ABC Nightline Friday 9/16/05--T. Koppel to interview Venezuela H. Chavez

vladimiro says on Sep 16, 2005, 14:00:

I liked his speech yestruday

"When the presiding diplomat passed him a note saying his time was up, he threw it on the floor, saying that if Mr. Bush could speak for 20 minutes, so could he.

When he finally stopped, he got what observers said was the loudest applause of the summit."



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050916.wchavez0916/BNStory/International/

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Sep 16, 2005, 17:47:

Mr. Chavez is no threat to Colombia, but.... Mr. Bush should be afraid, very afraid, of the power Chavez wields, and of the legal option of impeachment in the USA, where Mr. Bush's numbers are in the 30-something percent. That applause Chavez received represented billions of the earth's population, including people who have been bombed and invaded and blackmailed and threatened by the arrogant Mr. Bush. Walter Williams (Shadow Government Statistics) last year said that U.S. Treasuries were at the junk bond level and this year added that our policies had placed the dollar beyond any possible remedies. In my view President Bush should be removed from office. He is dangerous.

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Sep 16, 2005, 19:38:

Unfortunately, that applause just expressed the almost universal criticism and frustration at the actions of the U.S. and its perceived intentions, as well as the UN's real and perceived uselessness. That's nothing new.

Considering, however, the existence of more than a few irrespectful words and implicitly and explicityl offensive arguments that Chavez used to get his points across (the fact that those were valid points, most of them, notwithstanding) ...I'm not sure that that's a good thing, to see such exaggerated and irrespectful words in his speeches and public declarations getting applauses, just because he points out a few real problems.

I'd boo him for his vocabulary and exaggerated speaking style, and only applaud him for some of the speech's main points, if it were up to me.

Let's see if he backs up his words with actions that are superior to the form of his discourse then...

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Sep 16, 2005, 20:38:

I prefer factual statements delivered by a demagogue to... statements that are vapid lies like this one made by Mr. Bush, which pertains to Colombia.

Mr. Bush stated: "Either hope will spread, or violence will spread-and we must take the side of hope."

As the world's biggest arms exporter, the US has clearly taken the side of violence. On Bush's watch, US arms sales have outpaced the second-largest arms dealer (Russia) two-to-one. More than half of these weapons went to governments known for human rights abuses against civilians, such as Pakistan, Uzbekistan, and Colombia.

SOURCE: Frida Berrigan, "U.S. leads the world in sale of military goods," Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 11 September 2005

Plátano, el bobo simplón
Oxigeno Verde ¡Libertad por Ingrid y los demás!

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

ws244 says on Sep 16, 2005, 20:49:

chavez Hopefully the FARC will liberate Colombia from the capitalists which will save the U.S. 3 billion dollars year. Then the FARC can destroy all the weapons of the imperialists, and Colombians can finally live in peace and harmony...Of course not all the weapons as the Farc will need some to keep control of the cocaine production and their revolutionary dictatorship.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Sep 16, 2005, 20:57:

Riddle me this: What do Chavez, Bush, and Platano have... in common?

From the Ted Koppel interview Chavez said, and George Bush and I agree with Chavez:

"One of the greatest rebels, who I really admire: Christ."

Chavez ended the interview with this statement:

"We love the people of the United States, and our desire is to have a world of brothers in peace. God grant that that be the case."

Plátano says amen to both of the Chavez quotes above.

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

toneloc24 says on Sep 16, 2005, 21:22:

Didn't see the interview. Wasn't wasting my time to wait for it, when it'll probably on the ABC site tomorrow or so.

I will say this about Chavez. He's doing something that the USA would never do. Trying to unite Latin America and the Caribbean and make it less dependent on the USA's money. I applaud that effort. If it works, maybe the bickering between countries will subside, and real business will occur. Latin America and the Caribbean would be a global force, if they could ever work together.

"Don't tase me, bro!!!!"

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Sep 16, 2005, 21:25:

Tone, no need to wait. The transcript is up now at... http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/International/story?id=1134098&page=1

Enjoy! It is a good interview.

Plátano, el bobo simplón
Oxigeno Verde ¡Libertad por Ingrid y los demás!

