No. 765
El veinte de agosto es la cosa. Fecha referencial
que sirve de pivote para la ejecución de la "estocada final". El dia
"D" que arrancará de raíz al chavismo, la izquierda, la vanguardia
y a todo aquello que hable de Bolívar o se parezca a la revolución.
El veinte es la fecha mágica para salvar a Venezuela y rendirle
cuenta a EE.UU. Día de la ejecución del renovado golpe para
aniquilar a todos los involucrados con el Proceso. La lista de sus ejecuciones
mortales no bajan de 250.000 venezolanos. Pero, se preguntan, que es esa
cifra para 25 millones. Su mente vil y ambiciosa, sedienta de retomar el
poder, no se detiene ante esas menudencias. Se llevan a toda una generación
de seres humanos, desatan una guerra incontrolada, engendran los odios de
la violencia eterna, pero su objetivo de acabar con Chávez está
por encima de la vida de los demás. Su obsesión comunista es
más grande que la evolución histórica de las ideas y
de los modelos políticos que se autodeterminan los pueblos.
El veinte de agosto se pondrán en marcha todos los planes del
exterminio ideológico. "Ahora sí van a tumbar al comandante.
Hay armas, corre el dinero, pueden controlar de nuevo a PDVSA y hasta gorras
activas están en el complotS" Estas son expresiones que en estos
días se les escucha decir a los modestos empleados de las exquisitas
oficinas y centros de conspiración pro-fascistas, cuando aterrados
llegan a sus casas y lo comentan entre sus allegados. Fuente de información
complementaria que ha puesto en alerta a los incondicionales revolucionarios
y a la inteligencia leal al Presidente.
Este sector reaccionario como parte de la oposición escuálida,
no termina de comprender el fenómeno social que ocurre en la sociedad
venezolana. Es el pueblo mayoritario, ese que busca su emancipación,
el que quiere a Chávez. Es la masa, de por lo menos el 60%, que no
va a permitir su caída. Además las estructuras revolucionarias
organizadas que han asumido el Proceso como algo suyo y propio van a dar
la pelea. El pueblo no se dejará arrebatar lo que han comenzado a
construir para su prosperidad futura. Su nuevo estadio de conciencia le permite
canalizar la fluidez del arrojo para confrontar a los usurpadores. Más
ahora cuando se tiene la muestra verificable a diario, que las convicciones
son más poderosas que las armas de exterminio. Los palestinos con
sus piedras encabezan el símbolo de la lucha por la liberación
de los pueblos. La resistencia iraquí le habla al mundo cada mañana,
cuando los titulares de la prensa dan el parte de la aparición de
otro soldado norteamericano muerto. En Chechenia no hay tregua cuando lo
que está en disputa es su autodeterminación.
El mundo además de girar también cambia. Y ya hoy no está
vigente el cuento del lobo comunista. La manipulación propagandística
que incide en la clase media y en quienes nunca se han involucrado en la
lucha política, son presa fácil de las mentes deformadas. La
tarea del engaño con verdades falsas tiene su efecto en los neófitos,
ingenuos e ilusos que desconocen la realidad del mundo de hoy. Por fortuna,
la manipulación es rechazada en la gran mayoría del colectivo
nacional.
Los niveles de conciencia existentes, mucho más avanzados que
los del año pasado cuando ocurrió el 11-A, hace del pueblo
revolucionario de la Venezuela identificada con lo que representa Hugo Chávez,
un colectivo invulnerable a ofensivas represivas y golpistas. Ese pueblo
está presto a batirse en cualquier terreno. Y si es el golpe lo que
viene --bastante improbable ya que se le tiene identificado-- entonces que
se termine de definir de una vez. Que acabe la incertidumbre y las potenciales
amenazas del zarpazo anticonstitucional. Que se desvíe de una vez
la marcha de los escuálidos a Miraflores. Que se concrete la toma
de las calles, como es su llamado. Que hagan lo que ellos creen que deben
hacer para empezar el combate de frente. Declárese abiertamente la
irreconciliación ideológica. Lánzese públicamente
lo que para ellos significa el decreto de guerra a muerte y definamos quien
puede más. Despojémonos de temores por las consecuencias de
la locura de la confrontación y, con toda la serenidad que demanda
la toma de decisiones fríamente calculada, asumamos la realidad.
http://www.rebelion.org/venezuela/030805izarra.htm
*******************************************************************
|
Ultra-derechista Otto Reich afirma que
Chávez "ordenó masacrar un manifestación de 1 millon
500 mil personas que se dirigia a Miraflores"
Por: F. Rodríguez
Publicado el Miércoles, 06/08/03 01:18am |
|
||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author
The American political establishment has responded with a mixture of silence, unease and outright hostility to the first suggestion by a prominent Washington insider that President George W. Bush could be impeached for his actions in taking the United States into a war with Iraq on the basis of lies.
Senator Bob Graham of Florida, former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, first raised the issue publicly July 17 at a campaign forum in New Hampshire. In response to a question, he said Bush’s claim in his State of the Union speech that Iraq had sought uranium in Africa was clearly a lie, and given the example set by the House Republicans in the impeachment of Clinton, a lie was an impeachable offense.
Bush’s lie was on a far more serious subject than Clinton’s, he said, since it concerned reasons for going to war, not personal sexual conduct. “This is a case in which someone has committed actions that took America to war, put American men and women’s lives at risk, and they continue to be at risk,” Graham declared. “If the standard that was set by the House of Representatives relative to Bill Clinton is the new standard for impeachment, then this clearly comes within that standard.”
