Venezuela's Chavez says Obama has "stench" of Bush

[cali]

Sat Jan 17, 2009 4:44pm EST CAMPO CARABOBO,

Venezuela (Reuters) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said on Saturday Barack Obama had the "stench" of his predecessor as U.S. president and was at risk of being killed if he tries to change the American "empire."

Most world leaders expect a new era of U.S. foreign relations when Obama, a Democrat, is sworn in as president on Tuesday after Republican George W. Bush's eight years in the White House.

But Chavez said frayed ties with Washington were unlikely to improve despite the departure of Bush, who the Venezuelan leader has often called the "devil."

"I hope I am wrong, but I believe Obama brings the same stench, to not say another word," Chavez said at a political rally on a historic Venezuelan battlefield.

"If Obama as president of the United States does not obey the orders of the empire, they will kill him, like they killed Kennedy, like they killed Martin Luther King, or Lincoln, who freed the blacks and paid with his life."

<snip>

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE50G2F420090117?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&rpc=22&sp=true

[LoZoccolo]

1. That's because he has to create an enemy to rule with an iron fist.

No matter who is in, they will be Venezuela's Saddam. They will be used to further clampdown on civil liberties! He will say that his country is threatened to stay in power! He will use it to justify harsh measures! They have already had their soap operas taken away.

[Steepler0t]

3. He refused to renew their licence after they

took part in a coup against the govt. nothing was "taken away" if he was taking it away he would have revoked the license for revenge immediately.
Instead he waited years until it was up for renewal legitimately and turned the station over to public service.
404 iron fist not found. Here if your business took part in kidnapping * I am sure the government would not wait years to shut you down.

[LoZoccolo]

4. Nope, yer thinking of the wrong thing.

And no, they did not take part in a coup against the government any more than the broadcasters who aired bin Laden tapes participated in 9/11.

[Steepler0t]

5. The guy who was to take power

went on the station and THANKED them for helping plan and using the station to spread the word of the coup. Good movie about this called The Revolution will not be televised.

He did not single that one out for no reason, All the corporate stations hate him.

And still do, but yet he lets them go on.

[LoZoccolo]

6. Nope.

The TV station aired the speech.

Our TV stations aired bin Laden's speech.

No "planning" was done. I saw the thank yous. They thanked them for covering it. That is what journalists do. I bet Ted Kaczinsky was thankful for the newspapers that ran his manifesto in them. Not the same as taking part in his movement.

[Steepler0t]

7. I recommend the movie

it shows his thanking them for helping planning.

They also helped organized the riots prior to the coup being a mouthpiece literally calling people out into the streets to overthrow him. It is one thing to cover something, it is another to instigate and organize unlawful activity.

[LoZoccolo]

8. I've seen that part, and the part where he uses the phrase "up the spout".

Gross.

[Steepler0t]

9. That is not the part

if you would like I can go find the actual time in the google video.
(You are talking about when he speaks of his grandfather)
I am sure one of our Latin DU friends will be in here to give more detail though.
RW blatant propaganda does not usually last long here without being shot down by those who know the situation in VZ.
Now is the time to heal wounds opened by years of rw bullshit with our neighbors, not continue mistakes blindly.
The crusade against Chavez is stupid. He is no saint and has not delivered miracles, but he is pretty much harmless and a potential Democratically elected ally.
Or we can go on demonizing him and drive VZ further into the fold of Putin and other assorted pricks by buying into oil corps propaganda.

[IsItJustMe]

38. I think you have it dead on. We will see. I suspect, however, more of the same.

[Peace Patriot]

159. LoZoccalo, it is well documented that RCTV hosted meetings of the coup plotters,

broadcast the coup's false 'news' that Chavez had resigned his office, falsified video footage to make it appear that Chavez supporters were shooting anti-Chavistas (when the opposite was true), ran cartoons on their stations in the first hours of the coup to keep the population ignorant of what was happening, and finally triumphantly broadcast the whole coup government announcing the suspension of the Constitution, the courts, the National Assembly and all civil rights, and appointing a rightwing president.

If that isn't treason, I don't know what is.

But there is a much broader issue here, in the non-renewal of RCTV's license to broadcast on airways owned by the public. Venezuelan television was putrid with fascist views--and still is, to a great extent--when RCTV's license was denied. RCTV's airwaves were given over to independent broadcasters, and given a mandate to broaden participation by excluded groups--such as the indigenous, African-Venezuelans and women. Here, for many years, we had the Fairness Doctrine, and imposed an obligation on corporate media to present a broad spectrum of political opinion, in use of our public airwaves. The Fairness Doctrine was deep-sixed during the Reagan era, and it should be brought back, in my opinion. There is extraordinary danger to a democracy in having only rightwing, corporate, minority views broadcast 24/7 on TV. TV is a very powerful medium. It should be reflective of the diversity of people and views in the country, not narrowly focused on corporate and war profiteer interests. I think we've seen the dangers of such narrow focus, in the Bushwhack lies about Iraq and WMDs, and so much else. While the majority of the American people (nearly 60%) (Feb '03, all polls) opposed the invasion of Iraq, the corporate 'news' monopolies manipulated images and sound bites to make it seem that the majority supported the war (exactly what RCTV was doing, re the violent military coup attempt in Venezuela). They played a crucial role in promoting one of the worst policies our country has ever engaged in, and in demoralizing and disempowering the majority, who might have prevented it, if their views had had some means of being broadcast, shared and widely discussed.

Upshot: In my opinion, the Chavez government's denial of a license renewal to RCTV improved free speech in Venezuela. It was a rightful and legal use of government power, as we once exercised here, to increase access to the airwaves for a diversity of interests and opinions.

As with so many things related to Chavez, what our corpo/fascist media says is the exact opposite of the truth. He is not a "dictator." He has harmed no one, invaded no one, tortured no one, and jailed no one unfairly. He has sought to maximize citizen participation in government and politics. He has been elected and re-elected in transparent elections. He has managed the economy well, improved it in every respect, and has benefited and helped to bootstrap Venezuela's vast poor population with Venezuela's oil wealth. And he has done all this under unrelenting hostility from the Bush junta. He is not perfect. He is no saint. And he is rather too full of himself, for my taste. But he has done his job well, and enjoys a very high approval rating in Venezuela, as well as respect and cooperation from most of the continent's other leaders, and, in some cases--as with Lula da Silva (Brazil), Evo Morales (Bolivia), Rafael Correa (Ecuador), the Kirchners (Argentina)--warm friendship. He has been a key leader of the new cooperation among South American countries, that resulted in their formation of the South American 'common market,' UNASUR, this year. Lula da Silva called him "the great peacemaker" (for helping to prevent a Bushwhack-instigated war between Colombia and Ecuador, last year). He has also strongly defended Chavez as a democrat with a small d. This is simply NOT the behavior, or the record, of a "dictator." It is a lie.

And we have to wonder, after the lying, propaganda bullshit about Iraq and WMDs, that led to the slaughter of one million innocent people, to get their oil, if these lies about Chavez are not a similar prelude to war.

[Malidictus Maximus]

55. I like Obama a great deal,

But do you really think he wouldn't bust a cap on Hugo's ass if need be?

Word to Hugo- the Monroe Doctrine has never been repealed , or repented of, by this government, and taking you down with a 'smart' bomb or a special ops team would bother only the fringes of the far left while doing a great deal to reassure the right and middle that our hegemony in South America is secure. I doubt that Obama, or a vast majority of voters, would lose any sleep over your termination and replacement. Now STFU because a whole ass load of people who tolerated or even cheered you because you gave * a hard time won't give a shit if there isn't enough of you to take a DNA sample from after an RDX enema.
-Love, Henry Kissinger

/semi sarcasm

[anonymous171]

125. Correct. Chavez may be a leftist, but he is also an authoritarian asshole.

DUers should be cautious about supporting him.

[mrs_p]

128. i agree

not every "socialist" should be worshipped

[Peace Patriot]

164. "Authoritarian asshole"? Please defend.

