Venezuela again says it will reject Obama's ambassador

[rabs]

Briefly:

Obama nominated Larry Palmer to be ambassador in Caracas this past summer.

Palmer answers questions about Venezuela by Sen. Lugar (R) in which Palmer said morale was low in the Venezuelan armed forces, that (false) Colombian (uribito) reports of FARC bases in Venezuela should be investigated.

Letter leaked, became known in Caracas. Reaction was swift, Hugo Chavez said he would not accept Palmer as ambassador.

Senate got around to approving the nomination several days ago.

Foreign Ministry communique today says Palmer was "gross" in his remarks about Venezuela and that he is "not worthy" of the post.

The communique says that for the Venezuelan government, the insistence on Palmer "constitutes a new provocation" and "a manifestation of the hypocrisy" on the part of Washington ... in particular to its relations with the Latin American and Caribbean peoples."

--------------------

Am puzzled by Obama's (Hillary's) insistence on Palmer, when they already knew he would be persona non grata in Caracas. Somehow this will almost certainly be turned into another attack on Hugo Chavez and the vast majority of people in the United States will not know WHY this came about.

[EFerrari]

1. Washington demands subservience.

The US projects its power to the rest of the world by showing how it dominates Latin America. It's ugly.

[Judi Lynn]

2. This is an overt act of hostility. The man misspoke. He's not acting as a true diplomat.

He's following in the pattern _Bush created of Enforcer of the Empire's Will. Provocateur. Thug. #### him.

I'm hoping the next step will be condemnation from other Latin American countries. This is an insult to them as well, considering the US hostility toward Hugo Chavez is only slightly more overt than it is toward the other leftist democratically elected Presidents.

They should have immediately withdrawn him if they expected to be seen as representatives of an honorable government. The trend has been since _Bush to thumb their noses at the rest of the world, as if to say "who's going to stop us if we run over everyone? We've got all the power."

[Judi Lynn]

3. Doesn't dipshit Palmer know there are FARC bases in Panama, Peru, Brazil, Ecuador, as well?

~snip~
At the end of Alvaro Uribe's last presidential term, Colombia's judiciary was investigating allegations that the president ordered the wiretapping of members of the judiciary and the opposition, as well as investigating the alleged corruption of one of Uribe's own sons. Caught in these cases, which are ongoing and not new, Uribe succeeded in diverting the attention of Colombia towards Venezuelan President Chavez with his accusations, which are also ongoing and nothing new.

Uribe is making believe that the International Criminal Court, the OAS, and the U.N. are going to hang Chavez for supporting terrorists. But Colombia is not a Jewish community, nor is Venezuela a Palestinian community, nor is Latin America the Middle East. The unequivocal international rejection of Operation Phoenix, Colombia's 2008 raid on a FARC camp in Ecuadorean territory, demonstrated the international recognition of the right of each Latin American country to sovereignty over their territory.

The question is, who is responsible for taking care of the Colombian border and fighting the FARC - Chavez? Venezuela is not unique. It is estimated that there are more than 100 FARC camps scattered throughout Brazil, 62 in Ecuador, 40 in Peru, and around 20 in Panama, according to information from different government sources. Even in those countries that say they attack FARC, such as Panama and Peru, the FARC maintains a presence. Are these countries also harboring terrorism?

In all of those cases, Colombia is unable to stop FARC guerrillas crossing into its neighbors' territory, and consequently it does not really have control of its own borders. This situation is Colombia's fault, not that of its neighbors. No bordering country has Colombia's capacity to fight the FARC. That Colombia can't control its borders doesn't make its neighboring countries terrorist collaborators. None of these countries can show that it fought and removed the FARC from their territory, and Chavez can't be the only one forced to take responsibility for what no country has been able to accomplish, even Colombia.

More:
http://colombiareports.com/opinion/153-jose-maria-rodriguez-gonzalez/11227-chavez-is-right-uribe-is-not.html

Recommendation #3.

[social_critic]

6. The guy was designated ambassador to Venezuela, not the countries you list

It's very simple, the Senate questions ambassadors about the country to which they are designated.

