Reply #61: Associated Pukes scumbag journalism--the only quote in the article is of Rosales.

[Peace Patriot]

Throughout this so-called 'news' article, the so-called journalist (Rachel Jones-Associated Puke) merely paraphrases Chavez and doesn't give him even one direct quote. The opposition leader, however, gets a full sentence quote.

Here's Rosales:
"'I respect (Chavez) as president but he has not respected me as governor,' Rosales told television station Globovision."

Here's what she does to Chavez:

"Chavez says he has decided to jail Rosales because he's one of those who wants to kill him." (No quote by Chavez.)

(And the lede) "President Hugo Chavez has threatened to imprison the popular governor of Venezuela's western Zulia state for allegedly plotting to kill him." (No quote by Chavez - no follow-up quote in the body of the article.)

This lede furthermore describes Rosales as the "popular" governor of Zulia, without providing evidence for that in the article. (The only evidence in the article contradicts it--that Rosales got whomped by Chavez in the last presidential election.) A poll just out gives Chavez a whopping big approval rating (nearly 75%). Why isn't this cited? (I.e., 'President Hugo Chavez, whose approval rating stands at nearly 75%, according to a recent poll, said "such and such"' about the governor of Zulia).

The Associated Puke occasionally uses quoted phrases, when it comes to what Chavez said, in the midst of paraphrasing him--but this does not allow him to speak for himself:

"Chavez said Saturday 'it's no coincidence' that authorities arrested two people last month in Rosales' Zulia state in an alleged plot to shoot down the presidential plane with an anti-tank weapon."

"He called Rosales a corrupt gangster 'worse than Don Corleone' of the 'Godfather' movies."

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

This is scurrilous and devious journalism, for it allows the so-called journalist to twist and color the statements of the target, and even to make things up out of whole cloth. A quoted remark can be checked. A paraphrased remark can be twisted, colored or made up, and is much harder to verify, since the reader would need to call up Chavez or his aides and ask them--is this an accurate representation of what he said? It also gives the "yellow journalist" more room in which to "frame" the target's remarks, and omit, invent or colorize the context in which the remarks were made.

By contrast, see this AFP version, which clearly indicates the context--Chavez having to cancel his trip to El Salvador--and quotes Chavez directly:
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/385444/1/.html

The Associated Pukes article creates the impression that this is all just pre-election vitriol. The AFP article--which exhibits other kinds of prejudicial writing--at least gets the context clear--that Chavez's life has been threatened, again, and that he is therefore pushing prosecutors to pursue the investigation in Zulia of the evidence that Rosales may be involved (again). (In 2006, Rosales was obliged to publicly distance himself from the then-current plot to kill Chavez.) (AFP doesn't mention this. I'm mentioning it. AFP is merely better than AP--which is wretched--not a whole lot better.)

Upshot: We don't know what Chavez actually said, from the AP article. It only quotes the opposition. The article gives no location or occasion for these remarks (neither for Chavez nor Rosales), which further muddies the circumstances, and makes verification even harder. It mentions "Saturday" for a time-frame, but then the article jumps around in time and personage, to assemble other items in AP's case against Chavez--for instance, the Electoral Commission's qualification process for candidates (something Chavez has no control over), and a court proceeding "last week" about the 2002 violent rightwing military coup against the Chavez government (involving a different current opposition candidate)--something else Chavez has no control over.

AP's "case against Chavez" is that he is a "dictator" who is suppressing the opposition, in the context of the Venezuelan by-elections. People who, by their own actions and words, have been associated with past plots against Chavez's life and coup plots, are running for office in Venezuela, and holding office. That is certainly evidence that Chavez is not a "dictator," and doesn't control everything. Chavez's open accusations against Rosales are to be preferred to secret and clandestine government activities. (I'm reminded of the Bushwhacks' destruction of Eliot Spitzer's career, by springing a prostitution charge against him--out of their millions of NSA spying files--in the midst of his investigation of the New York's banking system.) Rosales knows that he is being investigated. Everybody in Venezuela knows of his associations. It is no secret. If charges are filed against him, he will be free to mount a defense. Chavez is the legitimate, ultimate director of law enforcement and prosecutions, as any president is. Indeed, it is this presidential power that Karl Rove used to force U.S attorneys to file false cases of "voter fraud" against voter registration groups like ACORN, and why U.S. attorneys like David Iglesias resigned in protest. If Chavez is using that power for political purposes--that is, if these are false charges--you can be sure we will hear about it from the vociferous Venezuelan anti-Chavez press (who make Faux News look mild), from our own Corpo/Fascist press, and from the rightwing opposition, who are not shy about speaking their minds, and who seem quite free to do so.

It is difficult to imagine what it must be like to be Hugo Chavez, with the entire force of the U.S. secret government, the Bush Cartel, global corporate predators like Exxon Mobil and the World Bank/IMF, and the political opposition in his own country, gunning for him, slandering him every day, designing dirty ops against him (like the absurd "suitcase full of money" caper out of Miami), and plotting his death, and the overthrow of Venezuelan democracy. I think he is a plainspoken leader who believes in openness, so when his intel service finds stuff out and tells him, he turns around and tells the public. The public is his safest harbor--remarkably demonstrated in 2002, when tens of thousands of Venezuelans poured out of their hovels and surrounded Miraflores Palace, to peacefully defeat that coup. He believes in them. He owes his power to them. He has worked hard on their behalf--bucking all of these murderous forces--with visionary "New Deal"-programs for the vast poor majority, and economic development for the country and the region.

