www.narconews.com Dear readers of Narco News,

Some of you have written to me pointing out that my response to Al Giordano's tirade against me makes it look as if I have something to hide, and arguing that the tone of it is insulting to readers of NN.

As you know, I declined to answer Mr Giordano - despite having written a lengthy response - because he chose to attack me, in very offensive terms, without waiting for my reply to his questionnaire.

I continue to feel that Mr Giordano has excluded himself from any possible civilized debate on the important issues he raises, by using intemperate and unnecessarily vituperative language. However, it does concern me that - because I mistakenly allowed myself to be provoked into responding in kind - his readers remain ill-informed.

I considered the possibility of posting a response on another website, but this has the disadvantage of not reaching all those who see NN. So I am sending this explanation, which is aimed at NN readers, on the assumption that - even though it is not directly addressed to him - Mr Giordano will publish it.

The following is based on the reply I had written to him and which I decided not to send. It is not intended to start up our correspondence again, since I have no interest in doing so.

1. I'm delighted to hear that Mr Giordano is in favour of democracy and against coups. So am I.

Thus I was, for instance, against Chavez's coup of 4 February, 1992, and the bloodier one of 27 November that year, both of them attempts by a tiny, conspiratorial, military clique to overthrow by force an elected government.

I criticised Chavez when - as virtually his first act after taking office - he staged a military parade to celebrate the seventh anniversary of his failed coup of 4F.

I have found it harder and harder to take every time he refers to 4F and 27N as if they were patriotic anniversaries comparable with those of the independence struggle.

I thought it a very bad idea to remove the constitutional restrictions on the armed forces' participation in decision-making, and an extremely bad idea to compel them to take a partisan political position in favour of the "revolution"..

When Chavez wore military uniforms to political rallies, when he gave political speeches to the troops, when he referred to the armed forces as if they were the military wing of the MVR - I put my doubts in print and warned it would end in tears.

I believe Mr Giordano should make it clear where he stands on these matters: is he against all coups, or only those by people he disagrees with?

2. I was against the coup attempt of 11A and I wrote a number of pieces critical of it (particularly of the extremely negative role of the mass media).

David Adams and I wrote what I humbly consider to be the best analysis of the "conspiracy within the conspiracy" (Unmaking of a Coup: St Petersburg Times).

But Mr Giordano either didn't read those pieces or passed over them because they didn't fit his conspiracy theory.

I spent a good six weeks - and a lot of my own money – after 11A, trying to get to the bottom of the conspiracies behind the coup, and in particular the possible role of foreign governments.

I wrote a full-page piece in the St Pete Times (To the Poor, Chavez is Hope: 25 August 2002) which explains the support for Chavez in the barrios, with which (contrary to what Mr G. suggests) I am probably more familiar than he is.

3. Mr Giordano appears to think that anyone who disagrees with him is by definition a fascist or a 'war criminal'.

On the subject of the "F" word: I believe it is simplistic, not to mention intellectually lazy, to refer to any rightwing government with authoritarian tendencies as "fascist".

On the other hand, when I referred to "strands of fascism" in Chavez's political beliefs, I was being quite specific. I had in mind the influence on the "comandante" of the Argentine neo-nazi Norberto Ceresole.

As some of you may be aware, Chavez and Ceresole (a former adviser to the Argentine military dictator General Viola) were inseparable for a while in the mid-90s. And despite their subsequent estrangement, several elements of the Argentine's anti-democratic (or "post-democratic" as he would have it) creed still adhere to his pupil.

As we get closer and closer to what Chavez has defined as the "historic break" with old-fashioned, representative democracy, so the building blocks of what could be described as a leftwing version of national security doctrine (complete with the domestic enemy) become more apparent.

4. As I understand it, the main charges against me are that I am (a) a journalistic mercenary who tailors what he writes to the needs of the powerful (though unspecified) interests he serves; (b) an accessory to mass murder, and (c) a racist member of the Venezuelan oligarchy (not to mention a "rich kid").

How easy life must be for a "journalist" who is not burdened by the need for evidence.

As far as the first goes, I invite Mr Giordano (or anyone else) to research as widely and as deeply as they like. If he can find any credible source to back his accusation of journalistic dishonesty I will be most impressed.

