Anti-Cuban terrorism strikes in Italy - Car Bombing in Italy over Film on Cuba

Because some of the most prominent acts of anti-Cuban terrorism, like the bombing of Cubana Airlines Flight 455, happened a long time ago, some people may be lulled into thinking this is all about the past. It isn't. In the post below this one, I wrote about Livio Di Celmo, who I met yesterday, and whose brother Fabio was killed in a 1997 hotel bombing in Havana organized by Luis Posada Carriles. This morning, Granma reports on an act of terrorism that oocured in Italy last Saturday -- an Italian filmmaker who had just completed and released a film about anti-Cuban terrorism, and which featured the death of Fabio Di Celmo, had his car and his son's car destroyed with bombs outside their home. Fortunately no one was hurt.

Anti-Cuban terrorism is very much alive, in its deadly way.

Car Bombing in Italy over Film on Cuba

The car of an Italian director who recently released a movie criticizing US-based terrorism against Cuba has been firebombed. A message was left that read: "Go to Cuba."

Sept. 21, 2006
by Pedro de la Hoz
Reprinted from Daily Granma

Just before dawn last Saturday, Italian filmmaker Angelo Rizzo awoke to flames at the doorstep of his house. A few moments later he would see the remains of his and his son’s burnt cars. An intimidating message had been left in his garden: "Vattene a Cuba" (Go to Cuba).

Angelo Rizzo at a Press Conference in Havana
This was clearly not the result of weekend gang action. The attack that disturbed the quiet early morning of the Cormano Villa, near Milan, leads directly to the Miami-based anti-Cuban mafia and its accomplices.

Rizzo has just finished a film on the terrorist acts committed against tourist centers in Havana in September of 1997, organized by Luis Posada Carriles and the armed branch of the Cuban American National Foundation (CANF). In one of the attempts, a young Italian man, Fabio Di Celmo, lost his life. The US authorities were aware of the plans and did nothing to try to stop them.

"When Truth Awakens," was shot in Havana and in the Havana port of Mariel. The script focuses on Fabio’s relationship with the island, and his dreams and aspirations, cut short by a criminal conspiracy that was fully acknowledged by its intellectual and material authors.

With utter cynicism and a total lack of principles, during a long interview on July 12 and 13, 1998 in the New York Times , Luis Posada Carriles said: "It is sad when somebody dies, but we cannot stop […] that Italian was in the wrong place at the wrong time." In the same article, Posada Carriles claims responsibility for the attacks in Havana and acknowledges that CANF had supplied them with large sums of money to finance the sinister plans. The article also displays Posada Carriles total lack of remorse: "I sleep like a baby."

Remains of Rizzo’s car, in front of his house in Cormano Village
Rizzo’s film, starring Italian actor Michel Altieri, US actor Michael Wong, and Cuban actors Enrique Molina, Carlos Padron, Enrique Almirante and Rogelio Blain, premieres on October 13 at the Rome Film Festival, although not in competition because it is already officially registered for the 2007 Berlinale (Berlin Film Festival), according to the film’s producer, Jose Luis Lobato.

While making the movie in Cuba —the second film Rizzo has shot on the island after " Un loco Sonador " (2004), a baseball movie featuring Mexican actor Pablo Montero—, Rizzo said that at the core of his film was "a criticism of terrorism and its terrible effects on innocent people."

In reporting on the vandalism of Rizzo’s property, the conservative newspaper Corriere della Sera ran this headline: "Attack on Anti-American Filmmaker, Car Burnt and Threats: Go Back to Cuba."

The qualifier "anti-American," is not only inaccurate, but also meant as provocation. After reproducing Posada Carrile’s criminal record and describing him as the "Bin Laden of the Caribbean, the Italian newspaper quotes Rizzo as saying:" I am not interested in politics, I am telling a story. I have chosen this one because it is related to the current issue of terrorism; [the film] argues that there is no such thing as good or bad terrorism. It’s the victims who speak, and in this case, an innocent man who has paid with his life. This goes far beyond the confrontation between the right and left."

Rizzo said, "[I’m certain] the car burnings are related to my film; it’s awful." An in-depth investigation into the intimidation attack on Rizzo should take into consideration the long relationship between the anti-Cuban mafia with its headquarters in southern Florida, the US government and the involvement of Italian terrorists.

Posada Carriles and Orlando Bosch, masterminds of the midair bombing of a Cuban airliner some 30 years ago that killed all 73 aboard, where also the main leaders behind Operation Condor, the notorious wave of repression and terrorist activities that swept Chile in the 1970s after the coup against constitutional president Salvador Allende.

It was during this time that these two men became acquainted with Stefano delle Chiaie, from the Italian neo-fascist faction "Vanguardia Nacionale." Delle Chiaie had been recruited into the Gladio Operation, a secret initiative of the CIA and secret service with the mandate to attack Western European leftists during the Cold War.

After a failed rightwing coup against the Italian Republic in 1970 —masterminded by Prince Junio Valerio Borghese in cooperation with the Vanguardia Nacionale—, Delle Chiae took refuge in Franco’s Spain. He then headed to Chile where, along with Posada Carriles’ associate Virgilio Paz Romero and CIA agent Michael Townley, he planned the dynamite attack against Chilean Christian Democratic politician Bernardo Leghton that took place on October 5, 1975 in Rome and left Leghton paralyzed.

Proof of this criminal association was revealed in declassified CIA documents.

It should come as no surprise that the Italian-Cuban-American link has been revived in 2006 to intimidate an honest filmmaker. The attempt however has backfired; the following day, in a gesture of solidarity, Angelo Rizzo put up a Cuban flag at the entrance to his home.

A Courageous Man Speaks Out- Hugo Chavez Was In Rare Form at the UN

By Stephen Lendman

Hugo Chavez chooses his authors, political and social thinkers well, and there's no one better than Noam Chomsky. In his dramatic and courageous speech yesterday to the 61st UN General Assembly, Chavez held up a copy of Chomsky's 2003 book 'Hegemony or Survival (which I've read and quoted from before). In the book, Chomsky cites the work of Ernst Mayr whom he describes as "one of the great figures of contemporary biology." Mayr noted that beetles and bacteria have been far more successful surviving than the human species is likely to be. He also observed that "the average life expectancy of a species is about 100,000 years" which is about how long ours has been around, and he went on to wonder if we might use our "alloted time" to destroy ourselves and much more with us. Chomsky then noted we certainly have the means to do it, and should it happen, which he says is very possible, we likely will become the only species ever to have made itself extinct.

Hugo Chavez also could have explained what Chomsky had to say about this possibility in his most recent book, Failed States, in which he addresses the three issues he feels are most important - "the threat of nuclear war, environmental disaster, and the fact that the government of the world's only superpower is acting in ways that increase the likelihood of (causing) these catastrophes." Chomsky goes even further raising a fourth issue that the "American system" is in danger of losing its "historic values (of) equality, liberty and meaningful democracy (because of the course it's on)."

Reflecting the thinking and spirit of Noam Chomsky, Hugo Chavez delivered an impassioned speech to the assembled delegates who came to hear him. It's one likely to be favorably remembered many years from now. At its end, the delegates showed their appreciation and support by giving him a standing ovation (the longest one of all the leaders addressing the Assembly) in contrast to the cool and polite reception given George Bush the previous day who chose not to attend to hear the Venezuelan leader. Too bad he didn't as he might have learned from it if he stayed alert and paid attention. Citing the language in Chomsky's book in his hand, Chavez said: "The hegemonistic pretentions of the American empire are placing at risk the very existence of the human species (and) We appeal to the people of the United States and the world to halt this threat, which is like a sword hanging over our head." He went on to explain that earlier the President of the US attended an Organization of American States meeting and proposed a NAFTA-type trade agreement in both regions that is the "fundamental cause of the great evils and the great tragedies currently suffered by our people. Neoliberal capitalism, the Washington Consensus....has generated....a high degree of misery, inequality and infinite tragedy for all the peoples on (this) continent."

Hugo Chavez called George Bush "the devil" several times and said he came here yesterday and "from this rostrum (talked) as if he owned the world." He denounced the President's talk, said he's responsible for all conflict in the Middle East, and that those opposed to these policies are resisting his imperial model of domination. Chavez predicted the US empire will fall, said "What we need now more than ever....is a new international order," and that he wants to see a reinvented UN be part of what can help achieve it. He said the UN under its current rules "does not work" and must be changed to bring more democracy to the organization. He called for the "foundation of a new United Nations" and proposed four fundamental changes including the "need to....suppress....the veto in the decisions taken by the Security Council (because) that elitist trace is incompatible with democracy, incompatible with the principles of equality and democracy." He also called for expanding the Security Council to include developing nations as permanent members and wants to strengthen the role of the Secretary General. He stressed that today the UN body is "worthless" and needs to be "refounded."

Hugo Chavez is dedicated to the principles and spirit of the Bolivarian Revolution he gave the people of Venezuela and wants to spread it to the developing world as a counter-force to the US model of global dominance of the developed North over the less-developed South with the US as hegemon-in-chief. He called on leaders from the developing world to unite and resist to build a new world model based on social equity and justice. Judging by the reception Chavez got yesterday, it looks like he made some progress toward that goal, especially in Latin America that's become an incubator of resistance against the unipolar world the US is beginning to lose its grip on and in support of the multi-polar one Hugo Chavez wants to help create.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Elvis has definitely left the building...

THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT BE TELEVISED

Bolivian President Evo Morales on Latin America, U.S. Foreign Policy and the Role of the Indigenous People of Bolivia

In a Democracy Now! special, we spend the hour with the president of Bolivia, Evo Morales. This marks one of his only extended televised interviews in the United States since he became Bolivia's first indigenous president.
Highlights from the interview:

Morales calls for the U.S. to extradite former Bolivian president Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada to face trial for killing over 100 people. " A government that says it fights against terrorism, for human rights, against corruption, it’s not conceivable that this person would still be here [in the United States]," Morales said.

