No-one can seriously believe that the CIA would write such a politically explosive document which just happens to have been obtained by Chavez immediately before the 'reform' vote. Not only was it apparently written in Spanish - and so far the original has yet to appear - but it conveniently names many of Chavez's political opponents with the implication that they are funded and controlled by the CIA.

Those of us in Venezuela who are having to live under an increasingly totalitarian regime have no doubt that this is an attempt to smear supporters of the 'No' campaign.

Perhaps the ultimately proof that it is a fake is the fact that its author(s) has to clam that according to the CIA the 'Yes' supporters are going to win confortably. This may be the case, no-one knows. But all of the objective commentators are saying that it is too close to call while opinion polls have suggested that Chavez could lose the vote - especially as people may be intimidated into saying 'yes' but vote 'no'. So if this 'secret CIA report' was genuine, why would it follow the line pushed by Chavez supporters that they are winning?

I was on the 'No' march two days ago in Caracas and two things struck me. Firstly, the 'No' suppoters made no attempt to remove the 'Yes' banners - someone said to me that their opponents "had a right to make their views known and we respect that". Yet before the 'Yes' rally, every single 'No' poster was ripped down. Secondly, there was no sign of significant fiunding for the 'No' rally. There was many locally-produced posters, banners and leaflets and people had to buy the T-shirts. By contrast, there was no lack of funding for the 'Yes' rally.

The idea that Chavez is heroically fighting Yankee imperialism is a smokescreen created by a ruthless regime that it intent on securing absolute power for itself. You western liberals who are mistakenly supporting this do not understand that the majority of people in Venezuela want peace and freedom, they want friendly relations with Colombia and Spain, they want prosperity and they want a police force they can trust. Unfortunately having a country run by an unstable former paratrooper who wants to stay in power until he dies will only bring misery for millions.

let me guess, the same bozos who think that april 2002 wasn't really a coup, just a "vacuum of power." after all, no-one wants to believe that they're being manipulated by the US government, especially after CIA snipers shot and killed opposition supporters, which formed the pretext for the coup. wonder what they've got planned this time?

and seriously, if it was a fake, why has the US not denied it? let's see if the angry middle classes accept the referendum results, my guess is that they won't, at least at first.

"No-one can seriously believe that the CIA would write such a ..."

Sure they would, if they didn't think anyone else would see it. How else are they supposed to communicate. Remember, the CIA already overthrew Chavez once, but he was saved by loyal military commanders, embarassing the Us and its allies in the process.

"but it conveniently names many of Chavez's political opponents with the implication that they are funded and controlled by the CIA."

And ... ? The "Orange Revolution" in the Ukraine was a CIA operation ten years in the making, and the "Cedar Revolution" in Lebanon (which followed the assassination of Rafiq Hariri) was also supported by the CIA and Mossad.

"Perhaps the ultimately proof that it is a fake is the fact that its author(s) has to clam that according to the CIA the 'Yes' supporters are going to win confortably."

That's not proof. It's Disinformation referred to as "Casting Doubt". The 'Yes' camp IS forecasted to win easily, as Chaez' supporters comprise the majority.

"So if this 'secret CIA report' was genuine, why would it follow the line pushed by Chavez supporters that they are winning?"

Because the CIA believes he will win, due to the support he enjoys amongst the people.

"Secondly, there was no sign of significant fiunding for the 'No' rally."

Sure there was, but it cannot be conspicuous ...

"The idea that Chavez is heroically fighting Yankee imperialism is a smokescreen"

No it isn't. That's exactly what he's done. And the CIA's past program against him is the reason he is seeking to establish protections for the Government, so that Venezuela can never again come under the control of foreign-controlled dictators who will allow foreign exploitation in the name of wealth and power.

Tens of thousands of Chavez supporters rally for Venezuelan constitutional vote
Published: Friday, November 30, 2007 | 6:09 PM ET
Canadian Press: Edison Lopez, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

CARACAS, Venezuela - Tens of thousands (How many tens of thousands? Note the slecetive use of numbers in this story ...) of President Hugo Chavez's supporters filled the streets Friday vowing to win a vote on constitutional changes that would let the firebrand leftist seek re-election for years to come. Opponents called for close monitoring of results in what they expect could be a tight contest.

Government supporters, who filled an avenue waiting to hear Chavez speak, said it was essential to do away with term limits so that he could keep leading Venezuela beyond 2012.

"Chavez has become a father for us," said Xiomi Diaz, 34, a farmer. "He's a father of the poor." She and others travelled from across the country in hundreds of buses.

