Venezuela's Chavez Takes Aim at Reid

[robcon]

RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil (AP) -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, a fierce critic of President Bush, focused Friday on a new American target: newly named U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Chavez took issue with comments Reid made just hours earlier to the National Press Club in Washington, citing the Venezuelan leader as among the threats facing the United States in 2007 because ''Chavez and (Cuba's Fidel) Castro want to put their leftist marks on young democracies.''

Chavez, in Brazil attending a summit of 10 South American leaders, said the Nevada Democrat got it wrong.

Instead, Chavez declared he wants to ''put the leftist stamp on the people, those who the imperialist gringos don't want or can't understand because of fear or ignorance.''

''I think this leftist stamp in Latin America is going to spread throughout the world because the only the left can provide the transformation we need,'' Chavez said.

South America has seen a sharp drift to the left in recent years with the election of new leftist leaders.

Reid in December toured South America with five other U.S. senators but did not go to Venezuela.

Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., said the bipartisan group led by Reid was trying to counter Chavez's attempts to form an ''anti-American bloc'' in the region.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Brazil-Chavez-Reid.html

[Name removed]

1. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[w4rma]

2. Chavez *could* be a strong ally. They need to stop treating him as an enemy. (nt)

[1932]

6. He and Clinton got along well...because Clinton, unlike Kerry and Reid,

didn't call him a threat to the US.

[papau]

49. I agree n/t

n/t

[INDIA]

104. Yeah! Holocaust denier, Chavez, and Bush all holding hands..

And skipping through the park! I can see it now!

[w4rma]

116. No Chavez isn't a Holocaust denier. That guy from Iran is the Holocaust denier. (nt)

[INDIA]

118. You're right, he just hangs out one and calls him "brother." nt

[katsy]

3. Reid's comment belongs in the chimp school of foreign relations.

Trashing foreign leaders is unnecessary.

When we get the Presidency, I hope we don't go around painting other countries with the "axis of evil" label. Lead by example (snort) not perpetual war.

Corporatism is fascism after all... like we should talk.

[Vidar]

4. Hear, Hear.

[rodeodance]

5. If Leaders would treat people as decent human beings there would

be no need for a 'Left".

[all.of.me]

95. I have always said....

... if people would do their inner work, there would be no need for wars. (or the left ;) )

[Pavulon]

7. Mark my freakin posts..

this guy is a communista is a fuzzy package. As an AMERICAN DEMOCRAT my loyalty is to my country and party. Both of which do not need the opinion of some oil rich whore. He stays in power because we buy his product.

This guy is political poison. His interest is in high oil prices, consolidating power, and keeping power.

Period

The water warms for the froggies.

[1932]

8. What are you talking about?

Let's take these three claims: His interest is in high oil prices, consolidating power, and keeping power.

Let's debate each. You start.

By the way, do you know that in the UK there is a bloc of Labour politicians in Parliament who support Chavez. Do you think they're not progressive? Do you think they're bad democrats (small d)? There are liberals other than Kerry and Reid who have the courage to tell the truth about what is happening (to corporate America) in Venezuela.

[Pavulon]

10. Umm

They have no interest in falling crude and have said it should be "kept" between 50 and 60. Good luck with that with a supply side glut. His power comes from oil money. The US market particularly.

He has taken steps to stifle free communication, take dictator power through political means, and gut the power of the courts.

That covers points 2 and 3.

So he wants to bash Harry Reid, screw him. He is a dictator throwing around our money to sound important. He is a petro leader his opinion on us politics is amusing.

[1932]

11. Chavez advocated that prices should be lower when it was over 60.

He said that it stiffles growth in the developing world. He's always advocated for a fair price that has only shifted in US eyes with Venezuelan expectations of the value of the dollar.

He has advocated revoking the licencse to broadcast for stations that advocate armed revolution and assassination, which hasn't happened.

The "decree" that he has been granted he had in '01 and used to increase democracy, and it looks like Venezuela is getting more of that. Here's what he can do:


Transformation of the institutions of the state. Chavez would be allowed to change state institutions so that these become more efficient, include greater citizen participation, and are more transparent.
Popular participation. Here the President would be allowed to develop norms that enable citizen participation in public oversight. Also part of this is the “enabling of the direct exercise of popular sovereignty.” Exactly what is meant by this has so far not been explained.
Establishing norms for the eradication of corruption. This would also involve changing the civil service system.
The creation of norms for adopting existing legislation to the construction of a new social and economic model, in order to achieve equality and equitable distribution of wealth, under “the ideals of social justice and economic independence.”
Finances and tax collection. The development of norms to modernize monetary, banking, insurance, and tax sectors.
Citizen and judiciary security. The development of norms for updating the systems of public health, citizen security, prisons, identification, migration, and judiciary.
Science and technology. Norms for the development of science and technology to satisfy the needs of education, health, environment, biodiversity, industrialization, quality of life, and defense.
Territorial order. Norms that establish a new territorial organization on the sub-national level, so as to optimize state action.
Security and defense. Norms for enabling the co-responsibility of state and organized communities by establishing a new functioning of the institutions of security and defense of the nation.
Infrastructure, transport, and services. Norms that support the use of the human and industrial potential and the existing infrastructure to improve transport systems, public services, home construction, and telecommunications, among others.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=2195


That covers one, two and three.

[Pavulon]

13. Fair price is market price

he is an opec member his interest is in keeping his cash flow coming in..

Chavez will be the benevolent dictator.

Consolidation of power. Complete control.

[1932]

14. It's funny to speculate about him, since he's been president for seven years.

That's like Republicans saying about Bush after seven years, "he will be a man of peace, you mark my words."

What Chavez is and will do is pretty clear. He's been doing it for seven years.

he's transforming Venezuela into a country where the average citizen has good health, and education, more say in their government, and much much much less misery.

And he's doing it by, among other strategies, getting a FAIR price for oil and reinvesting the profits in Venezuela (rather than Houston or Zurich).

[Pavulon]

16. Fair is what market demands

not what they rig it to. It would be fine with me if that market collapsed and corn was used as fuel. This gives the American farmer, someone who I do give a shit about, the wealth created from his product.

He is consolidating power. Bush is gone in 2 years, period. This guy can stay forever.

He is pumping out dead animal byproduct and selling it to us. He is not building anything that will last. Regretfully.

His personality and fuck you attitude to the countries that control the world markets pretty much guarantees that.

[1932]

18. If you think the market produces fairness, read the book in my sig line.

We have a lot of history just in the last 70 years proving that regulation has an important role to play in producing fairness.

But I'm glad you're now down to what a consider the most ridiculous argument about politics: personality.

Yeah, this is ALL about his attitude. NBCCBSABCCNNFOX is teaching us all about his PERSONALITY. It's so much more important than the issues, so it's OK that the don't talk about those. My gosh, once we know about his personality, nothing else matters.

[Pavulon]

20. I have read a good bit

the rules of market force are like gravity. People can interpret these systems but not change their basic function.

He sells oil to us. That is the end of my interest in his personality.

Adam Smith and Keynes are a great start. Neo economics are interesting.

[nolabels]

96. You have better chance on seeing a tooth fairy than you would..........

ever have on seeing this B.S. term known as "free market economy" coming to fruition

[roody]

24. self delete

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

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

[ohio2007]

30. And now that it threatens to destoy his economy by falling into the low 50's ?

He needs to steal from "the rich" to payoff the poor huddled masses. I thi9nk you give Hugo more credit then he deserves

[lakeguy]

57. which number does the discounted heating oil he

supplied to the US and europe fall under?

as far as keeping oil at 50-60 a barrel, it should be 200. maybe then we would get off our assess and make alternatives work. accusing chavez of keeping oil prices elevated is a bit like complaing GM only produces enough vehicles so they can sell them at a profitable price point. should GM make 1 trillion trucks so the cost (for us) will go down? making sure there isn't a glut of oil is in Venezuela's own interests and that's part of the president's job, wouldn't you say?

chavez does not gain his power from oil, it's nationalized. last time i checked, hugo won an election...that's where his power comes from.

btw, harry reid bashed him and he responded. can't seem to understand that, can you.

