Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Getting Real About Chavez: Confessions of a Former Chavez Defender

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 08:05 AM
Original message
Getting Real About Chavez: Confessions of a Former Chavez Defender
Edited on Mon Aug-20-07 08:05 AM by wyldwolf
by Jeb Koogler

For a long time, I’ve defended Hugo Chavez. I thought that he was fighting a worthy battle against greed and corruption, against years of foreign domination and cronyism. I thought he was trying to improve the lives of poor people, while establishing a strong economy, an independent and self-respecting nation, and a vibrant democracy.

But now, after watching events unfold in the past few months, I’m ready to admit that I was mistaken.

Like many of those who lean left, I figured that Chavez’s megalomaniacal governing qualities were a bit unnerving, but not anything serious to be worried about. In retrospect, I realize that I was willing to overlook his authoritarian tendencies because of one main thing: his avowed commitment to social justice issues and his dedication to ending poverty.

Recently, however, I’ve changed my mind in a major way. Although I have tried to remain optimistic, Chavez’s actions in the past few months clearly indicate that he is set on becoming a dictator. Perhaps a dictator dedicated to the poor, but a dictator nonetheless. The evidence is abundant (though I will just list a few of the most recent examples). In late 2006, for instance, Chavez canceled the operating license for RCTV, the second-largest tv channel in Venezuela and one of the most public forums for opposition to his regime. Was it just anti-Chavez activists who called foul to this act of censorship? Not at all. Indeed, José Miguel Vivanco, the Americas director for Human Rights Watch, referred to the incident as “clearly a case of censorship and the most grave step back in the region since Fujimori.”

Then, in late January of 2007, in an unbelievably bold act, Chavez passed through the Venezuelan legislature a measure that gave him the power to rule by decree. For eighteen months, he was granted the ability to make sweeping economic and social changes without the direct consent of the legislature. Most recently, as The New York Times is now reporting, Chavez has decided to unveil a plan that would get rid of presidential term limits entirely. Unfortunately, with control of all branches of government, it looks like this blatantly undemocratic effort to become ruler-for-life might actually succeed:

Willian Lara, the communications minister, said Mr. Chávez would announce the project before the National Assembly, where all 167 lawmakers support the president. Supporters of Mr. Chávez, who was re-elected last year with some 60 percent of the vote, also control the Supreme Court, the entire federal bureaucracy, public oil and infrastructure companies and every state government but two.


Meanwhile, Chavez appears to be establishing a cult of personality, not unlike other authoritarian leaders:

As Mr. Chávez, 53, settles into his ninth year in power, images of him have become impossible to avoid here. On billboards, posters and murals, he is seen hugging children, embracing old women, chanting slogans and plugging energy-saving Cuban light bulbs into sockets.


The sum of these recent developments, combined with previous measures to stack the courts and the legislature, have solidified Chavez’s rule to the point where there should no longer be any doubt about the direction in which the country is headed. Chavez is pushing for dictatorial-like powers and there seems to be little hope, at least in the near future, of re-establishing any semblance of democratic governance.

Unfortunately, many of us on the left have been silent on this issue for far too long. While we have been quick to criticize our own administration and other foreign governments (think Vladimir Putin) for undemocratic policies, there has been a tendency to overlook the authoritarian governing styles of leftist regimes like that of Venezuela. For some reason — probably because these leaders profess the dogma of economic equality and social reform — many of us on the left have defended these liberal autocrats.

But it’s time to wake up and get our priorities straight. We should not be blind to what is going on in Venezuela. We can no longer forgive Chavez’s dictatorial tendencies merely because of his avowed commitment to the country’s poor. Indeed, it is a grave mistake to overlook tyranny or authoritarianism even when it is couched in the rhetoric of liberal reform and social justice. Ultimately, while Chavez’s vision of an end to poverty and the creation of a more equitable society is an honorable and an important one, his way of achieving these goals is not. Upholding democracy is infinitely more important than any of these other aims.

http://themoderatevoice.com/places/americas-n-s/latin-america/venezuela/14603/getting-real-about-chavez/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
beachmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 08:08 AM
Response to Original message
1. Thank you. Finally, some sanity on the DU boards about what
Chavez is about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 08:08 AM
Response to Original message
2. Nonsense - we had no term limits for President until FDR - and no harm or "dictator" was the
result.

This sounds planted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beachmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 08:10 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. I have heard this from other (non-right wing) sources.
Open your eyes instead of just believing what you want to believe while ignoring evidence to the contrary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Progressive Friend Donating Member (362 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #2
43. The authors of the Federalist Papers specifically argued against term limits for the president
It was the Republicans who rammed through the term limits amendment to the constitution after FDR's success.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spoony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #2
47. One teensy little difference
Abolishing such limits once they are in place isn't QUITE the same as never enacting them.

Something tells me you, I, and everyone else would have a decidedly unified opposition to Bush eliminating term limits, no?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Progressive Friend Donating Member (362 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #47
49. It wouldn't matter, Bush could not win a third term...
He is the most hated president since Nixon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #47
62. nope - term limits are via elections - Democracy does not depend on them - but GOP stolen elections
Edited on Mon Aug-20-07 09:47 PM by papau
is a major worry - we need audits as in the Holt bill.

