<html>
<body>
<h2><b>New Coup D'Etat Rumblings in
Venezuela</b></h2><font size=3>
<a href="http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/print/3831" eudora="autourl">
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/print/3831<br><br>
</a>September 25th 2008, by Stephen Lendman <br>
Since taking office in January 2001, the Bush administration targeted
Hugo Chavez for removal. It tried and failed three previous
times:<br><br>
-- in April 2002 for two days; aborted by mass street protests and
support from many in Venezuela's military, especially from its
middle-ranking officer corp;<br><br>
-- the 2002 - 2003 general strike and oil management lockout causing
severe economic disruption; and<br><br>
-- the August 2004 national recall referendum in which Chavez
resoundingly prevailed with a 59% majority.<br><br>
Other disruptions have occurred since and now may again be ongoing. US
intervention is innovative and determined to regain control of Venezuela
and its vast hydrocarbon resources, the largest by far in the hemisphere
after Canada. Perhaps in the world, with the US Department of Energy's
estimate of 1.36 trillion extra-heavy oil barrels included besides its
proved 80 billion barrels of light sweet reserves, ranking it seventh
overall behind the five largest Middle East producers and
Canada.<br><br>
Throughout most of his tenure and since the Bush administration took
over, CIA and various misnamed US quasi-governmental agencies have been
active in Venezuela. Ones like the National Endowment for Democracy
(NED). The International Republican Institute (IRI) with John McCain as
its chairman and its ties to extremist Republican party elements, and the
US Agency for International Development (USAID). All are imperial
instruments. Undemocratic and for rule by the power of money.<br><br>
They fund opposition groups and coup supporters. Arrange (staged for
media) anti-Chavez marches and street protests. Spend millions to subvert
democracy to return the country to its past. Oligarchs who once
controlled it. Washington and Big Oil that control them.<br><br>
They plot assassination attempts, according to Chavez to remove him. To
reverse Bolivarianism and its socially beneficial gains in health care,
education, housing, feeding the hungry, lifting millions out of poverty,
and enfranchising all Venezuelans in the country's participatory
democracy. Strengthening it at the grassroots.<br><br>
<b>Recent Disturbing Events<br><br>
</b>On September 10, Venezolana de Television's (VTV) La Hojilla program
disclosed a recording (from an undisclosed source) of a planned military
coup against Chavez - by active and retired plotters. Participants named
were Vice Admiral and National Guard Forces Inspector General Carlos
Alberto Millan Millan. National Guard General Wilfredo Barroso Herrera,
and retired Air Force General Eduardo Baez Torrealba (involved in the
April 2002 aborted coup). Unknown is who else is behind this and how deep
the suspected plot runs.<br><br>
Conversations recorded were about "tak(ing) the Miraflores
(presidential) Palace (government headquarters and) the TV
installations....that is all effort towards where (Chavez) is. If he's in
Miraflores, the effort goes toward there." Talk also was about
seizing the "command headquarters (with) the troops inside" and
about Maracay, Aragua state's Air Base Libertador where Venezuela's F-16s
and other planes are based.<br><br>
Baez Torrealba was heard saying: "We are divided into four
zones....east, west, and two in the centre" and have an F-16 pilot.
He mentions either attacking Chavez's plane or capturing it. Possibly the
presidential palace the way the CIA engineered it in Chile for Augusto
Pinochet against Salvador Allende on September 11, 1973 - with bombs,
rockets and tank fire. Open warfare on Santiago's streets. Whether
planned for Caracas is anyone's guess but it certainly is
possible.<br><br>
Chavez knows the history as well as past conspiracies against himself. He
said on-air that his government "infiltrated the most radical and
fascist movements (and have) known for a long time that they are looking
for land and air rockets and sophisticated equipment to blow up the
presidential plane" and that past plans were to bomb the Miraflores.
He also knows that CIA is behind them and said if there's a coup,
"the counter-coup would be overwhelming" - meaning a mass
popular uprising to reverse it with military support, similar to
2002.<br><br>
Chavez then confirmed the detentions of several suspected coop plotters
and said others fled the country. He also expelled US ambassador, Patrick
Duddy. Gave him 72 hours to leave, and recalled his Washington envoy,
Bernardo Alvarez, in sympathy with Bolivia's Evo Morales. On September
10, he declared US ambassador, Philip Goldberg, persona non grata.