Anti-Chavistas are quick with the nasty words, but not so quick with anything that people can really think about. Indeed, posts like this one work very similarly to the way our corpo/fascist 'news' monopoly work to propagandize us--with sound bites, and impressions, and the strange and illusory creation and destruction of political personalities, but with nothing much to consider. Few or no facts (or twisted facts). Little or no background or context. One or two-word emotional bits. Authoritarian. Asshole.

So, please defend it. Prove to me that you are NOT like the corpo/fascist media, that you have some useful information to present, and that you want people to think and analyze and evaluate issues and politicians for themselves.

[Steepler0t]

2. Well,

He is right when it comes to Obama's statements on NAFTA/CAFTA, he supported the neo-liberal line of crap during the debates.
I hope it was just rhetoric and he gets a broader picture when in office, but we shall see.
And he is right about JFK etc. we all know the right will use violence if you upset the status-quo, he knows firsthand actually.

[cali]

10. Obama is for redrafting NAFTA

He said so during the debates. As for Chavez, I simply find him amusing.

[Larkspur]

11. I like Chavez better than I do Obama

Obama is still to pro-corporate for my tastes.

[cali]

12. there's no accounting for taste

but each to their own.

[NoPasaran]

43. Or sanity

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Danger Mouse]

91. What a load.

:puke:

[RichGirl]

14. Why are you here?

It is DEMOCRATICunderground. Obama is a democrat and Chavez isn't.

I feel sorry for people like you. We are living through possibly one of the greatest times in history yet you can't put your petty opinions aside for even a few weeks to enjoy this time and appreciate what has happened. Imagine someone who was there to listen to MLK "I have a dream" speech in person and asked to comment: "It didn't do it for me...he should have said this...shouldn't have said that...why didn't he thank the democrats...."

[cali]

15. never underestimate how much some bitter folks like

to spread their bile.

[Larkspur]

74. What am I bitter about?

Since you don't know who I am, I will find it amusing to hear your answer.

[geek tragedy]

36. We have some Stalinists and Trotskyists here. n/t

[dionysus]

60. pumskies?

:rofl:

[Larkspur]

77. The only Democratic leader I'd go to Hell and back for is

Gov. Brian Schweitzer of Montana. I would not do that for Obama, because Obama does not inspire me. I feel that Obama would sell out ordinary Americans like me before helping us. I have real concerns with him "improving" Social Security, which is the most efficient government program we have. I don't trust Obama's motives with Social Security.

Schweitzer knows how to fight the Right Wing using Democratic and progressive frames to put them on the defensive. Schweitzer, not Obama, took the lead on opposing Homeland Security's REALID campaign by framing the debate with the 4th Amendment of our Constitution and standing up to Chertoff, instead of caving into him. Schweitzer got Chertoff to blink and back down. Unlike Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Obama, Schweitzer exposed Right Wingers like Chertoff for the spineless bullies they are.

Obama wants to go to bed with the Right Wingers. Obama needs to be pushed by Progressives to do the right thing because the temptation to keep sleeping with the Right Wingers will get stronger the longer he's in Washington D.C.

[grantcart]

92. Schweitzer is also a big supporter of Chavez

And he also considers Obama a pretender.

[Larkspur]

110. Actually he refers to Chavez as one of his Petro-dictators

in his speeches to get America weaned of foreign fuel. I think all foreign oil producing nations are Petro-dictators to Schweitzer. I'd take acception with Chavez because he was democratically elected, unlike the Saudi princes. And Schweitzer does support Obama, and Obama did make the effort to campaign in Montana during the election, something no other Democratic Presidential candidate has done in a long time. Schweitzer was not keen on Hillary Clinton because she would have been a drag on the ticket in Montana.

I think Obama overestimated Mark Warner and underestimated Brian Schweitzer's speaking ability. Schweitzer was the hit of the DNC convention and no one remembers Mark Warner. Obama may be an excellent speech giver but he's not got the ear for others' speeches.

I voted for Obama and hope he does initiate a progressive agenda. I'm just not confident that he will. I see him as more centrist than progressive. I also worry that the economic stimulus package will be not enough initially and that the weak attempt will just make matters worse and thus play into the Right Wing stereotypes of progressives.

[Cleita]

102. The problem is that America has to change its policy about Latin America

to one that creates a partnership with the real democracies in Latin America for the peace and prosperity of both continents instead of business as usual. That would be exploitation of their natural resources and protection of banana republic dictatorships to protect those American and European business interests that are doing the exploiting. A smart State Department will be reaching out to legitimately elected leaders like Chavez and Morales to find common ground for diplomacy. I don't see that happening though because the American oil and mining people won't let it happen.

[Larkspur]

111. Agree with you.

Obama is still too neo-liberal on the international economic front and I think Chavez either sees it or deduces that from what Obama has said in the past.

[geek tragedy]

118. Brian Schweitzer hates your hero Hugo.

"Why wouldn’t we create an economic engine that will take us into the next century, and let those sheiks and dictators and rats and crooks from all over the world boil in their own oil?" Schweitzer said at a press conference.

Schweitzer has called them rats and crooks and hasn't held back on bit. "Hugo Chavez, the Saudi royal family, the leaders of Iran," he said. "How about the countries that end with 'stan'? Nigeria? You tell me. Sheiks, rats, crooks, dictators, sure."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/24/60minutes/main1343604.shtml

He does support Barack Obama.

[Larkspur]

139. I said in another post that Schweitzer called Chavez a Petro-dictator

and I said in that post in this thread that Schweitzer was wrong because he ignored the FACT that Chavez was democratically elected. I forgot to add that Chavez was supplying cheap heating oil to Joe Kennedy's charity that helps poor Americans purchase heating oil at discount prices. Kennedy said that not a single American oil company had offered to do for poor Americans what Hugo Chavez was doing.

Schweitzer is my political hero, but like Howard Dean, who also is one of my political heros, I don't agree with them on everything. Schweitzer was a big proponent of Clean Coal because Montana has large reserves of coal, but he's stopped talking alot about it, especially after the disaster in Tennessee. Why Schweitzer inspires me is because he stood up to the Bush cronies which runs contrary to the wimpy Washington DC Democrats who love to roll over for Bush and the Republicans. Hugo Chavez stood up to Bush and that is why I like him a lot too.

[RadicalTexan]

136. socialist =/= Stalinist

FYI.

[clear eye]

167. Ummm. No.

You use "radical" as part of your name, but you want to "teach" us that little gem of nonsense?

[Larkspur]

68. Why are you here?

Obama is a bit too wimpy for me. I see him as Bill Clinton version 2.0. Wasn't inspired by Bill Clinton either.

For the record, I was never an Obama fanatic. I was an "Anybody but a Clinton and a Republican" voter in 2008. Obama got my vote because on Feb. 5 he was the only viable candidate other than Hillary. I have no loyalty to nor hero worship of Obama, but I do have the Audacity of Cynicism regarding Obama. If Obama views himself as the next Abe Lincoln, then I'll view myself as one of those abolitionists who had to push Lincoln to do the right thing.

Hugo Chavez was democratically elected and has almost a 70% approval rating from his people. I know you have trouble understanding that there are democracies outside of the United States and in Latin America, but they do exist. I also like Evo Morales of Bolivia better than I do Obama. Contrary to what you believe about Chavez, he survived an American/Bush Admin backed coup to illegally oust Chavez and replace him with a pro-corporate right winger who would serve U.S. Corporate interests and not the welfare of the people of Venezuela. Chavez worked hard to raise the living standards of the poor in his country. The poor are despised by Chavez' political opponents and by U.S. Corporations. I also liked the fact, that unlike most of our Democratic leaders, Chavez stood up to Bush. I despise Harry Reid and am not very fond of Nancy Pelosi for their constant caving into the Bush Admin. Obama has also caved into Bush on FISA by supporting the amnesty of the telecom companies who spied on us for Bush.

Regarding Chavez's supposed "President for life" bid, that is a lie. Chavez is using democratic methods to rescind an amendment to the Venezuelan constitution limiting presidents to 2 terms. Unlike his opponents and the United States Government, Chavez is not using the military to seize power. What Chavez is doing is legal and is equivalent of us rescinding the 22nd Amendment if we wanted to.

