda than the Chavez government did with more money using Chinese labor). Capriles is not going to stop building schools, he'll build more (he built more with less money than Chavez' government did with more money).

Capriles is not a speaker, not a loud mouth, he's a worker, he works to get things done, he doesn't sit at his high seat spending hours upon hours talking about how he gets things done, he gets things done. This is the epitome of leftism, of progress.

This would put him on a path of collision with the traitorous far right


You're convincing me. The crony aspects of Chavez' government would not want him taking away their millions of dollars of stolen funds, that is a certainty. They need, want, and thrive on high levels of violence in that country, because it doesn't result in stability and in such an atmosphere it's easier to steal the coffers.

Either way, this doesn't show any evidence that Chavez' government would be hurt by Capriles being killed. Chavez has the generals on his side, he has the Russians, he has Syria, Iran, the guy practically has aligned himself with war states. His government is fully protected from those outside sources. In no realistic scenario could Capriles death not benefit Chavismo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #6)

Wed Mar 21, 2012, 11:55 PM

7. ˇOle'!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #6)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 01:22 PM

8. 25% vote in a rightwing (open) primary and this proves...?

Though the turnout for this primary vote was more than expected, it proves nothing much except that the right managed to unite its factions and come up with an attractive, liberal-sounding presidential candidate (rather than fractious in-fighting, boycotting elections for no good reason and preferring coups). SEVENTY-FIVE PERCENT of Venezuelans DIDN'T vote in this primary (i.e., didn't care who the rightwing opposition came up with as a candidate), and this 25/75 split pretty much reflects political persuasion in Venezuela--most voters are leftists. If you give the right 15% and take 15% from the left (allowing for the middle-ground voters in a general election), you come up with the typical Chavez victory over many elections in the last decade (60/40 Chavez).

The pollster you cite (Consultores 21) GIVES NO NUMBERS (as to "even odds" between Capriles vs Chavez). None! It's just the vice president of the polling firm GUESSING what the turnout in a primary meant--and highly political (pro-right) guessing at that.

Venezuelan pollsters are notoriously unreliable. To say that Consultores 21 is better than this bad lot is not saying much--and for a polling firm vice president to make these vague, non-data based statements is highly suspicious, to say the least.

-------------------

As for my implying that you are rightwing, any DUer can look up your posts. You ARE rightwing and, furthermore, like the Corporate Media, you never, ever, EVER admit that the Chavez government has achieved anything positive whatsoever to explain why the vast majority of Venezuelans have consistently voted for the Chavez government election after election for more than a decade!

Your drumbeat of comments against the Chavez government is relentless. It is also unreasonable--like the Corporate Press. It makes no sense. WHY have Venezuelans voted for the Chavez government, time and again, in big numbers? And don't tell me it's because Chavez spends the oil profits on the poor--because I have heard that rightwing line of crap before. Spending on the poor, and fighting for the interests of the majority, is what a government "of, by and for" the people should be doing!

I will give one telling example of your rightwing "talking points" (in the above). You say that there is more violence in Venezuela than in "places like Iraq and Afghanistan."

Where are you getting this from and why are you repeating it?

The original source for this slander of the Chavez government was the New York Slimes most slimebag so-called reporter, Slimin' Romero! In yet another hit piece on Chavez, which combines the New York Slimes' LIES ABOUT IRAQ with their lies about Chavez, their headline screamed: "Venezuela More Deadly Than Iraq." Robert Naiman, at the Huffington Post, brilliantly deconstructs this combined lie, here...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/nyt-exploits-own-iraq-dea_b_693041.html#

"Note that the headline and the first two paragraphs of this piece depend crucially on the assumption that the partial tally of Iraqi deaths constructed by the NGO Iraq Body Count by monitoring press reports gives an accurate picture of the magnitude of the Iraqi death toll. If the Iraq Body Count partial tally is not an accurate picture of the magnitude of the Iraqi death toll, if it is too small by several orders of magnitude, then the comparison of the lede and the headline in theNew York Times article is baseless.