Accused him of supporting eastern Bolivian fascist elements and working
with them to plan a coup against his presidency. <br><br>
On September 20, another incident occurred, so far unexplained. In west
Caracas, a grenade was thrown from a residential building, killing two
and injuring 19 others. A 23-year old man was identified as the
perpetrator, who then, it was claimed, jumped to his death from the
building's eighth floor. No further information is available at this time
but authorities are investigating.<br><br>
Then around the same time in London, Samuel Moncada, Venezuela's UK
ambassador, attended a fringe Labour Party meeting and expressed
"fear(s) that the next few weeks will be very dangerous for
us." He believes that the Bush administration may try to oust Chavez
in its remaining months. Others in Venezuela also think something is
going on to destabilize the country. Possibly a plot to assassinate their
president and bring down his government.<br><br>
Disturbing Latin American stirrings in the final Bush administration
months along with all else on their plate and planned in the Middle East,
Central Asia and elsewhere. Plus the November presidential and
congressional elections and a hugely calamitous financial crisis
commanding daily headlines and top-level meetings as first order of
business because of its seriousness. <br><br>
Nonetheless, the Bush administration expelled Venezuela's Washington
ambassador after he'd been recalled following Chavez saying "When
there is a new government in the United States, we'll send an
ambassador." Given the campaign rhetoric by both US presidential
candidates, he may have a change of heart. Both promise permanent wars.
New fronts to wage them on, and an uncompromising pro-corporate agenda.
Not good news for independent democrats like Chavez, especially ones in
oil-rich countries like Venezuela.<br><br>
Separately on September 12, the Bush administration went further with US
Treasury officials announcing sanctions and the freezing of assets
against Hugo Carvajal Barrios and Henry Rangel Silva, both Venezuelan
intelligence chiefs. Also named was Ramon Rodriguez Chacin, the country's
former Justice and Interior Minister. Serious and unwarranted accusations
against high government officials for supporting drugs trafficking and
supplying arms to Colombia's FARC-EP resistance. <br><br>
On September 17, Washington also blacklisted Venezuela (for the fourth
time) and Bolivia (for the first time) for not cooperating in the
"war on drugs" and designated both countries and Burma as
"hav(ing) failed demonstrably during the previous 12 months to
adhere to their obligations under international counternarcotics
agreements," in a statement released by the White House. The State
Department listed 20 countries as illicit major drugs producers or
transit sites. <br><br>
It omitted what scholar/researcher Peter Dale Scott calls "Deep
Events (or "deep politics" that governments try to suppress)
and the CIA's Global Drug Connection" in his article by that title.
The "complex geography or network of banks, financial agents of
influence and the 'alternative' or 'shadow' CIA" and its possible
involvement in major "deep events" like the Kennedy
assassination and 9/11. A "global financial complex of hot money
uniting prominent business, financial and government (elements) as well
as underworld figures." An "indirect empire (between) CIA,
organized crime, and their mutual interest in drug-trafficking."
<br><br>
For the enormous profits that CIA uses for its operations and helps it
plot coups against countries like Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954),
Venezuela (2002) and maybe again in 2008 along with Bolivia and the
current Iranian government. For state terrorism like Operation Condor (in
Latin America in the 1970s). Iranian and Pakistani incursions currently.
All its other nefarious activities, including "strengthening drug
networks....in Laos, Pakistan, Lebanon, Turkey, Columbia," Thailand
and Afghanistan - the world's largest by far opium producer after
Washington replaced the Taliban and allowed regional "warlords"
to ramp up replantings.<br><br>
Also its involvement in a possible plot against Chavez. At the least, the
latest Bush administration efforts to tarnish and disrupt his democratic
government with considerable media support for its accusations and much
more.<br><br>
<b>The Corporate Media on the Attack<br><br>
</b>A New York Times September 18 Simon Romero article is headlined:
"Alleging Coup Plot, Chavez Ousts US Envoy." In it he suggests
the accuracy of a Human Rights Watch's (HRW) biased 2008 Venezuela report
discussed below. That "into its 10th year (Chavez's) government has
consolidated power by eliminating the independence of the judiciary,
punish(ed) critical news organizations, and engag(ed) in wide-ranging
acts of political discrimination against opponents." Leaving
mentioned the Chavez government's views to suggest his own and HRW's.
