DIOSDADO CABELLO ON THE LACK OF SINCERITY OF THOSE WHO ATTEMPT TO DESTABILIZE VENEZUELA
SOME COMMENTS BY DIOSDADO CABELLO in
today’s program “José Vicente Hoy.” The following is the gist of what he said
with my observations in parentheses and then the link to the interview:
1. Cabello says that he has a lawyer who is suing ABC of Spain, Tal Cual
and La Patilla (of Venezuela) for airing the accusations against him for being
the capo of the so-called Cartel de los Soles. (If Cabello had any connection
at all to drug trafficking he would not be proceeding along these lines by
challenging powerful media groups; because if there were any convincing
evidence at all to back the charge, his decision to go to court would only be making
things worse for himself).
2. The military officer Leamsy
Salazar who accuses Cabello of being the capo of this cartel supposedly went to
the DEA to provide sensitive information and get protection because his life is
in danger. Then why is it that the DEA allowed this information to get leaked to
the media? If the DEA’s job is to investigate cases like this as part of the
war on drugs, why have they allowed this to become a media news item?
3. Like Salazar, so many supposed
ex-Chavista refugees (beginning with Luis Velásquez Alvaray in 2006) who have
been accused by Venezuelan government authorities of wrong doing, end up in
Miami and elsewhere in the U.S. as political figures who collaborate with the
opposition and the U.S. government. If they really had principles and were
really being persecuted, they wouldn’t place themselves in the spotlight. Isn’t
it strange that the opposition always ends up defending these guys, claiming
that they are being pursued because they are whistleblowers?
4. The major leaders of the
Venezuelan opposition never publicly reject the undocumented far-flung
statements (such as those of Leamsy Salazar, not to mention Orlando Urdaneta
and his like) coming from Miami and elsewhere in the U.S. Their refusal to
assume a position is an act of cowardice, since the accusations are either true
or false. Why don’t they assume public positions on the validity of these
claims?
5. The recent statements of U.S. General
Vincent Stewart anticipating violence in Venezuela is a demonstration that Washington
is not confident about defeating the Chavistas at the polls. The Venezuelan constitution
provides for mechanisms to unseat the government through recall elections, so
why do U.S. government spokespeople harp on street violence against the
government, which they end up justifying? (Given the concrete situation in
Venezuela, general remarks about unseating the government, embodied in the
slogan “salida,” place the opposition on the side of those who call for a
violent overthrow of the government. If the opposition leaders were really
committed to a democratic path to power, they would limit their remarks to the
recall election and other electoral processes. The vagueness of their
statements about regime change purposefully leaves open the possibility of a
violent path to power.)
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home