"But we know, by the standards ordinarily used to establish such things, that the Iraq Body Count partial tally is not an accurate measure of the magnitude of the Iraqi death toll."


He goes on to examine Romero's bullshit and the New York Slimes' related bullshit about Venezuela in great detail, as well exposing their false picture of the death toll in Iraq. Bear in mind that it was the New York Slimes who brought us the war on Iraq with the help of their other slimebag so-called reporter Judith Miller!

Here is Naiman in the conclusion of his article:

"Many may say "so what else is new" regarding the tendency of the Times to slant the news in the direction of a hawkish U.S. foreign policy. But the Times' influence on the US media is so great that the Times affects the thinking of many people who never read it. That's why it's important to call them to account."

Did you read the original Slimes article? I doubt it, because you throw in "Afghanistan" apropos of nothing. More important to my point, did you read Naiman's rebuttal? He demolishes Romero's lying article. Anyone interested in objectivity about the Chavez government would have been suspicious of this headline and would have searched for and found Naiman's article, to consider all sides of the matter, and furthermore would never again cite this FALSE comparison of the deliberate U.S. murder of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis based on FALSE numbers about that war with the crime rate in Venezuela! You spit on the uncounted dead in Iraq by doing so!

And you compound this callousness and these lies with this: "Was one of (Chavez's) goals to make the country the 4th deadliest on the planet?"

What kind of a question is that? It is a rightwing, bullshit, "Tea Party"-ish question, which seeks to slander Chavez, who has killed NO ONE, with the deliberate genocide of George Bush!

Is there anything more rightwing than this utterly twisted, "Alice in Wonderland," upside-down, inside-out, jabberwockian 'logic'?

This is why I now call them The New York Slimes. And YOU are one of the people they have targeted--in their lies about Iraq and now their lies about Venezuela--people who don't bother to question them, people who accept their warmongering slop as gospel (often without even reading it), people who don't think, people who pick up on their headline "hits," often second-hand, without examining the content and people who are looking for slogans and propaganda as a substitute for thinking.







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peace Patriot (Reply #8)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 06:14 PM

9. Please drop the paternalist talking points and insulting me.

Though the turnout for this primary vote was more than expected, it proves nothing much except that the right managed to unite its factions and come up with an attractive, liberal-sounding presidential candidate


The turnout for the US Presidental primaries of 2008 barely reached 15%. This is a whole 10% higher than our historic primaries. Playing the "glass is half empty" game is nonsensical propaganda. The Venezuelan primaries of 2012 were the most historical primary elections in history. That's why people spouted hateful nonsense about how it would be impossible for those stupid Venezuelans to vote in the time frame that they had, despite that all witness accounts were to the contrary.

Furthermore, calling the people who voted for Capriles "right wing" is just another uninformed ignorant and hateful smear against the Venezuelan people. Capriles won all demographic groups. He never got below 50% with the poorest of the poor. That is making chavista's shake in their boots.

The pollster you cite (Consultores 21) GIVES NO NUMBERS (as to "even odds" between Capriles vs Chavez). None! It's just the vice president of the polling firm GUESSING what the turnout in a primary meant--and highly political (pro-right) guessing at that.


When the polls come out I will tell you. We know that the pro-Chavez pollsters during the primaries got it totally wrong and actually gave the impression that MCM was going to beat HCR or give him a run for his money. The chavista's wanted that because MCM was a polarizing figure, getting into spats with Chavez, if anyone was the right wing candidate it was her. C21 got the primaries right (as per the previous link), they can be trusted.

You ARE rightwing and, furthermore, like the Corporate Media, you never, ever, EVER admit that the Chavez government has achieved anything positive whatsoever


This is factually false, as any Google search can show that I have indeed said that Chavez' reforms have helped reduce poverty. The difference between you and I is that I read the acedemic, impartial studies that discuss poverty reduction in Latin America, and conclude that populist, authoritarian regimes do not fare as well as social democracies.

So continue lying, if you wish, it's not true, I am not a right winger, and while I will not alert on your hateful insults, I will ask the jury that if anyone alerts I am simply defending myself from propagandistic smears. If you can't attack the message, attack the messenger. You can't refute the stuff I've said, all you can do is insult me and make stuff up about the Venezuelan people.