And I particularly invite him to question my friends, colleagues and editors on the political left, some of whom disagree profoundly with my point of view on Venezuela.

Here are some clues: among many others, I have worked for the BBC Latin American Service, The Guardian (London), Financial Times newsletters, Time, Newsweek, CBC radio (Canada), The San Francisco Chronicle, Politiken(Copenhagen) and Expresso (Lisbon).

I have always refused to sign off on articles that did not represent my own personal point of view. That's one of the reasons why I remain freelance.

Mr Giordano's suggestion to the contrary is offensive in the extreme.

He writes: "C'mon Phil, we're both experienced journalists. We both know how it works." Really? Is that how it works? I repeat: nobody tells me what to write. If I am mistaken, if I am distorting the truth of the situation, my mistakes are honest ones. I am not tailoring my views to fit the audience, much less being paid to tell lies.

Mr Giordano describes me as "Not a known quantity" After almost a quarter century writing and broadcasting about Latin America? Not known to him, evidently. All he did was spy on me at a press conference and look me up on the internet. But it's not my fault if he doesn't know who I am. I suggest he does his homework.

5. Apparently I'm part of a conspiracy involving - if I've got this straight - Eric Ekvall (well-known "war criminal" ..... what war? What crime?), Euridice Ledezma and Janet Kelly. The aim of this evil gang, I gather, was to provide the excuse, in the form of false information, which would allow the "fascist" Carmona to take power.

Mr Giordano demands to know (exhibit A) why I cc'd Ekvall with my letter to Narco News (not to him), when it "purports itself [sic] as a discussion between journalistic colleagues". (We'll pass over the execrable English.)

To begin with: I will send a copy of correspondence I personally initiate TO WHOMEVER I LIKE.

I copied the letter to Ekvall because he was the one that forwarded me the edition of NN with the diatribe about Alexandra Olson. Since I never read NN I would otherwise have been unaware of it.

So I didn't send the letter to NN as a "pre-emptive strike" (think about it for a minute: what sense does that make?), because I neither knew nor cared that I was slated for an appearance in the rogues' gallery.

Now, Eric can defend himself (and indeed does). But I do have this to say: on the very rare occasions that I have quoted him, I have done so because he is a scrupulously honest person who makes up his own mind about a country he knows a lot better than I do.

Incidentally, one of the rare quotes from Ekvall that I have actually used referred to the private media as acting - back in April - "like a ministry of propaganda" for the Carmona government. Does that sound like someone deeply implicated in the coup plot? But let's not have the facts get in the way of a good story.

I have no reason, nor any inclination, to hide my friendship with Eric, someone for whom I have great respect.

The same goes for Euridice. "Rabidly partisan"?? That's a ridiculous description. Mr Giordano either doesn't know, doesn't care or can't be bothered to find out, that among the earliest detailed references in the Venezuelan mainstream media to the Metropolitan Police killing chavistas after 11A were those contained in an article by Euridice Ledezma (in the supposedly "anti-democratic" magazine "Exceso"). So his references to her are particularly insulting.

He opines that by quoting people who are friends of mine I am violating journalistic ethics. I believe his moral authority on this subject is – to say the least - questionable.

However, since he is the self-appointed expert, I suggest he treats his readers to a class on what precise degree of friendship, or consanguinity, and in what context, needs to be disclosed. If I get invited to a leading economist's private Christmas party, say, do I have to mention this the next time I quote his views on the public sector borrowing requirement?

Or maybe only if I get invited aboard a businessman's private yacht and he later confides his views on the government's economic policy? (Neither of these things has in fact happened - but just for the sake of argument.)

You see, what I think is this: that it's important to quote people who are, say, credible, representative or making a particularly important point.

I also have friends on the government side of the fence, whom I quote from time to time without bothering to reveal that we occasionally have lunch together or a few drinks. How many lunches does it take before – according to the Giordano book of ethics - I have to disclose a "conflict of interests"?

Or could it be that - unless I actually have a pecuniary interest, or stand to gain in some other way - this is not the huge breach of ethics he makes it out to be?