[Butch350]

158. It's all settled then... all you need to do is...

Make airline reservations, packs your personal belongings and move to one of those countries that has
the leader your so in love with. Bye Bye sailor.

[Peace Patriot]

166. Well, I think we can be carried away on the moment, and appreciative of Obama

as a very intelligent man with good heart, and certainly feel deeply moved by the historic nature of his presidency--something I fought for, in Alabama in 1965, as a volunteer in Dr. King's voter registration project--but still be critical, and worried, and a full citizen who has a duty and a right to evaluate policy, at the same time. I see no conflict in it. And if you do, then maybe you should avoid threads where he is criticized. I do think I understand where you're coming from. When I was 16, I worshipped John F. Kennedy, and met my first boyfriend, who was 18, during the presidential primaries in 1960. I was a Kennedyite. He was for Adlai Stevenson. And he never stopped trying to rain on my parade, pointing out all the ways that Stevenson was more liberal, smarter and would make a better president. He had lots of facts to back up his views. And he simply didn't understand my worship of JFK. I was taken with the moment, the image, some spark in JFK that would, indeed, develop later into amazing accomplishments--the first Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, overtures to Krushchev and Castro to END the Cold War, efforts to keep Laos neutral (and not a Cold War battleground), efforts to head off the CIA war in Vietnam, the drafts of civil rights legislation that would be passed after his death, generation of the extraordinary mission of putting men on the moon (starting to bend the Defense budget toward peaceful ends), and his almost miraculous avoidance of a nuclear war with Russia during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

When I look back at JFK's early speeches, what he said was actually embarrassing, Cold War cant. His early speeches. (His speeches changed, dramatically, in a very short time, into eloquent calls for a peaceful world.) And I can see now why my older and more knowledgeable boyfriend favored Stevenson. It was a friendly dispute, but I found it annoying that I couldn't put my finger on WHY I backed Kennedy--and how taken I was with the moment--his grace, humor, elegance, that...spark. Something indefinable, about the future, about the new generation, our generation.

I do see that in Obama, and I understand just wanting to enjoy it for a moment--this thousand-fold improved American self-image. But you know, it was the activist peace groups, who were very critical of JFK, at first, that got him to thinking that peace was possible, and that there was a way out of the Cold War. That criticism was very, VERY important to him. I didn't even know what a peace group was, at the time. I thought they were radicals and maybe communists. JFK wanted to know if the country was ready for peace. He couldn't tell from inside the Washington DC bubble. He needed vocal critics, out here crying in the wilderness, to really begin to THINK ABOUT the Cold War and criticize it himself, to reinforce his own instinct for a new direction, and try to change this tinderbox of a world.*

We descry the corpo/fascist 'news' media for their silence, their lack of criticism, and their fawning approval of Bush's enormous mistakes and crimes--and their silencing of us, of We the People, their failure to reflect our criticism. We shouldn't let that happen again, with Obama. He needs our criticism, our ideas, our perspective, to avoid failure and disaster, and to fill in his visions of hope and change. One of Obama's weaknesses is Latin American policy, where it is very possible--and, indeed, likely--that the Bushwhacks have set a "Bay of Pigs" trap for him (--as the CIA tried to do to JFK, trapping him into a war he didn't want, and one with extremely dangerous escalation possibilities). I guess I'm just too old to allow myself anything longer than a few seconds of hero worship. I think that the best thing I can do, for this man who has taken on such awesome responsibilities, is shout it as loud as I can: Get better informed! Go for PEACE in Latin America! It is there to be had. But the Bushwhacks and other war profiteers and corporatists do not want it.

My admiration for Obama is welded to my concern for him, and for our country. I cannot separate them.

---------------------------

*(Recommended reading: "JFK and the Unspeakable," by James Douglass.)

[harun]

16. Agree, but I am open to see what Obama will do. He could still be a great leader

like Chavez.

[Jennicut]

28. Chavez also wants to be president forever and block the press

That is not really "progressive" either.

[Colobo]

31. Some folks here favor authoritarianism as long as it is used to establish a

"progressive" government.

[cali]

32. really sad, but nothing new for the American left

like any other political group, we've got our share of totalitarians.

[Radical Activist]

51. That's changing with Obama.

Obama represents an anti-authoritarian left viewpoint that's common in community organizing circles. I see a lot of people who have a hard time understanding a type of liberalism that isn't about forcing top-down change with rigid ideological ten point programs. When you truly respect the ability of the people to govern themselves then you don't start out with your own check list of detailed programs that passes somebody's ideological purity test.

[Adelante]

79. That's it

That's precisely what is missed so often about Obama, unfortunately. :thumbsup:

[RoyGBiv]

105. That was very well stated ...

Well done.

[Mika]

130. Huh?

"When you truly respect the ability of the people to govern themselves then you don't start out with your own check list of detailed programs that passes somebody's ideological purity test."

Care to decipher that for me?

Who's the "you" and who's the "somebody's".

Surely "the people" who "govern themselves" have checklists (priorities) and ideologies, yes?

As it is, your statement makes no sense to me.

[Radical Activist]

134. For example

Ralph Nader starts a so-called grass-roots organization that he funds (he has many times). But when the organization starts, it already has its goals, programs and policies determined in detail. The agenda was formed by Nader and his circle in DC, not among the people. They go to work telling people whey they should sign up for activist alerts and care about whatever issue that organization decided to work on. That's not grass roots and it doesn't respect the ability of people to create their own programs. That's the top-down authoritarian left, although in a much milder form that the Stalinist left.

The community organizing approach starts with bringing people together to talk about their common interests and then working in unity against established powers. It's focus is on empowering people to work on the issues they care about rather than telling people what issues they aught to care about or trying to solve people's problems for them.

Hillary had a top-down philosophy and argued during the campaign that she had the experience and ability to craft a government program to solve your problems for you. Obama had a very different message that constantly reminded people that THEY will be the source of change and solutions.

Although people tried to paint Obama and Hillary as the same, they do have some fundamental differences in their philosophy and approach to governing. Because of Obama's philosophy I think he'll do more for the progressive movement as President than more authoritarian thinkers who may have a more liberal policy platform. Massive change comes from mass movements more than government programs.

You'll see all of this in the Change meetings Obama held AFTER the election which asked people to gather in their communities to talk about their biggest priorities. Meeting leaders emailed the campaign to let them know what the top priorities were for their meeting. Obama is taking responsiveness to the people beyond reading polls and is making it part of a substantive change agenda.

[Mika]

135. The grass roots approach you describe sounds like the Cuban system.

I've been to nomination sessions, as well as accountability sessions, in Cuba - where anyone can run for any government office or a seat in any of the three levels of Assemblies. Needless to say, I was surprised and very impressed at the fact that the Cuban government does operate from the grass roots on up.

That's why they have good universal health care, good universal education, rent controlled housing, zero homelessness, etc etc.


Another DUer, Billy Burnett - who has been to nomination sessions in Cuba also, has written a good description of the process ... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=405&topic_id=10544&mesg_id=10765


Thanks for the reply.

[Radical Activist]

146. Very interesting parallel to make.

And despite my avatar, it's one I hadn't thought of. I'm convinced these neighborhood Change meetings can be a vehicle for moving Obama further left and organizing people in communities more effectively than the usual protests and letter writing campaigns.

The one I attended quickly decided that any effective health care reform required taking the profit motive out of the system and sent that message to the campaign. I'm not in a liberal town. It was very encouraging.

[Larkspur]

69. Get your facts correct before you spout lies

Hugo Chavez is not seeking to be President for Life. He's seeking to remove the term limit rule in the Venezuelan Constitution. That's legal and he's using democratic, not military, means to seek that change. What Chavez is doing is equivalent to us working to rescind the 22nd Amendment that limits US Presidents to 2 4-year terms.

[Mika]

131. Details details.

Don't ask questions!

[Colobo]

30. That's some bad taste right there.

[Larkspur]

71. Hugo Chavez is a hero to most of his people

He's got almost a 70% approval rating from his people. I have more respect for Chavez, who stood up to Bush and survived an American backed coup against him, than I do our wimpy Democratic leaders in Washington, and yes Obama is one of those wimpy leaders.

