Mark Gabrish Conlan | 29.11.2003 11:37

When Irish TV documentarians Kim Bartley and Donnacha O'Briain went to Venezuela in late 2001 to start a film about the country's populist president, Hugo Chavez, little did they know they'd be at Miraflores, Venezuela's White House, when a plot hatched by army officers, corporate bureaucrats and the private owners of five of the country's six TV stations organized a march aimed at forcing Chavez from power. For two days the coup -- supported, if not sponsored, by the U.S. -- succeeded in setting up a transitional government and holding Chavez under arrest, until a popular uprising supported by Chavez's Presidential Guard led to his restoration. The resulting film, "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised," shows from Friday, December 5 through Thursday, December 11, 5:05 and 9:40 p.m., at Landmark's Ken Cinema, 4061 Adams Avenue, (619) 819-0236.

Chavez' jubilant return to the presidential palace

"The Revolution Will Not Be Televised"

by MARK GABRISH CONLAN

When Irish TV documentarians Kim Bartley and Donnacha O'Briain went to Venezuela in late 2001 to start a film about the country's populist president, Hugo Chavez, what they seemed to have in mind was a movie much like Saul Landau's classic 1960's film about Fidel Castro's Cuba. Their film starts with footage of Chavez touring the Venezuelan countryside, talking directly to ordinary Venezuelans and asking them point-blank what they needed from their government -- strikingly similar to the footage Landau got of Castro driving a Jeep through the Cuban backcountry and having similar conversations with the campesinos.

But whereas Castro took power in a revolution and quickly moved to install a one-party state, abolish private enterprise and suppress political dissent, Chavez became president in a democratic election in 1998 and eliminated the Venezuelan government's traditional restrictions on freedom of speech and the press. This nearly proved his undoing. Venezuela's traditional ruling classes -- the corporate elites, the bureaucracy of the nominally publicly-owned state oil company, and the owners of five of the country's six TV stations -- were no more willing to accept Chavez's presidency and the populist ferment it encouraged than their counterparts in Chile had been to accept the reforms of Salvador Allende in the early 1970's.

Their response was the same as Chile's elites had been -- do their level best to sabotage the economy and turn the masses against their bothersome president, then wait for the strategic moment to launch a coup. Just as the coup that finally overthrew and murdered Allende was triggered by his nationalization of the U.S.-owned Kennecott copper company, the coup attempt against Chavez was triggered by his removal of the management of Venezuela's oil company and his determination to use the revenues of the world's fourth-largest oil producer for the benefit of all its people, not just the privileged few.

Filmmakers Bartley and O'Briain were outside the presidential palace, filming a pro-Chavez demonstration, on Thursday, April 12, 2002, when the coup plotters struck. An anti-Chavez march, promoted on the private TV channels much the same way Clear Channel promoted those pro-Iraq war "Support Our Troops" rallies -- essentially by telling their audiences it was their patriotic duty to attend -- was steered from its announced destination outside the state oil company building to the presidential palace, where it directly confronted the pro-Chavez demonstrators. Anti-Chavez forces mounted a sniper attack on the pro-Chavez crowd, and when some of the Chavistas fired back the military and corporate leaders had the pretext they needed. They threatened to bomb the presidential palace unless Chavez left at once. He did.

Once Chavez had been taken out of the palace and was being held incommunicado on an island off the Venezuelan coast, the media arm of the conspiracy against him really went into overdrive. Journalists at the private TV stations were ordered to depict the situation as normal and not to show any pro-Chavez demonstrators. (One who resigned in protest is featured in the Bartley-O'Briain film.) Carefully edited footage made the April 12 confrontation look like a wanton, unprovoked attack by Chavez supporters on a peaceful anti-Chavez demonstration. In a demonstration of "doublethink" whose sheer audacity would have made even George Orwell blush, a young man claiming to be the attorney general of the new government announced that democracy would be restored to Venezuela by dissolving the National Assembly, the Supreme Court and the National Electoral Board and firing the old attorney general, the head of the central bank and an official described in the film's subtltes as an "ombudsman" (though "people's defender" is the literal translation of his Spanish title).

The film also details the frantic events of the next two days: the murderous rampage of the military through the streets of Venezuela's capital, Caracas (in one intense scene a man who's just had his hand turned into hamburger by army bullets screams out to the camera his continued devotion to socialism and Chavez; in another, a woman says that for the three years of Chavez' presidency there was no repression, "and now -- look!," as soldiers with rifles fire into crowds of Chavistas); the mobs of anti-Chavez demonstrators surrounding the Cuban embassy and cutting off its water and power lines because they thought Chavez's vice-president was hanging out there; the pretentious oath of office sworn by the newly installed president, capitalist Pedro Carmona; the final regrouping of Chavez's presidential guard to retake the palace and get the only media outlet sympathetic to Chavez -- the state TV station, Channel 8 -- back on the air; and the last desperate plea from the presidential guard to the army to release Chavez and let him retake the office to which he'd been elected. It shows the ambiguous response of the U.S. government, with Ari Fleischer, then press secretary to President Bush, blaming the coup on Chavez (while every other member of the Organization of American States was denouncing the coup and calling on the army to set Chavez free and let him resume power) and only fueling the suspicions of pro-Chavez Venezuelans that the whole thing had been planned and directed by the CIA.

When Bartley and O'Briain showed their film on Irish TV it had the bland title, "Chavez -- Inside the Coup," but when they readied it for international theatrical release they knew better. "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" was a popular slogan of the 1960's Left that suggested that real social change would happen under the radar of the media. Now that the media are both vastly more powerful and vastly more privatized than they were then, the slogan has become a statement of the Orwellian power the modern private, corporate media have literally to redefine reality. In the United States and throughout the industrialized world, we see example after example of the power of the modern media to persuade people to vote for a corporate agenda and against their own economic interests. From the election of media tycoon and quasi-fascist Silvio Berlusconi to the leadership of Italy to the defeat of a progressive tax initiative in Alabama last September by the votes of the very poor and working-class people it was designed to help, the power of the corporate media as linchpins of the whole rotten capitalist system has become ever more clear.