[Zorro]

15. I'm certain Palmer knows a lot more about the region than most dipshit pedants

From all the praising of Wikileaks revelations, why aren't the unvarnished public responses from a member of the diplomatic corps likewise celebrated?

[dipsydoodle]

4. #4

:hi:

[bemildred]

5. Yeah, I'm wondering how the rest of the script reads here.

One does not usually see one country attempt to force an ambassador on another, for obvious reasons(*). Of course, whomever is behind this could just be nuts, that's not at all unrealistic.

(*)
A. You can't, as in it is not in your power, so
B. It makes you look stupid and belligerent, and
C. It annoys the other party, which is not "diplomatic", hence
D. The proposed "diplomat" could not possible be effective.

[Peace Patriot]

8. Yep, the U.S. wants an incident. Why is the question.

It's interesting that Miami Pukes didn't wait for their Diebold Puke Congress to convene, but have already held a meeting with Latin American Pukes and coupsters and the likes of Roger Noriega. Not since the 'Iraqi National Congress' has there been a more scurrilous assemblage of rats. They basically called for the U.S. to invade Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia.

This may sound insane but so did invading Iraq, back in 2002.

I SUSPECT (never can be sure) that Panetta believes that he can "turn" Venezuela by 2012 (next presidential election in Venezuela). I think it was Evo Golinger who uncovered the figure of one billion dollars for the combined Pentagon/State Dept. propaganda budget for Latin America. That's the known amount of 'disappeared' money in Iraq. In all justice, instead of propagandizing Latin America, this billion should go for schools and hospitals in the country that the U.S. recently smashed to bits killing an estimated one million of its citizens but justice ain't in it, ever.

Panetta got himself a Puke minority in the Venezuelan National Assembly by convincing the Venezuelan Pukes to pretend that they believe in democracy and run for office. Some Venezuelan voters were apparently impressed with the novelty of this and gave their Pukes enough seats to be nasty and obstructive. I don't think that this is what Venezuelans really want, but USAID money buys a lot of cover. Panetta has thus gained an "enemy within" with some power. Their sole purpose will be to oust Chavez in 2012. This won't be easy, since Chavez remains very popular, but they will not be alone. They are just one prong of an overall strategy to defeat Chavez in particular and the Left in general throughout the region. Part of this strategy is to pick off Chavez allies, one by one. They got Honduras (by coup). They failed in Ecuador. Nicaragua is probably next on their list.

The U.S. supported coup in Honduras and the U.S./Colombia military agreement got the region really riled up. These things enhanced Leftist unity. Both were of Bushwhack design. I think Panetta's got other ideas--a more sophisticated, subtler approach that lulls the countries of the region into more self-centered concerns, more amenable to "divide and conquer" tactics--to reduce the alarm that fosters unity. The long term goal is to prevent Latin America from pulling together into an EU-type structure and common market, that excludes the U.S. Bushwhack bullying was helping that movement. Short term, oust as many Leftist leaders as possible using less obvious tactics. Long term, head off the formalization of defensive structures that could make U.S. reconquest of the region impossible.

Which brings me to the other possibility. We saw a lot of Clinton prep for the Bushwhacks to invade Iraq. The "sanctions" (embargo). Wreckage of civil society. The no-fly zone (decimation of Iraqi air force). By the time the Pentagon invaded, Iraq was a pushover. The designers of Oil War II: South America may have something similar in mind--prep for a war that won't be initiated until Venezuela is on its knees, and likely not until ES&S/Diebold puts the Puke in the White House here, in 2012.

I'm talking about PLANS here, not reality. Given the success of our multinational corporate/war profiteer rulers' plans thus far, we need to be prepared for the implementation of plans that may sound positively nuts, like the invasion of Iraq. They have the power to use the U.S. government and military any way they want. They haven't shown the ability, however, to make their plans work out. That takes good government. Can't be done with force. This is why Iraq fell apart. The Bushwhacks have no notion of good government. They are like the Nazis. They inspire undying resistance and undying patriotism.

