First let me thank mmaaxx7 for posting this article- it is a good example of liberal bogus crap- and I enjoyed every minute debunking it point by point, although I did get tired of all the author's doo-doo after a while. Since I'm not submitting this to a paying publication, I can also let it all hang out! So I'll be saying 'Crap!' a lot! (it helps me get through the numerous bogus claims the lefty author makes). So consider you're doubts responded to.
Bogus Leftist Claims Reality Check from The Other Side of the Fence
OK, let's go along with our mixed up liberal friends and pretend Bush's being in Iraq isn't due to his job's requirement to defend and protect the American people, who are under direct attack from international terrorism, and suspend out knowledge that international terrorism could not exist if not sponsored by tyrant states, and suspend out knowledge that Iraq was one such Arab state, and forget that the entire Arab world lies under the yoke of tyranny with all its miseries, and forget that the 23 or so Arab tyrant states routinely through controlled media shift the blame on the US for their victim's miseries, and let us forget that before 9/11 Bush and his administration would not have acted on any Rightwing designs on the Middle East or West Asia, or even on terrorists (much to the glee of the Kerry campaign and the bogus 9/11 commission), and it would have continued ignore the Arab world had not Madman Osama and co. made their suicidal move.
Further, you must suspend your knowledge of the fact that Bush gave Saddam every opportunity to step down and thereby spare Iraq of US intervention, that if Saddam did step down Bush and the US would not even be in Iraq today; and lastly we must discard our knowledge that Iraq was not run like a giant mafia crime organization- a system which the Sunni Muslims still violently cling to and is the reason behind the anti-US and liberal-sympathized violence in Iraq today. Now if anyone is able to achieve such total blindness and suspension of facts, common sense, and general knowledge, then let us continue to play along with our self-deluded liberal author here so we can respond point by point to his wayward anti-Western anti-US pro-tyranny pro-archaic Marxit delusions...
Iraq was a military solution to an economic crisis. Hogwash. Tax relief turned the economy around, even with the huge dent caused by 9/11.
If Saddam stepped down the US would not have gone in militarily, thereby setting Iraq on a mature course and also saving another 500,000 Iraqi children from liberal slaughter. Therefore you can scratch this liberal claim off of the 'makes sense' list.
The US is seizing the world's richest oil-producing regions. Pure crap. Where is the author's examples of the US controlling anything? In fact the US has, at its own expense, built the infrastructure of most of the Arab world over the past 50 years and set them on independent courses, work liberals choose to be completely blind to, especially Euro-libs like this author who harbor a guilt complex over Europe's brutal colonial days, and who try to erroneously pin the same moniker on the present-day United States.
One reason the US is seizing foreign oil-producing regions: Are moot arguments since the premise is false, but let's, for the sake of argument, play along here…
 -Securing US supplies. This is a joke. The US gets what- 5-10% of it's oil from the Middle East? And it's a further joke because it's the eco-whacko-liberals themselves who hamper US oil exploration and development and US energy independence. They'd rather leave a few caribou undisturbed- as if the caribou needed an eco-freak in the first place!
Then the author engages in pure conjecture- postulating the the US will become ever increasingly dependent on West Asia and North Africa. This is pure anti-Bush wishful thinking.
"where the masses of ordinary people despise the US" Let's debunk this popular liberal self-delusion right now: Even in Iran the population adored the US, even when they were under the thumb of their theocracy. Where the author is coming from is liberal media hype, and he only plays this one over on those who have 'liberal media on the brain' disease.
Where three of the leading oil producers (Iraq, Iran, and Libya) are professedly anti-American… The hand-wringing boo-hooey self-deluded liberal author is completely behind the times in current events- Saddam is overthrown, and the only anti-US elements in Iraq are foreign insurgents and Sunni Mafia Mullah mobs. Iran is glad Bush won over the Democrats, because the Dem's were more likely to push Western values on Iran and use economic sanctions for trivial matters. Libya had, several months ago now, voluntarily given up its nuclear program and has come clean. So it looks to me these formerly backwards anti-US countries are finally maturing, each in their own way.
and the others (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates) are in danger of being toppled by anti-American forces. Another myth. Sure there are extremist factions at work, but only our liberal friends could stretch the truth so far as to claim they were significant movements.