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

miamimike says on Sep 16, 2005, 21:56:

Platano-I listened to the Interview in its entirety and a few points were of Great interest! One was Chavez's mention of "Operation Balboa" which Chavez claims is Bush's plan for invading Venezuela and ousting him as President.Ted Koppel called him on this and he said he would provide Ted with "actionable non historic type evidence" of this Invasion Plan. Time will tell if he produces it! Would it surprise me? No.I remember a few years back when Chavez was ousted in that Keystone Copish level coup for a day or so-Bush sat by in Silence as a Democratically elected president almost was ousted. Bad Diplomatic Blunder! It was an interesting interview! Not mentioned here in the Newspapers was the fact that Chavez donated Millions to the American Red Cross and is treating in the area of 5000 Katrina Disaster victims. If we mention the bad about him here in the US, by the same token, we have to mention the Good. Far and Balanced, as they say on Fox!

"Wait a minute. What did you just say? You're predicting $4-a-gallon gas? That's interesting. I hadn't heard that." -- Feb. 28, 2008 --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Sep 16, 2005, 22:14:

Chavez always claims to have evidence of the planned U.S. invasion or the supposed "Operation Balboa" (which he sometimes mixes, and sometimes doesn't, with Plan Colombia and Plan Patriota, which he and some of his officials also like to mix up once in a while)...but where's the "where, when and how"?

Perhaps there is some degree of factual evidence behind Chavez's claims, but he's a man that can turn scraps of evidence into mountains of paperwork...for his trademark exaggerated speeches, that is.

Btw, platano...the image of Christ as a somehow socialistic rebel (or even as a "Che Guevara" prototype) has been based on way too many distortions made by the speculative thinkers for it to have much of a historical and realistic sense (Of course...it's not only the Church that can manipulate Christ, you know...plenty of others do too..who can say what was the real Christ, if he even existed...Chavez? Nevermind, since the symbolic Christ is more important than reality, I guess).

As to your unsourced "MADRE" (nice RED flag, btw...)quote...I'd like evidence that unilateral pacifism can work in Colombia by simply banning all weapons from the Colombian state's hands, and that it will not simply help those that will still keep to their revolutionary and counterrrevolutionary weapons because they aren't subject to pressure from such radical pacifists (which maybe even "MADRE" claims to be, though I don't know).

The funny thing is, if arms exports to Colombia were reduced to nil as well as all other forms of military aid, the FARC would still have its own weapons.

Human rights abuses from that sector (which "MADRE" seems to ignore joyfully) would increase as it climbs up the food chain, not to mention that paramilitarism would increase as a response as well as abuses from the Colombian government itself, in an act of desperation...talk about trading a bad situation for an even worse one.

As if we needed to suddenyl fill another pool with blood, when we already have a large enough supply already, and it's growing every day, little by little.

Unless pacifism is a wide, massive movement that affects all parties and makes coherent and comprehensive demands (I'd join that movement in a single day), its a potentially very bad move that some could live to regret, very seriously.

Unless of course, if and only if some of the ones promoting pacifism end up at the top of the "New Government for the New Colombia" (tm)....they sure won't regret it, I'm sure.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

miamimike says on Sep 16, 2005, 22:22:

Juancegomez-that is exactly how I feel about Bush's claims on WMD.

"Perhaps there is some degree of factual evidence behind Chavez's claims, but he's a man that can turn scraps of evidence into mountains of paperwork...for his trademark exaggerated speeches, that is." Exactly how I felt(as a Veteran-not someone who shirked their military duty way back when)when I listened to Bush on the Eve of the Iraq Invasion and his claims of WMD. He was, as they say in Texas, "all Hat and No Cattle"

"Wait a minute. What did you just say? You're predicting $4-a-gallon gas? That's interesting. I hadn't heard that." -- Feb. 28, 2008 --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Sep 16, 2005, 22:26:

I agree with that... I didn't like Bush's claims at all either, though I personally hoped that at least the alleged WMDs were slightly more material than they've been so far (to make things clear: I did support U.S. action against bin Laden and the Taliban, but not against Saddam, even if I've never liked him and definitely distrusted him...an invasion could have eventually happened, but with international support, and at least not in the hurried and exaggerated way that the U.S. chose to pursue the invasion in 2003. Under different conditions...who knows).

