On Saturday (7/31/10), the Post printed an article by Latin America correspondent Juan Forero, which took a look at this controversy.  What's most notable is that he doesn't reach the same conclusion about the Colombian evidence as the Post's editorial page does; he even unhelpfully notes that FARC members "frequently cross frontiers," which might suggest that their supposed presence on Venezuelan territory does not necessarily indicate support from the Venezuelan government.  

I understand the difference between an editorial and a news report. But is it the Post's position that its reporters must stick to the facts, while the editorial page can say whatever it wants? There's some history to suggest this is the case, but some clarification from the paper would be welcome.

The editors don't say why a point already proved needs be proved again, but before offering the new evidence, they recount the old claim that laptops captured by Colombia from FARC guerrillas have clearly established links between the Venezuelan government and  the FARC:

That Venezuela is backing a terrorist movement against a neighboring democratic government has been beyond dispute since at least 2008, when Colombia recovered laptops from a FARC camp in Ecuador containing extensive documentation of Mr. Chávez's political and material support.

The alleged FARC laptop evidence certainly is in dispute. (On March 11 of this year, Gen. Doug Fraser, head of U.S. Southern Command, testified before the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee that he knew of no official Venezuela/FARC links--"We have not seen any connections specifically that I can verify that there has been a direct government-to-terrorist connection"--before retracting his statement a day later after an apparent trip to the woodshed.)

The new evidence? The Post cites a presentation to the Organization of American States (OAS) by Colombia's ambassador to that body, who said he could pinpoint the locations of 75 FARC camps within Venezuela, and then offered up more concrete evidence in the form of photos and videos.  Brace yourselves: The single piece of such evidence the Post editors chose to describe was a photo of a man purported to be a top commander in the ELN--which is not the FARC, but a smaller Colombian guerrilla group--"sipping Venezuelan beer on a popular Venezuelan beach." So a photo of an alleged official of a different organization drinking beer in (allegedly) Venezuela is proof that Hugo Chavez' government is working with the FARC?

The last time the media pushed allegations (Washington Post, 2/5/03) that an official U.S. enemy (then, Saddam Hussein) was harboring a terrorist leader (Abu Musab al-Zarqawi), it turned out to be a bogus claim (Washington Post, 4/6/07) that played a crucial role in tricking the nation into war.

His answer is "Bad bad"--as illustrated in the ad's text:

The Associated Press has breached basic journalistic principles with these false reports:

[Hugo] Chávez initially suggested the synagogue attack might have been carried out by Jews eager to portray his government as anti-Semitic.

—AP February 8, 2009

Only five months after urging world leaders to back their armed struggle, he [Chávez] said that armed guerrilla movements are "history."

—AP June 10, 2008

THESE STATEMENTS ARE FALSE, and on both occasions, the AP has admitted that they are false.

Saying that Chávez "never called on anyone to support the armed struggle of the FARC—rather, he had called on the FARC to abandon armed struggle," the ad goes on to explain how, "far from blaming Jews from an attack on a synagogue, he denounced the attack as anti-Semitic and took prompt action to find and arrest the attackers."

See the FAIR magazine Extra!: "Corrupt Data: Taking On the Claim that Chávez Is On the Take" (11–12/06) by Gregory Wilpert.

Also listen to letter signatory NYU history professor Greg Grandin on FAIR's radio show CounterSpin: "Greg Grandin on Honduras Coup" (7/3/09).