The Us is doing its best to tie up or seize supplies from other regions… This is just a load of bullshit. Have you heard anything about this in any of our thousands of anti-US anti-Bush media outlets? Of course not, because it only exists in our author's head!
The US Dept. of energy projects that oil production will have to increase from 28mbd to 60mbd from the Mideast alone in 20 years… OK, our liberal author assumes we won't or can't independently verify his figures. Wrong! Let's do a Google search for "US Department of Energy Projection of Global Oil Consumption" and see what we get… US imports 56% of daily consumption of oil in 2005, umhmm, projected 68% in 2025, OK.. Ah, there's the kicker! God Damn lying liberal! I could have told you, but I had to verify it- our liberal is only giving us half the picture, as they always do (especially with historical events, which burns me up, being a lover of history). Our liberal friend is only giving us a partial and skewed picture here!
The key figure conveniently left out is that the US will be less dependent on oil overall as natural gas, coal, and other energy sources increase. So the US will be importing it more but using it less. So our author's acrobatics here is a good example of someone 'playing with numbers' to make a deceptive point to support his bogus precepts. Wasn't such deception a hangable offense at one time? But I digress...
 63 per cent of the world’s proven oil reserves are in the Middle East Key word her, audience: 'proven', and it is liberals who wish to stand in the way of US oil exploration which would of course reduce that 63 percent figure… and much of Asia, including China, is as yet unexplored, due to their backwards Leftist governments.
US will remain the single most important force in the oil market.” And who is benefiting? Is the US 'seizing' the profits the oil producing countries are making, as our author claimed above? No!
This points to a fatal flaw in the author's arguments- if the US is seizing world oil, then why is the author now spending so much time proving and predicting dire import and dependence figures for the US? Typical liberal, talks out of both sides of his mouth.
Given its growing dependence on oil imports, the US cannot afford to allow the oil producing regions to be under the influence of any other power, or independent. This is more pure crap. That is exactly how the US has, does, and will operate, with independent oil producing states. The US is the most productive country in the world at least five times over. To pretend that it needs to steal oil rather than trade for it is childish.
Maintaining dollar hegemony: Definition: hegemony- political domination of one state over another. Let's say that's Bush's aim. Now Bush is going to be President for what, four more years? Then after that, say we get a bleeding-heart liberal in the White House- that blows the author's US hegemony theory right out the window! I don't know where liberals come up with this crap...
ring the death knell of dollar supremacy The only people interested in currency are speculators, everyone else wants paper money that is stable. Is the Euro more stable than the dollar? Hardly. Same goes for any other currency in the world. The author's negative allusion to 'dollar supremacy' is twisted in itself.
complete US control of oil would preserve the rule of the dollar… More crackpot nonsense. The author is giving the US godlike powers, as if it could go out and grab the world's oil without Europe and Asia ganging up on it.
if it does not invade the west Asian region, the US stands to lose dollar hegemony by losing control of the major oil field development projects (because the US, by its own sanctions, is being shut out of oil producing nation's development). Once again our author is whackily behind in his current events. Sanctions? What sanctions? That ineffective and foolish foreign policy method went out the window with 9/11. Looks like the US is back in the thick of things, as only a healthy capitalistic world market would have it. Liberals on the other hand would have the US hogtied in their insane anti-US mindset.
As mentioned above, French, Russian and Chinese firms will get evicted from Iran and Iraq once the US troops enter. Once the US troops enter? Well they entered, and it didn't happen. What kind of article is this- using outdated and obviously erroneous sources? I'll tell you what, it's unfortunate that a lot of people will be bamboozled by this trash! In fact foreign oil companies were evicted from Iraq three decades ago by Saddam! Jeeze! The only place on the Internet I found any mention of this trash was on a trashy leftist webzine called 'Revolutionary Publication' (and we have seen how 'revolutionary' has failed time and time again) hosted by a 'Rajan' no less (he sounds like he comes from a real objective Mideast culture -major sarcasm here, he probably works for the Al Jazeera anti-Western propaganda outlet), and instead of the US evicting firms once its troops entered it was once the US 'took control'.
