No, put away your signs.  The President involved is not George Bush, but Hugo Chávez.

During the 2002 "coup", members of the Venezuela Military demanded that President Chavez step down.  There was a massacre in Caracas during some protests, and the Military refused to follow Chavez's order to continue crackdowns.  The coup failed, but one of the TV stations that reported on it was Radio Caracas Televisión (RCTV).

Now fast-forward 4 years.  In December 2006, President Chavez stated that RCTV's broadcast license would not be renewed.  By this time, RCTV was the last remaining publically owned national TV station in the country.  Every other station with the exception of Venevisión (which is national, but with a much smaller broadcast area) has already been absorbed into the national TVes network.

Originally, RCTV was told that it could continue to run it's TV Venezuela, a DirecTV channel.  But on May 27th, the Supreme Court ordered the turnover of all RCTV assets to the Venezuela Government, thus ending both RCTV and TV Venezuela.

This has sparked mass protests in Venezuela, including several riots throughout the nation.  And the remaining privately owned TV stations are remarkably silent on what is going on.  Venevisión has already had it's license threatened unless they take a more "Chavez friendly stance", and both CNN and Globovisión have been similarly warned that broadcast of "Dissident Messages" will result in the forfiture of their licenses.

So much for the kind Hugo Chavez, that cares about his people and wants to know their problems.  Of course, he has already been given total control of the country, so technically anything he does is now legal.

If a TV station in any other country had done what RCTV did back in 2002 during the failed coup (you know... call the masses to protest against Chávez,inciting violence,misinforming viewers by claiming that Chávez supporters were shooting against peaceful demonstrators),will it be such a shock if the government took actions against it?

Of course Chávez hated RCTV,he had a good reason to,so he came up with a bunch of unfair taxes and fines in order to justify the broadcasting license denial, cause it does come down to that,they didn't pay they get off air. Plus RCTV is part of a big media corporation,owned by elites that are pissed off at a government who will not answer their demands or favor their companies, just like Chávez,they want to manipulate the masses in their favor,and if they have to lie or cheat in order to do it,they will.

And the fact is Venezuela is divided,you have as many people in favor of the license renewal as you have against it. So in a couple of weeks this will be a non-issue overthere.
But what will remain from this is how vile Chávez is,like the ones before him haven't had the same exact behaviour,like the ones who criticize him aren't doing exactly the same,awarding who stands besides them and trying to keep quiet the ones who don't.

If a TV station in any other country had done what RCTV did back in 2002 during the failed coup (you know... call the masses to protest against Chávez,inciting violence,misinforming viewers by claiming that Chávez supporters were shooting against peaceful demonstrators),will it be such a shock if the government took actions against it?


Of course, the entire coup started because the military simply did not want to follow his orders anymore.  This was because he had ordered them to start a massacre a month earlier, and wanted them to start another one.  This time, the military refused to fire upon their own citizens, and tried to oust him.

So is it "misinformation" to refuse to broadcast the ravings of a lunatic that wants those who oppose him killed?

And the slaughter was not "misinformation".  It all started when Hugo wanted to take over the Venezuela oil industry.  He nationalized the Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (which was Venezuelan owned), and fired the entire staff.  People started to protest this action, and he ordered a wage hike to try and subdue them.

However, this did not work.  Protests grew (mostly among the working class, who felt that this would give him to much power since all the people apointed to run Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. were Chavez lackeys).  Hugo then ordered the National Guard to step in and put down the protests.  This caused them to explode into riots.  This culminated on 11 April 2002 with a massacre in Miraflores Square.  The National Guard opened fire on a crowd of protestors, killing 20 and wounding 110.

As things started to escalate, Hugo ordered the Army to help put down the riots.  The local Catholic Church urged peace, and the Military had enough.  The Army Commander refused to put down the riots, and Hugo ordered him arrested.  General Rafael Damiani ordered his troops to not use force, and urged Hugo to step down.  Hugo ordered both RCTV and Venevisión closed, because they were showing vido taped footage of the massacre.

The next day, Hugo resigned, and order was restored.  Of course, this is now all just "misinformation".  No massacre ever took place.  The military did not try to remove somebody abusing his power.

You missed my point completely!
All i'm saying is that it's really easy to pick on Chávez as an example of media controller, i worry about what he's doing in south america as much as i worry about what Castro,Bush,Putin or Berlusconi have done all over the world

Do you find strange that a socialist president of a south american country would nationalize the company that holds 95% of all production? What did people expected when they voted for him?