Morales calls on oil companies to be partners not bosses. "The investor has the right to recuperate their investment and to a reasonable profit," Morales said. "But we can’t allow for the sacking of the country and only the companies benefiting, not the people."
Morales reveals for the first time how Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva pressured Morales over his plan to nationalize Bolivia's energy resources. "I was attacked. Lula was rough with me," Morales said. [includes rush transcript]

Today, we spend the hour with Evo Morales, the president of Bolivia. Ten months ago, Evo Morales made history when he became the country's first indigenous leader. At his inauguration in January, he declared the end of Bolivia's colonial and neo-liberal era. Since then he has moved to nationalize parts of the country's vast energy reserves and strengthen Bolivia's ties to Venezuela and Cuba.

Morales' rise to power began with his leadership of the coca growers union and his high-profile opposition to the U.S.-funded eradication of the coca crop. He helped to lead the street demonstrations by Indian and union groups that toppled the country's last two presidents.

On Tuesday, Morales spoke for the first time before the United Nations General Assembly in New York. He vowed to never yield to U.S. pressure to criminalize coca production. During his speech he held up a coca leaf even though it is banned in the United States.

Juan Gonzalez and I sat down with Bolivian President Evo Morales for one of his first extended televised interviews in the United States.

Evo Morales, President of Bolivia.
RUSH TRANSCRIPT

This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
Donate - $25, $50, $100, more...

AMY GOODMAN: Welcome to Democracy Now! and the United States, President Evo Morales. Why did you bring a coca leaf to the United Nations?

PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] First of all, thanks very much for the invitation to speak with you today. It’s the first time I’ve been in these lands, the United States. And as the coca leaf has been permanently accused of being a drug, so I brought the leaf to demonstrate that the coca leaf is not a drug. The coca leaf is green. It’s not white. So I came to show that the coca leaf is not a drug and it can be beneficial to humanity. So that’s why I was there at the first ordinary session at the United Nations with a coca leaf. Had it been a drug, I would have been detained certainly. We’re starting the campaign to bring dignity back to the coca leaf, starting with the decriminalization of the coca leaf.

AMY GOODMAN: How is it used for beneficial purposes? Why is it so important to you in Bolivia?

PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] The coca leaf is part of culture. There is legal consumption, traditional consumption, which is called the piccheo in Bolivia, the chaccheo in Peru, el mambeo in Colombia, which is the traditional chewing of coca. Moreover, this traditional consumption is backed up by scientific research done in universities in Europe and the United States. Not long ago a study came out of Harvard University that said it’s a very nutritious – it’s a good source of nutrition, that it can not only be used through chewing, but could also be consumed through eating. The last study done by the World Health Organization has demonstrated clearly that the coca leaf does no harm to people.

And there’s also ritual uses, including in the Aymara culture, for example, when you ask for someone’s hand in marriage, the coca leaf plays an important part in that ritual. We could also talk about a number of pharmaceutical products that come or derive from the coca leaf. The first local anesthetics that were used in modern medicine were derived from the coca leaf. Up to some five, six, seven years ago, there was a company from the United States that used to come to the Chapare to buy coca to be exported to the United States for the use in making Coca-Cola. And we can think of a lot of products, industrial products, that could be derived from the coca leaf that would be beneficial to humanity.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Mr. President, in the United States voters here are accustomed to leaders promising much, but when they get into office delivering very little. Since you have become president in Bolivia, you have moved rapidly to make changes. You’ve cut your own salary. You’ve raised the minimum wage by 50%. What is the message you are trying to send to your own people and to Latin American leaders in general?

PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] I never wanted to be a politician. In my country, politicians are seen as liars, thieves, arrogant people. In 1997 they tried to get me to run for president. I rejected that idea, even though that brought me problems with my own grassroots organizations. Then I was later obligated to become a member of the lower house of parliament. I didn’t want to do that at the time, either. I preferred to be the head of a rat than the tail of a horse. I preferred to be the head of my own organizations fighting for human rights and fighting for the rights of the members, and not getting involved in electoral political processes and wind up not fulfilling promises.

But what I was learning in that period in ’95, ’96, ’97, is that to get involved in politics means taking on the responsibility, a new way of looking at politics as serving the people, because to get into politics means service. And after hearing the demands, the broad demands of our grassroots organizations, I decided finally to run for president.

And for the last elections, we had a ten-point program. And of those ten, we’ve fulfilled six already. The austerity measures that you mentioned a moment ago, I cut my own salary by more than 50%, and the ministers’ as well as also the members of congress, and that money has been redirected to health and education, convinced of the idea that to arrive at the presidency means that you’re there to serve the people. And we said we were going to do a consultation for a referendum on autonomy, greater autonomy for the regions, and we’ve done that. 58% of the population said no to greater autonomy, although it is important to secure more autonomy for the regions and the indigenous communities.

We said we were going to nationalize the gas and oil sector. We did, without expropriating or kicking out any of the companies. We said it’s important to have partners, but not bosses. And we did it. The investor has the right to recuperate their investment and to a reasonable profit, but we can’t allow for the sacking of the country and only the companies benefiting, not the people. I just came from a meeting of political analysts, foreign policy analysts here, and they seemed to understand our proposals.

The struggle against corruption, it’s a key issue in my country. We’re starting that campaign aggressively, starting with members of the executive branch. The judicial branch still is not accompanying this process. And I can talk a lot about the other things that we’re doing to meet the demands that were accumulated over time. For example, the centers for eye treatments and surgery, the literacy work that we’re doing.

We’ve also made advances in terms of giving people legal documents, something that oftentimes indigenous peoples don’t have. These are the social problems that my family has lived. My mother, for example, never had an ID. She didn’t know when she was born. There’s an anecdote about my father. One day I found his ID, and there was a birthdate on it. I said to my sister Esther, “Okay, let’s have a party. We know what my father’s birthday is.” She was very happy. She said, “Yes, let’s do this birthday party.” We said to my father, “We’re going to do a party for you.” And he said, “But I don’t know what my birthday is.” We showed him his ID, and we said, “Here it is. Here’s your birthday.” And he said very bitterly, “I had to invent that date when I was drafted in the military.” My father didn’t know when he was born.

And when I was in a big political rally in 1999 in the electoral campaigns for the municipalities and I asked everybody there to raise their hand, “Who’s going to vote?” About two-thirds of the people raised their hands. Another third didn’t raise their hand, and I said, “What’s going on here? You’re not going to vote for Evo Morales?” And they all said, “We don’t have IDs. We don’t have documents.” And one companero came to me almost in tears. He said, “This society thinks I’m only useful for raising my hands or giving assent to something, but I’m not good enough to vote.” He was from northern Potosi, from the highlands. He didn’t know when he was born. He didn’t have a birth certificate. These are the sorts of problems. But with the help of some countries, we’re receiving support so we can give people documents to fully incorporate them as citizens.

JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to ask you, when you ran for president, many of the public opinion polls in your country showed you with a sizeable support, but not really anywhere near the majority that you actually received. So it’s obvious that they were not counting the sentiments of the people of your country properly. Why do you believe that you were able to mobilize such large support?

PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] In our culture, there is a cosmic law. Don’t steal. Don’t lie. Don’t be lazy. You know, the people know I never made it to the university. I never had that chance to study. But nevertheless, since I was a young child, I’ve been involved in the social struggles. Starting in 1998, I was one of the principal leaders of a region. And all this time I had to suffer insinuations, attempts to buy me off. But in our culture, honesty is very important. I’m convinced still that it was that honesty that allowed me to arrive at the presidency.

In 2002, when we won the elections but they were stolen from us -- I could explain that bitter situation of 2002. But because of a – well, through the electoral laws, campaigns are publicly financed, and we had been assigned more than a million dollars for our campaign. There’s always expenses involved in a campaign, but we spent less than half-a-million dollars. The elections end, we closed the books, did our accounting. More than half-a-million dollars was left over. And I said, “We have to give this money back to the national electoral court, to the state.” But some members of my party said, “But how are you going to give the money back. It’s easy to buy papers in Bolivia to demonstrate other forms of accounting.” I got angry, and I went on my own with just a couple of other people, and we gave that money back. People were impressed.

So, I can tell other stories like this. This year, in the election of the members of the constituent assembly, which we won in seven of the country’s nine departments -- in the national elections that took me to the presidency, we only won five of the nine -- and in this case, we also gave back over a million dollars of assigned funds. Some people who are ill-informed said we should have spent that money on health and education, but no, that’s impossible, because that’s money only for electoral campaigns and had to be returned. Honesty is so important. Even though the international institutions have said that Bolivia is sort of the second worst place in terms of corruption internationally, but those are the people who had the government in the past.

Here, I haven’t had the opportunity to talk about the Bolivians who have migrated to the United States, but when I was in Argentina and Europe, I have spoken with businesspeople who hire Bolivians there, and they all say, in Europe and Argentina, the Bolivians are honest and hard-working. Even though they’re undocumented, they always pick the Bolivians to work, even if it’s clandestinely. They choose the Bolivians because they’re good workers. I was thinking we should talk to the secondary schoolteachers about creating a course for the secondary schools in honesty, because they said only through honesty are we going to make it to the presidency.

AMY GOODMAN: President Morales, President Chavez of Venezuela called President Bush a devil. What is your response to that?

PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] I’m not interested in commenting about these words between two presidents. But I’m convinced that people who represent a family, they can be professionals or not, they can be presidents or not. They all have dignity. One thing is to question someone’s policies. We can have differences. But to attack someone’s image or a direct offense, I don’t think I share that.

AMY GOODMAN: What is your assessment of President Bush?

PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] I hope that we can improve relations with Bush’s government. We hope that they can accompany these deep democratic transformations that we’re pursuing. We hope that we can continue with some support in health programs, but especially that they can accompany the transformations that are in course in Bolivia.

