yessir.
― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 3 February 2006 21:07 (nineteen years ago)
― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 3 February 2006 21:08 (nineteen years ago)
U.S. Expels Venezuelan DiplomatBy GEORGE GEDDA, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 49 minutes agoThe United States on Friday ordered a Venezuelan diplomat to leave the United States after the government of President Hugo Chavez expelled a U.S. naval attache for alleged espionage.
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Jenny Figueredo Frias, whom he identified as chief of staff to the Venezuelan ambassador, was declared persona non grata and given 72 hours to leave the United States.
On Thursday, Chavez had said that Venezuela was expelling naval attache John Correa for allegedly passing secret information from Venezuelan military officers to the Pentagon.
McCormack said the U.S. action was a direct response to Correa's expulsion.
"We don't like to get into tit-for-tat games with the Venezuelan government like this, but they initiated this and we were forced to respond," he said.
Chavez announced Correa's expulsion on Thursday in a nationally televised speech celebrating the seventh anniversary of his government.
"We warn the imperial government of the United States that if their military attaches in Venezuela continue to do what this captain has been doing, they will be detained ... and the next step would be to withdraw the whole so-called military mission of the United States," Chavez said.
The U.S. move came a day after Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld likened Chavez to Adolf Hitler.
Asked during a National Press Club appearance about indications of a generally deteriorating relationship between Washington and parts of Latin America, Rumsfeld said he believes such a characterization "misses the mark."
"We saw dictatorships there. And then we saw most of those countries, with the exception of Cuba, for the most part move towards democracies," he said. "We also saw corruption in that part of the world. And corruption is something that is corrosive of democracy."
The secretary acknowledged that "we've seen some populist leadership appealing to masses of people in those countries. And elections like Evo Morales in Bolivia take place that clearly are worrisome."
"I mean, we've got Chavez in Venezuela with a lot of oil money," Rumsfeld added. "He's a person who was elected legally — just as Adolf Hitler was elected legally — and then consolidated power and now is, of course, working closely with Fidel Castro and Mr. Morales and others."
There have been increasing signs of hostility between Washington and Caracas, and on Monday Chavez said Venezuela's intelligence agencies have "infiltrated" a group of military officials from the U.S. Embassy who were allegedly involved in espionage.
Venezuelan authorities, including the vice president, have accused officials at the U.S. Embassy of involvement in a spying case in which Venezuelan naval officers allegedly passed sensitive information to the Pentagon.
It was not the first such charge by Chavez.
He has accused President Bush of backing efforts to overthrow his leftist government, and specifically has charged that the United States supported a short-lived coup in 2002, fomented a devastating strike in 2004 and expelled some American missionaries from Venezuela for alleged links to the CIA.
Washington has repeatedly rejected the allegations.
― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 3 February 2006 21:13 (nineteen years ago)
Also see: All vegetarians hate Jews, etc.
― Pleasant Plains /// (Pleasant Plains ///), Friday, 3 February 2006 21:15 (nineteen years ago)
COLMES: Should Chavez be assassinated? ROBERTSON: Well, one day he's going to be aiming nuclear weapons; and what's coming across the Gulf isn't going to be Katrina, it's going to be his nukes.COLMES: Would you feel better going back to the original comment that if he were assassinated, the world would be a safer place?ROBERTSON: I think South America would. He is -- he is -- got hit squads. He's a very dangerous man.COLMES: So, you're not taking back the comment. You believe assassination of Hugo Chavez would be in the best interests of the world.ROBERTSON: Well, rather than going to war. One day, we're going to have to go to war, I'm afraid, if he continues his policy, you know. But, I don't know. I wrote him a letter. I apologized to him.COLMES: But, wait a minute. If you say you apologized to him, what you just said seems to contravene that, because you just now said --ROBERTSON: I know. I know. COLMES: -- you think it'd be better if he be assassinated. ROBERTSON: Alan, the whole thing we've got to deal with is that, one day, if he continues his course of trying to mobilize Marxist powers in South America, it's going to be a clear --COLMES: He's very popular with his country. ROBERTSON: Well, yes and no. But he does --HANNITY: He's building up weapons against the United States, isn't he? COLMES: He's extremely popular. Eighty-percent of his country --ROBERTSON: He's also calling for the destruction of George Bush. He calls him a war criminal. COLMES: Do you want him taken out? ROBERTSON: Not now, but one day, one day, one day. My premise is, and I think as -- you know, until that comment came out, everybody thought Chavez [added link] was a fellow having to do with table grapes in California. Now --HANNITY: I think one thing we could say is, the world would be better off without him where he is, because he is a danger to the United States. ROBERTSON: Extreme danger.
ROBERTSON: Well, one day he's going to be aiming nuclear weapons; and what's coming across the Gulf isn't going to be Katrina, it's going to be his nukes.
COLMES: Would you feel better going back to the original comment that if he were assassinated, the world would be a safer place?
ROBERTSON: I think South America would. He is -- he is -- got hit squads. He's a very dangerous man.
COLMES: So, you're not taking back the comment. You believe assassination of Hugo Chavez would be in the best interests of the world.
ROBERTSON: Well, rather than going to war. One day, we're going to have to go to war, I'm afraid, if he continues his policy, you know. But, I don't know. I wrote him a letter. I apologized to him.
COLMES: But, wait a minute. If you say you apologized to him, what you just said seems to contravene that, because you just now said --
ROBERTSON: I know. I know.
