What Pot? What Kettle? US Accuses Venezuela Of Meddling In Foreign Politics

Is it all right for a rich country to interfere in the political life or a poorer neighbor?

The Washington Post says No:

U.S. Says Venezuela Tried to Give $800,000 to Argentine

The United States on Wednesday said it had evidence that Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez's government tried to secretly funnel hundreds of thousands of dollars to the campaign of Argentina's new president.

In a criminal complaint, U.S. prosecutors accused four men arrested Wednesday in Miami -- three Venezuelans and a Uruguayan -- of involvement in a conspiracy to cover up an illegal campaign contribution on behalf of the Venezuelan government. The complaint offered the first evidence for an allegation often leveled against Chávez but never proved: that he uses his country's oil wealth to illegally meddle in the politics of his Latin American neighbors.

Is this hypocritical? Not really!

Americans are allowed to meddle in the politics of other countries. Spend a few trillion dollars -- kill a million people -- no weapons of mass destruction under the desk -- ha ha ha! No problem.

But if anyone else dares to throw some cash around, it's illegal!

And who's gonna prosecute? Americans, that's who!

The kettle may be black ... but what color is the pot?

Arbusto Y Los Campesinos

I'm still reeling over a column by Ian Boyne in Sunday's Jamaica Gleaner, Why Bush is in Latin America.

Boyne gives me the impression that he's unable to imagine that what George Bush says might possibly be false. He writes:

Bush is anything but popular in Latin America. Polls show that 85 per cent of Latin Americans oppose his war in Iraq and approximately the same percentage oppose him personally. Says the Council on Hemispheric Affairs in its March 8 article on the President's trip: "These polls are indicative of the bitter fruits of the massive neglect of Latin America by the current administration and the inadequacies of Bush's personnel appointed to deal with the region. [...] The general distaste for the Bush administration within Latin America is now a profound fact of life."

But perhaps the council should be a little more cautious. Foreign policy blunders are not always irredeemable. International politics is comparable to a game. You might lose this round but there is always hope for winning the next one. It is clear that the Bush administration is making some important and corrective course action in foreign policy, having been humbled by its foreign policy failures, particularly its debacle in Iraq.

But we should not be disingenuous to the Bush administration and not make the point that it could have stubbornly refused to acknowledge reality while arrogantly clinging to its delusions.
...

The administration is demonstrating some wisdom and common sense in backing away from certain hardline and myopic positions, and no aversion to the Bush administration should make us fail to acknowledge that.

In the last few days the U.S. made important concessions on the issue of North Korea, and has brokered a deal through the Six-Party talks, while initiatives are afoot to bring in Iran and Syria in the loop for arriving at a solution to the Iraq civil war. Bush has been showing greater respect for the United Nations and for multilateralism, and has decidedly tempered his unilateralist rhetoric and superpower bravado. This trip to Latin America shows a Bush who is increasingly turning to diplomacy and negotiation rather than the purely muscular foreign policy which characterised the post-9/11 era.
...

Bush gave an important speech at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Centre on Monday where he outlined some key elements of his Western Hemisphere policy.

In terms of political strategy and effective positioning of a message, the speech was first-rate. In terms of tone, it was perfect. Bush in this speech basically took the wind out of the sail of the Latin American left, brilliantly adopted their own platform without the excess and absolutely disarmed the critics by the things which he conceded. The speech displayed an understanding of Latin American realities which was profound and gripping.

... and so on ...

It makes me want to grab Ian Boyne gently by the throat and shake him in a very moderate way and scream softly in his ears: "Watch what they do, not what they say! And read Lee Roberts!"

The Bush administration has committed its most flagrant act of arrogance since coming to power. It has allowed Bush to tour South America bringing a message of democracy and peace and proclaiming America's goal of defeating poverty in the subcontinent. This has stunned the populations to the south, the sheer gall of sending a reviled and utterly inarticulate puppet into enemy territory, carrying the usual agenda of lies and deceptions. Washington-watchers know that the real motive is to provide cover for an effort, without military invasion, to acquire control of Brazil's ethanol reserves. Bush's only concession to the international effort to combat global warming has been his announcement that oil will be replaced with ethanol. But Karl Rove, who designs such deceptions, had not done his homework, and in these somewhat heady days, the scam has been exposed by revelations that the manufacture of corn-based ethanol contributes significantly to carbon emissions, and the opposition of the meat industry, which needs corn to run the McDonald's economy. And as Bush lurches like a buffoon from country to country, he is being shadowed by his nemesis, Hugo Chavez, who reminds cheering crowds that this is the man who compared George Washington, the slave owner and richest man in America when he became president, with the liberator, Simon Bolivar, who gave up his personal wealth to free nations from colonial domination and end the institution of slavery.

There you go! I couldn't have said it half as well myself.

US Interference In Nicaraguan Election May Have Backfired

For the past few days, even with everything else that's been going on, I've been thinking about updating my earlier (short, rushed) post about the Nicaraguan presidential election, which, as you probably already know, was won by Daniel Ortega.

I was thinking about the enormous American effort to interfere with that election, which appears to have backfired, when I stumbled upon an article in Time Magazine which used that very same word: "backfired".

Imagine my horror! Was I thinking along the same lines as the master spinners?

In a short word, no!

Time Magazine: Ortega's Victory: Another Administration Blunder?

The U.S. Congress wasn't the only place the Bush Administration suffered electoral embarrassment this week. In Nicaragua, cold-war bogeyman Daniel Ortega — whose Marxist Sandinista government had been an obsession of the Reagan Administration — was elected president again on Sunday despite frantic U.S. lobbying for his defeat. By most accounts, the yanqui politicking — which included a threat to cut off U.S. aid to impoverished Nicaragua if Ortega won — backfired miserably, actually helping boost the Sandinista leader to his first-round victory. That such U.S. pressure tends to work in favor of its opponents is a lesson Washington seems woefully unable to learn in a post-Cold War Latin America whose electorates have unexpectedly turned leftward in recent years.

The election of Ortega — who won with 38% of the vote, about 8 points ahead of his U.S.-backed opponent, conservative banker Eduardo Montealegre — is no doubt a concern. After he and Sandinista guerrillas toppled Nicaragua's brutal dictator, Anastasio Somoza Debayle, in 1979, Ortega led an authoritarian, Soviet-backed regime that wrecked the economy and fought a civil war with U.S.-backed contra rebels that killed some 50,000 people. [...]