<br><br>
Do it in spite of its tainted state. An example is how it
"condemn(es) human rights abuses in Colombia." Not the
repressive government. The most fascist in the region, but the FARC-EP
and ELN resistance against it. More on HRW below.<br><br>
A Miami Herald op-ed piece is headlined: "Expulsions Underscore
Chavez's Intolerance for Dissent" and states that expelling
"two respected human rights monitors from Venezuela is the latest
evidence that President Hugo Chavez is determined to muzzle dissenting
views....Mr. Chavez never misses an opportunity to rail against the
United States, but his real enemies are those who dare to take issue with
his politics. His anti-democratic agenda has restricted legitimate
political activity by his opponents for years, and his arbitrary behavior
is getting worse." The most far right US elements couldn't say it
better or be more of a mirror opposite the facts.<br><br>
A Los Angeles Times August 9 editorial accused Chavez of a "power
grab (and) attack(ing) democracy." The Washinton Post calls him a
Venezuelan caudillo or strongman. So does the Wall Street Journal
repeatedly. Reckless commentaries accuse him of rigging elections.
Excluding his most formidable opponents. Violating Venezuelan law, and
now engaging in drugs trafficking, terrorism, and delivering a suitcase
with $800,000 in slush money to Argentina's Cristina Kirchner for her
2007 presidential campaign. The Inter-American Dialogue's Peter Hakim has
"no doubt" this latter charge (playing out in a Miami
courtroom) is politically motivated and "is coming from the US
government." So are all the others.<br><br>
The Journal's Mary O'Grady wages constant war against Chavez, and her
latest September 15 op-ed refers to his "Russian Dalliance."
His holding joint exercises with Moscow's "flotilla." Russia
"evoking memories of the 1962 Cuban missile crisis by playing war
games with another would-be Latin strongman." Chavez "only too
happy to be used." Suggesting he and Evo Morales are communists and
all the negatives that implies. That Chavez is a "dictator."
That his "economy (is) in shambles" when, in fact, it's had 19
consecutive impressive quarters of growth and grew at 7.1% in the second
quarter - compared to America's unprecedented economic crisis and
contraction. That Chavez is so worried about a "serious challenge to
(his) chavismo (that he) trotted out the Uncle Sam boogeyman, called in
the Russians, and (sent) Washington's ambassador packing."<br><br>
<b>Human Rights Watch on the Attack<br><br>
</b>Too often, Human Rights Watch (HRW) fails to practice its stated
mandate - that it is "dedicated to protecting the human rights of
people around the world....stand(ing) with victims and
activists....upholding political freedom (and) bring(ing) offenders to
justice." Instead it functions the way James Petras characterizes
similar NGOs as the "executing agents of US imperialism."
<br><br>
Its support for the oppressed is dubious at best. Tainted at worst, and
its latest September 18 Venezuela report is disturbing, biased, and
inaccurate. It's not dissimilar to how it covers the Israeli -
Palestinian conflict. Distorting it to downplay Israeli violence. Playing
up to the Israeli Lobby, and operating more by a political agenda than as
a credible human rights organization. Clearly with its funding sources in
mind that must be placated and never offended. HRW does it
skillfully.<br><br>
From its 1978 beginnings as the US Helsinki Watch Committee (or Helsinki
Watch), HRW advanced America's interests as a propaganda instrument
against Soviet Russia. Despite occasional good work, too often it's
"serv(ed) as a virtual public relations arm of the (US) foreign
policy establishment," according to Edward Herman, David Peterson
and George Szamuely in their 2007 report titled: "Human Rights Watch
in Service to the War Party." <br><br>
Exhibits A and B: against Serbia's Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam at a
time "the United States and Britain were clearly planning an assault
on Iraq with a 'shock and awe' bombing campaign and ground invasion in
violation of the UN Charter." HRW ignored the impending onslaught.
The "supreme international crime," and focused on Saddam's much
lesser ones. A "valuable public relations gift to US and British
leaders" instead of denouncing them.<br><br>
When the Pentagon-led NATO countries bombed Yugoslavia in 1999, HRW
attacked the victim and absolved the aggressor. It supported regime
change "either through (Milosevic's) indictment or a US war (for)
the same outcome." It blamed him for the conflict America began and
waged throughout the 1990s with its NATO allies. It ignored Washington's
imperial aim to dismantle Yugoslavia. Its outrageous war crimes in doing
it, and instead cited Serbia's "vicious wars in Bosnia, Croatia and
Kosovo." It demanded responsible Serbs be held to account before the
kangaroo International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia
(ICTW). Run by made-in-Washington rules to avoid any prosecution of its
own role. <br><br>
It showed HRW's commitment to human rights is hollow and hypercritical.