COLMES: -- you think it'd be better if he be assassinated.
ROBERTSON: Alan, the whole thing we've got to deal with is that, one day, if he continues his course of trying to mobilize Marxist powers in South America, it's going to be a clear --
COLMES: He's very popular with his country.
ROBERTSON: Well, yes and no. But he does --
HANNITY: He's building up weapons against the United States, isn't he?
COLMES: He's extremely popular. Eighty-percent of his country --
ROBERTSON: He's also calling for the destruction of George Bush. He calls him a war criminal.
COLMES: Do you want him taken out?
ROBERTSON: Not now, but one day, one day, one day. My premise is, and I think as -- you know, until that comment came out, everybody thought Chavez [added link] was a fellow having to do with table grapes in California. Now --
HANNITY: I think one thing we could say is, the world would be better off without him where he is, because he is a danger to the United States.
ROBERTSON: Extreme danger.
― kingfish has gene rayburn's mic (kingfish 2.0), Friday, 3 February 2006 21:17 (nineteen years ago)
― M. White (Miguelito), Friday, 3 February 2006 21:18 (nineteen years ago)
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Friday, 3 February 2006 21:21 (nineteen years ago)
― phil d. (Phil D.), Friday, 3 February 2006 21:21 (nineteen years ago)
Incidentally, Chavez basically bought the votes in the last election, by setting up free stores in poor neighborhoods and basically giving away flour and oil and shit... whatever works. It's really a more solid campaign expenditure than tons of expensive 30 second spots.
― andy --, Friday, 3 February 2006 21:23 (nineteen years ago)
quite doubtful. U.S. Congressfolk do it all the time.
― kingfish has gene rayburn's mic (kingfish 2.0), Friday, 3 February 2006 21:24 (nineteen years ago)
Not very hitleresque.
― andy --, Friday, 3 February 2006 21:26 (nineteen years ago)
― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 3 February 2006 21:27 (nineteen years ago)
Especially back during World War II.
― Pleasant Plains /// (Pleasant Plains ///), Friday, 3 February 2006 21:27 (nineteen years ago)
― Thomas Tallis (Tommy), Friday, 3 February 2006 21:28 (nineteen years ago)
― kingfish has gene rayburn's mic (kingfish 2.0), Friday, 3 February 2006 21:28 (nineteen years ago)
― mark p (Mark P), Friday, 3 February 2006 21:28 (nineteen years ago)
― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 3 February 2006 21:29 (nineteen years ago)
― kingfish has gene rayburn's mic (kingfish 2.0), Friday, 3 February 2006 21:34 (nineteen years ago)
Is this the first time an American cabinet-level official has dropped the Hitler bomb in a public statement like that? I mean, that's pretty foul.
I seem to recall George Bush, Sr. making a comparison between Hitler and Saddam.
― M. White (Miguelito), Friday, 3 February 2006 21:37 (nineteen years ago)
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Friday, 3 February 2006 21:57 (nineteen years ago)
Things are finally reaching a critical mass down there. The TeleSUR network finally began full-time broadcasting late last year as a counter to CNN and the right-wing Univision and just this week they signed a deal with al-Jazeera.
I'm sure all of this is driving BushCo crazy.
― Elvis Telecom (Chris Barrus), Friday, 3 February 2006 22:01 (nineteen years ago)
Hugo Chavez, December 24, 2005
― M. White (Miguelito), Friday, 3 February 2006 22:12 (nineteen years ago)
wins points for passion, but is docked severely by the russian judge for accurancy and/or coherency
― kingfish has gene rayburn's mic (kingfish 2.0), Friday, 3 February 2006 22:15 (nineteen years ago)
wow those romans have some pretty long reach.
― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 3 February 2006 22:16 (nineteen years ago)
stence don't be dim
― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Friday, 3 February 2006 22:20 (nineteen years ago)
― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 3 February 2006 22:20 (nineteen years ago)
― M. White (Miguelito), Friday, 3 February 2006 22:24 (nineteen years ago)
― Cathy (Cathy), Friday, 3 February 2006 22:44 (nineteen years ago)
― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 3 February 2006 22:52 (nineteen years ago)
The Italians?
― ANDY --, Friday, 3 February 2006 23:22 (nineteen years ago)
― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Saturday, 4 February 2006 00:13 (nineteen years ago)
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Saturday, 4 February 2006 00:28 (nineteen years ago)
― Worship That? Never! (noodle vague), Saturday, 4 February 2006 01:32 (nineteen years ago)
― Alan Conceicao (Alan Conceicao), Saturday, 4 February 2006 01:39 (nineteen years ago)
― Alan Conceicao (Alan Conceicao), Saturday, 4 February 2006 01:40 (nineteen years ago)
― Worship That? Never! (noodle vague), Saturday, 4 February 2006 01:40 (nineteen years ago)
I agree with that there. I'm just hoping that in 15 years, they don't have the same people working for the same wage in a country just as oppressed as before (when US influence ruled the day), because China wants petroleum and wants it now. That would be a hell of a let down.
― Alan Conceicao (Alan Conceicao), Saturday, 4 February 2006 01:43 (nineteen years ago)
― Worship That? Never! (noodle vague), Saturday, 4 February 2006 01:44 (nineteen years ago)
Just my increasing paranoia of Chinese foriegn policy, that's all. You can probably ignore it.
― Alan Conceicao (Alan Conceicao), Saturday, 4 February 2006 01:45 (nineteen years ago)