I quoted Euridice because (1) she was an eyewitness to murder, and (2) I know her to be a totally honest human being and a journalist of great integrity. I was the one who, when phoned by my good friend Joel Simon at the CPJ, suggested they talk to her for an eyewitness report. Not least because Joel also knows Euridice and can also vouch for her integrity.

The only one who can be shown to be making things up is Mr Giordano. He claims Euridice wrote (in a feature for Exceso), "I don't believe that Pedro [Carmona] would have formed part of a conspiracy for the route of a military coup".

He omits to mention that the words in question are in quotation marks: what he makes out to be Euridice's opinion - not to mention her alleged familiarity with Carmona - both belong to Vicente Brito, former president of Fedecamaras.

Here's that section of the article (translated of course), in full:

'Vicente Brito, former president of Fedecamaras, one of the business leaders who gave him unrestricted support, declares: "Those responsible for determining whether there was a conspiracy are the government, the Venezuelan state; they have the intelligence facilities, the means to record [conversations]. If they establish that there was a conspiracy, they have to present elements to demonstrate there was a conspiracy. I don't believe Pedro would have formed part of a conspiracy for the route of a military coup".'

Rather different from the Giordano version. Unlike him, however, I'm not going to assume that he is "knowingly falsifying" the evidence. I'll just put it down to sloppy, biased research work. Research which didn't allow him, for example, to note other opinions quoted in that same article which are much less favourable to "Pedro".

If Mr Giordano can't get the facts right when he has them in front of him, what are we to think of his wilder speculations?

I'm perfectly happy for others to judge whether the cases he mentions amount to an ethical violation. Some will think they do, some won't.

But of course, that's not the real point. Mr Giordano's allegation is that I cooked up a false accusation against the government in collusion with my fellow conspirators.

As it happens, I later spent some time investigating the (innumerable) allegations by opposition demonstrators that shots were fired from the roof of the Libertador town hall. I visited the place and talked to people accused of doing the shooting. My conclusion was that they almost certainly were. People were definitely firing from the windows, and shots were fired back. Who was responsible? Who started it? We'll probably never know for certain.

If journalists who cannot demonstrate total accuracy in the first few hours after traumatic and violent events are to be accused of deliberately distorting the facts in pursuit of an undisclosed political agenda - and without any evidence other than the original article - then who among us can escape vilification?

Which brings us to the thorny question of Janet Kelly and the cartoon simile. The author of the simile is indeed Ms Kelly. It was a good one, and I stole it. Maybe she'll sue me. But if you read the Newsweek online piece, it acknowledges the debt to "opposition commentators". Once again – no conspiracy. In fact, apart from once sitting opposite Janet Kelly at a diplomatic breakfast, and maybe the odd phone conversation, I don't know her.

6. Apparently my report in the St Pete Times the day after the 11A killings was what provided the military with the excuse to overthrow Chavez and the Metropolitan Police with the motivation to mow down chavistas on the streets. It "caused a lot of bloodshed". I'm sure my colleagues and editors at St Pete would be most impressed at this example of their power and influence.

The events of that day remain substantially unexplained, not least because of the failure of the relevant authorities to carry out credible, timely investigations, and the government's reluctance to back the formation of a truth commission.

They certainly look more complicated in retrospect (as often happens) than they did at the time. But Mr Giordano, it seems, has already made up his mind.

I don't know who the famous "snipers" of the Hotel Ausonia were working for. Maybe they were working for someone in the opposition. On the other hand, who can take seriously the claim by Gen Vietri, then head of the Casa Militar, that it was none of his business to clear the rooftops in the vicinity of the palace? I certainly don't.

Mr Giordano's accusation against me on this count amounts to a charge of accessory to murder. I wonder if he is prepared to back this up. In view of the tone of his tirade against me, I'm not sure a court would agree that this is not a malicious libel.

He also seems to be under the impression (or is trying to convince his readers) that Euridice and I were the only ones reporting attacks on demonstrators by people on the government side. Another piece of nonsense, of course: such reports were a dime a dozen in the hours after the El Silencio killings.