[Radical Activist]

115. What planet are you on?

Obama was one of the leaders who spoke out against the Iraq War before it started. He ran for the US Senate on that position.

You'll never see who Obama is if you let Greens and socialists define him for you. The fact that he doesn't jump up and down to scream about how liberal he is like Kucinich doesn't make him a conservative.

[Larkspur]

140. I'm the secretary of my town's Democratic Town Committee

I don't know of any Greens and the only socialist that I know is Senator Bernie Sanders, who I have a lot of respect for.

[Thrill]

33. WHAT? Is this a joke?

[geek tragedy]

35. So, you like Communist Strongmen moreso than mainstream

democratic leaders.

[Larkspur]

73. Hugo Chavez was democratically elected twice by his people

and Jimmy Carter's organization supervised those elections and found them fair.

Chavez earned his power and high approval ratings via democratic methods and by helping raise the living standards of the poor in his country. Chavez is against Bush and our corporate imperialism, not against American ideals.

Next time do some research before spouting lies and your ignorance.

[geek tragedy]

117. Chavez now hates Barack Obama.

Sorry, but Chavez's public position is anti-American. Bush, Obama--doesn't matter to His Excellency.

And, lots of thugs get elected democratically and then abuse their office.

[Forkboy]

85. Psssst....it's not the 50's anymore.

[geek tragedy]

116. Not the 1920's either, Comrade. n/t

[Forkboy]

122. You're so wrong about me you do us both a disservice.

Let me know how the "commie" stuff works out for you there, Reagan.

[Radical Activist]

48. Obama voted against CAFTA and has always supported FAIR trade.

You'll have to show me what debate you're talking about because he has been pretty consistent about being pro-trade but not along the NAFTA model. He isn't exactly where I'd like him to be but he offered an alternative to Clinton/Bush neo-liberalism.

[Larkspur]

72. Obama voted for the Peru free trade Act and Obama still says he supports free trade

He never uses fair trade when speaking about trade issues.

[Radical Activist]

83. He mentions his support for fair trade often

if you check his book and website. He spoke about the specific protections that made the Peru agreement more acceptable than CAFTA, which I assume you're ready to admit he voted against.

Don't make presumptions when you try to cram Obama into the neo-liberal corporatist box. Are you trying to intentionally mislead people or are you repeating what you assume must be true about him?

Straight from the website:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/#trade

Fight for Fair Trade: Obama and Biden will fight for a trade policy that opens up foreign markets to support good American jobs. They will use trade agreements to spread good labor and environmental standards around the world and stand firm against agreements like the Central American Free Trade Agreement that fail to live up to those important benchmarks. Obama and Biden will also pressure the World Trade Organization to enforce trade agreements and stop countries from continuing unfair government subsidies to foreign exporters and nontariff barriers on U.S. exports.

[Larkspur]

112. I based my opinions on Obama's free trade policies from what I heard coming out of his mouth

I've not heard him say fair trade as opposed to free trade. Maybe in his mind the two are the same, but they are not.

[Radical Activist]

114. I just provided a link and another reference that proves your claim wrong.

I've heard him talk about fair trade. It was in his book published two years ago. He's consistent in his public comments and in voting against CAFTA. You still can't give me reference for your claim that he never talks about fair trade, which is demonstrably false.

It seems like you have certain beliefs that you're determined to hold onto in the face of all evidence to the contrary. Why is that? Any ideology becomes a crutch when you're forced to deny reality in order to hold onto your beliefs.

[Larkspur]

138. Because I heard it on TV, not read it in an article

It was during the campaign. I don't have a link to it because I didn't know you and I would be talking about it.

but Obama supported Peru's free trade agreement over the objections of the AFL-CIO and other labor groups who opposed it. Obama was wrong to support it.

[camera obscura]

13. What a class act.

[struggle4progress]

17. Lula apoya a Chávez en su intención de ser candidato presidencial en 2012

Escrito por Redacción
viernes, 16 de enero de 2009

... El nuevo presidente estadounidense Barack Obama debe mirar hacia América Latina "sin prejuicios" y levantar el "bloqueo perverso" hacia Cuba, que "no tiene ninguna explicación", pidió este viernes el presidente brasileño Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.

"Que mire a América Latina con una mirada democrática y de simpatía. Que no vea aquí la región de los años 60 sino una región que aprendió a vivir en democracia, a desarrollarse, a cuidar de los pobres (...) Con una mirada de jefe de Estado, sin prejuicios", pidió ...

"Vamos a tener la posibilidad de conversar y tenemos que conversar antes de que el aparato del Estado se apodere de él, porque la máquina es poderosa y si no luchamos contra ella nos devora (...) y hace de nosotros algo diferente de lo que pensábamos ser cuando llegamos a la Presidencia", explicó.

"Ojalá podamos dialogar con respeto (con Obama). Estamos listos para eso", respondió Chávez ...

http://nuevaprensa.com.ve/content/view/13697/2/

[struggle4progress]

18. Uh, do you have this in the original Spanish? I'm not finding it

[slipslidingaway]

19. kick for your question n/t

[cali]

20. No. Why should I?

[struggle4progress]

22. Hmmm. That pretty much tells me what I needed to know.

[cali]

25. whatever. it's a reuter's story

and my spanish is rudimentary- at best. I just love how people here insist that no media outlet ever translates either Ahmadinejad or Chavez correctly. It's most amusing. And frankly, I don't have any feelings about Chavez one way or another. I'm neither a detractor or an admirerer.

[struggle4progress]

58. It's just seems odd that only a translation statement of the statement is available,

and not the statement itself in the original language

And even when the original statement is in English, one should seek the full text if the story depends on quoting single words or parts of longer sentences -- especially if the story as written tends to produce a strong emotional reaction

As a general rule for reading the news, I also prefer direct accounts to indirect accounts, and I prefer multiple lines of evidence (if available) to single sources

You imply that Reuters is reputable, and I will agree Reuters is usually preferable to Fox or ABC or UPI -- but anyone who has read enough media reports and has regularly compared several independent versions of the same story, will immediately understand the reasons for prefeences I just outlined

I didn't make any claims about whether Chavez had been quoted accurately in context or out of context -- or whether he hads been quoted accurately and translated inaccurately -- or whether he had been misquoted out of context and then translated inaccurately: I simply sought a fuller, more primary account

My Spanish may not be much better than yours, but that may not matter much: it's still possible to get the general sense of a Spanish text with a bit of work

[Radical Activist]

53. that someone's opinoin isn't valid if they don't speak spanish?

fucking lame comment.

[struggle4progress]

61. How ironic! Starting from my cryptic statement, you apparently fabricate a quote from me

I think I have made my case

[Radical Activist]

64. If you were worried about being misinterpreted

then you could have made a plain statement instead of being cryptic. What case is it you think you've made? I don't think you've made it to anyone outside of your own mind.