I don't see any of that going on other than in my lefty friend's deluded heads. I see the US actually helping Iraq out of it's mafia state and then leaving. What Iraq does with its oil is its business as long as it remains tyrant and terrorist free. Sounds rational and fair to me.
The US has gone to great lengths to frustrate alternatives to its Baku-Ceyhan pipeline OK, I don't know much about this pipeline, and I'm certainly not going to swallow this author's bunk, so let's do some research… Google please: "Baku-Ceyhan Pipeline"… Oh Jesus! This pipeline isn't even American, it's British Petroleum; and what's more, its major financial backers have pulled out, effectively killing the entire project! So as for our author's claim that it is a US project that the US is pushing on the world is... and I'm saying this a lot about this article... pure crap!
The US is about to send two battalions of Marines to help suppress the insurgency in Colombia OK, I'm not taking anything this buffoon says for granted any more. I'm verifying this and the reason for the US's presence there in the first place- I wouldn't put it past this author to twist that too…
OK, the 'insurgents' are Marxist FARC rebels, and we all know how screwed up the Marxists are- they are a murderous, violent response to the murderous, violent systems of economics and government that existed in the Euro-colonial days of the late 1800 early 1900's. They have no business existing today other than for their own mad power grab. I'll tell you what, if it were up to our lefty friends they would let the Marxist rebels take over Columbia. That would be great, eh (sarcasm)? Marine Divisions? Hardly. Green Berets. And fighting the Marxist guerillas- 'reign of terror' our leftist friends cry! Sheeeeeeit!
US is actively organizing the overthrow of the elected Chavez government in Venezuela More research… in a renewed attempt to overthrow democratically elected president Chavez...
... undemocratic attempts to overthrow the democratically elected government, … where do we hear this from:! Give me a break!
What about this Chavez guy. What's he doing that half his country wants to overthrow him? Let's find out: he was a man who once tried to overthrow the democratically elected
government with a coup himself... could have guessed in these backwards nations...  was elected president by the majority of Venezuelans... OK, maybe he's acting unrepresentatively now, let's find out... he was elected because he was a "lesser evil" (less catastrophic than the corrupt and incompetent ruling class of the past)
things became desperate, popular support for a "strong man" kept growing. It worked in Chile and Peru. Chavez seized the moment. OK , Hitler and Mussolini did the same thing over the same situation. Ahhhhhh! Here's the kicker! Instead of embracing much needed reforms of the kind that Pinochet and Fujimori brought to their Chile and Peru, Chavez has set the clock back, and returned Venezuela to a semi-socialist model of the kind that has failed in the Soviet Union and has reduced Cuba to starvation!
So there you have it! A mindless lefty ruining the country, destined to turn it into another Cuba or Soviet Union! Holy Crap! No wonder our lefty friends are complaining the US is trying to remove him! Ahhhhhhhhhh! Needless to say, it was a matter of time before Venezuelans felt that this was even worse than the corruption and incompetence of the former ruling class: it was suicide!
So Venezuelans are now helpless. If they remove Chavez, they will be robbed again by the same class of thieves that Chavez removed from power. If they keep Chavez, they will soon be starving like Fidel Castro's subjects (and let's not forget Kim Jung Il's starving millions!). Such are our lefty friends!
A look at the relative dependence of various imperialist powers on oil imports is revealing and the author goes on the mention the UK, the US, Japan, Germany, France, Italy, Spain… Jeeze, this guy is really living in the past- first it's 19th century Marxism, now it's 1700's Imperial Europe!
The US used the Marshall Plan after WWII to dictate changes in European economies that made them switch from using their own coal to using oil… Made them switch? Let's investigate this crap, if its anything like all the other crap this author has been spewing out…
First a definition: Marshall Plan: major free money and help from the US to revitalize the economies of Europe, of which only Finland paid back in full.
Ah ha, here is the kicker (the information left out by our lefty ('lefty is taking on a new nuance here) friend): "The result of these combined strategies (talking about current energy issues) would be a worldwide energy transition, which would expand developing economies in much the same way as the Marshall Plan revitalized the economies of Europe after World War II". Did you get that? What that means is that the US, in getting Europe to also use oil, actually did it to expand the economies of Europe. Still our liberal friends bleats 'bad-boy US conspiracy' into our unsuspecting ears, and many of us are duped.
