Brian Nelson is an author and professor at John Hopkins University. He recently wrote a book about the 2002 coup d'état in Venezuela, which gave a very one-sided account of the events, and left out some very important pieces of evidence. After hearing him on the radio recently, I decided to write him this letter:Mr. Nelson,I listened via web to a radio interview that you did on public radio a couple days ago. I couldn't help but notice that many of the things you said are factually wrong. I don't have time to go into each and every one of them right now, but I thought I should at least point out to you the most obvious one (and perhaps the most important to you) regarding the 2002 coup attempt in Venezuela. Since you wrote a book on the topic, it surprises me that you could ignore some of the most basic pieces of evidence surrounding the events.You said in the interview that the military decided to overthrow the Chavez government after they learned of the civilian deaths in the street. This is false, and even the coup leaders themselves have said as much. The day after the coup, the coup leaders discussed on national television their "plan", and how they had been planning it long before any deaths occurred. You can see parts of that video here.
Not only that, but you also ignore the testimony of Otto Neustadl and Mayela Leon, both journalists which were present when the military generals renounced support for the Chavez government on national television. Both of these journalists have given independent statements which reveal that the military generals were discussing the deaths in the streets hours before they had actually happened. Otto Neustadl even says that they told him the night before that there were going to be deaths at the march on April 11th. Those testimonies can be seen here and here.
An honest look at the available evidence shows that this coup was clearly planned in advance by opposition forces, and it also seems quite probable that the civilian deaths were planned and carried out by opposition forces. There is evidence that indicates members of the Metropolitan Police force, controlled at that time by opposition mayor Alfredo Peña, had infiltrated the La Nacional building and were, in their own words, neutralizing "los talibanes." Those audio recordings can be heard here.
As a scholar and professional, one would think you would be interested in including all relevant evidence about the events that day. However, I notice in your book that you fail to even mention any of the evidence above which contradicts your account. You also fail to mention anything about the media manipulation regarding the shootings on Puente Llaguno, or the overwhelming role of the media in the coup. I would be interested in hearing your explanation as to why you did not address these key pieces of evidence in your book, and why you continue to give a false account of what happened on April 11th, 2002 in your public appearances.
Thank you,
ChronicallyClueless
So, In my mind there are only two possibilities here. Either Mr. Nelson was unaware of these key pieces of evidence that refute his version of events, or he is simply dishonest, just like his friends over at CaracasChronicles. What's your guess? Wanna bet he doesn't respond?
46 comments:
If you indeed signed "ChronicallyClueless", the poor fellow must be wondering what kind of loony sent him this letter. BTW how is the reading of these two books going on?
Charly
Charly,
Explain how these books you list refute my evidence. Otherwise your argument is worthless.
They do not necessarily refute all of your evidence, only partly. This is why they are interesting reading contrary to this evidence that is all one sided. So many videos came out, so many newspaper articles, etc. You choose your evidence like a cherry picker and this is DISHONEST. Especially with the pistoleros of puente llaguno. Those guys were caught pants down and no amount of wishy washy justification will wipe that out. In fact as we say, it takes two to tango in this case officialdom and the oppo. Now go read the books and don't talk to me until you have done so.
Charly
Charly,
This really isn't that difficult. If you can't explain how the books refute my evidence, then you don't have an argument.
Anyone can just say "go read this book!" But if the books you cite do indeed refute anything I've said, then you should be able to tell me how.
But it is obvious that you can't do that. Just admit it man. You can't refute anything I've said. So give it up.
Especially with the pistoleros of puente llaguno. Those guys were caught pants down and no amount of wishy washy justification will wipe that out.
Wishy washy justification? How about video evidence that clearly shows that they were shooting at the Metropolitan Police who were shooting at them? (Which even Globovision journalists, and Luis Alfonso Fernández, the guy who MADE THE VIDEO FOOTAGE IN THE FIRST PLACE, have admitted.)
Ante la irremediabilidad de estos hechos, el periodista Fernández tuvo que reconocer ante los abogados de Peñalver, Atencio, Cabrices y Nicolás Rivera Muentes que "en su grabación no se podía ver hacia donde disparaban los procesados y que la voz que dice que lo hacían contra la marcha, fue sobrepuesta a posteriori." (Últimas Noticias, 30 de Julio de 2003) Asimismo, el periodista de Globovisión, Del Valle Canelón, "declaró que en su video se ve al grupo de los civiles disparando, pero en contra de la Policía Metropolitana", quedando asi demostrada la manipulación del video producido por Venevisión para inculpar a los civiles simpatizantes del gobierno en una supuesta masacre ordenada por el propio presidente Chávez, y el ocultamiento de material audiovisual por parte de Globovisión que mostraba la verdad de los hechos.
