<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2722" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY id=role_body style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Arial" bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 topMargin=7 rightMargin=7><FONT id=role_document face=Arial color=#000000 size=2> <DIV>Very good article. But Chavez is not trying to " spread revolutionary fervor through South America." This is the thesis of the neo-cons at the State Dept.</DIV> <DIV>Chavez, as the article points out, is hardly even a "leftist'. Perhaps these terms are losing meaning now. If you count the No. of nationalized banks, private businesses taken over, confiscated farms, state capital venture enterprises, gosplans, etc, they all equal zero.So Hugo is at most a compassionate reformist using oil money to advance social programs in education, health and common infrastructure, These are the kind of programs that the IMF/WB hates. And these are the oil revenues that the old oil technocracy used to appropriate for themselves to buy Park Ave. apts in NYC. The opposition to Chavez come from the fact that the old ruling elite of Venezuela is one of greediest, racist,myopic ruling classes in the world. Them and the Colombians, who are even worst, and who, as Gott points out at he end, are still paying the consequences of the assassination (no Pat Robertson implicated here) of the immensely popular leftist leader Gaitan , as he was about to win the presidential elections in 1948. So much for the pushing of liberal democracies.</DIV> <DIV>Final question is what does the US ruling elite gains from supporting the incompetent Venezuelan old guard? Wouldn't it be in their best interest to support Chavez?</DIV> <DIV>Cristobal Senior</DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>