[struggle4progress]

96. This sidebar is going nowhere, so instead of continuing it, I'll direct you to #90

[camera obscura]

24. Here's an article from the Venezuelan paper "El Universal"

http://www.eluniversal.com/2009/01/18/int_art_chavez-acusa-a-obama_1229506.shtml

[struggle4progress]

62. Thanks. It does not appear to refer to any "stench." It does, however,

include part of what must have a longer sentence (if other accounts are to be believed): Chávez insistió en que el nuevo presidente estadounidense "sigue un formato desde el Pentágono. Porque si el presidente de Estados Unidos no obedeciera el mandato del imperio, a Obama lo matan como a John F. Kennedy, como a Martin Luther King o como a Abraham Lincoln"

To someone who knows something about the history of US intervention in Lation America, that truncated quote might seem to reflect a rather natural attitude: so Latin Americans might regard the assertion differently than North Americans do

[struggle4progress]

90. Searching the English language page of El Universal is producing some odd results:

Two stories dated 16 Jan, the first claiming the US embassy expects improved relations, the second claiming Reuters reported an interview in which Obama chided Chavez for spreading terrorism. I can't find any link to the alleged interview. But the story in the OP is dated 17 Jan and makes Chavez sound as if he is hallucinating

CARACAS, Friday January 16, 2009
... Washington will try to improve relations with the government of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, after US President-elect Barack Obama takes office next January 20, said on Thursday the Chargé d'Affaires of the United States embassy, John Caulfield. The US Embassy top official in Caracas said Thursday that he met with Venezuelan Foreign Minister Nicolás Maduro and they talked about "the opportunity for a renewed dialogue (...) between our governments, with a new administration in Washington," AP reported. The Venezuelan ruler has suggested that relations between the two countries are likely to be fully restored once the outgoing US President George W. Bush leaves the White House.
http://english.eluniversal.com/2009/01/16/en_pol_art_the-united-states-hi_16A2194685.shtml

CARACAS, Friday January 16, 2009
... the US President-elect allegedly said this week in an interview that Chávez has hindered progress in the region, by spreading terrorism and supporting "malicious entities" such as the Colombian Revolutionary Armed Forces (FARC), Reuters reported ...
english.eluniversal.com/2009/01/16/en_pol_art_chavez-issues-a-warn_16A2194723.shtml

From Google News searches:
Your search - source:reuters obama chavez farc - did not match any documents.
Your search - source:reuters obama chavez interview - did not match any documents.

Sat Jan 17, 2009 4:41pm EST
... Until recently, Chavez had said he hoped relations with Washington could improve. But in the last few days, he has picked up on comments he attributes to Obama accusing him of obstructing progress in Latin America and exporting terrorism. (Reporting by Jorge Silva; Editing by John O'Callaghan)
http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN1732245320090117

[struggle4progress]

133. Update

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=405&topic_id=11051&mesg_id=11069

[slipslidingaway]

21. Chavez says Obama "throwing stones" at Venezuela

http://in.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idINN1554673920090115

"CARACAS, Jan 15 (Reuters) - Casting a bad omen for better ties with Washington, Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez said on Thursday he will keep fighting the U.S. "empire" and warned President-elect Barack Obama against "throwing stones."

Chavez said Obama accused Venezuela in a speech earlier this week of exporting terrorism and obstructing progress in Latin America...


...Despite warning Obama, Chavez said he hoped relations with the United States would improve under the new president.

"If he respects Venezuela, he will receive a respectful reply," he said. "There is still time for Mr Obama to rectify when he assumes the presidency."


http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/kristin-bricker/2009/01/chavez-warns-obama-repeats-bushs-discourse-against-venezuela

"...The "Stone" Worries Him

President Chavez also said that independent of the US' internal issues, "this worries us. Right here, right now, I am putting it out there...he threw a stone at me...multiple stones."

"I have to complain and make it public, because afterwards they'll say that Chavez began to throw stones, that he likes to fight with the whole world...as always, the creole bourgeoisie, the owners of the media, want to present me as if Chavez had attacked, was disrespectful, the stone-thrower, the violent one," he explained..."

[slipslidingaway]

23. Chavez: “Obama Is Confusing Me with Bush”

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/4119

"Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said his country is open to unconditional talks with the new U.S. president, but rejected comments Barack Obama made in a television interview this week.

Chavez read the comments from the president-elect, in which Obama repeated Bush administration claims that Venezuela had “exported terrorism” and interrupted progress in the region...

...Chavez expressed hopes that Obama would stop listening to “far right advisors,” and instead follow the words of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Chavez noted that Thursday would be the 80th anniversary of King’s birth, eliciting applause from the hundreds of supporters in attendance.

“There is still time for to correct these views though,” Chavez added. “We will wait and see, we will know him by his actions. He is really an unknown.”

“If he wants to respectfully talk with Venezuela, we are at his service, but the Venezuelan people must be respected,” Chavez insisted..."

[geek tragedy]

37. So, now being anti-Chavez is being anti-Venezuela.

Sounds like Bushism circa 2003 to me. I wonder if his flunkies will boycott the Dixie Chicks.

[slipslidingaway]

26. Did Venezuela's Opposition Meet with US Officials in Puerto Rico?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=417460&mesg_id=417460

http://nacla.org/node/5415


"Even by Venezuelan standards, the story seemed implausible. On January 9, a young reporter Pedro Carvajalino, from community television station Ávila TV, filmed four leading figures of Venezuela's right-wing opposition returning from Puerto Rico. They had just arrived by private jet from the U.S. territory, where they had purportedly met with representatives of the U.S. Department of State.

According to emails obtained by the reporter, officials held the meeting to plan strategy and secure funding aimed at defeating a proposed amendment to the Venezuelan constitution that would allow elected officials, including President Hugo Chávez, to seek reelection.

The story first broke on Venezolana de Televisión (VTV), a government television channel. The brewing scandal has quickly become a centerpiece of a debate over U.S. interference in the internal affairs of the country as it prepares to vote on the re-election referendum in February...

...The alleged US government link to the Puerto Rico meeting is particularly sensitive given Washington's past financial support to the Venezuelan opposition through the National Endowment for Democracy and other analogous institutions...."

[Waiting For Everyman]

27. I'm wondering what Chavez gets out of saying this? What's his agenda?

There is no need for this to be said right now, so why is he doing it? To draw attention to himself? To seem "knowing"? To counteract a feeling of hope in the world? Why? What's in it for him?

It isn't as if we don't know about the life-threat to people who challenge the system... this is news to us? Or anybody else?

[cali]

29. I don't think there's much doubt that Chavez likes media attention

and pictures himself as the opposition leader to the imperialist U.S.

[IsItJustMe]

39. Seems pretty clear to me. Chavez does not like what Obama has said about him. Honestly, would you?

It also seems clear that Chavez is sending out a olive branch in telling Obama, paraphrasing here:

Look Obama, we have a chance to make a new start here, but if you continue to talk like that, its not gonna happen. There is still time.

[Lyric]

42. It's not an olive branch, it's a shitbomb.

Chavez is trying to maintain his image as the opposition to the American Imperialist Elite, and a good American President spoils that image. Therefore, Obama must be tainted with the stain of Imperialism.

And honestly, Obama hasn't said a thing about Chavez that isn't true. The man is a megalomaniac tinpot dictator who happens to claim to be "Left" rather than "Right." Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Leftism is not synonymous with Progressivism.

[IsItJustMe]

44. Name calling and accusations only place place people further in their own corners and never helps to

bring people together in common ground. If Obama is the diplomat that people claim, I would like to see him act like it with regards to this issue.

I am sure that Chavez has his own agenda, but at this point, I don't think he is the devil and I do think that if Obama plays his cards right, we could make a friend out of Venezuela.

It will be up to him. The same old shit, or some real change.

I mean after all, if Obama can call GWB a good man, then it seems like he should be able to find some common ground with Chavez. Just saying, DAMN.

[Lyric]

65. Well then we disagree vehemently.

In my view, Chavez is the one who needs to prove himself, not Obama. If he wants to be "friends," then he needs to start acting like somebody we'd do well to be friends with. A man who makes it illegal for journalists to criticize anyone in his government, including himself?

While some newspapers and broadcasters are still independent and some are outspoken in their opposition to Chávez, the President and his legislative supporters have strengthened the state's capacity to limit free speech and created powerful incentives for self-censorship. They have, for example, expanded laws making "contempt" for government officials a criminal offense, increased prison sentences for criminal defamation, and abused the state's control of broadcasting frequencies to intimidate and discriminate against stations with overtly critical programming.

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/10/09/hugo-ch-vez-versus-human-rights

And another Human Rights Watch article detailing how democracy and freedom are suffering under Chavez:

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/09/17/venezuela-rights-suffer-under-ch-vez

Open your mind and your eyes. This man is NO friend of ours. A dictator is a dictator, Right or Left be damned. If you don't consider Human Rights Watch (an organization with NO political agenda beyond acting as a watchdog for human rights abuses) to be a legitimate enough source to believe, then you and I have no further need for conversation. As for Obama, he has nothing to be ashamed of and nothing to apologize for. If Chavez wants to be buddies, then Chavez needs to stop abusing his power and his people.