So, are Panetta and Obama/Clinton doing the prep for another Bushwhack war plan, or is their approach truly different (to use "democracy" for the reconquest)? Maybe it doesn't much matter. Whether they THINK they are doing something different, or not, their efforts to subvert and sabotage target countries can weaken the countries and make them easier prey for future Bushwhack horrors. (From what I can see, the rightwing in Venezuela is traitorous--as well as being downright thieving corrupt. There is no leader among them who would not sell his/her country out in a cold minute. So, if a well-disguised, well-groomed rightwinger could be elected president in Venezuela, Venezuela would be extremely vulnerable to U.S. corporate/war profiteer domination once again. And that would also be a huge blow to Venezuela's allies and to the unity movement.)

I thought it was pretty interesting that, once Panetta got Uribe out in Colombia (with his various deals there--among them, covering Junior's war crimes tracks in Colombia), the new U.S. tool, Manuel Santos (Uribe's former Defense Minister) immediately formed a peace pact with Venezuela and reopened the border. Uribe, to his last moment in office, was trying to start a war. That went away quickly. And now this porous, unstable border--which thus far has seen about a quarter of a million Colombian refugees fleeing into Venezuela, mostly from the Colombian military and its death squads--is once again wide open to infiltration by spies, thugs, assassins, dirty tricksters, the big protected drug lords, rightwing death squads and other kinds of CIA assets. Uribe couldn't support any of his charges that Venezuela was "harboring" FARC guerrillas. They were obviously fabricated (amidst great treachery that I believe Donald Rumsfeld had a hand in, by the way). With the border open, a more genuine-looking FARC/Chavez government connection could be manufactured for a future war scenario--and meanwhile, all sorts of destabilization efforts can go forward.

Some think that Santos acted independently of the U.S. in his peace pact with Chavez. I suspect not. The U.S. has a $7 BILLION military investment in Colombia (at least--that's just the money we give to the Colombian military; doesn't count U.S. military presence and operations throughout the country, not to mention secret budget operations). The U.S. does NOT award such largesse without imposing controls on policy, especially foreign policy. But whether the peace pact is a genuine change in U.S. policy or devious prep for war, I can't tell. And if I were Panetta, and I were setting up a war, that is exactly where I would want public opinion to be--unable to tell.

The appointment of an offensive U.S. ambassador is a hostile act. The Bushwhacks did shit like this, so it is not a good omen. It is intended to make Chavez look bad, on top of a decade-long, intense campaign to make Chavez look bad in every way possible, conducted by both the Rice and Clinton State Departments and the corpo-fascist press (driven by CIA/USAID "talking points"). Chavez is put in the position of having to refuse this U.S. ambassador's credentials. Is this just one more anti-Chavez headline, or is it something worse?

The Wikileaks cables suggest that the U.S. embassy has been unable to penetrate Venezuela's intelligence and other security forces. So, in that sense, it may be useless to the U.S. to have an active ambassador in Caracas. Also, the U.S. embassy may be too visibly a known source of sabotage. If a serious destabilization effort is planned (especially with infiltration from Colombia now more possible), it may be just as well not to have a U.S. ambassador in residence. They may want to downplay connections between the U.S. embassy and rightwing political operatives (so evident in the past), in order to put up a well-disguised rightwing candidate for president. And they may have a sufficient fascist underground in place not to need direct assistance from the U.S. embassy. The U.S. embassy will be left without a "head"--all the better to confuse and misdirect where sabotage is coming from.

Well, that's all I can make of this--a lot of guesses and surmises--and no clear picture of what is in store either for us or for Venezuela. As to educated guesses, I most favor the "one/two punch" of Democratic Party prep for war and Bushwhack implementation. I think we are in real danger of being dragged into another oil war, in the second decade of the 21st century, this time in our own hemisphere. And there is nothing we can about it--or even start doing about it--until we get rid of the 'TRADE SECRET' voting machines.

[rabs]

20. Does Washington Want Normal Diplomatic Relations With Venezuela?

This is a Weisbrot article from last August. I had not seen it until now but despite the date, it could have been written now, considering the latest events re Palmer.


------------ snips ---------------

Washington is a city of diplomatic intrigue, and there is an interesting “whodunit” aspect to the diplomatic row. Was this leak simply the work of Lugar's office, or was it done in collaboration with officials in the State Department who wanted to torpedo the nomination?