The indigenous cultures are cultures of dialogue and of life, not cultures of death and war. I’ve said publicly and very respectfully that the United States and other countries should get their troops out of Iraq, because it’s impossible that invaders and the invaded, and especially the innocent, continue to die. Conflicts should be discussed and debated in fora like the United Nations. I think it’s important to democratize the United Nations so that we can deal with issues like humanity, how to save the planet, how to avoid loss.

The indigenous communities live in harmony not only with their fellow persons, but also with Mother Earth. And we’re very worried about global warming, that’s leaving people without water. In the past we’ve seen the bodies of water that were up to certain level, are now declining. That means that in a very short time we’re going to have very serious problems. Without light, we can live with lamps, with oil lamps, but without water, we can’t live. I saw in a forum sponsored by ex-President Clinton yesterday, there’s a commission there that’s studying these issues of global warming.

JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to ask you, in many poor countries around the world, it is said that the most powerful official in the country is the U.S. ambassador, but in your campaign, you actually ran against, not just the other opponents, but against the role of the U.S. embassy and the U.S. ambassador in Bolivia. What is the role that the United States has played historically not only in Bolivia, but in Latin America, as far as you’re concerned?

PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] The arrogance of an ambassador or the arrogance of others, including a president, is always an error. This arrogance creates greater rebellion, greater resistance. In 2002, former U.S. ambassador to Bolivia, Manuel Rocha, said, “Don’t vote for Evo Morales.” And after that, people came out massively to vote for me. I said he was my best campaign chief. And a number of things were said about what would happen if I came to the presidency, that international cooperation would be reduced, we would no longer have access to markets, but in fact I’ve come to the presidency and we’ve seen a lot more support from other governments.

The United States embassy tried to effect the changes in the military high command. I said, “That’s not going to be changed. That’s a sovereign decision that we make.” So for that, we have obvious differences, but we want to work out those differences. Even though we’re an underdeveloped country, we’re a sovereign country, a country with dignity. One of the advantages that we have is that we begin to return dignity to the country. The name Bolivia is now understood. Our peoples need a strong sense of self-esteem. We want relations with all the countries that will be based on mutual respect, relations of complementarity, balance, solidarity, and for now, cooperation so that we can assure the changes that we’re trying to achieve.

JUAN GONZALEZ: In your nationalization, one of the groups in the gas companies that you nationalized were also Brazilian companies, as well. How have you been able to negotiate or deal with some of these inter-regional problems of the Brazilian companies also having such a huge say in your gas reserves?

PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] At first, there were protest and resistance, even from companero Lula -- well, perhaps more the company. There was an emergency meeting of the four presidents in Iguassu in Argentina. We had a closed-door meeting between the four presidents. No minister’s presence, without any press. This is the first time I’ve told anybody this. I was attacked. Lula was rough with me. “Where is our partnership? Where is that cordiality? Why didn’t you consult me before the nationalization?”

But I defended myself, and I said that on a sovereign basis our country has every right to make decisions about the future of our strategic resources. We are generous. We are companeros. We are in solidarity. And as my older brother, and as the leader of a more developed country in the region, we recognize that and we respect that. I accept him as an older brother, because he too is a union leader. He’s older than me. And he’s older than I am, and in the Indian culture we respect our elders very much. But finally, he understood very well, because we were neither expropriating nor kicking out Petrobras.

What I explained is that after the supreme decree that did the nationalization, we were guaranteeing greater security, because the new contracts were going to be transparent and ratified through congress, because previously the contracts were kept under wraps, secret, and never ratified in congress. And we also showed technically, financially, with numbers, that the company was going to be able to recover their investment and would have a reasonable profit. They weren’t going to have as much profit as before, because the largest oil fields – excuse me, from the largest gas fields, the companies only gave 18% of royalties to the state and took 82% in profit. But now, with the new law we’ve changed that around, now 82% for the government, for the state, and 18% for the companies. They’re staying. There’s no problems. And from that large field that Petrobras is managing, we’ve already seen $150 million coming into government coffers now.

AMY GOODMAN: Mr. President, Bolivia was one of seven Condor countries that participated in the efforts to eliminate opponents of the regimes of past decades, that was spearheaded by Pinochet of Chile. The Banzer regime was an ally of the United States. As president, you’re in a position to secure and release the documents of that period, perhaps millions of documents. Will you commit yourself to doing that?

PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] We’re in a phase of not only revealing those documents, but also trying to find out what happened to people who were disappeared under Plan Condor. Some members of the military high command are actually cooperating, who at the time were probably lower-ranking officers or cadets. We have to dignify humanity, ending impunity. And it’s imperative that the armed forces become dignified before the country, as well. It’s important to note how much the image of the armed forces has improved next to my person in the country today. We’re going to continue with this campaign through my minister of justice and to reveal, uncover, to clarify many facts. I very much want to find the bodies also of many of our mining leaders and the body of Marcelo Quiroga Santa Cruz.

AMY GOODMAN: Who was?

PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] He was a Socialist leader, who put Banzer on trial, and under the Garcia Meza dictatorship he was machine-gunned, and his remains disappeared. An intellectual who led the second nationalization of our gas and oil industries. Now we’re in the third nationalization.

AMY GOODMAN: Do you think Henry Kissinger, who supported Pinochet and the generals in Argentina through Latin America, should be tried for war crimes?

PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] I’m not sure. That’s probably something for the United States to take up, but I want to take advantage of this opportunity to call on the people of the United States to help us in our efforts to extradite two [inaudible] people who practiced genocide, who were corrupt under previous administrations and who today are free here in the United States.

AMY GOODMAN: Names?

PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada, former president, who in 2003 was responsible for the death of over a hundred people killed by gunfire, along with his minister, Carlos Sanchez Berzain. We’re trying now to use all of the instruments at our disposal to extradite him, but it’s not moving forward. It’s running into some resistance here in the United States. A government that says it fights against terrorism, for human rights, against corruption, it’s not conceivable that this person would still be here. So we ask the people, the government and all the institutions of human rights to help with this.

JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to ask you, you’ve on several occasions mentioned your indigenous origins in your movement. Throughout Latin America now, 500 years after the European conquest, the Native peoples of Mexico, Peru, Colombia, Bolivia, are taking much more of a role politically. What is the importance of this movement to Latin America?

PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] They excluded for over 500 years, exploited, and in many cases -- for over 500 years also have full rights. I mentioned at the United Nations that 34 years ago, my mother didn’t have the right to walk through public spaces, on sidewalks, in public plazas. And there are some fascist and racist sectors in Santa Cruz, who don’t want those people to enter into the fairgrounds today. And this is sort of like a fair of producers, as well as cattlemen, and it’s always been inaugurated by the president, and they’re angry because this president, the Aymara president, is not going to inaugurate it.

So there’s this strong feeling of excluded people, discriminated peoples to unite, but not for revenge against anybody nor to oppress or to subordinate anybody, but rather our struggle that recognizing we have obligations that our rights be fully respected. The thinking of indigenous peoples is not of exclusion. I can tell you about the experiences of the Aymara, the Quechua from the highlands and the valleys in Bolivia, of how they welcome people in, but not exclude people. This is the sector that’s been discriminated against. We’ve been called everything. We’ve been called animals. Manuel Rocha once called me the Andean Taliban. But we want fundamentally our rights to be respected. That’s our struggle.

AMY GOODMAN: A question about -- very last question, and that is, Mr. President, you said that the ambassador, the U.S. ambassador said people shouldn’t vote for you. Do you feel the U.S. is funding opposition groups to you?

PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] I don’t have any documentary evidence, although the head of USAID for Latin America stated that they were going to finance a political counterbalance opposition.

AMY GOODMAN: And your response?

PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] This is the problem that we face. If there’s going to be U.S. financing, it has to be coordinated through our municipal authorities, as well as our national authorities. These economic supports that come from USAID, for example, that come from taxpayers’ money here in the United States, have to be useful for social ends, and not for political purposes, nor for corruption. And why do I mention corruption? And our mayors, for example, in Chapare can build a wonderful sports field for 30,000 bolivianos. USAID does it for 90,000. With that money, we could do three, not just one. We want those funds to be used well and benefit of young people.

AMY GOODMAN: Mr. President, thank you very much.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Thank you.

PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] Thank you very much for the interview. A special greeting to the United States people, and thanks for opening this space to me. On my arrival here in the United States, I’ve encountered many friends. I have spoken with ex-presidents Carter and Clinton. We’ve had good conversations. And it seems like the business sectors are starting to understand our message, that we want partners and not bosses. And many thanks for this interview.

Alexander Cockburn (counterpunch, the nation, etc.) interview

Renowned leftist journalist Alexander Cockburn (counterpunch, the nation, etc.) interviewed by Tao Ruspoli and The LAFCO Bus during their cross country tour. In the first of two parts, he discusses his father's influence, the state of the democratic party, the Roman Empire, how to make a more comfortable sneaker and much more!. www.lafco.tv

Bush Rages: “I am not Beelzebub, Lord of Sulfur”

By Mike Whitney

“The devil is right at home…. The devil himself is right in the house. And the devil came here yesterday. Yesterday the devil came right here…And it still smells of sulfur today.” Hugo Chavez; address to the UN General Assembly 9-20-06

My oh my, has Hugo Chavez caused a furor. Looking at the news reports filed in the last 24 hours, one would think that he snuck a dirty-bomb into the United Nations rather than gave a speech. In fact, the plucky Chavez may have delivered the finest 30 minute presentation that august assembly has ever heard. In that short span of time he publicly throttled the Global Emperor in front of 6 billion people and left his bruised and bloodied carcass splattered across the canvas like Roberto Duran in Round 9 of the middleweight championship match…..

“No mas, no mas no mas”…

And what about the performance? Is Chavez part of a theatre troupe or is he just earning his chops as a method actor?