The pro-Chavez rally came a day after more than 100,000 opposition supporters filled the same avenue promising to defeat revisions that would also extend presidential terms from six to seven years, create new forms of communal property and expand Chavez's powers to reshape Venezuela as a socialist state.

(Is that more or less than today's rally? The article confuses the point.)

Chavez denies he is trying to amass power, saying the changes are necessary to give the people a greater voice in government and to move toward a socialist system.

Human Rights Watch warned the reforms would threaten fundamental rights, citing one revision allowing the president to declare indefinite states of emergency during which the government could detain citizens without charge and censor the media.

(But this only means that, in the wrong hands, they would have the potential to do so.)

"These amendments would enable President Chavez to suspend basic rights indefinitely by maintaining a perpetual state of emergency," said Jose Miguel Vivanco of the New York-based group.

In Washington, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the United States hopes the referendum will be "a free and fair contest in which the will and desire of the Venezuelan people is reflected."

Chavez's opponents have questioned the National Electoral Council's impartiality, especially after Chavez named its former chief, Jorge Rodriguez, as his vice-president in January. But in contrast to past elections, when the opposition has boycotted votes or been split on whether to participate, this time many opposition leaders are emboldened and urging voters to turn out in large numbers.

The government and the opposition both cite polls suggesting their side is in the lead, raising tensions ahead of the referendum.

University students have led protests and occasionally clashed with police and Chavista groups. One man was shot dead Monday while trying to get through a road blocked by protesters.

(The whole story please ...)

The opposition also has been heartened by some recent defections from Chavez's movement, including former Defence Minister Gen. Raul Baduel. Even Chavez's ex-wife, Marisabel Rodriguez, has urged Venezuelans to vote "no."

About 100 electoral observers from 39 countries in Latin America, Europe and the United States are on hand, plus hundreds of Venezuelan observers, the National Electoral Council said.

 http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/071130/w113091A.html

I'm sorry but I am in Caracas and I saw both rallies. There was no doubt that there were more people on the 'Yes' rally and this may have been because the 'Yes' camp has more support. However, it could have been because the 'Yes' supported were bussed in by the state whereas the 'No' supporters simply called upon people to attend.

It is absurd to suggest that the 'No' rally was funded by the CIA but that it was so subtly that no evidence emerged. Unlike the 'Yes' rally, many of the banners were home-made and you had to buy the T-shirts, badges and hats from vendors who (you presumably believe) were really CIA agents.

So given that the media reports and the opinion polls have been suggesting that it is either going to be close or that Chavez is going to lose, it seems strange that someone the CIA knows better - and just happens to agree with Government propagandists.

If this 'secret' CIA document was genuine then why was it not produced? And if it was genuine, given what it says, then Chavez would have immediately have broken off diplonatic negotiations. It is a crude fake produced by supporters of a man who is desperately trying to con the people into believing that their only salvation lies through the creation of a one party state with one leader.

"I'm sorry but I am in Caracas and I saw both rallies."

I'm sorry, but you're an anonymous person on the 'net, and hardly an objective observer, so you'll excuse me if I take the things you say with a grain of salt, especially when they distort the facts.

"There was no doubt that there were more people on the 'Yes' rally"

Then you understand what I was pointing out in regards to the media's dishonest framing of the rallies' numbers. This is not a rare occurence, as activists here will attest to.

"It is absurd to suggest that the 'No' rally was funded by the CIA"

No. It isn't. This is one of their specialities. It's absurd to try and deny their hand in this.

"So given that the media reports and the opinion polls have been suggesting that it is either going to be close or that Chavez is going to lose"

Uh ... that's not what I've seen predicted, and I work in the newsmedia.

"If this 'secret' CIA document was genuine then why was it not produced?"

It was.

I'm sorry, but you've displayed a willingness to misrepresent the facts, and as such, you can't be taken seriously as an observer.

The CIA's past program against him is the reason he is seeking to establish protections for the Government, so that Venezuela can never again come under the control of foreign-controlled dictators who will allow foreign exploitation in the name of wealth and power.

Chavez isn't even real, he was invented by the CIA to get anarchists to fawn over dictators.

The CIA are also training a monkey to run for the Whitehouse next election, but they can't get the money stupid enough.

Most people in and out of venezuela know the Venezuelan opposition has not changed...they are still funded by the USA.
================

No idea who Gustavo is, but from what i read, most people in Venezuela have no problem believeing the Memo and that the US is trying to destroy democracy in Venezuela...But Gustavo must be a white pent-house Venezuelan, for him to make his assertions.
If it was written in spanish, that woulkd tell you whom it was addressed to...aka people like Gustavo.