"The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" certainly offers a lot of lessons for U.S. Leftists. The American Left seems to take an all-too-enthusiastic joy in trashing all the symbols of U.S. history and tradition it can get its hands on -- an approach that mars such iconic Left texts as Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" and allows the Right to present itself as the great defender of "real" American values. It's fascinating to see that Chavez cited as the inspiration for his movement not some foreign Leftist like Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Mao or Castro, but Venezuela's own greatest national hero, Simon Bolivar -- as if a U.S. Left movement were to call itself the "Washingtonian Revolutionary Party" -- and the marchers seen turning out (and risking their lives) for Chavez carry Venezuelan flags. (To all too many U.S. Leftists "flag-waver" is a term of snotty opprobrium and the mere sight of a U.S. flag on someone's grounds or car leads us to assume the worst about their politics.)

But the most grim message the film has for us is its exposure of the essentially dictatorial nature of the mass media, particularly the private media. While, judging from the film, Venezuela's private media are even more narrowly circumscribed than the U.S. -- imagine a country in which all the media reflected the politics of Clear Channel and Fox News and you have it (the run-up to the coup, as depicted here, included media reports that Chavez was crazy and motivated by a Gay crush on Fidel Castro!) -- this film can only deepen one's suspicion that control of the media gives its owners so much power to shape not only the opinions but the very consciousnesses of most of a nation's people that it's quite possible that democracy and the mass media are simply not compatible.

Certainly Chavez has remained under attack since this film was made. He may have escaped the attempt to overthrow him in a coup, but his power is still being challenged by his corporate and Right-wing political opponents. They've recently launched a recall campaign against him and claim to have the support of 70 percent of Venezuelans to vote him out of office. (Not surprisingly, Chavez's supporters dispute not only that figure but also the accuracy and legitimacy of the polls on which it's based.) The reach of the Venezuelan opposition extends so far that Amnesty International recently cancelled a planned screening of "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" in Vancouver, Canada after a Venezuelan opposition leader named Wolfgang Schalk threatened physical reprisals against Amnesty International's staff in Venezuela if the film were shown under Amnesty's auspices.

Meanwhile, though this story is being ignored by the U.S. media, the British "Observer" has covered the latest movement of Venezuela's indigenous Left to go beyond merely supporting Chavez and instead to organize on their own ( http://www.sdimc.org/en/2003/11/102134.shtml). Poor Venezuelans are organizing "citizens' assemblies," modeled after the autonomous collectives of the Zapatistas in Chiapas, Mexico and the popular movements in Argentina that sprang up after that country's political system collapsed in 2001. Among the projects being sponsored by the citizens' assemblies are giving permanent land titles to long-term squatters on abandoned properties; restoring and maintaining water and electrical power to Venezuela's poor communities; organizing volunteer schools and recycling campaigns; and starting their own community media -- local radio and TV stations -- which were illegal under previous governments. As 49-year-old Caracas social worker and barrio resident Arlene Espinal told the "Observer," "What is new is not so much what the government is doing, but what is happening outside it."