Whatever it is; it seems to be working. After skewering Bush as “the devil” and sniffing around for sulfur (the traditional sign of Lucifer) Chavez performed his ablutions with a sign of the cross and an angelic expression worthy of Botticelli.

If you’re a lefty, it just doesn’t get any better than this.

Chavez should give lessons in public speaking. His appearance was like a clap of thunder; waving Chomsky with one hand and pummeling Bush with the other. He managed to heap more muck on “Guantanamo Nation” than anyone since Harold Pinter gave his blistering Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech on 12-7-05. That’s when Pinter said:

“The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have ever talked about them. You have to hand it to America. It has exercised quite a clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It is a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.”

Chavez matched Pinter word for word, exposing the hypocrisy, lies and brutality of an administration that never stops lecturing about freedom and liberation even though it grinds out mountains of carnage everywhere it goes.

And where was Bush when Chavez delivered his broadside ….hiding behind Karen Hughes skirts, picking out a new eye-liner for his next televised harangue against Muslims, retrieving his Yale pom-poms from the dry-cleaners?

Our benighted leader always seems to disappear whenever the prospect of danger arises. He skedaddled when his number came up for the Alabama National Guard and he lit-out for the safety of a Nebraska cornfield when the planes hit the towers. He even vamoosed at a trade summit in Argentina when Chavez threatened “to sneak up behind him and give him a bear-hug.” That really put a spring in old Bush’s step as he quickly scuttled to the safety of Airforce One.

One thing is certain, whenever there’s peril, President “gone-to-soon” will be speeding off in a trail of vapor.

In any case, Bush was not missed at the UN massacre yesterday. Chavez held-forth like a preacher at a brothel; scattering the bodies and kicking open the windows to let the sunlight in. He delivered one, ferocious roundhouse punch after another….

Boom, boom, boom…until the crowd rose in a thunderous 5 minute ovation. (which was carefully omitted from the TV coverage)

“What would the people of the world tell (Bush) if they were given the floor?” Chavez asked. “What would they have to say? I have some inkling of what they would say, what the oppressed people think. They would say, ‘Yankee imperialist, go home.”

“He spoke to the people of Lebanon,” Chavez added. “Many of you have seen, he said, how your homes and communities were caught in the crossfire. How cynical can you get? What a capacity to lie shamefacedly. The bombs in Beirut were delivered with laser precision….This is imperialist (and) genocidal; the empire and Israel firing on the people of Palestine and Lebanon. That is what happened. And now we hear, ‘We’re suffering because we see homes destroyed.’”

Ouch; no wonder Bush “high-tailed it” out of the UN before the ensuing bloodbath.

Chavez is like a battering ram punching holes in the wall of silence which surrounds King George. Right after his speech I checked in at CNN and, as I expected, Bush-apologist Wolf Blitzer was spinning in his wingtips frantically trying to stitch together the tattered image of the Dear Leader. A quick peek at Google News confirms that the entire arsenal of corporate media is now engaged in the hopeless task of salvaging Bush’s wretched presidency.

But the damage is done. Chavez played the match on Bush’s home turf and beat him like a drum. Bush is probably still quivering under his desk.

“There are other ways of thinking,” Chavez opined. “There are young people who think differently and this has happened in a mere decade. It has been shown that ‘the end of history’ was a false assumption, and the same is true of Pax Americana and the establishment of a ‘capitalist neo-liberal world. The system has only generated more poverty. Who believes in it now?”

Yes, who believes it now? Who believes in a party which has only produced two ideas in its entire history; tax cuts and war? Who believes that endless bombardment and martial law can be passed off as democracy and liberation? Who believes that a rogue’s gallery of liars, war-profiteers and gangsters can work in the public’s interest?

“We want ideas to save our planet from the imperialist threat. And, hopefully in this very century, in not to long a time, we will see a new era, and for our children and grandchildren, a world of peace based on the fundamental principles of the United Nations, but a renewed United Nations.”

Yes, Hugo, we want peace with our neighbors, peace with our friends, and peace with our enemies. We’re sick of war and the men who want war; and that includes every feckless politico in Congress, Democrat and Republican alike.

“The hegemonistic pretensions of the American empire are placing at risk the very existence of the human species. We appeal to the people of the United States and of the world to halt this threat which is like a sword hanging over our heads.”

There’s no time to lose. We have to dump Bush NOW and get on with the pressing issues of global warming, peak oil, nuclear proliferation, poverty and AIDS.

Chavez is right; the present model for global rule is broken and corrupt. We need a change.

“Capitalism is savagery,” Chavez boomed.

Viva Chavez.

Unedited text of the address to the United Nations by Hugo Chavez on September 20, 2006.

The following is the complete unedited text of the address to the United Nations by Hugo Chavez on September 20, 2006.

Representatives of the governments of the world, good morning to all of you. First of all, I would like to invite you, very respectfully, to those who have not read this book, to read it.

Noam Chomsky, one of the most prestigious American and world intellectuals, Noam Chomsky, and this is one of his most recent books, 'Hegemony or Survival: The Imperialist Strategy of the United States.' [Holds up book, waves it in front of General Assembly.] It's an excellent book to help us understand what has been happening in the world throughout the 20th century, and what's happening now, and the greatest threat looming over our planet.

The hegemonic pretensions of the American empire are placing at risk the very survival of the human species. We continue to warn you about this danger and we appeal to the people of the United States and the world to halt this threat, which is like a sword hanging over our heads. I had considered reading from this book, but, for the sake of time, [flips through the pages, which are numerous] I will just leave it as a recommendation.



It reads easily, it is a very good book, I'm sure Madame [President] you are familiar with it. It appears in English, in Russian, in Arabic, in German. I think that the first people who should read this book are our brothers and sisters in the United States, because their threat is right in their own house.

The devil is right at home. The devil, the devil himself, is right in the house.

And the devil came here yesterday. Yesterday the devil came here. Right here. [crosses himself] And it smells of sulfur still today.

Yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, from this rostrum, the president of the United States, the gentleman to whom I refer as the devil, came here, talking as if he owned the world. Truly. As the owner of the world.

I think we could call a psychiatrist to analyze yesterday's statement made by the president of the United States. As the spokesman of imperialism, he came to share his nostrums, to try to preserve the current pattern of domination, exploitation and pillage of the peoples of the world.

An Alfred Hitchcock movie could use it as a scenario. I would even propose a title: "The Devil's Recipe."

As Chomsky says here, clearly and in depth, the American empire is doing all it can to consolidate its system of domination. And we cannot allow them to do that. We cannot allow world dictatorship to be consolidated.

The world parent's statement -- cynical, hypocritical, full of this imperial hypocrisy from the need they have to control everything.

They say they want to impose a democratic model. But that's their democratic model. It's the false democracy of elites, and, I would say, a very original democracy that's imposed by weapons and bombs and firing weapons.



What a strange democracy. Aristotle might not recognize it or others who are at the root of democracy.

What type of democracy do you impose with marines and bombs?

The president of the United States, yesterday, said to us, right here, in this room, and I'm quoting, "Anywhere you look, you hear extremists telling you can escape from poverty and recover your dignity through violence, terror and martyrdom." Wherever he looks, he sees extremists. And you, my brother -- he looks at your color, and he says, oh, there's an extremist. Evo Morales, the worthy president of Bolivia, looks like an extremist to him.

The imperialists see extremists everywhere. It's not that we are extremists. It's that the world is waking up. It's waking up all over. And people are standing up. I have the feeling, dear world dictator, that you are going to live the rest of your days as a nightmare because the rest of us are standing up, all those who are rising up against American imperialism, who are shouting for equality, for respect, for the sovereignty of nations.

Yes, you can call us extremists, but we are rising up against the empire, against the model of domination.

The president then -- and this he said himself, he said: "I have come to speak directly to the populations in the Middle East, to tell them that my country wants peace."



That's true. If we walk in the streets of the Bronx, if we walk around New York, Washington, San Diego, in any city, San Antonio, San Francisco, and we ask individuals, the citizens of the United States, what does this country want? Does it want peace? They'll say yes.

But the government doesn't want peace. The government of the United States doesn't want peace. It wants to exploit its system of exploitation, of pillage, of hegemony through war.

It wants peace. But what's happening in Iraq? What happened in Lebanon? In Palestine? What's happening? What's happened over the last 100 years in Latin America and in the world? And now threatening Venezuela -- new threats against Venezuela, against Iran?

He spoke to the people of Lebanon. Many of you, he said, have seen how your homes and communities were caught in the crossfire. How cynical can you get? What a capacity to lie shamefacedly. The bombs in Beirut with millimetric precision?

This is crossfire? He's thinking of a western, when people would shoot from the hip and somebody would be caught in the crossfire.

This is imperialist, fascist, assassin, genocidal, the empire and Israel firing on the people of Palestine and Lebanon. That is what happened. And now we hear, “We're suffering because we see homes destroyed.”

The president of the United States came to talk to the peoples -- to the peoples of the world. He came to say -- I brought some documents with me, because this morning I was reading some statements, and I see that he talked to the people of Afghanistan, the people of Lebanon, the people of Iran. And he addressed all these peoples directly.

And you can wonder, just as the president of the United States addresses those peoples of the world, what would those peoples of the world tell him if they were given the floor? What would they have to say?

And I think I have some inkling of what the peoples of the south, the oppressed people think. They would say, "Yankee imperialist, go home." I think that is what those people would say if they were given the microphone and if they could speak with one voice to the American imperialists.

And that is why, Madam President, my colleagues, my friends, last year we came here to this same hall as we have been doing for the past eight years, and we said something that has now been confirmed -- fully, fully confirmed.

I don't think anybody in this room could defend the system. Let's accept -- let's be honest. The U.N. system, born after the Second World War, collapsed. It's worthless. Oh, yes, it's good to bring us together once a year, see each other, make statements and prepare all kinds of long documents, and listen to good speeches, like Abel's yesterday, or President Mullah's . Yes, it's good for that.