A review on the elections won by Chavez discloses that he is the one running transparent auditable elections with protections against fraud and election theft - not the US - so perhaps he has more credibility than we do in making comments on dictatorships. The Carter site has long detailed reports on how elections are run in Venezuela - makes us look like a 3rd world dictatorship run by the rich and corporate via their party - the GOP - stealing elections.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ecstatic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #2
74. Because even our side can become blind and irrational
Your post is proof. That's why term limits are necessary regardless of who is in charge. Think about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 07:34 AM
Response to Reply #74
101. Democracy is people able to elect whomever they want - term limits limit democracy IMO n/t
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 08:10 AM
Response to Original message
4. Hey Wyldwolf! We Agree On This!
Chavez is bad, bad news.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 08:14 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. We both despise Bush, too. We agree on TWO things. Hey - do you like Mexican food?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #5
21. Having It For Lunch, As A Matter Of Fact
:wow:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #21
23. well, there's three things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #4
38. I think Hell just froze over.
:scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Larkspur Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 08:18 AM
Response to Original message
6. Another Reichwing/DLC hit piece on Chavez
Unlike Bush, Chavez is working to change the rules within Venezuelan law to change it. Bush is the real dictator and Dem leaders are the modern Neville Chamberlains. Chavez is closer to FDR than to a totalitarian leader.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 08:19 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Care to show the rightwing/DLC connection with this piece's author? No? Didn't think so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 08:31 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. yoo hoo! I know you're still on line this morning. Got that connection yet?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billyoc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #9
14. The DLC connection is you, wyldwolf. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 08:52 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. are you copping out for Lakespur or just copping out for yourself?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billyoc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 08:58 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. Neither, I'm a militant leftist and you're a centrist Democrat. Your .sig and
avatar say as much. It's not even a criticism of you and I don't know Lakespur, but
there's no corroborating evidence needed of a DLC connection beyond the fact that
you yourself made the OP. If you want to support the centrists, then that's what you
should do. I choose to fight them at every opportunity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #18
24. the conversation wasn't about me, it was about the author of the piece. YOU answered for Lakespur..
... so...? Can answer with a relevant reply?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billyoc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #24
28. My reply was about you, you seemed impatient for a DLC connection,
so I provided one. You.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #28
31. my replies stay on topic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billyoc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #31
32. Yes, I can see that. You are nothing if not consistent.
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WCGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #18
26. A militant leftist....
Does that mean you are ready to take up arms for the cause...

Just curious...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billyoc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #26
29. I've been arrested a few times for violence on picket lines, but I'm no Maoist.
I'll fight with scabs and cops, but I don't advocate overthrowing the government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #14
51. But Wyld didn't write the peice. What about the author or the site
is right wing or DLC? Or is it just that you disagree, and it's to the right of YOU?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
draft_mario_cuomo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 09:14 PM
Response to Reply #14
55. Is WW even a DLC member?
Edited on Mon Aug-20-07 09:15 PM by draft_mario_cuomo
Some people at DU act as if Harold Ford is secretly posting at DU as wyldwolf. Could WW just be a centrist Democrat who happens to believe in the DLC's ideas?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billyoc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #55
118. Wyldwolf is more well spoken than Harold Ford.
I never thought that ww was a DLC member, The only DLC connection to ww that I see
is being a Clinton supporter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-22-07 07:23 AM
Response to Reply #118
134. A little history, perhaps?
I'd never heard of the DLC until around '96.. but then never really paid much attention.

Then I started reading all sorts of vitriol on various message boards about the DLC - all of sudden - around late 2002.

So I started fact-checking the claims being made and found they, for the most part, were incorrect (sometimes willfully incorrect.)

Some people don't like truth squading. I do.

If I were an elected official, I would be DLC (but probably not Blue Dog)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1932 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 08:33 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. What do you make of Koogler arguing that US sponsored propaganda in the middle east doesn't go far
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 08:34 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. Relevance?
is that the stated position of the DLC?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1932 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 08:40 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. What do you make of his argument that US-funded propaganda isn't doing enough
to persuade the middle east they need to get on board with the US's plan for the middle east?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 08:53 AM
Response to Reply #12
17. Relevance?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Progressive Friend Donating Member (362 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #17
50. This proves that he was never a "Chavez supporter", he is a neocon
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 09:39 PM
Response to Reply #11
61. The relevance is that Koogler is not a left wing critic of Chavez.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #10
37. Did you even read that column? He was taking Joel Mowbay of the WSJ. Here's the article
Al-Hurra, the American-sponsored Arabic television network, has been embroiled in controversy in recent weeks. The controversy has gained center attention through the writings of Joel Mowbray in The Wall Street Journal who has lashed out at high-ranking members of the network’s current leadership. He suggests that al-Hurra is so badly run that they’ve allowed active support for terrorism and a sympathetic view towards Arab autocrats to become an evident part of their news coverage.

This whole controversy, though, is quite misleading. Mowbray seems to suggest that the network was successfully promoting democracy and supporting human rights until new, corrupt leadership suddenly made it all go astray. The problem with this line of reasoning, however, is that al-Hurra has never been successful in this regard. Indeed, they’ve rarely challenged Arab regimes or taken a strong line on important human rights issues. It’s quite amazing, actually, and somewhat bizarre to note that they’ve been extremely tepid in their coverage since their inception in 2004.

A more accurate critique of the network would point out that al-Hurra has always been a failed venture at public diplomacy, it has never gained a sizable viewing audience, and it has never furthered the causes that we wish it would. Criticizing the new leadership as soft on Arab autocrats and Islamic extremism is to miss to point: that’s the way it’s always been."

