Sunday, February 8, 2015


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.)