'Those of us in Venezuela who are having to live under an increasingly totalitarian regime have no doubt that this is an attempt to smear supporters of the 'No' campaign'

This is pure owellianism...Back in April 2002, , the right wing white venezuelans tried to create a totalitarian dictatorship under Pedro carmona. That didnt work. They tried to smear the chavisas by showing shootings, and manipulating video footage. This video footage manipulation was uncovered on The Revolution Will Not Be Televised...which Gustavo should go and view, for some real smearing by the old power elite.

Notiec he says an 'increasingly totalitarian regime'...yet none of the persons who carried out the coup is in prison! Not the persons on RCTV certainly. What gustavo is doing is to equate the Bolivarian revolution with totalitarianism, in a bizarre perversion of marxism by Gus.

'Perhaps the ultimately proof that it is a fake is the fact that its author(s) has to clam that according to the CIA the 'Yes' supporters are going to win confortably'

Is that your idea of 'proof'? Well, it doesnt convince me.

Gus is trying to deny that the opposition has been behaving like ruffians and trying to stage another coup. Gus knows that his kind cant win democraticaly because the number are with Chavez and his government.So they need to lie, use NED moneys, create disorder etc.

Gus: 'You western liberals who are mistakenly supporting this do not understand that the majority of people in Venezuela want peace and freedom, they want friendly relations with Colombia and Spain, they want prosperity and they want a police force they can trust.'

I understand the venezuelan people very well..most of them have voted i favor of Chavez and his revolution for the last 10 years. BUT the Gus's cant have that. So they need to get them to change their views:


Just recently we in Australia had a bizarre incident where members of the NSW Liberal party tried to demonis the Labor party thru putting out a leaflet that linked the party (now in Fedeal govt, since last week) with radical islam:
 http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Leaflet-scandal-triggers-resignation/2007/11/22/1195321922180.html

That sort of behavior, by the outgoing Liberal government, is what is being done in Venezuela by YOUR people...They cant win, so they are using terrorism, lies, smears etc

OH, and heres a photo of some of the multitudes who favour Chavez and his revolution.
 http://www.vicuk.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=147&Itemid=30
=============================================================

Family of President's Ex-Wife Declares Support for Refrom, Against Her
November 30th 2007, by YVKE Mundial
This Thursday, the family President Chavez's ex-wife, Marisabel Rodríguez, expressed their support for the constitutional reform program proposed by Chávez and the National Assembly (AN) through public debate. “We are with the president of the republic on his constitutional reform proposal just as we are with the bolivarian revolution,” declared José Vicente Rodríguez Uzcátegui, father of the former first lady, during a press conference that included Marisabel’s siblings and uncle.

“We do not share my daughter’s opinion about the constitutional reform,” assured her father, in response to Marisabel’s declarations last Tuesday against the reform and the government of President Chávez, along with the advertisements with her advocating for a NO vote that are being run on Globovisión.

“President Chávez is a very humane man who wishes the best for the people of Venezuela, especially for those most in need,” stated Rodríguez accompanied by his wife Beatriz Jiménez.

José Vicente Rodríguez was also accompanied by his children Beatriz Rodríguez Jiménez and José Vicente González Jiménez and his brother Edecio Rodríguez. “We support the President because he deserves it; we are completely with him,” said Marisabel’s uncle, who invited the public to vote in favor of the reform Sunday, December 2nd.

Her sister, Beatriz Rodríguez, explained, “We respect the decision of anyone, including our sister, but we do not agree with it.”

“The Rodríguez Jiménez and Rodríguez Uzcátegui families fully support the president of the republic and the reform,” her sister said, pointing out that no contemporary Venezuelan government has accomplished the positive achievements that the Chávez government has.

She noted that the Rodríguez Jiménez family, like any other Venezuelan family, gets up in the morning and works for a living. “We support this revolutionary process for all it has done to help the people get ahead.” For these reasons, along with other merits of the revolutionary process, she said that she will vote in favor of the constitutional reform
 http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/newsbrief/2936

EVA GOLINGER: WASHINGTON'S 'THREE FRONTS OF ATTACK' ON VENEZUELA

Jim McIlroy & Coral Wynter, Caracas
17 November 2006

 http://www.greenleft.org.au/2006/691/35882


Eva Golinger is a Venezuelan-American lawyer and author of The Chavez Code, which exposed US government involvement in the April 2002 military coup that briefly ousted left-wing Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, before he was reinstated by a popular uprising. Golinger is a determined campaigner against Washington’s attacks on revolutionary Venezuela. She has just published a new book, Bush vs Chavez: Washington’s War on Venezuela, detailing the current US threats to Venezuela. She spoke to Green Left Weekly in late October.