So what is rw, neocon or DLC about what he posted?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1932 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 08:50 AM
Response to Reply #37
102. He thinks US-sponsored ME propaganda doesn't do a good enough job
of undermining Arab governments.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #102
119. Yeah ok. Because no one should speak truth to autocratic regimes
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1932 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #119
130. As far as ME politics goes, it's the US that needs to be lectured on how to behave
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lojasmo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #6
22. No. Another rightwing, DLC drone posting on DU about Chavez
The fecklessness knows no bounds here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #22
25. ah, another DU reject who only comes around occasionally...
Edited on Mon Aug-20-07 10:07 AM by wyldwolf
How are things at echochamber4change?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sanskritwarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 02:44 AM
Response to Reply #25
91. Good show sir
I just spit powerade on my computer...........

echochamber4change..........I really like that, it describes the faux progressives so well.........
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ecstatic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 11:39 PM
Response to Reply #6
75. What about fixed elections resulting in a quasi dictatorship
Edited on Mon Aug-20-07 11:39 PM by Truth Hurts A Lot
I'm shocked that any liberal could ever support this. Some of you should take a step back, take a deep breath, and get a hold of yourselves.

You have to imagine what things would be like if a radical conservative got in under the same system. Would you approve of no term limits then? Think FIXED ELECTIONS, since that will be the ultimate result of an election system in which someone could pretty much serve for life. Duh! I cannot believe some of you don't see this.

It's hard to believe, but yes, sometimes good people turn rogue. Chavez started with the best of intentions but now he is drunk on power. He has lost control and sight of what's right and wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
On the Road Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #75
121. Can You Imagine..
You don't have to. The same thing was just done next door in Columbia. The silence is deafening.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1932 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 08:22 AM
Response to Original message
8. This just makes me wonder if Koogler even supported Chavez
Edited on Mon Aug-20-07 08:22 AM by 1932
This definitely smacks of the same sort of BS The Nation printed about Arbenz in support of the US-backed subversion of Guatemala's democratic government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 08:49 AM
Response to Reply #8
15. A seasoned great mind telling us all the truth which has eluded us, eh?
Here's his little personal background profile from "The Moderate Voice:"
Jeb Koogler is a student at Brown University studying international relations and Middle Eastern politics. He spent 2006 in the Middle East, studying Arabic at the University of Jordan and later at a private institute in Damascus. He currently writes a blog on American foreign policy, with a particular focus on US relations with the Arab world.
(snip)
http://themoderatevoice.powerblogs.com/

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


He doesn't sound at all bogus, does he? How many a-holes have we seen stop by D.U. to ALL tell us that they USED TO LIKE HUGO CHAVEZ but now they are disillusioned? Oh, har har har.

Please!

This has been going on soooo long. You are absolutely right. It's been done to death, and look how much good it has done to try to brainwash Americans. Sooner or later, they DO find out the truth!

No wave of manipulated public sentiment in the U.S. is going to keep ALL of Latin America from eventually taking its power out of the hands of the people with all the weapons and all the money and all the threats in Washington D.C. It's only right, after all this time.

Anything less would be criminal.

To the propaganda pushers, don't humiliate yourselves any longer. So many of us "really used to love" propaganda, and love the stupid interpretation you used, to tell us yokels how to view the world, when we were too lazy or unsuspecting to start finding out for ourselves. Well, It's all different now. we've got the time, and just don't need your underhanded input.

Thanks, but no sale.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilber_Stool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 08:41 AM
Response to Original message
13. I wonder how long he supported
Edited on Mon Aug-20-07 08:41 AM by Wilber_Stool
Chavez considering he is 19 now?

http://www.blogger.com/profile/7175736
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billyoc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 09:08 AM
Response to Reply #13
19. OMFG, that's great.
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #13
20. Oh, jeez. That's so pathetic. Hey, wait! Maybe he's a GENIUS! Maybe with a vast mind like his,
one of his intellectual years can be like 20 or 30 or our own. Mahhhhhvellous!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #13
30. LMFAO....19 years old? That's a lot of wordly experience.
Edited on Mon Aug-20-07 11:16 AM by Forkboy
He might not even be a virgin anymore!! :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #30
57. We didn't worry about age when it was Ava did we?
No one questions her virginity.

It seems we only care if we disagree with someone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 11:53 PM
Response to Reply #57
77. If you want to accept the views of a kid on a complex world issue feel free.
I could care less whether I agree with the person or not.The fact is,very,very few people that age have the world experience to deserve being taken seriously on such an issue.Excuse me for not taking seriously the views on political issues from someone who just turned old enough to vote for the first time,and probably just learned what the word "dictator" meant within the last year or two.

And the only Ava I can think of is Ava Gabor,and I don't think that's the one you had in mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sanskritwarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 02:46 AM
Response to Reply #77
92. LOL you know what Ava we are talking about
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 02:57 AM
Response to Reply #92
94. Actually,when I posted I didn't think of it.
I had only been awake ten minutes when I posted that.I thought of it after,but didn't feel like editing.

Still doesn't change anything about this kid though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sanskritwarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 02:50 AM
Response to Reply #30
93. Wow
I guess age isn't a factor as long as you worship Saint Hugo of the Fascists..........

And isn't Ava of the avant garde antiwar videos 16........I guess she is cool because she agrees with you and is so versed on a complex issue like the war.......I mean her 16 years on this planet means she is overqualified to give analysis or speak about the war..........
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 03:01 AM
Response to Reply #93
95. I have never spoken of,quoted,or even indirectly said a word about her.
I guess this Koogler is cool because he agrees with you and is so versed on a complex issue like war.

Kind of hard to point out one's hypocrisy while engaging in it yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sanskritwarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 03:03 AM
Response to Reply #95
96. Since when did I say I agreed with Koogler
I didn't..........
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 03:06 AM
Response to Reply #96
97. Cool,glad to hear it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Commie Pinko Dirtbag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 09:08 AM
Response to Reply #96
105. HA! WHO do you think you're fooling?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #105
124. No one.
Edited on Tue Aug-21-07 04:58 PM by Forkboy
But if he admits he agrees with Koogler than my charge of hypocrisy was spot on.Hence,he didn't admit it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #13
41. Jeb Koogler is old enough to join the military!
I strongly suggest he enlist at once! We don't want him to miss out on the invasion of Venezuela, which unfortunately is on hold pending our upcoming glorious victories in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran.

