What evidence do they have that Chavez is a "strongman", or a "dictator"?

[SeveneightyWhoa]

Take this for example, from the fairly liberal Christian Monitor: http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0217/p08s01-comv.html.

This statement, for example, says it all: "Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chávez is adding weapons imports to his leftist crusade. That's a combustible mix."

I take it rightist crusades plus enormous amounts of weapons (ie. America) is okay?

From what I've seen, there's nothing really backing up the claims of his rank evilness. It's basically stuff that every other country does anyway, but Chavez is singled out because he's, well, leftist.

So is there any concrete evidence of why he's not to be admired?

[bpilgrim]

1. our M$MWs, don't require evidence, silly

http://media.globalfreepress.com

peace

[tuvor]

2. It's over there

Next to Iraq's WMDs.

[ugarte]

3. He badmouths Bush

Hence he is a dictator.

[rodeodance]

4. Condi does like him. therefore he is evil. Simple.

[stillcool]

5. He won't let us have the oil....

[jonnyblitz]

9. bingo. nt

[punpirate]

6. Not much evidence...

... the biggest problem is that he's pissed off the wealthy in the country. He's making alliances with other South American and Caribbean countries, along with Iran and China, which he hopes will create virtual and actual independence from the US, and that upsets a lot of people in the US government.

His Bolivarian revolution is centered around using the commonwealth of the country to raise the standard of living of the peasants, and that gives him tremendous political clout, but it doesn't buy him too many friends amongst the "free trade" crowd.

He's been elected twice and survived a recent recall election. That ought to be enough to quiet the bunch referring to him as a "dictator," but, it's not, and won't. He's not a puppet of the US, so he'll continued to be referred to as such.

The irony, of course, is that the US has vocally and vociferously defended dictatorships throughout Latin America, as long as they bought weapons from us and were sufficiently right-wing in character.

But, no, he's not a dictator, by the commonly understood meaning of the word.

[Technowitch]

7. They have this little rhetorical device called "unfounded assertion"

It's how we knew Osama Bin Laden would be caught "dead or alive". How we knew for a dead certaintly there were WMDs in Iraq. That Saddam Hussein had imported 'yellow cake' uranium from Africa. That there were mobile biological weapons labs all over Iraq. That Iraq was only months or weeks away from creating its first nuclear weapon. That the invasion would be a 'cakewalk' and our forces would be greeted as liberators. That Iraq's oil revenues would not only pay for the reconstruction, but nearly all of the cost of the invasion. That the 'mission' was 'accomplished' in May 2003. That the capture of Saddam's sons would break the back of the insurgency. That the capture of Saddam Hussein would break the back of the insurgency. That an election (boycotted by one of the largest ethnic groups) would break the back of the insurgency. That there are well over 100k Iraqi troops just waiting to take control of their country again. That the drafting of a Sharia-based Islamic constitution would break the back of the insurgency... Ooops! I mean 'democratic constitution that gurantees the rights of all...' Except that women will be subject to the men, and as one of our folks said, women's civil rights aren't necessary for democracy. Ooops! (That darn pesky truth again.)

In other words, lies. That's their evidence. So far, brazen lying has carried them quite far.

[porphyrian]

8. He's the head of another country with oil.

Must be a terrorist.

[snot]

10. Have you seen "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised"?

From http://www.petitiononline.com/vendoc/petition.html :

"'The Revolution Will Not Be Televised' is an excellent documentary made by two Irish filmmakers who had the luck to be at Presidential Palace at the time the coup d’etat against Venezuela’s twice democratically-elected President Chavez took place in April 2002. The many awards and excellent reviews that this documentary has garnered internationally can be seen at www.chavezthefilm.com. . . .

"The well-coordinated campaign to pressure Amnesty International and other groups to censor the exhibition of the documentary is part of an effort to silence those who have denounced horrendous human rights violations that were committed during the coup d’etat against President Chavez and during the dictatorship that briefly replaced him. These violations include:

"- arbitrary arrests,
- extra judicial killings,
- torture
- kidnappings
- persecution,
- violation of the rights of assembly and freedom of expression.

"All of this occurred under a dictatorial rule that abolished the Constitution, dissolved the elected National Assembly, the Supreme Court, and fired all state governors, the Attorney General and the Human Rights Ombudsman.

"Indeed, the film’s main arguments and its account of events can be validated by numerous international media reports and by Amnesty International’s own 2003 report on Venezuela. http://web.amnesty.org/report2003/ven-summary-eng "

During the coup, Chavez was abducted. In my own viewing of the documentary, it was unclear exactly who carried out the abduction--but the evidence indicated that covert U.S. forces may have been involved or may at least have abetted those responsible.

Such suspicions aside, the documentary made clear that Chavez is unusual among leaders in encouraging the people to read and understand their constitution and exercise their rights, that he is loved by the majority and that he was thoroughly democratically elected. His crime is that he is trying to help the vast, deeply impoverished majority of his people by nationalizing some of the resources and industries that have long been monopolized by a small, extremely wealthy and powerful minority.

[wli]

11. time for him to get rid of the "wealthy and powerful minority"

Send out police to arrest them, investigate them, lock them up etc. for conspiracy to overthrow the Venezuelan government.

[w13rd0]

12. Well, you see...

...Chavez defeated their well-funded and professionally-orchestrated "recall" attempt. Obviously, he's cheating if he's able to beat them when they are cheating.

[KG]

13. because the RW lies. about everything. all the time.

[rman]

14. oil

[radwriter0555]

15. Socialist leaders who protect their nations and their people are the bane

of the bush regime, and have been for decades.

Chavez is a strong, feared world leader who puts the needs of his people first and foremost.

His alliance with Castro is also horrifying for the bush regime since Cuba is thriving and independent in spite of the horrific sanctions placed against it for decades.

[Disturbed]

17. He is a Socialist therefore..

evil incarnate. The RW loath anyone that does not cater to the wealthy.

[MoJoWorkin]

16. He was Carter certified as fairly elected---so of course

the Bushies, and the media won't mention that, or how Chavez is diverting their oil money to help the poor--getting them health care and education, etc. Have they ever let the truth get in the way before?
It doesn't fit the "military dictator-communist" image they NEED to project, so as to allow our "intervention" in Venezuela for THEIR oil, just like Iraq.

[area51]

18. The Christian Science Monitor is liberal? (n/t)