I like that Chavez pummels Bush rhetorically and financially. I spend my gas dollars at Citgo. I just wish that Chavez would stop discrediting his superior democratic Latin American position by cozying up to that Caribbean dictator.

Posted by: gylangirl | Aug 28 2006 21:47 utc | 3

@GG:
Who Be the Carribean Dictator?
“by cozying up to that Caribbean dictator.”

Posted by: Ms Manners | Aug 29 2006 2:39 utc | 5

arias is president again in costa rica. ortega is leading the polls for el presidente de nicaragua in the november elections (running against commandante cero, no less). otto reich & elliot abrams helped manage venezuela’s brief coup in 2002. back in the 80’s, “contra-commander in chief” abrams (whose deputy was ironically named william walker) was best sized up by minnesota’s senator david durenberger w/ the line “I wouldn’t trust Elliot Abrams any futher than I could throw Oliver North.” elliot’s still in the current regime only now trying to reverse muslim evolution, while north has to settle for playing talking head expert on one of the state propaganda networks. the u.s. is having trouble playing hot potato w/ asset/agent luis posada carriles/ramon medina — so far canada, mexico, honduras, costa rica, guatemala and el salvador have said no way, jose, harbour your own terrorists! and speaking of guatemala, the u.s. is also failing in its efforts to convince the rest of latin america to back that country to block venezuela’s practical shoe-in for the open u.n. seat on the security council. most of the rest of the thinking world ain’t buying it.
here’s the council on hemispheric relations’ opinion
Guatemala’s Heinous Human Rights Record and Non-compliance With UN Mandates Should Disbar it from UN Seat

If Son of Sam suggested that his record as New York City’s most notorious serial killer in modern memory qualified him for a place on the bench as a state appellate judge, most reasonable people would express serious reservations. Many would rightly point out that there is a logical gap about the size of the Hudson River between experience committing crimes and experience bringing criminals to justice. Few, however, are questioning a case with striking parallels: Guatemala’s bid for the temporary Latin American seat on the United Nations Security Council. Incontestably, Guatemala has been one of the worst human rights violators in Latin American history, a fact made evident by the bloody state-sanctioned military rampage that raged from 1962 to 1996, and took at least 200,000 lives. Such a deeply stained past would ordinarily make Guatemala a grotesque choice to oversee critical human rights issues that may arise during its two-year tenure on the council. Instead of being appalled at a request by its satrap to serve on the international body created to ensure world peace, the White House, extraordinarily enough, is Guatemala’s leading tout and is involved, in an all-out campaign to block Venezuela—the present front runner—from being awarded the seat.
Not only does Guatemala’s notorious human rights record require condemnation, but its current government repeatedly has failed to meet recent UN mandates to bring its known mass murderers to justice. One international body has found that only one of the 626 massacres documented by the UN Commission for Historical Clarification (known informally at the Truth Commission) has been successfully prosecuted by the Guatemalan courts. The problem stems, from the fact that some of the country’s officials, who normally would be responsible for bringing these known suspects to justice, were themselves part of the nation-wide killing machine that butchered tens of thousands of innocent civilians during Guatemala’s thirty-four year civil war. In fact, the Truth Commission’s 1996 report attributes the vast majority of these killings to Guatemalan government forces. The report explains that the state amplified a minor insurgency into an internecine struggle and had its agents annihilate the “internal enemies”: Catholics, communists, Mayans, academics or other dissenters amongst the public. By backing Guatemala’s bid for the UN seat, Washington is asking the international body to reward the Central American nation, who refused to comply with past UN reforms, while thwarting the candidacy of Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez—Washington’s new Latin America bete noire.

the more things change, the more they stay the same, eh?

Posted by: b real | Aug 29 2006 4:25 utc | 7

You think the baggage is something?
You should see the diplomats when they are marching!
🙂
Ah, the transparency of this administration at work, a sight to behold (unfortunately for them). Their agenda is always so obvious that you would have to be totally blind not to see what they’re actually after.
In Iraq, for instance, after weeks of Shock & Awe™, most buildings had been blasted, the telecom infrastructure was gutted, electricity was down, but the Ministry of Oil…
Ah! The Ministry of Oil, untouched!!! A miracle!!!
Let’s race to the Ministry of Oil and ensure that at least this one building remains intact and “unlooted”!

Posted by: SteinL | Aug 29 2006 5:42 utc | 9

Its always been about the oil. But to get at the oil certain things have to happen as insurance to investment — in order to “have” the oil. Insurance to investment rests on the fulcrum of legality and security, there is no investment without legality, there is no insurance without security. The U.S. therefore must create the legal climate though an alliance (manipulation) with the “sovereign” government, complicit in signing the necessary legal paperwork that generate “proper” (P)roduction (S)haring (A)greements with U.S.(&western) corporations. But, this cannot happen until the security problem is solved, and because all parties understand both the implications and the consequences of privitizing the oil resources through PSA’s — they become at odds with each other, conflicted between appeasing either the occupation opinion, or their own public — which works in favor of the occupation, in so far that it prevents a serious nationalistic front from developing. The downside for the occupation is that the sectarian strife necessary to prevent a broad nationalist movement from developing is so hot and potentially explosive (regionally) that neither the legality, much less the insurance can be coaxed out of the situation. So the U.S. has essentially stalemated itself between the fear an independent Iraq, that will cut them out of the deal on principal, and price that would have to be paid by jettising the democracy happy talk and ruling with an iron fist, aka giving the power back to the Saddamists. After three plus years, the desert mirage the good old Shah days in the middle east, keeps moving further into the distance — as the thirst increases.

Posted by: anna missed | Aug 29 2006 7:41 utc | 11

BTW – for those wondering why what was inside the MoO was a lot more precious than ancient artifacts in the Iraqi National Museum of History:
The MoO contained decades worth of seismological data from surveys conducted inside Iraq. Losing that would mean that the geologists would have to start all over again, and we couldn’t have that, could we?

I read that they even managed to screw that up. The seismological records were held at regional offices, which were not protected.

Posted by: Gag Halfrunt | Aug 29 2006 16:48 utc | 13