A major consideration in the US’s great oil grab is its desire to check China. Does anyone see the US trying to 'check' China, or the US trying to expand into the potentially huge Chinese market? A raise of hands please? Not you, my dishonest liberal friends with an obsessive-compulsive anti-US hate.
Is China a threat to the consumption of the worlds oil: Let's see: it is projected to import 10 million barrels a day by 2030. Wow (sarcasm). The US today imports 20 million.
China opposes U.S. presence in Central Asia… they wanted their own natural gas pipeline from central Asia to China… Yawn, these bogus conspiracy theories are getting tiresome… OK, let's do some research before we're duped again… the reason for China’s involvement in Central Asia is prompted both by higher demand and its need to reduce the risk of relying on the Middle East... OK, makes sense... 1,000-kilometer oil pipeline from Kazakhstan’s central Karaganda region to western China, which now only supplies 1% of China' oil imports... yea, OK...
Yep, found the 'missing' information our left-outy liberal friend hid from us: as follows:
A 1998 feasibility study submitted by ExxonMobil, Mitsubishi, and the Chinese national oil company, found that a gas pipeline linking Turkmenistan's gas fields with China, and eventually Japan, would be too costly. Regime A. Specter, an energy expert with the Brookings Institution, says that China's interest in Central Asia has dimmed over the past few years for other reasons as well. "[China] has encountered significant obstacles in its investments in Kazakhstan, including investment losses, overwhelming bureaucracy, high taxes, and preferential treatment for western companies," Specter says.
So here is our author working with way out of date information, failing his current events class once again.
The author goes on for a great length on China's anti-US oil importing schemes, but it is a moot point considering their needs projection through 2030 which we researched above. So let's move on…
China has struck oil field development deals with the very countries in west Asia hit by US sanctions—Iraq, Iran, Libya and Sudan. Well, I'm glad our lefty friend put this in, it shows the folly and failure of economic sanctions, that, incidentally Kerry and the Democrats wanted to return to in Iraq and elsewhere… and the liberals have to gall to turn around and refer to China's inroads as an aggressive US threat brought on by the greedy oily US! A typical lefty load of crap!
the US anticipates being in a better position than its rivals to absorb the immediate disruption arising from the war. So what does the US do? It guards the very oil in Iraq that our liberal friends claim the US wants to disrupt. And what do our liberal friends then say? That the US should have been guarding the Museums instead! Get out of town!
It seems unlikely that the conventional armed forces of the Iraqi regime—depleted anyway to one-third of their 1990 strength—would pose much of a problem for the US’s initial occupation of Iraq. Wait a minute, this has to be an old article- the US hadn't even begun to remove Saddam & Sons militarily yet (and thereby saving another 500,000 Iraqi children from liberal economic sanction slaughter). And Second, if everyone knew this, why then, during the first week of the war, our liberal media friends were painting a picture that the US forces were being beat? That it was becoming another Vietnam?? You mean they were knowingly lying?!?!? Nahhhh! Not our liberal friends (major disgusted sarcasm)!
net energy imports account for just one per cent of the US's GDP. Jeeze! Then what's all the hype here? How can any sane person claim the US is secretly scheming to control the world's oil when its oil imports only account for 1% of its GDP???
Secondly, compared to other imperialist countries the US imports a smaller share of its energy needs. (It also has a strategic petroleum reserve of 580 million barrels - or almost two months’ imports.) Jeeze. The author is cutting his knees out from under him trying to make this next contradictory point. I shouldn't waste my time with the rest of the article, but in the interest of saving a few people from being duped by whatever crap is in the last half of the article, I will continue…
Thirdly, and crucially, at times of international crisis capital docks at safe harbours. Well, my lefty Brit, you can thank the 'evil' (sarcasm) US for providing a safe harbour.
The US’s grand strategy, while portending tremendous upheaval and suffering for the rest of the world So far- no grand strategy, and adding the slur 'upheaval and suffering for the rest of the world' is pure stupidity. Typical liberal siding with failure and self-destruction.