[TankLV]

83. Define "dictator" - you aparently don't know the meaning of the word...

as usual...

[katsy]

9. Heaven forbid we develop alternative forms of energy.

Or practice conservation.

Why should we when we can take all those red commie pinko countries oil through "shock and awe".

Yeah... that's it. If we have to pay $3 a gallon for our monster suvs, let's just blow up venezuela and take what we want.

The world is ours to use and abuse. :sarcasm:

[Pavulon]

12. Energy Independence

is the most important cross isle political issue I see. It has more impact than any other single issue in the US.

It would effect everything and everyone. We can put a man on the moon, build massive complex systems(internet, satellite gps) , and not accomplish this?

No one suggested anything like violence there straw man.

Brazil can do it, so can we. However the pressure from us is not there. The pressure is from oil and gas, all of them, even the nice ones from Ven.

Lets just run on corn and bio diesel and see what happens to the price of corn on the open market.

Oil is a dropping commodity, the renewable corn being used as a fuel base will shift world markets.

[katsy]

15. I beg to differ.

The violence is happening in Iraq right now. And it's about oil.

That seems to be America's new foreign policy and our leaders are behaving belligerently.

[Pavulon]

17. By product of OIL demand

if there was no demand for oil, but demand for corn, or soy beans, we would not be in Iraq.

Again Energy is THE issue. We control energy, we would control immense wealth, and all subsequent policy.

This is the issue that will impact more people than any other.

[NashVegas]

19. One Can Be a Loyal American

And acknowledge that the world has changed: we can't go around pretending that our shit (past and present) doesn't stink anymore. In a world where the once-invisible (to the wider public) hand of politics and economy is more visible than it has been in any other time in history. Because we now have a society where anyone is free to get online and call "bullshit," and eventually have an impact, the way we have done business in the past is no longer viable in the longer-term.

The best way to receive cooperation and fairness from foreign governments is to offer cooperation and fairness.

[katsy]

21. Exactly. n/t

[Name removed]

37. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[otherlander]

129. ...

There's a lot of cronyism going on in his government. I'm not a fan of his. But he is not a dictator, and he's part of a Socialist movement that's now in power through most of South America, so I think we should at least try to get along with him. It's not good to be enemies with the entire continent next door. Plus, it would start making amends for all the shit America did back during the Cold War.

[leesa]

22. Can they use the word "left" any more in that article? What crap reporting

Good. Reid deserves to be called on such childish rhetoric.

[katsy]

23. Really. As if being a leftist is evil.

Left, right, center... it all turns to shit when both power and money is consolidated at the top.

[Eurobabe]

92. Yeah those conservation-minded, progressive leaning

shithead "leftists" who want peace and dignity for all peoples.

I take that as an INSULT, disparaging the word LEFT -- as a left-hander. :mad: :mad:

[roody]

25. Sorry, off topic, but I guess my computer has

a problem since sig lines no longer show up on my screen. Can anyone comment?

[maddezmom]

29. go to Options at the top and then Preferences

and see if you accidently changed it to turn off sig lines. BTW, I'm seeing yours so I don't think it's a DU wide problem. :hi:

[roody]

34. Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!

Reid sucks!!!

[originalpckelly]

26. You know, it'd be really nice if the Chavez supported would remove their heads from his ass...

and take a look at what he's done recently:

1. Advocated along Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that OPEC should cut production. This would hurt Americans and people all around the world who are dependent on oil at this current time. It would also hurt those poor families which might be lucky enough to have a car.
http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-236/0701163298133845.htm

2. Asked for and received the power to rule be decree.
http://www.pww.org/index.php/article/articleview/10417/1/355

3. He has stated his intentions to remove the term limits from the Presidency, so that he may become President for Life, though he has stated he will not actually write that title into the Bolivarian Constitution.
"allow unlimited presidential terms."
Also from: http://www.pww.org/index.php/article/articleview/10417/1/355

4. Referred to Ahmadinejad as his "brother".
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2007/01/15/2003344846

[ohio2007]

27. Thanx for the linx originalpckelly, I was going to search for them and post his "true colors"

Ididn't buy into Chavez and his Robin Hood storyline.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on Robin Hood

[originalpckelly]

31. And I made sure to use socialist/communist/Iranian...

news sites in order to demonstrate what I was saying too, so no one can allege bias against them from the MSM.

[ohio2007]

32. Yes,true and unbiased links from outside our MSM shows there

is a world outside of coporate sponsored western MSM.

[ohio2007]

33. I like to "troll " the official Iranian newsource myself

http://www.irna.ir/en/frontpage/menu-232/

It is important to see how they spin the world.

[katsy]

36. So What?

Bandar bush ring a bell? The chimp's brother heads a capitalistic theocracy and we're supposed to get upset about Chavez?

Britain still has a monarchy - want to scream bloody murder about that?

And quite frankly... the Venezuelans will determine their preference of government. I haven't seen burquas on Venezuelan women. As the matter of fact, the human rights violations committed by the U.S. far far outweighs that committed by many other foreign governments.

This country is ruled by corporate fascists. Not good to throw stones while living in a glass house IMO. We make NOTHING for ourselves anymore. These low wage sniffing corporatists blitz in and out of any country they please laying waste to everything they touch. Americans are now disposable and they have set their sights on the natural resources elsewhere. Any time someone stands up to them they cast disparaging remarks upon them or send in paratroopers to take them out.

I don't CARE if Chavez is a leftist. He's doing what he's elected to do... take care of HIS country, his people.

I care about what our leaders do and right now they suck at the corporate tit and that is what pisses me off.

I expect OUR leaders to engage in an honorable foreign policy that engages the leaders of other countries in a respectful manner. That is in our best interests. Not the chimp's form of foreign policy that dictates the terms of engagement or else we blitz in their countries with bombs and troops.

[Peace Patriot]

38. FDR was "president for life." He died during his FOURTH term as President of

the United States. And he damn well ruled "by decree" in many cases, with a Congress ALSO elected BY THE PEOPLE in support of his policies (as is the case with Chavez and the Venezuelan National Assembly). FDR furthermore tried to "pack the Supreme Court" with leftists, to okay his New Deal programs. They called him a "dictator," too. But the thing is, when the people willingly give a lot of power to a politician, and he uses it for their benefit, it is generally only considered "dictatorial" by the rich elite who want more luxuries and stuffed pockets at the expense of the poor, and sometimes at the expense of the very country that has made them rich.

I want to hear these "Chavez is a dictator" posters to tell us what they think of FDR, and maybe we'll be able to sort out what they mean by "Democrat."

[Pavulon]

39. WW2 in VZ?

Please do not compare a tin pot oil peddler to one of the greatest Presidents in American history.

FDR did not target the industries that served us in WW2.

Chavez did not kiss Stalins ass and schmooze with the communists, and others who chant death to america after church on friday.

Because he was not a communist and was not in opposition to the US..

[Peace Patriot]

47. FDR damned well DID kiss Stalin's ass! Stalin was our ALLY in WW II, after

vigorous efforts by FDR to woo him into it. And we might well not have won WW II without that genuine dictator (and Russians' genuine love of their motherland).

And I will compare Chavez to FDR despite your plea, and make a much better case for it than you can make for Chavez being a "dictator." And, as a matter of fact, there is a stronger case for FDR having been a "dictator" than there is for Chavez. Also, what's very striking about the comparison is that the arguments then that FDR was a "dictator" are tellingly similar in tone and detail to the arguments against Chavez now. And the same basic issue is debated: How does a democracy face a serious crisis without becoming a dictatorship?