And there are a lot of speeches, and we've heard lots from the president of Sri Lanka, for instance, and the president of Chile.



But we, the assembly, have been turned into a merely deliberative organ. We have no power, no power to make any impact on the terrible situation in the world. And that is why Venezuela once again proposes, here, today, 20 September, that we re-establish the United Nations.

Last year, Madam, we made four modest proposals that we felt to be crucially important. We have to assume the responsibility our heads of state, our ambassadors, our representatives, and we have to discuss it.

The first is expansion, and Mullah talked about this yesterday right here. The Security Council, both as it has permanent and non-permanent categories, (inaudible) developing countries and LDCs must be given access as new permanent members. That's step one.

Second, effective methods to address and resolve world conflicts, transparent decisions.

Point three, the immediate suppression -- and that is something everyone's calling for -- of the anti-democratic mechanism known as the veto, the veto on decisions of the Security Council.

Let me give you a recent example. The immoral veto of the United States allowed the Israelis, with impunity, to destroy Lebanon. Right in front of all of us as we stood there watching, a resolution in the council was prevented.

Fourthly, we have to strengthen, as we've always said, the role and the powers of the secretary general of the United Nations.

Yesterday, the secretary general practically gave us his speech of farewell. And he recognized that over the last 10 years, things have just gotten more complicated; hunger, poverty, violence, human rights violations have just worsened. That is the tremendous consequence of the collapse of the United Nations system and American hegemonistic pretensions.

Madam, Venezuela a few years ago decided to wage this battle within the United Nations by recognizing the United Nations, as members of it that we are, and lending it our voice, our thinking.

Our voice is an independent voice to represent the dignity and the search for peace and the reformulation of the international system; to denounce persecution and aggression of hegemonistic forces on the planet.

This is how Venezuela has presented itself. Bolivar's home has sought a nonpermanent seat on the Security Council.

Let's see. Well, there's been an open attack by the U.S. government, an immoral attack, to try and prevent Venezuela from being freely elected to a post in the Security Council.

The imperium is afraid of truth, is afraid of independent voices. It calls us extremists, but they are the extremists.

And I would like to thank all the countries that have kindly announced their support for Venezuela, even though the ballot is a secret one and there's no need to announce things.

But since the imperium has attacked, openly, they strengthened the convictions of many countries. And their support strengthens us.

Mercosur, as a bloc, has expressed its support, our brothers in Mercosur. Venezuela, with Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, is a full member of Mercosur.

And many other Latin American countries, CARICOM, Bolivia have expressed their support for Venezuela. The Arab League, the full Arab League has voiced its support. And I am immensely grateful to the Arab world, to our Arab brothers, our Caribbean brothers, the African Union. Almost all of Africa as expressed its support for Venezuela and countries such as Russia or China and many others.

I thank you all warmly on behalf of Venezuela, on behalf of our people, and on behalf of the truth, because Venezuela, with a seat on the Security Council, will be expressing not only Venezuela's thoughts, but it will also be the voice of all the peoples of the world, and we will defend dignity and truth.

Over and above all of this, Madam President, I think there are reasons to be optimistic. A poet would have said "helplessly optimistic," because over and above the wars and the bombs and the aggressive and the preventive war and the destruction of entire peoples, one can see that a new era is dawning.

As Silvio Rodriguez says, the era is giving birth to a heart. There are alternative ways of thinking. There are young people who think differently. And this has already been seen within the space of a mere decade. It was shown that the end of history was a totally false assumption, and the same was shown about Pax Americana and the establishment of the capitalist neo-liberal world. It has been shown, this system, to generate mere poverty. Who believes in it now?



What we now have to do is define the future of the world. Dawn is breaking out all over. You can see it in Africa and Europe and Latin America and Oceanea. I want to emphasize that optimistic vision.

We have to strengthen ourselves, our will to do battle, our awareness. We have to build a new and better world.

Venezuela joins that struggle, and that's why we are threatened. The U.S. has already planned, financed and set in motion a coup in Venezuela, and it continues to support coup attempts in Venezuela and elsewhere.

President Michelle Bachelet reminded us just a moment ago of the horrendous assassination of the former foreign minister, Orlando Letelier.

And I would just add one thing: Those who perpetrated this crime are free. And that other event where an American citizen also died were American themselves. They were CIA killers, terrorists.



And we must recall in this room that in just a few days there will be another anniversary. Thirty years will have passed from this other horrendous terrorist attack on the Cuban plane, where 73 innocents died, a Cubana de Aviacion airliner. And where is the biggest terrorist of this continent who took the responsibility for blowing up the plane? He spent a few years in jail in Venezuela. Thanks to CIA and then government officials, he was allowed to escape, and he lives here in this country, protected by the government.

And he was convicted. He has confessed to his crime. But the U.S. government has double standards. It protects terrorism when it wants to.

And this is to say that Venezuela is fully committed to combating terrorism and violence. And we are one of the people who are fighting for peace.

Luis Posada Carriles is the name of that terrorist who is rotected here. And other tremendously corrupt people who escaped from Venezuela are also living here under protection: a group that bombed various embassies, that assassinated people during the coup. They kidnapped me and they were going to kill me, but I think God reached down and our people came out into the streets and the army was too, and so I'm here today.

But these people who led that coup are here today in this country protected by the American government. And I accuse the American government of protecting terrorists and of aving a completely cynical discourse.

We mentioned Cuba. Yes, we were just there a few days ago. We just came from there happily.

And there you see another era born. The Summit of the 15, the Summit of the Nonaligned, adopted a historic resolution. This is the outcome document. Don't worry, I'm not going to read it.

But you have a whole set of resolutions here that were adopted after open debate in a transparent matter -- more than 50 heads of state. Havana was the capital of the south or a few weeks, and we have now launched, once again, the group of the nonaligned with new momentum.

And if there is anything I could ask all of you here, my companions, my brothers and sisters, it is to please lend your good will to lend momentum to the Nonaligned Movement for the birth of the new era, to prevent hegemony and prevent further advances of imperialism.

And as you know, Fidel Castro is the president of the nonaligned for the next three years, and we can trust him to lead the charge very efficiently.Unfortunately they thought, Oh, Fidel was going to die." But they're going to be disappointed because he didn't. And he's not only alive, he's back in his green fatigues, and he's now presiding the nonaligned.

So, my dear colleagues, Madam President, a new, strong movement has been born, a movement of the south. We are men and women of the south.

With this document, with these ideas, with these criticisms, I'm now closing my file. I'm taking the book with me. And, don't forget, I'm recommending it very warmly and very humbly to all of you.

We want ideas to save our planet, to save the planet from the imperialist threat. And hopefully in this very century, in not too long a time, we will see this, we will see this new era, and for our children and our grandchildren a world of peace based on the fundamental principles of the United Nations, but a renewed United Nations.

And maybe we have to change location. Maybe we have to put the United Nations somewhere else; maybe a city of the south. We've proposed Venezuela.

You know that my personal doctor had to stay in the plane. The chief of security had to be left in a locked plane. Neither of these gentlemen was allowed to arrive and attend the U.N. meeting. This is another abuse and another abuse of power on the part of the Devil. It smells of sulfur here, but God is with us and I embrace you all. May God bless us all. Good day to you.

30 Years Ago Today - Terrorism at Sheridan Circle: DINA, anti-Castro Cuban Terrorists and George H. W. Bush

By SAUL LANDAU

Terrorism struck then as it does now, without warning. At about 9:45 on Tuesday morning, September 21, 1976, the phone rang. I put down my coffee cup. "I just saw the worst accident," she said, with distress in her voice. My wife then described what she saw on Massachusetts Avenue as she drove to work. "Smoke was pouring out of this wreck of a car. There was blood and stuff all over Sheridan Circle. Someone might have died," she said, clearly shaken. "The Secret Service guys were running around in a panic."

"Sorry you had to see it. What a way to start your work day."

The second phone call, five minutes later, made my hands shake. A bomb had caused the Sheridan Circle "accident." The receptionist at the Institute for Policy Studies, in between shrieks and sobs, informed me of the identity of the three people in the sabotaged car, Orlando Letelier, Ronni and Michael Moffitt - my colleagues, my friends.

The bomb taped to the car's I beam blew upwards and severed Letelier's legs. He died minutes later. Ronni took metal slivers in the throat, one of which sliced an artery. She drowned in her own blood.

The blast blew off the car's back door. Michael flew out, escaping with scrapes and cuts and a lifelong trauma.

The secret service police who guard embassies said he kept screaming: "Pinochet did it" and "DINA did it." They thought he was crazy. In fact, he had identified the killers 30 seconds after they had struck.

When FBI agents interviewed me hours later and asked me who might have done the dirty deed, I replied "DINA." The agent asked: "Do you know her last name?"

I had foolishly assumed that an FBI Agent would know that DINA stood for Chile's intelligence and secret police agency. The Bureau soon learned. Its Agents discovered that in June 1976 General Augusto Pinochet, self proclaimed President and military dictator of Chile, gave orders to DINA's boss Col. Manuel Contreras to assassinate Letelier.

In less than two years, FBI investigators uncovered the relevant details of the terrorist plot that took place less than a mile from the White House. The Bureau concluded that Pinochet himself had to have authorized an assassination in Washington, DC.

Contreras dispatched Michael Townley, an American working for DINA, to coordinate the plot. Townley then engaged Guillermo Novo and his gang of anti-Castro Cubans (Cuban Nationalist Movement) from New Jersey who helped him acquire parts for his bomb. Two of them (Jose Dionisio Suarez and Virgilio Paz) pleaded guilty to "conspiring to assassinate." Each received a 12 year sentence and got paroled after 7. These two were in the car preceding Letelier into Sheridan Circle. One drove and the other pushed the remote control buttons to set off the bomb as Letelier's car entered Sheridan Circle. A jury found Novo and two other conspirators guilty, but their convictions got reversed on appeal. Novo was ultimately convicted of perjury, lying to the grand jury about his knowledge of the assassination plot.