Chavez and Bush are both hypocrites, really...just playing to different audiences. Even Uribe, while in general not comparable to either of the two previous cases, has his share of exaggerations and hypocrisy to deal with, I won't deny it.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Sep 17, 2005, 07:56:

BBC reported on the written and video proof Chavez has... It may be the proof that has prevented any further USA action against Chavez.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/1985670.stm

He said: "I have written proof of the entries and exits of two military officers from the United States into the headquarters of the coup plotters.

"I have their names, whom they met with, what they said, proof on video and on still photographs."

Speaking of Ali Rodriguez's warning, Mr Chavez told Newsnight: "That call of alert helped me."

Chavez said that he had tried to avert a coup by sending a note to President Bush, assuring him that Venezuela would never join any oil boycott."

Plátano X
Oxigeno Verde ¡Libertad por Ingrid y los demás!

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Sep 17, 2005, 08:41:

1-Then if it's so grave he should immediately ***show*** us all these mountains of evidence in his speeches to the press or better yet, in the United Nations. Don't just stand there talking vaguely, SHOW US.

2-More importantly, he should also prove that those evidences are proof ***of exactly what he claims***, instead of merely being vague justifications for him to make great leaps of logic, reason, speculation and plausibility.

3-In the case that he manages to do all the above or the facts themselves show him to be right IN SPITE of his failure to present DIRECT and CLEAR EVIDENCE of WHAT HE CLAIMS, disregard these points, though hopefully that's not the case.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

vladimiro says on Sep 17, 2005, 09:50:

No doubt US has drawn up plans for invasions of many countries, but they are wet dreams for the most part. In the real world they are limited by the consequences they would have to pay in addition to the fact that there are no troops available - not even to help with Katrina - only airpower.

This is what happened the last time a country decided not to sell oil to the US:

"The United States considered using force to seize oilfields in the Middle East during an oil embargo by Arab states in 1973, according to British government documents just made public. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3333995.stm

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Sep 17, 2005, 10:11:

"he should also prove that those evidences are proof" juancegomez, I don't think it is necessary to prove the evidence is proof.

This seems somewhat similar to what happens in Colombia when you are threatened with a death threat. You go to the police and file a "denuncia" that "fulano" has threatened you with death. And you let "fulano" know you have made the "denuncia". "Fulano" then knows the police are going to be on his ass if anything happens to you.

Chavez has made the "denuncia" to the world. The USA knows he has the evidence and the USA knows that if Chavez has an "accident" the evidence will come out. So far it seems to have been an effective strategy on the part of Chavez.

Plátano X
Oxigeno Verde ¡Libertad por Ingrid y los demás!

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Sep 17, 2005, 11:11:

"juancegomez, I don't think it is necessary to prove the evidence is proof."

I completely disagree, obviously.

I personally don't think that states should operate on "Da Vinci Code" levels of evidence interpretation and deduction, but that's just me...

"This seems somewhat similar to what happens in Colombia when you are threatened with a death threat."

Apples and oranges. Superficially similar as a metaphor, but very different in reality. To begin with, states aren't individuals. The scale is so different, that the situation becomes many times as complex.

""Fulano" then knows the police are going to be on his ass if anything happens to you."

As an aside...that particular phrase is indeed somewhat applicable, taken on its own.

Making all these wild accusations, whether they are true or not, is actually Chavez's best life insurance.

Even if, in the end, it's just insurance for an imaginary threat and therefore an unneeded insurance. Still, it's better to have life insurance even if you reasonably know that you're never going to use it...

"Chavez has made the "denuncia" to the world. The USA knows he has the evidence and the USA knows that if Chavez has an "accident" the evidence will come out. So far it seems to have been an effective strategy on the part of Chavez."

Funny that you should say that, because it's not a matter of vague "accidents".

Chavez has repeatedly accused the U.S. of wanting to invade Venezuela to topple, kill or capture him.

That is not an "accident", but rather a concrete accusation.

It demands specific and solid evidence that pertains to that specific accusation.

The U.S. definitely doesn't like Chavez and has moved against him, however that is something completely different. That can happen even if the U.S. has no intention of invading Venezuela nor of killing Chavez.

Hence proof of U.S. displeasure towards Chavez and Venezuela is one thing. But that doesn't prove the existence nor the plausibility of an invasion nor of an assassination.

If this were the Cold War, perhaps you could be reasonably correct in making such assumptions. But it isn't.

Even in these days of the "war on terror", the situation has changed. The U.S. doesn't have even a quarter of the free hand that it would have had in the Cold War (it can still act, but at a very high cost, as seen every single day).