And according to audio recordings, the metropolitan police had infiltrated La Nacional building and were shooting at the Chavistas from there.
I find it very interesting how you oppos are so blatantly dishonest that you will maintain the same bogus story despite all the evidence to the contrary.
What, no "refutation" from Anonymous Charly?
BTW, it wasn't Globomojón that shot and manipulated the video of the guys on Puente Llaguno defending themselves against the cops, it was Venevisión. Who were also in on the coup, and whose job it was to provide audiovisiual justification.
Otherwise, though, good job debunking the troll.
http://www.analitica.com/BITBLIO/venezuela/neustald_rueda_prensa.asp
Bina,
I know it wasn't Globovision that manipulated the footage, but what I was saying is that even Globovision journalists, who also lied in the beginning, have admitted that the footage was manipulated.
Even the journalist who won the award for the footage, Luis Alfonso Fernández, was forced to admit that they were shooting at the metropolitan police, not the march.
Anonymous,
I can't make that link work. I'd love to pick it apart. Can you repost it?
http://www.analitica.com/BITBLIO/venezuela/neustald_rueda_prensa.asp
Neither can I. Just paste it into your browser.
Tried that, doesn't work.
Paste it in two separate parts if you can. I can't see the end of it.
Funny, pasting it works with me.
Finally got it to work.
What you have posted is Neustadl's press conference in which he attempts to take back what he had already said. But in no place does he explain why his previous statement would not be true. And, in addition, ANOTHER journalist, Mayela Leon, was also there when the military renounced Chavez and she said the same thing.
Neustadl tries to claim that his words were taken out of context. But go watch the video I linked to. Does it appear that they were taken out of context when he says that someone called him the night before and told him there would be some deaths on April 11th???
Come on, let's try to be honest here.
So who is providing evidence, the Neustald before or the Neustald after? The whole thing sounds like a bunch of gobbledigook to me. If the fellow is lying after, was he telling the truth before, and vice-versa. If you google his name you will find so many entries that you can just pick the ones you fancy depending on your political stripes. I am not trying to re-establish facts, I simply don't know based on all theses evidences of one kind or another. Nothing dishonest about it, I simply don't know and don't claim to hold the truth.
No, this is not true Anonymous.
Read his statement. In his second statement he does not say anything about why his original statement was not true. He even verifies that someone called him the night before:
Pregunta: Hay una parte en el vídeo que transmitieron que vimos, que usted dice que recibió una llamada el día 10 en la noche indicándole que iba a haber un vídeo, que iban a haber una declaración contra Chávez, y después volvemos a ver en el vídeo que transmitieron, que a las 11 de la mañana recibió otro llamada indicándole que no eran ya veinte sino menos, pero representativo y que iban a haber los muertos en los mismos contextos ¿cómo se explica eso?
Otto Neustald: No tengo que explicarlo, recibí la llamada es totalmente cierto.
So, in other words, this second statement only further corroborates his previous statement. He DID recieve a call on April 10th, and they DID say there would be some deaths on April 11th.
In addition, another journalist who was there gave the same testimony. What is there to not understand here?
What is there to not understand here? The fact that he says that the video was edited, manipulated. You are trying too hard to convince on tainted evidence. Let's move on.
It doesn't matter what he says after the fact. He could claim that it was really an alien from MARS that looks just like him that made that statement. Would you also believe that?
Watch the video. His words are not taken out of context. It is extremely clear that what he was saying was in no way manipulated. And either way, Mayela Leon said the same thing, so the reality is that YOU'RE trying too hard to discount evidence that has been corroborated by other sources.
You're being dishonest here. Just admit it.
Besides that, he even says in his SECOND STATEMENT that the part about the phone call was true. So what exactly do you not understand here? He verifies the fact that the coup leaders knew there would be deaths in the street as early as the night before. His second statement DOES NOT contradict that.
Come on. Be honest. I know you can do it.
We both saw the video and read the interview. You are convinced, I am not. "Come on. Be honest. I know you can do it." You sound like an evangelist preacher. For the last time I tell you this fellow contradicted himself. In court, his deposition would be thrown out. For me this is sufficient to suspect EVERYTHING he says.
Hahahaha!!! Hilarioius Anonymous. So even though in his second statement he VERIFIES THAT WHAT HE SAID ABOUT THE PHONE CALL ON APRIL 10TH WAS "TOTALMENTE CIERTO," you still aren't convinced.