In 1978, when Townley confessed in a plea bargain agreement, he told the FBI the details of how he had gotten orders from Contreras, received the surveillance report on Letelier from Capt. Armando Fernandez Larios and then recruited the Cubans to help finish the dirty deed. He explained at the Washington DC trial in 1980 how he had taped the bomb to Letelier's car two days before the detonation.

In 1979, I watched Townley tell the story to a Federal Court jury as he ratted out his fellow conspirators. He almost boasted about his clever design of a two-stage remote control detonator that the anti-Castro Cubans activated as Letelier's car entered Sheridan Circle.

Townley's quiet monotone in a hushed courtroom made my head throb. His voice had a trace of self pity as he told the jury about problems he encountered in planting the bomb. At 3 a.m. on a quiet residential street in Bethesda, Maryland, he crawled under the parked car and taped the "device" to the I beam. As he was securing his creation, a patrol car flashed its lights down the street. Townley said sweat dripped from his face. His heart pounded with fear. Letelier's car carried that bomb for two days.

The FBI had first learned about Townley from an informant placed inside the Cuban terrorist group. He told the Bureau that a Chilean agent named Wilson had come to recruit the Castro-haters for an assassination job.

Indictments came down some two years after the bloody deed. The Justice Department named Contreras and another high DINA official, Townley and the DINA agent who did the surveillance on Letelier and five Cuban exiles. But the name Pinochet did not appear on the indictment.

FBI Agents shrugged when asked about this "oversight." Larry Barcella, one of the prosecutors, agreed that it was "inconceivable" that such a crime could have occurred without Pinochet's authorization. But that was the world of politics - something the FBI and prosecutors accepted as a given.

That was before 9/11. In his September 21, 2001 address to Congress Bush promised to "pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists."

Even though all the evidence in the terrorist bombing of Letelier and Moffitt points directly to Pinochet, Bush has not demanded that Chile extradite him to the United States. Nor did previous Administrations put the bite on Chile. Indeed, Bush has harbored anti-Castro terrorists like Luis Posada Carrilles and Orlando Bosch, both implicated in the sabotage of a Cuban commercial airliner three weeks after the Letelier bombing. Seventy-three people died in that terrorist act.

President Bush I admitted Bosch into the United States. He lives in South Florida and plots with other geezers more terrorism in Cuba - and proudly admits it. Bosch claimed the bombing was "a legitimate act of war," and thus "there were no innocents on that plane." He called all the dead passengers and crew "collaborators." (Kirk Nielsen, Righteous Bombers? Miami New Times, Dec. 5, 2002)

Posada, who not only co-authored the airliner bombing with Bosch, but tried in 1999 to assassinate Castro in Panama, sits in a U.S. jail, charged with illegal entry - not terrorism. Indeed, a federal judge has proposed to free Posada and the U.S. government has made no protest. Such a move would take "harboring" to a new level.

Terrorism, for those who experience it, means death to family members and friends. It signifies future trauma, violent dreams and long-term anxiety. Terrorism means striking terror into people's hearts and minds, whether the means chosen include jet planes firing rockets, planting IEDs or people taping bombs under cars.

Bush, like previous U.S. presidents, has done nothing to seek the extradition of Pinochet, who perpetrated the terrorist act of September 21, 1976. So, when we remember victims of terrorism, like Letelier and Moffitt, we should also recall the duplicitous nature of Bush's war on terrorism. He doesn't really mean it. When he speaks the "t" word, he excludes those who covered their murders with anti-Castro or anti-left rhetoric.

We should also recall that Osama bin Laden and other terrorists of today received CIA backing when they used their murderous impulses against the Soviet Union.

On September 21, 2006, Chilean President Michele Bachelet inaugurated the Orlando Letelier Salon at Chile's UN headquarters, a good way to preserve historical memory. A bust of Ronni Moffitt and Orlando on Sheridan Circle brings some passersby to ask about how a Chilean general whom the U.S. government had supported in a military coup ordered a terrorist act in Washington.

Saul Landau's new book, A BUSH AND BOTOX WORLD, will be published by Counterpunch Press. He can be reached at: slandau@igc.org

John Paul II:Bush is the Anti-Christ - Chavez: Bush is the Devil

President Hugo Chavez calls George W. Bush the devil. Amid applause and laughter from the UN General Assembly, Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez yesterday called George W. Bush the devil in his address to the UN General Assembly. [It should be noted that Chavez is not the only world leader to link Bush to demonic influences. The late Pope John Paul II feared Bush was the anti-Christ]. In comparison, Bush's speech the day before was met with stony silence, with many delegates who did not leave the assembly hall beforehand, crossing their arms, looking downward in boredom, or reading. The neocon media is haranguing Chavez, even suggesting that he supports "terrorism" -- the new "communism" bogeyman for the right -- and putting Venezuela's Jewish population in jeopardy as a result of Chavez's support for Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad. The media paid scant attention to Chavez's references to two terrorist incidents in which the Devil's father was directly involved as CIA Director -- the Washington, DC car bombing assassination of former Chilean Foreign Minister Orlando Letelier and the bombing by right-wing Cuban terrorists of a Cubana airliner off Barbados, both occurring in 1976 when George H. W. Bush was ordering these and other atrocities from his perch in Langley, Virginia.

"V" for Neocon Vendetta

Special note on neocon viciousness in Washington, DC. This editor is being contacted by more and more U.S. government employees and members of the media who are reporting neocon viciousness at levels not seen here since their seizure of power in January 2001. All that can be said is that the neocon are not only vicious but vacuous, vain, vampire-like, vandalistic, vapid, vaporish, varicose, vaudevillian, vegetative, venal, vendetta-crazed, vengeful, venomous, ventral, ventricose, verminous, vertiginous, vesicant, vesicular, Vesuvian, vexatious, vicinal, victimizing, vigilantistic, vileness, villainous, violative, viperous, viral, visionless, vitriolic, vituperative, vociferous, void, volatile, vole-like, voluble, vomit-inducing, vulgar, and vulpine. [Thanks to "V" for the idea].

Chávez attacks 'devil' Bush in UN speech

Chávez attacks 'devil' Bush in UN speech

· Venezuelan accuses US of double standards on terror
· Bolivian president condemns war on drugs


Brandishing a copy of Noam Chomsky's Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance, the president of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez, cemented his reputation as Washington's chief irritant yesterday with a fiery performance at the United Nations.
In a 15-minute address to the annual gathering of international leaders in New York, President Chávez said he could still "smell sulphur" left behind by the "devil", George Bush, who had addressed the chamber 24 hours before.

His speech, which veered between a rousing appeal for a better world and a florid denunciation of the US, included the claim that President Bush thought he was in a western where people shot from the hip: "This is imperialist, fascist, assassin, genocidal, the empire."

Mr Chávez complained that his personal doctor and head of security had been prevented from disembarking at New York airport by the American authorities. And then he coined the phrase that will now forever be etched into UN history as one of the more colourful criticisms levelled at the US president from his own turf: "This is another abuse and another abuse of power on the part of the devil. It smells of sulphur here, but God is with us and I embrace you all."

He went on to accuse the US of double standards on terrorism. "The US has already planned, financed and set in motion a coup in Venezuela, and it continues to support coup attempts in Venezuela and elsewhere ... I accuse the American government of protecting terrorists and of having a completely cynical discourse."

Coming just 12 hours after Washington's other nemesis, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, had stood at the same spot and accused the US of hegemony and hypocrisy, Mr Chávez's colourful speech left US administration officials exasperated. John Bolton, the US ambassador to the UN, said afterwards that it was a "comic strip approach to international affairs" and "insulting".

Mr Chávez could openly say what he wanted in Central Park, he added: "Too bad President Chávez doesn't extend the same freedom of speech and the press to the people of Venezuela. That's my comment on his speech."

Delegates and leaders from around the world streamed back into the chamber to hear Mr Chávez, and when he stepped down the vigorous applause lasted so long that it had to be curtailed by the chair.

A fellow South American leader, Evo Morales of Bolivia, also livened up proceedings at the assembly. President Morales held up a coca leaf from the platform to make a point about his opposition to the US-driven war on drugs in his country.

The small, pale green leaf - illegal in the US - joins a growing list of artefacts displayed from the general assembly lectern that includes Nikita Khrushchev's shoe and Yasser Arafat's trademark gun and an olive branch.

Mr Morales, the first indigenous president of Bolivia, said: "We don't need blackmail and threats" and "There's another historical injustice - criminalising coca, the coca leaf."

The Bush administration has accused the Bolivian government of failing to curb the country's growing cocaine industry.

The Surprising End of the New American Century By Mike Whitney

“The US is updating contingency plans for a strike to cripple Iran’s atomic weapon’s program if international diplomacy fails…The plan calls for a rolling 5 day bombing campaign against 400 key targets, including 24 nuclear related sites, 14 military airfields and radar installations, and Revolutionary Guard headquarters” Ian Bruce, “US spells out plan to bomb Iran” UK Herald

“Justice has become the victim of force and aggression.” Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad; address to the United Nations 9-19-06

09/20/06 "Information Clearing House" -- -- The Iranian Mullahs have one advantage over the Bush administration if war breaks out. They know what Bush plans to do. They know that he intends to bomb numerous targets which are unrelated to the nuclear facilities, and they know that his ultimate goal is “regime change”. This fits into America’s larger regional-wide schema of crushing indigenous resistance movements (Hamas and Hezbollah), redrawing the map of the Middle East, and integrating the oil of the Caspian Basin into the US-controlled economic system.