In my view, history doesn't repeat itself exactly, though it may go through similar cycles...but each cycle is different and demands its own analysis. Simply applying old rules to a new situation without making the proper contextualization and adaptation is too risky and ambitious.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Sep 17, 2005, 11:20:

"the U.S. doesn't have even a quarter of the free hand" Correct. And USA power will only further diminish due to its disrespect for the rest of the world. And Colombia and Venezuela (and all the other countries) will benefit from a weakened USA that cannot bully them or dictate foreign policy or hold them indefinitely in torture gulags. The list is long. For example, anybody know where Jean-Pierre Baptiste is since Bush had him kidnapped and forcibly removed from Haiti?

Plátano X
Oxigeno Verde ¡Libertad por Ingrid y los demás!

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Sep 17, 2005, 12:01:

Since we are discussing Colombia's neighbor, Venezuela... Another of Colombia's neighbors was invaded in 1989 and 233 citizens of Panama died:

U.S. troops apprehended as many as 5,000 persons. News photographs showed them being interrogated while blindfolded. By year's end, officials said that some 1,300 remained in detention. But there had been no effort to provide full lists of those captured, and despite earlier requests, the International Committee of the Red Cross was not given access to prisoners until December 31.

According to some reports, civilian officials of the old Panamanian government have been arrested by U.S. troops. Apart from stating that these arrests had been carried out on the request of the new Panamanian government, the United States had offered no explanation of the reasons for the arrest of non-combatants, or under what legal authority those arrests were ordered.

Plátano X
Oxigeno Verde ¡Libertad por Ingrid y los demás!

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lennox says on Sep 18, 2005, 01:00:

plantano what's the point? Ok you hate USA, we get the point. Spare us the anti-usa propoganda. I come here to read about Colombia not hear some angry person's rants about the USA.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Sep 18, 2005, 10:01:

The topic of this thread is an interview with Chavez.... It's here because Venezuela is a neighbor of Colombia.
In the interview he says he has proof the USA has plans to invade Venezuela.
My point was the USA has already invaded one of Colombia's neighbors and killed hundreds of its citizens (more "collateral damage") to take out one man.
It doesn't seem to me farfetched that there are plans to take out Chavez.

As to anti-USA rant. If the USA wouldn't do bad things, then I couldn't report on them. And Colombians are dying with USA-supplied arms and being sprayed by poisons supplied by the USA. If this doesn't bother you, then don't read my posts. If it does bother you, then do the patriotic thing and work to change USA policy.

Plátano X
Oxigeno Verde ¡Libertad por Ingrid y los demás!

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Sep 19, 2005, 10:09:

Except that Grenada, and Panama even, were completely different situations in a different time and context. Even Chavez is a different kind of leader.

All that is what makes it farfetched.

The U.S. is also doing plenty of good or even "less bad" things. Colombians are also dying and being hurt, perhaps even in greater quantities, with Russian supplied arms (and those coming from elsewhere) in the hands of both the FARC, ELN, and even the AUC (contrary to popular belief, the AUC has thousands of AK-47 rifles as well).

All that should bother you sometime, I imagine.

I do strongly agree with you about the poisons bit, however, as once again I have to state that I am against fumigation and its effects.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Sep 19, 2005, 13:25:

juancegomez, Of course it bothers me whenever people are being killed.

The Russians are not supplying arms to FARC, etc. in my name, with my tax dollars. The USA government is acting in Colombia in my name and is using my tax dollars. I have a responsibility to speak.

Plátano X
Oxigeno Verde ¡Libertad por Ingrid y los demás!

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Sep 19, 2005, 16:49:

juancegomez, From some of your posts it seems that you have read your Heraclitus.

It is a weak argument to say "completely different situations in a different time and context".
All historical situations are different in some respect. Different times, different actors, etc. As Heraclitus said, you cannot step into the same river twice.

The USA has acted in Haiti, Domincan Republic, Cuba, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Chile, Panama, Granada, etc. (and I would include Colombia and the Bogotazo in the list) and what many of these situations have in common is that the USA decided to use brute force to remove leaders from power (some of whom were democratically elected). And the USA was willing to kill hundreds or thousands of people to accomplish their aims, and often acted illegally, in contravention of international law and agreements to which the United States is signatory.