[Evoman]

142. And what would Chavez have to do to prove himself? Shoot himself in the head and replace himself

with a right wing military strongmen.

Seems to me that that's all the US ever wants for South American countries.

[Waiting For Everyman]

56. That's impression I got from it too.

[cali]

45. bwahahaha.

yeah, that's some olive branch. And bush is a genuine American hero.

[IsItJustMe]

46. Chavez says there is still time to salvage the situation. That to me is an olive branch. You may

see it differently. Thats OK too. But one would have to admit that Chavez left the door open to improved relations, never-the-less.

[cali]

47. uh, saying publicly that Obama has the same stench as bush is a grave insult

so no, saying that there's time to salvage the relationship is just self-serving bullshit of the first order. He's setting Obama up as the ugly american. That simple.

[IsItJustMe]

50. Chicken or the egg. Obama said this and Chavez said that. This type of dialog can go on forever

and never solves problems. I think there is an opening here, having a new president and all who ran on change, to create a new beginning in our relationship with Venezuela.

I may be wrong, but it seems like it is possible just-the-same. And if there is an opening, no matter how small, Why not take it?

Time will tell. But from what I am seeing so far out of Obama and Chavez, I will have to admit, it's not looking good.

[Radical Activist]

49. Democratic Presidents don't have a history

of warming up to marxist governments in Latin America. Democrats are generally less brutal compared to Nixon, Ford or Reagan, but I suspect Chavez knows his history.

[Hippo_Tron]

66. That was the Cold War, though

I'm no Chavez fan, but the only thing he's really done to the United States is say things that offend us. If we'd simply not respond instead of getting all outraged about it, it would probably make him realize that we don't care what he thinks and also the price of oil would probably drop a few cents at least.

[Radical Activist]

67. He's done something alright.

He did something by nationalizing the oil industry in his country and selling it to countries we don't want him selling to. Controlling oil means controlling which countries get to develop an economy and/or military. Those issues won't go away and Obama will be under tremendous pressure by very powerful international forces.

[Hippo_Tron]

76. Saudi Arabia also sells oil to people we don't like

There are many countries including our own allies who trade with countries we don't like. Why is Venezuela so different?

[Radical Activist]

82. manifest destiny

We claim the right to kick around latin america all we want. Venezuela doesn't have as much money or power as Saudi Arabia. They don't have billions invested in the US economy.

[Hippo_Tron]

86. Does that mean we should kick around Latin America all we want?

Our history of intervening in Latin America has, for the most part, has been a complete fucking disaster. Chavez isn't a significant national security threat as far as I can see. We would do well not to give Chavez his external enemy and let him just run his own little world into the ground.

[Radical Activist]

89. No, I'm not attempting to justify it.

I'm pointing out that Chavez knows there are some things about US relations with Latin America that don't tend to change no matter who the President is. I'm hoping Obama will shut down the School of the Americas and take a different approach to L.A. than the Bush's. I'm confident there will be improvement and he's unlikely to attempt a coup like Bush did.

I'd love to see Obama pursue friendly relations with socialist Presidents like Chavez and Morales but I'm not holding my breath on that one. Hoping for the US being less openly hostile to them is more realistic.

[Hippo_Tron]

95. Less hostile is fine by me

I'm not even saying befriend Chavez, I'm just saying publicly ignore him and privately keep an eye on him. The right wingers' fascination with making this guy into a villain is unsurprising and the left's fascination with making him into a hero is also not surprising.

What amazes me is that otherwise pragmatic liberals and moderates are so damn vocal about him as well. He's mostly a non-issue as far as I'm concerned. Lets just go back to where our relations were with him under Clinton and let that be that.

[Radical Activist]

97. I have more hope for Evo Morales.

He looks like he might be setting up a model of real democratic socialism for the region and so far he isn't showing too many authoritarian tendencies like Chavez and Castro. He came from a people's movement so I think he actually believes in a democracy that genuinely empowers people. He doesn't get as much attention since they don't have oil.

[theboss]

161. His agenda is hegemony over the Southern Hemisphere

He needs an enemy in the White House for that plan to work.

This was never about Bush with him. It was always about US power.

[geek tragedy]

34. Poor Hugo. With Bush gone, sympathy for his authoritarian

tendencies is going to plummet.

[anonymous171]

126. Not on DU apparently. nt

[Occam Bandage]

40. Every dictator needs both an internal and an external enemy.

Chavez's are "Oligarchs," and Bush. With Bush gone, he's gotta find a new one.

[harun]

54. Chavez isn't a dictator

[wyldwolf]

57. ok, every democratically elected thug trying to change his country's constitution to remain in power

... or "thug."

[Larkspur]

78. If Chavez was really a thug, he's use the military to take absolute power

but he's not. He's working through the democratic process to get the Constitution changed. That's not the work of a thug, but a democrat making a case for no term limits for President. By going through the democratic process, he has to make the case to the people of Venezuela to support it. That means he has to use words, not bullets to convince people to support his position.

[Teaser]

101. Give him time

Chavez ain't a dictator. He could be pushed in that direction, and his commitment to Democracy is not something of which I am convinced.

[harun]

98. Keep basing your world view on what CNN tells you, see how that works out for you.

[wyldwolf]

107. keep basing your world view on what... hmmm... where DO you get your info?

[Cha]

41. Well, I disagree, there just ain't no

stench like bush smell.

Obama is a refreshing Spring Rain with Flowers.

[IsItJustMe]

52. K&R

for a good discussion.

[Odin2005]

59. Chavez has the stench of a tyrannical demogogue. n/t

[BeyondGeography]

63. Hugo has the stench of someone who misses $100/bbl. oil

[ecstatic]

70. stay classy, Chavez

:eyes:

[bridgit]

80. Hugo ~ n/t

[tigereye]

81. what an ass

:eyes: Great way to start out the diplomatic relationship and be positive there, Hugo.

[Maru Kitteh]

84. I'm happy to say I've never been that impressed by Chavez. He can choke on it.

[Forkboy]

87. Some of the propaganda in this thread from both sides would make Chavez and Obama both blush.

Chavez threads are hilarious. Two sides convinced they represent the one ideal concept of democracy.

[cali]

88. sure, but what's really interesting is Chavez

going after Obama at this particular moment.

[struggle4progress]

93. See #90: Venezuela media was reporting that Obama had accused Chavez of

supporting terrorism, on the same day they were reporting the US Embassy expected better relations

Sounds like The Company boys are undermining Foggy Bottom

[slipslidingaway]

120. I also looked for recent comments from Obama in regards to

Chavez, but I did not come up with very much.

With all the media attention you would think there would be a video or at least more reports on when and where these alleged comments were made.

Another issue is a reported meeting between Venezuelan opposition leaders and people in our government that took place in Puerto Rico.

Against this backdrop, and also the failed 2002 coup, I might find myself a bit nervous as well.


Then again I remember when Obama referred to Chavez as a dictator and said he was stirring up anti-American sentiment.



Obama Wrong About Chavez
By Noisefactor - Apr 21st, 2008 at 1:02 am EDT

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/noisefactor/gGCCzr

Posted about it here...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5600924&mesg_id=5600924

[struggle4progress]

132. Update

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=405&topic_id=11051&mesg_id=11069

[Forkboy]

99. Makes sense on numerous levels.

First and foremost is knowing that Obama is the one in charge here now. What better time to make a comment about him than right before he's sworn in as leader of the last super power on Earth?

Also, Obama seems like he'll continue with much the same approach to Chavez as what's already in place. Chavez is calling him on that (in his eyes, and in his people's, he hopes).

Lastly, Chavez is many things, some good, some bad, but one thing for sure is that he knows and understands the world stage, and how to play on it. And he likes it...a lot.

It's way too easy to pass Chavez off as a dictator if you're against him, or some socialist hero if you like him. Both are wrong, and that binary thinking we'll get us nowhere. Chavez is an interesting man, no doubt, and we do ourselves a disservice to try to peg him, and his lovely country, into such simplistic caricatures.

