The title of this posting is merely an experiment to see how many people I can attract to read it. The mainstream media uses the same tactic of sensational headlines all the time, even if the article is only loosely connected to the title.
Since I began writing this blog about issues primarily in Latin America, I've received a lot of questions, and have been engaged in many interesting debates with people from all ends of the political spectrum. Venezuela always seems to be one of the most hotly debated topics, if only because it is what North Americans hear about the most. Usually, I find that I meet North Americans that are against what is happening in Venezuela, and it is usually based on what they have heard or read in the mainstream media. I admittedly hold a bias towards the revolutionary movement in Venezuela, and I like the idea of a new form of social democracy that is emerging. The difference between my opinion however, and most detractors of Hugo Chavez, is that mine is informed by thorough research from various sources and not just from the main stream media. Living in Latin America has been an eye opening experience, but even more revealing has been my pursuit of the real news. I've come to learn that in North America we are either uninformed or worse misinformed about what is actually happening both within our own country and around the world; that unless we dig deep into the sources of information that are available we remain ignorant of the true sentiments of the people and the true motives of the state.
Venezuela is currently in election time, with important legislative elections coming up at the end of September. Every time Venezuela approaches elections, the main stream media, both within the country and in the U.S. especially, go on the offensive against the Chavez administration. Unsubstantiated claims and conjectures are thrown out by journalists as though they are fact, hoping that those who hear them will not look deeper into the allegations. Yesterday I read an article written by John Bolton, a neo-conservative politician who was George Bush Jr's ambassador to the United Nations. I was blown away by what a man with so much influence and power was willing to say in order to attempt to demonize the Chavez administration. I've decided to display his article here, interspersed with my own comments in order to illustrate the nature of misinformation being spread by those in positions of power. His article is in italics and my comments are in bold. I have not included any sources in my commentary, but I strongly encourage anyone to look a little deeper into any of the issues I raise. You need only Google most of them to gain a more thorough understanding of the reality of things.

The Chavez threat

Successive U.S. administrations have proved unable or unwilling to slow Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's descent into authoritarianism

By John R. Bolton
September 16, 2010
Venezuela's Sept. 26 national parliamentary elections present a major opportunity for strongman Hugo Chavez to cement his grip on power. Despite a tradition of a free press and competitive politics, a cosmopolitan elite and extensive natural resources, Venezuela is increasingly a case study in how to lose political and economic freedom.

Hugo Chavez has repeatedly been elected into power by a large majority under elections that have been called free and fair by the U.S. based Carter Center and other international observers.

The stakes are especially high in light of evidence consistent with an emerging Venezuelan nuclear weapons program. 

There is absolutely zero evidence that Venezuela is pursuing a nuclear weapons program.  The claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was more valid than this claim, and we all know how that turned out.  Chavez has repeatedly said that he'd like Venezuela to one day have nuclear power, but he has always made sure to emphasize the peaceful nature of such a pursuit.  Chavez has in fact been a strong advocate of nuclear disarmament around the world.

Ironically, Chavez's frequently clownish behavior protects him, camouflaging the seriousness of his potential threat to U.S. security and to democratic societies throughout Latin America.

The biggest threat to Latin American democratic societies has always been, and continues to be the United States.  In 2002 the U.S. was involved in a Coup D'etat attempt against Chavez, and in 2008 the removal of Zelaya in Honduras was supported by the U.S.

 
Washington, under Republican and Democratic administrations, has proved unable or unwilling to slow Chavez's descent into authoritarianism. Unlike coups by prior caudillos in the Americas, the situation in Venezuela today is like a slow-motion train wreck, which makes it all the more frustrating. A lack of international outrage is discouraging pro-democracy Venezuelans across the ideological spectrum. They worry they have been forgotten, especially by an Obama administration that finds foreign policy a distraction.
This month's elections, therefore, may be a last chance for change before Chavez completes his takeover. He has advanced his agenda since taking office in 1999 by fragmenting his domestic opposition, manipulating election rules, closing down opposition news sources and expropriating the considerable assets of businesses and entrepreneurs. He has materially impaired Venezuela's prosperous petroleum economy by failing to make prudent investments and improvements, while using substantial oil revenues to consolidate his hold on power.

If by "using substantial oil revenues to consolidate his hold on power" means using oil money to provide universal health care, free education, and subsidized food and housing, then John Bolton is right here.  Chavez has nearly eliminated extreme poverty in Venezuela and has cut poverty and inequality levels substantially.

 Even more disturbing are Chavez's international threats. While Latin American democracies have refrained from doing anything that smacks of "interference" in Venezuela's internal affairs, Chavez has felt no similar compunction. For example, it's clear he has sheltered, supplied and financed FARC guerrillas who seek to overthrow the government in neighboring, and still-democratic, Colombia. In decades past, accusations that the United States was engaged in such tactics would have brought millions into the streets shouting "Yanqui go home!"