Brown University.... Blechhh!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #41
59. So we're sending off anyone we disagree with to Iraq, not just Republicans?
He doesn't sound like he wants to attack Venezuela. He merely no longer agrees with Hugo Chavez.

Isn't it possible to do that without it being suggested that the person one disagrees with should go and get themselves shot up in Iraq?

Meanwhile, that suggestion almost always comes from someone I thought was trying to end the war. How is sending more soldiers over there ending the war?

With any luck he'll die there, and there'll be one less person to disagree with you. Is that what you're after?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spoony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #13
45. 19 and already more insight than half the people on this thread
Pretty good so far, I'd say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #13
48. Chavez' first day of office was February 2, 1999. That means he would have become
Edited on Mon Aug-20-07 07:11 PM by Judi Lynn
a knowledgeable supporter of the Venezuelan people's elected president when he was 11 years old.

http://www.businessinnovationinsider.com.nyud.net:8090/archives/Child%20Prodigy-thumb.jpg http://www.chessbase.com.nyud.net:8090/puzzle/puzzle9/pics/prodigy02.jpg

Impressive!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 01:14 AM
Response to Reply #48
84. LMFAO...this whole thread has been great.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaJones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 10:35 AM
Response to Original message
27. thug life. nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 04:59 PM
Response to Original message
33. Jeb Koogler kick! A great mind like this should be celebrated! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 05:07 PM
Response to Original message
34. Ah, so after exhaustive search of the internet tubes
wolfie finds one blog entry from a former "leftie" turned neo-con Anti-Chavista...

Horrors!!!

I've changed my mind about Chavez! How could I have been so blind!!!

He's obviously a heinous dictator of the highest order...


:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. Yeah, and if ProudDad sees
the folly of his ways regarding Chavez then I must fall in line too. :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

Fucking dlc shyster shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 05:09 PM
Response to Original message
35. FYI
Edited on Mon Aug-20-07 05:14 PM by ProudDad
Jeb Koogler:

About the Author: Jeb Koogler is a 19-year-old student from Seattle. He is a student at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island.


Hmm, a college freshman. Guess a raging set of adolescent hormones kicked in...

Or maybe he got laid by a republican...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #35
39. Maybe he was smitten by the vision of another Young Republican kicking the bejesus
out of a downed Democratic female protester at the New York Republican Presidential Convention, and fatally attracted to the great white right-wing view of how Latin America is supposed to be governed! Spoil the death squads, risk populist leaders!



Mr. Young Republican
makes a name for himself.





Not to be outdone!

"A member of the audience pulls a demonstrator's hair as he forces her out of an auditorium where President Bush was addressing a crowd of supporters at Byers Choice in Colmar, Pa. {Source: Associated Press article with large photo.}"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #35
44. You'd be raving about his astute observations at such a young age if you agreed with him.
Edited on Mon Aug-20-07 06:50 PM by LittleClarkie
Everyone's entitled to an opinion. Mr. Koogler's appears to be well written. It's worth a read, at least.

How old was our own Ava when she went out to support Cindy and fight against the war. Did her age matter? Did anyone suggest that she must have just gotten laid by a Progressive?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chulanowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #44
66. I have yet to see lies and misinformation from Ava
Additionally, she works on existing facts - the conditions of the war, the reality of our political climate, the words of our troops, our government, the many other people she sources. She seeks a positive goal, the end of a criminal war against another nation

Koogler has given us a 100% speculative piece based primarily on faulty, easily undermined information that serves no real purpose other than to bitch about Hugo Chavez.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #66
67. Nevertheless her age didn't matter in that determination
Edited on Mon Aug-20-07 10:39 PM by LittleClarkie
Disagree with the guy. Call his facts faulty. But rude comments about his age just seem to be both beside the point and over the top. And of course it's speculative. It's an opinion piece.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chulanowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 01:27 AM
Response to Reply #67
85. Actually his age DOES matter
You did see the title of this thing, right?

Getting Real About Chavez: Confessions of a Former Chavez Defender

How about the first line of it?

For a long time, I’ve defended Hugo Chavez

He's using his "longtime defender" of Hugo Chavez to both sell his article and to make his case as someone worth listening to. The reader is expected to be interested in what, exactly, would make a longtime supporter of Chavez fall of the wagon. It is intended to plead the case as well - surely if Chavez has lost a self-avowed long time defender, he must have done something awful, right?

Unfortunately... the "long-time defender" is 19. Nothing wrong with being 19, pretty much everyone does it at some point or another. But as others have pointed out, Hugo Chavez got his political start in 1992 - when this defender of his was four years old. He was elected to the presidency in 1999 - when this young man was 11.

So a "long time" in this context would be, what exactly? A year? year and a half? When someone is leaning on their experience and "length of service" as the basis for an argument, how old they are does have a bearing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 01:29 AM
Response to Reply #85
87. "pretty much everyone does it at some point or another."
:rofl:

Great post!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 07:03 AM
Response to Reply #67
99. Her age would have mattered had she claimed "long term" anything.
Edited on Tue Aug-21-07 07:10 AM by Warren Stupidity
A 19 year old kid claiming to be a long term supporter of Chavez has a credibility problem right out of the gate.