Chavez faces an emergency on two fronts: 1) levels of poverty in Venezuela (and indeed throughout Latin America) that rival the Great Depression here, and that have one cause--US-based Corporate Rulers; and 2) the utter hostility of the US and our Corporate Rulers to the poor of Latin America, and their active efforts to PREVENT democracy and equity, and to DESTROY them when they arise, including mulitple attempts to overthrow the democratically elected government of Venezuela, the pouring of US taxpayer dollars into those efforts, and a history of heinous assassinations, mass slaughter, torture and exploitation with CURRENT members of the Bush Junta having blood on their hands from those past wars against the people of Latin America.

What is amazing in Chavez's case--and yet more evidence that he is a genuine representative of the people, like FDR--is his RESTRAINT. For instance, he permitted RCTV to continue to spew its 24/7 anti-Chavez propaganda until their license to use the public airwaves ran out (which it is about to do), despite their active participation in a violent military coup attempt against him AND against the entire democratic government (shutdown of the National Assembly and the courts!). If Faux News broadcast calls for the kidnapping of Nancy Pelosi, and the shutdown of Congress, and actively participated in such a coup, would you be in favor of pulling their license to use the PUBLIC airwaves? Or would you send the FBI into their studios to arrest them all for treason? Chavez took the LEAST oppressive route? You're going to participate in a violent military coup? --you DON'T get to have a license from this government to do so!

No, FDR didn't nationalize the war industries, but his OTHER measures to control the economy, and ram through programs for massive government spending to assist the millions of jobless and homeless people in our country were little short of dictation, and, in many instances, he told Congress (and the courts) that if they stopped him, he was going to do it by fiat--and, in the case of the Supreme Court, if they didn't permit his New Deal programs, he was going to "pack the court" (add justices to Court) to get it done. It was this threat, as a matter of fact, that saved Social Security. (One justice changed his mind.)

Chavez's statements are quite similar to FDR's, and with the same purpose: To help the poor and to establish economic health in the country. FDR positively INVENTED jobs for out of work people--numerous builders, tradesmen, engineers, artists and others were on the government payroll, BECAUSE the super-rich in this country had CRASHED the economy, in much the same way that the World Bank/IMF and Corporate Rulers have crashed the economies throughout Latin America--by looting them! There were those who called the CCC and other programs "communism." They hated Roosevelt for "dictating" these programs. They wanted NO government help to the poor except breadlines, and NO regulation that "interfered" with a "free market," even in the teeth of evidence that "free markets" are bad for everybody but the super-rich, and they can even cause the super-rich to jump out of buildings when they collapse.

And Chavez--like FDR--is having to do this in the face of an enemy that is perhaps not quite as ugly as Nazism but is no less lethal: EXXON-Mobile, Halliburton, Bechtel, Paul Wolfowitz, John "death squad" Negroponte & brethren. And he is doing so WITHOUT militarism.

Come back to the people, Pavulon. The people supported FDR. The people support Chavez. Why? It is not because they are stupid sheep "falling for" a "dictator." It is because they know that, without strong progressive government getting their backs, the super-rich of this earth will screw them over time and again. That's what democracy is all about--the people getting SMART and acting in their own interest, and electing leaders who express their will.

Poll: Venezuelans Have Highest Regard for Their Democracy
Wednesday, Dec 20, 2006
By: Gregory Wilpert - Venezuelanalysis.com
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=2179

[Pavulon]

60. Now chavez is FDR, jesus what is the world coming to

chavez is an anti american oil pimp. He has zero long term impact.

LA politics have much more to do with the situation than the US.

FDR did not gut the courts, he did not change the rules to maintain power.

This comparison makes me ill.

Take your rose colored glasses off. Without militarism? What about the migs and military buildup. They are no thereat to us. They are a threat to Colombia.

A quick review of our economic growth, even under mismanagement, speaks volumes of what we do. Unemployment is 5%

A communist revolution does not represent FDR, me, or the politics I support.

I will agree to disagree with your opinion.

However I personally see this moron as a threat to the party because when he goes full bore anyone who has associated with him will be tainted by taking his free oil or supporting him like he is a new deal democrat. Not the case.

[Judi Lynn]

74. Your reference to the Russian planes is completely misleading.Bush refuses to sell Chavez parts

so he can have the American made planes they have already repaired. DU'ers discussed that for ages.

Don't try to mislead people who don't know that. That's underhanded.

[Pavulon]

78. This poster

made a comment about militarism. It is militaristic to upsize your standing army with a civilian reserve and add air superiority fighters.

Again, this equipment has no impact on a first world military, so who is the force aimed at? Columbia perhaps.

[Judi Lynn]

82. I'm not a student of military equipment. Wouldn't know. It would seem appropriate

to imagine they'd want to have the capacity to defend themselves, in the conventional reading of the word "defense," which has never actually meant, even with _Bush's attempt to rewrite language itself, aggression mockingly called defense, in "pre-emptive strikes."

[ProudDad]

125. Some posters are AMAZINGLY IGNORANT!

As most Americans are amazingly ignorant of anything outside of the borders of the U.S. (and very little within)!

[Judi Lynn]

128. Just the way some politicians like it, too! Makes it so much easier to wage illegal wars,

and slip bills through the Congress which should never have seen the light of day.

[Slopper]

41. FDR was elected on each term

If Chavez, for example, is given the President for Life stamp of approval today, it will disenfranchise every Venezuelan voter who reaches legal age as of tomorrow. Right? Who was dienfranchised from voting for or against FDR during his terms?

[Peace Patriot]

50. Chavez has NOT asked to be "president for life." He has asked to be ELECTED

to a third term. Our own FDR was elected President FOUR times, and died in office in his fourth term. "President for life" is a term used to describe a dictator, someone who may have been popular at one time, or elected at one time, but who no longer is subject to the voters. This is NOT the same thing as someone asking for a CHANGE OF THE LAW, by the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED National Assembly, so he can RUN and be VOTED IN by the PEOPLE, for a third term or even a fourth!

Please, please, cleanse the AP, WSJ, NYT, WP, ABCNBCCBSTIMEWARNER, Faux News/Bush State Department propaganda phrases from your head, and look into the facts for yourself. www.venezeuanalysis.com is a good place to start. It's well-written, very informative and presents warts and all.

[Slopper]

62. Chavez is now The Decider

He can have the law changed to suit him. By decree. That's what Deciders do. Once the law is established to keep him in for an extended term, disenfranchisement occurs. How can one vote if there is no election on the near horizon? That's not a Democracy. I've seen www.venezeuanalysis Who owns that site? Do you feel it is unbiased? I only accept unbiased sites.

[killbotfactory]

52. Chavez will have to be elected each term

and can be recalled by a special election in the middle of each term.

If he is "President for life" it will be because he keeps getting voted in.

[Pavulon]

55. Saddam

was voted in. 99% majority.

Please do not run with the "we are going to depose chavez angle" my point just because there is an election does not mean he is not a benevolant dictator.

I am pretty sure he will not die of old age. History is on my side on this one..(not wishing him death)

[killbotfactory]

90. Saddam won in internationally monitored elections?

Wow! Who knew Chavez and Saddam were so alike?!

[Judi Lynn]

93. Holy Moses! It simply befuddles some of us DU'ers! n/t

[LanternWaste]

132. A time comes...

A time comes when you look at your bruised forehead in the mirror and decide to stop banging your head against the wall.

Judi-- I agree with your posts 99% of the time (I'm a quiet poster, myself). But look at the spelling and infer an education level from that. Then look at the posturing-- an almost self-righteous bit of indignation, and then ask yourself, "Is this person more focused on winning an argument or actually being right?". Finally, ask yourself, "Is it worth my time to respond?"

