Venezuela: Post-Electoral Sour Grapes
by Stephen Lendman
Expect more than sour grapes to follow.
Throughout his tenure, America's scoundrel media vilified Chavez relentlessly. They did so straightaway.
After his December 1998 election, New York Times Latin American correspondent Larry Roher, called him a "populist demagogue, an authoritarian".caudillo (strongman)." He lied saying so.
In death as in life, denunciation continued. Chavez was hemispheric villain number one. Independent leaders aren't tolerated. The threat of a good example concerns Washington and media scoundrels most. They go all-out against it.
Candidate Nicolas Maduro was treated the same way. Following his electoral victory, expect unjustifiable condemnation to follow. It's standard scoundrel media practice.
Pre-election, The New York Times quoted Washington Office on Latin America's (WOLA) David Smilde, saying:
"He's known as a yes man, and he's somebody that has never shown an independent streak."
Joy Olson is WOLA's executive director. She's a frequent scoundrel media commentator. She avoids discussing what matters most.
Smilde is a senior WOLA fellow. He specializes in Venezuela. He and Olson distort reality. They claim Venezuela's "oil-financed social policies are of questionable sustainability."
"Lack of transparency and accountability threaten them." Venezuela's "enormous fiscal deficit (needs) to be addressed."
The Times quoted an unnamed diplomat, saying:- Advertisement -
"I always saw (Maduro) glued to Chavez. I always saw him as a messenger, and I never had a signal that would make me think he was a leader."
The Times said it's "not clear what path (he'll) follow on his own."
"Critics say" as foreign minister, he "judged" people "by their loyalty to Mr. Chavez."