Jeff proceeds to upchuck the standard litanty of bullshit against chavez. RCTV - oops forgot to mention that coup thing they helped with, or that Venezueal continues to have a vibrant free broadcast and print media. Rule by decree, which in Jeff's wisdom is "an unbelievably bold act" despite being routine in Venezuealan history. And of course "cult of personality" which seems to mean that Chavez is very popular.

Jeff does not appear to be too interested in the actual programs and policies that are being implemented in Venezuela, in the profound democratic socialist reforms that have uprooted the corrupt duoploy that ran the country for the benefit of the local elites and global corporations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 10:47 PM
Response to Reply #44
69. I'm not really dissing Koogler
Of course, he's entitled to his (immature non-factual based) opinion.

My comment was aimed more at the inability of the OP to make a fact-based argument supporting his knee-jerk anti-Chavista tendencies...

The best he can find is the adolescent wounded lover's reaction to perceived slights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 06:15 PM
Response to Original message
40. The Freepers and the DLCers are wetting their pants about Jeb Koogler
I'll put more credence on the workers, peasants, and indigenous people of Venezuela over the opinions of any investor-class American or Venezuelan elite, particularly one that just got out of grad school.

Some day the American working men and women will reject the class confusion and division that has been sown by the ruling class and their agents in both major parties. When that day comes, you will see what an empowered and organized working class is capable of accomplishing once free from the chains of oppression.

If we can get organized, we can run a factory. If we can run a factory, we can run a country!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 06:38 PM
Response to Original message
42. Printing out to read later
thanks.

All I want is opposing voices. People have the right to express them without being asked why they hate Chavez or hate the poor or being called corporatists, anti-Chavez, liars and the like.

The scariest thing about Chavez is his supporters.

To a smaller degree, I feel the same about some Cindy supporters.

Whenever that same "why do you hate... blank" defense comes out, it makes my teeth itch.

One should be able to express criticism without being called a hater.

And in case someone wants to call me a reigh winger, I expressed the same sentiment when it was the Democratic Party being criticized, and those critics were getting called haters.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 11:14 PM
Response to Reply #42
71. You deserve a civil honest answer.
Edited on Mon Aug-20-07 11:15 PM by ProudDad
Yes, we are occasionally somewhat defensive in some of these threads when the bullshit artists, pro-capitalist DLC clones and folks who just FUCKING REFUSE to learn a SINGLE FACT about what's going on in Venezuela show up with their "opinions", unencumbered by the thought process, of Chavez history, motives and actions...


When the anti-Chavistas begin using something other than the corporate capitalist right-wing spin machine against Chavez...

or engage in a rational dialogue with us about the things that the Bolivarian Revolution could do better without calling Chavez a "Thug, tin-pot dictator, talking about his 'smarmy ass'", ad nauseum...

or stop calling us names or applying bullshit characterizations like Chavez worshipers or fools or deluded or hell I don't know, being charactized as "the same as a Bushbot"...

or engage those of us who believe that Universal Medical Care, Universal "free" education pre-k through College and clean elections are a pre-requisites to a "democracy" -- Chavez is trying to do all of that in Venezuela -- Only Kucinich is trying to do that here (and those same anti-Chavistas also have nothing but insults for Dennis K)...


Then we can talk...


As for being called called "hater", the litany of insulting labels that have been applied to President (actually elected and re-elected unlike others we could name) Chavez would qualify those who use them unceasingly as haters...

If you'll peruse a few of these threads you'll find that most pro-Chavez posts try to either ask for a verification of "facts" from the anti-poster or supply facts about the situation to the obviously ignorant and only after being again insulted by the knee-jerk anti-Chavista posters get a little testy...

I know your posts, I wouldn't call you a right-winger...

This post was begun by one of the primary knee-jerk, corporate tool, Chavez haters (yes, hater) as flame bait and he got what he wanted...a flame war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Progressive Friend Donating Member (362 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 06:57 PM
Response to Original message
46. Note that Koogler's sources are "Human Rights Watch" and the "NY Times"
"Human Rights Watch" was set up by the neo-liberal (i.e. right-wing) billionaire George Soros, who has ties to the CIA and is hated all over Easten Europe for meddling in the internal affairs of their countries. "New York Times" is the big old corporate (pro-war) newspaper that supports the war in Iraq and US global domination. Koogler doesn't sound like much of a "Chavez supporter" (I doubt he ever was).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #46
52. How exactly do you reckon that George Soros is right wing?
From Wikipedia:

In an interview with The Washington Post on November 11, 2003,<21> Soros said that removing President George W. Bush from office was the "central focus of my life" and "a matter of life and death." He said he would sacrifice his entire fortune to defeat President Bush, "if someone guaranteed it", and many continue to state this as Soros's position even after Soros clarified the humorous nature of the statement in a Q&A session at the end of his March 3, 2004 address to California's Commonwealth Club.

Soros gave $3 million to the Center for American Progress, committed $5 million to MoveOn, while he and his friend Peter Lewis each gave America Coming Together $10 million. (All were groups that worked to support Democrats in the 2004 election.) On September 28, 2004 he dedicated more money to the campaign and kicked off his own multi-state tour with a speech: Why We Must Not Re-elect President Bush<22> delivered at the National Press Club in Washington, DC.

Soros was not a large donor to US political causes until the U.S. presidential election, 2004, but according to the Center for Responsive Politics, during the 2003-2004 election cycle, Soros donated $23,581,000 to various 527 Groups dedicated to defeating President Bush. Despite Soros' efforts, Bush was reelected to a second term as president in U.S. presidential election, 2004.


I suppose it depends on how far to the left you're standing when you look at them. There are those who think that both Soros and the New York Times are pretty far to the left, esp. considering Soros' support of Moveon.org. Are you suggesting Moveon.org is neo-liberal?