It could be argued that it was the war that wrecked the economy, and that it wasn't a civil war at all, but an attack-by-proxy conducted by the USA. Time Magazine is definitely not interested in going there. But fortunately, there are others who are much less gun-shy when it comes to telling the truth. So let's pay attention to a few of them, shall we?

Here's Tom Regan in the Christian Science Monitor: US fails in effort to derail Ortega presidential bid

In what critics call another sign of waning American influence in Central and Latin America, an "all-out" effort by the United States to convince Nicaraguans not to elect former Sandinista president Daniel Ortega to a second term has apparently failed.
...
"They did everything but threaten to invade," said Mark Weisbrot, a Latin America expert at the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington.

The American campaign against Ortega hit a crescendo shortly before Sunday's vote. US Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez warned that all US aid for Nicaragua could be at stake. Other officials said the country could be left out of the Central American Free Trade Agreement and that remittances sent home by Nicaraguans living in the United States could be blocked.

By contrast, [Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, a friend of Ortega's] promised to step in with economic aid and cheap oil for a leftist Sandinista government. In the end, many voters decided to give Ortega another chance.

"Nicaraguans worry that bad relations with the United States can have really negative consequences," said William LeoGrande, a professor at American University in Washington. "But some were offended (by the US interference) on nationalistic grounds and were more likely to vote for Ortega."

There's much more here and I encourage you to read the entire article, and follow the links.

But now we turn to Chris Floyd: Sandinista! How Will Bush Make Nicaragua Pay for its Disobedience?:

Ortega ran and won with the backing of several prominent ex-Contras, including Jamie Morales, his own running mate. Morales had been the Contras' spokesman in Washington during the Reagan years when, with the direct involvement of VP George Bush, the Administration joined hands with the mullahs of Iran and the druglords of Central and South America to fund, arm and train a terrorist army to overthrow the Sandinista government. Although this exercise in mass state terrorism failed on the battlefield, the Reagan-Bush policy of economic terror managed to reduce Nicaragua to dire poverty, with the open threat that the stranglehold would go on until the Sandinistas were gone.

Of course, the stated reason for the Reagan-Bush hatred of Ortega was that he was an evil Commie tyrant and dictator who opposed democracy. However, oddly enough, when a majority of Nicaraguans bowed to the American blackmail in 1990 and voted against Sandinistas, these evil, anti-democratic Commie tyrant dictators....left office. They obeyed the obviously coerced but democratically expressed will of the people. And now, Ortega -- no shining knight but, in the end, a rather typical politician eager for power but with at least an inclination toward mitigating some of the most pernicious effects of predatory crony capitalism -- has been returned, democratically, to power...without "robocalls," without "push-polls," without strangely malfunctioning voting machines that only make "mistakes" in favor of one party, with "voter roll purges," etc. etc.

What will happen now? It's obvious: the Bush II administration -- which is clotted with many of the same Constitution-hating state terrorists who threw in with druglords and Islamic extremists during the Contra War -- has already announced its intention to resume the old economic terrorism against the wretchedly poor people of Nicaragua. American officials stated plainly that trade restrictions and cutbacks, if not cut-offs, in U.S. aid were in the cards if the Nicaraguans exercised their democratic rights in favor of the Sandinistas. They even sent Oliver North down to tour the country before the election -- the clearest possible signal for the rabble to get in line, rather like having Frank Nitti drive through the neighborhood to remind the shopkeepers to pay up their protection money to Al Capone.

The only question remaining is whether the Iran-Contra criminal gang now restored to the White House will be content with economic sabatoge of the Nicaraguan government. After all, this time Ortega will have the backing of Venezeula's Hugo Chavez, who has promised cheap oil and other economic benefits to the Sandinistas. The Washington squeeze play won't be quite as effective this time around. So will they move on to more physical methods of destabilization? Will they sponsor another mass-murdering civil war? Or will it be confined to covert ops? After all, the great googily-moogily of American intelligence, John Negroponte, made his bones in the region during the Reagan-Bush reign of terror, operating out of Honduras as the United States spread war and repression across Central America.

Horrendous, isn't it? But don't get me started! Instead, I'd prefer to leave the last word (or several of them) to William Blum:

For 27 years, the most powerful nation in the world has found it impossible to share the Western Hemisphere with one of its poorest and weakest neighbors, Nicaragua, if the country's leader was not in love with capitalism.

From the moment the Sandinista revolutionaries overthrew the US-supported Somoza dictatorship in 1979, Washington was concerned about the rising up of that long-dreaded beast -- "another Cuba". This was war. On the battlefield and in the voting booths. For almost 10 years, the American proxy army, the Contras, carried out a particularly brutal insurgency against the Sandinista government and its supporters. In 1984, Washington tried its best to sabotage the elections, but failed to keep Sandinista leader Ortega from becoming president. And the war continued. In 1990, Washington's electoral tactic was to hammer home the simple and clear message to the people of Nicaragua: If you re-elect Ortega all the horrors of the civil war and America's economic hostility will continue. Just two months before the election, in December 1989, the United States invaded Panama for no apparent reason acceptable to international law, morality, or common sense (The United States naturally called it "Operation Just Cause"); one likely reason it was carried out was to send a clear message to the people of Nicaragua that this is what they could expect, that the US/Contra war would continue and even escalate, if they re-elected the Sandinistas.

It worked; one cannot overestimate the power of fear, of murder, rape, and your house being burned down. Ortega lost, and Nicaragua returned to the rule of the free market, striving to roll back the progressive social and economic programs that had been undertaken by the Sandinistas. Within a few years widespread malnutrition, wholly inadequate access to health care and education, and other social ills, had once again become a widespread daily fact of life for the people of Nicaragua.

Each presidential election since then has pitted perennial candidate Ortega against Washington's interference in the process in shamelessly blatant ways. Pressure has been regularly exerted on certain political parties to withdraw their candidates so as to avoid splitting the conservative vote against the Sandinistas. US ambassadors and visiting State Department officials publicly and explicitly campaign for anti-Sandinista candidates, threatening all kinds of economic and diplomatic punishment if Ortega wins, including difficulties with exports, visas, and vital family remittances by Nicaraguans living in the United States.