Recent reports suggest that the Bush strategy is going forward despite warnings from high-ranking officials at the Pentagon and respected members of the foreign policy establishment. A recent article in Time magazine by Michael Duffy outlines a realistic scenario for the initial phase of the conflict:

“It will take a few days with thousands of sorties, satellite and laser-guided bombs will be aimed at targets—1,500 already planned by the Pentagon—and will try to infiltrate armed concrete, under which some of the nuclear sites are hidden… The sites are spread across the country, some of them exposed, some operating under the guise of regular plants, and others buried deep under the ground….The military offensive requires activating nearly all types of planes in the army’s possession: Warplanes and stealth vehicles, F-15 and F-16 aircrafts taking off from the land and an F-18 which takes off from an aircraft carrier.

Such an attack requires satellite guided weapons and laser-guided ammunition, as well as spy-planes and unmanned aerial vehicles. Since, many targets are hidden underground and are reinforced with armed concrete, they will have to be hit once and again in order to guarantee that they are destroyed, or at least seriously damaged.”

US Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner, who taught strategy and military operations at the National War College and who just finished a paper entitled “Considering the US Military option for Iran,” appeared on CNN this week and said:

“The order has been given (to strike Iran) In fact, we’ve probably been executing operations for at least 18 months…I’ve talked to Iranians (and they tell me) we’ve captured some people who worked with them (American Special-Ops) We’ve confirmed they’re there.” Gardiner added that “US naval forces have been alerted for deployment. That’s a major step. ..And the (battle) plan has been sent to the White House.”

The first phase of the war has already begun. The second phase, the bombing campaign, will undoubtedly follow a feeble pretext for initiating hostilities. Iran may be cited for its alleged nuclear weapons programs or Bush may simply claim the right to unilaterally enforce UN treaty violations, but these are just a formality. The decision to attack Iran was made long ago and features prominently in many of the neoconservative policy-documents including The Project for the New American Century and A Clean Break; a New Strategy for Securing the Realm. Iran cannot be allowed to develop nuclear technology for fear that it may provide them with the means to defend their oil. That would be catastrophic for western elites who plan to oversee the distribution of the world’s dwindling resources.

White House hawks and their corporate colleagues realize that the only way to manage the explosive growth of America’s greatest competitor, China, is by seizing its primary source of energy. The hand which controls the oil-spigot rules the world. Thus, Iran has become a strategic-imperative for US plans of global domination.

It is worth noting, that Iran has committed no violations and that Bush’s war plans are just another example of unprovoked aggression on a peaceful nation. Iran poses no national security threat to America, it has not attacked its neighbors, and, despite claims by the Bush administration, has not been involved in any (provable) acts of international terrorism. They are the simply the victims of a strident militarist doctrine that conceals flagrant acts of aggression behind the feeble ideology of “preemption”; a policy which allows the United States to attack whoever it chooses on the mere presumption that they may pose a potential threat to their continued global supremacy.

Iran has no nuclear weapons, no nuclear weapons programs, and has complied with every requirement of its treaty obligations under the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) for the last 3 years. At the same time it has undergone the most extensive inspection-regime in the history of the IAEA, the United Nations nuclear watchdog agency. The agency has been given a free-hand to “go anywhere and see anything” in Iran’s nuclear facilities and has consistently stated that it has found Iran “in compliance” with its requirements.

Never the less, the wrangling of the Bush administration, aided by a well-crafted propaganda campaign in the media, has created a furor at the UN and a split in public opinion. The public is unaware that Germany just sold Israel two nuclear submarines which will carry nuclear-tipped weapons, or that Brazil is at the same stage of the enrichment-process as Iran, or that Russia just signed a deal with South Africa that will provide them with nuclear fuel, or that the US just brushed aside its treaty obligations under the NPT to provide sensitive nuclear technology to India. Notwithstanding the double-standards, the charade continues, the war plans move forward, and the threat of a region-wide conflagration increases.

Bush has unilaterally repealed Iran’s clearly articulated treaty rights under the NPT, and yet, the European allies have fallen in line behind Washington. No one apparently can resist the administration’s incredible powers of coercion.

Ironically, Iran has signaled that the standoff could be resolved peacefully if Washington would agree to a non aggression pact that would guarantee that the US will not attack Iran without provocation. This tidbit of information is scrupulously omitted from reports in the media as it does not coincide with the image of Iran as the “terrorist bully” they are made out to be.

In a recent article by Gareth Porter “Iran Proposal to US offered Peace with Israel” the author states that in 2003 Iran not only offered “to accept peace with Israel and cut off material assistance to Palestinian armed groups” but made a “two page proposal for a broad US-Iran agreement covering all the issues facing the two countries”. The secret document was provided to IPS proves that Iran is neither committed to the destruction of Israel nor to the sponsorship of alleged terrorist groups.

“What the Iranians wanted in return,” Porter says, “was an end to US hostility and recognition of Iran as a legitimate power in the region. They want to see a “halt in hostile US behavior” as well as “recognition of Iran’s legitimate security interests in the region with according defense capacity.” (ISP) Respect and security in exchange for a comprehensive regional peace agreement; these are the same demands that one expects from any reasonable sovereign nation.

According to Porter, “Bush refused to allow any response to the Iranian offer to negotiate an agreement that would have accepted the existence of Israel.” (IPS)

Last month, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice confirmed that the administration’s position has not changed. She said, “Security guarantees for Iran were off the table.”

How can there be peace if one country will not agree not to attack another?

Iran has no choice but to take Bush’s saber rattling seriously and prepare for war. The administration’s stated goal of “regime change” poses a credible “existential threat” to current Iranian government and they must plan accordingly. They should expect that the US will prevail handily in the massive air campaign which will destroy much of Iran’s civil infrastructure leaving it in a state similar to that of Lebanon. But, following the aerial bombardment the real war will begin. (As was true in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon) If Iran intends to remove the persistent threat created by the neocon plan for regional hegemony, it must anticipate a decades-long struggle which will be aimed at undermining the ability of the United States to wage war. That means they will probably focus on targets that will destroy the US economy; asymmetrical attacks on the currency, attacks on tankers, pipelines, oil-platforms and energy sites around the world, destabilizing regional allies of America (particularly Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan) arming guerilla groups in Afghanistan and Iraq, and a concerted campaign to disrupt the flow of oil to western markets.

It will also do what it can to realign the world in a way that challenges and ultimately discards the United Nations which merely serves the imperial ambitions of the US and its European allies. To that end, it must strengthen ties with Russia, China, India, Venezuela, Brazil and the non-aligned states. It will focus on isolating the US from its allies by turning world opinion against the aggressor and doing whatever is possible to shatter the trans-Atlantic Alliance. Once the US is separated from Europe, NATO and the UN will collapse, and the war will quickly come to a close.

A war with Iran will be catastrophic, but it may also have the unintended effect of establishing greater parity among the nations by replacing the American-European paradigm with a more equitable system. It could, in fact, restore our commitment to the basic principles of national sovereignty, self determination, and human rights.

Still, the cost is bound to be substantial. A war with Iran will produce hundreds of thousands of casualties, topple the Superpower model of global rule and, very likely, bring an end to the new American century.

Rise Up Against the Empire - President Hugo Chavez, Address to the United Nations

Rise Up Against the Empire

President Hugo Chavez, Address to the United Nations

09/19/06

Representatives of the governments of the world, good morning to all of you. First of all, I would like to invite you, very respectfully, to those who have not read this book, to read it.

Noam Chomsky, one of the most prestigious American and world intellectuals, Noam Chomsky, and this is one of his most recent books, 'Hegemony or Survival: The Imperialist Strategy of the United States.'" [Holds up book, waves it in front of General Assembly.] "It's an excellent book to help us understand what has been happening in the world throughout the 20th century, and what's happening now, and the greatest threat looming over our planet.

The hegemonic pretensions of the American empire are placing at risk the very survival of the human species. We continue to warn you about this danger and we appeal to the people of the United States and the world to halt this threat, which is like a sword hanging over our heads. I had considered reading from this book, but, for the sake of time," [flips through the pages, which are numerous] "I will just leave it as a recommendation.

It reads easily, it is a very good book, I'm sure Madame [President] you are familiar with it. It appears in English, in Russian, in Arabic, in German. I think that the first people who should read this book are our brothers and sisters in the United States, because their threat is right in their own house.

The devil is right at home. The devil, the devil himself, is right in the house.

"And the devil came here yesterday. Yesterday the devil came here. Right here." [crosses himself] "And it smells of sulfur still today.

Yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, from this rostrum, the president of the United States, the gentleman to whom I refer as the devil, came here, talking as if he owned the world. Truly. As the owner of the world.

I think we could call a psychiatrist to analyze yesterday's statement made by the president of the United States. As the spokesman of imperialism, he came to share his nostrums, to try to preserve the current pattern of domination, exploitation and pillage of the peoples of the world.

An Alfred Hitchcock movie could use it as a scenario. I would even propose a title: "The Devil's Recipe."

As Chomsky says here, clearly and in depth, the American empire is doing all it can to consolidate its system of domination. And we cannot allow them to do that. We cannot allow world dictatorship to be consolidated.

The world parent's statement -- cynical, hypocritical, full of this imperial hypocrisy from the need they have to control everything.

They say they want to impose a democratic model. But that's their democratic model. It's the false democracy of elites, and, I would say, a very original democracy that's imposed by weapons and bombs and firing weapons.

What a strange democracy. Aristotle might not recognize it or others who are at the root of democracy.

What type of democracy do you impose with marines and bombs?

The president of the United States, yesterday, said to us, right here, in this room, and I'm quoting, "Anywhere you look, you hear extremists telling you can escape from poverty and recover your dignity through violence, terror and martyrdom."

Wherever he looks, he sees extremists. And you, my brother -- he looks at your color, and he says, oh, there's an extremist. Evo Morales, the worthy president of Bolivia, looks like an extremist to him.