7. He questions a couple of other aspects of my reporting:

(a) he thinks I rely on what he believes to be rigged, biased or inaccurate opinion polls as the basis for asserting that Chavez has around 30% support. I don't. But it's worth noting that these same polling organisations were highly popular with Chavez when they showed him – as recently as the middle of last year - retaining over 60% support. The reputable ones do use door-to-door techniques, and they certainly have more credibility than anything the government can come up with.

The reason I believe the 30% figure, however, is that it's privately accepted by leading members of the government. They don't say so in public, of course, and I can't quote them.

(b) he queries my use of the term "mobs" to describe the chavistas and "demonstrators" to describe the opposition. Here's one reason why I occasionally use that word: because I have never seen a government demonstration attacked by the opposition with bottles, rocks and bullets; and I have frequently seen the opposition so attacked by government supporters.

Are these "spontaneous" demonstrations of popular anger? Sometimes, maybe.

But there exist pro-government organisations that carefully plan these attacks, using messengers, two-way radios and maps. Government security forces have been shown to collude with them. When simultaneous attacks on media outfits occur in several different cities, resulting in similar damage and threats to media workers, I find the "spontaneous" tag just a little hard to swallow.

8. Racism? This one I love. Let's quote Mr Giordano in detail:

"Given the difference in pigmentation between you and so many of the Venezuelan poor, I think you'll have to address your own inherent racism and class hatred."

This constitutes a very clear demonstration, to my mind, of Mr Giordano's methods. Start with a fact: Phil Gunson is white. This I will grant you.

And I'll go further: it is indeed true that the Venezuelan poor tend to be darker hued than their richer compatriots. And yes, I do have a critical stance vis-a-vis the government of Hugo Chavez.

Ergo, Phil Gunson is a racist who hates poor people. Logical? I leave that to the readers to decide. But I will point out that the one political force in the country that is openly using racist arguments is the government, which appears to think whites are by definition oppressors. (The cabinet, of course, is full of whites too.)

Apparently, with his amazing X-ray hearing, Mr Giordano was able to detect me thinking - at that press conference with Chavez - something along the lines of "if only he were my gardener". Now this is a little odd, in that I've never had a garden, let alone a gardener. But I get the point. He thinks that I - and "people like me" think Chavez shouldn't be president because of his ethnic origin.

It's a handy little argument, that one. Has lots going for it. Speaks to the guilty liberal in us all. Can it be that I am really racist? we think.

Well, no, I'm not. Again: I invite Mr Giordano to do the research and see if he can find any proof. Tedious, I know, but without it his argument is invalid and insulting.

Although there is undoubtedly racism in Venezuela, as there is in most – if not all - societies around the world, I can only recall one person (in the 43 months I have lived here) saying anything along the lines of " we'll never get anywhere with that 'zambo' [ie mixed black and indian] as president". One person.

(By the way, I wonder just how much time Mr G has spent in Venezuela.)

Most people in the opposition think Chavez should go because he is running the economy into the ground and jeopardising key elements of a democratic society, like the separation of powers. That's a matter of opinion.

But if Mr Giordano is not to be suspected of name-calling as a substitute for rational debate, I suggest he gathers some evidence that goes a little bit beyond "Chavez is black, so his opponents are racist".

8. Apparently we foreign correspondents spend all our time "hiding behind our desks". For someone who churns out his opinions from behind a desk IN ANOTHER COUNTRY I think it ill becomes him to criticise those of us who are regularly tear-gassed and risk being hit with anything from a rock to a 9mm bullet (as one of my colleagues was on the day the chavistas tried to stop the opposition delivering signatures to the electoral council - fortunately, he was wearing a bullet-proof vest, but I wasn't).

[Of course, since he takes care to conceal his whereabouts, Mr G could be in Venezuela. Either way he's hiding. We're not. And if he is here, his ignorance is all the more staggering.]

9. He asks why I refer to testimony from Gouveia's landlords when apparently I have neither investigated nor published on the subject. Yet again his grasp of simple, easily researched facts is distinctly sub-standard. Nancy San Martin and I published quotes from an interview with them in the Miami Herald.