I've noticed that when it comes to Chavez, posters I've never seen before show up and proclaim with a seemingly absolute knowledge of... well, everything. They've seen the light and we're just chumps and un-American because we see shades of grey.

Don't get befuddled-- if anything allow yourself a quiet sigh of resignation.

(BTW... I wasn't kidding-- I really do agree with you more often than not :) )

[Pavulon]

98. Not what i Said

elections are rigged. It happens here and in other countries. Generally involving money and power. Nice way to skirt the issue.

[killbotfactory]

112. Skirt the issue?

Venezuelan elections are and have been monitored heavily by international groups, who have all deemed them fair. The comparison of the situation in Saddam's Iraq and Venezuela is ridiculous.

[Big Pappa]

135. Bingo!

[ProudDad]

126. Don't feed the trolls

[otherlander]

130. Japanese people.

[smitty]

71. Roosevelt was never "President for life", a more apt

comparison might be Huey Long.

[Peace Patriot]

100. Smitty, I meant that ironically. I didn't mean to say that FDR was really a

"president for life," i.e., a dictator. I meant that, if that accusation is true of Chavez, then it is true of Roosevelt, for the circumstances are are very similar. Chavez is asking to be ELECTED to a third term. He is not seizing the presidency. And he, like FDR, is very popular--why shouldn't he have a third term, or even a fourth (FDR did), if that is what Venezulans want?

[TankLV]

85. and it would be especially nice of the Chavez bashers to remove their head for their own asses...

so far, I can see clearly, and I'm thousands of miles away from Hugo...

but "thanks" for "caring" about me, honey...

[Warren Stupidity]

102. "so that he may become President for Life"

Uh, you need a cranial extraction yourself.

Chavez has never said that, nor is that the intention, or even the implication of the change he has requested, which is the elimination of term limits. Chavez would have to be elected each time his term expires, a point you seem to not fully grasp. In addition, one of the key early reforms of the Chavez administration was a new constitution that allows for recall elections to remove the president at any time. Chavez and the Bolivarian movement are democratizing latin america, once more trying to empower the people of the region and dethrone the ancient oligarchy and its current protector, our own USA.

The power to rule by decree is limited, has a long precedence in Venezuela, and is, once again, constrained by the recall provision in the constitution.

Oil exporting nations ought to maximize their return on their resources for the benefit of their people first, rather than the benefit of the SUV driving consumers of the richest nation on the planet. Or perhaps you disagree?

[Joey Liberal]

28. I don't mind when Hugo trashes Bush, but not Reid

I think Chavez is nuts, but I enjoy it when he disses Bush. But if he's going after Reid, then I get pissed.

[killbotfactory]

56. And how did Chavez trash Ried, exactly?

Beyond Chavez saying Reid is wrong?

[Peace Patriot]

35. Headline wrong! Reid "took aim at Chavez"! And Chavez replied. Not the

other way around.

Fucking NYT.

And what is a "sharp drift" to the left? They can't even write any more.

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

But I would say that ALL are wrong in this article, including Chavez, who is generally faster on his feet. It is not Chavez who is "putting his leftist mark on young democracies." It is the PEOPLE OF SOUTH AMERICA who are DEMOCRATICALLY electing LEFTIST governments in their own DEMOCRACIES, and DEMANDING leftist (majorityist) policies! When we call Chavez a "leader," we forget that it is the poor in the barrios and in many cases the indigenous who are leading. This huge leftist movement is in part driven by a grass roots indigenous movement throughout Latin America all the way up into southern Mexico and Mexico City. In Bolivia, this movement has succeeded in electing the first 100% indigenous president of Bolivia, Evo Morales. And here is why: the indigenous are the "canaries in the coal mine" of global corporate piracy. When global corporate predators destroy local environments with mining operations and deforestation, and corporate agriculture, the indigenous are the first to be displaced, because they depend on a healthy, unpolluted, biodiverse environment for subsistence living. When they lose their few acres of farmland, and can't feed their families, they end up as beggars in the cities. When Bechtel Inc. tries to privatize the water in a Latin American city, as they did in Cochabamba, Bolivia, and they then jack up the prices to the poorest of the poor--even charging poor peasants for collecting rainwater!--it is the displaced indigenous who suffer the most. This is a PEOPLE-driven movement. And it is resulting in major rebellions against the Corporate Rulers in some of the most exploited and brutalized areas of Latin America, and leftist (majorityist) governments all over the map--in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, and Nicaragua, and soon in Peru and Paraguay (and an "almost" in Mexico--next election cycle, with better vote counting).

Reid has a lot of nerve dissing popular, democratic "leftist" revolutions. He might as well just come out and say that he opposes peace and justice because there is not enough filthy profit in it for his corporate sponsors.

He and other Democratic Party leaders have voted for billions of dollars in NED/USAID funds to interfere in South American elections and to arm rightwing militaries and paramilitaries who are killing peasants and leftists. The Clintonites/DLCers are the biggest promoters of "global free trade" (global corporate piracy) that has bought off the rich elites and devastated everybody else in Latin America. Although we here in the US are now beginning to get the taste of being a Corporate "banana republic," we have little idea of the level of poverty and ruination these policies have wrought in Latin America. And thank you very much, Senator Reid, but, while these places may have been ravaged by US-backed dictators and the Corporate Rulers, and while hundreds of thousands of people with aspirations to democracy have been slaughtered by US-backed death squads, these are NOT "young democracies." South America has been revolutionary, in the American vein (anti-colonialist), since Simon Bolivar and the slave revolt in Haiti, and the people of South America have tried time and again to establish democratic government and stable democratic institutions--only to be undermined or overthrown by direct or indirect interference by the U.S. This democratic struggle--and its occasional great victories--is NOT YOUNG. It has Constitutional roots and democratic traditions that stretch back over a century. And that is why it is succeeding NOW--where other "young democracies," Russia, for instance, with no democratic tradition whatsoever, are faltering and failing. The people of South America have learned, from long experience, that democracy has NEVER been a goal of the U.S. in South America, and if this long-term democratic struggle is to succeed, the first step must be declaring its independence FROM THE U.S.! And that is exactly what is happening. Hugo Chavez may be its most well-known spokesman, but he is speaking for billions of people who have had it with the U.S. and its ANTI-democratic policies, and are forging a new, regionally independent, leftist (majorityist) South America, to PROTECT the very thing that Reid so hypocritically claims to support: democracy! It's an OLD idea in South America, come back round with an invigorated, politicized population.

Lessons for us in the north:

1. Transparent elections.
2. Grass roots organization.
3. Think big.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

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

[Judi Lynn]

42. You need to spend more time reading. Were you not aware of the recall

election conducted a couple of years ago, initiated by the "opposition" which had also, with '_Bush's encouragement attempted the coup, and accomplished the industry strike? DU'ers certainly were following it with interest.

"fledgling Democracy?" Good one! They had no intention of including the vast majority of Venezuela's population in the tight control operated by the narrow band of elitists prior to the movement which was solidified by a previous President and _Bush family ally, Carlos Andres Perez, in 1989, who ordered his forces to mow down protesting Caracas citizens when they protested his increase of their transportation costs 200%, in the massacre called "El Caracazo." The people started moving away from the likelihood they would willingly allow that to ever happen again.

(Mr. Corrupt Powermad President was impeached, but remains a friend of the right-wing in the U.S., and is a voice for the Venezuelan oligarchy which still reveres him.)

Were you not aware that Hugo Chavez had already been elected as President, being sworn in February 2, 1999 when it was decided they would rewrite the Constitution? Do you think he held the nation at gunpoint and seized power? A short note from that time:

Tuesday, August 3, 1999 Published at 17:50 GMT 18:50 UK

World: Americas
Constitutional rewrite begins in Venezuela

In Venezuela, members of the assembly elected last month to rewrite the constitution have convened for the first time.

