Counterpunch Must Denounce Chavez as "Conspiracy Nut"

( link swiped from Ray Duray.)

Dear Counterpunch,

How long will subscribers to the Counterpunch newsletter have to wait for the inevitable ad hominem smear job to be launched against President Hugo Chávez, icon of the Left? Let's face it, he's just beggin' for it;

Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez said Tuesday (9/13/2006) that it's plausible the U.S. government was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks...

...The Venezuelan leader, an outspoken critic of President Bush, was reacting to a television report investigating a theory the twin towers were brought down with explosives after hijacked airplanes were crashed into them in 2001.

''The hypothesis is not absurd . . . that those towers could have been dynamited,'' Chávez said in a speech to supporters.

``A building never collapses like that, unless it's with an implosion.''

''The hypothesis that is gaining strength . . . is that it was the same U.S. imperial power that planned and carried out this terrible terrorist attack or act against its own people and against citizens of all over the world,'' Chávez said.

``Why? To justify the aggressions that immediately were unleashed on Afghanistan, on Iraq.''

President Chávez happens to know a little about black operations with hidden Western backing. He was the victim of a failed coup in his own country, a coup that many believe was facilitated by the United States government.

I see that Counterpunch was happy to re-produce the Venezuelan President's speech to the UN. That's fine. That's easy. How about embracing the whole Chávez? The Chávez who knows the Devil when he sees him? The Chávez who has grappled with his minions in his own backyard? The Chávez who is willing to look at the evidence.

Looks like Counterpunch is taking the easy way. It's not difficult to churn out uncritical hit-pieces like JoAnn Wypijewski's "Conversations at Ground Zero". Anyone can do it. These love letters to the oligarchy, couched in the familiar terms of "Government Incompetence" hit with all the power of a wet noodle. How does Counterpunch manage to repeat the mantra of "Government Incompetence" over and over, while at the same time embracing the "Government Approved" conspiracy theory of the intrepid 19, and keep a straight face?

By reducing the spectrum of 9/11 doubters to "the black T-shirts", and "conspiracy nuts", Counterpunch reduces itself to a pathetic label-factory. By reducing itself to a sticker-factory for enabling easy categorization/demonization/ridicule of a group, this once proud and valuable political sheet joins the ranks of FOX News as just another propaganda outlet for the current administration (and the Democrat hawks waiting in the wings to take up the Crusade of the "War on Terror" to fill the coffers of the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Thinktank-Complex).

Don't like the tactics of "the black T-shirts"? Fine. It's not like there aren't any scholarly volumes that you can't sink your teeth into. For starters, I suggest "The Hidden History of 9-11-2001", Paul Zarembka, ed. (Here, I even reviewed it for you: Link.)

Or, you can just keep ignoring the evidence, the polls, the growing canon of serious writing about 9/11, and catch up with us later.

Meanwhile, here are some questions for you by writer Andres Karger;


With utmost respect for Mr. Cockburn and his journalistic work, I cannot help but ask him, and those who share his viewpoint, the following ten questions:

1) Who are the real 9/11 guilty parties, and exactly how are the “9/11 Conspiracy Nuts” letting these guilty parties off the hook? Please explain a little about how these “Conspiracy Theory Nuts” are sparing Rudy Giuliani or corporate America. Also, if one believes the U.S. government was in any way involved in the 9/11 attacks, even through passive complicity, is it so strange to be holding the President and the Vice President of that government responsible (on whose watch this occurred)?

2) Are the U.S. government documents on Operation Northwoods “imagined clues” and hallucinatory creations from the minds of “Conspiracy Theory Nuts”?

3) Is it a fabrication of the “Conspiracy Theory Nuts” that George W. Bush and Tony Blair discussed disguising U.S. jets as United Nations planes in order to get Saddam Hussein to shoot them down as a prelude to the U.S. invasion of Iraq? Would you not, in all honesty, agree that it is quite right to call this a conspiracy?

4) Was the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (even though it was not hit by any planes) the result of the hallucinations of “Conspiracy Theory Nuts” or a real event? Would it not in the least bit arouse a grain of curiosity in your mind, and prompt you to ask at least some questions?

5) If the US Secret Service were truly unaware of the nature and source of the 9/11 attacks, would it not have been essential to immediately relocate and hide the President, instead of allowing him to continue with his reading of “goat story”? How did they know some other plane was NOT targeting him at the school, as well as other key targets?

6) For the sake of argument, let us assume the impeccability of the official explanation of the 9/11 attacks. How would you explain the subsequent anthrax attacks, particularly threats against the Democratic opposition in Congress? Were those perpetrated by Osama bin Laden as well, or are they just the fairytales of “Conspiracy Theory Nuts”?

Speculating about the objectives of the latter (i.e., the anthrax threats), they potentially posed as serious a threat as the airliner attacks, especially if the anthrax attacker's objective might have been to intimidate and silence certain members of Congress. Have any of you “sane and reasonable” persons on the “left” ever attempted to question or analyze these events? Are you even in the least bit interested in these questions, or is it safer to avoid them altogether in favor of politically-correct generalities?

7) Is the Pentagon trying to assist the “Conspiracy Theory Nuts” by refusing to release anything more than a few frames of the security video, such as the crucial and yet inexplicably withheld frames that actually show Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon?

8) If you have ever heard of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), and I’m sure you have, do you have any reaction to it, to the PNACers' admission that they would need a "new Pearl Harbor" to carry out their plan for a forcible makeover of Iraq, or to the connections between its members and the current U.S. administration, or is all of that just a coincidence?

9) Do you think that an administration that has slaughtered over a hundred thousand Iraqis, and that indefinitely holds U.S. citizens without any rights as “enemy combatants,” would have any reservations about killing a few thousand Americans if it thought it could get away with it undetected?

10) And finally, I am really curious to know: what political objective are you trying to achieve by writing this piece? And I am asking this as an honest question and not necessarily implying anything. I am simply trying to find out what you think you are achieving by stating an unknown (e.g., that Kennedy was killed by Oswald – why, how) versus the popularly-believed view (e.g., that Kennedy was killed by the ruling class because he did not fit in – no matter how true or false this might be). As a progressive political being, what goal would the assertions in your article achieve?

There's more here.

Patiently, the regular visitors to the Counterpunch website, and subscribers to the newsletter, will eagerly await the denunciation of President Chávez, for his refusal to genuflect at the shrine of the 9/11 Commission Report.

Don't fail, Counterpunch! Deliver your fatwa!


rebuttal. thank you for sharing.

I am new to this site as more seasoned members probably are aware.

i really would like to hear from others who have been immersed in the movement and have much more information than I do, why progressive publications like Counterpunch and progressive writers are attacking the truth movement ad hominem and with such vigor.

next to the recent realization, for me, that 911 was an inside job, this has been the most painful and troubling revelation.

i want so much to learn. please share your observations about this with me.

thank you.

Briefly put

these "progressive publications" limit the spectrum of "acceptable" discourse on the left end, commonly awarding them the title of "left gatekeepers". Because most people believe these gatekeepers were honest, open-minded individuals, everything beyond the gates appears tarnished and discredited as "fringe", "whacko", "loony", pick your word. I don't think it's entirely orchestrated, it just needs some "icons", like Cockburn or Kos, to sway opinion, many gatekeepers probably believe they'd be doing their beloved (staged) Democracy a disservice by covering 9/11 Truth, because Democrats would appear "whacky" by propagating it, and thus lose the (manipulated) election.

So you seen it's similar to the Blue'n'Red circus. Keep people distracted with irrelevant, staged fights to keep them from acknowledging the real deal. Sleight of hand. We're dealing with adept illusionists, who draw their powers mainly from playing the public mind like a guitar.

Left Gatekeeping: "Silence is Betrayal"

It's getting harder and harder to be a "left gatekeeper". The Hugo Chavez story is good case in point. Notice how tentative the "progressive" media were about jumping on the Rangal Pelosi band wagon.

While many of these gatekeepers are "adept at playing the public mind", they do so while knowing and to a certain degree, suppressing the truth within their own minds. It's kind of like the habitual liar who starts to believe their own B.S. It becomes harder to keep track of the actual truth.

So when a story like Chavez "calling Bush the devil" breaks, the progressives tend to sit back for awhile to see how the story is being played by the MSM. While they are doing that, the hard-core neo-con right is busy setting the agenda. Feeding the MSM machine with talking points and bald faced propaganda across all forms of media (print, radio, tv, internet). This neo-con machine of mendacity (for me, MSM = "Main Stream Mendacity") is so adept at staying "on message" it generally does not take them long to totally influence the "outcome" of virtually any story they choose. Regardless of whether or not that outcome is based in truth. Remember... "[we] can't handle the truth!"

Since the gatekeepers on the left have also determined to a certain degree that too much "truth" is (somehow) bad for the country, they get caught up in the game. A game where the rules have been set by the neo-cons. A game they cannot possibly win.

For example, one major rule has been, if you say anything at all supporting the 9/11 Truth Movement, you will have irrevocably surrendered your credibility. This particular rule has been held inviolate thus far by the "left gatekeepers"; thus they remain virtually silent on the truth of 9/11.

In the words of Marting Luther King Jr., "A time comes when silence is betrayal." And that time has come for us in relation to 9/11.

The Gloves are OFF!

I second the motion; Punch the bastard gatekeeper's lights out!

Straw Man Extrordanaire

While I'm glad he's a "truther", Chavez could cause more harm then good for the cause. Most sheeple see him as a dangerous nutcase. Now all Sush Limbcombs and company have to do is say "you sick people align yourselves with hugo chavez. your just like the nazi sympathizers during World War 2! You're unamerican" and the sheeple will say "oh I don't want to be on Hugo Chavez's side, I better not think about that".

This administration is proving how easy mass deception really is. How they can play on peoples instincts of fear and guilt and blind the masses, even in the information age. Amazing isn't it?

I understand your reasoning

I understand your reasoning but I think it's flawed. Chavez is beloved by democrats (not the leaders but the base of the party). His "coming out" will encourage others to do so. As for the wingnuts, you can simply point them to prominent conservative or former republican figures who have also come out, nullifying the "commie Anti-American" charge. It's all good.


The "sheeple," who are vastly more intelligent and show far better judgment than the uncritical, irrational True Believers here, understand that Chavez is a typical leftist tyrant. Aside from the kindergarten Marxism, the usual mindless blather about imperialism, what does Chavez offer his people? He strips them of basic human rights, suppresses dissent by jailing political opponents, and further impoverishes a poor country by spending wildly on arms he doesn't need. The absolutely predictable leftist response to my comments is the reflexive belch that George Bush does the same. A wonderful response, with the minor caveat, certainly no inconvenience for anyone on this list, that what I say is actually true for Chavez.

"Chavez is a typical leftist

"Chavez is a typical leftist tyrant."

LOL. You're a friggin' idiot, sonny, I'm sorry but there's no two ways about it. Unlike the Busheviks, Chavez has been democratically elected several times and is supported by the majority of the Venezuelan population. "Strips basic human rights"? Dude, you're insane. If vastly improving medical care, literacy, housing, working conditions, devolving power to the people through the formation of popular assemblies, resisting the devastating policies of the IMF and World Bank (all while allowing the very people who attempted to kill him to continue braying in the corporate press, instead of arresting them for treason) is "tyranny", perhaps we need a new definition of "democracy".


You can inhale as much leftist propaganda as you are able to tolerate before your brain explodes, but don't expect me to join in. Lefties are supposed to believe that exit polls are infallible (against all evidence, of course). So, what do you make of those exit polls that showed Chavez losing in a landslide. Oh, I understand:THOSE exit polls were wrong.
The "improvements" you credit Chavez with exist in your own mind, not in Venezuela. He is a tyrant, like his spiritual mentor Fidel Castro, who is gradually changing a democracy into a Cuban-style police state.But, none of that troubles you. The French socialists who wrote 'The Black Book of Communism,' a detailed butcher's bill of the hundred million or so murders committed in the name of Marx and Lenin's failed utopian schemes, are probably neocons, right?

Dude, you gotta turn off

Dude, you gotta turn off that fox news lol. Polls invariably demonstrate that Chavez has majority support, exit and otherwise. Which really shouldn't come as a shock. The majority of the population there is dirt poor thanks to neoliberal policies and a history of savage colonialism; corporations have been sucking that country dry for hundreds of years and enriching a small oligarchy of spoiled brats at the expense of everyone else. Chavez is helping to correct that. It's not so much about the man himself as the opportunities he is giving poor people to take control of their own lives through democratic popoular assemblies. I'm not a communist, nor is Hugo. He's a democratic socialist like Orwell. I'm not a communsit either, I'm an anarchist, but I tend to support any government that devolves power to the people.

BTW, the black book of communism is quite atrocious, but then so is the black book of capitalism. Both philosophies belong in the junker. New world, sonny, time to put aside your superstitions. Turn off the TV!


What Fox News has to do with any of this will remain a mystery. Exit polls showed Chavez losing the last election in a landslide.

Chavez is correcting nothing. He is aggrandizing power to himself as all leftist thugs do. He's a democratic socialist like Amaninejad is a man of peace.

The black book of capitalism doesn't exist, except in your imagination. Capitalism creates wealth, as the societies who suffered under communist rule understand very well.

do you believe exit polls in

do you believe exit polls in the case of Bush in 2004 or does that only apply to Chavez? got a link to prove the exit polls showing Chavez losing by a "landslide"?

praises to Chavez

The truth is the truth, no matter who speaks it.
Let's not worry about ad hominem.
To my impression, sorry everyone, this is ridiculous to say that Chavez will hurt the truther's cause.
Even marketers will tell you that unfounded negative advertisement on their products is beneficial to the selling of their product.
It makes people curious, it makes people investigate, it brings the conversation to the forefront.
So, kudos to Chavez and please keep it up. You have more guts than 98% of Congress.

Chomsky's books went up in sales after Chavez spoke in the UN.
What if Chavez talked about Griffin's books. That could bring 911 truth to many more people.

I heard William Rodriguez is eventually going to go to Venezuela again to start an independent investigation into 911 with Chavez and company.
That could help the 911 truthers.
It appears that the first independent investigations are going to be done in foreign countries.
Griffin talked about the logistics of an independent investigation in Europe.

If anything offended me about Chavez it was that he gave so much credence to the UN, the brainchild of the NWO tyrannists, David Rockefeller and company. We don't want world government.

exactly right, people seem

exactly right, people seem to worry too much about what "they" are gonna think or say about us. Chavez just exposed the idea that 9/11 was possibly an inside job to thousands(perhaps millions) of people that otherwise might not have heard about the alternative theories until now. if anything offended me about Chavez it was that he plugged a gatekeepers book and not Griffins,hahaha.

Is Chavez a "Thug" or a Strategist?

I was eager to see what Hugo Chavez would have to say to the world, during his recent speech at the United Nations. I did not know what he would say, but I knew he was not going to allow himself to be ignored. If that indeed was his objective (to not be ignored), he certainly succeeded.

Weeks prior to his UN "El Diablo" moment, Chavez was making a little news for calling George Bush something other than "The Devil", he was calling him a terrorist. In fact, Mr. Chavez accused George Bush of being the worst kind of domestic terrorist when he implicated him directly for being behind the 9/11 attacks on his own country. But again, that story made "some" news, but it wasn't front page headline news. Not like his comments at the UN are. Mr. Chavez is being viciously lambasted for having the audacity to refer to the United States Commander and Chief as "The Devil"! It's almost funny! In fact, I think Chavez even scored a few world leader chuckles for the remark during his speech.

I find it especially interesting and quite dissappointing (although no longer surprising) to watch how the Democrat "leadership" is now joining the chorus of those condemning Mr. Chavez' remarks. Rangel and Pelosi have been particularly vociferous in their outrage. Rangel apparently angry at Chavez for having the temerity to come to "my country" and "my district" and call "my President" names. Give me a break Charlie! That's the kind of outrage you should have demonstrated when "your President" came into "your district" after 9/11 and told everybody it was okay to breathe pulverized asbestos! And Pelosi, puhleeze! Her criticism of Chavez calling the President names lost credibility right after she then called Chavez a name. Oh yeah, call my President "The Devil"? Well you're "a Thug"! Real grown up Nancy. Talk about "do as I say, not as I do". Pelosi would have done better to issue a "I know you are but what am I" statement and being done with it. So all of this non-sense got me to thinking... is this perhaps what Senor Chavez intended?

I've gone on record here in my support of Hugo Chavez, particularly because of his support of the 9/11 Truth Movement. For indeed, 9/11 is not an American problem, it is a global problem. That is why I find it particuarly disingenuous of Rangel and Pelosi to feign "outrage" over something as silly as Chavez calling the President "The Devil". Why did they stand silent on Chavez accusing Bush of killing his own people? Is it because Chavez didn't do it while on American soil? Or is it because they want to help the Administration do everything in its power to divert the world from thinking about Bush and his involvement in 9/11? This would certainly explain the enthusiastic support the Democrats threw behind its purported opposition to the recent ABC "hit-piece" The Path to 9/11. While everyone was whipped up in a frenzy over the "falsehoods" contained in this so-called "docudrama", they simultaneously reinforced the falsehoods contained in the so-called "official record" as the definitive final word on the issue concerning the 9/11 "terrorist" attack. Quite Machiavellian when you think about it.

So it appears with the Chavez commotion. Whip everyone up into a frenzy over calling Bush "The Devil" while simultaneously burying Chavez' comments implicating Bush for 9/11. But will it work? Well so far, it seems to be working. But I don't think that is a surprise to Chavez, who had one very strong Ace up his sleeve and decided not to play it. That card of course is 9/11. The quintessential trump card, if you will. So why didn't he play it? The answer? Well there is a couple of possible reasons.

I think Chavez knew that if he played that card at the U.N., it would have been buried by the world MSM. He would not be receiving anywhere near the coverage he is receiving now! Just look at what his words have done for Noam Chomsky's book. It's rocketed up to #1 on Amazon. It was ranked #20,664 the day before spoke at the UN. Chavez now has, what he didn't have last week. He has a very high "Q rating". Now that he has it, I think he plans to play his trump card. I'm not sure how and I'm not exactly sure when. Maybe he knows something we don't know regarding the upcoming "October surprise" being planned by Karl Rove. I think as a movement, we should show our support for Hugo Chavez, not because he called George Bush "The Devil" but because he is the ONLY world leader to have called George Bush to account for his role (whatever it may have been) in the 9/11 "terrorist attack" on this country and subsequent worldwide coverup. Because in reality, it was an attack on this world. It would be nice if the Honorable Senator Pelosi and Congressman Rangel could show at least a little outrage over that.

is that Nimmo?

is that Nimmo?


no... that's Rose.

wow, nice job.

wow, nice job.


Rangel was on the Alex Jones show a few days ago. When he pulled out the "I'm mad at Chavez for criticizing Our President" line I was like WHA? then I realized it was his little Dem talking point and I just about puked. AJ asked him clearly and directly 3 times about 911 and each time he pretended he was answering a different question. What a fraud.


what exactly did Alex ask

what exactly did Alex ask him about 9/11? i would like to hear that if you got it.

To the best of my memory

I think the first question was like "what's your gut feeling about 9/11" and Rangel started babbling about Iraq. Then Alex asked what Rangel had to say about whatever percentage of his constituency thinking 9/11 was an inside job - he asked that one twice and the same response, a lot of babbling as if Alex had asked a completely different question.

so Alex didnt follow up? he

so Alex didnt follow up? he just let him ramble on about Iraq without a follow up? Alex Jones is great, he does an important service, but the guy needs to learn how to follow up on tough questions. i know he doesnt wanna scare future potential guests off, but im surprised he even asked Rangel about 9/11. he had Pat Buchanan on a couple weeks ago and didnt even bother to ask him about 9/11. they talked immigration the whole time. ugh.

oh he sure fucking did

Dude, he stopped the guy in his tracks and was like "look at what you're doing, I didn't ask you about Iraq... you're very good at this" and the guy kept spinning. I think the "gut feeling" question might have been the last one even and Alex was like "c'mon man, you're not gonna live forever, you're not gonna be in office forever... just tell us what you really think" and the guy weaseled.

well thats good to hear,

well thats good to hear, hopefully i'll be able to hear it soon(hint hint). i got extremely pissed that Alex didnt even bother asking Buchanan about 9/11, and went off on a tangent about it, so its good to see he hasnt forgotten. Rangel is quite the dissapointment. same with Pelosi. i miss Cynthia McKinney.

Pelosi's no disappointment to me

She's my "representative" yeah right as if... what a crook.

I don't think I made a clip of rangel but I do make clips of a lot those interviews, I just don't have a place to host them. 

Rangel on Jones

Funny you mention McKinney. When Alex Jones mentioned her, Rangel basically dismissed her savaging by implying that she knew she would stir things up and she wasn't prepared to take the reaction.

Here's a quote from Rangel in regards to Chavez's comments on Bush, made in his district: "I just don't like foreigners being critical." Huh? If you go to the 9/21 Jones show hosted at (with the commercials cut out) you can hear the exchange at around 1 hour 18 minutes. And you can hear him completely evade 9/11 questions three times in a row by rambling on about Iraq. Pathetic.

I'm not familiar with Rangel. I'm sure he's a nice guy and probably a good grandpa, but he sounds at best like a well-meaning politician who never thinks things through to their consequences because they don't need to consider them beyond how they'll play in the MSM and the ballot box. Just listen to him talk in glowing terms about his "universal service" legislation, unaware of it opens the door for truly wicked people to abuse.

Rangels heart is in the

Rangels heart is in the right place, but he is indeed VERY naive. he tends to be right on most issues he speaks on but he just doesnt get it when it comes to the "war on terror" like McKinney does. she seems to be the only politician that can clearly see that the "war on terror" is a global farce. that is why she was destroyed by her own party along with the MSM and the right. she made ALL OF THEM look bad.


Agreed about the Buchanan thing. That was pathetic lol


Nice post Chris. I blew my stack when I heard Pelosi call Chavez a thug. Lucky for me I live in her district and WILL be at her next town hall meeting and WILL tear her a new one. These politicians, both Democrat and Republican, make me sick. Since 9/11 truth I have turned into a total anarchist. I have no respect for any of them. I will give them no power. Chavez is a hero in my eyes. He spoke truth to power. It is a shame more world leaders won't speak up. They all know the truth. Cowards all.

She's a traitor

She can't get enough money from Israel. She sold off an entire national park (the Presidio) to a small private group of richies with no accountability. She has lied lied lied about 9/11 and when the 9/11 Trials start Pelosi and her traitorous ilk are going down with the rest of the mass-murdering criminal trash selling us all out.

hey maddog..

some guy was in down town oakland the other day with a blowhorn saying (911 was an inside job!) and my wife could see and hear him from the 9th floor of her building.... he was also handing out flyers...

eariler this week my wife was on bart and over heard 2 old couples that didnt know eachother say that they thought that 911 was done by our government and the others all agreed.. my wife then leaned over and said, you better believe they did it... one of the old men say that he had lived through ww2 and he knows that buildings dont fall like that....

that was me

on the bullhorn :-)

Bay Area

I know. Most people here in the Bay Area know what went down on 9/11. Even the people that I work with that would give me a hard time two years ago have come on-board the truth wagon. But this is the Bay Area not the Mid-West or the Deep South. I don't know what the people think there. I think eventually even they will wake up. Especially if Bushfraud and his thugs try to take their guns away. This is war, make no mistake about it.

re: Bay Area

Nice job, AT! Were any of you at the 9/9 rally in Golden Gate Park? I tried to come, but Amtrak was over an hour late. I'm in Sacramento, and my town may take more time to adjust to the truth, given the high number of government workers here.

BTW, isn't Carol Brouillet running for Pelosi's seat?

Oops. Nice job, YT!

Oops. Nice job, YT!

Thanks man

Doing outreach is my favorite thing to do these days.

Yeah, I was at the 9/9 rally and march. It was good.

Carol's running for state senate.

Golden Gate Park "Power to the Peaceful"

I was there with Carol. It turned out just fine. Large turnout. Bigger than last year. Check my page on yayacanada for pictures and comments.

Thanks for the photos.

Though I came too late for the rally, I actually made it to the concert and met Carol. She gave me some good information. It was uplifting to see so many people visit the "9/11=Inside Job" booth, and I finally became convinced that we will prevail.


(re: Pelosi "thug" comments) - this is standard fare for Beltway Dems, predicitable "patriotic outrage" for the masses type stuff. after Harry Reid's hissy fits about allowing pres of Iraq to address Congress (when he basically sided with Hamas), this is just totally predictable, pre-election BAU. expect no less and little more. but don't let it upset ya' too much

If you're looking for a thug

If you're looking for a thug go next door to US-backed Colombia where union organizers get skinned alive and hung on the roadside. Chavez is a democratically-elected leader who is doing more for his people than any other leader on the planet. There's no need to idolize him. In fact I don't think he's gone nearly far enough -- yet. He needs to devolve power even more. But there's no need to adopt the language of Fox News either. Any leader who does anything but represent multinational corporations and brutalize their own people in the process is labeled a "thug' or a "tyrant" or "anti-democratic" by Washington. I'd say this is ironic, but irony died when Kissinger won the Nobel peace prize.



The federal reserve inside the buildling where alan greenspans office is looks like a replica of the inside of the SCARFACE Mansion.

Chavez is like that spanish guy that exposed the DRUG CARTel

this is like a movie!!!!!!

we're talking about chavez, right?
Analysis Last Updated: Sep 23rd, 2006 - 00:08:03


Hugo Chavez and the sulfuric odor of “devil” Bush
By Larry Chin
Online Journal Associate Editor

Sep 22, 2006, 01:42

Email this article
Printer friendly page

In an address at the United Nations, Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez delivered a sober, scathing and articulate denunciation of the Bush administration and its foreign policy, and a dead-on accurate depiction of George W. Bush’s psychopathology.

The Bush administration and its affiliated disinformation apparatuses have attempted to counter-attack by deliberately highlighting portions of “‘savage’ anti-Bush language” (to make Chavez appear to be a wild man), while deliberately omitting the majority of the Chavez address, which consisted of a regional overview of the world geopolitical conflict and crisis being engineered by the Bush administration and its allies, and a call for opposition and justice.

The voice of the rest of the world

The full transcript of the Chavez address should be read in its entirety, from beginning to end, for its substance as well as its galvanizing tone. Skip the predictable US media attacks, the right-wing pundits and the brayings of Condoleezza Rice and John Bolton.

Hugo Chavez address to United Nations-Full Transcript

The timeliness and accuracy of Chavez’s worldview, not simply his strong language, has earned him ovations from common people as well as top diplomats and heads of state, from both “aligned” and “non-aligned” circles. What Chavez expressed was the voice of most of the world outside of the United States (a largely dead nation that has surrendered, through both acquiescence and direct complicity, to its tyrants).

In the speech, Chavez:

Exposed the Bush administration’s “democratic model” and “war on terrorism” as the Orwellian propaganda deception of a world dictatorship.

Correctly warned Americans that “the threat is right in their own house, right at home."

Correctly warned that non-aligned nations represent the peaceful opposition to US foreign policy all over the world, including a wide swath of the US populace.

Outlined the Bush administration’s recipe of hegemony and pillage through war.

Addressed US-led war and destabilization in Lebanon, Palestine, Iran, and Latin America.

Detailed ongoing Bush administration covert operations, coup and assassination attempts in Venezuela.

Detailed the US-led assassination of Orlando Letelier, and the harboring of terrorist Luis Posada by the US.

Proposed a four-point proposal to re-establish the United Nations as an objective (not Anglo-American-Israeli controlled/corrupted) body with the power and authority to resolve world conflicts, and stand up to the United States.

And called for the “dawn of a new era” based on resistance to tyranny and peace.
Chavez’ language regarding Bush could be considered charitable, in light of the fact that the sub-human Bush and his criminal administration have repeatedly attempted to topple his adminstration and assassinate him, and replace him with a puppet willing to allow the US to seize control of the largest oil supply in the hemisphere.

With a Venezuelan election coming in a few months, there is no doubt that Bush’s CIA will certainly try again. Covert operations have intensified over the past year, and a new intelligence mission, headed by the despicable John Negroponte, has recently been established, an ominous sign of chaos to come. (Chavez has called Bush an “asshole." This is an even more accurate word to describe him and his entire administration.)

Chavez’s Chomsky mistake

Chavez began his speech by evoking Noam Chomsky, describing him as “one of the most prestigious American and world intellectuals," and urging people to read Chomsky’s book, Hegemony or Survival: The Imperialist Strategy of the United States.

It is surprising that a political street fighter with the savvy and intellect of Chavez found the need to promote the work of Chomsky, whose weak, grossly deceptive and empty “structuralist” hand-wringings have been designed to deny systemic realities and real “root causes," protect corruption and criminality, and purposely lead gullible Left/liberal icon-worshippers into terminal intellectual dead ends.

This has caused telling ripple effects across the American political spectrum. Progressives have tap-danced, privately giddy over the Chomsky endorsement, while denying (publicly) any solidarity with Chavez’s “unacceptable language." Neoliberals (Democrats) have fallen over themselves to distance themselves from any of Chavez’s statements (giving the Bush administration’s Chavez-hating/baiting forces new life), scrambling to appease the massive and ignorant “America right or wrong” majority, shaking in fear over November election backlash from “Joe and Jane Sixpack."

The political Right, meanwhile, has had a field day attacking and demonizing Chavez, while wielding Chavez’s Chomsky endorsement like a weapon. Chomsky provides the Bush regime with another round with one of its easiest and most welcome punching bags. Chomsky himself is responsible for this.

Chomsky, to this day, denies the importance and relevance of virtually every major political crime committed by the United States government, from the assassinations of the 1960s, the massive Iran-Contra/CIA/drugs operations (which continue to this day, in many forms), to 9/11 and the “war on terrorism."

Chomsky, to this day, provides intellectual political cover for the worst political criminals and mass murderers in world history. To this day, Chomsky and many of his “progressive” colleagues and followers have institutionalized intense “analysis” of the many symptoms of imperialism (class warfare, racism, corporatism and greed, war profiteering, human rights tragedies, suffering, political hypocrisy, unfairness, bad behavior, etc.), while stridently avoiding the diagnosis of the disease, and its source.

Chomsky, to this day, fully supports the concept of the “war on terrorism," and Bush administration’s official propaganda and persistent lies about 9/11, ignoring (and attacking) years of evidence proving that the Bush administration and its proxies not only had complete foreknowledge of the attacks, but planned, facilitated and executed the attacks. Chomsky’s book, 9-11, is an abomination. Again, see "Where Noam Will Not Roam".

Chomsky is, in many ways, is one of the American empire’s best friends. Chomsky and the intellectual Left function like the best disinformation assets.


"Where Noam Will Not Roam"

Alternative Media Censorship

"The Defactualization of Analysis" (Nafeez Ahmed)

Left Gatekeepers

The fact is, the American empire (Washington, Wall Street, etc.) is built upon criminality. It is criminality, and always has been. This elephant in the living room is thoroughly deconstructed and examined by the likes of Michael Ruppert (the book Crossing the Rubicon, and From The Wilderness ), Michel Chossudovsky (the book America’s “War on Terrorism” and Center for Research on Globalization) and Catherine Austin Fitts, three of today’s true intellectual heavyweights, but it is completely denied by Chomsky and his colleagues.

Chomsky, a leading Left gatekeeper and Left consent manufacturer extraordinaire, is as responsible as anyone for the gentle gutting of what remained of American political Left since the 1970s (after COINTELPRO and other government operations had already cut out the heart of it). It has today been reduced to an empty husk, a bag of high-toned rhetorical flatulence and zero-sum activism, an impotent cottage industry, now incapable of (and uninterested in) the kind of genuine resistance needed to fight tyranny, the way Chavez and other anti-imperialists see the real struggle, not to mention the genuine struggle taking place on the streets.

In the end, in his actions as well as his bold words, Chavez has written his own book on fighting the American neo-imperialism. It is far more powerful and effective than any of Chomsky’s, which Chavez would be wise to discard.

Copyright © 1998-2006 Online Journal
Email Online Journal Editor

Chomsky, to this day, denies

Chomsky, to this day, denies the importance and relevance of virtually every major political crime committed by the United States government, from the assassinations of the 1960s, the massive Iran-Contra/CIA/drugs operations (which continue to this day, in many forms), to 9/11 and the “war on terrorism."

All nonsense. Chomsky is certaintly a punk on 911 (like most other intellectuals) but he has written widely on those other subjects and about a thousand other state crimes (American, Israeli and otherwise). The hit pieces I see by the 911 truth movement against Chomsky are really sloppy and intellectually dishonest, even worse than those by Dershowitz and Pipes. Barely two sentences go by without an outright lie. People need to get a grip and start realizing that we can cull from a variety of thinkers, even those who haven't acknowledged 911 truth.

not nonsense, he indeed

not nonsense, he indeed ignores all of those things. have you read Zwickers chapter on Chomsky? he has him pegged right on. Chomsky is a smart man, there is no excuse for him to ignore the things he ignores. i dont understand why people continue to make excuses for him.

I'm not making excuses for

I'm not making excuses for him, I'm merely pointing out that the article posted above is full of shit. Ignored Iran Contra and CIA involvement in the drug trade? Slanderous pap and simply not true. Go read "Understanding Power" or any of his articles from the period and you'll come to the same conclusion. That's the problem: most 911 truthers who attack Chomsky have only read half-baked (and dishonest) critiques, not the work of the man himself.

Most of the attacks on Chomsky by the NWO crowd are reactionary hot air and full of lies. I wouldn't support the use of those tactics against my worst enemies, let alone someone like Chomsky who (like it or not) as contributed an indispensible literature on many important subjects. Call me naive, but I don't think self-professed "truthers" shouldn't support those tactics either. I agree he should be criticized on 911, but I don 't like dishonest attacks and I don't think we should throw out the baby with the bathwater.