It is a pattern familiar to students of imperialism—a declining imperialist power relying on military power and possession of colonies to make up for its ebbing economic strength. Only a wishful anti-US thinking Brit could make the stupendously cracked leap in logic to compare present day America with late 19th century decline of the colonial British Empire.
Further, the US anticipates invading other states in the region, such as Iran or Saudi Arabia. Such was the fearful liberal mindset of the pre-Iraq War time. Heck, I would have rolled over all 23 tyrannies in the Arab world by now… if it weren't for our misguided liberal friends…
The Iraq war would in turn trigger a recession of the order of two to five per cent of GDP. Didn't happen, thanks to the Conservative way of life.
In 1988, the break-up of US overseas or foreign bases by region was as follows: 627 in Europe, Canada and the North Atlantic; 121 in the Pacific and Southeast Asia; 39 in Latin America; seven in the Middle East and Africa; and zero in South Asia Is this a benefit to the world, or a bane? Only a twisted anti-US liberal would think the former.
the US's assault on Yugoslavia Calling this an 'assault' when the US shielded hundreds of thousands of Muslims from genocide by the Serbs is sheer… what's the word I'm looking for… lunacy? Stupidity? Madness? Irresponsibility? Childishness? No, sheer loonie liberalism.
brought it bases on the rim of Europe in case Europe should secede from the US-dominated NATO. What crap is this? So the US is going to attack Europe if it leaves NATO? Little did this author know then that in effect France and Germany had already left NATO for all practical purposes other than for their own selfish purposes! So why didn't the US attack them, according to our author's cracked suggestion?
US military personnel showed off the latest acquisition, a huge air base being built in the former Soviet republic of Kyrgyzstan, a landlocked country which borders China, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, and was once virtually inaccessible as far as American imperialism was concerned. Maybe these goat farmers have more sense than our deluded lefty friends and can plainly see that the US presence is not 'imperialism', but actually beneficial. The only way the US can fail at spreading peace and prosperity is to listen to lefty kooks like this one.
New US base agreements have also been concluded with Pakistan and two other former Soviet republics, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan…. Four other former Soviet republics—Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan—have pledged various forms of direct military cooperation with the US Now all these countries can't be fools like our anti-US liberal friends want us to believe. It's plain to see they know a good thing when they see it. So much for US imperialism based on military force because its economy is in ruins. I think our lefty friends who study imperialism need to rewrite their textbooks when it comes to the US in the 21st century.
But bases are not enough. The US needs to suppress the mass and political forces that are struggling against it in these diverse regions. The US doesn't need much since such a struggle is only occurring in the heads of our insulated suburban liberal friends. Read: Such assistance as the Uzbek President Islam Karimov has extended to the US has been motivated less by altruism than by the fact that America represents a powerful new ally in his ongoing counterinsurgency campaign against the radical Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU).
So you see, it falls on the US to help countries throughout the world to beat off our liberal friend's radical Muslim tyrants. I see no US arm-twisting here. No US imperialism. Such talk is pure 19th century out of date colonial-guilt-ridden euro bullshit.
The US needs to suppress the mass and political forces that are struggling against it in these diverse regions. To meet this need there is a massive hike in US spending to train foreign militaries A good example of our twisted liberal friends blithely changing the facts to suit their anti-US lefty talk. Read again: "Such assistance as the Uzbek President Islam Karimov has extended to the US has been motivated less by altruism than by the fact that America represents a powerful new ally in his ongoing counterinsurgency campaign against the radical Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU). So you see, building up their militaries is what the countries want so they can better beat back the childish yet tyrannical and murderous radical Muslim movement."
And: “It’s like the counter-insurgency era all over again”, a US Congressional aide is quoted as saying, referring to the Vietnam war era. “Only this time we’re going to be fighting ‘terrorism’ instead of ‘communism.’”
So what in the hell is wrong with this? Why do our lefty friends always have their heads up their asses and side with the wrong people?
The growing military assaults by the US are giving rise to a worldwide protest movement that is in some ways without precedent. It is also giving rise to the anger of greater and greater sections of people. Typical. The US gets no thanks and a lot of mindless derision and animosity based on twisted fantasies while it goes about doing its good deeds for the rest of the civilized world.