The assembly, which will have far-ranging powers, is almost completely dominated by supporters of the president, Hugo Chavez.

They occupy 123 out of 131 seats. The president of the assembly, Luis Miquilena, told the members they had an historic role to change Venezuela's political system. Mr Chavez has said the aim is to make Venezuela more democratic and free of corruption, and he's urged the assembly to draw up a new constitution within three months instead of the six-month deadline.

His opponents say Mr Chavez - who led an attempted coup in 1992 - will use the assembly to enshrine a military dictatorship.
(snip/)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/411029.stm

The movement came first, before Chavez. The movement continues. The people's movement AWAY from rule by the oligarchy will carry on long after Chavez has gone.

Simple minded right-wingers in the States don't seem capable of sustaining the discipline needed to learn much about these things, and childishly swallow the idea that if you can knock off a man you don't like, you'll kill the movement. You'll see that's not going to happen.

[Slopper]

46. Why such a snide remark Judy?

Why the sly insinuation that I am similar to a "simple-minded right-wingers in the States?" Why do you get so haughty simply because I criticize Chavez? Why such a rude remark that I need to spend more time reading? I did not specifically claim you were a Chavez shill, but you seem to take offense as if I did.

[Judi Lynn]

51. Why employ a vulgar, sexual insinuation concerning people who won't join you in raging against

a Venezuelan President who is actually helping the massive poor segment of his country, which elected him?

"Chavez Titanium Kneepad Brigade?

That's well beyond "snide," isn't it? You're way out of line.

[Slopper]

61. I'm not raging Judy

Is it your opinion that anyone who is critical of Chavez is raging? Interesting. I think DU'ers can see through that, though. We aren't easily swayed by clever twists of words.

Of course, if I were to use huge caps in my response, we'll then you might have a good claim, based upon visual evidence that I raging. Right?

I wonder of those who democratically elected him (yes I do believe he was democratically elected, how many, in hindsight, are starting to feel that they elected a wolf in sheep's clothing who now shows hid true lust for power, power, power. He's now the decider, right? The Decider! Remind you of anyone?

[TankLV]

88. oh, you're "raging" alright...

I'll take Judi's thoughts on this one...always...

[TankLV]

87. because it's self explainatory?

and wholey deserved?

just my guessing...

[katsy]

45. You may want to review the "Rules" page.

Specifically:

3. Civility: Treat other members with respect. Do not post personal attacks against other members of this discussion forum.

I don't know of any DUer that is a member of the Chavez "titanium kneepad brigade". DUers may disagree, but to characterize people with any opinion opposed to your own as "shills" doesn't add much to a discussion.

While I may disagree with some opinions posted by some here, on other matters we do happen to agree. Hopefully everyone, regardless of their opinions here have benefitted from seeing the other side of the argument. I have.

[Slopper]

48. I Agree Katsy

I would never attack anyone personally, even though someone else has already done so to me.

[katsy]

53. I did not request your agreement to anything.

I merely pointed out that calling DU members "titanium kneepad brigade" or "shills", as you did, may be aginst DU rules. That is, in fact, a personal attack against members.

I read Judi Lynn's reply to you and it didn't look to me as she was implying that you are a simple minded RWer. Bringing info to you, as Judi did (BBC article), that you may not be aware of is not a personal insult.

[Peace Patriot]

65. Slopper, I warn people off war profiteering corporate news monopoly

sources on Chavez precisely because I know them so well, and have followed them so closely. They are completely unreliable on Chavez, and on almost any topic having to do with the left in South America, but particularly on Chavez. I am ever an optimist. Truly I am. And I go back to these sources time and again, hoping to see improvement. But what I see is pure propaganda. They all use the same phrases and the same tricks, for instance, "increasingly authoritarian"--"according to his critics." No names ever given. No quoted source. I finally found what may have been their source--an extremely rightwing Catholic cardinal in Venezuela, who had spent his career in the Vatican finance office, and is the only person ever fired by the Vatican (in the fascist banking scandals of the 1980s). HE said that Chavez is "increasingly authoritarian."

So you see why I have no respect for these news organizations on this subject. On Bush, they're starting to criticize him somewhat, and to disagree with him, but think back to 2003, and the wall of war worship that we got from these corporate news monopolies. THAT is how they are NOW on Chavez. Liars! Deceitful, manipulative writing, that constantly leaves out relevant facts, and emphasizes anything that could even remotely support their thesis that he is a "dictator." It's bullshit.

I am wary of ANY political leader. They all need to be watched like the devil! I am not saying don't be critical. I am saying that, in this case, we are being LIED TO, by the entire corporate press corps, and, furthermore, by some of our corporatist Democratic leaders.

That Chavez intends to pull the license to use the public airwaves, of a TV station that actively supported the violent military coup, does not make him a "dictator."

That the National Assembly is giving Chavez decree powers to further DEMOCRATIZE the country, root out corruption, put the country's resources under more democratic control, and expand the glutted court system--powers that are Constitutional and have been used before, by other presidents--does NOT make him a "dictator."

There is VERY LIVELY political discussion in Venezuela, on all sides. Chavez is excoriated routinely on TV, radio and in newspapers and journals. There are huge street demonstrations, on all sides, that are never suppressed. It is absurd to say that Chavez is a "dictator," given these circumstances. He's been elected several times as President, by big margins, in highly monitored elections, and has NEVER taken any action to shut anybody up. He doesn't HAVE TO. Because the rightwing is losing the debate. And I don't believe that he would do it, even if he was losing--although you never know for sure about any politician. I am not against vigilance. I am against LIES.

I have made a thorough study of this situation, and have sought out many sources of information. I have made a considered judgment of this situation--both who Chavez is, and what our corporate media are saying about him, and also what is happening in neighboring countries, the general context--in so far as anybody can tell who doesn't read Spanish very well. Luckily, there are lots of translated sources on the internet nowadays. And of one thing I am sure: We, in the U.S., NEED to understand what is going in Venezuela and throughout South America, for our own self interest--because many of these developments, including, for instance, the creation of a South American Common Market and common currency, are going to affect us materially, and for the good of trying to head off more US-backed death squads. WE are responsible for the 200,000 Mayan Indians who were slaughtered in Guatemala in the 1980s with Reagan's complicity. WE are responsible for the death squads and torture and destruction of democracy in El Salvador and Nicaragua and Chile and Argentina, and for untold horror against Latin American peoples. It is OUR government that has been instigating these horrors, in the service of Corporate profit. And we MUST take responsibility now, and get informed, and work for policies of peace and justice in our own government.

And our corporate media are DISINFORMING us on BOTH scores--on who Chavez is: trying to make Chavez out as a "dictator," when, in truth, he is just seeing to the interests of his own people, and when, in truth, his ideas are current and hugely popular throughout Latin America; AND on the implications of these developments for us up here in the north: nothing to see here, move along. They want us to be stupid and uninformed, and to succumb to their despicable brainwashing techniques--their little phrases, and twisted or omitted facts--so they can better take our money to go kill these new democrats in South America, and plunder their oil, gas, mineral and other resources, and force the poor into sweatshops with no labor rights. And they also don't want us to know that democracy, peace and equitable use of resources are SUCCEEDING somewhere. I hate this! I hate corporate media that try to make us stupid. I hated them for it, on the Iraq war. And I hate them for it, on Chavez and the South American democracy movement. What they are doing is more than a disservice to their readers/viewers. It is preparation for WAR.

[Slopper]

70. Thanks Peace Patriot

You have give a rational well-thought out non-haughty response. I respect that.

Still, I'm not on your side of the fence with Chavez. The warning signs are there. He is not a dictator --yet, but he is moving ever so close and ever so fast in that direction. Do you not have even the slightest tinge of apprehension at some of the things he has done regarding power consolidation? Do you not see why so many, probably the majority of DUer's see him as way too authoritarian to be a legitmate champion of democracy?