Its analysis opposite of the truth. Its disdain for the rule of law, and
its judgment fully supportive of its funding sources. Organizations
like:<br><br>
-- the Ford Foundation;<br><br>
-- the Rockefeller Foundation;<br><br>
-- the Carnegie Corporation of New York; and <br><br>
-- Time Warner.<br><br>
Individuals like:<br><br>
-- Edgar Bronfman, Jr., corporate CEO and member of one of Canada's most
wealthy and influential Jewish families;<br><br>
-- Katherine Graham (now deceased) of the Washington Post Corporation
with her son and current chairman, Donald Graham, likely continuing her
support;<br><br>
-- and George Soros who was active in founding HRW jointly with the US
State Department.<br><br>
Some of its Americas Advisory Board members are also closely linked to
the National Endowment of Democracy (NED) and its anti-democratic agenda.
Figures like George Soros and Robert Pastor, Jimmy Carter's Latin
American National Security Advisor and Senior Fellow at the Carter Center
on Latin America and the Caribbean.<br><br>
HRW failed to denounce CIA's 2002 coup attempt against Chavez or the 2004
one against Haiti's Jean-Bertrand Aristide. The thousands of Lavalas
supporters murdered in its aftermath. The continuing daily human rights
abuses committed by so-called UN Peacekeepers, police and other security
forces. The unconscionable human misery in the coup's aftermath.<br><br>
It said nothing about Venezuelan dominant media's advance knowledge about
and support for the 2002 coup. The air time they gave plotters. Their
virulent propaganda and calls for people to take to the streets "for
freedom and democracy" by ousting Chavez. Their suppressing all
pro-government reports and opinions. Their falsely reporting that Chavez
resigned when, in fact, he was forcibly removed and was being held
against his will. They knew because they were briefed in advance and were
part of the scheme. <br><br>
When hundreds of thousands of Chavez supporters were on the streets
demanding his reinstatement, they ignored them and aired old movies and
cartoons. Even when the coup was aborted, they maintained strict
censorship in a further act of defiance. Yet, when Chavez refused to
renew RCTV's VHF license (a mere slap on the wrist for an act of
sedition), HRW vehemently complained and denounced the act as censorship.
It continues to criticize Chavez, most noticeably in its 230 page 2008
report titled, "A Decade Under Chavez: Political Intolerance and
Lost Opportunities for Advancing Human Rights in
Venezuela."<br><br>
The report is unfairly one-sided and biased by criticizing the
"government's willful disregard for the institutional guarantees and
fundamental rights that make democratic participation possible." In
response, the government expelled two HRW employees - America's Director,
Jose Miguel Vivanco, and his Deputy, Daniel Wilkinson. A Foreign
Relations Ministry press release stated: Vivanco and Wilkerson "have
done violence to the constitution (and) assaulted (Venezuela's)
institutions (by) meddling illegally in (its) internal affairs."
<br><br>
The statement added that HRW is linked to America's "unacceptable
strategy of aggression" and expelling them was done to defend
"the people against aggressions by international factors." Not
accidently was the report released two months before Venezuela's November
23 regional and local elections for governors and mayors. HRW did the
same thing previously to sway voters away from Chavez candidates and
issues and toward ones embracing a pro-Washington agenda. In October
2007, ahead of the December constitutional reform referendum, it
criticized the measures and warned about the loss of freedoms if the vote
was positive. Its latest report also comes at a time of increased tension
between Washington and Caracas ahead of elections in both
countries.<br><br>
The Washington-based Venezuela Information Office (VIO) released an
analysis of HRW's report titled: "The Truth Suffers in Human Rights
Watch on Venezuela." It's summarized below and can be read in full
along with other current Venezuela information on:
rethinkvenezuela.org.<br><br>
VIO is blunt and accurate in calling HRW down on its blatantly biased
account. Not surprising given its history as explained above. It
exaggerates and lies about human rights deficiencies, and at the same
time, ignores Venezuela's impressive social and other advances under
Chavez. Unparalled in the country's history. Nothing comparable in
America where human rights and social gains are vanishing under both
parties. Along with democracy that's pure fantasy. Facts that HRW is
loath to point out nor would it dare at the risk of offending its funding
sources.<br><br>
VIO deconstructs the HRW report by stating "myths," and
"facts".<br><br>
HRW myth: political discrimination defines the Chavez
presidency.<br><br>
VIO fact: HRW mischaracterizes Chavez's condemnation of the aborted 2002
coup as "political discrimination" against the plotters. An
absurdity on its face, but not to HRW.<br><br>
HRW: Chavez disdains the separation of powers and an independent
judiciary.<br><br>
VIO: Chavez inherited a government for the rich. Mass poverty, and
(according to an earlier HRW report) a judiciary plagued by
"influence-peddling, political interference, and, above all,
corruption....In terms of public credibility, the system was
bankrupt." Since 1999, Chavez made great strides in cleaning it up.