Golinger told GLW that she analysed US intervention in Venezuela as having “three different fronts of attack”. “One of them is the financial front, which the US has been pursuing over the last five years or so, by financing the opposition. This has increased over the past year, doubled in some instances. In fact, funding by USAID [the US Agency for International Development], through its Office of Transition Initiatives (set up here after the coup), is now up to US$7.5 million a year. But, more interestingly, the recipients of the funding have increased dramatically.

“Two years ago, there were about 63 organisations receiving funding and, today, according to the latest documents I’ve gotten under the US Freedom of Information Act, there are 132 groups. When we talk about financial power, it’s not just the money; it’s about the penetration of Venezuelan society by using money to get into the various sectors. They find groups that are allegedly human rights groups, groups that work in the education system and so on, but are really working for the opposition.

“Basically, the US is funding these organisations in civil society ... to obtain control in all different parts of the country. There are large concentrations of programs in Merida, for example, also in Tachira, Zulia, and then in the interior of the country - places like Barquisimeto, and the states of Lara, Monagas, and Anzoategui.

“The US government has censored the names of organisations, but they’ve left the descriptions of what the funding is for, and even the titles of the projects. So we know what they are proposing to do with the money; we just don’t know if they’re actually doing it. In some cases, they’ve made an error and left names in. I’ve actually taken them to court over all this. The case is in the final stages in the District Court in Washington DC. It has already gone through the entire legal process with appeals, their motion to dismiss, and our response, and now it’s in the hands of the judge. It could be decided any time. I think we have a really strong chance of winning the case.

“The issue is over the fact that they used an exemption in the FOI legislation to censor the names of organisations. This exemption protects personal privacy rights. But we’re using the legal argument that we’re not trying to get individuals’ names, but rather the names of organisations - which have no privacy rights. On top of that, we’re talking about USAID - not the CIA, or the NSA [National Security Agency] - so what’s so private? This is public money. We should win, but we’re up against the government, so you never know.

“So, USAID money has increased, and the same with [money from] the National Endowment for Democracy. And it’s not just the money. They’re bringing down their best experts. For example, in the case of the [presidential] election campaign right now, they’re bringing in political strategists, communications experts, to help them craft the entire [opposition] campaign. It’s not just money, because in the case of Venezuela, which is different from Haiti, or Nicaragua, or even Bolivia, the opposition doesn’t need the money. The dollars don’t really compare, if you contrast it to the new Plan for Transition in Cuba, for example. The total there is about $80 million. In Venezuela, the total is about $9 million a year.

“It’s the political contacts as well. For instance, on October 28, a right-wing think-tank, closely tied to the Republican Party, is hosting an event in Washington, DC, called ‘Can Venezuela be saved?’ And the only speaker is Julio Borges, who is the opposition vice-presidential candidate with [presidential candidate] Manuel Rosales. All sorts of things are involved with what I call the ‘financial front’.”

Golinger explained that the second major area of US intervention is the “diplomatic front”, “basically the exercise of diplomatic terrorism by the US government toward Venezuela”. “This includes sanctions against Venezuela for made-up things. There are three areas of sanctions right now. The US is claiming Venezuela is not collaborating on [curbing] drug trafficking, which is not true ... The US government just released a new report saying that they’re sanctioning Venezuela again for not cooperating on the war on drugs.

“In some ways, it’s just symbolic; just a statement from the White House saying that all the countries not collaborating on drugs will be sanctioned - with the exception of Venezuela. Venezuela is not cooperating with the war on drug trafficking, but funding will not be cut for activities ‘promoting democracy’ and the strengthening of ‘democratic political parties’. They say, ‘We’ll cut the funding to help Venezuela counter drug trafficking, but we won’t cut funding to keep the opposition alive’ ...

“There’s a chapter in my new book describing how the US Drug Enforcement Administration was discovered last year to be engaging in espionage tactics. I was given documents by the National Guard’s counter-drugs division, which showed specific cases where DEA agents were either aiding drug trafficking, or were smuggling drugs and getting them into the US themselves. So, the idea is that, they are trying to make Venezuela look bad [on drugs], or they are engaged in drug trafficking themselves, which has been known for years.