I think that many people have invested their blind trust (present company excepted) so heavily in the rah-rah Chavez bandwagon that they have no exit out, short of losing face or admitting that they were wrong, so they will stick with him to the bitter end.

Out of curiosity, what actions do you feel Chavez have to undertake before you personally were to admit that he has crossed the line from champion of democracry to benevolent dictator?

[Peace Patriot]

105. I think the line can be a thin one, as it was with FDR. TRANSPARENT elections

are one key. I have respect for ordinary people. I believe in democracy--truly believe in it. I don't think people vote for dictators--but they may indeed vote for a strong leader (and have), if they feel the need--as with an enormous economic crisis or some other threat. (This is why true dictators always manufacture or greatly exaggerate threats--as Bush has done--in order to get a fake version of empowerment by the people.) Chavez has been repeatedly elected in the most heavily monitored elections in the democratic world--with hundreds of monitors from the OAS, the Carter Center and the EU crawling all over Venezuela, and unanimously declaring the elections honest and above board. Is Chavez dictating policies that the majority of Venezuelans do not support (as Bush is doing)? Obviously not. And if he were, I would be worried. There is good consensus in the country. Chavez is NOT going off on his own, on policy. He has genuine support.

Another key is militarism. With Roosevelt--whatever historians conclude about Pearl Harbor--he did not build up a huge military machine as a strike force for aggressive action; he built it up after the country was attacked by Japan and Europe was being overrun by Hitler, in order to respond to the crisis. Is Chavez building a big military machine? No. Does he have designs on other countries? No. He is friendly with everyone in South America, even Uribe in Colombia. If he were building up a big military machine and saber-rattling at someone, I would be worried.

I think we all know the typical signs--people are afraid to speak out. Not true in Venezuela--there is lively debate. People are jailed, tortured or killed for their views. No sign of this whatsoever. (The RCTV thing is a red herring--if anybody ever deserved to have their license pulled, they do. And it IS a license--and it is in the U.S. as well. There is no inherent right to use the public airwaves. It is a public service--and if you use that PRIVILEGE to collude in the overthrow of the government, you can't expect to keep your license.) There is ample criticism of Chavez on every side. We do NOT see Chavez (or any fanatics on Chavez's side) suppressing others' free speech. There seems to be general civility (except for some behavior on the right, including the coup attempt). Is Chavez inspiring thugs and paramilitaries to enforce suppression? The right does this all the time in Latin America, most recently in Oaxaca. There is no sign that Chavez is doing this. He is not surrounded with thugs. Often he doesn't even seem to have guards. He is truly popular, in the way FDR was, and doesn't NEED to use undemocratic methods. If he did, I would be worried.

A politician's desire for power is not the same thing as aspiring to be a "dictator." Every politician wants power--whether for good or for ill. Is there anyone we despise more than a WEAK liberal who won't or can't play the power game--in order to achieve the power to get something done? Chavez's power game doesn't bother me. He's been president for seven years, and there is still no sign that he is or wants to be a "dictator." He just wants to get things done. And given the transparent elections and lively political debate in Venezuela--and also the many intelligent, savvy people in his government and among his supporters (true also of Roosevelt)--I think there are sufficient checks and balances on him, to head off (or put the brakes on) untoward power grabs. In short, I don't think the Venezuelan people would put up with a dictator. (And our corporate news monopolies routinely insult the Venezuelan people by suggesting that they would, or are.)

I am well aware of the story of Stalin and the western left--how many good progressive people were sucked in by Stalin. The communist revolution in Russia at first seemed like such a good thing--centuries (millennia!) of the worst oppression imaginable overturned, and a new and vibrant political idea born, of the people owning the land and the manufacturing facilities, and everyone being equally entitled to a decent life. The trouble was that Russia had no tradition of democracy--and also had enormous economic problems--and very soon the Russian revolution was taken over by one man, Stalin, who purged all the diversity of opinion (bloody purges)--a man as nearly as insane and egocentric as Hitler. And it took many leftists a long time to realize what had happened. Some remained enamored of the Russian revolution long after it had, essentially, failed, and had become a dictatorship. It also took Russia a long time to recover from "Stalinism," and it never really did fully recover from it, probably because of the lack of democratic traditions (Jefferson's brilliant self-correcting model--that the Bushites are trying so hard to destroy here). Consequently (because I am aware of this history), I am leery of being sucked in by Chavez, sure. It's always possible that he is (or will become) a demagogue riding a popular revolution to PERSONAL power for ill purposes. But I do NOT see any sign of this--and the pathetic examples that the anti-Chavez posters keep trotting out don't hold up (as dictatorial), and furthermore mimic the Bushite and corporate news monopoly propaganda. That he's pissed off at RCTV. God, I would be, too. I would pull a license to use the public airwaves for far less than what they did. (In the U.S., until Reagan, our TV news companies were OBLIGED, by their license, to provide opposing views on TV, whenever they stepped over the line on news and advocated some political position. And they could have their licenses pulled if they didn't. Was THAT undemocratic? The "Fairness Doctrine"? It was just the opposite.)

I also don't much care for the "cult of personality" in government--even if I like the personality. (And I like Chavez.) However, the truth of the situation is that Chavez is a colorful spokesman--and an irrepressible sort of guy (--a lover of baseball, by the way)--for a huge democracy movement in Latin America, that totally transcends any one personality. Our corporate news monopolies exaggerate his importance, and ignore all the other leaders and the millions of people involved in this movement. (That is another check on Chavez, by the way--it's not HIS movement. There are MANY other leaders of it, and a vast population that supports it.) Chavez needs to be seen IN CONTEXT. And that is something that our war profiteering corporate news monopolies will not give us--context--and very much don't want us to know.

[TankLV]

86. just joined up to "lecture" us! How nice of you...

I'll treat your opinion with the "respect" it deserves, of course...

[David__77]

43. Venezuela is right to oppose imperialism regardless of party package.

It is a sovereign free country, unlike US colonies like Iraq and Afghanistan. Democratic leaders are abetting criminal occupations and imperialist policies abroad. This is a fact. I vote Democratic, but I'm not blind to the truth.

[David__77]

44. This liberal shift was bound to happen after the elections.

Some liberals now just want US supremacy and domination over all other countries' affairs just like their right-wing counterparts. They're ready to discard Chavez or Cindy Sheehan, who dare to say another world is not just possible but urgently necessary.

[Pavulon]

58. This is a forum for DEMOCRATS

I am sure that there is a forum for chavistas. However the man is attacking the majority leader. Why would people defend him for attaching the party this forum supports?

[katsy]

63. Pavulon, we are Democrats.

Holding our government accountable is our job. Blind loyalty is not part of our Democratic makeup.

Reid criticized Chavez and Chavez responded.

Mistrust of government is part of my psyche. And I do not want the chimp's shotgun type of foreign policy adopted by the Democratic Party.

Chavez is neither savior or democracy killer to us. He is the elected President of a sovereign foreign nation. He is their problem/solution.

If he hurts his people, it will be up to them to rid themselves of him or the United Nations to condemn him.

But there is no reason for us to go gunning for him. We are not the world's keepers. But we can lead by example. Unfortunately, our foreign policy has been something out of the texas chain massacre movie. We have lost our moral standing in the world. More of the same coming from ANY political party isn't going to help.

We need to promote trust and friendship with our neighbors. Not more hate and mistrust.

I belong here Pavulon. Not on a chavista board. You belong here and it's okay to disagree.

Peace!

:toast:

[Pavulon]

69. Spot on..

I distrust his motives. I do not fully trust our motives. I did not intend to attack you personally.

I like your response and we can agree to disagree on this one topic.

Regards.

[killbotfactory]

54. Ried takes aim at Chavez, Chavez responds

What a jerk, that Chavez. When the US establishment calls him a threat to the US, he should just keep mum about it!