I will give one telling example of your rightwing "talking points" (in the above). You say that there is more violence in Venezuela than in "places like Iraq and Afghanistan." Where are you getting this from and why are you repeating it?


Impartial sources? The UNODC? Uncontroversial sources? The Venezuelan government itself when it was providing the data? This is an uncontroversial observation. It is an important observation, because Chavez got elected because the crime rate was so high and he was seen as someone who would provide security for the country.

The original source for this slander of the Chavez government was the New York Slimes most slimebag so-called reporter, Slimin' Romero!


Who? I base my information on my own, personal, research. I know that a lot of people need to read propaganda to form their own opinions, but I myself read every source that I have available, including propagandistic sites which are regularly posted here to sway my opinion, and if I disagree, am called a right winger.

If you or that Huffington Post blogger have a problem with UNODC figures, please provide the analysis.



I'm fully open to information that contridicts the data.

What kind of a question is that? It is a rightwing, bullshit, "Tea Party"-ish question, which seeks to slander Chavez, who has killed NO ONE, with the deliberate genocide of George Bush!


Hey, you're the one that claims that Chavez brought justice to the Venezuelan people. Of course, you only appear to care about "economic justice." The prison incarceration rate in Venezuela is 5 times what it is in the United States, and we have the highest incarceration in the world. You don't really want justice, you just want to defend deplorable policies. I want the Venezuelan people to have the best country in Latin America, and because they're sitting on oil reserves they can, if they didn't have authoritarian policies in place spread by propaganda.

But time is running short.

And YOU are one of the people they have targeted--in their lies about Iraq and now their lies about Venezuela--people who don't bother to question them


The only person here not questioning the data is you. I am giving you all of my sources, I am substantiating every single word I write. You provided me one link. What was the link to? A completely tangential posting about Simon Romero which has no relevance to the discussion. I don't even know who that is, nor would I base my opinion on one single article. It is laughable that you presume to be a barer of truth when all you can provide is hateful insults and pointless tangents. My data does not rely on what Romero wrote, therefore half of your post has nothing to do with anything.

When you assume, you make an ass out of you to me. ASS U ME.

edit: Hey, you wanted a poll? I found this posted just today:

Chavez was supported by 46 percent of those surveyed in a poll by Caracas-based Consultores 21 taken between March 3 and March 13, while opposition candidate Henrique Capriles Radonski had 45 percent. The poll used a sample of 2,000 people with a margin of error of 2.3 percentage points, Consultores 21 Vice President Saul Cabrera said today in a phone interview.


Most exciting elections in the hemisphere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #9)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 06:28 PM

10. militant leftwingers are not representative of Democrats or progressives

I would not consider for example Venezuela or Cuba to be particularly democratic and certainly not progressive. they share the same characteristics of many right wing governments, authoritarianism and conservatism. I don't find much appeal in Stalinism.

I wouldn't worry too much about the rantings of know nothings in this forum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bacchus4.0 (Reply #10)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 06:38 PM

11. Oh, I'm quite familiar with neo-Trots who pretend to be paragons of truth.

I do not consider Peace Patriot one of them, though. I think they're highly misled by propaganda and just don't know better.

I think Venezuela is very democratic, and I think it is somewhat progressive. I think that trading violence for economic justice is not necessarily a good trade, though. I think that mismanagement is paramount in Venezuela and I think that people in Venezuela want to see things get done as opposed to things being talked about being done. People wanting those homes, the electricity crisis, the current water crisis, it's all something that should never be an issue in an oil rich state where oil is over $100 a barrel. You want economic justice but at what price? Would we look at Saudi Arabia with its brilliant, magnificent cities and services, and then announce that their culture is an ideal? Everyone gets a stipend, but speech rights are limited, women must wear a burka, etc, etc.