“The second sanction is for trafficking in persons. But there is not a shred of evidence that Venezuela is not doing everything in its power to prevent trafficking in persons.

“The other area, which is the most important of all, is this new classification the US created in May of this year - and Venezuela is the only country on the list - which is for not cooperating with the ‘war on terrorism’. So, there’s the arms sanction. Venezuela is prohibited from buying arms that have been manufactured in the US or use US parts. That’s the major sanction, because when asked what does that classification mean, and what other countries are on that list, the official response was, ‘Venezuela is the only country on that list’. So the reporters asked, ‘Well, what are the other countries that are prohibited from buying arms?’ The spokesperson said, ‘All the countries on the list are state sponsors of terrorism’.

“So, Venezuela is receiving the same sanctions as all the countries the US considers terrorist nations, yet the US hasn’t classified Venezuela as a terrorist nation. It’s been put on its own list - it’s basically almost a ‘terrorist nation’. They did that because they wouldn’t be able to get away with classifying Venezuela as a terrorist nation within the world community - just yet. The US is working on that very hard though.

“This is all within what I call the diplomatic front. It includes the constant hostile declarations made by US officials toward Venezuela, which began in a very public and aggressive way in January 2005 with [US Secretary of State] Condoleezza Rice, when she stated that ‘Chavez is a negative force in the region’. This was regurgitated and recycled by the US media and other officials in the US government …

“By the time we get to January 2006, [US Director of National Intelligence John] Negroponte and [then-defence secretary Donald] Rumsfeld are saying Chavez is another Hitler, and he’s one of the most dangerous and destabilising forces in the region. And then we get to the arms sanctions and the special classification.

“Most recently, the US Congress has issued a report on border issues — it’s the first time Venezuela has ever been mentioned in a report on border issues. It talks about Mexico, and then there’s an entire page devoted to Venezuela, where it says — absurd as it sounds — that President Chavez is engaged in smuggling Islamic radicals from out of the Middle East to Margarita Island, where they are training them in Spanish and giving them ID documents and sending them to Mexico, where they are crossing the border to the US. So now Venezuela is a border issue too!

“They’ve brought Venezuela into all different areas. It’s also an immigration issue. The Bush administration has demanded a list of all people of Arab descent living on Margarita Island. I’ve requested documents from all US government entities on the issue of Margarita Island. And every agency has refused to give us the documents. In fact, the latest one is the DIA [Defence Intelligence Agency]. They have 45 documents, which is a lot — each one could be 100 pages long. They’ve classified them as ‘Top Secret’. There’s a Lebanese community on Margarita Island that has been there for decades.”

Golinger said the results of a US State Department survey sent to US ambassadors, asking about terrorism in their host nations, listed groups like Coordinadora Simon Bolivar, a community-organising group in Barrio Enero 23 in Caracas, as “terrorist groups”.

Golinger said the survey results alleged a number of foreign groups considered terrorist by Washington were active in Venezuela, including the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), the National Liberation Army of Colombia (ELN), Palestinian group Hamas and “something related to al Qaeda, allegedly connected to Margarita Island”.

Golinger explained, “There’s a whole financial link alleged. It’s not true. I’ve researched it. What’s particularly amazing is that in the report ... and the Congress hearings over the summer on the terrorist issue, the question [was] raised: ‘Is Venezuela a terrorist nation?’ ... All of these terrorist rings are referred to. But, they’re all citing a news article that was written in October 2003 in the US News and World Report …

“A giant map of Venezuela [in the magazine] listed all the training camps throughout the country. All the people cited as sources were anonymous US officials. So, after the report came out, we all reacted. Everyone was writing letters to the editor, the Venezuelan embassy complained. And the head of the Southern Command of the Pentagon, which is in charge of this region, was interviewed by the Miami Herald. He completely refuted the whole article, saying there was nothing to show any terrorist links with Venezuela.

“Yet, that article has never been corrected. Now, three years later, even though it was refuted by the Pentagon, and none of the allegations have ever been justified, it is being used as the principal source of evidence on terrorism in Venezuela. It’s incredible. They’re all citing it, but that article is a complete fabrication.”

She explained that Washington’s third front of attack is the “military front”. “This includes an increased military presence in the region. I’ve done a lot of investigating this year on the island of Curacao [in the Caribbean], close to Venezuela, where the US has a military base. I have a chapter devoted to it in my new book, because it is really alarming.”