[Pavulon]

59. He is not a Democrat

he is an up and coming communist who hangs out with nations aligned against US. Should we attack, no. Should we lend him political support while attacking us? UMM no thanks.

He should stop biting the hand who feeds him. We buy his dino juice. That is the vast majority of why he is able to retain power.

He chose to single out Harry Reid, and people support him.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

64. My two cents

I might as well dive into the deep end of the pool on my first post instead of playing it safe

First of all, i don't believe he is a communist but a socialist, there is a few important differences between the two(or i might as well start saying the country i live in is communist(Norway)).

Secondly I believe Reid was the one to talk about Chavez first, as such he is in his full right to fire back at him(there was singling out of Reid unless we single out everyone we talk to/about after they talk about us.)

And lastly for now, while he has done a few things we frown because we are not used to things being done that way he has shown repeatedly that what he do is for the people more then himself(personally i see no wrong in the removal of term limits as long as the elections are transparent, why should the people be refused who they want as leader if they want him to stay longer?).

[katsy]

67. Welcome to DU Bodhi!

:hi:

So... what is the general consensus in Norway about U.S. foreign policy?

[Bodhi BloodWave]

81. consensus

Thanks for the welcome katsy and Judi Lynn :grouphug:

In regards to your question about our consensus i'd have to say that its fairly fractured in my eyes, while most i speak to tend to be of the view that the U.S. needs a solid revamping of their policy the fracturing is in 'what' they think should be done.

[Judi Lynn]

75. Great first post, Bodhi BloodWave.

Welcome to D.U. :hi:

[Karenina]

66. He should stop biting the hand who feeds him.

:wow: White man's burden much?

[Pavulon]

68. Common phrase in the english language

has no reference to race or class. We buy his primary export. We are his number one customer. And he talks a bunch of shit about us. Pretty clear there?

[Karenina]

73. A hand is NOT a who.

Unless perhaps you were referring to the *sockpuppet. ;-)

[eridani]

94. Well, he could always sell it to China n/t

[killbotfactory]

72. Reid said Chavez was a threat to the US

Which prompted the vicious reply from Chavez of "Reid's wrong".

Chavez sure has some nerve.

[Peace Patriot]

77. He didn't "single out" Harry Reid. Reid criticized HIM--and he responded.

And communist or no communist is completely irrelevant to the discussion about a DEMOCRACY with elections that are orders of magnitude more transparent than our own*. If the Venezuelan people chose communism, and I could be convinced they did so democratically, I would have no objection. If the Vietnamese had been able to make their free choice, back in 1954, in the UN sponsored elections that the US nixed, Ho Chi Minh would have been elected president, and they would have had a communist democracy--and upwards of two million people would not be dead. In fact, I see socialism--not communism--in Venezuela. It is a mixed economy--not unlike many in Europe and other enlightened places--and it is one in which the private sector was the one showing the most growth in the last year. The Venezuelan Constitution protects private property, and the Chavez government has acted in support of that provision--for instance, preserving the property rights of two golf course/country club owners in Caracas, when the mayor wanted to confiscate them for low cost housing. The Chavez government did this because it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to take private property in Venezuela without compensation.

Your very sloppy use of the word "communism" is compounded by your very sloppy use of the phrase "aligned against US"--not to mention your derogatory and inexact phrase "hangs out." Chavez "hangs out" with Iran, for instance, because they are both members of OPEC and have a strong common interest in oil, and possibly also because they have both been targeted by the Bush Junta. Chavez's relations toward with Iran could, in fact, be the single most important barrier to the conflagration in the Middle East that the Bush Junta is itching to create. He may be a temporizing influence on Iran. He may make them feel less isolated and targeted. He's doing what OUR government should be doing--economic enticements, calming things down, using diplomacy. And it is quite wrong to say that Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador--or any other government that Chavez "hangs out" with (Brazil? Argentina? --who are you talking about? (--vague innuendo again)--is "aligned against US." They may be aligned against the Bush Junta and corporate predators, but I don't consider myself, or most Americans, to be part of that company. Bush does not represent me. I don't believe that he was elected in 2000 or in 2004. He is extremely hostile to my interests. He is a tyrant and the servant of tyrants. He abhors democracy and everything I believe in as an American. To be "aligned against" Bush & Co. is not the same thing as to be "aligned against" the American people or democracy.

You are sure handy with the easy catch phrases: "biting the hand who feeds him." Should he be kissing Bush's ass because WE need their oil? You make a lot of the fact that Venezuelan oil revenues, some of which come from the U.S., should make them subservient to us, but you say nothing of our equal dependence on THEIR oil. We need them as well. It is a business arrangement--and, frankly, Chavez and his government have the upper hand, because they can sell their oil elsewhere. I know a large Asian nation that is sucking up oil by the oceans full, and can't get enough--the same country that has told Bush hands off of Iran, because they get a lot of their oil from Iran--China, a country that also owns a big portion of the enormous debt that Bush has inflicted us with. You want to talk about "dictatorships"--how about the countries that the Bush Junta has SOLD our country TO--China and Saudi Arabia? Frankly, I'd feel a lot safer if Venezuela held our paper--because I think that the Venezuelans, and their government, and Chavez, have a hell of a lot more interest in justice, equity and peace, than China and Saudi Arabia.

----------

*(The Venezuelans hand-count FIFTY-FIVE PERCENT of their paper ballot backup, cuz they don't trust the voting machines. Know how much we hand-count? 0% to 1%, depending on the stranglehold that rightwing Bushite electronic voting corporations, Diebold and ES&S, have on local election officials and legislators.)

[nolabels]

99. I feel your rant but would hope you see that the poster along with......

the vast majority (to one degree or another) are steeped in fascist corporate dogma. It would be easier to dissect this world these people are living in as religion. Many of the truisms, or facts as they would have them, are based on slogans with little basis for reality. Fascist corporate dogma is in a collision course with a much larger and ominous monster known as eco-collapse. The signs are all around but many won't understand this wreck that is coming till hundreds of millions die to things that were once preventable.

[Warren Stupidity]

103. Reid attacked Chavez, Chavez responded

and did not attack him, he merely corrected Reid about what Chavez is up to.

Chavez is not a communist, he is a democratic socialist, and more specifically he is a Bolivarian, which is something new and Latin American and represents a different approach to leftwing populist democratic movements.

Venezuela under Chavez has been democratized, an odd fact for somebody you claim is some sort of crypto-stalinist. Oh sure the ancient oligarchs and their two party charade were rudely tossed out of office and are losing their plantations, their kleptocratic enterprises, their lock on the good life at the expense of the dreaded meztiso, such things happen every now and then.

"He should stop biting the hand who feeds him. We buy his dino juice." Uh, who exactly is feeding who here? They are feeding us, not vice versa. We cannot stop buying their oil and they can certainly find other buyers. And we are and have been attacking the Chavez government since they first took power. Three times we helped organize failed attempts to toss him out of power. We are most likely in the middle of preparing try number four.

Should we here at DU lend support to the popular, democratically elected leader of Venezuela? Well yes we should as the Bolivarian movement he is leading is right now the only organized opposition to the neocon/neoliberal consensus that rules the planet for the benefit of the corporate elites.

[otherlander]

131. Can you stop using "Communist" as a synonym

for everything you don't like? It doesn't work, you see:

Chavez is not a Communist. He is not a dictator.
Castro is a Communist. He is a dictator.
Allende was a Communist. He was not a dictator.

[Pavulon]

133. Does vegas have a line on how long

before he fits the traditional definition? if so I say 4 years. Give or take.

[Nevernever]

76. It's amazing the number of people that miss the point.

This is a REACTIONARY movement brought about by 200 years or so of absolute DOMINATION by US/European corporate interests.

People just didn't say one day: "I think I'll be a leftist." They have been working and fighting LIKE HELL for this for a long, lomg, long, long time.