In the 2001 election, shortly after the September 11 attacks, American officials tried their best to tie Ortega to terrorism, placing a full-page ad in the leading newspaper which declared, among other things, that: "Ortega has a relationship of more than thirty years with states and individuals who shelter and condone international terrorism." [Nicaragua Network (Washington, DC), October 29, 2001 -- and New York Times, November 4, 2001, p.3]

That same year a senior analyst in Nicaragua for the international pollsters Gallup was moved to declare: "Never in my whole life have I seen a sitting ambassador get publicly involved in a sovereign country's electoral process, nor have I ever heard of it." [Miami Herald, October 29, 2001]

Additionally, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) -- which would like the world to believe that it's a private non-governmental organization, when it's actually a creation and an agency of the US government -- regularly furnishes large amounts of money and other aid to organizations in Nicaragua which are opposed to the Sandinistas. The International Republican Institute (IRI), a long-time wing of NED, whose chairman is Arizona Senator John McCain, has also been active in Nicaragua creating the Movement for Nicaragua, which has helped organize marches against the Sandinistas. An IRI official in Nicaragua, speaking to a visiting American delegation in June of this year, equated the relationship between Nicaragua and the United States to that of a son to a father. "Children should not argue with their parents." she said.

With the 2006 presidential election in mind, one senior US official wrote in a Nicaraguan newspaper last year that should Ortega be elected, "Nicaragua would sink like a stone". In March, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, the US Ambassador to the UN under Reagan and a prime supporter of the Contras, came to visit. She met with members of all the major Sandinista opposition parties and declared her belief that democracy in Nicaragua "is in danger" but that she had no doubt that the "Sandinista dictatorship" would not return to power. The following month, the American ambassador in Managua, Paul Trivelli, who openly speaks of his disapproval of Ortega and the Sandinista party, sent a letter to the presidential candidates of conservative parties offering financial and technical help to unite them for the general election of November 5. The ambassador stated that he was responding to requests by Nicaraguan "democratic parties" for US support in their mission to keep Daniel Ortega from a presidential victory. The visiting American delegation reported: "In a somewhat opaque statement Trivelli said that if Ortega were to win, the concept of governments recognizing governments wouldn't exist anymore and it was a 19th century concept anyway. The relationship would depend on what his government put in place." One of the fears of the ambassador likely has to do with Ortega talking of renegotiating CAFTA, the trade agreement between the US and Central America, so dear to the hearts of corporate globalizationists.

Then, in June, US Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick said it was necessary for the Organization of American States (OAS) to send a mission of Electoral Observation to Nicaragua "as soon as possible" so as to "prevent the old leaders of corruption and communism from attempting to remain in power" (though the Sandinistas have not occupied the presidency, only lower offices, since 1990).

The explicit or implicit message of American pronouncements concerning Nicaragua is often the warning that if the Sandinistas come back to power, the horrible war, so fresh in the memory of Nicaraguans, will return. The London Independent reported in September that "One of the Ortega billboards in Nicaragua was spray-painted 'We don't want another war'. What it was saying was that if you vote for Ortega you are voting for a possible war with the US." [The Independent (London), September 6, 2006, and "2006 Nicaraguan Elections and the US Government Role. Report of the Nicaragua Network delegation to investigate US intervention in the Nicaraguan elections of November 2006"]

Per capita income in Nicaragua is $900 a year; some 70% of the people live in poverty. It is worth noting that Nicaragua and Haiti are the two nations in the Western Hemisphere that the United States has intervened in the most, from the 19th century to the 21st, including long periods of occupation. And they are today the two poorest in the hemisphere, wretchedly so.

Here's a late update, from USA Today: U.S. seeks better ties by aiding militaries

Concern about leftist victories in Latin America has prompted President Bush to quietly grant a waiver that allows the United States to resume training militaries from 11 Latin American and Caribbean countries.

The administration hopes the training will forge links with countries in the region and blunt a leftward trend. Daniel Ortega, a nemesis of the United States in the region during the 1980s, was elected president in Nicaragua this week. Bolivians chose another leftist, Evo Morales, last year.

And so on.

If at first you don't succeed...

When will our so-called leaders realize that you can't "blunt a leftward trend" by killing people?

Don't answer that unless you want to.

Sandinista!!

From the L.A. Times:

Daniel Ortega, the rebel leader driven from power 16 years ago by a U.S.-backed war and the missteps of his own Sandinista movement, was cruising Monday toward victory and an unlikely political resurrection in Nicaragua's presidential vote.

The result was a blow to the Bush administration, which worked actively to discourage Nicaraguans from voting for Ortega, a 60-year-old former Marxist now allied with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, the bete noire of Latin American and U.S. conservatives.

With 62% of the ballots counted, Ortega was outpolling conservative challenger Eduardo Montealegre, 39% to 31%. Two separate "quick counts" that took samples of the vote found Ortega would win a clear and "irrefutable" first-round triumph.

Ortega's apparent victory was celebrated Monday evening in the impoverished neighborhoods of this and other Nicaraguan cities, where the Sandinista National Liberation Front's core supporters have remained loyal through years of revolution, counterrevolution and electoral defeats.

Cars cruised down Managua's main streets with horns honking and passengers waving the black and red flag of the Sandinista Front.

"I feel like I did in 1979, because this is a new revolution," said Violeta Mena, 44, remembering the day when the Sandinistas marched into Managua after defeating the army of dictator Anastasio Somoza. "This is not an armed revolution, it's a revolution for social justice."

So ... what can the forces of evil do about this?

How about this? Sell nuclear weapons to Iran and use the money to fund death squads in Central America. Then bomb Iran for having nuclear weapons while the death squads rampage in Nicaragua.

What's the matter? You don't like the plan?

Rafael Correa: Calling Bush the Devil is offending the Devil

Here's some interesting news from Ecuador via The Independent:

Ecuador's election has been electrified by the looming figure of Mr Chavez, Venezuela's theatrical left-wing President. His barnstorming speech at the United Nations in New York in which he compared President George Bush to Satan and complained of the smell of sulphur on the platform was rapturously received by a growing anti-American movement worldwide.
...
Rafael Correa, a former finance minister who resigned from the government after speaking out against a US-backed trade agreement ... trumpeted his support for Mr Chavez's stand at the UN General Assembly. "Calling Bush the Devil is offending the Devil ... The Devil is evil but the Devil is intelligent," Mr Correa said.

I must admit I hadn't thought of it that way before.

