Sounds like Kissinger's obsession against Allende...
>
> But the idea — and it is a hoary one — that the CIA is in the business of creating evil, right-wing dictatorships >in Latin America is just laughable. Besides, the CIA in the film is clearly meant to stand for the U.S.
http://www.santiagotimes.cl/santiagotimes/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=14644
-[quote]--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kissinger was encouraged by CIA officials to cover up any paper trail on U.S. operations "to be sure the paper record doesn't look bad." "The President's view is to do the maximum possible to prevent an Allende takeover, but through Chilean sources and with a low posture," said Kissinger.
On September 12, 1970, in the middle of a report to Nixon on the status of a terrorist hostage crisis in Amman, Jordan, Kissinger suggests, "the big problem today is Chile." Former CIA director John McCone was among those supporting action against Allende. Pepsi CEO Donald Kendall, and close personal friend of the president, brought Chilean media mogul Augustine Edwards to Washington to discuss a media campaign to destabilize Allende's government.
Kissinger: They have blown up the planes but without the passengers. President Nixon: They blew up the planes to prove themselves. To prove that they would have done it if we attacked them. K: The big problem today is Chile. RN: Their stock market went to hell. K: I had a call last night from McCone and Kendall this morning. McCone thinks it would be a catastrophe if we let it go. RN: We don't want a big story leaking out that we are trying to overthrown the [Chilean] government. Nixon subsequently informed CIA director Helms that Allende's election was "not acceptable" and ordered the agency to "make the economy scream" and "save Chile," as Helms recorded in his notes. The CIA then launched a massive set of covert operations--first to block Allende's inauguration, and, when that failed, to undermine his ability to successfully govern.
"Our main concern in Chile is the prospect that [Allende] can consolidate himself and the picture projected to the world will be his success," Nixon told his National Security Council on November 6, 1970, two days after Allende took office. -[end quote]---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, the U.S. had a role in propping up dictators in the 1950s and '60s. And yes, it would have been ideal if >those countries had moderate democrats we could support. But they usually didn't. It was often a choice >between a Soviet-backed thug like Fidel Castro or a right-wing regime.
The author of the above article needs to do some reading, methinks... ;)
> But in the 1980s and since, the United States did everything possible to find the moderate forces in places like >El Salvador and Nicaragua. We enjoyed great success in spreading democracy and free markets in Latin >America.
> but by genuine left-wing dictators and would-be dictators. Do the names Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, and
> Daniel Ortega not ring a bell?
No, really. They don't. What is a would-be dictator?. A dictator in the making? A suspect-dictator, if given the chance?. Is this taking the "pre-emptive strike" philosophy to new lengths?. How about applying that reasonining to kindergarten children?. I'm sure if one looks at their behaviour in the sandbox we could identify the would-be dictators of tomorrow. Better get rid of them before they do any harm!. ;-)
Thanks for posting the above quotes, docile_body... I always enjoy a good laugh. :) top-notch material... as one friend in California says these people "write about Latin America while sipping coffee at their local Starbucks".
FC