Personally, I'll take a lot of the criticism of Chavez more seriously when I see many of those same people who hate him mention Uribe's name even once. I can't help but wonder, knowing the beliefs of some of the people here on DU, that they don't see Chavez as a threat from the Left, and I think that bothers them more than anything. So they hide behind other criticisms, much like the few remaining PUMA people do with valid criticism of Obama. They'll jump on that bandwagon, not because that issue is really why they're upset about, but because it's a safe way to criticize without revealing the actual reason why one dislikes him.

[Danger Mouse]

100. I don't think Chavez is a dictator.

I think he's just an outspoken jerk.

[Forkboy]

106. LOL....I don't think he says much of anything without a purpose.

He does have that pomposity thing going on though, no doubt. :)

And hey, if being an outspoken jerk was so bad, three quarters of DU would be gone. :D

[Starry Messenger]

108. Nice post, Fidel!

:D

[EFerrari]

141. I think HC got some intelligence that some faction in our government

is again working with the opposition to tank the referendum. It's just another day at the office.

Obama seems to have little grasp of Latin America, imo. He fits into the group of people who diss Chavez but never mention Uribe. But, JFK had just as little and he learned and did better as his term progressed.

[Danger Mouse]

94. I've never liked Chavez all that much. This is just more reason not to like him.

[polichick]

103. Well, he has a point about "the empire" - let's hope Obama survives it.

[mariawr]

104. Good fricking day to you, too Chavez..

As my blessed mama used to say-'takes one to know one'. Devil, that is.

[SuperTrouper]

109. Hey, Chávez, STFU, we don't care about you and your new babana Republic

We don't need your BS, if your people have bought into it, it is their problem, so like King Juan Carlos I of España said: "¿Por qué no te callas?" :mad:

[Larkspur]

113. America is more an banana republic than Venezuela

What do you think all those banking and financial services scandals have done to America?

[SuperTrouper]

119. However, we still have the right to change Presidents peacefully, not like

Venezuela where Chavez, at gunpoint, is forcing himself on a formerly vibrant society.

[Judi Lynn]

121. The Venezuela of 1989, when the President Carlos Andres Perez had his forces fire into crowds

of poor Venezuelans protesting his hideous reforms which instantly raised the price of their public transportation and their heating oil beyond their ability to pay, killing 3,000 of them in a very short time?

That Venezuela? The same Venezuela whose President Carlos Andres Perez was impeached for massive corruption after his massacre? The same Venezuela whose President Rafael Caldera pardoned Hugo Chavez who led one of two coups against mad-dog Carlos Andres Perez?

There's no time like the present to take the time to become aware of what has been happening in Latin America at the hands of US-supported scum FIRST before posting.

[Larkspur]

137. Chavez is not using guns to change the Constitution

He's using the democratic process to do so.

And your vibrant pre-Chavez society including the poor, who suffered at the expense of the wealthy few. Chavez brought visible hope to the poor by improving their lives. That is something Chavez' opponents would like to undo. Chavez' opponents despise the poor.

[Every Man A King]

145. WTF are you talking about

he was elected moron.

[cooolandrew]

123. I respect what Chavez has done for his country but this is messed up how does he expect things to>

improve if he doesn't do reach out and makes predictions we DON'T really need to hear. Come on Chavez you are a smart man this can't get done forma postion of cynicism.

[cooolandrew]

124. I respect what Chavez has done for his country but this is messed up how does he expect things to>

improve if he doesn't do reach out and makes predictions we DON'T really need to hear. Come on Chavez you are a smart man this can't get done from a position of cynicism. Certainly it won't be all roses in the garden no one expects that but with the right co-operation it can at least start on that path.

[mrs_p]

127. i'm sorry, but i do not

understand the hero worship of chavez here on DU. shouldn't we all be a little leery of a guy who wants so much power? i have south american friends both for and against him, but from what i have seen and heard and read, i think he is forgetting about the people of vz and caring more for his own interests.

[Lilith Velkor]

129. Chavez speaks the truth. n/t

[tritsofme]

143. Psh, I called this seven months ago.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3393934

And I guess the answer to my question was yes, the Hugo apologists will make excuses for any stupid thing he does. Just like the Bushista 20%ers.

[bitchkitty]

144. That's how you define "calling" something?

LMAO - glad you're not my psychic.

[uponit7771]

148. Good call, what do you think is behind Chavez's rhetoric? Obama isn't the "normal" I don't see the..

...profit in NOT getting behind him to do something positive.

[theboss]

162. Well played, my friend

I saw this coming too, but I never posted about it.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

147. God He's Such A Piece Of Shit. Fuck That Pig Chavez.

[rl6214]

149. This shouldn't surprise anyone

A dictator needs an enemy.

[ronnykmarshall]

150. Blow it out your ass Hugo!

Fucker.

[PM7nj]

151. Well, Chavez has the "stench" of a dictator. nt

[Peace Patriot]

152. There sure is a lot of misinformation in this thread about Chavez and Venezuela.

I think everyone who is reacting to this supposed remark of Chavez--who was reacting to a supposed remark of Obama, both after multiple translations--should first of all read StruggleForProgress' analysis of the provenance of this article (back to the initial supposed interview of Obama), and the analysis of the "stench" word as translated and in context; and secondly, should read "JFK and the Unspeakable," by James Douglass (recently published by the Maryknoll fathers), to understand how the CIA tried to manipulate JFK's relations with foreign leaders, like Krushchev and Castro, and interposed itself between him and them, in various treacherous ways, to prevent any understanding and diplomatic peace initiatives. JFK had to establish secret backchannels to both leaders, to prevent a nuclear war, and to end the Cold War--the CIA was so bad and so treasonous toward the President. They were instigating wars all over the planet, aiming at a nuclear war with Russia, which they and the "military-industrial complex" thought they could win, and every time JFK would dampen one of these plots, another would spring up. Cuba. Laos. Berlin. Vietnam.

The Bushwhacks have been in charge of the CIA, of U.S. dirty tricks around the world, and of all of our intel and military capabilities for eight years. No matter that a new president is coming in, there could well be--and, indeed, I think we can be certain that there are--layers and layers of Bushwhacks now within our secret government and all of our agencies, and the military, ready to subvert Obama policy if it doesn't suit our war profiteers and corporate rulers. The Bushwhacks also have private resources--billions and billions of dollars stolen from us, private armies such as Blackwater, and, no doubt, Rumsfeld's privatized "Office of Special Plans," working diligently on Exxon Mobil's and Saudi Arabia's behalf.

It is entirely plausible that the Bushwhacks have set up war strategies to entrap Obama in a conflict he doesn't want--this time Venezuela, which could become Obama's "Bay of Pigs." And this strange little set-to (this 'news' article) seems very likely to be part of such a strategy. At the least, we can be sure that the Bushwhacks and the gang at Exxon Mobil want to force Obama to keep pouring millions of our tax dollars into the rightwing opposition in Venezuela, for political as well as illegal purposes (fascist riots/destabilization; coup plots, overturning the elected government, or the plot to split off the oil rich province of Zulia--which may be the main war plan--a civil war, similar to the one that the Bushwhacks tried to start this September in Bolivia.)

The issue is OIL. Neither the Bushwhacks, nor most of our political/corporate establishment, gives a flying fuck about democracy in Venezuela. In so far as it is a real democracy--and it is arguable that Venezuela has a far, far, FAR more real democracy than we do--they want to smash it, and install toadies to the oil barons who rule over us, who will throw Venezuelans out of airplanes over the ocean, and eviscerate them, and torture them, and think of all kinds of "School of the Americas" ways of killing them, to prevent any dissent. That's what the Bushwhacks and most of our domestic political powers want. THE OIL! They don't mind "dictators." They prefer dictators, if they'll just deliver the goods--the resources, the cheap labor, the looting opportunities, and the sovereingty of their countries and their peoples. And they don't mind killing. They just slaughtered a million people in Iraq to get their oil.

So those upthread here who keep saying that Chavez is a "dictator" are really and truly making an irrelevant comment. Nobody cares, in our government. Dictator schmictator. If it's convenient to call him a "dictator," to propagandize US, they will, and they do.