Where is his neo-liberal connection?

As for his "meddling in Eastern Europe" one thing he did was support the Solidarity Union in Poland. I'd say that was some pretty classy "meddling" personally.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nick303 Donating Member (379 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #52
54. There are a few problems here
Edited on Mon Aug-20-07 09:16 PM by nick303
1) You can find links to Internet websites that advocate almost any view.
2) There are people who think they are excellent Internet debaters because they can use Google to find these sites (say for example, the Chavez holy choir).

It's fun to blow off some steam debating these guys but don't be shocked when they come back with some obscure website that tries to argue that George Soros is a right-winger after all he's done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 11:18 PM
Response to Reply #54
72. Soros is a sinfully rich pro-capitalist booster
who is socially "liberal"...

His pro-capitalist bias qualifies as right-wing in the real world...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nick303 Donating Member (379 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 12:00 AM
Response to Reply #72
78. I don't think you live in the same "real world" as most people nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #78
115. Most of the sheeple
live in a world of wal-mart, football and M$M lies. The world of the "bread and circuses" supplied by the Empire for their amusement and distraction.

I don't live in that world.

I deal with cause and effect and the facts of the situation...that "real world" that your corporate capitalist masters don't want you to think about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #72
122. I'm not prejudiced against people for merely having money, even if they have lots of it
He seems to try to do good things with what he has. The mere fact that he is rich is not enough to demonize him.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #122
127. It's almost unheard of in this
corporate capitalist world economy for anyone with immense amounts of money not to have caused GREAT harm in the accumulation of same.

In Soros' case as a currency speculator, it's doubtless that he caused immense harm. As a capitalist cheerleader, he causes MORE harm.

He does a few good things too but, on balance, the bad far outweighs the good.


It's not enough that he hates bush -- the enemy of my enemy is not automatically my friend...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 08:53 PM
Response to Reply #46
53. Accurate points, as you well know. Also, the visitors started using that "used to like Chavez"
crap at least a couple of years ago, preparatory to launching attacks on Chavez on D.U. threads. It always seemed so bizarre, so obvious on its face, so DECEITFUL. (You always hate being lied to by stupid people!)

Here's what a very quick grab on Soros revealed, and of course, it's to be expected!
George Soros: Imperial Wizard/Double Agent



by Heather Coffin
December 9, 2003
This is not a case of narcissistic personality disorder; this is how George Soros exercises the authority of United States hegemony in the world today. Soros foundations and financial machinations are partly responsible for the destruction of socialism in Eastern Europe and the former USSR. He has set his sights on China. He was part of the full court press that dismantled Yugoslavia. Calling himself a philanthropist, billionaire George Soros' role is to tighten the ideological stranglehold of globalization and the New World Order while promoting his own financial gain. Soros' commercial and "philanthropic" operations are clandestine, contradictory and coactive. And as far as his economic activities are concerned, by his own admission, he is without conscience; a capitalist who functions with absolute amorality.

Master-builder of the new bribe sector systematically bilking the world He thrusts himself upon world statesmen and they respond. He has been close to Henry Kissinger, Vaclav Havel and Poland's General Wojciech Jaruzelski. 4 He supports the Dalai Lama, whose institute is housed in the Presidio in San Francisco, also home to the foundation run by Soros' friend, former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. 5 Soros is a leading figure on the Council of Foreign Relations, the World Economic Forum, and Human Rights Watch (HRW). In 1994, after a meeting with his philosophical guru, Sir Karl Popper, Soros ordered his companies to start investing in Central and Eastern European communications.

The Federal Radio Television Administration of the Czech Republic accepted his offer to take over and fund the archives of Radio Free Europe. Soros moved the archives to Prague and spent over $15 million on their maintenance. 2 A Soros foundation now runs CIA-created Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty jointly with the U.S. and RFE/RL, which has expanded into the Caucasus and Asia. 3 Soros is the founder and funder of the Open Society Institute. He created and maintains the International Crisis Group (ICG) which, among other things, has been active in the Balkans since the destruction of Yugoslavia. Soros works openly with the United States Institute of Peace-an overt arm of the CIA...
(snip)

NURTURING LEFT ANTI-SOCIALISM

Soros' Open Society Institute has a finger in every pot. Its board of directors reads like a "Who's Who" of Cold War and New World Order pundits. Paul Goble is Communications Director; 'he was the major political commentator at Radio Free Europe. Herbert Okun served in the Nixon State Department as an intelligence adviser to Henry Kissinger. Kati Marton is the wife of former Clinton administration UN ambassador and envoy to Yugoslavia, Richard Holbrooke. Marton lobbied for the Soros-funded radio station B-92, also a project of' the National Endowment for Democracy (another overt arm of the CIA), which was instrumental in bringing down the Yugoslav government.

When Soros founded the Open Society Fund he picked liberal pundit Aryeh Neier to lead it. Neier was the head of Helsinki Watch, a putative human rights organization with an anticommunist bent. In 1993, the Open Society Fund became the Open Society Institute.

Helsinki Watch became Human Rights Watch in 1975. Soros is currently on its Advisory Board, both for the Americas and the Eastern Europe-Central Asia Committees, and his Open Society Fund/Soros/OSI is listed as a funder. 29 Soros is intimately connected to HRW, and Neier wrote columns for The Nation magazine without mentioning that he was on Soros' payroll. 30

Soros is intimately involved in HRW, although he does his best to hide it. 31 He says he just funds and sets up these programs and lets them run. But they do not stray from the philosophy of the funder. HRW and OSI are close. Their views do not diverge. Of course, other foundations fund these institutions as well, but Soros' influence dominates their ideology.