Sure, man. You're honest. And I notice you won't even address the fact that Mayela Leon also corroborates it.
I love it. You oppo guys apparently don't care to show that you are completely and totally incapable of being honest.
Thanks for playing Anonymous. This blog, and this letter to Nelson, is dedicated to guys like you.
"For the last time I tell you this fellow contradicted himself."
He didn't contradict himself about the most important part. When asked again about the phone call on April 10th in which they were already talking about deaths, he said "ES TOTALMENTE CIERTO."
You've tried hard. But all you've demonstrated here is just how dishonest you oppo idiots really are.
Thanks for making this blog what it is Anonymous!
Not an oppo attitude with respect to Neustadl testimony but a ni-ni attitude.
with this kind of garbage post and discussion brian nelson does not need to reply to anything: your own contradictions and prejudice take care of it all.
Yeah, you're right Anon. Hard evidence that directly contradicts Nelson's account doesn't mean anything!!!
Haha I come back from vacation and find this blog! Nice work. I'm wondering if you maybe should also be imitating Quico's prose "style": "and then like a balloon full of hot air, the rhetoric was punctured, and boom, fell off a cliff," and you wonder if it's intentional that not a single phrase on the blog isn't a cliche.
http://www.robertamsterdam.com/venezuela/2009/08/coup_vs_vacuum_of_power_interview_with_brian_nelson_on_11-a.htm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-amsterdam/chvezs-revolution-will-no_b_268475.html
Anonymous,
I notice that since you don't have any arguments that can refute what I've said here, you simply post links as if that is somehow a response to what I've said.
The problem is, your links don't refute any of my evidence. Brian Nelson just continues with his same dishonest nonsense.
He pretends that the coup was a result of the people shot on April 11th, whereas the evidence I list here clearly shows that the opposition had planned the coup long before anyone was shot in the street. And it also appears likely that the opposition forces had planned for deaths ahead of time.
All this nonsense about them not having a clear plan is refuted by the coup leaders themselves!!! They themselves have said that they DID have a plan, and they have explained what that plan was. Patricia Poleo has also clearly explained that the coup was planned ahead of time.
I'm still waiting for ANY of you oppo morons to respond to the evidence presented here in an honest, rational way, and stop just trying to divert the conversation by posting nonsense that doesn't refute anything I've said.
"it also appears likely that the opposition forces had planned for deaths ahead of time."
Talk about one-sided hackery...
...and still waiting.
Talk about one-sided hackery...
JSB, if the opposition forces were not planning for deaths ahead of time, why did they tell Otto Neustadl on the night of April 10th that there would be deaths? Why was Mayela Leon surprised by the military generals discussing deaths before any deaths were reported?
If you review the testimonies before the National Assembly following the events, you will find that Efrain Vasquez Velasco and Manuel Rosendo spoke of a high level meeting that took place on the 7th of April where the same subject was raised (and organized) to their horror. As a result Vasquez Velasco deposited the president and after being outmaneuvered by the Carmona gang reinstated him. History is always rewritten by the victors.
Anonymous,
Your comment doesn't really make sense. Could you clarify what you are trying to say, and perhaps link to evidence to back it up?
If you are referring to what Velasco and Rosendo, two of the coup leaders, said later to justify their actions well then of course they would say something like that. However, you still cannot refute the evidence presented here which is people from the opposition admitting to a pre-planned coup!!!
It is easy to imagine how opposition forces would lie to justify their actions after the fact. But would they lie to implicate themselves in a coup that they had not planned? Not very likely.
It seems to me that a journalist getting a tip the night before that there are going to be deaths the next day is a very vague piece of evidence.
Who was planning on killing which people?
You assume that means that the opposition was planning a coup, but it is just as likely that it could be government officials trying to suppress the opposition rally planned for the next day.
It seems to me that a journalist getting a tip the night before that there are going to be deaths the next day is a very vague piece of evidence.
Its only vague if you refuse to look into the details.
Who was planning on killing which people?
The call came from a good friend of Neustadlt's, Lourdes Ubieta, who Neustaldt describes as a close friend of Isaac Perez Recao, someone who was deeply implicated in the coup plotting by several participants. It was regarding a group of anti-Chavez military generals that were going to renounce Chavez's authority the next day. According to Mayela Leon's testimony they even gave her a password that she had to use to gain access to the announcement.
It is pretty hard to imagine how this call could have come from anyone other than those who were planning on overthrowing the government the following day, or people very close to them.
You assume that means that the opposition was planning a coup, but it is just as likely that it could be government officials trying to suppress the opposition rally planned for the next day.