10. To sum up: I'm afraid I regard Mr Giordano as a conspiracy theorist with no respect for evidence or the rules of civilised debate. He does not even respect the language he writes in. No one who cared about the meaning of words could accuse people who simply have a different point of view of being "war criminals" or of causing bloodshed. If he ever acquired a modicum of real power he would be an extremely dangerous person.

In short, his methods are the antithesis of everything he claims to stand for.

Phil Gunson

www.forbes.com Jonathan Fahey

People want powerful engines and big vehicles. But there are those pesky regulations that require a certain, albeit low, fuel economy, not to mention rules capping the emission of smog-causing gases and particulates. And now there's unrest in the Middle East and Venezuela that's sending oil prices skyward.

Then there's the chatter at home about the politics of guzzling a natural resource we don't have much of. On top of that, California regulators may actually toughen environmental rules.

What's an automaker to do?

Find a new engine, apparently. Each company is assuming fuel-cell engines, which run on hydrogen, will be a commercial reality in 15 years or so. In the meantime, companies are also assuming they will need fuel-efficient engines that will not sacrifice power but bridge the gap between today's thirsty vehicles and tomorrow's fuel cells.

Some are looking at diesel engines, which is not exactly new technology at more than 100 years old, but one that has been mostly absent from the car and SUV market in the U.S. for 20 years or so. Diesel can be 30% more fuel efficient than gasoline. Others are looking at gasoline-electric hybrids, which use battery systems combined with traditional internal combustion engines to boost fuel economy 10% to 50%.

Not surprisingly, each carmaker wants the engine they are best at making to be the people's choice, and they are jockeying for position.

Japanese carmakers say hybrid-electric engines are the answer. Why? Because they know how to make them: Japanese environmental policy and driving conditions favor small cars with small hybrid engines, so Toyota (nyse: TM - news - people ) and Honda (nyse: HMC - news - people ) already sell tens of thousands of hybrids, the only makers to do so.

In January, Toyota showed off a hybrid Lexus SUV that uses the battery-powered electric motor like a turbocharger. The gas mileage: Toyota says somewhere in the mid-30-miles-per-gallon range. European makers say the answer is obviously diesel. Why? Because environmental regulations and fuel prices favor diesels in Europe. Nearly one-third of the cars sold there are diesels, and the Europeans make great, peppy, quiet and relatively clean ones.

Next year DaimlerChrysler (nyse: DCX - news - people ) will introduce a diesel Jeep Liberty and a diesel Mercedes-Benz E-Class sedan. Volkswagen already sells diesel Golfs, Jettas and Passats in the U.S.

That leaves North American makers stuck in the middle. "Both sides want to push their home solutions on the U.S.," says Larry Burns, vice president for planning, research and development at General Motors (nyse: GM - news - people ). "We need our own solution."

Ford Motor (nyse: F - news - people ) will offer a hybrid version of its Escape small SUV early next year, but the company's sales targets are modest, about 20,000 per year. "It could turn out to be like the electric vehicle," says Steve Lyons, president of the Ford Division. "People might say: 'That's a great idea, my neighbor should buy that car.'"

Ford's chief operation officer, Nick Sheele, a Briton who recently ran Ford of Europe, would prefer to bring the diesel engines sold in Europe to the States.

To GM's Burns, diesels don't make so much sense: "It's risky to put capital on the table for a technology that may be obsolete in 10 or 15 years," he says. GM announced last month a sweeping plan to offer various types of hybrids across as many as a dozen models. Some of GM's hybrids will use simple batteries that boost fuel economy a modest 12%, others will use large, complex batteries that provide a 50% savings. Many of the components used in gasoline-electric hybrids will later be used in fuel-cell powertrains.

Both diesel and hybrid engines share a cost problem: Both are more expensive for manufacturers and car buyers. With car prices falling and automaker margins already thin, extra cost is not welcome. Depending on the type of system, hybrids add between $1,000 and $5,000 in cost to the manufacturer, mainly for the battery and electric motors. Diesel engines are more expensive than gasoline engines to start with, and then they require turbochargers to match the pep of gasoline as well as special equipment to reduce emissions.