George Soros' activities fall into the construct developed in 1983 and enunciated by Allen Weinstein, founder of the National Endowment for Democracy. Weinstein said, "A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA."32 Soros is operating exactly within the confines of the intelligence complex. He is little different from CIA drug runners in Laos in the 1960s, or the mujahedin who profited from the opium trade while carrying out CIA operations against socialist Afghanistan in the 1980s. He simply funnels (and takes home) a whole lot more money than those pawns, and he does much of his business in the light of day. His candor insofar as he expresses it is a sort of spook damage control that serves to legitimize the strategies of U.S. foreign policy.
(snip/...)
http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1438
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nick303 Donating Member (379 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 09:17 PM
Response to Reply #53
56. From SIA News? Banner "The voice of the right"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #56
68. My head hurts now
I can't get my brain wrapped around the idea that this person went to a right wing site to prove their point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 05:35 AM
Response to Reply #56
98. So are you saying the points made are incorrect? It's information I find worth posting.
IF they are erroneous, you'd better straighten us out!

By the way, many of us simply don't have the time to haunt the message boards, and don't have nearly enough time to sit for ages sifting through for the points we want highlighted which are published by a source you won't attempt to claim is not acceptable.

ARE THE FACTS ACTUAL? Are the names mentioned and their relationships accurate? If not, have at it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nick303 Donating Member (379 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #98
125. Ridiculous
1) First, you clearly spend much more time haunting this message board than I do. You're only fooling yourself with this pretense of being busy.

2) Secondly, it's funny how someone can post something from a neutral group like Human Rights Watch, and then the Chavez choir will show up to claim that that is a "corporatist" source. Meanwhile you grab something from "the voice of the right" and that's OK, which shows that you draw your conclusions beforehand and then jam some keywords into Google, calling the first passable results your "research".

3) The article seems to be a stream of consciousness rant. Its main idea is not clear. I guess some of it is factual, I'll admit I am not inclined to read the 50 links, each of varying quality, that it sources.

4) I find a lot of sources acceptable. Mostly things that would be allowed as a source in a high school or college paper. Most of the junk you link to is not in that set.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #56
116. I got a minute today to look for something from a different source which you, as a "progressive"
might consider. Finally got a free moment and felt it was a good time to underscore the point I attempted to make yesterday:
Many economists point out that the biggest winner in such a scenario would be Wall Street currency speculators who have been sending billions of dollars in "hot money" to Hong Kong and China, waiting to profit handsomely from the possible revaluation. During the 1997 Asian financial crisis it is estimated that currency speculators like George Soros and others pocketed millions, even billions, of dollars from the Asia currency devaluations at the expense of Asian people's life savings.

All this is not to say that the Solidarity Center doesn't do some good work, but with its acceptance of NED money and the AFL-CIO's right-wing policies, it's not helping the working class across the world advance labor rights or fight for a better life for workers. Rather, Solidarity Center's activities, covert and overt, serve the opposite goal: to prolong the oppression of working people and to promote the interests of multinational corporations and U.S. government.
(snip/)
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Labor/Labor_China_NED.html

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

There we go!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nick303 Donating Member (379 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 08:19 PM
Response to Reply #116
128. I wouldn't call myself a progressive
I'm a moderate, centrist Dem, or a corporatist capitalist DLC whore, if you prefer.

I still think your source is a raggedy Internet site.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-22-07 06:21 AM
Response to Reply #116
131. Adding another Soros article, one more detailed, for information's sake.
As I said earlier, many of us simply don't have the time available on a daily basis to drop everything and dive in there and start researching to throw light on a situation which gets a lot of right-wing spin.

More on George Soros:
It was Soros who saved George W. Bush’s bacon when his management of an oil exploration company was ending in failure. Soros was the owner of Harken Energy Corporation, and it was he who bought the rapidly depreciating stocks just prior to the company’s collapse. The future president cashed out at almost one million dollars. Soros said he did it to buy “political influence.”15 Soros is also a partner in the infamous Carlyle Group. Organized in 1987, “the world’s largest private equity firm” with over twelve billion dollars under management, is run by “a veritable who’s who of former Republican leaders,” from CIA man Frank Carlucci to CIA head George Bush, Sr. The Carlyle Group makes most of its money from weapons expenditures.THE PHILANTHROPIST SPOOKIn 1980, Soros began to use his millions to attack socialism in Eastern Europe. He financed individuals who would cooperate with him. His first success was in Hungary. He took over the Hungarian educational and cultural establishment, incapacitating socialist institutions throughout the country. He made his way right inside the Hungarian government. Soros next moved on to Poland, aiding the CIA-funded Solidarity operation and in that same year, he became active in China. The USSR came next. It is not coincidental that the Central Intelligence Agency had operations in all of those countries. The goal of the Agency was exactly the same as that of the Open Society Fund: to dismantle socialism. In South Africa, the CIAsought out dissidents who were anticommunist. In Hungary, Poland and the USSR, the CIA, with overt intervention from the National Endowment for Democracy, the AFL-CIO, USAID and other institutions, supported and organized anti-communists, the very type of individuals recruited by Soros’ Open Society Fund. The CIA would have called them “assets.” As Soros said, “In each country I identified a group of people-some leading personalities, others less well known-who shared my belief...”16 Soros’ Open Society organized conferences with anticommunist Czechs, Serbs, Romanians, Hungarians, Croatians, Bosnians, Kosovars.17 His ever expanding influence gave rise to suspicions that he was operating as part of the U.S. intelligence complex. In 1989, the Washington Post reported charges first made in 1987 by the Chinese government officials that Soros’ Fund for the Reform and Opening of China had CIA connections.18TAKING ON MOSCOW After 1990, Soros funds targeted the Russian educational system, providing the entire nation with textbooks.19 In effect, Soros ensured the indoctrination of an entire generation of Russian youth with OSI propaganda. Soros foundations were accused of engineering a strategy to take control of the Russian financial system, privatization schemes, and the process of foreign investment in that country. Russians reacted angrily to Soros’ legislative meddlings. Critics of Soros and other U.S. foundations said the goal of these maneuvers was to “thwart Russia as a state, which has the potential to compete with the world’s only superpower.”20 Russians began to suspect Soros and the CIA were interconnected. Business tycoon Boris Berezovsky said, “I nearly fainted when I heard a couple of years ago that George Soros was a CIA agent. “21 Berezovsky’s opinion was that Soros, and the West, were “afraid of Russian capital becoming strong.” If the economic and political establishment in the United States fear an economic rivalry from Russia, what better way to control it than to dominate Russian media, education, research centers and science? After spending $250 million for the “transformation of education of humanities and economics at the high school and university levels,” Soros created the International Science Foundation for another $100 million.22 The Russian Federal Counterintelligence Service (FSK)