You might want to read the entire article. You might also wish to review the speech in which Hugo Chavez called Bush "the Devil", and/or a couple of Winter Patriot posts on this topic: from September 21, Chavez Smells The Sulphur, and from September 24, How Much Courage Does It Take To Speak The Truth?

How Much Courage Does It Take To Speak The Truth?

Apparently it takes a lot more courage to admit that Hugo Chavez was absolutely right than most politicians have, not to mention most journalists. Ever since Wednesday, when Chavez stunned the United Nations with his absolutely on-the-money speech, I've been watching the reactions, in more or less stunned silence.

Those who have announced their support for an inhuman and clearly criminal administration have debased themselves so completely that further comment from this cold and humble blogger seems superfluous.

And some of their comments have been so absurd that it almost seems cruel to quote them, much less point out the error of their ways. But I can't resist. So here, for the record, are some of the worst:

Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post wrote a column called "Why The Firebrands Get Heard" which started this way:

My but the lesser nations are getting uppity.

The rest of his column was as unworthy of a read as the intro, so I'll spare you most of the details. The gist of Robinson's argument seems to be that Chavez overstepped the bounds of diplomatic propriety.

Clearly, this was no way to speak about the president of the United States.

Some bounds! In the land of the free and the home of the brave, one had best not summon up any bravery or use any freedom. According to Eugene Robinson, that is!

Unabashed Uber-Zionist idiot Sher Zieve, writing in the Post Chronicle, was so worked up that he sometimes forgot to insert spaces between his words (and his so-called "editors" did not catch the errors), but he nonetheless managed to produce a thoroughly nonsensical column, of which this is a representative sample:

Strongman Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez delivered the second anti-US and anti-Bush punch on Wednesday. Chavez, who continues his seizures of Western businesses operating in Venezuela, ranted for approximately a half-hour about the USAand President Bush. He also held up and quoted from anti-US and anti-Israel communist author Noam Chomsky's book "Hegemony or Survival: The Imperialist Strategy of the United States." Notation for accuracy: The UShas never taken over a country for any "imperialistic" strategies or measures. In fact, it has never taken over a country except to return said country to the people of that country--as in the case of World War II's Japan and Germany.

Questions for accuracy:

Why is the USA building huge military bases in Iraq? To give them to the Iraqis?

The USA now has troops stationed in how many countries?

How many countries has Venezuela attacked?

How many innocent civilians have been killed by troops following the orders of Hugo Chavez?

How is it that Chavez is a "strongman"?

And George Bush, who cannot spend a day without torture, is what? A civilized leader?

I told you this was going to be too easy.

From CNN, surely the White House's second favorite mainstream media outlet, came a gem of a "news item" entitled "Democrats warn Chavez: Don't bash Bush", which included the following nonsense from people who should know better:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, was blunt in her criticism of the Venezuelan leader. "He is an everyday thug," she said.

What makes Chavez, a peaceful leader of a peaceful country, a thug?

And if Chavez is an everyday thug, then what kind of a thug is George Bush?

Pelosi, who is sometimes called "shrill" for her criticism of the president, showed her true color here. Yellow.

But -- for my money -- the most preposterous comment of all came from Rep. Charles Rangel, D-New York, who said:

If there's any criticism of President Bush, it should be restricted to Americans, whether they voted for him or not...

How ridiculous can you get? Bush can go on attacking defenseless countries at will, but foreign citizens are not even allowed to comment? In a land of supposedly free speech? How can this be?

Charles Rangel has shown himself to be a testament to pure ignorance, or to the power of American propaganda. Take your pick. They're all the same to me.

One of the few honest appraisals of Chavez' speech that I have seen came from Tommi Avicolli Mecca, writing in San Francisco's Beyond Chron. His colunmn was called "Hugo Chavez is not anti-American", and began this way:

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is once again being dismissed as “anti-American” by the mainstream media in this country for daring to say what many of us know is true: that our government’s policies throughout the world are more about control of resources than fighting terrorism.

Chavez is not “anti-American.” He is anti-George Bush. He is anti-U.S. government policies. So are millions of others (myself included), who have been marching and speaking out against those same policies since Bush first took office in 2000.

The latest charges of being “anti-American” come after Chavez addressed the United Nation’s 61st General Assembly on September 20. Commenting on Bush’s appearance at the UN the day before, Chavez said: “The devil came here yesterday. He came here talking as if he were the owner of the world.” The Socialist leader accused the U.S. government of “domination, exploitation and pillage of peoples of the world.” He said that our government was already supporting coupe attempts to overthrow him, which comes as news to no one who knows anything about the history of U.S. involvement in Latin America.

In his 23-minute speech, which received thunderous applause from the almost 200 delegates present, Chavez made it clear that he was talking about the U.S. government and not the American people. In fact, Chavez credited the American people with wanting peace in the world: “If we walk in the streets of the Bronx, if we walk around New York, Washington, San Diego, in any city, San Antonio, San Francisco, and we ask individuals, the citizens of the United States, what does this country want? Does it want peace? They'll say yes. But the government doesn’t want peace. The government of the United States doesn’t want peace.”

In my humble and nearly frozen opinion, Mecca's piece is worth reading in its entirety. And if you are the type who enjoys the words of an "everyday thug", so are the words of Hugo Chavez.

Chavez Smells The Sulphur

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez smelled something in the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday:

VENEZUELA'S President Hugo Chavez has stunned the UN General Assembly with a speech in which he called US President George W. Bush "the devil" before crossng himself.

Mr Chavez infuriated US officials with his sarcastic presentation in which he said "yesterday the devil came here," referring to Mr Bush's speech from the same stage 24 hours earlier.

"And it still smells of sulphur today..."

He may have been right about the sulphur but wrong about the source.

He loves to cuss, gets a jolly when a mountain biker wipes out trying to keep up with him, and now we're learning that the first frat boy loves flatulence jokes. A top insider let that slip when explaining why President Bush is paranoid around women, always worried about his behavior. But he's still a funny, earthy guy who, for example, can't get enough of fart jokes. He's also known to cut a few for laughs, especially when greeting new young aides...

According to The Australian,

When asked about [Chavez's] speech, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said she would "not dignify" the attack with a comment.

"It is not becoming of a head of state," she said.

Oh, right. I almost forgot. A head of state is supposed to act dignified.

I can remember when a head of state was supposed to be dignified; now it seems that even acting dignified is out of the question.

Robert Parry adds some context here: Bush's Disdainful Presidency.