Whatever insider game is going on, the sabotage of this appointment is yet another clear indication that Washington is not ready, or willing, even to try to normalise relations with Venezuela. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's gratuitous public insults to Venezuela – widely condemned when Chávez engages in the same behaviour towards the United States – are another indicator that high-level officials here do not want to normalise relations.

What the Obama administration doesn't seem to realise – or perhaps care about – is that this will also alienate most other governments in the region. The administration's strategy is almost always oriented toward the media, and it may succeed in convincing most of the media that any fight with Venezuela must be the fault of Chávez. The Washington Post editorial board wasted no time in hysterically blaming Venezuela for the problem.

But every Latin American diplomat will see – given the offensive character of Palmer's written statements – that Venezuela cannot accept this nomination. Like the Obama administration's efforts to help the coup government in Honduras gain international legitimacy over the past year; its continuation of the Bush administration's trade sanctions against Bolivia; and its expanded military presence at seven military bases in Colombia and now in Costa Rica, this diplomatic fight will sow distrust and further erode what is left of Washington's credibility in the hemisphere.


Full article

http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/5579

[bemildred]

7. Venezuela's Chavez to Reject US Ambassador Nominee

Venezuela's president has vowed to reject the U.S. nominee for ambassador to the South American country.

Hugo Chavez said Saturday in a televised speech Larry Palmer will not be allowed to take up his post because the diplomat has been critical of Caracas.

Palmer upset the Chavez administration when he told a U.S. senator that morale was low in the Venezuelan military. Palmer also expressed concern about Colombian rebels finding refuge in Venezuela.

President Chavez says he has told Foreign Minister Nicolas Maduro to detain Palmer if he tries to enter Venezuela.

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/usa/Chavez-to-Reject-US-Ambassador-Nominee-112149489.html

[rabs]

9. Oh oh, here we go. "Consequences"

Hugo's knees must be knocking

-------------------

US: Chavez's rejection of diplomat to have impact

By IAN JAMES, Associated Press Ian James, Associated Press – 1 hr 22 mins ago

CARACAS, Venezuela – President Hugo Chavez's government formally rejected Washington's nominee for ambassador Monday, and the U.S. State Department said the decision will have consequences on relations with Venezuela.

State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said Venezuela's government presented an American diplomat in Caracas with a note withdrawing its consent for Larry Palmer to be appointed ambassador. Crowley reiterated that the U.S. stands behind its nomination of Palmer, who is awaiting Senate confirmation.

Tensions flared over the issue as Chavez warned on Saturday that if Palmer arrives in Venezuela he would be detained and put on the next flight home. Palmer angered Chavez by suggesting during the Senate confirmation process that morale is low in Venezuela's military and that he is concerned Colombian rebels are finding refuge in Venezuela.

Crowley said Venezuela's rejection of Palmer "has consequences in terms of our relationship with Venezuela."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ snip ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Chavez said Palmer had "disqualified himself" with his remarks. Addressing his foreign minister on Saturday, Chavez that if Palmer were to arrive at Caracas' airport, he should be stopped. "Give Mr. Palmer a coffee from me, and then 'bye-bye.' He cannot, he cannot enter this country," he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101220/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_venezuela_us

[EFerrari]

10. Yeah, maybe they'll have to send a less idiotic ambassador.

I love PJ. He's the Democrats' Ari Fleischer. He's hours of self-satirizing fun. :)

[naaman fletcher]

11. yes, the point..

is that US policy is going to be US policy. You disagree with it 100%, I disagree with it 85%.

But my mother and father always taught me to be gracious hosts, and humble guests.

It is simply rude to do what this guy did, and serves no productive purpose. furthermore, the world is littered with the bodies of people killed over personal snubs. It;'s absurd that this guy was nominated after what he said during the hearings.

[Bacchus39]

13. I'll have to keep disagreeing, what was he supposed to say??

Chavez is a great guy, I really think that rule by decree is a great idea. there is no worry about the FARC being given refuge in Colombia, etcetera.....


again, Palmer was to be the rep of the Obama administration, not a disinterested party completely clueless with regards to recent Venezuelan politics.

no big deal though, I still think its likely that he was nominated with little expectation that he would actually serve there.