e-mail:: mgconlan@earthlink.net
Homepage:: http://www.chavezthefilm.com

PROPAGANDA 06.12.2003 17:46 This film is pure PRO-CHAVEZ PROPAGANDA. April 11th would not had happend if atleast 1 million venezuelans marched to the Presidential Palce to ask Chavez to resign. They were armed with flags and plastic wistles. Whe the protes started arriving to the Palace , Chavez made a " CADENA" , thats when you use up all TV and Radio signals , so all channels are taken. ( please see the OPOSITION raly and the CADENA at: "La Cadena del 11A del 2002" , in  http://www.urru.org/filmaciones_index.htm ) ) And this is when the shooting starts , so noone can see whats going on , Chavez is in ALL TV and Radio Stations saying everything is OK. this is when the Military get mad and ask Chavez to Resign , at 3am. next morning , the highest ranking Military Oficer says on National TV, " ........... due to the events , we have ask President Chavez to resign, and he has agreed ) These are just 2 little things Bartley and O'Briann DON'T mention on thei PROPAGANDA FILM , and are 2 determitive things of what happend April 11th. April 11th. was a terrible day in Venezuelan history , and Bartley and O'Brian , who never left the P sidential Palace (??) , state that pro-chavez people were fired at by " oposition snipers " , amongst SO MANY OTHER LIES that let them make this PRO-CHAVEZ PROPAGANDA . This Film is beeing financed and promoted by Chavez throug Venezuelan Embasies worldwidw , and thousands of VHS copies are being given out ( is it PROPAGANDA ?) Most of the reviews made on this film are made by people who saw it but have absolutly no idea of the present Venezuelan Crisis and this is very sad , for this is a great OFENSE to the people of Venezuela. Bartley and O'Brian DO have great material , but they used it to make out Chavez as a HERO, it's BIAS and a BIG LIE ! Please do some reaserch on the Crisis before you start blabering about this film. IT IS PROPAGANDA ! Please listen to the people of Venezuela ! Alberto It's all propaganda 07.12.2003 17:18 This is a good film, that needs to be seen. Many people have tried to censor it from ever getting out, why is that? If it's so untrue what do they have to hide? Wasn't it Pinochet who said once you take over a country, kill all of the poets and journalists? Let the Venezuelans speak through elections, not bureaucrats who's slipshod deals have made Latin America the lapdog of the U.S. Does it make the peasant happier? Does it make the wealthy man happier to know that he degrades the peasant with the money he slips into his pocket for being a good puppy? If only the wealthy man knew that the pain of putting his country through that madness is not worth it, for him or anyone else. Che e-mail:: bmilkmore@yahoo.com Homepage:: bmilkmore@yahoo.com I'm Venezuelan ! 07.12.2003 17:35 Hey " Che" , I'm Venezuelan , I live here , I saw people beside me fall o April 11th. Why does this Film make me mad , because it syas pro-chavez people died . Venezuelans died , both pro and ant-chavez ! Its a total misrepresentation of what happend here April 11th. Chavez won elections back in 98 with 80% support , because we all believed in him. He said he was going to " redstribute" wealth , help the poor , health education bla, bla , bla All he has done with the Venezuelan money is Finance himself ( new airplane , fine cloth , travel , travel trave ............) and in Venezuela the poor are poorer and the middle class is disapering. He shot inflation and unimployment to the sky and elevated taxes ! If it would not have been because the Venezuelan Doctors Protested , he was going to put 15% on any health matter ! Talk about neo-liberalism! Now he has 20-30% support .......... isn't that contradictive ? , numbers don't lie. He has used this film to do propaganda , but most of the world has seen the man behind the mask , even the Socialist Parties in Venezuela and Latin America have seen the real Chavez ! A Revolution of Misery , just like Cuba is what he is bringing to Venezuela ! And guess what ???????? WE the Venezuelans don't want this ! We don't want a Cuban style Goverment ! Chavez has tried to make laws in Comunications were if you protest against a Goverment person you can go to Jail And he is trying to get rid of the Police Deprtments to make only one police force under his control ........ The Film , is a JAW DROPPER : YES , it has great material: YES But they take all this to do PROPAGANDA ! LIES ! Chavez has lost legitmacy after the petetion for the RECAL REFERENDUM , tha also prooves one of this Films Lies: All the poor in Venezuela support Chavez . a Country with 70% poverty , and he has 25% support ??? doen't make sense odes it ? Alberto Whats important... 08.12.2003 10:09 Propaganda is (dis)information given with the intent of supporting one particular party, group interest, etc. Propaganda is all around us, and by that we can see that it dosen't necessarily have to be lies. I saw the film and thought it was great. I thought that it gave an excellent example of media distortions and it's effect on our perspectives (i.e. the different camera angles of the shooting, the public statements by U.S./C.I.A. representatives). Yet, i have no comment on the validity of the Chavez administration and their policies, for I- personally- have no backgroud knowlodge of their campaign and it's effects. However, I believe that the film is extremly important in demonstrating the effectiveness that media distortions have in our decision making. And for that it is a great film. See it for that if not for anything else... @ you are right 08.12.2003 18:29 I am so with you. Who has the absolute truth ? I don't want to bore you , but it is relevant. in Venezuela , we so needed a " Chavez " But had you been there April 11th. you would agree with most Venezuelans . Please see at `point 8. La Cadena del 11A , del 2002  http://www.urru.org/filmaciones_index.htm Oposition never thought it was going to be " shot" at. Chavez has looked for rejection from all Venezuelan classes. He insults, ofends, humiliaters everyone , day after day ........ They say his worst enemy is his mouth ............ We did need change Chavez has been worse that before.. you can't imagine. Imagine new rich and dictator ........... = disaster ........... Venezuela is in great danger , and the people alone are fighting for their freedom and democracy ..........gainst Chavez .........believe it or not This Film is only and explotation of reality by ultra-leftist who are having a BALL with Chavesz's populism and demagocia ........... Please listen to the people of Venezuela con?t listen to $$$$$$$$$PAID PROPAGANDA !!!! just like Greg Palast $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Alberto Yeah 09.12.2003 09:23 I understand your statement except for "greg palast". What did he do? @ he............. 09.12.2003 17:18 He is only one of the ultra-leftist , that take advantage , that there is this man , anti-imperialist .. and explodes him. Chavezz dresses Armani , with a Cartier watch and a brand new airbus .... he insist his , anti-imperialist speech .......... to try to proove his castro , ultra-leftist movement , and up come people like Greg and othet anti-imperialist and take advantage of him . or af tis ............ giving a DAM of the harm he is doing to the people of Venezuela .............. thats all ............ Greg , said in our last raly that there were so many " blondes" that a shampoo comercial could be done : LIE ..............most Venezuelans are " mulatos" or tan ........... look at his web page .......... Alberto Evidence 09.12.2003 21:19 "The reach of the Venezuelan opposition extends so far that Amnesty International recently cancelled a planned screening of "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" in Vancouver, Canada after a Venezuelan opposition leader named Wolfgang Schalk threatened physical reprisals against Amnesty International's staff in Venezuela if the film were shown under Amnesty's auspices." If the film were "PROPAGANDA !" and "LIES !", Sr. Schalk could doubless have present his evidence. Having none, he proves the accuracy of the film by resorting to threats of violence against innocent third parties. Bill wow 10.12.2003 08:52 Thanks alberto. WOW, Bill... @ yeah right LOL 10.12.2003 13:36 It is easy to see you know absolutly NOTHING about the Venezuelan Crisis other than what you saw in this Film. First of all Wolfgang Schalk is NOT a Leader of Venezuelan Oposition , I don't even think he is Venezuelan ! LOL And yeah ........ like Amnesty is going to do something or not because someone offers " physical reprisals " LOL .... right ........... WHAT A LIE ! You want "EVIDENCE" on the LIES of this Fil , take a look at: www.petitiononline.com/gusano03 when at the end of the film , just before the Credits , Pedro Carmonas picture comes out ( Holywood style ) , and it says he " .....fled Venezuela and was last seen in Miami ..........." For your information Pedro Carmona requested Political Asylum in Colombia wich granted it and could only materialize it one the Venezuelan Goverment OK'd it. Same with the Military , the Military , who did not follow Chavez orders that day to atack the OPOSITION RALY with tanks and weapons , are activally fighting this REGIME in a Public Plaza IN VENEZUELA ........... LIES , LIES, LIES , LIES ........ take a look at the " La Cadena del 11A, del 2002 " at: www.urru.org/filmaciones_index.htm so you see what Bartlrey and O'Briann left out. Pitty , they had great material and great momentum , too bad they used it to make this chavez PROPAGANDA ! Alberto Slight correction 10.12.2003 22:47 Schalk es un productor, director e ingeniero de televisi?n. He is not a leader of the opposition. He is most frequently described by press in Colombia and Venezuela as working for CANTV. Bill Bill ........... 12.12.2003 20:33 ...........you know what the worst of it is Bill , since you seem to be " bilingual " , or even " Venezuelan " ,............. listen "ALCA" .....we can talk about , pros and cons ....... as poverty , corruption in Venezuela ............all that the Venezuelans want to do , because they love their Country ...... .........we can do all that as soon as we get this .......lonitic, proCuba , Fidel-lover ,wanttostay.- as long as he wants , new-ritch , out of Venezuela ! it's like oil and inigar , Venezuelan , ritch or poor , black or white ...........don't want him ......... then we can discuss all the rest ............ the man is bad for the country ......... Alberto la verdad si sra tramsmitida 12.12.2003 20:55 Actualidad La verdad s? ser? transmitida Graciela Bojman Los aplausos que estallaron sobre la las ?ltimas im?genes de ?Radiograf?a de una gran Mentira?, no fueron las ?nicas manifestaciones que realizaron los asistentes al cine foro de ayer a la ma?ana, a la largo de la proyecci?n. En el transcurso de la misma hubo v?tores y pitas que demostraron el gran involucramiento que el p?blico tuvo con el film que fue proyectado en la Sala Julio Sosa Rodr?guez de la Universidad Metropolitana, en una funci?n que patrocin? El Gusano de Luz para medios y personalidades de la Sociedad Civil. ?Esta en una versi?n acad?mica? nos aclara Thaelman Urgelles , uno de los realizadores, antes de dar inicio a la funci?n. ?En ella se desglosa y analiza el film ?La Revoluci?n no ser? transmitida? y se ponen de manifiesto el sesgo y las faltas a la verdad de las directoras de la pel?cula?. Wolfgang Schalk, el otro realizador nos manifiesta que ?con la base de este material tenemos la intenci?n de producir una versi?n m?s corta del video de una duraci?n de una hora de televisi?n, que pudiera ser enviado a las televisoras internacionales?. Ricardo Mitre, editor de El Gusano de Luz agrega ?y a los grupos de venezolanos en el exterior que reclaman insistentemente un material de este tipo? Inici? el acto el Vicerrector de la UNIMET Carlos Armando Figueredo Planchart que expres? que esa instituci?n, haciendo gala de la amplitud y pluralismo que deben tener las altas casas de estudio, estaba complacido en presentar el producto de un Foro que la misma casa hab?a albergado el 21 de Octubre pasado despertando una gran expectativa. Continu? Ricardo Mitre, que destac? que ?La Revoluci?n no ser? transmitida? era una de las piedras angulares de la pol?tica exterior del r?gimen, basada en mentiras de laboratorio, repetidas hasta la saciedad y apuntaladas por una enorme cantidad de dinero que el r?gimen gasta en promoverlas. A Wolfgang Schalk le correspondi? se?alar la cantidad de eventos en donde particip? el ?documental? y los premios a los que hab?a aspirado y los que hab?a obtenido. La lista luci? impresionante, lo que hizo que Thaelman Urgelles dijera que eso era muy bueno ya que cuando m?s alto se sube m?s fuerte ser? la ca?da que producir? el conocimiento de la verdad. Explic? el esfuerzo que hab?an hecho los cineastas con el apoyo de El Gusano de Luz y un equipo de voluntarios: -?trabajamos con las u?as? fue su expresi?n - en aras del conocimiento de la verdad y enumer? los ataques que la ?intelligenzia? oficialista desat? sobre nuestra publicaci?n acusada, parad?jicamente, de opulenta y millonaria desde los laboratorios oficialistas. Finaliz? destacando a los venezolanos en el exterior, a los que llam? los verdaderos h?roes de esta historia, que se presentan a las proyecciones del "documental" oficialista en el exterior, con papeles impresos en sus computadoras para contrarrestar a una formidable maquinaria de publicidad, al efecto de convocar un esfuerzo com?n para que la verdad s? sea trasmitida. A continuaci?n se inici? la proyecci?n. ?Radiograf?a de una mentira? tiene una estructura simple que se basa en el Cine Foro que ?El Gusano de Luz? convocara en la UNIMET el pasado 21 de Octubre. En el mismo se proyect? La revoluci?n no ser? transmitida? y el film fue analizado por un panel de especialistas integrado por Milagros Betancourt, Raquel Gamus, Manuel Rosendo y Oscar Lucien quienes destacaron las falsedades ideol?gicas del mismo a la vez que Schalk hac?a lo propio, con una perspicacia y paciencia poco frecuentes, con las mentiras t?cnicas y narrativas del mismo. Urgelles moder? el Foro realizando oportunas preguntas y mezclando acertados comentarios. El resultado es explosivo. Aun en su versi?n acad?mica ?Radiograf?a de una mentira? es un film que mantiene en vilo al que conoce los acontecimientos y seguramente despertar? severos interrogantes al que accede, como espectador imparcial y poco informado a su proyecci?n, ya que se trata, en ?ltima instancia, de un discurso sobre la ?tica y la responsabilidad ante graves acontecimientos humanos. Una a una van cayendo las falsedades del ?documental? oficialista que se exponen en las veinte mentiras que se destacan en nuestro portal. S?lo que la imagen las potencia en su justa dimensi?n. Cuando Schalk y Urgelles hacen evidente que el film oficiliasta se ?olvid?? de mostrar al entonces Oficial Inspector de la FAN y su celebre cadena en la cual anunci? que el presidente ?acet?? la renuncia solicitada, un