Given the past track record of USA immoral and illegal behavior, I suppose we must simply disagree about whether it is farfetched to suppose it could happen again in Venezuela in 2005 or 2006, or in Colombia, if the "wrong" candidate is elected, for example, Navarro Wolf, or any candidate of the GCD or PCC.

Plátano X
Oxigeno Verde ¡Libertad por Ingrid y los demás!

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Sep 20, 2005, 08:44:

If did, it must have been bac If I did, it must have been back in my high school days, because I haven't since.

However, I'm certainly not trying to repeat exactly the same argument as that Greek thinker, though I can see that you've found similar points, at least on the very surface. But be careful, that's not so simple. If it were, then absolutely nothing could be deduced or argued in effect, because of the constant change, as you mentioned, the river isn't going to be the same. That would make everything too vague and useless to even speak about anything.

Yet, surprise, the core and intentions of my argument are different.

The USA has not acted in a vaccum. It has acted a)in a certain time period b)with certain interests at stake c)with a certain degree of "free hand" d)in a given international and internal context e)certain economic and political conditions d)even international law and its interpretation both inside and outside the U.S. are not the same.

If you're simply going to create a long list of USA interventions without bothering to understand that the context surrounding and leading up to some of them (not all of them at once) has actually changed, for real, then you're simply going over into the opposite spectrum of what you're accusing me: everything is the same, history never changes and only repeats itself, hence the USA will only do the same thing "ad infinitum". That can't possibly be better.

The track record exists, and has to be taken into account, but the racer has matured, both for the better and for worse. He's not in the same mental and physicical conditions and he has modified his goals and expectations, even if just a bit. He is no longer going to do, in 2005, what he would have done in say, 1985 or 1965, at least not as his first choice, and not without additional requirements. Unless you want to argue that he's exactly the same racer, racing the same race, until the end of time.

As for the Bogotazo, there are too many unknowns about what happened there, in part because the situation was too chaotic and also because relevant USA records have only been partially declassified (some of the key documents seem to have been disposed of sometime in the 1970s, if I remember correctly what I read sometime in the webpage of what seemed to be a serious researcher of the matter).

The USA certainly was keeping close watch on the situation, but that doesn't translate automatically to its having an active and decisive role in what happened on Abril 9th. Doesn't automatically deny it, either, for that matter. There's just a big hole waiting to be filled with dirt there, which could tip over to either side.

That much I can recognize, and given the context, active US participation in Gaitan's murder, direct or indirect, definitely seems likely, especially given the 1948 global and regional context (which also puts the track record you've quoted into perspective and actually makes it amount to something more concrete). But as of now, we just don't know for sure because we lack information. Hence I wouldn't assume too much about the Bogotazo, either way, given all this.

As for your speculation about the USA seriously trying to coup or invade Colombia after 2006 if a "wrong" candidate is elected...don't even get me started, because we'll just go over the same thing we've been discussing, no more, no less. If history proves you right and Poorbuthappy still exists, I'll eat my words. But until then...nada de nada, parcero.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

protocol13 says on Sep 21, 2005, 23:37:

For another perspective on Chavez, check out Venezuelan Cardinal Rosalio Castillo's interview by El Tiempo of July 30, 2005, in which he calls Chavez a paranoid dictator. Also check out, Human Rights Watch's reports on Chaves' continuous restriction of freedom of expression.

http://eltiempo.terra.com.co/poli/2005-07-31/ARTICULO-PRINTER_FRIENDLY-_PRINTER_FRIENDLY-2165302.html

The proposal to create a new Human Rights Council with more authority and that can sit throughout the year, review human rights in all countries and address all human rights situations is intended to be a key achievement of the World Summit. It has won the endorsement of an overwhelming majority of states from all regions of the world. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch expressed grave concern, however, that some 15 countries led by Cuba and including Venezuela, Myanmar, Turkmenistan, Pakistan, Belarus, Vietnam, and Syria, were blocking any movement on this important reform. It is amazing that
Venezuela has joined Cuba in opposing the proposal. What is it that they fear.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/03/24/venezu10368.htm to read about Chavez regime's restriction on freedom of expression.

and how Chavez has achieved controlled of the Venezuelan Supreme court
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/12/14/venezu9864.htm

and how the Chavez regime is using judicial presecution against a promiment Venezuelan Human Right attorney
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/04/05/venezu10423.htm

0 funny, 0 helpful.

aztec says on Sep 22, 2005, 03:53:

in Colombia, if the "wrong" candidate is elected. Will never happen!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

pepster says on Oct 7, 2005, 08:08:

I cannot believe... I cannot believe the pro Chavez and pro FARC comments, but then again I'm not surprised by anything some bloggers write anymore.