He still has a long way to go, but he's heading in the right
direction.<br><br>
HRW: Chavez "shifted....the mass media in the government's
favor."<br><br>
VIO: In print and electronically, Venezuela's corporate media are
dominant. The five leading private TV channels control 90% of the market
and most viewers. They operate freely with no government censorship. Are
unrestrained in their one-sided anti-goverment reporting, including
"calling for the overthrow of elected leaders" as they did in
2002. All major newspapers are corporate-owned. TVes (Venezuela's first
public broadcaster) and TeleSur (the regional, multi-nation supported
operation) reach much smaller audiences.<br><br>
HRW: Chavez "has sought to remake the country's labor movement in
ways that violate basic principles of freedom of movement."<br><br>
VIO: In fact, Chavez is actively pro-labor. Supports unions and
collective bargaining on equal terms with management. In 2003,
pro-government workers founded the National Workers Union (UNT). Chavez
is responsive to its rights and equitable demands.<br><br>
HRW: Chavez has been "aggressively adversarial....to local rights
advocates and civil society organizations."<br><br>
VIO: Chavez is responsive to local leaders. Promotes the creation of
community councils to address their own needs and find solutions free
from federal government control and influence. The idea is democracy at
the grassroots, and it works.<br><br>
VIO concludes that HRW systematically mischaracterizes the Chavez
government. Wrongly accuses it of political discrimination and targeting
opponents. The truth is mirror opposite even to the extent of pardoning
coup plotters and promoting open dialogue. <br><br>
In addition, Venezuela has a vibrant and improving participatory
democracy, anchored at the grassroots. Each government branch provides
"strong checks and balances" against the others. The nation is
a free and open society. The Bolivarian Constitution respects and
guarantees human and labor rights for all Venezuelans equally. Social
ones also, including healthcare, education, food, housing, jobs, security
and more.<br><br>
In its biased and inaccurate account, HRW reports none of this and all
other impressive achievements under Chavez. Doing so would offend its
corporate and other backers. They want Chavez ousted. Bolivarianism
ended, and Venezuela returned to its past. HRW is an imperial agent. On
board to make it happen.<br><br>
<b>Targeting Latin American Democracy<br><br>
</b>Subversion in Venezuela and possible civil war in Bolivia threaten
Latin America's democracy. Fascists never rest and now control five of
Bolivia's richest states, according to long-time regional expert, James
Petras. They "forcefully oust(ed) all national officials,
murder(ed), injur(ed) and assaulted leaders, activists and voters who
have backed the (Morales) national government - with total
impunity."<br><br>
Why so? Because, in nearly three years in office, Evo Morales tried to
bargain with the far right. Be conciliatory and compromising. Back down
from even "the mildest social reforms." Favor business over
progressive social change in spite of winning a nearly 70% majority in an
August 10 recall election. Allowed the opposition to be
"aggressive(ly) violent." Seize power in Santa Cruz, Pando,
Beni, Tarija and Chuquisaca. Rule by thuggery and intimidation. Head the
country toward fascism. Erase the few social reforms achieved in the past
three years. Hand the country back to oligarchs and their Washington
bosses. <br><br>
Threaten to take the model to Venezuela. End the region's most impressive
participatory democracy. Its social gains, and a leader who's committed
to improving them. Stand up against the same dark forces targeting
Bolivia. Refuses to surrender the way Morales has done. Share power with
the fascist right. Give in to their demands. Back their neoliberal
agenda. Betray the people who elected him overwhelmingly. And face the
possibility of what Michel Chossudovsky calls the "Kosovo
Option." <br><br>
Break up Bolivia by the Yugoslav model. Use extreme violence to do it. It
made Kosovo an independent state. Planning the same scheme for Bolivia's
resource-rich states. Perhaps the same fate for Venezuela and
extinguishing all Latin American democracy. <br><br>
A very disquieting option. Unthinkable but possible under the current US
administration and which ever new one succeeds it. More conceivable given
a shaky world economy and how that distracts away from politics. Even the
most destructive kind. Allowing democracy to be lost without even
noticing. <br><br>