estremecimiento recorre la sala. Igual sucede con las im?genes trucadas de Llaguno o con la manipulaci?n que las irlandesas hacen con los tanques que el r?gimen sac? para reprimir a la marcha opositora y que las directoras presentan como hostilizando el gobierno. Fueron reveladoras, igualmente, las participaciones del p?blico asistente al foro ya que por all? desfilaron varios protagonistas del film oficialista y otros que hacen asombrosas reflexiones, tales como una dirigente vecinal, un soci?logo habitante del Oeste y un asombroso ?gringo?, militante de la contracultura, que pone en duda el car?cter ?socialista? y ?revolucionario? de este r?gimen. Entre aplausos, dec?amos antes, finaliz? la proyecci?n. Hubo un fallido refrigerio, pero ni panelistas ni p?blico se arredraron por ello y volvieron a la sala a fajarse a comentarios. All? hizo una espectacular participaci?n un espectador que hab?a permanecido callado. Nada menos que el General V?zquez Velazco qui?n comenz? diciendo ?siento como ciudadano la necesidad de contar la historia?. Y verdaderamente cont? su ?versi?n? del 11-A. De la boca del General salieron tantas revelaciones que hicieron nacer en los participantes un nuevo proyecto: un documental sobre el 11- A que es, seg?n ellos, de existencia obligatoria. A las 2: PM hubo de terminar el debate. Ni el hambre ni el cansancio fueron la causa. La UNIMET requer?a la sala que hab?a sido ocupada tres horas y media antes. Ni lo precedente hizo que el p?blico que quedaba, se dispersara. En la puerta de la sala continuaron los corrillos. Como sacar copias de ?Radiograf?a de una mentira? y difundirla en el exterior, era el denominador com?n se las conversas. Llam? mil veces a mis compa?eros que no me pararon y siguieron en sus charlas. Resignada, y pensando en las exigencias del cierre de esta edici?n, me fui. Cuando sal? de UNIMET, para hundirme en la an?nima y fatal barah?nda del tr?fico de Caracas no me asalt? la habitual r?faga de malhumor que el mismo produce. A pesar de la cola estaba contenta. Y sab?a porque. Intuyo que esta vez, al fin: la verdad ser? trasmitida. Alberto hay que gobernar para todos ........... 24.01.2004 17:58 Joaqu?n Villalobos de El Salvador, ex-guerrillero marxista de los a?os ochenta. CH?VEZ ENTRE LA DERROTA Y EL MEJOR FINAL PARA VENEZUELA JOAQU?N CILLALOBOS Parte importante de lo que hoy es la oposici?n venezolana apoy? antes a Ch?vez, pero cuando se desencantaron de su gobierno, actuaron con tanta soberbia, que parec?an ser ellos el gobierno y Ch?vez la oposici?n. Consideraban a ?ste una especie de mal sue?o del que saldr?an pronto, y todos los d?as pronosticaban su ca?da. M?s de alguno no entend?a por qu? Estados Unidos no enviaba de inmediato sus tropas, arrestaban al coronel y se lo llevaban, como ocurri? con el general Noriega de Panam?. Los componentes m?s importantes de la estrategia de Ch?vez han sido: Manipulaci?n del poder formal, ajustando justicia y leyes a su conveniencia; uso dosificado de la represi?n, evitando causar muertos, arrestos y cualquier cosa que afecte seriamente su legitimidad; programas sociales para fortalecer un nuevo clientelismo muy popular que defiende al gobierno; agitaci?n y movilizaci?n para dominar la calle; discurso provocador persistente y t?cticas de retardo para complicar sistem?ticamente las acciones legales de la oposici?n. Ch?vez ha aprendido a actuar en el l?mite de la legalidad y de la legitimidad; juega a presentarse como v?ctima, provocando a la oposici?n de palabra y obra, antes apuntando a la soberbia de ?sta y ahora a su paciencia. Los opositores, convencidos de que ten?an la raz?n, no se ocuparon de su propia legitimaci?n pol?tica, pensaron que todo mundo estaba obligado a respaldarles, actuaron m?s como victimarios que como v?ctimas, cuando es lo segundo lo que proporciona ventaja pol?tica. El "reafirmazo" fue como comenzar de nuevo desde cero, pero por fin en la direcci?n correcta. El evidente ?xito en la recolecci?n de firmas constituye la primera gran victoria de la oposici?n. Esto es as?, aunque Ch?vez retarde, provoque, distorsione y manipule. Lo importante ahora ya no es qui?n gana t?cticamente, sino qui?n acumula argumentos, razones y evidencias para empujar un desenlace. Ch?vez necesita que sus opositores se desesperen y radicalicen e igualmente requiere con urgencia una pol?tica beligerante de Estados Unidos contra su gobierno. Por ello inventa atentados, conspiraciones, golpes y mega fraudes. Ch?vez no tiene forma de quitarse a la oposici?n de encima, y en pol?tica no se puede jugar a ser dictador sin reprimir. El comandante Castro les fusila, les encarcela o les manda a Miami; los generales argentinos les desaparec?an; el general Pinochet les mataba o les enviaba a Europa, y los coroneles salvadore?os y guatemaltecos les mataban en masa. El teniente coronel Hugo Ch?vez no puede ni matarles, ni exilarles, ni desaparecerles; as? las cosas, quiz?s les canse por ratos, pero estrat?gicamente no puede salir de sus oponentes. En Am?rica Latina ya no hay condiciones para mantenerse en el poder matando gente, los gobiernos de Argentina y Bolivia cayeron cuando para sostenerse tuvieron que reprimir con muertos, y los ?ltimos tres fusilados en Cuba le salieron bien caros a Castro. Con el "reafirmazo" Ch?vez ha perdido su posici?n de v?ctima, ahora, para sostenerse, tendr? que violar leyes y contradecir verdades evidentes con argumentos absurdos; en s?ntesis, de aqu? en adelante ser? m?s claramente el malo de la pel?cula. Haciendo una comparaci?n con Cuba, era diferente un Fidel Castro denunciando la invasi?n de Bah?a de Cochinos, que verle ahora dar complicadas explicaciones por condenar a prisi?n a pac?ficos periodistas. Por ese camino ha comenzado a marchar Ch?vez al hablar de un fraude de la oposici?n, cuando los ?nicos que pueden hacer fraudes efectivos son los gobiernos. La idea de que la poca beligerancia de EE.UU. contra el gobierno de Venezuela, ya sea por petr?leo o pol?tica, es una ventaja para Ch?vez, es todo lo contrario. Lo m?s importante en Venezuela no es el poder de Bush, sino la estrategia de la oposici?n, porque si la soluci?n resulta del balance interno de fuerzas, ser? definitiva, estable y nada de lo ocurrido habr? sido en vano, incluso el surgimiento del chavismo. En Latinoam?rica ya termin? la ?poca en que EE.UU. apoyaba conspiraciones de derecha contra gobiernos de izquierda o cuando sosten?a dictadores de derecha amenazados por fuerzas de izquierda, y mientras esa injerencia existi?, fue un desastre que s?lo sirvi? para parir y dar fuerza a conflictos o para alargar la vida a gobiernos como el de Cuba. Sin la Contra, sin el bloqueo y sin las minas a los puertos, los nicarag?enses habr?an puesto al Frente Sandinista en la oposici?n en menos tiempo. Hay una distancia enorme entre las circunstancias del fallido golpe de abril de 2002 a Ch?vez, cuando Estados Unidos no hizo nada para rematar a un gobierno moribundo, con lo que hizo contra Arbenz en Guatemala, en 1954; Dominicana en 1965; Allende, en Chile, en 1973; Granada en 1983, o la guerra de 4000 d?as y cientos de miles de muertos que vivimos en Centroam?rica. Ch?vez es un "revolucionario" fuera de ?poca que no conoci? al imperio en sus d?as m?s perversos. El pueblo venezolano, en ambos bandos, ha mostrado una admirable resistencia a la utilizaci?n de la violencia, se gritan, pero no se matan. Contrasta con los hechos recientes en Bolivia, donde los muertos se iban contando por horas. Ch?vez tiene entonces tres problemas: La indiferencia de Estados Unidos, la vocaci?n pac?fica