[naaman fletcher]

16. He should say..

"while my government has concerns about Venezuelan policy matters I am committed to Venezuelan autonomy and constructive engagement with the chavez Administration". That is simply basic manners. There is no need to be a dick out of the gate.

[Bacchus39]

17. muahh he was at a Senate hearing being questioned about particulars

if I'm not mistaken. I think basically the US senators regardless of party are pretty much on the side of the administration on this issue. he was being questioned by US senators for consideration, not auditioning for Hugo. I think clearly stating the administrations concerns is appropriate. again, Chavez doesn't have to accept him which he won't. I mean read the OP link, he said he was concerned about FARC being given safe haven in Ven and that the Ven military suffered low morale. what's the big deal?

[EFerrari]

18. Actually, yes, he was auditioning for whatever country he hoped to serve in.

That's why they call it "diplomacy".

[rabs]

19. It was a Repug senator (Lugar) who got Palmer to stick his hoof in mouth

When Obama nominated Palmer, Lugar sent the amb a letter with the following (very loaded) questions:

------------------------
Questions for Ambassador-Designate Larry Palmer

Senator Dick Lugar, the Ranking Member of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, submitted twelve questions to Ambassador-Designate Larry Palmer following his confirmation hearing to be U.S. Ambassador to Venezuela.

In his questions, Senator Lugar covers:

human rights and intimidation of citizens in Venezuela based on their political beliefs,
current and future governability after the elections,
a recent Government Accountability Office report stating that the National Guard is deeply involved in the narcotics business,
President Chávez breaking off ties with Colombia,
Venezuelan-Cuban military-to-military interaction,
President Chávez's meddling in the affairs of Colombia,
President Chávez's threat to cut oil supplies to the United States in case of a military attack from Colombia,
Venezuela’s economy and its Central Bank, and
whether the U.S. representation should be downgraded to a level commensurate with the attention and respect granted.

Above from Lugar website

http://lugar.senate.gov/issues/foreign/lac/venezuela/index.html
------------------------

So Palmer answered the letter dissing the Ven. armed forces and toeing the line on the FARC/Ven. claims that originally came from uribito. Suspect it was precisely what Lugar sought. So the question is, did Lugar set Palmer up for a fall. Or is Palmer really that naive ??

[Bacchus39]

22. no, I think Palmer was obliged to answer the questions

he is seeking confirmation from the US Senate and will represent the Obama administration, he does not represent Chavez or need to support Chavez. the Ven ambassador in the US is Chavez's representative.

[EFerrari]

26. Well, it was probably all a ballet hoping to get a reaction from Chavez

that makes him look bad. I don't think Palmer would go up there and top off the top of his head. It's CSPAN Theater. :)

[Bacchus39]

21. nope, he was auditioning for US Senate confirmation, not approval by Hugo

the job of the ambassador is not to defend the administration of the country where he/she serves.

[EFerrari]

23. The job of the ambassador is moot if he offends his host before arriving

at the party.

[Bacchus39]

24. no it isn't, he would never be confirmed if he doesn't answer the Senate's questions

he is not responsible to Chavez, he is responsible to the Obama administration. he needs to back the administrations positions. not cover them up because Hugo might throw a tantrum. his job is the representative of the US administration, not as an adoring fan of Chavez.

your hero Chavez wants to select the ambassador and it doesn't work that way. the US will not have an ambassador in Venezuela. thats the way its going to be.

[EFerrari]

25. LOL

[Bacchus39]

27. LOL@U

s

[social_critic]

28. That's not the way it works in Washington

Ambassadors don't audition for a job with the locals, they do it for the Senate. One can argue the US Senate is full of bandits and thugs, but that's the way it is, ambassadors do have to play up to that crowd. Do you think a US ambassador to an Arab country, say Egypt, can expect to be approved for such a spot unless he makes the suitable claims about supporting Israel? This doesn't go over well in Arab nations, but it's the way it works. Or, read the statements made by the US ambassador to China when he was getting approved, probably called them sonbitches for repressing the Dalai Lama. Most nations understand US diplomacy sucks, and yet they play along. Let's put it this way, find a nation which rejected a US ambassador because he mouthed off in the Senate - hell, the more of a horse's ass he looks, the more they like him.