The imperialists see extremists everywhere. It's not that we are extremists. It's that the world is waking up. It's waking up all over. And people are standing up.

I have the feeling, dear world dictator, that you are going to live the rest of your days as a nightmare because the rest of us are standing up, all those who are rising up against American imperialism, who are shouting for equality, for respect, for the sovereignty of nations.

Yes, you can call us extremists, but we are rising up against the empire, against the model of domination.

The president then -- and this he said himself, he said: "I have come to speak directly to the populations in the Middle East, to tell them that my country wants peace."

That's true. If we walk in the streets of the Bronx, if we walk around New York, Washington, San Diego, in any city, San Antonio, San Francisco, and we ask individuals, the citizens of the United States, what does this country want? Does it want peace? They'll say yes.

But the government doesn't want peace. The government of the United States doesn't want peace. It wants to exploit its system of exploitation, of pillage, of hegemony through war.

It wants peace. But what's happening in Iraq? What happened in Lebanon? In Palestine? What's happening? What's happened over the last 100 years in Latin America and in the world? And now threatening Venezuela -- new threats against Venezuela, against Iran?

He spoke to the people of Lebanon. Many of you, he said, have seen how your homes and communities were caught in the crossfire. How cynical can you get? What a capacity to lie shamefacedly. The bombs in Beirut with millimetric precision?

This is crossfire? He's thinking of a western, when people would shoot from the hip and somebody would be caught in the crossfire.

This is imperialist, fascist, assassin, genocidal, the empire and Israel firing on the people of Palestine and Lebanon. That is what happened. And now we hear, "We're suffering because we see homes destroyed.'

The president of the United States came to talk to the peoples -- to the peoples of the world. He came to say -- I brought some documents with me, because this morning I was reading some statements, and I see that he talked to the people of Afghanistan, the people of Lebanon, the people of Iran. And he addressed all these peoples directly.

And you can wonder, just as the president of the United States addresses those peoples of the world, what would those peoples of the world tell him if they were given the floor? What would they have to say?

And I think I have some inkling of what the peoples of the south, the oppressed people think. They would say, "Yankee imperialist, go home." I think that is what those people would say if they were given the microphone and if they could speak with one voice to the American imperialists.

And that is why, Madam President, my colleagues, my friends, last year we came here to this same hall as we have been doing for the past eight years, and we said something that has now been confirmed -- fully, fully confirmed.

I don't think anybody in this room could defend the system. Let's accept -- let's be honest. The U.N. system, born after the Second World War, collapsed. It's worthless.

Oh, yes, it's good to bring us together once a year, see each other, make statements and prepare all kinds of long documents, and listen to good speeches, like Abel's yesterday, or President Mullah's . Yes, it's good for that.

And there are a lot of speeches, and we've heard lots from the president of Sri Lanka, for instance, and the president of Chile.

But we, the assembly, have been turned into a merely deliberative organ. We have no power, no power to make any impact on the terrible situation in the world. And that is why Venezuela once again proposes, here, today, 20 September, that we re-establish the United Nations.

Last year, Madam, we made four modest proposals that we felt to be crucially important. We have to assume the responsibility our heads of state, our ambassadors, our representatives, and we have to discuss it.

The first is expansion, and Mullah talked about this yesterday right here. The Security Council, both as it has permanent and non-permanent categories, (inaudible) developing countries and LDCs must be given access as new permanent members. That's step one.

Second, effective methods to address and resolve world conflicts, transparent decisions.

Point three, the immediate suppression -- and that is something everyone's calling for -- of the anti-democratic mechanism known as the veto, the veto on decisions of the Security Council.

Let me give you a recent example. The immoral veto of the United States allowed the Israelis, with impunity, to destroy Lebanon. Right in front of all of us as we stood there watching, a resolution in the council was prevented.

Fourthly, we have to strengthen, as we've always said, the role and the powers of the secretary general of the United Nations.

Yesterday, the secretary general practically gave us his speech of farewell. And he recognized that over the last 10 years, things have just gotten more complicated; hunger, poverty, violence, human rights violations have just worsened. That is the tremendous consequence of the collapse of the United Nations system and American hegemonistic pretensions.

Madam, Venezuela a few years ago decided to wage this battle within the United Nations by recognizing the United Nations, as members of it that we are, and lending it our voice, our thinking.

Our voice is an independent voice to represent the dignity and the search for peace and the reformulation of the international system; to denounce persecution and aggression of hegemonistic forces on the planet.

This is how Venezuela has presented itself. Bolivar's home has sought a nonpermanent seat on the Security Council.

Let's see. Well, there's been an open attack by the U.S. government, an immoral attack, to try and prevent Venezuela from being freely elected to a post in the Security Council.

The imperium is afraid of truth, is afraid of independent voices. It calls us extremists, but they are the extremists.

And I would like to thank all the countries that have kindly announced their support for Venezuela, even though the ballot is a secret one and there's no need to announce things.

But since the imperium has attacked, openly, they strengthened the convictions of many countries. And their support strengthens us.

Mercosur, as a bloc, has expressed its support, our brothers in Mercosur. Venezuela, with Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, is a full member of Mercosur.

And many other Latin American countries, CARICOM, Bolivia have expressed their support for Venezuela. The Arab League, the full Arab League has voiced its support. And I am immensely grateful to the Arab world, to our Arab brothers, our Caribbean brothers, the African Union. Almost all of Africa has expressed its support for Venezuela and countries such as Russia or China and many others.

I thank you all warmly on behalf of Venezuela, on behalf of our people, and on behalf of the truth, because Venezuela, with a seat on the Security Council, will be expressing not only Venezuela's thoughts, but it will also be the voice of all the peoples of the world, and we will defend dignity and truth.

Over and above all of this, Madam President, I think there are reasons to be optimistic. A poet would have said "helplessly optimistic," because over and above the wars and the bombs and the aggressive and the preventive war and the destruction of entire peoples, one can see that a new era is dawning.

As Sylvia Rodriguez says, the era is giving birth to a heart. There are alternative ways of thinking. There are young people who think differently. And this has already been seen within the space of a mere decade. It was shown that the end of history was a totally false assumption, and the same was shown about Pax Americana and the establishment of the capitalist neo-liberal world. It has been shown, this system, to generate mere poverty. Who believes in it now?

What we now have to do is define the future of the world. Dawn is breaking out all over. You can see it in Africa and Europe and Latin America and Oceanea. I want to emphasize that optimistic vision.

We have to strengthen ourselves, our will to do battle, our awareness. We have to build a new and better world.

Venezuela joins that struggle, and that's why we are threatened. The U.S. has already planned, financed and set in motion a coup in Venezuela, and it continues to support coup attempts in Venezuela and elsewhere.

President Michelle Bachelet reminded us just a moment ago of the horrendous assassination of the former foreign minister, Orlando Letelier.

And I would just add one thing: Those who perpetrated this crime are free. And that other event where an American citizen also died were American themselves. They were CIA killers, terrorists.

And we must recall in this room that in just a few days there will be another anniversary. Thirty years will have passed from this other horrendous terrorist attack on the Cuban plane, where 73 innocents died, a Cubana de Aviacion airliner.

And where is the biggest terrorist of this continent who took the responsibility for blowing up the plane? He spent a few years in jail in Venezuela. Thanks to CIA and then government officials, he was allowed to escape, and he lives here in this country, protected by the government.

And he was convicted. He has confessed to his crime. But the U.S. government has double standards. It protects terrorism when it wants to.

And this is to say that Venezuela is fully committed to combating terrorism and violence. And we are one of the people who are fighting for peace.

Luis Posada Carriles is the name of that terrorist who is protected here. And other tremendously corrupt people who escaped from Venezuela are also living here under protection: a group that bombed various embassies, that assassinated people during the coup. They kidnapped me and they were going to kill me, but I think God reached down and our people came out into the streets and the army was too, and so I'm here today.

But these people who led that coup are here today in this country protected by the American government. And I accuse the American government of protecting terrorists and of having a completely cynical discourse.

We mentioned Cuba. Yes, we were just there a few days ago. We just came from there happily.

And there you see another era born. The Summit of the 15, the Summit of the Nonaligned, adopted a historic resolution. This is the outcome document. Don't worry, I'm not going to read it.

But you have a whole set of resolutions here that were adopted after open debate in a transparent matter -- more than 50 heads of state. Havana was the capital of the south for a few weeks, and we have now launched, once again, the group of the nonaligned with new momentum.

And if there is anything I could ask all of you here, my companions, my brothers and sisters, it is to please lend your good will to lend momentum to the Nonaligned Movement for the birth of the new era, to prevent hegemony and prevent further advances of imperialism.

And as you know, Fidel Castro is the president of the nonaligned for the next three years, and we can trust him to lead the charge very efficiently.

Unfortunately they thought, "Oh, Fidel was going to die." But they're going to be disappointed because he didn't. And he's not only alive, he's back in his green fatigues, and he's now presiding the nonaligned.

So, my dear colleagues, Madam President, a new, strong movement has been born, a movement of the south. We are men and women of the south.

With this document, with these ideas, with these criticisms, I'm now closing my file. I'm taking the book with me. And, don't forget, I'm recommending it very warmly and very humbly to all of you.

We want ideas to save our planet, to save the planet from the imperialist threat. And hopefully in this very century, in not too long a time, we will see this, we will see this new era, and for our children and our grandchildren a world of peace based on the fundamental principles of the United Nations, but a renewed United Nations.

And maybe we have to change location. Maybe we have to put the United Nations somewhere else; maybe a city of the south. We've proposed Venezuela.

You know that my personal doctor had to stay in the plane. The chief of security had to be left in a locked plane. Neither of these gentlemen was allowed to arrive and attend the U.N. meeting. This is another abuse and another abuse of power on the part of the Devil. It smells of sulfur here, but God is with us and I embrace you all.

May God bless us all. Good day to you.