Hugo Chavez is a poor man's Fidel, only without the intellect or charisma. This monkey is making Venezuela even more miserable. Sure, the country was corrupt before, but with the all the oil windfalls, it still sinking to new lows.

I'm no Bush supporter, I happen to think the man is reprehensible. But keep in mind, we invaded Grenada, Panama, and Haiti on a whim.

If monkey boy even tried to hold back oil from the states, it would be bombed back into the stone age.

May not be right or moral to some, but it's just plain fact.

Let's be realistic folks, "el que tiene la bola manda".

The Pepster ColombianBlog.com

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Nov 22, 2005, 16:44:

Especialmente para Pepster y Mr. Hollywood, "If monkey boy even tried to hold back oil from the states, it would be bombed back into the stone age. May not be right or moral to some, but it's just plain fact. Let's be realistic folks, "el que tiene la bola manda".

Parece que Chavez tiene la bola según las noticias de hoy.

Venezuela's Chavez to Discount Heating Oil in Boston (Update2)
Nov. 22 (Bloomberg) -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has begun a program of discounted heating fuel sales for low-income customers in Boston, following up on promises to help the poor throughout the Americas.

The fuel will be sold for 60 cents to 80 cents less than prevailing retail prices, according to Felix Rodriguez, president of Citgo Petroleum Corp., the U.S. refining and marketing business owned by Venezuela's state oil company. Citgo will sell 12 million gallons of fuel through two nonprofit groups, he said.

``Oil companies have to help people,'' Rodriguez said at a ceremony in Boston that was carried on state television in Caracas. ``Business isn't our only issue.''

With these sales, Chavez is jumping into a debate that has raged in Washington over what oil companies and the government should do to help consumers hurt by record fuel prices. Chiefs of the biggest U.S. oil companies were asked earlier this month at a Senate hearing to justify their record earnings, and lawmakers have said oil profits should go to fund home heating aid.

Chavez, who led the opposition to the free trade agreement that President George W. Bush offered at a summit in Argentina this month, pledged in August to help Americans cope with rising energy costs. ``We want to help the poorest communities in the U.S.,'' Chavez said. ``There are people who die from the cold in winter in the U.S.''

Citgo is working with U.S. Representatives Edward Markey and Bill Delahunt, Democrats from the Boston area. Citgo is planning a similar program to sell 8 million gallons in New York, according to a statement from Representative Jose Serrano, a Democrat who represents the South Bronx. The Northeast accounts for about 80 percent of U.S. heating oil consumption.

Congressional Proposals

Senator Byron Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat, has sponsored a bill that would tax profits when oil is above $40 a barrel and rebate the money to taxpayers. The Senate rejected the measure last week 64-35.

Senator Charles Grassley, an Iowa Republican, has asked oil companies to donate 10 percent of their profits to help families pay heating bills. The world's five biggest publicly traded oil companies earned a combined $33.4 billion in the third quarter.

The total value of the discounts Citgo is offering in Boston may reach $14 million, Rodriguez said. Up to 40,000 households will receive help.

Citizens Energy Corp., run by Joseph P. Kennedy II, son of Robert Kennedy and a former Congressman, is one of the nonprofit groups working with Citgo in Boston. The other is the Mass Energy Consumers Alliance.

Chavez's Pledge

The planned Citgo sales in Boston and New York don't yet come up to the pledge Chavez made in August to offer poor people in the U.S. 66,000 barrels, or 2.8 million gallons, of heating oil a day. Citgo may expand its program, according to a statement from the company.

Sales of 66,000 barrels a day would represent about 10 percent of the refinery capacity that Citgo controls in the U.S., Venezuelan Oil Minister Rafael Ramirez said in August. Citgo owns all or part of eight refineries in the U.S. and sells fuel through 14,000 filling stations under the Citgo name.

Wholesale heating oil in Boston was $1.7263 a gallon today, up 19 percent from a year ago, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The average U.S. household this winter will spend 27 percent more for heating oil than it did last winter, the U.S. Energy Department said in a Nov. 8 forecast.