The claim that Chavez harbors FARC guerillas has been thrown around a lot lately, especially after Columbia's former President Uribe presented "evidence" supporting this claim.  However, his "evidence" was never verified and even the top U.S. military man in Latin America has admitted that there is nothing which links Chavez to the FARC or any other "terrorist" group.  The FARC guerillas likely have established camps within the border of Venezuela, but they also are present within Columbia.  If Columbia has been unable to eliminate this group after billions of dollars and U.S. military support, then what makes them think that the Chavez administration can find every group living deep in the jungle along its own border?

Last year, Chavez led the charge against those in Honduras trying to prevent its fragile democracy (and one of the Western Hemisphere's poorest countries) from being subverted by Manuel Zelaya, a would-be caudillo. 

This speaks for itself.  Chavez led the charge against a group of powerful elites that carried out a coup d'etat against the democratically elected president of Honduras.  I'm glad Bolton pointed out how poor Honduras is, because before he was removed from power at gun point Zelaya was trying to hold a new constitutional assembly that would have benefited the poor and excluded sectors of society.

 
Chavez has poured money — openly or through suspected clandestine channels — into elections in Peru, Bolivia, Nicaragua and Ecuador to support leftist candidates of his ilk. 

 There is documented evidence that the U.S. is currently using millions of dollars of tax payers money to fund opposition groups within Venezuela.  If Chavez is guilty of funding leftist regimes in the region, he is only doing so in response to clear U.S. intervention.

To that same end, he questioned the legitimacy of President Felipe Calderon's election in Mexico and purchased much of Argentina's sovereign debt. One can only imagine what he might be doing to support the Mexican drug cartels, as with their cohorts in Colombia. For that reason, Venezuelan involvement in hemispheric drug trafficking should be a top U.S. intelligence priority.

I'm not even going to entertain such a claim.  I will however, point out that all of the Mexican drug cartels receive most of their weapons from the United States, and in turn sell most of their drugs to the United States.

 
On the world stage, Chavez's behavior is increasingly ominous. As Fidel Castro has aged and Cuba's relations with Russia have faded, Chavez has stepped forward. He has engaged in extensive military cooperation with Moscow, including major acquisitions of conventional weapons, from infantry rifles to sophisticated, high-end weapons well beyond any conceivably legitimate requirements of Venezuela's military. Chavez's purchases of advanced-model Kalashnikov assault rifles, some Venezuelan businessmen and former diplomats suggest, are meant to arm campesino "militias" that will rally to him if Venezuela's military ever threatens his regime, or the weapons may be destined for revolutionary or terrorist groups. In either case, the consequences would be profoundly negative.

Indeed, Chavez has organized campesino militias, but not to defend against internal military threats, but rather against the very real threat of foreign invasion.  The U.S. military machine continues to surprise us all.

 
Beyond enhancing his own swaggering reputation, Chavez's growing closeness with Russia and Iran on nuclear matters should be our greatest concern. For decades, after military governments fell in Brazil and Argentina, Latin America prided itself on avoiding the dangers of nuclear proliferation. The 1967 Treaty of Tlatelolco symbolized this perceived immunity, but the region's nuclear-free status is today gravely threatened.
Now, Venezuela is openly helping Iran evade international sanctions imposed because of Tehran's nuclear weapons program. Along with the refined petroleum products it supplies Tehran, Chavez allows Iranian banks and other sanctioned enterprises to use Caracas as a base for conducting business internationally and, reportedly, to facilitate Hezbollah's activity in the hemisphere.
Even more alarming, Venezuela claims Iran is helping develop its uranium reserves, reportedly among the largest in the world. Indeed, the formal agreement between them signed two years ago for cooperation in the nuclear field could easily result in a uranium-for-nuclear-knowhow trade. In addition, Chavez has a deal with Russia to build a reactor in Venezuela. All of which may signal a dangerous clandestine nuclear weapons effort, perhaps as a surrogate for Iran, as has been true elsewhere, such as in Syria.

There is no doubt that Venezuela and Iran have somewhat cordial relations, but so do Brazil and Iran, and nobody is saying that Lula is aiding terrorists.  The U.S. government continues to pursue a policy of either "with us or against us", and the fact that a sovereign nation like Venezuela chooses to maintain diplomatic ties with an enemy of the U.S. does not make Venezuela a threat.

President Obama and other freely elected Western Hemisphere leaders at a minimum need to tell Chavez clearly that his disassembling of Venezuela's democracy is unacceptable. This is very nearly the exact opposite of current White House policy, which attempts to appease Chavez, Castro and other leftists, as it did by joining them against the democratic forces in Honduras.
Unfortunately, with our own elections approaching in November, it is hard to get Obama's attention directed to Latin American affairs, or foreign policy generally. But make no mistake, if Chavez can intimidate his domestic opposition, manipulate election laws and extend his authoritarian control, Venezuela will increasingly be a global menace.
John R. Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of "Surrender Is Not an Option."

The Chavez administration certainly has its problems, but it is difficult for anyone to really scrutinize the government when faced with so many lies and false reports.  I encourage everyone to investigate themselves the nature of what is currently happening in Venezuela and the history of U.S. intervention in the region.  I assure you that it will be an eye opening experience.

You can find Mr. Bolton's original article here:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-bolton-chavez-20100...