The US's puppet ruler in Afghanistan... A typical lack of respect for good and right things by our liberal friends… and they turn around and call terrorists 'freedom fighters'. Sickening. Why doesn't the US target civilians to get it's way so it can be called 'freedom fighters' by our mixed-up lefty friends? I'm sure the US can kill a million times more unsuspecting civilians that the radical Muslims can. So why doesn't the US do it? Why doesn't the US adopt the same methods and mindset? Then it should, by reason of simple logic, have the full backing and support of our loony liberal friends.
growing anti-American sentiment in Afghanistan Wishful liberal thinking as reported as 'news' by the major media outlets daily.
"The US is losing control in Afghanistan" quote author used from (8/11/02) Well, they just had elections, and are showing signs of actually acting like grownups.
In South Korea, where the US is struggling to retain its bases (that today house 37,000 troops) for targeting China at short notice, What??? For targeting China in short notice??? With 37.000 troops??? Into a nation with 2 billion people??? What kind of side-slinging shit is this? Oh, our history-devoid liberal friends don't realize that the Korean war was never concluded, and in fact is still on, and in fact Kim Jung Il, mad dictator of North Korea, with millions of growth-stunted starving happy communists. has his eyes greedily on South Korea... so I think the 37,000 US troops are there for a slightly more immediate reason; and to top it all off, Bush just announced that he plans on removing 12,500 US troops from South Korea over the next 3 years. So up yours, liberal scum!
extraordinary mass movement is raging at present calling for US withdrawal from the country. Before the country emerged from authoritarian rule in the late 1980s, anti-American sentiments in South Let's research: before the 1980's democratization, anti US demonstrations in Korea were limited to radical students and leftist intellectuals angry at the US for supporting authoritarian regimes and facilitating economic disparities.
South Korea’s progressive political leaders – who currently hold power – have taken up these anti-American sentiments and hopes for peaceful coexistence with North Korea.
Oh brother, I see South Korea's problem. Their naïve 'progressive' leaders think they can make nice-nice with Kim Jung Il. Boy, are they in for a rude awakening! One thing the US could say is "OK, if you think you can handle Kim Jung Il and his armies of starving zombies, we're 'outta here!
And finally some wisdom from a S. Korean himself: "The article (another lefty article) should be balanced and show with the majority of Koreans appreciation for US support and appreciation for US allies defending South Korea from the perils of North Korean threats. I hope Koreans learn from US withdrawal from the Philippines. People of the Philippine wanted US Navy to leave and when they left and gone they begged US to come back without success. There are always liberal elements in the South Korea show placards and chanting their agendas but they most likely would be first ones to apply for visa to US when ugly communist ever attempts to invade S. Korea." So true. So true. Our liberal friends would be despicable if they weren't so mixed-up.
In the Philippines, the US bases were ousted in the early nineties through a sustained mass struggle. Yea, read what our South Korean had to say about that above: "People of the Philippine wanted US Navy to leave and when they left and gone they begged US to come back without success." So much for our exalted lefty 'sustained struggle' (sarcasm).
The fresh efforts to install US forces is already confronting mass protests from a people who were America’s first overseas colony.
Old libby here failed to mention a key counterpoint, and not unintentionally I might add: "The Philippino Maoist rebels claimed the group's guerrilla tactics would be superior against United States' high-tech weaponry." So the US is back helping the Philippines fight off communist terrorists.
Of the 44 countries surveyed, Pakistan tied with Egypt for the most negative perception of the United States Typical ingrates. If it were true. This would be after the US built up Egypt's economic infrastructure in the latter part of the 20th century.
Even in Kuwait, as American troops prepare for the invasion of Iraq, they are facing repeated attacks from the population whom they supposedly saved in 1991. Supposedly saved? Let's ask s Kuwaiti, and not rely on our armchair anti-US liberal:

Rob Lawson: John Kerry — the man running against George W. Bush in America's Presidential election this November — has said he wouldn't have sent forces to Kuwait in 1991 during Operation Desert Storm. In fact, he voted against sending forces to liberate Kuwait. How does this make you feel as a Kuwaiti which experienced the Saddam Hussein invasion?