The full text of Chavez' UN speech is here: Rise Up Against the Empire.

And now, if you'll excuse me, ...

Chavez Takes Another Bold Step

Eyes turn to Venezuela as Hugo Chavez announces:

Venezuela to seize 'idle' firms

The Venezuelan government has warned it will confiscate hundreds of private companies that are lying idle if they fail to re-open.

President Hugo Chavez said the firms' workers would be given help to set up co-operatives and re-start production for the benefit of the community.

He said the move was needed to fight poverty and end Venezuela's dependence on "the perverse model of capitalism".

That's one way of putting it!

Some business leaders fear it may lead to a wider attack on private property.

They're worried about their property, of course. None of them are worried about indigenous Venezuelans, though. Are they? Of course not!

But back to Chavez:

"It's against our constitution," he said. "Just as we cannot permit good land to lie uncultivated, so we cannot allow perfectly productive factories to stay closed."

Who could argue with such a sentiment?

The owners of land that's not being cultivated; the owners of factories that are not being used. That's who! And how much power do they have? How much influence?

Something tells me we are going to find out. Soon.

Bolivia: The 'Blame Game' Rages On

According to the BBC, US behind Bolivia crisis - Chavez

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has blamed Washington's brand of capitalism for the recent troubles in Bolivia.

Speaking on his weekly TV programme, he said US open market policies in Latin America had led to "exclusion, misery and destabilisation".

He called President George W Bush's proposal for a regional free trade agreement a "medicine of death".

Bolivia was brought to a virtual standstill by protesters calling for economic and constitutional reforms.

"Look at Bolivia. Fortunately the Bolivians opened the door toward a peaceful path, but they were on the verge of a civil war," said Mr Chavez.
...
The Venezuelan leader, who is an outspoken critic of Mr Bush's foreign policy, was responding to suggestions by some US officials that he was stirring up the Bolivian protests.

US assistant secretary of state Roger Noriega said President Chavez's support for the Bolivian indigenous leader Evo Morales might be partly to blame for the mass protests there.

But a report in the Argentinian newspaper Clarin quoted unnamed diplomatic sources as saying that Mr Chavez may have played a key part in achieving a solution to Bolivia's crisis.

The report said that a frenetic exchange of phone calls with Caracas encouraged Mr Morales to accept the constitutional outcome.
...
During his programme on Sunday, which lasted more than seven hours, Mr Chavez said Latin American countries were moving towards socialist economic models instead of US-style capitalism.

He said Mr Bush's idea for a hemisphere-wide free trade zone, mooted last week at a meeting of the Organisation of American States in Florida, would lead to more poverty and protests in the region.

"We say no Mr Bush, no sir... I'm sorry for you," he said. "The people of Latin America are saying 'no' to you, Mr Danger, they are saying no to your medicine.

"Capitalism is the road to destabilisation, violence and war between brothers."

You can find much more Winter Patriot coverage of the Boliviam situation; here is a good starting point.

Irony Overload Alert: Bush, CNN Can Cause Spontaneous Human Imposion!

Major international bodies are usually very difficult to implode. Most of them can only be imploded with industrial levels of irony, and Monday 'president' bush demonstrated once again that he can deliver enough irony to implode virtually anything. CNN gave him a bit of help here and there, as you can see in this article: OAS members balk at U.S. intervention plan begins like this:

Venezuela's foreign minister says plan aimed at his country

FORT LAUDERDALE, Florida (CNN) -- A U.S. proposal to intervene in Western Hemisphere nations to push democracy rankled the leaders of several South American countries debating the issue Monday at the meeting of the Organization of American States.

"There needs to be a dialogue rather than an intervention," said Brazil's foreign minister, Celso Amorim. "Democracy cannot be imposed. It is born from dialogue."

The United States has not established how or where the OAS should intervene,

Forgive me for interrupting in the middle of a sentence, but did we just gloss over an implication that the USA should establish "how or where the OAS should intervene"? Isn't this something that the OAS should establish for itself?. I wasn't supposed to mention that, was I?

but one likely target is Venezuela.

'Target'? Oh, Venezuela is a 'likely target' now ... I see! No wonder Venezuela is worried about an imminent US invasion!

The OAS also is concerned about political instability in Ecuador and Bolivia.

Which is kind of funny, because these are the very same places that the USA is concerned about ... meanwhile the rest of the OAS is concerned about ... Can you guess? Oh no! That was too easy, wasn't it?

The rest of the article includes these high-irony gems:

The Bush administration has accused Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez of using his country's democratic institutions to impose authoritarian rule.

Whereas bush has done nothing of the sort?

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who chairs the summit as head of the host delegation, said Sunday the Bush administration has a "renewed interest" in the OAS as a way to promote its global democracy agenda.

I'm sure this administration has a renewed interest, but its global agenda can hardly be described as "democracy"!

The U.S. proposal calls for the OAS to craft a mechanism within its Democratic Charter that permits the group to intervene in nations to foster or strengthen democracy.

In other words, bush just told the OAS: "make yourself into a tool which I can use against you in my drive to rule the world"

The OAS has previously intervened in situations of political turmoil. In 2000, it sent an envoy to Peru following fraudulent elections.

And why were they not in Ohio in 2004? Why not Florida in 2000? Why not Georgia in 2002? I wasn't supposed to mention all this, was I?

The group, founded in 1948 to promote and defend democracy, has historically not been able to resolve crises in the hemisphere.

Perhaps because such crises are often caused by the strongest member of the Organization? I wasn't supposed to mention that either, was I?

Oh well ... We're almost through! Do you think we can get to the end of the article without imploding? Let's see:

In an address to the group Monday, President Bush did not mention the U.S. intervention proposal, but he pushed his vision of extending democracy worldwide.

"Bringing a better life to our people requires choosing between two competing visions," he said. "One ... is founded on representative government, integration into the world markets.

... as if those things could ever occur together ...

"...The other seeks to roll back the democratic progress of the past two decades by playing to fear, pitting neighbor against neighbor and blaming others for their own failures to provide for their people."

Ouch! Ding Ding Ding! All Irony Systems Overloaded!

Ka-Boom! Spontaneous Human Implosion!!

Protect yourselves and your family. Be prepared for flying shards of truth. Spontaneous Human Impolsion can happen anywhere, anytime. And you could be next!!!

Bush On Horns Of Dilemma

Aside from the usual trouble between the USA and Venezuela, or maybe because of it, the Luis Posada Carriles issue is making big waves which seem to be rocking every boat. Or at least that's the Venezuelan side of the story.