Economic justice is not the sole purveyor as to whether or not you are progressive. You must also provide social justice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #11)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 09:46 PM

12. you are correct, and I will correct myself

Venezuela is a democratic society reflected in its people. and also, I agree, the society is quite progressive. I meant to say the ruling government is not particularly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #9)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 01:26 AM

13. It was alarming to see your claim in a quick glance at your post that Venezuela incarcerates 5 times

as many people as the U.S., although also claiming the U.S. has the worst record in the world. "How can that be," I wondered, in helpless confusion.

Took a quick search to find this chart which shows that while the U.S. is #1 in per capital incarcerations, Venezuela is #107.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_pri_per_cap-crime-prisoners-per-capita

Oh, well. Small detail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Reply #13)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 07:24 PM

15. Ahh, poorly phrased. Venezuela's prison population growth is 10%.

The United States is 0.2%.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #9)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 11:24 AM

14. "...more violent than places like Iraq or Afghanistan."

That is from the Slimin Romero article ("Venezuela more violent than Iraq") and it has been thoroughly debunked. You have no facts to prove it and neither did Romero.

"Street crime" was the chief "talking point" of the rightwing in Venezuela in the last legislative elections. That is why the New York Slimes published that lying headline--to help the rightwing in Venezuela. It is a typical theme of the rightwing here, there and everywhere. And the irony is that, if Chavez approached "street crime" with Big Boots--and tried to take Venezuelans' guns away, and was kicking in doors with federal troops, and dragging people off to jail, and spouting rightwing slogans like "zero tolerance" and "getting tough on crime"--the rightwing, the corporate media and no doubt you yourself would be screaming tyranny.

Furthermore, "street crime" is mostly the purview of governors in the provinces, not the federal government. A good number of Venezuelan governors are rightwing. This is a shared problem, not a political problem, yet the right treats it like a political problem, no doubt because their guidance counselors in Langley told them to. "Memes" like this are run through the corporate media and end up with absurdities like "Venezuela more violent than Iraq."

The U.S. slaughtered hundreds of thousands of innocent people in Iraq, not Chavez.

I repeat: Chavez has killed NO ONE, and your absurd implication that he wants "street crime," that he approves of street crime, that he set out to create street crime, is rightwing, Tea Party-ish ("Alice in Wonderland"-ish) slander.

Your final comment that these are the "most exciting elections in the hemisphere" gives you away. You are excited that the leading leftist in the hemisphere--the leader who sparked the leftist democracy revolution everywhere else--might lose an election or die trying? And you base this on a rightwing primary turnout and one poll? You know, it may be that Chavez is tired--and he is certainly ill--and it may be that the Venezuelan people are tired of Chavez--for whatever reason (been around too long, can't deliver everything that everybody wants), but to describe his fancied demise as "exciting" puts you in league with rightwingers, at the least, and your ease with Tea Partyish propaganda ("Venezuela more violent than Iraq") puts you squarely in the rightwing camp. Your view of this is not reasonable. It is political propaganda--rightwing political propaganda.

I apologize to you if you have acknowledged any achievements of the Chavez government (for saying that you, like the Corporate Press, never, ever have). But your comments are nevertheless relentlessly anti-Chavez and furthermore anti-chavista--that is, anti-left, anti-the poor majority. I can only be guided by what you say, as to my assessment of your politics. And I have seen TOO MUCH "liberal"--or I should say, "neo-liberal"--sliminess to be fooled by smooth-talking candidates like Capriles with their hidden corporate, pro-1%, anti-99% agendas.

In Chavez--as with the many other leftists who have been elected in Latin America, by voters and grass roots activists inspired by the Venezuelan people and the "New Deal" that they voted for themselves--I see a leader who has actually--for real--implemented as much of the "will of the people" as he and his government could accomplish. "Liberals" and rightwingers disguised as "liberals" are almost as bad as outright fascists at doing the opposite--serving the interests of transglobal corporations and the very rich. So when someone like Capriles comes along, looking "mediagenic," and claiming to support social programs--not to mention uniting the fractious rightwing parties--I smell a rat. I don't believe him. I think his program is to deconstruct Venezuelans' "New Deal" like ours has been deconstructed, starting with Reagan (and with the complicity of the Democratic Party leadership). If he fools enough Venezuelan voters to oust the Chavez government, or if Venezuelans vote against Chavez for whatever reason, I think that they will bitterly regret that decision.