Unlikely? Who back in summer 2007 imagined the kind of financial crisis
that emerged. A potential economic armageddon. An unprecedented situation
with no rules around to address. The possibility that nothing can stop a
meltdown. And if it happens that democracy may go with it. <br><br>
Preventing a similar Latin America outcome is crucial. Confronting the
region's dark forces to stop them. Understanding, as Petras states, that
"you cannot 'make deals' with fascists." You don't defeat them
"through elections and concessions to their big property-owning
paymasters." You confront them head on. Forcefully. Expose and
denounce them. Ally with a democratic constituency and beat down their
threat that's real, menacing and must be stopped or its heading
everywhere. Maybe sooner than anyone imagines.<br><br>
Some hopeful signs, however, are present, and maybe more will follow. In
mid-September, nine South American presidents held a crisis summit in
Santiago, Chile and expressed "their full and firm support for the
constitutional government of President Evo Morales (and) reject(ed) and
will not recognize any situation that attempts a civil coup (or) rupture
of (Bolivia's) territorial integrity." Let's hope they mean what
they say and will back their words with resoluteness. Except for Chavez
away on foreign tour, they met again on September 24 at the UN in New
York to continue discussions.<br><br>
In addition, on September 17, the National Coalition for Change (CONALCAM
indigenous, campesino and urban movements) signed a pact with the
Bolivian Workers Central (COB) to "defend the unity of the homeland
that is being threatened by a civil coup lead by terrorists and
fascists" directed out of Washington.<br><br>
Events are fast-moving. They affect Venezuela and the region, and Roger
Burbach, Director of the Center for the Study of the Americas (CENSA),
reports that 20,000 miners, peasants and coca growers marched on Santa
Cruz. The "bastion of the right wing rebellion" against
Morales. He calls it a "popular upheaval" sweeping the country.
But it's too soon to predict an outcome, and much to worry about given
Morales' weak-kneed approach and reluctance to be as resolute as his
supporters. Burbach calls it "restraint." For Petras, it's
capitulation, surrender, and a doomed strategy.<br><br>
But not if mass protests can help it with Joel Guarachi, head of the
National Confederation of Peasant Workers, saying 600,000 protesters are
located throughout the 16 Santa Cruz provinces alone. Venezuelans share a
common interest and may react the same way if Bolivarianism and their
president are threatened. <br><br>
Let's hope so. With a few months left in office, the Bush administration
may be unleashing its last hurrah in Latin America. A "hail
Mary" effort to reclaim the region. Remove its weak democracies in
countries like Bolivia and strong ones in Venezuela. And do it in the
face of overwhelming domestic problems at home and lost wars abroad. Will
it work? Not if Bolivians and Venezuelans have anything to say about it,
and they're saying plenty. Stay tuned.<br><br>
<i>Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on
Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached
<a href="mailto:lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net">
lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net</a>.<br><br>
Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The
Global Research News Hour on Republic Broadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM
- 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished
guests. All programs are archived for easy listening.<br><br>
</i><b>Links:<br>
</b>[1]
<a href="mailto:lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net" eudora="autourl">
mailto:lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net<br>
</a><b>Printed:</b> September 25th 2008,
<a href="http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/3831" eudora="autourl">
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/3831</a> <br>
<b>License:</b> Published under a Creative Commons license (by-nc-nd).
See <i>creativecommons.org</i> for more information. <br><br>
<br><br>
</font><x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<font size=3 color="#FF0000">Freedom Archives<br>
522 Valencia Street<br>
San Francisco, CA 94110<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#008000">415 863-9977<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#0000FF">
<a href="http://www.freedomarchives.org/" eudora="autourl">
www.Freedomarchives.org</a></font><font size=3> </font></body>
</html>