Here's what I would have said to Hugo Chavez, had I seen him at the last

[Catherina]

40. We're naive? Too funny. Please try harder.

Are you so used to Free Republic-type fellows who swallow any swill the corporate media throws out that you think it will work here? We already know what the NYT thinks of Chavez and how complicitly delighted they were with the 2002 coup against Chavez.

We already know how they not only cheered for the Iraq war but how they deliberately fed the Bush Administrations lies to the public.

Try again please.

Another *gem* from the NYT's

Jun 01 2002
U.S. Papers Hail Venezuelan Coup as Pro-Democracy Move

When elements of the Venezuelan military forced President Hugo Chávez from office in April, the editorial boards of several major U.S. newspapers, following the U.S. government's lead, greeted the news with enthusiasm.

In an April 13 editorial, the New York Times triumphantly declared that Chávez's "resignation" meant that "Venezuelan democracy is no longer threatened by a would-be dictator." Conspicuously avoiding the word "coup," the Times explained that Chávez "stepped down after the military intervened and handed power to a respected business leader."

Calling Chávez "a ruinous demagogue," the Times offered numerous criticisms of his policies and urged speedy new elections, saying "Venezuela urgently needs a leader with a strong democratic mandate." A casual reader might easily have missed the Times' brief acknowledgement that Chávez did actually have a democratic mandate, having been "elected president in 1998."

The paper's one nod to the fact that military takeovers are not generally regarded as democratic was to note hopefully that with "continued civic participation," perhaps "further military involvement" in Venezuelan politics could be kept "to a minimum."
Three days later, Chávez had returned to power, and the Times ran a second editorial (4/16/02) half-apologizing for having gotten carried away:

"In his three years in office, Mr. Chávez has been such a divisive and demagogic leader that his forced departure last week drew applause at home and in Washington. That reaction, which we shared, overlooked the undemocratic manner in which he was removed. Forcibly unseating a democratically elected leader, no matter how badly he has performed, is never something to cheer."

The Times stood its ground, however, on the value of a timely military coup for teaching a president a lesson, saying, "We hope Mr. Chávez will act as a more responsible and moderate leader now that he seems to realize the anger he stirred."

...

http://fair.org/extra-online-articles/u-s-papers-hail-venezuelan-coup-as-pro-democracy-move/