And if that happens, there will be "dancing in the streets" in Washington DC and in Freeperland. Where does that place you, on the political spectrum, that you find that prospect "exciting"?

I DON'T think that Venezuela's political revolution and its "New Deal" are dependent on one man--I think that these things are part of an historical change of huge import throughout Latin America, that first occurred in Venezuela--but I DO think that Chavez is a strong, FDR-like leader, and has been able to accomplish some things, that might not have happened, due to his leadership qualities and personality. Nevertheless, it will take time for the right, in league with U.S. forces (government, corporations, banksters) to deconstruct what both the Venezuelan people and Chavez and his government have created. We may not see Exxon Mobil back in the saddle, stealing Venezuelan's oil wealth, right away. We may not see Venezuela hogtied to the U.S. war/exploitation machine in Capriles' first term. But those are the goals of the interests who want Chavez out (and, believe me, if Capriles doesn't deliver, for the interests that so fervently want him to defeat Chavez, he will be replaced).

Capriles is no Lula da Silva (a strong ally of Chavez, by the way). Capriles tries to paint himself as a Lula da Silva--a center/leftist. He is not. He is a rightwinger with a smooth veneer. He is backed by the coupster right--the people who overturned Venezuelan's democracy (suspended the Constitution, the courts, the National Assembly and all civil rights) in their belief that they are "born to rule." His object is to defeat Chavez (the Left). And you want him to win. Where does that place you on the political spectrum?

The right has united to defeat Chavez. Maybe they will succeed. They are better-tutored this time, to present a "moderate" image. And they have ALL of the corporate press and ALL of the Western World's corporations, war profiteers and bought-and-paid-for governments behind them. They have the behemoth to the north behind them. They have the Miami mafia and the coupsters behind them. And they have Chavez's illness in their favor. (He has been a great campaigner in the past but likely won't have that kind of energy this time.) And if this leftist democrat*--the leader who defined what social justice means, for real--falls, you will be celebrating. What does that say about your politics--or, if you are not a rightwinger--about your naivete?

I am not attacking you. To say that you are rightwing is my best judgement of your political stances and your comments. You call it an "insult." I do not intend it that way. It is an evaluation of the kind of "talking points" that you use--for instance, Venezuela being as violent as Iraq and Afghanistan. I have followed anti-Chavez "memes" like that for many years. And when I see them being repeated--with absolutely no effort to analyze them or track them back to their source, and evidently no awareness that they have been called into question and even demolished by the facts (as the Huffington Post article does, in that case)--I judge them as rightwing propaganda. I am attacking your "talking point"--not you--and I am analyzing your "excitement" at the idea of Chavez being defeated as rightwing (in the context of your anti-Chavez comments in general).

Maybe you don't think of yourself as a rightwinger but that is the effect of your comments, in my opinion. Whatever you think you are doing, you are serving rightwing interests when you promote rightwing "talking points." And I think DUer's have a right to know how I evaluate that and on what basis I am doing so.

---------------------------


*(Lula da Silva said, of Chavez: "They can invent all kinds of things to criticize Chavez--but not on democracy." NEVER has there been such free political discussion, such honest elections, such big voter turnouts, with a real chance for the peoples' will to be done, and NEVER has there been such big participation by the poor majority, as there has been in Venezuela, over the last decade. THAT is provable and that IS democracy. And it is one of the greatest accomplishments of the Chavez government and the people of Venezuela. It is also precisely because it is such a great accomplishment that it has been attacked, time and again, with an intense disinformation campaign by the Corporate Press and the U.S. government, very nearly from Day One of the Chavez administration--the moment they sniffed a real democrat with a small d. The rightwing and its corporate backers are benefiting from Chavez's LACK OF repression. They are free to say whatever they want--to lie, to manipulate, to distort--with every rightwing "talking point"--even the most twisted, absurd "talking points"--trumpeted by Corporate Press, as with the New York Slimes' "Venezuela more violent than Iraq." Such irony! They benefit from Chavez NOT being a "dictator" as well as from the damned lie that he is!)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peace Patriot (Reply #14)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 07:33 PM

16. I provided UNDOC data, you're just posting walls of text thinking it means anything.

I am unabashedly anti-Chavismo, though I support and respect Chavez himself, Chavismo is not what leftists should aspire toward, rampant cronyism, mismanagement, high crime rates, hardly just.