With some of the lowest gasoline prices in the world, there is little incentive for U.S. car buyers to pay more for fuel-efficient engines, it would take them several years to offset the expense with lower fuel costs. Jim Press, executive vice president and chief operating officer of Toyota Motor Sales, believes buyers are beginning to care more about the environment and that they are going to do something about it. "There's an awareness that is awakening in the soul of America," he says. With SUV sales setting new records every month, and the overall mileage per gallon down 10% from its 1987 peak, the awakening seems lazy so far.

Diesel has yet another problem. Though it gets better fuel economy and emits less greenhouse gases, it produces more carcinogenic particulates and smog-causing nitrous oxide. U.S. standards governing those kinds of are scheduled to get tougher by 2007. No automaker has yet to build a car that could meet those standards.

The reason: the amount of sulfur in diesel fuel. In order for automakers to meet emission standards, it needs oil companies to produce low-sulfur diesel, something the oil companies have been reluctant to do. This has put carmakers and oil companies--natural allies--at loggerheads. "When we ask petroleum companies to get sulfur out of fuel, they say 'the sky is falling,'" complains Burns. "We've got to get them to play a little more proactively here."

By 2006 they will be required to sell low-sulfur diesel, but the levels will still not be as low as they will be in Europe and not low enough to allow carmakers to meet the 2007 emissions standards.

With all of these variables--consumer demand, oil prices, engine costs and a government that will seemingly do anything to keep oil prices low--the prospects for any of these technologies are dim. We may just continue down the path we're on: using more and more gasoline in bigger and bigger cars.

sf.indymedia.org Vheadline.com by eco man • Saturday January 25, 2003 at 09:54 AM

I finally found a good article on the pro-President Chavez rally in Venezuela. The corporate media articles have so much spin against Chavez. Just check the corporate news sources indexed by Google News to see for yourself. www.vheadline.com

See the updated search form at the end after the Vheadline.com article. The progressive and comprehensive Venezuela news source Vheadline.com is now searchable at Google News!

---Vheadline.com article begins----

Posted: Thursday, January 23, 2003 - 4:04:10 PM By: Roy S. Carson

Hundreds of thousands rally in victory celebrations

Hundreds of thousands of pro=government demonstrators are filling downtown Caracas streets this afternoon as the almost 53-day opposition stoppage dissipates into the tropical hot air to the sound of drums beating and whistles blown.

Venezuelans are celebrating a major victory over opposition saboteurs who have held a virtual gun to the nation's head, crippling the oil industry and strangling the economic framework to reinstate the form of corrupt pseudo-democracy Venezuela had suffered through more than 40 years previous to 1999.

Even opposition loaded international news services are reporting crowds chanting "Hey, hey, Chavez is here to stay!" while FOX News Geraldo Rivero splutters from atop a transmission bus on Avenida Bolivar the usual cliches about "left-leaning President Hugo Chavez" and claiming that the Supreme Court of Venezuela is "Chavez-controlled."

FOX news cameras zoom in on several demonstrators carrying Cuban flags and pictures of Che Guevara as they persist in their anti-Venezuelan propaganda, attempting by visual innuendo to link Venezuela with the Bush-hated effigy of Cuba's Fidel Castro, on which the US media has a current fixation.

What is evidenced in Caracas today is that Chavez Frias is the champion of Venezuela's majority poor who have been driven into abject poverty by an elite corps of upper class exploiters unwilling to give up their Country Club lifestyle.

The opposition shutdown, erroneously described as a "strike" by opposition commentators, had choked the nation's oil exports, resulting in a financial fiscal crisis where the government has been forced to suspend foreign currency trading for five days and has already slashed the 2003 budget.  The Venezuelan Central Bank is said to be preparing foreign exchange controls as the corrupt elite attempts to cash in hoards of local currency for US$ to flee the misery they have imposed on the majority.

Weeks ago ... as reported by VHeadline.com ... authorities had been forced to remove the nation's gold reserves to a 24/7 secured location ahead of threats that well-financed opposition guerrillas were about to force entry to the Central Bank vaults.  Government spokesmen say the gold remains secure and that Venezuela has sufficient international reserves to ride out the current storm.

Speaking of today's developments re: Chavez Frias, Michael Gavin (head of Latin American Economic Research for UBS Warburg) has told Reuters "I think he's winning this round ... his strategy is to wear down the opposition and wait."