911 truthers spreading lies

911 truthers spreading lies about Chomsky is no better than shills spreading lies about 911 truth. Criticize him for his cowardly position on 911, but there's no need to resort to the tactics of the right-wing.

seriously, read Zwickers

seriously, read Zwickers chapter on Chomsky. he doesnt bash him, he doesnt "attack" him, he uses nothing but fact to make it very clear where Chomsky stands. i have a feeling you feel the same as Chomsky does about 9/11,JFK and other important events that he has downplayed in the past that involved U.S. intelligence. its just not that important is it? Sirhan killed Bobby right Chomsky? 19 flunkies with box cutters did 9/11 right? who cares who killed JFK, he was just another cold warrior right Noam? give me a break............

well put.

Chomsky, to this day, denies the importance and relevance of virtually every major political crime committed by the United States government, from the assassinations of the 1960s, the massive Iran-Contra/CIA/drugs operations (which continue to this day, in many forms), to 9/11 and the “war on terrorism."

Chomsky, to this day, provides intellectual political cover for the worst political criminals and mass murderers in world history. To this day, Chomsky and many of his “progressive” colleagues and followers have institutionalized intense “analysis” of the many symptoms of imperialism (class warfare, racism, corporatism and greed, war profiteering, human rights tragedies, suffering, political hypocrisy, unfairness, bad behavior, etc.), while stridently avoiding the diagnosis of the disease, and its source.

Chomsky, to this day, fully supports the concept of the “war on terrorism," and Bush administration’s official propaganda and persistent lies about 9/11, ignoring (and attacking) years of evidence proving that the Bush administration and its proxies not only had complete foreknowledge of the attacks, but planned, facilitated and executed the attacks. Chomsky’s book, 9-11, is an abomination. Again, see "Where Noam Will Not Roam".

Chomsky is, in many ways, is one of the American empire’s best friends.

"Chomsky, to this day,

"Chomsky, to this day, denies the importance and relevance of virtually every major political crime committed by the United States government"


Seriously, this is possibly the most ridiculous criticism I've ever read of Chomsky. LOL>

It's clear none of you have read him. For someone to engage in character assassination without even studying the work of the target is really pathetic.

Anyway, Chomsky's analysis of the CIA role in drug trafficking and the Prison industrial complex and the coca farmers in Colombia is superior. Only Ruppert and Chossudovsky do better.

As for "assassinations" in the 60's, he covers important ones -- killings of regular citizens working for change like Fred Hampton. Bobby was a mafia stooge. His death is only important in that it elucidates MKULTRA.

Like I said, I'll join you with a whipping of Chomsky for his stance on 911, but it's shameful for "truthers" to lie.

In the world of conspiracy

In the world of conspiracy buffs, 4 million deaths in IndoChina and the use of Agent Orange is not a "major crime"; converseley, the killing of a millionare playboy who caused said deaths is a "major crime". It's no wonder the "left" is reluctant to embrace 911 truth. This kind of idiocy is rampant.

no, because the death of

no, because the death of Kennedy didnt change history for the worse or anything. you Chomskyites all sound exactly the same. funny how that works. you dont have to like either of the Kennedys at all to understand the importance of their killings. for you to downplay it exactly like Chomsky does shows you read TOO MUCH Chomsky. i guess i dont read enough, i only catch him in Z magazine at this point. Chomsky talking about the deaths in Indochina have really changed history right? do you believe exposure of the 9/11 fraud is important? Chomsky doesnt. both of you obviously downplay the killings of the Kennedys and other important assassinations of the 60's like Chomsky. do you also downplay the importance of 9/11? do you not see the parallels between the events? you dont have to be a "conspiracy buff" to see that. you,just like Chomsky, do not get it. stop making excuses for him. 4 million deaths in Indochina is indeed a "major crime", just like the killing of a head of state or the killing of 3000 american citizens, with BOTH events leading to horrible things worldwide and at home. do i really have to explain to you how these events changed history? i know i dont need to remind you of how difficult it is in our media today to put forth the idea that 9/11 was an inside job, or back when it happened, that Oswald was a patsy. are the people that frequent this site mere "conspiracy buffs" for finding the exposure of 9/11 as important? who do you agree with on this issue? what has Chomsky done but sold books and spoken at colleges and stayed safe? he preaches to the choir and doesnt stray from his safe zone. he keeps his cult going in circles.


ain't gonna be the one to save us. We have to do it ourselves. I personally wouldn't waste too much time and energy being mad at Chomsky for what he *doesn't* say because his kind are legion. He's not the godfather of liberalism or anything. Nobody paid him any attention until Chavez held up his book. Of course, that makes for a more complicated picture, but can we really expect things to get any simpler in the coming days? We just need to keep pressing the truth to those who will listen. If Chomsky won't listen, move on to someone else. Seems like a mistake to get overly scholarly about this whole thing.