Capriles is not right wing, your ignorance on this issue shows as you can't provide one iota of data to back up your smears. Yes, some right wingers want Capriles to win, but that is more about them wanting Chavez to lose, for them it is very much symbolic. In the end they would cheer if Chavez simply died. They would cheer if Venezuela fell into chaos. That's the kind of people that they are. Certainly your prediction that if Capriles was killed the country would fall into chaos is, by itself, a right wing view. As if Venezuela's stability hinges on one man one way or another. Right wingers hate that Capriles insists on maintaining currency controls, on maintaining the nationalization of oil, on maintaining the nationalization on schooling and on providing homes to all Venezuelans. They hate that he wants to do that. They just hate Chavez more.

My "talking points" are factual. What you provide is propaganda. That makes you right wing, not me. Propaganda is used to manipulate and sway people into believing falsehoods. Putting your head in the sand over Venezuela's crime rate is fine and dandy, for a relatively wealthy westerner, who doesn't have to deal with such levels of violence. Being an outside observer that is easy. Being empathetic toward Venezuelans, though, it's clear to me that Chavismo is dying, it will not last much longer, and putting your head in the sand is not going to change the outcome of this analysis.

If Chavez loses I don't give one shit about what right wingers in the United States or Miami or where ever, think. I care about what the Venezuelan people think. And if Chavez loses, like I think he will, then the Venezuelan people are all I care about, and they will have made their voice heard to those odious armchair commentators who think they know what's best for Venezuela. Sorry, but you can't tell a democracy what the fuck they should do, I know it hurts, and I know that you think you're superior in so many ways to them, but it's their self-determination that matters, not your opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Wed Mar 21, 2012, 09:17 AM

4. a bit more on this story

Chavez says his government "believes" the supposed plot is from foreign groups or sectors. I guess that means the Cubans since they are desperate to ensure Chavez remains in power to subsidize their energy needs.


http://news.yahoo.com/hugo-chavez-plans-attack-rival-uncovered-032601323.html
..............
Chavez did not give details but said his government had information of a possible plot against opposition presidential candidate Henrique Capriles.

"I have information they want to attack Capriles, and we've offered security for his team," Chavez said in a telephone call broadcast live on state television.

The president said the director of the national intelligence agency met with Capriles' team. As for who might be behind such plans, Chavez said, "it's not the government, not at all."

"As a government, we're obliged to get involved in this situation and provide protection to any Venezuelan, and above all in this context," Chavez said.

He said his government believes that "foreign groups or sectors" are behind the plans, the government-run radio station YVKE Mundial reported.

"This is information that we've treated seriously due to the sources from which it comes," Chavez said, without elaborating.

The Venezuelan leader made the remark two weeks after gunfire rang out at a political event where Capriles was meeting with residents of a traditionally pro-Chavez neighborhood. One young man, a supporter of Capriles, was injured in the shooting.

Capriles criticized the president's comments Monday night on his Twitter account.

"The statement of the candidate of the (ruling party)... borders on being irresponsible," Capriles said in one message.

"A president shouldn't offer protection to one Venezuelan," another message from Capriles said. "He should guarantee it to all Venezuelans, which is something very different."

Chavez, who has been in office since 1999, is seeking another six-year term in the country's Oct. 7 presidential election. Capriles, a 39-year-old state governor, won a February primary vote to become the opposition's unity candidate.

Capriles said after the March 4 shooting that despite the incident he had no plans to scale back on his visits to neighborhoods across the country.

The authorities are investigating the shooting. Opposition politicians have accused government supporters of firing the shots.

Justice Minister Tareck El Aissami accused the opposition at the time of seeking to provoke violence and make a "show" out of the shooting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread