Chavez backtracks on Venezuela spy law

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Associated Press

Chavez backtracks on Venezuela spy law
1 hour ago

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) — President Hugo Chavez says his government will rewrite a new intelligence law to calm Venezuelan fears that the decree could be used to stifle dissent.

Many Venezuelans were alarmed that the law could force them to spy on neighbors or risk prison terms.

Human rights activists and representatives of Venezuela's Catholic Church have criticized the decree, saying it violates civil liberties.

Chavez on Saturday said his government would remove a clause in the law that requires citizens to act as informants if authorities believe they have information on national security threats — or face up to four years in prison for refusing.

Chavez said the revised decree would protect civil rights.




Read more: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j457tQvvjln9hcj8nNsfg27MuCYQD915FPP82

[Rage for Order]

1. That's certainly welcome news n/t

[AlphaCentauri]

2. Chavez stimulates a dialog in the venezuelan society, while the RW pets try to force their ideas

into people's minds. Would woody and his pals ask the american people if they would like to be spy?

[Bacchus39]

9. yes, lets propose community spy groups and see how that goes over

brilliant idea.

[AlphaCentauri]

11. where in the US or Venezuela?

We already have a spy on citizens law

[Bacchus39]

13. really? is that what you do???

spy on your neighbors? and if you don't are you risking prison time?

[cstanleytech]

22. Might be refering to how some states have

if I recall laws requiring you to render aid say if you see someone in distress or something like that also dont forget the whole thing where you can be charged as an accomplice for aiding a criminal and not reporting a crime could be considered such or atleast I imagine some prosecutors could argue that.

[Bacchus39]

28. well, even if that were true I don't see any requirement to spy on my neighbor and if I don't

I am subject to presecution.

[AlphaCentauri]

51. you don't have to do it your self , corporations will do a better job for you

or the many volunteers that are willing to report anybody that looks and think different and accuse them of not to be patriots,welcome to the The Truman Show.

[harmonicon]

20. T.I.A.

It's happened. It didn't go over so well here either, but we're still the one that tortures and keeps people locked up without charges in secret prisons.


Edited because I fucked up some punctuation.

[cstanleytech]

23. One of the ones you mean but yeah it sucks and I really look down

upon those in our government and in elected office who have supported this as well as the supreme court which has done little to try and curb the presidential powers that Bush in my opinion has abused and continues to.

[1monster]

19. That has already been asked. Remember when the Bush Admin was wanting mail delivery people, pest

control personnel, and other people whose jobs made it possible for them to spy on citizens mail, homes, and lives to do just that?

Went over like a lead balloon filled with iron.

[Truth2Tell]

3. What a dictator.

:eyes:

Imagine if America had leaders who toned-down laws because people were concerned about civil liberties.

Looks like we could learn a little something about democracy from Hugo Chavez.

[Rage for Order]

4. Um, remember the Dubai Ports World Deal a year or two ago?

Quite an outcry over that, and the deal was shelved. There was also a huge public outcry over the comprehensive immigration reform package last year, which was then amended and finally defeated after it initially looked like it was a done deal. There are many other examples, but those were the first two that popped into my head.

[subsuelo]

40. And can you name one*civil liberties* issue where Cheney/Bush backed down

[Judi Lynn]

6. Bush should have learned the people of Venezuela democratically ELECTED Chavez,

unlike the way _Bush interjected himself into the Presidency.

Hugo Chavez also has the distinction of NOT having orchestrated a coup against _{George W. Bush} and bringing all the principle coup organizers to his own offices for counseling during the run-up. _Bush has also continued to dump boat loads of U.S. hard-earned taxpayer dollars into the opposition organizations throughout the time after the coup as well, engineering the work lock-out (the from the top DOWN strike), the recall referendum, and a steady campaign of disinformation, etc., etc., etc.

Americans who buy the swill they are being fed from corporate sources, without stopping to think any of it through, without researching, without using their heads are fascists, anyway. Their side is losing its chokehold not only here but everywhere else.

[Bacchus39]

8. yeah, the only coup Chavez orchestrated was in Venezuela

and funding insurgent groups and candidates in other countries.

[Judi Lynn]

15. He led one of two coups in HIS OWN COUNTRY, not Bush's, and against a killer

who ordered his troops to fire directly into crowds of people protesting hideous price increases to ALL their living expenses. It's a subject which was concealed completely by the U.S. corporate media, but the attempted coup against monster Carlos Andres Perez made Hugo Chavez a national hero to the vast majority of the poor people.

The idea you'd attempt to compare _Bush's coup at gunpoint on Chavez and Chavez's attempted coup against _Bush friend who slaughtered thousands of Venzuelans is simply odd, of course.

Here's a quick look at the absurd way the President of Venezuela at the time was trying to run the country:

On February 27, 1989, Perez increased the price of gasoline and the cost of public transportation. Following an IMF model to garner foreign investment, his austerity policies hit the poorest people hardest. But Perez apparently did not expect Venezuelans to respond to "economic shock" programs with spontaneous protests, which erupted throughout the country. In some areas, rioters torched shops and set up roadblocks.

When the police went on strike, the government lost control. Perez called for a state of emergency. The soldiers fired into crowds. By March 4, the government claimed that 257 lay dead. Some non-governmental sources estimated the death toll at over 2,000. Thousands were wounded.

Perez, who called himself a socialist, first imposed draconian measures on the poor and then had them shot when they objected. The Caracazo as the event became known, not only destroyed Venezuela's aura of stability but put an end to the political system that had replaced the ousted military dictator Perez Jimenez in 1958.

From then on until the Chavez victory, successive Christian Comite de Organizacion Politica Electoral Independiente (COPEI) and Social Democratic Accion Democratica (AD) governments had used the nation's immense oil wealth to distribute drops - or crumbs - just enough to maintain stability.

It took the IMF and World Bank - with strong backing from the Reagan government - and its neo-liberal offensive in the 1980s, to push Venezuelans into action. They rebelled against policies designed to further impoverish them and reward those who needed it least. Although the 1989 Caracazo emerged as an unplanned response to a set of new measure, the uprising also symbolized years of discontent over government corruption. The Caracazo destroyed the shady Perez, the prestige of the two major parties, and it opened the door to a more radical politics, outside the party structure.
(snip/...)

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/LAN407A.html







El Caracazo massacre, and photo of Carlos Andres Perez, with his good friend, _{George H. W. Bush.}

Timeline: Venezuela
A chronology of key events

~snip~
1973 - Venezuela benefits from oil boom and its currency peaks against the US dollar; oil and steel industries nationalised.

1983-84 - Fall in world oil prices generates unrest and cuts in welfare spending; Dr Jaime Lusinchi (AD) elected president and signs pact involving government, trade unions and business.

1989 - Carlos Andres Perez (AD) elected president against the background of economic depression, which necessitates an austerity programme and an IMF loan. Social and political upheaval includes riots, in which between 300 and 2,000 people are killed, martial law and a general strike.

1992 - Some 120 people are killed in two attempted coups, the first led by future president Colonel Hugo Chavez, and the second carried out by his supporters. Chavez is jailed for two years before being pardoned

1993-95 - Ramon Jose Velasquez becomes interim president after Perez is ousted on charges of corruption; Rafael Caldera elected president.

1996 - Perez imprisoned after being found guilty of embezzlement and corruption.

1998 - Hugo Chavez elected president.
(snip/...)http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1229348.stm

YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9-IY11w6n8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfNv8PRgioY

[ngant17]

21. good points, Judy, your posts are always right on the money, but...

it's more simpler to use the DU 'ignore' option to avoid having to respond to the more tiresome posters here.

At a certain point, I'm willing to listen to their arguments, but my time is valuable and I don't think even the best responses, and yours are typically in that category, even with the most lucid and clear replies, none of this will help to change their way of thinking. It's too fossilized and compartmentalized. So it's best to use the ignore option in the long run.

[Judi Lynn]

24. I'm going to have to relax, and try to believe those with active minds will keep pressing until they

find the truth themselves, as we did.

Probably in the end, it IS a matter of character, after all.

I'm thinking long and hard about what you have said. I recognize they DO achieve their purpose by being able, at times, to sidetrack the truth we work to discover, but it just may well be time is better served in concentrating on the truth itself, and letting the rest slide.

That takes discipline, but I'd sure like to give it a try! Really appreciate your comment, ngant17.

[happydreams]

60. You have to be the thickest son-of--bitch on the planet. Bacchus...

If I ran this website I would kick your ass off for trolling. You know goddamn well what you say is a lie, one told repeatedly for how many years now?

[Vincardog]

12. PSST Hugo Chavez is an American leader

[Spouting Horn]

16. So he

proposes a Cuba-like law that says citizens must report dissent to the Gov't, then retracts the idea, and that's cause for praise??

[papau]

26. Like the 40's, 50's and 60's under Hoover never happen - or TV's "I led 3 lives" never ran

"citizens must report dissent to the Gov't" is made in America

Maybe you missed the GOP discussion of what they wanted in the Patriot Act?

True the Dems have been successful in stopping any law that required reports of Dissent - so the CIA had to use the power of corporate management and the media to force an atmosphere that was the equivalent to a law.

[ronnie624]

32. Yes., it is worthy of praise.

It is a clear indication that the Venezuelan government responds to the will of the people. Anytime a democratic government accedes to the will of the people, what's not to praise? This episode also shows that the Venezuelan people are aware and closely involved in the process of their own governance. By contrast, I doubt that even 15% of the U.S population knows anything about the Military Commissions Act of 2006 or its frightening implications. In the last 2 years, I've met exactly two people who were even aware of it.

In Venezuela, packages of rice and flour and such have excerpts from the nation's constitution printed on the labels. Pocket sized copies of the document are widely distributed and the people are encouraged to read them.

U.S. Americans are numb and civically illiterate by comparison. I can't imagine anything more than a very small minority of U.S. citizens being able to recognize a passage from the The Constitution of the United States, and the notion of our government encouraging its study is truly laughable.

[Judi Lynn]

37. Speaking of illiterate, do you remember when Ari Fleisher started threatening reporters at briefings

He put the fear of God into them, apparently, to the extent they just didn't bother to ask any troublesome questions in any press briefings after that!

He made some ominous implication that people in the White House were very aware of the questions reporters were asking, and who asked what, and it appeared they started worrying that if they offended the _Bush people they would be kept out of the press room, and lose their chance to get the stories. Heaven forbid any of them live up to the expectations we have of them to get the truth out to us so we are informed about the people we attempt to elect, or those who steal their office.

We have been crudely mocked by the takeover of the press by the very people who are pulling the strings of government. They have seriously cut back reporting staffs in the major papers, don't spend money on investigations, and almost decimated their actual foreign bureau staffs altogether, with exceptions like the New York Times, whose Caracas correspondant, Francisco Toro finally had to resign as his anti-Chavez crap was so obvious, so vicious people started asking questions and it was discovered he was totally part of the Caracas oligarchy, a participant in several anti-Chavez NGO's which receive U.S. taxpayers' money, all acknowledged before he started writing his anti-Chavez blog.

You no doubt read there has been a Reuters stringer in Venezuela who gets his stories simply by writing down what the virulent anti-Chavez channel Globovisión says.

They must be laughing up their sleeves at us while they flood the US newspapers with more of that crap cranked out of the administration like the slop which got Otto Reich in trouble with the Senate when he took our money and wrote horrific lies about Nicaragua to get the American public overheated and supportive of slaughtering people in that country. He broke the law writing propaganda for Reagan, so _{George W. Bush} immediately started trying to jam him into his own State Department first chance he got, to meet continual rejections from the Senate which would not allow his nomination to go through, until he finally slipped him into place during a Senate recess. Dirty, DIRTY people.

Who pays the price for all this? We surely do. We pay the people who lie to us in the government, and we pay the press to lie to us, as well, and we pay the price by remaining in complete ignorance. We couldn't look more foolish. It's about time someone turned this wreck around, isn't it?

[Judi Lynn]

39. ronnie624, I have to post this, also. Just found it, trying to locate the info.

on the Reuters writer who takes stories from tv news in Caracas. This is not the story I was looking for. It was written in December, 2002, but it is VERY central to anyone's understanding of what the process is that the wire services use to gather their stories these days, in Latin America:

AP’s One-Sided Venezuela Coverage
On Desk Reporters Who “Phone-in” the Spin


By Dan Feder

~snip~
Noriega recently served on the Senate Foreign Affairs committee. While in that post, he became notorious for his skill at manipulating reporters. Once, he was overheard bragging that New York Times’ Larry Rohter never made a move without consulting him. It seems that, rather than seek out independent analysis of the resolution, or do his own (did he even read it? one has to wonder), Ikeda has let a veteran Washington spin-doctor tell the story for him.

~snip~
The problem with the Associated Press

Some of AP’s other reporters have been producing simply awful journalism since long before Ikeda joined this round of the Venezuelan tug-of-war. AP stories are picked up by thousands of newspapers large and small across the country every day, and are often read by newscasters on the radio and television. So the tone they set and messages they break to the public are no small matter; they lie at the heart of the media-created reality through which most United States citizens and many English-speaking people in other countries experience the larger world.

Associated Press is technically a “non-profit” corporation owned by a cooperative of for-profit United States newspapers and media companies, and governed by the AP Managing Editors Association. No radio news show or daily newspaper editor has the resources to send a reporter to every part of the world she or he wants. So editors use the AP to cut costs; why pay twenty-five different journalists to write on an issue when you can pool your resources and just pay one? According to their website,


the AP is the backbone of the world’s information system. In the United States alone, AP serves 5,000 radio and television stations and 1,700 newspapers. Add to that the 8,500 newspaper, radio and television subscribers in 121 countries overseas, and you’ll have some idea of AP’s reach.

This role obviously gives the AP an unbelievable amount of power over the discussion of global events, especially in the English-speaking world. Yet AP correspondents write under much lower standards and with much less supervision than their counterparts at specific media organizations. In other words, they are largely unaccountable to their editors. At the same time, at a corporate level, the AP is unaccountable to its millions of readers. Unlike many newspapers, there is no AP ombudsman who “speaks for the readers.” There is no letters page for the AP, and individual newspapers rarely print letters responding to wire stories.

The very structure of the AP —the impersonal bureaucracy through which this huge volume of information is filtered—encourages “desk reporting” from foreign correspondents. This means gleaning stories from the local commercial newspapers and taking phone calls from Embassy, political, and corporate spin-doctors rather than going outside and talking to the real people their stories concern. According to many familiar with the organization, AP correspondents are typically wined and dined by the English-speaking elites in the Third World outposts where they are assigned.

A perfect example of what this leads to is the case of Peter McFarren, AP’s 18 year bureau chief in Bolivia. McFarren was exposed by this publication as having moonlighted as a lobbyist for an $80 million dollar water pipeline project. After two weeks of stonewalling, AP finally announced McFarren’s resignation after Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) and Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz inquired about the conflict. By the time he resigned, McFarren had become a regular figure among elite circles of Bolivian politicians and businessmen, completely alienated from and hostile towards the masses of people he was responsible for reporting on.

More:
http://www.narconews.com/Issue26/article567.html



This is _Bush's Roger Noriega, who used to be an aide to Jesse Helms.

Roger's Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Noriega

[Flanker]

46. the law did not say such a thing

Only the most extreme interpretation (MSM, NYT, Venezuelan opposition) came to that conclusion, the law did not even set penalties for not handing over information (it deferred to another law for penalties). Clearly that was not the intent so that interpretation will be nipped in the bud so that the right has one less talking point.

[Tempest]

56. If Chavez was like the ex-president and American puppet Perez

He would have turned the military on the people and blood would have run in the streets.

[Judi Lynn]

18. Imagine America with news media which served the public interests first!

It's a pity the news has to make it to the surface after being buried under the heavy disinformation flood which arrives here first, and sets off the idiots!

As Mark Twain said, "A lie is halfway around the world while Truth is still putting on its boots." Truer today than then.

More on the earlier story, as mangled by the twisted N.Y. Times:

Venezuela's progressive, new intelligence reform. The NYT attack vs. the facts.

Jun 7, 2008, 05:32

Today's article by the New York Times, "Chávez Decree Tightens Hold on Intelligence", demonstrates the Times' ongoing attempt to mislead the general public about the intentions of the Venezuelan government.

While one might have expected the article to describe the content of Venezuela's new intelligence law and discuss a range of reactions to it, the scope was limited only to criticisms by the opposition.

Here are the facts:

The law eliminates Venezuela's 50 year old secret political police, known as DISIP, created during the dictatorship of Perez Jimenez. It also eliminates Venezuela's agency of Military intelligence (DIM). In their place, the General Intelligence Office and the General Counterintelligence Office have been created, both overseen by the Interior Ministry and the Ministry of Defense.

Refining the intelligence capacity of the state does not allow for a "tightening control" by President Chavez; rather, for the first time Venezuela is providing a legal framework for carrying out and monitoring intelligence activities of the nation. Many actions that once were left to the discretion of the DISIP and the DIM are now subject to oversight. Moreover, the existence of this law provides a level of transparency that was lacking before.

The dissolution of the DISIP and DIM was long overdue. For decades. Venezuelans feared these agencies for their involvement in nefarious activity and repression, including incidents involving the escape of notorious criminals. Most importantly, from 1967 to 1974, terrorist Luis Posada Carriles was a high level official at the DISIP. This very important point was passed over by the Times.

As opposed to what the Times implies, the new law guarantees the rights of Freedom of Expression and Due Process under the Law, as established in Venezuela's Constitution. In Article 21, for instance, it is clearly outlined that those prosecuted are guaranteed the right to a public defense.

http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_26966.shtml

[dipsydoodle]

5. Nice to have a leader who listens for a change.

Thought it wouldn't turn out to be quite as mentioned earlier this week.

[Judi Lynn]

7. Joanne98: Chavez Revamps His Intelligence Services: The Corporate Media React

Reposting an article DU'er already posted in "Editorials," for those who may have missed it:

Chavez Revamps His Intelligence Services: The Corporate Media React

by Stephen Lendman


Reports keep surfacing about new threats against Hugo Chavez. Given past ones, they can't be taken lightly. Chavez is alerted and reacts accordingly. Case in point: revamping Venezuela's decades old intelligence services. It's long overdue and urgently needed given the Bush administration's tenure winding down and its determination in its remaining months to end the Bolivarian project and crush its participatory democracy.

CIA, NED, IRI, USAID and other US elements infest the country and are more active than ever. Subversion is their strategy, and it shows up everywhere. Violence is being encouraged. Opposition groups are recruited and funded. So are members of Venezuela's military. Student groups as well and anti-Chavista candidates for November's mayoral and gubernatorial elections.

The dominant media are on board in Venezuela and America. They assail Chavez relentlessly and are on the warpath again after his May 28 announced intelligence services changes. The Interior and Justice Ministries will oversee a new General Intelligence Office and Counterintelligence Office in place of the current Directorate of Intelligence and Prevention Services (DISIP). Similar military intelligence and counterintelligence components will replace the Military Intelligence Division (DIM) and will be under the Defense Ministry. Why was it done and why now? To counter stepped up US espionage and destabilization efforts when it's most needed.

New tools will be used and current personnel retrained and vetted for their Bolivarian commitment. DISIP and DIM are outdated. They've been around since 1969 to serve the "capitalist vision" of that era. Ever since, they've been "notoriously repressive" and closely aligned with the CIA. Therein lies the problem. Chavez intends to fix it. The dominant media reacted. They're hostile to change and showed it their reports.

The New York Times' Simon Romero has trouble with his facts. He headlined "Chavez Decree Tightens Hold on Intelligence." He referred to the new Law on Intelligence and Counterintelligence that passed by presidential decree under the legislatively-granted enabling law. He failed to explain that the 1969 law passed the same way, and that Venezuela's Constitution then and now permit it.

Instead, he noted a "fierce backlash here from (mostly unnamed) human rights groups and 'legal scholars' who say the measures will force citizens to inform on one another to avoid prison terms....The new law requires (them) to....assist the agencies, secret police or community activist groups loyal to Mr. Chavez. Refusal can result in prison terms of two to four years (and up to) six years for government employees."

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9237

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x364197

[roody]

10. I wish Bush would backtrack on his spy law.

[subsuelo]

41. Exactly n/t

[Peace Patriot]

14. This is why Lula da Silva, President of Brazil, said of Chavez...

"You can criticize Chavez on a lot things, but not on democracy." (--Lulu)

He also said that Chavez is the "best president of Venezuela in 100 years."

And to top it off, he called Chavez "the great peacemaker" (for his role in helping to head off the war that the Bushites tried to instigate between Colombia and Ecuador/Venezuela this March).

Chavez LISTENS. He is a DEMOCRAT. He is committed to Venezuela's Constitution. He's run a scrupulously lawful, beneficial government for ten years, wanted to stay on, and PUT IT TO A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE--and, when he lost that referendum (by a hair), immediately conceded (though he could have, rightfully, challenged such a close vote), and moved on. Citizen rights and citizen participation in government, politics, and civic life, have never been greater in Venezuela's history.

So it doesn't surprise me a bit that Chavez listened to criticism, and revised his lawful decree (made with powers granted to him by the National Assembly, as with presidents before him). And I'm VERY GLAD that he is attending to Bush/CIA spying and dirty tricks, and Bushite-funded and organized, traitorous plots among Venezuelan fascists (the latest being a plot for the oil-rich state of Zulia to secede, and become a fascist mini-state controlling the oil and giving it away to Exxon Mobil--like the white racists in Bolivia's eastern provinces, who are trying to do the same thing--also Bush-backed).

Lulu da Silva also recently proposed a South American defense pact--without the U.S. Why? Because South America has only one enemy--the U.S.!

How's that for U.S. diplomatic relations? Nice going, Donald!*

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

"The Smart Way to Beat Tyrants Like Chávez," by Donald Rumsfeld, 12/1/07
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/30/AR2007113001800.html

(Read between the lines--especially the part where he urges "swift action" by the U.S. in support of "friends and allies" in South America.)

[Judi Lynn]

17. It's about time Latin America finally organized its own defense. They have been divided,

pitted against each other, and overthrown time after time after time, with puppet dictators put in place to bow to U.S. right-wing, corporate interests at the horrendous expense to their own citizens.

After all the hundreds of thousands of tortures, deaths, "disappearances," they have started drawing the line.

This will hopefully be the century they put Latin American citizens first. It should be beautiful to witness.

On edit:

It has been interesting watching how various news agencies attempt to lure Lula and others into stabbing Chavez in the back, and others, but he has ALWAYS been consistant in his wholehearted, genuine support of Hugo Cavez, and his own view of a new South America.

_Bush has sent wave after wave of diplomats to South America to attempt to create dissention. I recall reading separate articles since the beginning detailing Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, and lower-ranked officials ALL pounding away at the Presidents in those countries, trying to get them to isolate, shun Chavez, when they visited their countries.

They all got their asses handed to them. Hilarious. It has been a filthy mistake made by U.S. right-wingers to create tragedy and catastrophe for South Americans, anyway. It's about time they got their comeuppance.

[Peace Patriot]

47. Yes, I was following all that, too--particularly around the time of Bush's visit to

Latin America (in March '06). He really did get his ass handed to him, on the matter of interference in Venezuela--by both leftist and rightest leaders, it should be noted. I will never forget Mexico's Calderon publicly lecturing Bush on the SOVEREIGNTY of Latin American countries, and mentioning VENEZUELA as the example! My jaw dropped! The most touching response to the Bush "isolate Chavez" dictate was Nestor Kirchner's (prez of Argentina), who said, "But he's my brother." And the funniest response has to be Rafael Correa's (prez of Ecuador), when he was asked about Chavez's remark to the UN that Bush is "the devil." Correa replied that "it is an insult to the devil."

So much for "divide and conquer."

I was also interested in Condi Rice's kneecappings and briberies, trying to keep Venezuela off the UN Security Council. She managed to get Chile to abstain--for which Michele Batchelet (leftist prez of Chile) suffered a storm of criticism, and it has never happened again. South America has been solid about this ever since--resisting Bushite dictation, such as "isolating Venezuela"--and are fast moving along a path of regional cooperation, for the benefit of all, and a South American "Common Market" (and common defense).


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

"Bush has sent wave after wave of diplomats to South America to attempt to create dissention. I recall reading separate articles since the beginning detailing Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, and lower-ranked officials ALL pounding away at the Presidents in those countries, trying to get them to isolate, shun Chavez, when they visited their countries." --Judi Lynn

So true. A totally failed Bushite policy. It's one of the reasons that I think the Corporate Rulers have decided to let Obama win (although they may well shave his mandate with their "trade secret" voting machines). They need to put a nicer face on U.S. Latin American policy, to improve the position of U.S.-based global corporate predators and World Bank/IMF loan sharks, who are now on the outs. And they need a backup plan to the Bush-funded and organized, fascist secessionist movements in the oil-rich provinces of Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia--a policy (and dirty rotten scheme) that is also failing (although we may see bloodshed this year, as Rumsfeld & co. try to force the issue). Enter Obama with his idea of flooding the south with new consulates and Peace Corps workers, and more "war on drugs" militarization, and more aid with more strings on it, and the whole "Pax Romana" thing. It's desperation time for the Corporate Rulers, when they decide to be "nice" and starting talking all "win/win." Watch your wallets, South America! And bring your spy agencies up to muster, cuz you're gonna need even better intel when the U.S. comes calling with smiles and gifts.

Yeah, I like Obama--and I really like his citizen activist supporters. An activated citizenry is THE most important component of reform. But I don't trust our Corporate Rulers and war profiteers at all.

[bemildred]

25. Oh my goodness, now he's a flip-flopper. nt

[bertman]

27. Judi, please whatever you do, DON'T HIT IGNORE.

I for one, want to hear what you and others have to say about this. And, of course, we don't get anything resembling the full story from our MSM. So, keep up the good work. Educate those souls who desire knowledge.

Having Sud America teach us to show some respect would be one of the best things to ever happen to our USA. Cause we sure as hell ain't gonna do it unless they stand up.


Now, one of our biggest challenges is going to be to get our next President, Hopey to drop the stale, imperialist rhetoric and start afresh with some sensibility. I'm hoping all the anti-Chavez, anti-Cuba, rabidly pro-Israel talk is just for campaign consumption.

Guess we'll just have to wait and see.

[Judi Lynn]

35. bertman, the truthseekers are all in this together, wouldn't you say?

It's so amusing that while our corporate media goes hysterical getting the latest disinformation to us fresh from the basement of the White House, concerning the fictitious crimes of Hugo Chavez against humanity, the SAME media has studiously avoided telling us the things we NEED and DESERVE, and EXPECT to know as citizens who pay their wages which they, as the public watchdogs are supposed to tell us about out OWN government, and the criminal class running it everytime there's a half-snapped, racist, classist, lying Republican who has crept into office by stealth. (No one sane should ever forget the Iran hostage/arms filthy trick the Reagan people pulled on Jimmy Carter to get into office, either.) We were wildly misinformed about that, too, by this same sniveling, backstabbing, dishonest, nasty corporate media gang of collaborators.

Memory refresher on Reagan's dirty seizure of the Presidency:

In 1980, Ronald Reagan was running against President Carter. Polls showed the major swing issue was the Iran hostage crisis. Time magazine’s October poll highlighted this point, showing how close the race was, with Carter at 42 percent and Reagan at 41 percent. Reagan understood that Carter would win if the hostages were released before the election.

Reagan, his candidate for vice president (former CIA Director George H. W. Bush), and campaign manager (experienced CIA officer William Casey), formed a team of 120 foreign-policy and intelligence professionals. Some of these operatives continue in 2007 to actively promote the “hand on the Bible Reagan miracle” propaganda in order to harden Republican party support. To highlight the size of this operation, reporters Abbie Hoffman and Jonathan Silvers noted in an article titled An Election Held Hostage that the National Security Council employed only 65 foreign-policy professionals. They also revealed that in September 1980, William Casey and Edwin Meese formed a subcommittee of these professionals, called the October Surprise (OS) group.

As a result of the focused OS intelligence effort, Reagan had informants at the CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency, National Security Council and in the White House Situation Room. This intelligence apparatus enabled Reagan to receive the “Top Secret – Eyes Only” documents regarding President Carter’s negotiations with Iran. When Reagan was asked how these Top Secret documents were found in his personal campaign file he answered “he didn’t know how they got there.” Reagan’s intelligence apparatus also explains why former Congressman David Stockman was able to boast on October 28, 1980 that he used a stolen copy of Carter’s briefing book to coach Reagan for a televised debate. The most important “Eyes Only” document Reagan’s network provided was on October 15, 1980, when classified information revealed Carter was about to have the hostages released. Reagan obtained this information from campaign strategist Richard Allen, future Reagan National Security Advisor. Allen said he obtained the information from reporter John Wallach, who obtained his information from Secretary of State Edmund Muskie.

Robert Parry’s book Secrecy and Privilege was published in 2004. Parry’s interview with Ari Ben-Menashe (Israeli military intelligence officer 1977-1987) for PBS Frontline and subsequently in testimony to Congress revealed that the now Secretary of Defense Gates was a key October Surprise operative. Ben-Menashe also revealed he and Gates attended a 1986 meeting with a Chilean arms manufacturer (Cardoen) who was supplying chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein. Ben-Menashe’s book, Profits of War, describes the Paris Ritz Hotel meeting that followed the October 15th Carter administration leak. At that meeting Gates, McFarlane, Casey, and George H. W. Bush met with Iranian cleric Karrubi. French investigative reporter Claude Angeli confirmed the French secret service provided “cover” for this meeting between the Republicans and Iranians on the weekend of October 18-19. This meeting, by delaying the hostage release, effectively determined that Ronald Reagan would become the president of the United States.

The fact that Reagan insiders had arranged for Iran to keep the hostages an additional 76 days served to successfully shape the Iran Contra scandal investigations with the false perception that US weapons were shipped to Iran starting in 1985. Reagan initiated Iranian weapon shipments actually started in 1981. During the Iran Contra investigations, to explore Reagan’s pre-1985 conduct would have revealed to the American people that acts of treason successfully enabled Reagan to seize power.

More:
http://www.teachpeace.com/americaheldhostage.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As you seem aware, there is a great community at D.U. cheering for the progress underway in Latin America, hoping for each new step they take to be successful as they gain their self-respect and sovereignty back after having it stolen so viciously from them for far too long by people unworthy to shake their hands.

And most of all, welcome to D.U., bertman! :hi: Glad to see you.

[Bacchus39]

29. so its safe to say those of us who were dubious of the original proposal were correct

that a nation of tattle tales under government coercion is a not positive thing.

[Tempest]

57. Your interpretation of the orginal proposal was wrong

Stop getting your news from the NY Times would be a good start.

[GainesT1958]

30. The more he tries to act like Dub and Cheney...

The better the chances of people in Venezuela overthrowing him...and getting back their democracy, which obviously they don't have now. Remember, Venezuela was one of the most democratic countries in Latin America before he was elected--and then took over, a la Hitler.

See how he likes it when we stop buying his oil. I harbor no love--or sympathy--for him at all.

B-)

[JohnnyCougar]

31. What world do you live in?

Obviously not Earth. Unless you are just joking...

[Judi Lynn]

33. How befuddled can they GET? If the Venezuelan people want Hugo Chavez to leave office,

they DON'T ELECT HIM! What could be easier to grasp than that?

Where DO these twisted simpletons come from, anyway? Their primitive approach to politics is startling, then horrifying, and there are so many of these "incurious" people, it's a snap to keep them all babbling constantly by rearranging the old propaganda and spewing it over and over again for them. There's never a chance they'll pull out of it, they've had long enough to show us they're not going to be interested in the truth, just more crap which sustains a hostile, right-wing wide stance!

The world is theirs to control, as they see it, or the good Lord wouldn't have allowed them to spend more on "defense" annually than the rest of the world put together, and swagger around, overturning governments, assassinating Presidents, murdering their people.

They don't imagine it will ever change. This is their reign of a thousand years, in their eyes. One thousand blood soaked, parasitic years abusing the rest of the world's people. Cool.

[ohio2007]

55. ...they will have him gone in 2012,as required by their constitution, right?

http://www.democracynow.org/2007/2/2/do_chavezs_new_decree_powers_undermine


unless his rule by decree laws "fix" it so he can continue to sell oil at whatever price is fixed by OPEC


http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=59279§ionid=3510213

[ronnie624]

36. "...when we stop buying his oil"

There is no chance of the U.S. suddenly deciding to stop importing oil from Venezuela. Global demand is growing exponentially. India and China are now rationing of diesel. It is estimated that there is a 15 billion barrel a year shortfall in global production. If the history of U.S foreign policy is any indication, it is far more likely that our government, at some point in the future, will invade and destroy Venezuela, and then simply steal the county's oil along with everything else.

[subsuelo]

42. a la Hitler?

Right.

:crazy:

[Grey]

44. You forgot the sarcasm thingie.....

[Peace Patriot]

45. "...getting back their democracy, which obviously they don't have now." ??

GainesT1958, why do you suppose that the president of the biggest country, and biggest democracy, in South America, said the following, about Hugo Chavez?

"You can criticize Chavez on a lot of things, but not on democracy." --Lula da Silva, President of Brazil

Is it perhaps because he KNOWS what's going on in his neighbor countries in South America? Why would his view be so at variance from yours? And do you even want to know why he would say that? Do you want to know the facts that have been denied to you, by our lying corporate press--and that you haven't bothered to research for yourself?

He also said that Chavez "is the best president of Venezuela in a hundred years."

Is Lula da Silva a "dictator,"too? Maybe it's just a "dictators' club" down there, hm? Lula da Silva, President of Brazil, Rafael Correa, President of Ecuador, Evo Morales, President of Bolivia, Cristina Fernandez da Kirchner, President of Argentina, Daniel Ortega, President of Nicaragua--all these close allies and friends of Hugo Chavez are "dictators," and they all just back each other up, claiming they are elected presidents, and the stupid voters of Venezuela, Brazil, Ecuador, Bolivia, Argentina, Nicaragua--and other countries with leftist governments, that are friendly with Venezuela--just keep electing "dictators" and liars who like and admire Hugo Chavez and lie about him being a democrat because they, too, are "dictators"? Is that it? Or is your view of Chavez just totally wrong, and baseless--without any evidence and facts?

I respect their opinion, not yours, because I've bothered to find out about South American elections, including Venezuela--which holds elections that put our own to shame for their transparency--and I've closely followed political developments in South America, from a wide range of news and opinion sources. I don't just trust their word--although I must say that the opinion of South American leaders is OVERWHELMINGLY positive on Hugo Chavez. So, too, is the opinion of most Venezuelans. Chavez was re-elected in 2006 with 63% of the vote--in a highly transparent and heavily monitored election. He enjoys a 70% approval rating. After ten years with Chavez as president, Venezuelans have the one of the highest opinions of their government and the improvement of their society in South America. They've had a nearly 10% growth rate in the last five years, with the most growth in the private sector (not including oil). Do you think Venezuelan voters are stupid, or what?

I don't understand this statement of yours: "Venezuela was one of the most democratic countries in Latin America before he was elected--and then took over, a la Hitler." Do you know anything about the previous government, before Chavez? Do you know that it open-fired on peaceful protesters killing dozens of people and injuring hundreds? Do you know that they were giving away 90% of Venezuela's oil revenue (a resource that was nationalized long before Chavez) to multinational corporations like Exxon Mobil, while millions of Venezuelans lived in dire poverty, in shantytowns, with no schools--or without the wherewithal to put shoes on their kids' feet to send them to school--no medical care, no jobs, no services, no hope--many of them skilled small farmers, driven from the land by stupid, inefficient, crazy rightwing land policy--policy so stupid that Venezuela lost its ability to feed itself?

And do you know that the Chavez government has reversed all of this? Venezuelans now get a 60/40 share of their own oil, and the money is being plowed into INTELLIGENT, forward-looking, progressive programs, to bootstrap the poor and improve the whole society. The Chavez government has furthermore encouraged MAXIMUM CITIZEN PARTICIPATION in government and politics. The government gives away its power over the oil revenues to local community councils, open to all community members, who decide what their community needs are and how to spend the money. Do you think maybe it's policies like these that are the reason that Chavez has been elected and re-elected, and why Chavez supporters are elected to the National Assembly in large numbers as well? That maybe...um...the majority of voters approve of these policies?

You mention Hitler. Hitler took power by his brownshirts beating up voters and stuffing the ballot boxes (the way they do in Bush-backed Colombia). Where is the evidence that Chavez has done this--or anything violent, undemocratic or unlawful? It is a ludicrous--and, indeed, a wild and insane--comparison. Chavez has harmed no one, killed no one, tortured no one, invaded no one, put no one in jail unfairly, and repressed no one. NO ONE! He has stuffed no ballot boxes, beaten up no voters, and has sought no powers, and exercised no powers, not granted to him by the Constitution, the National Assembly or people of Venezuela in honest and transparent votes. He and his government have been scrupulously lawful and democratic, on every criteria--from transparent elections, to support for equal rights for women and gays! (how's that for Hitlerism?), to putting his own term of office--limited by the Constitution--TO A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE!

And he probably lost that vote (by a hairbreadth margin) because it was combined with the equal rights for women and gays amendment, in a Catholic country with a particularly rightwing clergy. Or maybe some of the voters (about 10%, normally pro-Chavez) didn't like the confusion of 69 amendments on one ballot, or just thought that 2010 would be a good time for different leadership. Why do you frame these democratic processes in terms of the Venezuelan people "overthrowing him"? That's what the fascist minority tried in 2002. That's how Bushites think. That's how people think who can't win except by coup d'etats, stuffing ballot boxes, beating up voters, lying, and suspending the Constitution and all civil rights.

If the people of Venezuela wanted to "overthrow" Chavez, they've had many opportunities--including several transparent, honest, internationally monitored elections--which he won, overwhelmingly--a recall election (funded by the Bush Junta)--which he won, overwhelmingly--and backing the 2002 coup, which the people overwhelmingly opposed (and courageously and peacefully defeated).

It is the fascists and the oiligarchs in Venezuela, and their sponsors in Washington, who are the "Hitlers." It is they who suspended the Constitution, the National Assembly, the courts and all civil rights, and kidnapped the President and threatened his life. It is they who "overthrew" democracy--not Chavez, who holds power only by means democracy--and could have been "overthrown" at that time--if the people had supported the coup--or by the recall, or by regularly scheduled elections, or by another recall. The truth is that Venezuela has never been more democratic, than now, after ten years of Chavez governing the country--as the President of Brazil stated: "You can criticize Chavez on a lot of things, but not on democracy."

Prove the President of Brazil wrong. Go ahead. Give us some evidence and facts to back up your comparison of Chavez to Hitler.

[Superlibertarian]

48. Time Magazine and CNN

Story and link below

Hugo Chavez has gone through more chiefs of staff than Venezuela has had Miss Universes — which is quite a few. So when the Venezuelan President tapped his older brother Adan for the job last year, few outside Miraflores Palace took notice. They should have. Adan, since then appointed education minister, is Hugo's chief Marxist consultant — and a driving force behind Chavez's harder-than-usual left turn since his re-election last month. Chavez has announced plans to shut down an opposition-run TV network and nationalize Venezuela's largest telephone and electricity firms, while pushing his rubber-stamp Congress to allow him to run for re-election indefinitely and rule by decree well into 2008. It's no wonder Chavez watchers compare Adan to Latin America's other conspicuous First Brother, Raul Castro, who would succeed Fidel

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1582158,00.html

[Peace Patriot]

49. Well, you have just proved my point about the disinformation of the corporate media.

I will take you by the hand and walk you through it...

1. "Hugo's chief Marxist consultant..." --typical Freeper diminution of Chavez--use of "Hugo" rather than "the President" or the acceptable shorthand "Chavez." Do they call Bush "George"? Do they call Cheney "Dick"? Do you call Tony Blair "Tony"? Do they call Michele Batchelet "Michele"? Do they call Alvaro Uribe "Alvaro"? It is an insult to refer to Chavez this way--and it is always done in a context of slanderous disinformation.

As for "Marxist consultant", Chavez is not a Marxist. He is a socialist--not unlike the socialists in Sweden, France, England and a host of European countries, where socialism is mainstream--and I would also say he's a pragmatist. He has run a mixed socialist/capitalist economy for ten years, with a nearly 10% economic growth rate over the last five years, with the most growth in the PRIVATE sector (not including oil). To raise the McCarthyite, red-baiting specter of "Marxism" is ridiculous (whatever his brother may call himself--and I really don't know if even that is accurate--there are many shades of Marxism in South America, many quite compatible with democracy). What's the matter with Marxism anyway--as long as its economic notions are implemented in a democratic context, and there is no violence or repression. Chavez has harmed on one. NO ONE! Not even a little bit. He's run a scrupulously lawful, beneficial government for ten years, and won power in elections that put our own to shame for their transparency. Venezuelans have had numerous opportunities to vote him out--fair and square--including three presidential elections, and one recall election--all of which he won, with ever increasing margins of the vote (the latest 63% of the vote). And they had the opportunity of the US-backed coup attempt in 2002, which the Venezuelan people overwhelming opposed (and courageously and peacefully defeated). Venezuela has one of the most vibrant and open political cultures in the western hemisphere. So, if they were to choose some form of "Marxism" by majority vote in Venezuela, so what? That's their choice. Not ours. And not Time magazine's (--one of the worst red-baiting corporate news monopolies in the U.S. of A.)

2. "Chavez's harder-than-usual left turn since his re-election last month."

Well, I think you have to ask, what does Time magazine mean by "hard left"? They would consider (and did consider) FDR to be "hard left." A "New Deal" for the "little people" is "hard left" to them. They slap the word "Marxist" on it, and think we'll get all scared and go hide under our beds, cuz The Bomb is coming. Really, they're political discourse is so right-wing that you really have to correct for it, when consider their adjectives. What did Chavez propose? He proposed "Socialism for the 21st Century"--taking what he had already accomplished in Venezuela, by way of social justice, citizen participation, use of the country's resources to benefit the poor, and improved prosperity for all, and pushed it a bit further--for instance, guaranteed retirement and other benefits for the informal work force (street vendors, etc.--about half the workforce), a slightly shorter work week, equal rights for women and gays, more formal status and better funding for the community councils, guaranteed free university education. And he proposed these ideas as 69 amendments to the Constitution BY A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE. Among the 69 amendments was lifting the term limits on the president. Remember, our own FDR ran for and won FOUR terms in office, and died in his fourth term. Most of our Founders opposed term limits as undemocratic. And our 2-term limit on presidents dates from the 1950s, when the rightwing haters of FDR determined to never let another FDR and "New Deal" ever happen again.

Chavez lost that referendum in a very close vote (50.7% to 49.3%), and it is unclear why. Equal rights for women and gays might have sunk the whole proposal--since Venezuela is a Catholic country with a particularly rightwing clergy. (And the right ran scary ads, saying the government was going to take children from their mothers.) Or the Chavistas (for it was partly a National Assembly proposal) tried to pack too much into it--too many amendments--causing confusion. It was also a high-stakes election for the Bush Junta, which poured money, through USAID-NED and other budgets (our tax dollars), into rightwing opposition groups. Upon losing in a close vote, Chavez immediately accepted the vote, and moved on. Do these FACTS gibe with Time magazine's loaded portrait of some kind of scary, Stalinist "dictator"? Equal rights for women and gays? People voting on various proposals in transparent elections? Elections in which the "dictator" can LOSE?

3. "Chavez has announced plans to shut down an opposition-run TV network.

Sigh. Yeah, Time magazine would be worried about this. Giant corporations have put "free speech" to such good uses here. What are the facts? First of all, the TV airwaves (also radio) belong to the PUBLIC, in virtually every country in the world, including this one, and their use is licensed and regulated for the public good almost everywhere. Peru (Bushite "free trade" country) shut down four TV stations during the same period. RCTV had been given a license for use of that PUBLIC airwave for 20 years. And, in 2002, they violated it, by actively participating in a violent, rightwing, military coup attempt against the Chavez government. They hosted the coup plotters. They told outright lies to the public, on behalf of the coup. And, when the license finally came up for renewal, in 2008, Chavez--using his rightful powers as president--decided not to renew their license. The license went instead to small, independent broadcasters to improve the variety of programming in Venezuela (especially for minorities). If Fox News had called for the violent overthrow of Congress, after the Democrats won the '06 elections, and had aided and abetted kidnappers of Nancy Pelosi, would you be for pulling their license to use our PUBLIC airwaves? Chavez showed RESTRAINT. After the 2002 coup attempt, he would have been within his rights to send the police in to arrest them all and shut them down. He waited for the lawful process of licensing to unfold, and used that peaceful process instead.

4. "...nationalize Venezuela's largest telephone and electricity firms". Yeah, that's socialism. So what? You like your telephone and electricity rates? You want powerful private corporations to control essential services? You like price gouging, corporations holding us hostage, writing our laws, gobbling up small businesses, creating mega-monopolies? We need more control over essential services and resources HERE, and could learn some things from Venezuela.

5. "...pushing his rubber-stamp Congress to allow him to run for re-election indefinitely...".

Venezuela's National Congress is elected by the people, in transparent elections. If they are a "rubber stamp" to Chavez, that's what the people want them to be. FDR had something similar for most of his terms. He got almost everything he wanted through Congress--whirlwinds of quite radical legislation. The key is VOTED FOR BY THE PEOPLE.

Chavez put the term limit change of him running for re-election "indefinitely" (like FDR) TO A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE. It lost by a slim margin in a flurry of 69 amendments. The National Assembly cannot change the Constitution without a ratifying vote by the people. Otherwise, the term limit would already be gone. The National Assembly voted for it--then, step 2, it had to go to the people. This is real "dictator" stuff, eh? All this VOTING!

6."...pushing his rubber-stamp Congress to allow him to ...rule by decree well into 2008.

Yup, TEMPORARY rule by decree, as granted by the National Assembly to many presidents before Chavez, including his immediate predecessors. This grant of power is up, in 2008--with two years to go of Chavez's term in office. And it is LIMITED to specific, defined, written issues--mostly economic. Maybe they'll renew it, or change it. Maybe not. It will be put to a VOTE, by people who have been VOTED into power by the electorate, granting powers to a president who was VOTED into office, and can also be RECALLED (unlike ours) (Don't we wish?!) And all of this is very similar to what happened with FDR and Congress, especially regarding the profound crisis of the Great Depression (and later the war). There is nothing unusual here, in Venezuelan history, or the history of democracy.

Time magazine was making something out of NOTHING. Ah, and then they throw in Fidel! Chavez has LOTS OF FRIENDS AND ALLIES in Latin America--all of them staunch democrats, as he is--but that friend really frosts the fascist asses at Time/Warner. That Cuba is considered a respectable member of the world community--and all over Latin America--and is often lauded for its medical programs and its literacy program means that Time magazine and its brethren fascist news agencies have FAILED. Their propaganda sucks. And soon only the dupiest dupes in the U.S.A. will be buying their shitty magazine. South Americans have learned to ignore the crap spewed by the corporate news monopolies, and vote for whomever they goddamned please, and elect their best leaders--LEFTIST leaders with goals of social justice, self-determination and peace--in Venezuela, in Ecuador, in Bolivia, in Brazil, in Argentina, in Uruguay, in Paraguay, in Chile, in Nicaragua, in Guatemala, and next year in El Salvador. We need to learn that lesson here, too--how to make our own judgments, and elect our best leaders--no matter what the corporate fascists say. And Time magazine does NOT want us to have an admirable example of what voters can accomplish, when they get smart and get organized, as they have in Venezuela, and throughout South America. So they slander it relentlessly. They lie. They twist. They disinform. They don't want us to know the truth.

FDR was also called a "dictator" and a "communist"--by "organized money" (as he called it), and their lackey press. So what?

"Organized money hates me--and I welcome their hatred!" --Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

They hate Chavez for the same reasons, and with same venom--and lie and lie and lie about Venezuela!

----------

You really ought to find yourself some alternative sources of news and opinion, cuz your brain will rot if you rely of corporate media. Here are two suggestions:

www.venezuelanalysis.com (very informative)
www.BoRev.net (hilarious and informative)

And if you haven't seen it, do watch "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" (available at YouTube).

[ronnie624]

52. Your essays are a treat. Thanks. n/t

[Judi Lynn]

53. Absolutely superior grasp of the facts, despite the disinformation, peace patriot! I would LOVE to

see Time Magazine get a copy of your comments, signed by all the DU'ers who would leap at the chance to send their affirmation of your rebuttal.

I'm saving this commentary, too, as you cover so much important ground so well.

I have one tiny detail to add to your observation on the lifting of term limits which would allow Hugo Chavez (not "Hugo," not "Huguito") to stand for re-election repeatedly (to be replaced at the will of the people, obviously either at election time or in the recall option available half-way through each term), and it's something you've mentioned in other posts: whereas Hugo Chavez put this question to the people for a decision, Álvaro Uribe, in Colombia, _{George W. Bush's} well paid puppet was revealed to have his political people arranging deals BEHIND THE PUBLIC'S BACK with the Colombian legislators so THEY would vote to extend his term option. It was never even allowed to be voted upon anywhere but within the Uribe-dominated Colombian assembly.

One of these methods of changing term limits is democratic, and it doesn't look like the method chosen by heavily-subsidized-by-U.S.-taxes Colombia is the democratic one, after all.

[Peace Patriot]

54. Good point about Uribe! He bribed and bullied legislators in a secret deal to

extend his term of office--twice. Chavez puts it to A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE. Is it any wonder that the Bushites prefer (and lard money onto) the former Medellin Cartel go-to guy, Uribe, who tolerates (and, indeed, colludes with) death squads that slaughter union leaders, political leftists, small peasant farmers, human rights workers and journalists, and who bribes and bullies his way to power, and they hate Chavez, a democrat, who has harmed no one and is loved by the people?

Our corporate press NEVER MENTIONS Uribe's dirty political and criminal dealings--including the way he extended his term of office--just as they NEVER MENTION that de-licensing of TV stations is a ROUTINE function of government, and has occurred, recently, in many countries, including a Bush-friendly country like Peru!

Another BLACK HOLE in the corporate "news" that really angers me is their failure to report U.S.-Bush/Colombia's deliberate targeting and killing of the FARC chief hostage negotiator, Raul Reyes, in a bombing raid that nearly started a war with Ecuador and Venezuela, and that brought FARC hostage releases to a sudden, violent halt in March of this year. They also "forget" to report that Chavez was negotiating with FARC for hostage releases at the INVITATION OF ALVARO URIBE, and that that treacherous little fascist S.O.B. then BOMBED the hostages as they were being released! And they let stand, without correction, Donald Rumsfeld's goddamned lie about this, in a Washington Post op-ed the weekend it occurred*. Rumsfeld said that Chavez's efforts were "not welcome" in Colombia--though they had been welcome days before. So, was he the one who called for bombing of the hostages, as they were being released? Was it a phone call from Rumsfeld that week that prompted Uribe to suddenly--without cause--withdraw his request to Chavez, just as Chavez was about to be successful in getting the first two of six hostages released? Was it all a set-up to hand Chavez a diplomatic disaster, with dead hostages?

You won't find questions like this ever asked by the corporate press, because they don't print or broadcast the information necessary to ask them. They let Donald Rumsfeld--of all people--run off at the mouth without contradiction or reply.

It just burns me up. This is how unjust wars happen! Is Donald Rumsfeld orchestraing Oil II-South America as we speak? Is that what this war criminal has been doing in his "retirement"? What is his interest in South America? Why the op-ed on the weekend of the first release of FARC hostages, as the result of Chavez's negotiation? (--also the weekend of the Constitutional referendum in Venezuela--interestingly).

While our country is looking back at how the Iraq War was started with a narrative of goddamned lies, Rumsfeld, and the same corporate press that enabled those lies, appear to be preparing another tapestry of lies, disinformation and "black holes" in the news, for another oil war. And no one is asking questions about this--not even our supposedly anti-establishment candidate for president, Barack Obama (who is all too compliant with imperialist rhetoric).

There are many signs that this oil war is pending--and may take the form of secessionist civil wars in Bolivia, Venezuela and Ecuador, organized, funded and armed by the Bushites. The current level of lies, disinformation and psyops is very intense, and the reconstituted 4th Fleet (nuclear) will be roaming around off the coast of Venezuela by mid-summer.

And not even the slightest curiosity about all this--not even questions, let alone connecting of the dots--in the corporate press. Indeed, they are positively collusive in prepping the narrative.

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

*"The Smart Way to Beat Tyrants Like Chávez," by Donald Rumsfeld, 12/1/07
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/30/AR2007113001800.html

[anonymous171]

34. Chavez is walking the president/dictator line. Let's hope he stays on the president side.

[Judi Lynn]

38. Maybe you should take the time to post some of your information revealing in what ways

Hugo Chavez is like a dictator. Apparently you are seeing something which has escaped those of us who read as much as we can find on the subject.

Thank you.

[ohio2007]

43. ..because you can't fool all of the people all of the time...

He will need to dig up some "I told you so" enemies next year.

[stillcool]

50. I find it very interesting..

that there are so many posters who find more fault with Hugo Chavez than Bush. It is mind boggling. There is more concern for Venezuela than Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan put together. They have oil too.

[David__77]

58. He should focus on drying up the foreign funding of the opposition.

The coup-mongers could be hit hard with economic penalties. I think that's the way to go. It's important to maintain parliamentary norms insofar as possible. But there's no reason to allow treasonous activities to go on unchallenged by law. Chavez has shown tremendous leniency with enemies of democracy. The fascists need to be aware that if they raise their hands against democracy, the full force of law will smash them to pieces.

[Judi Lynn]

59. Exactly. It's illegal here, for sure. What ARE the chances that a leftist government

would be allowed to plow money into leftist opposition groups here in our own country, and counsel with them on ways to overthrow _Bush, even hosting their visits in their own countries' government buildings?



Maria Corina Machado, of U.S. taxpayer-supported Venezuelan opposition group, Sumate

~snip~
“Born into a wealthy Caracas family,” Raub writes “Machado studied engineering at Catholic University in Caracas and earned a graduate degree from the Venezuelan business school IESA. After graduating, she worked for an auto parts manufacturer in Valencia, Venezuela, leaving that job in 1992 to create a foundation to care for Venezuelan street children.”

If Machado had stuck with the auto parts and the street children, she would still be a person of worth who deserves respect … but Machado dropped the auto parts and the street children to indulge in treason against her country as paid agent of the US government.

“Miss Machado had never been involved in politics until 2002,” Raub claims “when she ‘decided to drop everything else’ after a friend invited her to create a pro-democracy group.”

This “pro-democracy” group of Machado, about which we will talk later, was a lamentable “creation.”

So it was a “friend” that got Machado to drop everything and to “create” a group. Well, what do you know? This “friend,” of course, was none other than the Central Intelligence Agency which promised Machado more money from agency funds and from the funds of the agency’s front, the infamous US National Endowment for Democracy, than Machado was making either from the auto parts or from her “foundation” for the street children.

According to Raub, this “friend” didn’t get Machado to drop everything “until 2002;” this dropping of everything had to occur in 2002 before the overthrow of Venezuelan democracy on April 11 by the CIA-led conspiracy which installed Pedro Carmona as dictator.

So, Machado dropped everything either in January or February or March of 2002.

But, just because the friend got her to drop everything and “create” a group in early 2002 does not mean that the friendship between Machado and the CIA did not exist before 2002. The friendship likely began 1992 when Machado dropped the auto parts and opened her “foundation” with the CIA as the principal contributor.

http://www.williambowles.info/venezuela/2005/machado.html

[Judi Lynn]

61. Chavez Revising, Not Revoking Venezuela's New Intelligence Law

Chavez Revising, Not Revoking Venezuela's New Intelligence Law
June 10, 2008
By Stephen Lendman

Over the weekend, Chavez showed his mettle as a democratic leader. He acknowledged "errors" in the newly enacted Law on Intelligence and Counterintelligence and will fix them to assure it fully complies with Venezuela's Constitution.

He gave examples and cited Article 16 that cites the possibility of prison terms for persons not cooperating with intelligence services. It's a "mistake," said Chavez and "not a small (one)." The new intelligence services won't oblige anyone to inform on others. Doing so is "overstepping," and "I assume responsibility" for the error and will fix it.

He continued: "Where we make mistakes, we must accept this and not defend the indefensible....I guarantee to the country, in Venezuela (this law will assault) no one! And no one will be obliged to say more than they want to say....(We) will never attack the freedom of Venezuelans, independently of their political positions. Liberty....is one of the slogans of our socialism."

Other articles will also be amended:

-- Article 19 prohibiting non-state agencies from using spy technologies;

-- Article 20 regarding search and wiretap provisions; and

-- Article 21 regarding secret evidence.

The new law will be reviewed in its entirety. Whatever is potentially unconstitutional will be removed or amended. Chavez guarantees it. He's a man of his word, but the corporate media took full advantage of the moment to jump all over him. As usual, The New York Times' Simon Romero led the assault.

He headlined: "Chavez Suffers Military and Policy Setbacks" with the front end of his lead referring to Colombia's (unsubstantiated) claim about capturing a Venezuelan national guard officer carrying assault rifles "believed to be intended for leftist guerrillas."

Once again Romero fumbles with the facts as he always does on Venezuela. He now states: "President Hugo Chavez....said Saturday he would 'withdraw' a decree overhauling intelligence policies that he had made earlier that week." He called it "a rare act of self-criticism" while hammering on the "capture" issue and filling paragraphs with inaccuracies.

More:
http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/17883