To contact the reporter on this story:
Peter Wilson in Caracas at pewilson at bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: November 22, 2005 15:54 EST

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Nov 22, 2005, 17:36:

700 estadounidenses se mueren del frio cada año Study: Hypothermia-Related Deaths—
United States, 2003-2004

Tal vez disminuye con la ayuda generosa de Chavez a los estados unidos.

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Hunter says on Nov 23, 2005, 07:20:

Chavez Is just squandering the gains from the petroleum prices and cheap political gestures to mostly neighbouring Countries and some further afield, he would be better off sorting out his own Countries problems first.

But the money he gives away, is nothing compared to what is dissaperaing off the books each year in Venezula, I wonder where the billions of dollars are dissappering to?

I am sure we will find out in the future.

Hunter

0 funny, 0 helpful.

cali373 says on Dec 14, 2005, 11:20:

Talk, Talk, Talk, but the U.S. was very quick to recognize the non-democratically elected Cardona, who was ousted a couple of days later. I, as an american was very embarrased that we would recognize a non-elected president of a democratic nation. But then I just remembered all the known coups and dictators that the U.S. supported figured that the majority of the U.S. are stupid. At this point I say stupid and not ignorant because most U.S. citizens have the resources available to research all the anti-democratic activities that have been done in the Name of Freedom.

Smile if you are a thinker!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

cali373 says on Dec 14, 2005, 12:09:

why do you care Some of you have made it quite obvious that you have never been a position to choose whether your kids eat or have utilities because there is hardly enough to pay the rent or the taxes (if you own property). Some of you are educated but I sympathize for this type of ignorance you may have. Your type probably never understand why people go for the likes of Chavez, Guevarra, Kirstner, or Lula. Why do some of you care so much that Chavez is not running Venezuela's Oil like ExxonMobile? While I think he should be more responsible withe his countries main source of income (like Norway), Do all of you have much to gain from Chavez not sharing the Countries Oil's with the Poor? Sell your shares of Citgo and buy Exxon. Yet you do not care that the Royal families of Saudi, Yemen, UAE do more for the likes of ExxonMobile and not their own poor people. You people are moaning about a discount? Have any of you been at the Malls or large retailors on Black Friday, where a good chunk of the U.S. population will maul you for a discount.

Question: If you are approaching two gas stations and need gas ,will you choose the one that charges more per gallon? I think not, why? Because of the discount.

Smile if you are a thinker!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Dec 14, 2005, 17:25:

Chavez is helping the poor in many countries including USA... and it doesn't seem he has anything to gain politically by it. In fact, among Venezuelans it could be a point against him to give away Venezuela's oil resources to help poor people in Boston, USA. But he seems to be doing it out of the goodness of his heart, keeping his word which was given in the interview which is the OP.

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

ElPadrino1 says on Dec 18, 2005, 23:55:

Funny no outrage when several Venezuelan Presidents prior to Chavez were raiding the country's treasury. This didn't start with Chavez(stealing) its been going on for decades before chavez even arrived into power. With all the Petro Dollars from the 60s thru the 90s where did the loot go? Venezuela, with all the Oil $$ should be the Showcase of South America, World class clinics, hospitals, Universities ect. Truth be told, these crooks cleaned out the country's treasury way BEFORE Chavez arrived yet no collective Outrage at this wholesale pilfering. Where was the outrage?? Seems like it only started after Chavez Told Bush to stay out of his country's affairs(with the cia meddling) and his reference to Bush as a Mona(monkey).Urribe just told Bush the same thing yesterday. Please anyone-if you know, enlighten the rest of us as to where all this Petro Money has disappeared to?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Tinto (Moderator) says on Dec 19, 2005, 05:23:

Where does it go in any oil rich but poverty-stricken country? Nigeria, Venezuela, Bolivia most of the Middle East and maybe even Ecuador and Mexico should have per capita median incomes (very different from per capita GDP) far higher than they do. Corrupt politicians, historically weak governments, a ruling class of oligarchs/princes/theocrats and state-owned resources are a terrible combination.



Norway seems to be the only country that gets it right. They have a huge rainy day fund to provide for future generations. But their oil wealth arrived recently...a decent, accountable government and strong institutions were already in place.

0 funny, 0 helpful.