The Americans say it was all just a little mistake which the Venezuelans could rectify quite easily if they really wanted to.

Does any of this sound familiar?

US officials may face Caracas ban

Venezuela is threatening to refuse entry to US officials in response to the decision to bar Venezuela's top judge from entering the United States.

US immigration officials cancelled Supreme Court President Omar Mora's US entry permit last week.

The US cited an "error" on the visa, described by Venezuelan Vice-President Jose Vicente Rangel as a "slight to Venezuela's dignity".
...
Mr Mora last week insisted the cancellation of his visa was linked to calls by Venezuela for the US to extradite Luis Posada Carriles, wanted by Caracas for the bombing of a Cuban plane in 1976.

Mr Posada Carriles is currently in US custody facing immigration charges, after the US refused a Venezuelan extradition request it described as "flawed".

Thousands of Venezuelans marched through Caracas last week in support of the government's call to extradite Mr Posada Carriles.

You see, there's really no problem here that can't be fixed ... The visa had an "error" and the extradition request was "flawed" and the Venezuelans will never get their hands on Luis Posada Carriles because he's the Bush family's favorite terrorist. There. Now, wasn't that simple?

Oops! I wasn't supposed to mention that, was I? I don't think I was supposed to mention any of this because it shows so clearly that the so-called "War On Terror" is nothing but a sham.

Oops! I wasn't supposed to mention that, either, was I? Well Ex-Cuuuuuse Me! It's hard work keeping track of all the things I'm not supposed to mention, ok? So Give me a Break!

Sorry about that, folks. I don't mean to be more snarky than usual... I guess sometimes it just comes out that way. Oh well.

If you would like to read more from the BBC about the Luis Posada Carriles situation, you can explore these links:

May 17: Cuban 'bomber' arrested in US

An anti-communist militant accused of bombing a Cuban airliner in 1976 has been held in the US.

Cuban exile Luis Posada Carriles is wanted by both Cuba and Venezuela in connection with the attack.
...
Recently declassified documents show Mr Posada Carriles used to work for the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

Bad luck on the timing of the declassification, eh what?

May 18: Profile: Cuban 'plane bomber'

Terror suspect Luis Posada Carriles poses a double headache for the United States: his alleged crimes relate to Cuba and its ally Venezuela, and he is a former CIA employee.

The 77-year-old was detained in Miami by immigration agents after apparently slipping into the US illegally.

But he is wanted abroad for the 1976 bombing of a Cuban airliner, in which 73 died, and for 1997 bomb attacks on hotels in the Cuban capital Havana, which killed one.
...
Before his detention in Miami, Mr Posada Carriles, who was born in Cuba but has Venezuelan citizenship, insisted his "only objective" was to fight for Cuba's "freedom".

Reports suggest he was involved in operations against leftists across Latin America over the decades, from Guatemala to El Salvador.

All over the hemisphere, over the decades, what's the difference? And remember to translate the phrase "operations against leftists" into plain English, will you?

May 19: Cuban bomb suspect charged in US

A Cuban exile wanted for the bombing of an airliner in 1976 has been charged with illegal entry into the US.

Anti-communist militant Luis Posada Carriles was arrested in Miami on Tuesday, weeks after he smuggled himself into the US.

He will be held in custody until an immigration court hearing on 13 June, US immigration officials said.

Venezuela wants him extradited to stand trial over the bombing of a Cuban airliner that killed 73 people in 1976.

Both Cuba and Venezuela have accused the US of protecting Mr Posada Carriles by delaying the extradition process.

The US says it will not deport him to any country that would hand him over to Fidel Castro's regime in Cuba.

Venezuela said on Wednesday it would not hand Mr Posada Carriles over, and Mr Castro said he would be happy to see him tried there.

I'm sure he would!

May 20: US accused of 'terror hypocrisy'

Venezuela has said the US will be guilty of double standards on terrorism if it does not extradite a Cuban exile wanted over the bombing of a plane.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said the man, Luis Posada Carriles, was "a self-confessed terrorist".

But was the confession extracted under torture or the threat of torture? Posada Carriles, with his CIA background, would certainly be capable of torturing himself to obtain a confession, wouldn't he? And then that confession would be worthless, wouldn't it?

May 27: US rejects 'bomber' arrest plea

The US has rejected Venezuela's request for it to arrest a Cuban-born man, Luis Posada Carriles, over a 1976 airline bombing that killed 73 people.

Washington told Caracas, which wants to see him extradited, that there was not enough evidence to back the request.
...
Earlier this week, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said he would consider breaking diplomatic ties with the US if the extradition request was knocked back.

But on Friday, a statement from Venezuela's foreign ministry said Mr Chavez's comments "cannot be considered an ultimatum".

Gotta love that one. "If you don't do this then we'll do that." "Is that an ultimatum?" "No."

May 29: Venezuela rallies over Cuba exile

Tens of thousands of Venezuelans have rallied in the capital Caracas to demand the US extradites a Cuban exile accused of bombing an airliner in 1976.

The march comes a day after the US rejected Venezuela's request for it to arrest Cuban-born Luis Posada Carriles, saying there was not enough evidence.
...
Supporters of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez took to the streets of the capital, blowing whistles and chanting anti-US slogans.
...
"Bush is protecting a terrorist while he is supposedly fighting against terrorism - that's hypocrisy," Pedro Caldera said.

And so president bush finds himself on the horns of a dilemma. It couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

Thou Shalt Have Democracy!

But not too much of it!

US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice continues her World Hypocrisy Tour, in which she meets with foreign leaders and tells them what they must do. How quaint.

From the BBC: Rice seeks Latam democracy drive

Arriving in Brazil, Ms Rice said the US wants to help Latin American countries follow a more democratic path.

Do you believe that?? Oh yeah! Sure you do! Because you'll believe anything!

Of course, if any Latin American country gets too much democracy, then the USA, champion and guarantor of true democracy all over the globe, might just have to undermine the process.

From myTELUS World News: U.S. military tried to turn Venezuelan trainees against government: Chavez

President Hugo Chavez says a longstanding military exchange program with the United States was cancelled because U.S. officers in Venezuela were attempting to turn the soldiers they were training against his government.

With friends like these, who needs enemies?