“[The US build-up] is with the support of the Dutch government, less so with the Antilles government”, Golinger explained. She said there is a government-owned refinery in Curacao that has been rented to Venezuela since 1984. The contract is set to expire in 2019. Golinger said the refinery “produces most of the oil for Central America and the Caribbean. It’s incredibly important and strategic.”

Washington is trying to convince the Curacao government to break the contract and sell the refinery to a US company. “All the major infrastructure companies, water, gas, electricity, telephone, [in Curacao] are US-owned. And now they want the refinery. You can see Venezuela from Curacao ... You could launch a missile attack from Curacao, easily.”

“So, there’s Curacao, and then there’s Colombia”, Golinger told GLW. “There’s a major build-up of military bases there. While we are not certain of the exact number of US troops in Colombia, we do know from official documents that the sum total of US forces in the Latin American region is 40,000 troops ... That’s a huge number. It’s enough to invade any Latin American country.

“The US conducts military exercises regularly. I went to Curacao to check out some of the warships involved. It’s pretty freaky ... that’s all intended to intimidate. They haven’t done that since the end of the Cold War.

“Another part of the military front are the psychological operations. It’s a media war, but it goes beyond use of the regular media and gets into all kinds of propaganda ... There’s a doctrine of psychological warfare prepared by the Pentagon ...

“The use of Colombian paramilitaries by the US is also included in the military front. And the intervention of US Special Forces is part of that as well.”

Golinger explained: “I actually interviewed a paramilitary here in Caracas. What he told me is that all the paramilitaries work jointly with the US and the Special Forces in Colombia. They’re trained by them, in command-and-control operations.

The paramilitaries are the “actors”. “For example, they’re the ones sent over to try to assassinate Chavez. But the command-and-control is directed and controlled by the US Special Forces. The US forces come in, and are on the ground in Colombia, but they send the paramilitaries to do the dirty work, together with the Colombian army.

“The US has been building up a secret base near the border with Venezuela, next to Apure state. It’s a small base, but the US is building airplane hangars for spy planes. It’s basically a launching point for espionage operations and monitoring of Venezuela. They also have large amounts of high-ranking US Special Forces there. At every one of these bases ... there are always the high-ranking US Special Forces, the high-ranking Colombian forces, then the low-ranking Colombian forces, and finally the paramilitaries. It’s like a chain of command, but at the head of that command are the US Special Forces.”

Golinger said that there were attempts to push the FARC into Venezuela to provide an excuse for Colombian troops to enter the country. “They want to increasingly make that border area a combat zone - to declare it an uncontrollable international zone, so they need to bring in international forces to control it. This would include all of that area, from Apure to Zulia.”

In her new book there is a chapter on Plan Balboa, a 2001 military exercise underwritten by the US that is “basically the invasion plan for Venezuela”. “What they do is come in from Colombia, Panama and from bases in Curacao. What they do on their map is take over Zulia and the border area and declare it an international zone ...

“In the case of Venezuela, Plan Balboa is the virtual, trial stage of invading the country, and then over the past five years they have been trying it out. The April 2002 coup was the first stage. The US had military forces here, and brought in submarines and other equipment, and their Black Hawk helicopters. How did it play out? It didn’t work, and since then they have been preparing for the next stage. For example, the movement for Zulia to secede, or to become an autonomous state, is related to all that.”

Right now, most of Venezuela’s developed oil industry is located in Zulia and Falcon. “So, the idea is to expand Plan Colombia into that region, and the border area that requires international forces, and, at the same time, move for secession of Zulia. Eventually, they would just divide the country and take the oil wealth. And from there they would deal with the rest of the country.”

GLW asked Golinger about Washington’s ability to stage a military intervention while it was bogged down in Iraq. She explained that, on top of the 40,000 US troops stationed in Latin America, “the recent military exercises in the Caribbean showed their strength ... right in the area near Venezuela, they had about eight major warships, one of which was the aircraft carrier USS George Washington, with 85 combat planes and 6500 troops on board. In all, they had about 10,000 troops. That’s a total of 50,000 [soldiers] in the region. Every single ship had Tomahawk missiles and so on, and they hung out off [Venezuela’s coast] for two-and-a-half months ...

“The US could come in and take out the country. Venezuela has built up its armed forces recently, but it doesn’t have the capacity to stop the attack. They could take us out with a bombing campaign, just like they did in Iraq.

“Increasingly, we’re getting prepared … But the [military] reserves are not sufficiently trained yet. And even with the troops, their weaponry is not nearly as sophisticated as the US’s ... However, it’s like what Cuba has shown with their resistance and their preparation of the people. They’re so ready, that if the US were to go in there and invade, they would have to massacre millions and millions of people [to conquer the country]. So, Venezuela is trying to do the same kind of thing; similar, but in a Venezuelan way. ‘You won’t be able to just take us out, you’ll have to kill everybody’ ...