Miraflores was a massacre? Of course it was,but more between two opposite factions,one side the Caracas Police,on the other the National Guard,and i believe they both had guns and they both were shooting,no? And as always a lot of innocent people got killed!

Chavez is the doghouse with the U.S. because he thinks that oil belongs to Venezuela.  Period, not comma.

I would rather live under the rule of Hugo Chavez than 100 other *dictators* in the world.  However, I wouldn't trade the U.S. for Venezuela.

I would rather live under the rule of Hugo Chavez than 100 other *dictators* in the world.  However, I wouldn't trade the U.S. for Venezuela.


I am not sure if I would ever go that far.  At least it is a good thing for the world that Hugo saves his attacks for his own people, and does not export them to other countries.

And I really don't agree about this problem with the US being about oil.  After all, a lot of other countries have nationalized their oil industries (Mexico for example) and the US did not even bat an eye.  In general, we do not care who we get our oil from, just as long as they "play fair". 

Besides, the Venezuelan Oil Industry was nationalized in all the way back in 1972.  It has been nationalized for almost 35 years now.  The biggest difference is that to Hugo, "Nationalized" means that he is the owner (since he considers himself to be the nation). 

And Hugo himself has no real reason to complain about a coup.  His first attempt to take power was leading an illegal coup when he was a Lt. Col. in the Army.  And if the US was so antagonistic, why did it urge the aborted 2002 coup members to stand down and return Hugo to power?  Seems to me that we would have been better served by supporting the coup.

And I really don't agree about this problem with the US being about oil.  After all, a lot of other countries have nationalized their oil industries (Mexico for example) and the US did not even bat an eye.  In general, we do not care who we get our oil from, just as long as they "play fair". 



Oh come on!  You're joking!  It's not "play fair," it's "play ball"! 
We don't care if a country's oil industry is "nationalized" so long as the country doesn't get out of line.  With antics such as offering to subsidize heating oil for poor Americans, Chavez makes us look like pricks.  We don't like that any more than we like the benevolent Cuban doctors providing healthcare for the world's poor.
::)

No, I don't have a poster of Big Huey on my wall.

With antics such as offering to subsidize heating oil for poor Americans, Chavez makes us look like pricks.  We don't like that any more than we like the benevolent Cuban doctors providing healthcare for the world's poor.


With over 30,000 dead in the Angolan Civil war alone, I would never consider Castro to be "Benevolent".

And you are right, that Cuban Health Care is great.  Just ask all of the dissidents that have been locked up in looney bins.  After all, they must be insane if they don't like the best government in the world.

Oh, but at least he is turning over a new leaf.  Just 4 years ago, he claimed that summary capital punishment would no longer be conducted in his country.  So I guess that is a good thing.

Of course, the entire coup started because the military simply did not want to follow his orders anymore.  This was because he had ordered them to start a massacre a month earlier, and wanted them to start another one.  This time, the military refused to fire upon their own citizens, and tried to oust him.

So is it "misinformation" to refuse to broadcast the ravings of a lunatic that wants those who oppose him killed?

And the slaughter was not "misinformation".  It all started when Hugo wanted to take over the Venezuela oil industry.  He nationalized the Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (which was Venezuelan owned), and fired the entire staff.  People started to protest this action, and he ordered a wage hike to try and subdue them.

However, this did not work.  Protests grew (mostly among the working class, who felt that this would give him to much power since all the people apointed to run Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. were Chavez lackeys).  Hugo then ordered the National Guard to step in and put down the protests.  This caused them to explode into riots.  This culminated on 11 April 2002 with a massacre in Miraflores Square.  The National Guard opened fire on a crowd of protestors, killing 20 and wounding 110.

As things started to escalate, Hugo ordered the Army to help put down the riots.  The local Catholic Church urged peace, and the Military had enough.  The Army Commander refused to put down the riots, and Hugo ordered him arrested.  General Rafael Damiani ordered his troops to not use force, and urged Hugo to step down.  Hugo ordered both RCTV and Venevisión closed, because they were showing vido taped footage of the massacre.

The next day, Hugo resigned, and order was restored.  Of course, this is now all just "misinformation".  No massacre ever took place.  The military did not try to remove somebody abusing his power.
i know nothing whatsoever about this, but can say that wikipedia gives a much more nuanced account of this than you give. is it true that the 20 dead and 110 injured you mention include fatalities and injuries on both sides? and if so, why would you imply that only the anti-chavez protesters suffered these casualties?

and didn't this all happen in the context of an attempted coup? why wouldn't you mention that?

what's the right's problem with chavez, anyway? is it because he nationalizes oil resources? i don't deny he may have a dictatorial streak but there are so many dictators the right is totally fine with. what's the criteria we're using to pick and choose here?