Viva Chavez!

[Judi Lynn]

79. You've got THAT completely right, Nevernever!

Their struggle is something they're not likely to give up, as they've paid far too much to get this far, over too many years.

Welcome to D.U. :hi:

[Robbien]

80. True

I expect if getting their country back was easy, they would have done it way before now. Extraordinary measures are needed for extraordinary feats.

Welcome to DU Nevernever!
:hi:

[Freddie Stubbs]

97. The Nazis were a reactionary movement too

That doesn't negate the fact that they were bad.

[Warren Stupidity]

106. Well that is true.

Of course reacting to hundreds of years of injustice in itself does not make a political movement 'good' or 'bad', one has to look at what that movement is proposing to replace and or address the injustices. It seems that the Bolivarian movement wants to replace the centuries old oligarchy with a democratic socialist society, replace kleptocarcy with meritocracy, increase and strengthen democratic institutions, address neglect of the huge masses of the poor with universal education, universal healthcare, decent housing, and pay for it all by redirecting the revenue from the exploitation of their natural resources from the elites to the people. On the other hand the NDSP sought to eliminate and/or dissipate democratic institutions, establish a totalitarian regime, commit genocide, and pay for it all by conquering the world.

[1932]

101. Movements towards justice are the natural trajectory (Allende, MLK, Chavez)

Pinochet, Kissinger, the KKK, Goldwater, etc., are the reactionaries.

[NotGivingUp]

89. go to hell harry!

[Name removed]

91. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[redqueen]

107. I'll be contacting the NYT about that error.

Chavez RESPONDED to an attack by Reid. Not the other way around.

Anyone really surprised Reid is backing corporatism? I'm sure not.

[brentspeak]

108. Is this Democratic Underground or freaking Hugo "Thug" Chavez Underground???

[1932]

109. Is this a discussion forum, or is it a forum for making up nicknames and hoping

that it is a substitute for debate?

[SaveElmer]

110. Reid is 100% correct...Chavez is a Castro wannabe...

Chavez has begun his slide to communist dictator!

[Judi Lynn]

111. Did Reid say Chavez is a commie? Where is your evidence?

Here's something you should attempt to read:

Hugo Chavez on Marxism

'I don't believe in the dogmatic postulates of Marxist revolution. I don't
accept that we are living in a period of proletarian revolutions. All that
must be revised. Reality is telling us that every day. Are we aiming in
Venezuela today for the abolition of private property or a classless
society? I don't think so. But if I'm told that because of that reality
you can't do anything to help the poor, the people who have made this
country rich through their labour and never forget that some of it was
slave labour, then I say 'We part company'. I will never accept that there
can be no redistribution of wealth in society. Our upper classes don't
even like paying taxes. That's one reason they hate me. We said 'You must
pay your taxes'. I believe it's better to die in battle, rather than hold
aloft a very revolutionary and very pure banner, and do nothing ... That
position often strikes me as very convenient, a good excuse ... Try and
make your revolution, go into combat, advance a little, even if it's only
a millimetre, in the right direction, instead of dreaming about utopias.'

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/08/296440.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In case you've not noticed, the DEMOCRATS at D.U. tend to bring their sources with them, as they apparently do a lot more reading and research than right-wing message boards. No witless, unsubstantiated charges flung about.

[SaveElmer]

113. ...

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) -- President Hugo Chavez returned to his weekly radio and TV broadcast Sunday, extolling the ideals of socialist thinker Karl Marx and telling U.S. officials to "Go to hell!" for what he called unacceptable meddling in Venezuela's affairs.

Chavez defended his government's effort to establish a socialist model and rejected U.S. concerns over a measure to grant him broad lawmaking powers, saying: "Go to hell, gringos! Go home!"

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/01/21/chavez.ap/

With Fidel Castro in a terminal state of recovery, perhaps Hugo Chávez thinks he needs to rejuvenate the international revolutionary vanguard. Or perhaps he thinks, having won a third term as president of Venezuela, he's entitled to dispense with any pretenses about his dictatorial rule.

Whatever the reasons, Chávez has accelerated his aggregation of power in an ominous way. And the consequences for the people of Venezuela will be disastrous.

Continuing his campaign against a free press, el presidente decided not to renew the license of Radio Caracas Television, the country's oldest commercial television station.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/editorials/stories/MYSA012107.2H.chavez2ed.cfef11.html

Since winning a national referendum on his presidency in 2004, Hugo Chávez and his majority coalition in Congress have taken steps to undermine the independence of the country’s judiciary by packing the Supreme Court with their allies. They have also enacted legislation that seriously threatens press freedoms and freedom of expression. Several high profile members of civil society have faced prosecution on highly dubious charges, and human rights defenders have been repeatedly accused by government officials of conspiring against the nation. Police violence, torture, and abusive prison conditions are also among the country’s most serious human rights problems.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/18/venezu12258.htm

Many, many more!!!

[w4rma]

119. What you have in boldface are comments/editorializing written by the editor/reporter. (nt)

[jefferson_dem]

114. Oh please. Why is it that all DUers who challenge Hugo are accused of being misinformed and...

all evidence offered which is critical of Hugo is automatically discounted as "corporate media propaganda" or biased in some way? :shrug:

[w4rma]

120. If you were informed on this subject, would you really need to ask that question?

:P Actually, now that I think about it, this is a pretty good argument. If you aren't misinformed you'd already know the answer to that.

[jefferson_dem]

123. You make my case well. Reasonable, informed people can disagree...

even about Hugo.

Cheers!

[Codeine]

115. Don't trust Hugo! : D

[USA No. 1]

117. No fan of Hugo Chavez, but if the truth hurts....

George Bush's policies have distanced our allies, created mistrust in the third world, destroyed the Middle East peace initiative, slaughtered millions of innocent men, women and children, and allowed dictators like Hugo and Ajmadinajead (sp?) to grow strong on the wave of anti-Americanism that has swept their countries.

Hugo Chavez is just one more dire consequence (among many) of this adminstration's arrogance, hawkish foreign policy and lack of diplomatic initiative.

Before this administration took office, what problems did we ever have with Venezuela? Six years of Bush and Cheney and the Venezuelan people elect a socialist dictator who hates America.

What the hell has happened to my country?

[w4rma]

121. Chavez was given these same temporary powers for ~18 months back in 2001, also.

It's not dictatorial. If the opposition weren't ready to give away all of Venezuela's resources to other nations, they'd do better in the elections.

[Judi Lynn]

122. They knew they weren't popular with the Venezuelan masses last year

or two years ago when they got the bright idea of boycotting the election, the result of which is apparent now in the National Assembly.

They knew they were going to lose so they attempted to shift the focus by pretending to be "protesting" Hugo Chavez by staying home.

It appears these powers have been employed by other presidents, as well, according to this article just released, and this observation from the new guy:

Vice President Jorge Rodriguez said the US "expresses worry every time Venezuela exercises its democracy," adding that Washington never objected when past Venezuelan governments approved the same sort of measures.
(snip)

http://www.ndtv.com/morenews/showmorestory.asp?slug=Venezuela+dismisses+US+concerns+on+Chavez&id=99782

[ProudDad]

124. Reid should have gone to Venezuela

He should also do his homework about South America

[Megahurtz]

127. Well there goes my opinion of Reid.

:nuke:

[hogwyld]

134. If Reid started this nonsense

He should accept the consequences of shooting off his mouth. I personally think he's a little too cozy with the corporations. What I see eventually happening is Iran and Venezuela, being good friends and against this corrupt government, decide to cut off our oil and sell it to China who would love to supply it's own energy needs, and cripple our economy in 1 fell swoop.

[Nutmegger]

136. This is for all the Chavez haters

Official DU Hugo Chavez Right-Wing Falsehood Debunking Thread