“More than having an invasion, they’re going to try and assassinate President Chavez. And that’s where the paramilitaries come in, because that’s what their mission is. The paramilitary leader I spoke to told me that. They’re already here. There are more than 3000 in the region of Caracas alone.”

I was in Caracas until yesterday and everyone I spoke to (privately) conceded that it was a fake. Had it been genuine, a copy would have been produced (it still hasn't) and given the seriousness of the claims Chavez would have cut off oil supplies to the US without hesitation. Even the neutered press referred to it as "of unknown legitimacy".

What I found very disturbing was the way in which the state was being used ruthlessly to improve the chances of the 'yes' campaign. Even the National Electoral Council (CNE) expressed concerned as it noted that state television channels in Caracas devoted 51 HOURS to the 'Yes' campaign and just 31 MINUTES to the 'No' campaign during 148 hours of moinitoring. By comparison, private channels have 48,375 seconds to the anti-reformists against 27,310 to those in favour, although the private regional stations have 89,911 and 99,141 respectively.

Given the massive resources being pumped into the Si campaign by the State it would be amazing if it did not win, and with a huge majority, and any other result would be a huge embarrassment to Chavez.

You should also understand that Chavez refused to agree to a National Assembly demand that the issues in the vote be separated - the social reforms and his lust for power. He has therefore split the vote into two, but deliberately muddled the two main issues.

Of course I and indeed everyone else I met could either be brainwashed or CIA stooges but it strikes me that everyone who has so far contributed to this debate on Indymedia - in several lots of comments - who has actually been in the country in the past two weeks - is cynical about what Chavez is trying to do. Yet do his supporters really believe that it is a sensible idea to allow someone to manipulate the constitution to permit him to stay in power until he dies? Close to where the two demonstrations took place are a series of statues depicting the great Latin American revolutionaries (as well as Martin Luther King) and there is one empty plinth. No guesses who thinks that he belongs there.

Finally, on leaving the country I spoke to a distressed black man, originally from Ghana but now living in the Netherlands. He had been arrested by the police shortly before he was due to catch his flight (on Friday) and told that they suspected that he was a drug dealer on the basis that he was (a) black and (b) could afford to fly. This was, he said, the most extreme example of racism that he had ever experienced. They dumped him in Caracas, with no money and said that he had to report to the airport the following day or would be sent to prison. Had it not been for a sympathetic taxi driver he would never had made it to the airport. Now this may be an isolated example but my experience in this beautiful country is that racism is an endemic as it is in many other countries and that Chavez has had little impact on the lives of the dispossessed.

James you must be a CIA plant to dare suggest that Our Glorious Leader has ulterior motives for neutering the media and suspending the democratic process.

Next you'll be lumping Chavez in with every other dictator that seized power by claiming that rule by decree was in the People's national security interest. You'll be denying the German Federal Government's assertion that Marinus van der Lubbe did indeed burn down the Reichstag and that the fire brigade had supernatural powers.

Chavez gives the Americans what for, so he must be a good guy. I'd trust anyone who curbs free speech and democracy, so long as they call Bush names. That Mugabe has had a lot of bad press too.

And of course the document isn't a fake, because I like the idea it isn't. Because everyone knows the CIA are everywhere. I'm probably CIA and I don't even know it yet! So probably best you ignore me just in case I have been through MKUltra.

"Uh ... that's not what I've seen predicted, and I work in the newsmedia" - Viva Venezuela.

Must be a CIA plot!

Yes, it IS a CIA plot, but that doesn't mean much.

"and everyone I spoke to (privately) conceded that it was ..."

In other words, you can't actually prove your case, so you're left to desperately Cast Doubt. Look, few doubt this, because this is the CIA's history throughout the continent. That's one big reason the S. Americans are revolting against outside exploitation.

"What I found very disturbing was the way in which the state was being used ruthlessly to improve the chances of the 'yes' campaign."

It wasn't. You find this more disturbing than foreign countries trying to undermine Venezuelan democracy ... ?

"You should also understand that Chavez refused to agree to a National Assembly demand that the issues in the vote be separated"

Indeed, and I think that was foolish, but he thought that this forum would take too long and be too costly. He did, however, split the issues, but I think he should have had votes on individual measures, and perhaps requires more consultations on what reforms could protect the country from foreign-owned Puppets, and still allow the people to feel comfortable.