Just 4 years ago, he claimed that summary capital punishment would no longer be conducted in his country. 
now if we only start disallowing convictions in trials where the defense attorney was asleep, we'll be on a par with him! lol

and if we're doing the morality-by-casualty-count numbers game, how many people have died in the republicans' handcrafted iraq civil war by now? the estimates i read in the post are seomthing like 40,000 people on the low end.

guess the right hates castro cuz they're so much alike. ;)

and didn't this all happen in the context of an attempted coup? why wouldn't you mention that?


Actually, it was the other way around.  The worst of the deaths occured when the National Guard was sent in to stop the riots (which were started when the police tried to stop the protests).  The coup came afterwards, when Hugo ordered the Army in to assist the National Guard.  That is when the Commander decided "Enough is enough", and ordered his removal.

The protests started in late March 2002.  They escalated on 9 April when the National Trade Union ordered a 2 day shutdown to protest the autocratic takeovers.  On 10 April, the Police were ordered to break up the protests.  When they were unable to do so, on the morning of 11 April the National Guard was ordered in, and the slaughter occured.  The army was ordered that afternoon to assist, and they refused.

General Lucas Rincón did order his troops to go in and end the fighting, but with explicit instructions to not fire on either side.  They were simply to move in and try to restore order.  The National Guard was ordered to return to it's barracks, and the Police were ordered to stand down and return to routine patrolling of the city.  Order was largely restored by the next day.

And I am sure there were deaths on the Pro-Chavez side.  But much like the more recent riots, the deaths and injuries are much heavier on the side of the protestors.  After all, they are armed with bottles and rocks at the most.  The Pro-Chavez side has rifles and machine guns.

well, like i say, i don't know anything about it so i'll have to take your word for it. but the fact that you originally said that the only people who were killed were protestors ("The National Guard opened fire on a crowd of protestors, killing 20 and wounding 110") and now you're backpedaling and saying oh, well, SOME of the national guard were killed, maybe, but not that many... that doesn't make me feel confident you're being on the up and up. and also when i read the history of coups i find they're rarely so cut and dried as you're making out. one errant shootout in the street, horrible though it sounds like it was, motivated this selfless commander to overthrow the entire government? i believe that may make this the most benevolent coup in history. 999 times out of 1000 there's typically some alterior motive underlying military coups involving, oh, i dont know... seizing the reins of power for yourself and your political backers? ;D i rather suspect that these characters may have been anxious for that in any case and this protestor shootout provided a convenient pretext.

i dunno, this whole picture you paint... big bad chavez and selfless, innocent military commanders who want nothing but to promote good in the world and protect the citizens... it strikes me as too black and white by half.

With over 30,000 dead in the Angolan Civil war alone, I would never consider Castro to be "Benevolent".
Oh c'mon.  You know I didn't say Castro himself is benevolent.

And you are right, that Cuban Health Care is great.  Just ask all of the dissidents that have been locked up in looney bins.  After all, they must be insane if they don't like the best government in the world.
Bad things and good things.  Bad things include the Cuban government committing dissidents to insane asylums to shut them up (prison too, a lot of Cubans languishing in prisons for years with no trial)  That's not a healthcare issue, that's a political issue.  Good things include free universal healthcare in Cuba and 30,000 Cuban doctors working in the poorest parts of the world where no one else will go. 


Oh, but at least he is turning over a new leaf.  Just 4 years ago, he claimed that summary capital punishment would no longer be conducted in his country.  So I guess that is a good thing.

You seem to assume I'm one of these American lefties who thinks any socialist/communist dictator who gives Uncle Sam the finger is a saint.  I don't think that about either Castro or Chavez.

I do think it is curious how very selective the U.S. government-media complex is about which dictators it's going to villify.

Good things include free universal healthcare in Cuba and 30,000 Cuban doctors working in the poorest parts of the world where no one else will go. 


But there are other organizations that do the same thing.  UNICEF, WCCF, and Médecins Sans Frontières (known in the US as Doctors Without Borders).

I have always had great respect for Médecins Sans Frontières.  They frequently involve themselves in active war zones, treating both sides of the conflict.  They were even the recipiants of the 1999 Nobel Peace Prize.