de los venezolanos y la paciencia que ha empezado a mostrar la oposici?n. Sin el peligro del "imperialismo yanqui", sin razones para una guerra de verdad y enfrentando a una oposici?n ahora unida y pac?fica, la "revoluci?n" de Ch?vez resulta tard?a, absurda e in?til, quiz?s le sea geopol?ticamente ?til a Fidel Castro, pero para los pobres de Venezuela es una estafa, ?stos necesitan una izquierda m?s seria e inteligente. La coyuntura de desenlace est? abierta, quiz?s el final ser? en un referendo, quiz?s no, o quiz?s el vicepresidente Rangel sustituya al presidente, pero un chavismo sin Ch?vez abrir?a divisiones en el gobierno y terminar?a igualmente en derrota. El chavismo puede tambi?n fraccionarse m?s debido a que Ch?vez necesitar? ahora pelear sucio y mentir con demasiada frecuencia y todo eso generar? desventaja moral en sus propias filas. Sin embargo, Ch?vez todav?a puede evitar una derrota aceptando ser parte del juego, sin pretender ser el due?o del juego. El mejor final en un conflicto no es alcanzar la victoria total. La guerra de El Salvador no termin? porque derrumbaron el Muro de Berl?n, ni porque Estados Unidos quit? la ayuda al Ej?rcito salvadore?o, termin? porque despu?s de veinte a?os y 80,000 muertos, los que combat?amos en ambos lados nos dimos cuenta de que, aunque el pa?s era peque?o, todos cab?amos en ?l. Venezuela es m?s grande y en la democracia hay espacio de sobra para Ch?vez y sus opositores, porque las exclusiones, del color que sean, son s?lo guerras dormidas Alberto Movie stands up to scrutiny 13.02.2004 06:36 The loudest voices in these comments seem to be from the anti-Chavez group. Having seen the movie, read the links provided by Alberto, read more about Chavez on Wikipedia and the Greg Palast article, I have the following feedback. The movie stands up to scrutiny. There may be some technical problems with the scene timeline, shots and stuff, but in the end the anti-Chavez position is pretty weak. The acts and proclamations made by the interim government are the most telling. It is hard to discount those and it completely discredits the US state department, the Whitehouse and US media on the subject. A good way to tell that Chavez is living up to his statements is by simply looking at his opposition. He seems to anger the right people. Sal e-mail:: admin@electrobotanica.org Homepage:: admin@electrobotanica.org Alberto you sound like a propaganda mouthpiece yourself 14.02.2004 18:11 Hey Alberto, You seem to be the only anti-Chavez person making comments... over and over and over again... sounds like you want to create your own propaganda, since you don't provide any hard facts or statistics to back anything up... you claim that there is only 25% support for Chavez, but I have heard reports that polls that suggest this are also propaganda, which frankly seems more likely to me... I haven't seen the film, but I plan to soon, I live in Vancouver, so would have gone to see it when Amnesty had to cancel it... you scoff and say something along the lines of "like Amnesty would cancel a film because of physical threats....", well what other reason do you think they would cancel it for, considering their stance in political issues and the fact that they probably spent at least some money organizing a screening, why would they just cancel it? Sounds to me like the film is worth seeing if only to show how perspectives can be skewed by the media (regardless of which way they are skewed).... let people decide that for themselves.... encourage people to see the film, but warn them of your reasons for doubting some of its validity and back up those reasons with some facts instead of just your unsubstantiated and rather loud-mouthed opinions... when you denouce the film outright, it makes me rather suspicious of your motivations... Grant grant I wonder... 15.02.2004 18:29 I wonder how many Venezulans (particularly the 80% living in poverty) have internet access? Makes you wonder who exactly is making comments --- certainly not the majority. Furthermore, out of those 80%, how many are literate? Just a thought. Nadia You want FACTS ? 20.03.2004 19:20 You want facts Nadia, what about that more than 3 million people signed for a RECALL REFERENDUM , wich Chavez is cheating his way out ? Why doesn´t he want to go to elections ? , because he´s gonna win ? Did you know that all Public Workers, teachers, doctors , sumbway workers, Busdrivers that sign the RECAL REFERENDUM are beeing throen out of thier jobs ? Do some reaserch Nadia , before giving your opinion. And for ypur information , Venezuelan poor have a very low % of iliterates , they may be poor but they are not stupid 1 , they see Chavez getting richer by the hour, just like Fidel Castro while Poverty get bigger in Venezuela. People are beeing killed by armed militias Chavez has desguised of National Guard just for protesting. Look at the Ineteramerian Human Rigths Courts Reports:  http://www.cidh.org/countryrep/venezuela2003sp/resumen.htm The INTER AMERICAN PRESS ASOCIATION yearle Report on Human Rights in Venezuela:  http://www.sipiapa.com/pulications/report_venezuela2004.cfm  http://www.sipiapa.com/pressreleases/chronologicaldetail.cfm?PressReleaseID=1103 And some pictures of Hugo Chavez´s " National Guard " atacking peacefull unarmed protesters.  http://www.ofoto.com/I.jsp?c=8gm0ob2h.8ixrneh5&x=0&y=-wq745s  http://www.ofoto.com/I.jsp?c=8gm0ob2h.9uar7r55&x=0&y=r7179t  http://www.ofoto.com/I.jsp?c=8gm0ob2h.78bdkcvd&x=0&y=-f7vjza  http://www.ofoto.com/I.jsp?c=8gm0ob2h.6xa59tux&x=0&y=erm2kw  http://www.ofoto.com/I.jsp?c=8gm0ob2h.52hre5ih&x=0&y=cp25a3 Oh and don`t forget to see Venezuelas Supreme Court Reulling that the signitures for the REFERENDUM are enough and valid:  http://www.tsj.gov.ve/decisiones/selec/Marzo/24-150304-X00006.htm What Nadia , you think all these OFFICIAL reports are also lile Amnesty International , who do this for fear of " fisical threats " We are not monkeys in the Jungle down here Nadia , you are giving an opinion about something you don't know about and a " documentary" obviosly POLITICAL PROPAGANDA , you haven´t even seen , get a life man ............. Look at www.oas.org and look at the last reports ao abusive use of Forse by abusive Executive Power Alberto Chavez Cheats his way out 20.03.2004 19:23 The Washington Post Editorial Coup by Technicality Friday, March 5, 2004; Page A22 LATE LAST YEAR 3,448,747 of Venezuela's 24 million citizens turned out in just four days to sign petitions calling for a recall referendum on President Hugo Chavez. This extraordinary civic exercise, monitored by observers from the Organization of American States and the Carter Center, offered a democratic solution to years of political conflict in that important oil-producing nation -- trouble that threatened to push Venezuela into dictatorship or civil war. Now Mr. Chavez, whose crackpot populism and authoritarian methods provoked the crisis, blatantly seeks to stop the vote, in violation of his commitment to both the OAS and his own constitution. His actions have already prompted a new wave of unrest across the country, including demonstrations in which at least seven people have been killed. Unless he can be restrained, Mr. Chavez may complete his destruction of one of Latin America's most enduring democracies. Though the constitution, drawn up under Mr. Chavez's own administration, requires 20 percent of all voters to back a referendum, opposition groups collected 1 million signatures more than should have been needed for the recall vote. These signatures