In this context--living as he does with a Bushwhack bull's eye target on his back--he has been denied the freedom to attend an important economic summit in El Salvador--made even more important by the financial 9/11 that the Bush Junta just pulled off against the U.S. and the world. He is likely very angry at these plots for restricting his freedom. And it sounds like he's finally had it with the Venezuelan opposition's collusion on them. He has been very mild and peace-minded in his reactions to them in the past--almost to a fault, in my opinion. (Evo Morales has the same "fault"--if it is a fault--being too peaceful.) (Listen to me! But there is truth to it, with regard to being head of state.) But he is taking the best route, in dealing with them--the legal system. Either they are guilty, as individuals, of plotting his death and another coup, or they are not. If there is sufficient evidence, they should be tried. Venezuelans are very proud of their democracy and I don't think any of them (except some members of the opposition) would be involved in "kangaroo" trials. I have sufficient faith in the Venezuelan justice system that they will not be falsely convicted.

Chavez is likely pretty sure of his ground--in the military, the intel service, and legally--to come right out and say that Rosales is trying to kill him. If Chavez really is just "playing politics," that will become apparent. Public statements by the president of Ecuador, and other evidence, point strongly to a plot in Zulia, and it is the most strategically likely place that the Bushwhacks would strike, either sparking Oil War II: South America--for Obama to have to deal with, in his first months in office--or reserving their contacts in Zulia for a private war plan (which I believe is being orchestrated by Donald Rumfeld) to be sprung later on. The U.S. 4th Fleet could be involved in either case.

Chavez may be using some of this info to win votes in the by-elections. But it may also be a coincidence that the recent plot--the one barring him from the El Salvador meeting--is occurring in the midst of the by-elections campaign. And is it not relevant? Why shouldn't he let voters know what he thinks is happening? I think there is sufficient evidence to be concerned that the rightwing in Zulia may be the next oil rich province of a leftist country (after Bolivia's eastern provinces) to try to declare their 'independence' with U.S. support. Zulia is on the Caribbean, as easy mark for the 4th Fleet, and adjacent to Colombia, which the Bushwhacks have larded with $6 BILLION in military aid, and which is rife with death squads, mercenaries (including Blackwater) and U.S. special forces, as well as there being a "war room in the U.S. embassy in Bogota with a direct link to the ground ops (as revealed in the Bettancourt escapade). The US/Colombia tested out military systems earlier this year, with their bombing/raid on Ecuador. They are about to lose the US military base at Manta, Ecuador, early next year. So the timing of that may be a consideration.

The Associated Pukes will root around in Venezuela, looking for anything they can find to make Chavez look bad, and trying to turn the death threats against Chavez to toward Corpo/Fascist purposes--typical Bushwhackism, blaming the victim--but neither they nor other Corpo/Fascist 'news' monopolies will give you the context you need to understand these events. They don't want their readers to understand these events; they want their readers unconsciously absorb their clever brainwashing. AP is disgustingly manipulative. They have to report on this, but they won't let Chavez explain it for himself. They paraphrase him, and try in every way they can to contradict him. AFP, as I said, isn't much better. Apropos of nothing, they throw in that "Chavez is the key international backer of Cuba's communist government, and has close ties with leftist leaders in Bolivia, Nicaragua and Ecuador."

They don't mention that he also has close ties with Lula da Silva, president of Brazil, and Cristina Fernandez, president of Argentina, and, indeed, with most of South America's leaders. To mention just the communists and these particular "leftists" is a vast distortion in itself, and why mention it, except to say that neither do the governments of Cuba, Bolivia, Nicaragua and Ecuador care for U.S. assassination plots against their leaders? They don't say that, of course. It is the last sentence in the article and comes out of nowhere. What relevance does it have, that Chavez is close to these leftist leaders? It is arguable that his closeness to the presidents of Brazil and Argentina is much more relevant, because these leaders were key to stopping the recent Bushwhack plot in Bolivia! This greatly increases the likelihood that they will also be important in fending off coup plots in Venezuela.

But no, the Corpo/Fascist "meme" is that Chavez is some kind of "rogue" leader and that the Bushwhack dictate to South America to "isolate" Chavez has been successful. The opposite is true in both cases. Chavez is well-liked by, and is working closely with, all of these leaders, who have unanimously thumbed their nose at the Bushites about "isolating" Chavez, and have openly defied it. THAT is relevant to fascist/Bushite plots in Venezuela, and should have resulted in a longer list of Chavez allies, in the AFP article.

This is what I mean by distortion, disinformation, psyops and brainwashing. Both AP and AFP--and others--paint the picture of Chavez that they want you to see, in your unconscious mind--which is NOT an objective picture of Chavez, based on facts. And they use many devious writing tricks to accomplish this purpose.