He repeated his comments during the week that followed and was questioned about it on national television interview programs on Sunday, July 27.
Graham repeated essentially the same statements on both Fox News and NBC’s Meet the Press. On Fox his interviewer was Brit Hume, a fervent right-winger and Bush supporter who did not attempt to disguise his hostility. Hume repeatedly interrupted the senator as though he could not believe that Graham was actually raising the issue of impeachment, and attempted to argue against it. The following exchange took place:
Hume: Now, are you saying that this president knowingly misled the American people about the reasons for going to war?
Graham: Yes, I ...
Hume: Intentionally?
Graham: This—well, he did it knowingly. Certainly this president ...
Hume: When did he do that?
Graham: He did it, for one instance, in the State of the Union address, when he made a statement that he must have known—or certainly should have known, since it was a statement based on an investigation requested by his vice president ...
Hume: I understand that.
Graham: ... to find out whether the Niger issue was correct or not. And then second, I think he also withheld information....
Hume: Are you saying that because he did not lay out with foresight—clairvoyance, even—what would happen after victory, that that’s an impeachable offense?
Graham: It didn’t take clairvoyance to understand what the consequences of military victory in Iraq was going to be. The president...
Hume: Are you saying that’s impeachable?
Graham: No. I am saying—I asked the question, here are the standards that were used to impeach Bill Clinton, here are just some of the actions of this president. Let the American people decide if the US House of Representatives has set the proper standard for impeachment...
Later, another Fox panelist, National Public Radio correspondent Mara Liasson, asked Graham directly, referring to Bush, “whether his deceptions rise to the same standard that the House of Representatives set in the Clinton case.”
Graham responded, “Clearly, if the standard is now what the House of Representatives did in the impeachment of Bill Clinton, the actions of this president are much more serious in terms of dereliction of duty for the president of the United States.” He said the issue was academic, however, because “Tom DeLay and the other leadership of the House of Representatives are not going to impeach George W. Bush.”
Meet the Press host Tim Russert disposed of the question more briefly, asking Graham about his initial statement on impeachment as though it were a gaffe on the campaign trail that he might want to retract. Russert, it should be noted, was among the most avid media promoters of the Clinton-Lewinsky sex scandal and apologists for the official witch-hunt conducted by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr.
Graham denied that it was a mistake for him to raise the possibility of impeachment, but reiterated that no action was to be expected: “The current leadership of the House of Representatives, regardless of what standard they set for Bill Clinton, are not going to apply the same standard to George W. Bush. The good news is that, in November of 2004, the American people will have an opportunity to both impeach and remove.”
Graham is by no means an incidental figure, in either official Washington or the Democratic Party. He is the half-brother of the late Philip Graham, whose wife Katharine was the long-time publisher of the Washington Post, and the uncle of the current publisher, Donald Graham. A “centrist” in the parlance of the American media—i.e., a staunch conservative, but not a Christian fundamentalist or ultra-rightist—Bob Graham was under active consideration to be the Democratic vice-presidential candidate in 1992 and in 2000, although passed over both times.
As chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2001 and 2002, Graham is in possession of far more information that has yet been made public about the September 11 terrorist attacks, the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq. He has repeatedly hinted that the full truth about the “war on terrorism,” were it to come out, would be damning to the Bush administration.
In an extremely convoluted and cautious way, the senator from Florida has raised explosive political issues: the legitimacy of the 1998 impeachment of Clinton, and of the American invasion and conquest of Iraq.
If one translates from his bland phrases about the “standard” set by the House of Representatives in impeaching Clinton, the implications are unmistakable: In 1998, the Republican House impeached Clinton on trumped-up charges of lying about his personal relations with Monica Lewinsky, seeking to overturn the results of two presidential elections on the flimsiest of pretexts. Now, the Republican administration of George W. Bush has taken the United States into war on the basis of lies—a crime infinitely more serious than Clinton’s private misdemeanors.
In other words, the Republican Party, under the control of an extreme right-wing clique, is engaged in what can only be described as criminal behavior—the attempted overthrow of a democratically elected government in America, followed by the invasion and conquest of Iraq. This is well understood throughout the US political establishment, although the mass media deliberately conceals this reality from the American people.
The consensus in official Washington is that such issues must not be raised, because they call into question not only the conduct of the Bush administration, but the legitimacy of the entire US political and media establishment, which is complicit in the extreme-right takeover of the federal government. Hence the vitriolic response by Hume and Russert, both of whom suggested—more by tone of voice than by language—that even to mention the word impeachment in the same sentence with Bush was proof of political derangement.
The Democratic Party leadership shares this view, as evidenced by the hostility with which Graham’s comments were received, not only by his fellow presidential candidates, but by leading congressional Democrats. Only hours after Graham’s televised comments, Democratic Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois, speaking on the CNN interview program Late Edition, flatly rejected any discussion of impeachment, claiming “the evidence doesn’t support” Graham’s comments.
“There is absolutely no evidence that the president knowingly misled the American people,” Durbin said. “I’ve never made that charge, nor have I heard it from any credible source.” The most that could be said about the war in Iraq is that those around Bush “misled him and misled the American people indirectly.”
Graham, for his own reasons, has touched a nerve in the body politic. The hostile political and media reaction to his comments on impeachment demonstrates both the fragility of the Bush administration—whose public support is largely illusory—and growing nervousness in the Washington establishment over the mounting social, political and military crisis which this government confronts.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/aug2003/imp-a06.shtml