Mohammad Q: I don't know why he doesn't think USA is involved in this. Kuwait is (at that time) a friend of the USA, and one of the oil suppliers. Maybe Kuwait was not a member of the NATO. But I really, really have to question John's humanity. And I also ask him to try and live JUST one week under Saddam's rule, let alone 7 months.
OK. I've heard enough, Liberal scum. Let's move on.
Jenin has been turned into rubble, and unknown numbers of Palestinians have been slaughtered; yet there is a seemingly endless stream of Palestinian youth ready to take the place of their dead fellow fighters. This is telling, and flies in the face of what our liberals want us to believe- that Palestinians want peace instead of war.
And most striking of all, in Venezuela, it is a month since the pro-US forces have launched their second coup attempt, attempting to prevent the functioning of the oil industry and to paralyse the functioning of the government. They have been answered with a great wave of mass mobilisation—completely unreported by the world’s giant media corporations—in favour of the Chavez government, indeed in favour of their sovereignty and dignity. Wait a minute, this is starting to sound like a preprogrammed communist misinformation ministry message. The English is even beginning to sound foreign… Let's investigate this point anyway: Quote: "What's bad for Bush is not necessarily good for us. One of the Clinton Administrations main goals was democratization of Venezuela and Chavez is interested in a one party state, with himself at the top. Chavez is not a good guy, not by any stretch of the imagination. His security forces have beaten, broken up, and fired on protesting crowds in Venezuela. Read the Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International's report on Chavez.
He has undermined the democratic movement and years of democratic reform in Venezuela. He's attempted to change the constitution so that he can remain president after his term expires..."
Also this: "First of all, there would have been no recall had Chavez realized that he would not win and thus it is not surprising that he will win this recall."
What is Chavez doing today? This: On the surface, it's a little puzzling for a communist supremo to go after a labor union leader. The destruction of labor unions in the name of "the people" was the earmark of consolidating communist power. The Venezuelan dictator is using power because he can use power, and right now his power is unlimited. The dominant media in the United States continue to ignore the rise of a ruthless dictator right across the Caribbean from our shores, one enriched by oil billions, aligned with our worst enemies, and with a knife poised at our economy's jugular vein. He is a major threat, and Jimmy Carter, who validated his phony electoral "mandate," is complicit, and our media are asleep.
From another source: "The policies of his administration have deeply worsened social conditions, especially for the poor. Beginning in the second half of the 1990s, an unprecedented proportion of the middle class sought refuge abroad from a crime rate that had doubled since 1990, making Venezuela the world's sixth most violent country and with an economic despair so deep that it swallowed even the huge financial windfall generated by high oil prices."
I guess the only thing to say to the 'masses of Venezuelans who mobilized in favor of Chavez' is "Beware of what you wish". Of course the masses wanted Chavez, he held out promises of 'free money' much like the US Democratic Party. Sure people will want something for nothing!
A worldwide anti-war movement has already begun. And now our liberal digresses into one of his favorite topics. OK. Let's go kill another 500,000 Iraqi children with the liberal economic sanctions (sarcasm).
build-up of a vast domestic machinery of repression—under the name of the Office of Homeland Security and the USA PATRIOT Act—and the whipping up of chauvinism, xenophobia, racism and fascistic sentiments A load of crap. In fact, the Brooklyn Bridge, for one example, would not be standing today if it weren't for the wise measures taken by the Patriot Act. As for Homeland Security, it doesn't go nearly far enough.
under the leadership of Hugo Chavez, Venezuela is carrying out certain pro-people economic changes, extracting better terms from the oil multinationals, defying US hegemony, and trying to help others who are similarly doing so—thus providing an example very dangerous for the US grip over the rest of Latin America. Considering the statements above, I'll take this as communist manufactured false propaganda. Add this: "Chavez is good at identifying and recruiting competent collaborators. Even some of Chávez's close allies recognize that until now he has failed to assemble a team with the skills and talents needed to tackle the difficult challenges facing his government. In late 2000, the Venezuelan cabinet ranks as one the five worst in Latin America and the Caribbean." And "Chavez has retained power despite governmental incompetence and plummeting living standards..."

more by wbiro