were rigorously audited by a nonpartisan civic group before being forwarded to the electoral commission. Yet, after delaying its response for weeks, the commission, dominated by Mr. Chavez's supporters, rejected 1.6 million of them, or nearly half the total. To do so, it invented requirements that didn't previously exist. Most notably, it threw out 876,000 signatures, each accompanied by a thumbprint, because someone other than the voter had entered registration details on the petition. Mr. Chavez's functionaries subsequently announced that they would give about a million of those stricken from the list a chance to restore their names -- but only if they appear in a limited number of registration centers during one two-day period. In practice, that poses a next-to-impossible logistical challenge to the opposition, even if there were no harassment from Mr. Chavez's police and civilian goon squads. But attempts by the foreign mediators to reverse this Kafkaesque coup have so far been unsuccessful. Mr. Chavez, who has built a strong alliance with Cuba's Fidel Castro and imported thousands of Cuban personnel, appears eager for a domestic and international confrontation. Last weekend he called President Bush an "illegitimate" president, referred to him with a vulgar epithet and threatened to cut off oil supplies to the United States. Opposition leaders say that more than 300 people have been arrested in recent days, and that some have been tortured. Given the Bush administration's weak position in the region, hope for a peaceful or democratic solution rests mostly with Venezuela's Latin American neighbors, starting with Brazil. If Mr. Chavez continues to deny his people a democratic vote, leaders from those nations must be prepared to invoke the Democracy Charter of the OAS and threaten him with the isolation reserved for autocrats. Alberto Do you know a little spanish Nadia ? 20.03.2004 19:35  http://www.oas.org/main/main.asp?sLang=E&sLink=http://www.oas.org/OASpage/eng/latestnews/latestnews.asp That were you can find the lates ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES REPORT on human rights in venezuela , and the answer the OAS gave to Chavez after he acused them of not beeing transparent and beeing beside the oposition. And theres more . Did you know that Venezuelas Embasador to the UN resigned alleging he couln´t be there while he saw Venezuelans Human Rights beeing violated by Hugo Chavez´s Goverment. He has been a " chavista " for the past 5 years .......... what he was threatened by " fisical abuse " ? .. yeah right ! you would have to know a little spanish .......... granted Alberto you wanted facts , here´s Pictures 20.03.2004 19:49 and here are some pictures of Oposition Peacefull Demonstrators , tell me that they are the rich : Wake up and smell the coffee  http://www.urru.org/fotos/0_2004/20040224_Marcha_G15_7.htm  http://www.urru.org/fotos/0_2004/20040224_Marcha_G15_10.htm  http://www.urru.org/fotos/0_2004/20040224_Marcha_G15_13.htm  http://www.gusanodelaluz.com/www/makealbum.asp?id=119&Page=2  http://www.gusanodelaluz.com/www/showalbum.asp ( in this one you can choose ) The reason Hugo chavez wants to blame " Bush" is to hide his true reallity: VENEZUELA WANTS TO VOTE ! Alberto these are OPOSITION PICTURES 20.03.2004 19:56 by the way, all the pictures mentioned in the previous post are OPOSITION pictures, and OPOSITION beeing violentley represed by Hugo Chavez´s militis desguised as " National Guard" Alberto leftist paper: The New York Times 20.03.2004 20:29 New York Times A Bitter Chávez Castigates U.S., Saying It Misjudges Him By CHRISTOPHER MARQUIS Published: March 18, 2004 ARACAS, Venezuela, March 15 — Hugo Chávez, the president of Venezuela, feels grossly misunderstood. Mr. Chávez, who has been fending off a recall referendum, admits he is baffled that so many people — particularly the Bush administration — seem to dislike him so intensely. Nearly a decade after he left prison, where he was sent for plotting a coup, followed by elections in 1998 that brought him to the presidency and a rewriting of the Constitution, he does not grasp why he has not won a democrat's credentials. Advertisement Why, he asks, is the United States, the neighbor and customer that is the cultural touchstone for so many of his people, seeking to drive him from power? He would like to know why the Bush administration is sowing rumors that he is, take your pick: encouraging insurrection in Bolivia, supporting rebels in Colombia, colluding with Fidel Castro and, most distressingly, plotting class warfare and disenfranchising the middle and upper classes of his country. "Unfortunately, there has been no way of talking with this administration," he said in an interview Saturday at the presidential palace. "They don't respect us. I'm tired of trying to carry out the mandate of Christ, turning the other cheek. I've been slapped so many times, my cheeks are purple." Bush administration officials say Mr. Chávez is responsible for his own undoing and they stand by all the charges he accuses them of spreading. They say his hunger for total power and his contempt for Venezuela's ruling class have pushed him to the tipping point. Even though one chamber of the Venezuelan Supreme Court overturned a decision by his government to disqualify more than 800,000 signatures on Monday, Mr. Chávez is pressing his case with another chamber of the court. Richard A. Boucher, the State Department spokesman, said earlier this month, "We think that all those people who signed petitions that their rights need to be respected." With the American-assisted ouster of Haiti's president last month still reverberating in the region, the tensions with Washington have added urgency. The idea that an elected leader, one who challenges the elite by mobilizing a desperately poor, neglected population, could be "kidnapped" by American officials and whisked from his country is an unsettling precedent for Mr. Chávez. In a four-hour interview with The New York Times, arranged at his request, he portrayed himself as a moderate, tolerant leader locked in a political war with his country's elite and above all with the national news media. "They have been employed in media terrorism — inciting hatred, racism, calling on people not to recognize the official government, even calling on people to assassinate the president," he said. If Mr. Chávez's ambitions include totalitarian control, even an infrequent visitor to Venezuela can see that he has fallen short after five years in power. His "Bolivarian revolution" has failed so far to improve stubborn indexes of misery, with unemployment officially at 20 percent and poverty still rising, from 60 to 70 percent, according to statistics by Andrés Bello Catholic University. Petróleos de Venezuela, the national oil company, which is known by the acronym Pdvsa and has long been a cash cow for the elite, was devastated by a strike last year. Although it claims to have restored its production level of nearly three million barrels a day, Mr. Chávez's efforts to redistribute that wealth are scarcely seen. There is an improvised air to the Chávez government, and its roots appear wide but weak. Pdvsa (pronounced peh-deh-VEH-sah), which accounts for 73 percent of the country's export earnings, was taken over last year by Chávez loyalists, who remain baffled by its byzantine processes. "We're still trying to figure out how Pdvsa works," said one Chávez adviser. The government's United Nations ambassador, Milos Alcalay, resigned this month, saying "every day the government is more authoritarian." But Mr. Chávez is clearly beloved by the working class, who tell of small improvements in their daily lives — a paint job for a dilapidated home or free access to roaming clinics staffed by Cuban doctors. Opposition leaders say their efforts have managed to keep Mr. Chávez in check. But the cost has been high. Venezuelan soldiers and policemen killed nine people and tortured others during a week of protests this month by opposition groups supporting the recall, according to the New York-based Human Rights Watch. Mr. Chávez told reporters the torture allegations were made up, and he accuses the opposition of sabotage — work stoppages, destroying the oil-exporting infrastructure and the coup of 2002, when he was ousted by military officers and opposition leaders for 47 hours. "The government of Bush was the first to recognize the coup," he noted ruefully. The opposition, long divided, has found common purpose in an attempt to remove the president through the recall referendum. Mr. Chávez, after some prodding, conceded that a recall vote was all but inevitable. But he said his government would continue to scrutinize every signature. The government's current strategy relies on persuading the Supreme Court chamber responsible for constitutional issues to override the chamber responsible for electoral issues. The recall dispute hinges on a technicality: many on the recall lists did not fill out their own forms, though they provided signatures and thumbprints. That, the president says, is a clear violation of the rules. Mr. Chávez, 48, is the child of schoolteachers and fancies himself a teacher despite his background as a paratrooper. He jumps up from an interview to draw maps and graphs on a blackboard, and thumbs through dog-eared revolutionary texts. He looks and talks like the long-silent majority of lower-class Venezuelans. His most palpable legacy may be that he has taught the poor to demand more. That, said Maximilien Arlevaiz, an aide, is something that the dark-skinned Mr. Chávez will not be forgiven by the whiter-skinned elite. He is self-absorbed but affable, and he interrupts the interview to talk to his 6-year-old daughter on the phone. "Hello, my queen," he said. "How are you, my life? How's the pig? Is she any bigger now? I'm going to send you a thousand kisses." But he brooks little opposition, critics say. "With him, you can't talk," Gabriel García Márquez, the author, told El Universal. "He lives accelerated, and it's not worth it, since he doesn't admit ideas that are different from his own." While he seems genuinely worried about his relations with Washington, he asserts that any effort to remove him by force would be calamitous for the United States. "We aren't going to accept it," he said, warning, "The price of oil will go up to $50 a barrel." "I thought since Bush came from an oil family, and given his political trajectory, that we would understand each other," he said. "I can't believe that a government is willing to put at risk its supply of oil." Alberto for teh record ................ 21.03.2004 18:53  http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0319d.html Kerry Statement on Venezuela March 19, 2004 With the future of the democratic process at a critical juncture in Venezuela, we should work to bring all possible international pressure to bear on President Chavez to allow the referendum to proceed. The Administration should demonstrate its true commitment to democracy in Latin America by showing determined leadership now, while a peaceful resolution can still be achieved. Throughout his time in office, President Chavez has repeatedly undermined democratic institutions by using extra-legal means, including politically motivated incarcerations, to consolidate power. In fact, his close relationship with Fidel Castro has raised serious questions about his commitment to leading a truly democratic government. Moreover, President Chavez’s policies have been detrimental to our interests and those of his neighbors. He has compromised efforts to eradicate drug cultivation by allowing Venezuela to become a haven for narco-terrorists, and sowed instability in the region by supporting anti-government insurgents in Colombia. The referendum has given the people of Venezuela the opportunity to express their views on his presidency through constitutionally legitimate means. The international community cannot allow President Chavez to subvert this process, as he has attempted to do thus far. He must be pressured to comply with the agreements he made with the OAS and the Carter Center to allow the referendum to proceed, respect the exercise of free expression, and release political prisoners. Too often in the past, this Administration has sent mixed signals by supporting undemocratic processes in our own hemisphere -- including in Venezuela, where they acquiesced to a failed coup attempt against President Chavez. Having just allowed the democratically elected leader to be cast aside in Haiti, they should make a strong statement now by leading the effort to preserve the fragile democracy in Venezuela. enrique anti-imperialist 30.03.2004 17:08 Anti-imperialist, should look for there traditional ways of protesting and in respect to the people of Venezuela, and their fight for Democracy,respect for the dead, the injured, not fall into Chavez´s game. Alberto The revolution is no re-run, The revolution is LIVE. 12.04.2004 21:34 The Revolution Will Not Be Televised is a must see not only because of the outcome of the coup but also because it give hope for a society where the people have the power. I keep hearing that this is propaganda, but I don’t seem to understand how that could be possible. Propaganda means misinformation. The Venezuelan elite and oligarchs spewed lies to the people during the coup, that was misinformation and this is documentary is refuting the propaganda that was already unleashed. Amnesty International recently cancelled a planned screening of "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" in the Amnesty Film festival in Vancouver, Canada because their international staff in Venezuela were threatened with violence. Those that do want the documentary to be shown are afraid. They are afraid of the discourse this will create and questions people will have. As the opposition for the documentary is floundering people are watching the revolution unfold in small theatres; and staying behind to discuss what they saw with each other. Students are organising movie nights, and community groups have are having discussions…so spread the word The Revolution Will Not Be Televised because the revolution is LIVE right now. In Solidarity Shamini Shamini " shammi " 22.04.2004 20:42 do some reaserch,PLEASE , before you give this type of opinion. Chavez is beeing acused at la HAGUE International Court for Crimes against HUMANITY. This fil is EDITERD , according to some leftist , chavez VIP guest in venezuela Breathtaking, yes it is , jawbreaking too, but based on LIES, LIES , LIES , so you can´t call it a " documentary " it´s PAID PROGRAMMING............. unless ofcourse, you are anti-imperialist, falling in Chavez´s and Fidels game or you are a Communistor " marxist " like i told Nadia, do reaserch berfore believing in a EDITED FILM.................. enrique The truth will arise 07.09.2004 19:25 He will go out, sooner or later, surprisingly he will get forced to go out by the same people that put him there, the poor ones. Ivan e-mail:: ivan.jaen@gmail.com