President Chavez Frias appears to have the 100% backing of the armed forces, and has sent troops to take over strike-hit oil installations and food plants that have been hoarding much-needed supplies.  Chavez insists that the opposition must wait until August 19 when the 1999 Constitution allows for a binding referendum on his rule.

---End of Vheadline.com article----

*Venezuela oil coup-lockout. In 1974 80% of oil income went to the state. Today 80% of Venezuelan oil income goes to the rich, and to "operating costs." Only 20% goes to the state. Support President Chavez! Chavez reforms will help reverse this in 2003. This is why the coup-plotters are in such a hurry to overthrow the fairly-ELECTED Chavez government, to prevent these reforms, and to reverse others already-implemented. Reforms that help the poor and lower middle class. "All of Venezuela's private television stations and national newspapers are owned by the opposition, and all are employed to deliver an unadulterated flow of anti-Chávez propaganda." Massive corporate-media disinformation, destabilization campaign. Fight media disinformation, Cisneros media empire worldwide, etc.. Form at links below for Google-Searching progressive Venezuela news sites. Some good sites (such as Vheadline.com, MotherJones.com, NarcoNews.com, Guardian.co.uk, CommonDreams.org, and San Francisco Bay Area Indymedia) are indexed daily by Google News! News sites, search shortcuts, and many Venezuela news excerpts. sf.indymedia.org  Older version. Comments add latest Venezuela news sites, search shortcuts. nyc.indymedia.org  --Later version with more excerpts from articles. belgium.indymedia.org  --Media war. Cisneros media empire, etc.. 

Google-Search Venezuela news sites. Some sites (such as MotherJones.com, NarcoNews.com, Guardian.co.uk, CommonDreams.org, and San Francisco Bay Area Indymedia) are indexed daily by Google News. Click the "News" tab in the Google search results page. Then click "Sort by date." Some sites (such as Vheadline.com) have search engines onsite that index daily. Google indexes some sites more often than others. So for the very latest info you may have to go to the websites directly, and browse there, or use their site search engines there if they have one. 

www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=1762

www.hindustantimes.com Agence France-Presse Davos (Switzerland), January 25

The president of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries on Saturday said the oil cartel could consider a cut in output when it meets in March, to counter a potential surplus in supply.

"By March we will see a three million (barrels per day, bpd) surplus...For sure if there is a surplus we will look at cutting (output)," OPEC president Abdullah bin Hamad al-Attiyah said.

Al-Attiyah was speaking on the sidelines of a meeting on security of oil supply in the light of a possible war on Iraq, on the third day of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

Attiyah, who is Qatar's Minister of Energy and Industry, told the forum there was speculation that a US-led war on Iraq could take 2.5 million bpd off the market and OPEC had reacted to balance demand and supply by raising production several times over past months.

But OPEC customers were not short of oil.

"There is no shortage of supply," he said. I asked (consumers) one question: 'Do you need more oil... ?' They answered no.

"On March 11, when OPEC will meet again, I think they (OPEC) will face a lot of difficulties with a huge surplus of oil."

The possibility of an end to a lengthy oil workers' strike in heavyweight Venezuela and the reduction in the need for heating fuel as the northern hemisphere winter drew to a close meant there could be two million bpd back on the market shortly, he said.

Attiyah said fears about security of supply -- that this week pushed world oil prices beyond the OPEC price band of $22-28 a barrel to around $33 -- were not always well founded.

In New York, light sweet crude March-dated contracts rose to $33.28 per barrel yesterday. The price of benchmark Brent North Sea crude oil for March delivery closed up at $30.25 per barrel in London.

abcnews.go.com Jan. 25 — By Jonathan Wright and Hassan Hafidh

DAVOS/BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The United States said on Saturday at least a dozen nations would back an attack on Iraq, even without a new U.N. resolution, but was reported to be ready to give U.N. arms experts more time to complete their work.

In Baghdad, a man wielding three knives tried to enter the headquarters of the U.N. inspectors, but was stopped by guards, a U.N. spokesman said. In a second incident, a man tried to stop a convoy of U.N. cars carrying inspectors.