Those who care are the people of Venezuela--who have elected Chavez--in far, far, FAR more transparent elections that we have here--with increasing margins of victory (most recently with 63% of the vote). Those who care are the leaders of other countries, who are friends and allies of Chavez, and work closely with him--Lula da Silva of Brazil, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner of Argentina, Rafeal Correa of Ecuador, Evo Morales of Bolivia, Fernando Lugo of Paraguay, Tabare Vasquez of Uruguay and others. They like him. They approve of him. Even Lula da Silva--who doesn't need Venezuelan oil or help--said of Chavez, recently: "They can invent a lot of things to criticize Chavez, but not on democracy." He also said, just the other day, that he wants to sit down with Obama and educate him on Venezuelan and Bolivian democracy, because he believes that Obama is misinformed. He has the same concern that Chavez does, that Bushwhacks, war profiteers and corporatists are poisoning the well.

These South American leaders and their supporters are highly sensitive to the issue of dictatorship in South America--because they have all experienced it--and also are very aware of the importance of democratic institutions--honest elections, free political discourse, grass roots activism, involvement of the poor majority. None of them call Chavez a "dictator" or treat him in any way except as a respected partner.

Why? Because he is NOT a dictator--not even close to being one. All the stuff you read about here, in our corpo/fascist 'news' monopolies, is crap. 100% crap. There was never a more democratic leader of Venezuela; never a government so committed to maximum citizen participation; never a government that set up community councils to direct federal funding to their own chosen, local needs; never a government that worked so hard to get Venezuela a better deal with the international oil corporations. Chavez did NOT nationalize Venezuela's oil--it was nationalized before Chavez--but previous, rightwing governments were giving away most of the profit to multinationals, while creaming some off the top for the rich local elite, and totally neglecting the poor. Chavez changed all that. He has done the best possible things with the increased oil revenues that his government negotiated, in an oil-dependent country: 1) youth and adult education--and shoes, clothing, food and other supports, so the poor can go to school; 2) universal health care; 3) loans and grants to small business and coops; 4) encouragement of local manufacturing and local arts (the Chavez government funds the famous Venezuela youth orchestra and their classical music education system throughout Venezuela); 5) land and agriculture reform.

Chavez got them a bigger share of the profits, and has spent it in the best way possible for the future social and economic health of Venezuela. He has also managed things so well that Venezuela has $40 billion in international cash reserves, as a cushion against the current Bushwhack-induced economic meltdown.

But the real story about Venezuela is not what Chavez has done for the Venezuelan people; it is what the Venezuelan people have done for themselves--cherished their democracy and their Constitution; voted in great numbers; joined the community councils; started thousands of small businesses; engaged in avid grass roots organizing; and not only elected and re-elected the Chavez government, and turned back a (Bushwhack funded) recall, but emerged from their hovels in the thousands and peacefully defended the Chavez government, when the Bush-backed fascist coup kidnapped Chavez and suspended the Constitution, the courts, the National Assembly and all civil rights. They stood up to tanks and guns, with their civil rights suspended, and with the outcome very uncertain. Have we done that? We let a fascist coup happen over our heads, and most of us did nothing. They poured into the streets and surrounded Miraflores Palace, and stared and shouted the coup down.

Chavez knows who he owes his power to. This is what those who stupidly proclaim that Chavez is a "dictator" leave out. The People.

Although Obama has said negative things about Chavez, during the campaign, they were never quite so negative as Clinton, McCain and others. Reports from South America indicate that he has given direction to the diplomatic corps to improve relations with Venezuela, and he has said that's what he wants. So, it is inconceivable to me that Obama would start off his peace initiative by bashing Chavez, days before his inauguration. I am therefore inclined to believe that this unfindable interview of Obama is a fabrication, aimed at creating a diplomatic problem, at the least, and real big trouble down the line, at the worst.

It could also be a partial fabrication--say, using old clips, or mistranslating what Obama said. And, if it is true that Obama took the trouble to sit down with Univision (very rightwing 'news' monopoly), and only Univision, to bash Chavez, on the eve of his inauguration, then Chavez surely has a right to "smell a rat." Chavez is a plainspoken man, who has been dealing, over the past six months, with a Bush-instigated coup attempt against one of his closest friends and allies, Evo Morales, and against himself (the Zulia plot), as well as millions of U.S. dollars being poured into the rightwing opposition for this upcoming vote, and Bushwhack diplomats meeting with the opposition, in Puerto Rico, to plot against him. Whether or not Obama said that Chavez supports terrorism and is bad for Latin America, Chavez believed that he did, because the alleged Univision interview was picked up by Reuters and the Washington Post (both vicious Chavez bashers), and Chavez calls it as he sees it.

I think Chavez needs to be more circumspect--and needs to have advisers checking the provenance and translation of statements he is reacting to. But then I don't have an Exxon Mobil bull's eye target on my back. Think about that going on for eight years, and how it might make you a little testy.

I don't particularly like the cult of personality around Chavez OR around Obama. But I DO understand that it is partly instigated by the poisonous corpo/fascist media, here and there--negative as to Chavez, positive (for the moment) as to Obama. It is also difficult for popular politicians to avoid it. Chavez is VERY popular in Venezuela (and throughout the region), despite constant battering by the corpo/fascist 'news' monopolies, there and here. Chavez plays to it. So does Obama. Popularity = votes. They're politicians, for godssakes. The corpo/fascist press tried to create that aura around Bush, but it didn't work, because there was nothing there. But with Chavez and Obama, there IS something there--intelligence, good will, genuine good intentions, genuinely good policies. In Venezuela, a 'hot' personality sells well. That's Chavez, In the U.S., a 'cool' personality sells well, and Obama is certainly that. It's all theater, and part and parcel of democracy in the modern era. We can like it or not like it--and we can see that it has a downside, as to democracy--but we have to live with it.

One downside might be that Venezuelans lose confidence in themselves and believe that their democracy cannot survive without Chavez (much as our early Americans felt about George Washington). Another downside of the cult of personality may come when the corpo/fascist media decide to turn against Obama (as they did to Clinton, and have done to others). The best we can hope for, in this era of "the cult of personality," is that the objects of the cult keep their feet on the ground, and continue to pursue good policy.

And the best we can expect of ourselves is to be savvy about corpo/fascist media manipulations, and start denying them the power to form the images in our minds that they want us to see--whether it is 'dictator' Chavez, or (what will they do to Obama, if he crosses them?) 'soft on terror' Obama? failed economist Obama? They'll think of something. And it won't be real--it will be whopper of a lie--just as they've done to Chavez.

[subsuelo]

154. your posts are like nuggets of gold

The DU community is lucky to have you here.

[specialed]

153. Chavez is a dictator pretending to be a populist.

The people of Venezuela will take him down the hard way.

[Peace Patriot]

156. Welcome to DU, specialed! Please explain your prediction.

What do you mean by "the hard way"? A bullet in the head? His plane blowing up? A poisoned cigar? An anthrax letter?

And what do you mean by "the people of Venezuela"? The truth is they keep voting for him, rather like our forebears kept voting for FDR. Clearly, he's doing what they wanted. Will of the people, and all that. Last vote, in '06, he got 63%. He enjoys a 60% to 70% approval rating. So, do you mean someone, or some group, in the Bushwhack funded opposition, taking a shot at him, or something more elaborate? Can such an operative or operatives really be described as "the people of Venezuela"?

Really, what are you envisioning? Sounds like you kind of relish the thought, too. Do you? Would you like to see Chavez shot and killed? Blown to smithereens? Are you a Venezuelan? Where do you hail from? Help me understand this comment of yours.

[jefferson_dem]

155. Fuck that pig.

Same old same old. Hugo has always been a POS.

[Zynx]

157. Let's see how Venezuela does with oil prices where they are.

[theboss]

160. And with that, everyone will finally agree with me about Chavez

Ahhhh........I need a cigarette.

[SKKY]

163. If he thinks Obama has "stench" of Bush, he's obviously been sniffing too much...

...of the magic dust he gets from his Colombian neighbors.

[damonm]

165. Chavez = Attention Whore. Pay him no mind.