Your last accusation is an unsupported anecdote, and as such, is not relevant or credible here, but does cast your own integrity to question.

"James you must be a CIA plant to dare suggest that Our Glorious Leader has ulterior motives for neutering the media and suspending the democratic process."

He hasn't done either thing, and this sarcastic comment only proves your dishonesty. The fact that he's putting this to a vote contradicts your statements about his treatment of democracy!

"Chavez gives the Americans what for, so he must be a good guy."

He's done great things for the country and its people, so this mischaracertization fails.

"And of course the document isn't ..."

Put up or shut up, Troll. Your very presence here suggests otherwise.

"I'm probably CIA and ..."

Indignation is Disinformation. For all we know, you might be. They like it here too ...

The point about saying that they conceded in private was that they did were wary of saying anything in openly because they feared retribution. The ‘CIA document’ has still not been produced, only quoted from, and even its prediction that Chavez would win with a significant majority was proved incorrect.

How can Chavez supporters accuse the CIA of being so subtle that it covertly fund the opposition, yet at the same time believe that it can produce such an incriminating document (conveniently predicting a Chavez win and identifying most of his key opponents as CIA stooges) and then allow it to fall into the hands of ‘Venezuelan counter-intelligence’ just before the election? I am not denying that the behaviour of the CIA in Latin America has been appalling. What I am saying is that the ‘CIA document’ represented a misjudged attempt by Chavez confidants to mislead the public which clearly did not work and may have had the opposite effect.

To argue that the State was not being used to assist the ‘Yes’ campaign is to ignore what was happening. Even the National Electoral Commission (CNE) complained as it noted that state television channels in Caracas devoted 51 hours to the ‘yes’ campaign and just 38 minutes to the ‘no’ campaign. I watched the police intimidate the ‘no’ supporters – I even photographed a plainclothes police unit monitoring a group of student activists - and I lost count of the number of heavily-armed different police and military units that were hovering around the 'no' supporters before the rally.

I would also find it disturbing that foreign countries were trying to undermine democracy in Venezuela.

However, you are right to say that Chavez (correctly, I believe) argued against the suggestion that all 69 reforms should be voted on separately but he (correctly) accepted that that there were too many issues. And on this point we seem to agree. What Chavez did was to suggest that it be split in two, but his division clouded the issues – if he wanted two votes one should have been about the (mostly commendable) social reforms and the other on his quest for power. Sadly, I believe, he would have won the first, easily, and lost the second, badly.

The 2nd last poster, Gehrig the Plant, makes up for his intellectual failings by attacking people, all of IMC, and a seething hatred.

The fact that Chavez put this to a public vote contradicts everything the Troll(s) says about the man. Venezuela, in doing this, proves itself more democratic than most countries claiming to be 'democracies'.

I don't necessarily support unending terms, although I understand the motivation for it, as the current CIA-sponsored program proves that when he leaves power, a vacuum could be created, that the CIA and their past allies in the exploitation of Venezuela are all-too-willing to try and occupy with another Puppet.

The point is that Chavez is not an utter ^%*&, but he's concerned that if someone with Venezuela's best interests at heart does not follow him, outside forces are all-too ready to undo everything his Government has achieved.

"At least do some research on dictatorships before you ..."

Chavez is not a dictator. But, as the past six years alone prove, a Capitalist state claiming itself "democratic" is NOT an ideal system, and we should be open to new forms of organizing.

"I suppose you are now going to spam the newswire with every crackpot who alleges the vote went against Chavez because of the CIA rigging it."

No, although they had a hand (by all means not the only one) in disseminating the fearmongering Misinformation and Disinformation which probably helped to tilt the vote. I suspect, however, that it has more to do with the sheer volume of reforms that were being voted on.

I think in the future, they should all be proposed and voted on individually, instead of as a complete package. Perhaps the Government could also consult the public, to see what they objected to specifically, and create some protections from outside meddlers like the CIA which would not only be effective, but be more acceptable to the public.

The Social Justice Movement throughout Europe and S. America could learn a great deal by closely examining what's occured throughout S. America in recent years, and how successful it's been.

Of course, that's the biggest reasons agencies like the CIA are trying to overthrow Chavez (again) and similar leaders, who threaten to expose through their own systems a better way of organizing than hyper-corporate Fascism/Communism, and the gulf between what Western states claim to be, and actually are.

so given that Chavez lost the referendum, and has taken it quite well (and admitted his mistakes) - what next?