Lovers of freedom and democracy should watch Venezuela very carefully. But not like this:

AP reports: Chavez Says Americans Detained for Taking Pictures of Venezuelan Military Facility, Refinery

Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez said Sunday that a woman linked to the U.S. military had been arrested while photographing a military installation, and several U.S. citizens were also arrested for taking pictures of a refinery, signs that the Washington may be plotting an invasion of his country.

Meanwhile, back in Brazil:

"Our job has to be as members of this hemisphere to pursue policies that give democracy a chance not just to hold elections but to then actually provide for its people," Ms Rice said.

It's a pity that nobody in the current administration is the slightest bit interested in doing such a job. But on the other hand, it's quite understandable. More than any previous administration, this one seems to reward loyalty over anything else. And to show loyalty to a vicious hypocrite, one must practice vicious hypocrisy. Expect more of the same.

Recent and related posts on this blog include:

Hugo Chavez and Venezuelan Democracy Under Threat

US Has Plans To Attack Hugo Chavez

Chavez Throws The Dice

Hugo Chavez In The News

Condoleeza Rice's World Hypocrisy Tour

It's Too Surreal

Hypocrisy Reigns In Washington

Endless Hypocrisy

US Has Plans To Attack Hugo Chavez

As regular readers may remember, the Winter Patriot has been paying close attention to the few stories which have surfaced lately concerning Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. In the last few days, a couple of new [and seemingly important] articles have caught my eye.

In a relatively short piece on ZNet, Stuart Munckton reports that the USA has plans to attack Chavez and his government and to institute a violent oppression against his supporters.

Caracas claims to have information of an assassination plot to be carried out "within 100 days" against Chavez, although the government has refused to reveal its sources.

...

A March 17 Washington Post article, entitled "Anti-Bush fears assassination", reported that the previous week "former CIA operative and prominent Bush supporter" Rodriguez, when asked by his interviewer about the assassination plot accusations, stated "that he had information about the administration's plans to 'bring about a change' in Venezuela, possibly through 'military measures'".

...

The United States openly supported a military coup against the Chavez government in April 2002, which was reversed two days later by a popular uprising. Since then, however, the US Congress-funded National Endowment For Democracy has poured millions of dollars into the groups that supported the coup.

Washington's aim is to crush the popular revolution being carried out by Venezuela's working people -- who are organising on a mass scale to take control of the country out of the hands of the privileged oligarchs who have traditionally governed.

And so on.

The other important article is at Information Clearinghouse. In it, Vladimir Bravo-Salazar gives good background about what is going on in Venezuela, why the Venezuelan people support Chavez so heartily, and why what happens in Venezuela will have profound implications, not only for Latin America but for the rest of the world.

The People of Venezuela have democratically re-founded their republic as the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and given themselves what is arguably the most advanced Constitution in the world [9]. It is a Constitution that establishes (in its Preamble and in its Articles 2 and 3), among its values, not only freedom but independence, peace, solidarity, common good and coexistence. And among its rights, not only to life but to work, to healthcare (Article 83 and 84), to culture, to education, to social justice and equality without discrimination and subordination. One example of its avant-garde social and humanistic perspective is that it recognizes work at home as an economic activity that entitles housewives to social security (Article 88). Article 90 mandates the eight hour work day and stipulates that no employer has the right to demand a worker to work overtime. The Constitution also insures that the ultimate power remains with the People through multiple Popular Referenda, including those that can revoke the mandate of any elected official.

...

The goal of the Bolivarian Revolution is to have a society formed of individuals who are capable not only of enjoying their liberties but also constructively carrying out effectively their duties in a participative democracy for the betterment of the whole of their society, country and humanity. Part of this process is the provision of free education (from elementary to graduate level). According to the rector of the Bolivarian University: "education is not just to create professionals. Education is much more than that. Knowledge is power, and more people with knowledge empowers the whole population. Educating women empowers not only the women educated, but the whole population. Creating critical thinkers, a population of intellectuals, is a much more profound project than just preparing people for jobs" [21].

In order to make this goal a concrete reality, the Venezuelan government has implemented a series of programs, known as missions; Mission Robinson, providing elementary level education; Mission Ribas, providing high-school level education; Mission Sucre, providing college level education and Mission Vuelvan Caras, providing education in the trades. Additionally, free healthcare is provided through Mission Barrio Adentro, which has established an expanding network of neighborhood clinics, that, for the first time, have brought medical care into the poorest neighborhoods and areas of the country. The government has also, through Mission Mercal, created a network of basic grocery stores, located in the same neighborhooods, that sell subsidized food staples at very affordable prices.

We're talking about a true liberal democracy here, folks. This is the kind of government that Bush is said to support. He doesn't really support liberal democracy, of course, he just has friends who go around telling the media that he does. And while the lying goes on in Washington and elsewhere, the Venezuelan people are trying to build themselves a decent society.

Is it the right -- or has it somehow become the duty -- of our leaders to stop this? Of course it isn't ... but will that stop them? It's tough to be optimistic on this point: the ethical question of right vs. wrong has never made any difference to our so-called leaders in the past. There's a very secret and very powerful branch of our government whose job is overthrowing foreign governments. What does that tell you? That we care about the right of other nations to elect their own governments?

Meanwhile, in Venezuela,

The quest is to achieve a solidarity-based, non-violent society, a real and participative democracy, health care for all, free access to education and quality of life for all its members. This stands in contrast to the neo-liberal alternative, which reduces the individual to an island with no sense of the common good and only concern for the self. Thus, an individual in a neo-liberal paradigm is forced to cope with the increasing polarization of her/his society by dehumanizing others.

I've been wondering: Would Bush and his maniac advisers attempt to wage war against Venezuela and Iran at the same time? While other wars continue in Afghanistan and Iraq? It sounds so completely crazy that I hesitate to suggest it, but as we have seen, just because something is completely crazy does not mean they won't do it!

Thanks to Peg C. at the Brad Blog for some good pointers lately, including one of the articles mentioned above.

Chavez Throws The Dice

It's a very dangerous move. This is what got him into trouble in 2001. It's also necessary, and it's long overdue. Still, it takes incredible courage to do something like this: Venezuela pushes ahead with land redistribution.

Tuesday saw the government of Venezuela finally begin to implement its programme of expropriating land from the country's major landowners. To begin with, more than 100,000 hectares will be handed over to landless farmers.

The last time President Hugo Chavez moved in this direction, there was trouble.