Oh, and the government officials just happened to know the place and time that several military generals were going to make a live TV broadcast renouncing Chavez's authority? And the government wanted to make sure Neustadlt could be there to film it. Sure. And the government also knew the secret passcode to get in the door.
Thanks for playing Anon, but you are just as dishonest as all your oppo-moron friends.
"Oh, and the government officials just happened to know the place and time that several military generals were going to make a live TV broadcast renouncing Chavez's authority?"
Are the DIM and the DISIP so clueless (like you), not to mention the Cuban G2. What are they being paid for? Several months before, a certain oppo were openly talking about a coup, especially the Venezuelan military attache in Washington. Stop pussy footing please.
"Thanks for playing Anon, but you are just as dishonest as all your oppo-moron friends." -- Chronically Clueless
This is an extremely rude response to my questions posed above in my very first comment on your site [August 27, 2009 10:18 AM]. I don't believe I said anything that I deserved to be talked to so disrespectfully.
To continue our discussion, a tip that was received the night before the "coup" does not prove that any actions were pre-planned. The night before implies cramming and improvisation.
Are the DIM and the DISIP so clueless (like you), not to mention the Cuban G2. What are they being paid for? Several months before, a certain oppo were openly talking about a coup, especially the Venezuelan military attache in Washington.
Right, and so the government just wanted to make sure Neustadlt was there to film the thing, so they called him to let him know. You know, the government wanted to help them get this announcement broadcast to everyone.
Seriously, I can't believe the ridiculously hair-brained ideas that you oppo morons come up with.
But regardless of your retarded ramblings, we don't have to guess whether or not it was the government that called because Otto Nuestadlt TOLD US WHO CALLED HIM!!!!
I don't believe I said anything that I deserved to be talked to so disrespectfully.
You're being dishonest and not even taking the time to analyze the evidence before trying to discredit it. I'm not respectful to dishonest people. Sorry.
a tip that was received the night before the "coup" does not prove that any actions were pre-planned. The night before implies cramming and improvisation.
George, this statement is so stupid that it refutes itself.
The prefix "pre" means before. If the call was made the night BEFORE the coup, then by definition the coup was PRE-PLANNED (i.e. planned BEFORE).
Seriously, where do you guys come from? Isn't there anyone among the opposition who is capable of any honesty?
Chronically Clueless,
I took the time to analyze the evidence that you provided in English, however I don't speak Spanish so anything you provide in Spanish is irrelevant to me [I believe this is meant to be an english language site?].
As to your continued rudeness, please refrain from name calling, it's totally unnecessary and counter productive. As to your rebuttal:
"The prefix "pre" means before. If the call was made the night BEFORE the coup, then by definition the coup was PRE-PLANNED (i.e. planned BEFORE)."
Your semantics are correct, but this is, frankly, an extremely dishonest reading of the intention of my comment.
You are suggesting that this was an intricate, pre-planned coup, but your evidence is a phone call to a journalist the night before. This just is not enough, please provide evidence of actual pre-planning.
Hey clueless cunt, are you off your lithium such as your master is most of the time these days? You keep repeating the same thing over and over and nobody bites. Good thing you are not a fisherman.
You are suggesting that this was an intricate, pre-planned coup, but your evidence is a phone call to a journalist the night before. This just is not enough, please provide evidence of actual pre-planning.
No, that's not the only evidence. The first video is of the coup-leaders themselves explaining their plan on national television. It takes an extremely dishonest person to try to deny that the coup was planned ahead of time when the fucking coup leaders themselves explained how they had planned it!!!
Sorry you don't speak Spanish. Not my problem. And, no, I'm not going to translate these videos for you. If you want to understand events in Venezuela, you'll have to learn Spanish.
You are suggesting that this was an intricate, pre-planned coup, but your evidence is a phone call to a journalist the night before.
No, I have not said that it was an "intricate" coup. I don't know how detailed or intricate the plans were. The evidence shows that they had planned to redirect the march towards Miraflores, that they had planned for some deaths, and that the military would renounce the Chavez government at that point.
It certainly was pre-planned by opposition forces. Anyone who denies that, like Brian Nelson, is just flat dishonest.
George - if you don't speak Spanish then you have little hope of ever understanding Venezuela, never mind becoming an authority on it.
Clueless - when is the next post. I note that Qucio is lauding the Facebook/Twitter initiative in all the countries of the world and in some 10,000 cities. ;)
http://www.terra.com.ve/actualidad/articulo/html/act83802.htm
Post a Comment