The incidents, which occurred as U.N. teams were leaving for daily searches of suspected weapons sites, were the first of their kind since the arms experts returned in November after a four-year break. Their activities have aroused Iraqi resentment.

The inspectors are to give the U.N. Security Council a progress report on Monday, which could begin a countdown for a U.S. invasion to force Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to disarm.

Secretary of State Colin Powell told reporters on his way to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, that potential U.S. allies would prefer a new council resolution authorizing force against Iraq, but would not insist on one.

"There are quite a number of countries that already have indicated that they would like to have another resolution, but without another resolution they will be with us," he said. "We would not be alone, that's for sure. I could rattle off at least a dozen off memory, and I think that there will be more."

However, The Washington Post reported on Saturday that the Bush administration, under pressure from allies abroad and Democrats at home not to hasten into war, was expected to let U.N. inspections go on for several more weeks at least.

Iraq vowed to resist any U.S.-led assault with all the means at its disposal. "We are going to stand up and fight. We will use every method to inflict damage and casualties against those who invade our country without any justification," Parliament Speaker Saadoun Hammadi told reporters in New Delhi.

The United States, assembling formidable forces around Iraq, is racking up pressure on Baghdad to obey U.N. demands that it abandon its alleged chemical, biological and nuclear arms programs. Iraq says it no longer has such programs.

Saudi Oil Minister Ali Naimi said in Davos the market was not short of oil despite Iraq war fears, and prices should be lower. "There is no shortage in the market and there should be no reason for prices where they are today," he said.

Prices have hit two-year highs this week amid worries about an Iraq war and reduced oil exports from strike-hit Venezuela.

SCIENTIST INTERVIEW

An Iraqi scientist, accompanied by Iraqi officials, arrived at a Baghdad hotel used by U.N. inspectors on Saturday, but it was not immediately clear if he would be questioned in private.

A senior Iraqi official said on Thursday his office had tried to persuade scientists involved in weapons programs to submit to private interviews, but they had refused.

The White House accused Iraq on Friday of "willful defiance" of the United Nations by refusing to let scientists take part in private interviews, but stopped short of declaring Baghdad in "material breach" of a U.N. disarmament resolution.

Powell said he was bringing to the Davos forum "a message of American determination to work with the international community to deal with the most important threat, the threat presented by Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction."

"Let us not ignore the seriousness of this matter," he said, listing stocks of deadly prohibited Iraqi weapons which previous U.N. weapons inspectors were unable to account for.

Powell said nations that backed last year's Security Council resolution 1441, which gave Iraq a final chance to disarm, could not duck out of their responsibilities if Baghdad disobeyed.

"We cannot now start shrinking because the going is getting tough," he declared. "The burden is on Iraq. Iraq must comply or it will be made to comply by military force."

SECURITY COUNCIL SPLIT

France, China and Russia, three of the five veto-holding members of the Security Council, have opposed any rush to war with Iraq by the other two, the United States and Britain.

Differences over Iraq have sparked a rancorous transatlantic dispute between Washington and key European allies.

German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer said on Saturday Iraq had "no room for tactics or maneuvering" in its dealings with U.N. weapons inspectors if it wanted to avert war.

Fischer, who has angrily rejected U.S. criticism that Germany and France were isolated in Europe in trying to avert an Iraq war, was in Cairo for talks with his Egyptian counterpart.

U.N. chief arms inspector Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), are expected to tell the Security Council on Monday that Iraq's cooperation with their teams has been insufficient.

"We are saying what we always said -- that cooperation was satisfactory but Iraq needs to do a great deal more in this respect," IAEA spokesman Mark Gwozdecky told Reuters in Vienna.

Bush, who has voiced impatience with the inspections process, will deliver his State of the Union speech on Tuesday and will speak of the direct threat posed by Iraq, while issuing no ultimatum to Saddam or declaration of war, aides said.

Powell gave no indication of how long Bush was prepared to wait, but suggested no decision would be taken until Bush sees British Prime Minister Tony Blair at Camp David on January 31.

Blair and Bush talked by telephone on Friday to coordinate their stance ahead of Blix's report, Blair's spokesman said.