The measure marks the first practical step in putting the land reform law of 2001 into effect. It was the introduction of this legislation that was one of the main factors behind the mass protests against President Chávez which led shortly afterwards to a lengthy national strike and a short-lived coup against the head of state.

One of the main factors? How many main factors were there? Two. What was the other main factor? The USA.

Oops! That was supposed to be a secret. But it was one of the worst-kept secrets of the decade. Oh well. It's been a worst-kept secret for a century. And it's not as if his own people were against him. They had another election to prove that!

Having won last year's referendum on whether or not he should stay on as president, Mr Chávez now feels strengthened in pushing ahead with the reform

Nothing stands more powerfully in the way of this much-needed reform than the USA -- a country whose current leadership claims to be spreading democracy to the world! But this claim is a lie and it has always been a lie -- the USA has always been a vicious opponent of democracy everywhere in the world, especially in the Western Hemisphere.

There is a tradition of land reform being a key item on the agenda of most left-wing governments in Latin America, where the existence of millions of landless farmers stands in sharp contrast with the existence of huge ranches and estates, many of them with vast tracts of land which are not put to any use at all.

Right. And there is a tradition of sending in the Marines whenever anybody tries to do anything about it. It's an ugly picture -- the vast majority of the people are struggling to grow a handful of rice and beans in the mountains. All the good fertile land is owned by foreigners -- and most of it is not even used. Why does it stay that way? Because the USA likes it that way. But when I say "the USA", please understand that I am not talking about "the people" of the country. Most of them neither know nor care who owns the farmland in foreign countries. It's the "leaders" of the USA who like this; and they will do anything in their power to keep it that way.

There is nothing new about this. It's been going on for a long time. Look at what happened to Guatemala in 1954. A land-reform government [which had come to power during World War II and thereby snuck in "under the radar"] started getting serious about putting the best land back in the hands of "the people" and got overthrown by a CIA-"sponsored" coup. Much of the Guatemalan Army grabbed their weapons and headed for the hills, setting the stage for a "low-intensity", clandestine, undeclared civil war which has raged for decades and torn the country to shreds.

Who owned the land the Guatemalans were trying to "redistribute"? Much of it was owned by the United Fruit Company, the "Chiquita Banana" people. Who owned United Fruit? One large shareholder was John Foster Dulles. What did he do for a day job? Nothing much. He was only the Secretary of State. Did he have any influential family members? Well, his brother Allen was running the CIA. And who staged the attack on Guatemala? Sorry, was that supposed to be a secret, too?

Let's see now ... wasn't Allen Dulles also on the Warren Commission? Yes, that's right, he was one of the commissioners who "investigated" the death of President Kennedy. And was Allen Dulles still running the CIA at that point? No, he had been relieved of his position by the President. So... Why was Allen Dulles chosen to investigate the death of the man who had fired him? Good question!

Next question: Does Condoleeza Rice own any primo Venezuelan farmland?

Hugo Chavez In The News

Venezuela's Hugo Chavez has been the subject of several recent articles on Aljazeera.

As usual, it is difficult to tell how much to believe. But I can say this much about Aljazeera: I have never seen anything there which has been proven false. And some of the stories I have read there were virtually identical to stories which appeared a day or two later in mainstream papers. [That's right, folks. Mainstream papers are "scooped" by Aljazeera with considerable regularity.]

I haven't seen any of these stories on North American websites, so I take this opportunity to bring them to your attention. I'll quote the first few paragraphs of each piece; you can click on the links to read them in full. As I've been saying, I cannot vouch for their correctness but they come from a surprisingly reliable source. I urge you to read them all and think for yourself.

February 13: Chavez: US is a terrorist state

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has branded the United States a terrorist state while rejecting Washington's criticism of Caracas for its arms purchase from Russia.

Chavez, a fierce critic of US President George Bush and the US-led war in Iraq, on Saturday brushed aside US opposition to the agreement to buy 100,000 automatic rifles and about 40 military helicopters from Moscow.

"One has to ask whether there was transparency in the invasion of Iraq. The world knows President Bush lied openly about Iraq having chemical weapons," Chavez said.

"They keep on bombing cities, killing children, they have become a terrorist state," he said.

February 21: Chavez: US wants me assassinated

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has threatened to suspend oil exports to the US if someone tries to assassinate him.

"If they kill me, there will be a really guilty party on this planet whose name is the President of the United States George Bush," Chavez said on Sunday during his weekly radio programme Hello, Mr President.

"If, by the hand of the devil, those perverse plans succeed... forget about Venezuelan oil, Mr Bush," he said.

February 27: Venezuela: US preparing to attack

Venezuela has rejected recent US accusations against President Hugo Chavez as slander, designed to prepare the ground for an impending attack against the country.

Foreign Minister Ali Rodriguez on Wednesday dismissed as "impertinent" charges Venezuela limits free speech.

He also ruled out accusations that Caracas associates with Colombian guerrillas and is a destabilising force in the region.

"The absurdity of these accusations against our government would not cause us the least anxiety if it were not for so many facts demonstrating that these signs appear because, sooner or later, there will be an attack," Rodriguez said.

March 4: Chavez renews threat to cut oil to US

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has renewed a threat to halt oil supplies to the United States if Washington hurts the Latin American country.

Relations between Washington and Venezuela - which exports the bulk of its oil to the US - have been badly strained since Chavez last month accused Washington of plotting to have him assassinated.

"If there is any aggression, there will be no oil," Chavez, who is in New Delhi on a four-day visit, was quoted by the Press Trust of India as saying on Friday.

One last thing: I haven't posted a song in a while. One of the phrases I used earlier brought this one to mind. It's by George Harrison.

Think For Yourself

I've got a word or two
to say about the things that you do
You're telling all those lies
about the good things that we can have if we close our eyes
Do what you want to do
And go where you're going to
Think for yourself 'cause I won't be there with you

I left you far behind
The ruins of the life that you have in mind
And though you still can't see
I know you're mind's made up you're gonna cause more misery
Do what you want to do
And go where you're going to
Think for yourself 'cause I won't be there with you

Although you're mind's opaque
Try thinking more if just for your own sake
The future still looks good
And you've got time to rectify all the things that you should
Do what you want to do
And go where you're going to
Think for yourself 'cause I won't be there with you

Do what you want to do
And go where you're going to
Think for yourself 'cause I won't be there with you
Think for yourself 'cause I won't be there with you