[Bacchus39]

29. yep, and since Chavez rejects him, it is certain the Senate will approve him overwhelmingly n/t

s

[EFerrari]

30. The point that you people are missing is that our ambassadors

do not even pretend to have diplomacy as a mission any more but the raw imposition of power.

In the case of much of Latin America and of Venezuela in particular, that's laughable.

[Bacchus39]

31. thats because you think diplomacy simply means being nice

or defending the administration of the country where ambassadors serve.

[EFerrari]

32. No, that's the ridiculous reduction you are imagining

and not what I've said at all.

[Bacchus39]

33. tell us what you think it is then. who does an ambassador work for??

the country where he serves or the country which he represents??

[social_critic]

34. Actually, that is not correct

In most cases power is imposed in a subtle fashion. For example, it's evident the empire is using a lot of "subtle" power on the Swedes to get to Assange, capture him and throw him in a dungeon somewhere in the US.

But I wouldn't call it raw in most cases. Raw imposition of power examples are Bay of Pigs, Invasion of Panama, bombing of Yugoslavia, invasion of Iraq. I've noticed you seem to laugh a lot and tend to lack calibration. Criticism lacks power when it's over the top. Sending a goofy ambassador to Venezuela isn't "raw power", it's just goofy.

[rabs]

12. PJ -- "We'll show him."

Was thinking of PJ's "consequences."

Expect PJ will announce that Obama will retaliate by banning CITGO from providing heating oil to poor people in the Northeast.

"Let them freeze, that's show Hugo we mean business."

------------------

Also was thinking that Hugo Chavez has ended forever the days when U.S. ambassadors to Latin America were treated as viceroys.

Speaking of viceroys, nice article in Santiago Times.

----------------------------------

Wikileaks And Latin America: Same Old Imperious U.S. Diplomats

Written by Nikolas Kozloff
Monday, 06 December 2010 05:16
by Nikolas Kozloff, former senior research fellow with the Council on Hemispheric Affairs

As more and more documents become available from Wikileaks, the public has gotten a novel and close up view of U.S. diplomats and their operations abroad. I was particularly interested to review heretofore secret documents dealing with Latin America, a region which has absorbed the attention of Washington officials in recent years. While it’s certainly no secret that the Bush administration, not to mention the later Obama White House, have both sought to isolate the so-called “Pink Tide” of leftist regimes in South America, the Wikileaks documents give us some interesting insight into the mindset of U.S. diplomats as they carry out their day to day work.

Needless to say, the picture that emerges isn’t too flattering.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Snip, Hillary and Cristina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Clinton added that State had a pretty “solid understanding” of Néstor’s style and personality, but Cristina remained a mystery. Specifically, Clinton wanted to know how Cristina managed “her nerves and anxiety.” Somewhat bizarrely, Clinton then asked her subordinates whether Cristina was taking any medications. Again and again, the Secretary of State pressed for details about Cristina’s psychological and emotional profile.

Though certainly intriguing, the Wikileaks cable fails to answer a vital question: why would Clinton seek a psychological evaluation of Cristina in the first place? Perhaps, the United States government simply lacked information about the Argentine president and wanted to know who it was dealing with in South America. Another darker reading however is that the U.S. does not trust Argentina and is seeking to manipulate Cristina or uncover some dirt. A Machiavellian if there ever was one, Clinton is surely capable of playing political hardball and engaging in diplomatic intrigue.

For far too long, the U.S. public has remained ignorant of its government’s overseas efforts to turn back Latin America’s leftist Pink Tide. Though scant thus far, Wikileaks’ release of documents pertaining to Latin America is telling. From Brazil to Argentina, American officials have emerged as an imperious and cynical lot. Hopefully in the days ahead we may learn more about the Bush and Obama administration’s handling not only of Brazil and Argentina but also Venezuela, Bolivia, and Honduras.

Full article:

http://www.santiagotimes.cl/features-/85-editorial-and-opinions/20309-wikileaks-and-latin-america-same-old-imperious-us-diplomats

[EFerrari]

14. I'm collecting PJ's mal pasos like some people collect buttons

or pieces of barbed wire. It's not fair since he's the official Denier. But hearing him call Holbrooke a peacemaker last week was a keeper.