Page 3
accused Soros foundations in Russia of “espionage.” They noted that Soros was not operating alone; he was part of a full court press that included financing from the Ford and Heritage Foundations; Harvard, Duke, and Columbia universities, and assistance from the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence services.23 The FSK criticized Soros’ payouts to 50,000 Russian scientists, saying that Soros advanced his own interests by gaining control of thousands of Russian scientific discoveries and new technologies to collect state and commercial secrets.24 In 1995, Russians were infuriated by the insinuation of State Department operative Fred Cuny into the conflict in Chechnya. Cuny’s cover was disaster relief, but his history of involvement in international conflict zones of interest to the U.S., plus FBI and CIA search parties, made clear his government connections. At the time of his disappearance, Cuny was working under contract to a Soros foundation.25 It is not widely known in the U.S. that the violence in Chechnya, a province in the heart of Russia, is generally perceived as the result of a political destabilization campaign on which Washington looks favorably, and may actually be directing. This assessment of the situation is clear enough to writer Tom Clancy that he felt free to include it as an assertion of fact in his best-seller, The Sum of All Fears. The Russians accused Cuny of being a CIA operative, and part of an intelligence operation to support the Chechen uprising.26 Soros’ Open Society Institute is still active in Chechnya, as are other Soros-sponsored organizations.
(snip)

Soros is very worried about the decline in the world capitalist system and he wants to do something about it, now. He recently said: “I can already discern the makings of the final crisis.... Indigenous political movements are likely to arise that will seek to expropriate the multinational corporations and recapture the ‘national’ wealth.”69 Soros is seriously suggesting a plan to circumvent the United Nations. He proposes that the “democracies of the world ought to take the lead and forge a global network of alliances that could work with or without the United Nations.” If he were psychotic, one might think he was having an episode. But the fact is, Soros’ assertion that “The United Nations is constitutionally incapable of fulfilling the promises contained in the preamble of its charter,” reflects the thinking of such reactionary institutions as the American Enterprise Institute.70 Though many conservatives refer to the Soros network as left-wing, on the question of U.S. affiliation with the United Nations Soros is on the same page as the likes of John R. Bolton, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs, who, with “any Republicans in Congress-believe that nothing more should be paid to the UN system.”71 There has been a decades long rightwing campaign against the UN. Now Soros is leading it. On various Soros web sites one may read criticism of the United Nations as too rich, unwilling to share information, or flawed in ways that make it unfit for the way the world should run

Page 7
according to George Soros. Even writers at The Nation, writers who clearly ought to know better, have been influenced by Soros’ ideas. William Greider, for instance, recently found some validity in Soros’ criticism that the United Nations should not be a venue for “tin-pot dictators and totalitarians...treated as equal partners.”72 This kind of Eurocentric racism is at the heart of Soros’hubris. His assumption that the United States can and should run the world is a prescription for fascism on a global scale. For much too long, Western “progressives” have been giving Soros a pass. Probably Greider and others will find the reference to fascism excessive, unjustified, even outrageous.
(snip)
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:pnjepiaemHgJ:www.leftgatekeepers.com/pdf/soros.pdf+George+Soros+neoliberal+right-wing&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mutineer Donating Member (659 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 09:19 PM
Response to Original message
58. So being 19 doesn't give you a brain?
Or the right to speak your mind? I guess so long as he's telling the truth about Chavez, the answer on this board, is no. But he's right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #58
73. He has his (immature) opinion
IMHO, he's WRONG...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 09:36 PM
Response to Original message
60. Koogler has never been a supporter of Chavez
This is almost as dishonest as those neocon cheerleaders a couple of weeks ago claiming to have been antiwar, and now they see the light at the end of the tunnel, er, I mean surge. His blog is OK as far as such things go (a smart high school kid interested in foreign policy), but he's more of a critic of US Latin American policy than a supporter of Chavez.

http://fpwatch.blogspot.com/search?q=chavez

From March 2007--
The US should flood Latin America with aid in order to target the region's abject poverty and undermine the popularity of anti-American firebrands like Hugo Chavez, argues former Peace Corps Director Mark L. Schneider in a recent article in the International Herald Tribune.


From 2005--
While casting America as a dangerous enemy, Chavez paints himself as the defender of Venezuela and the only barrier protecting his people from the aggressions of the North. It's classic Machiavelli.

"...a wise prince will seek means by which his subjects will always and in every possible condition of things have need of his government, and then they will always be faithful to him." (The Prince, p. 66)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robbien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 09:46 PM
Response to Original message
63. I call bullshit. This is a RW hit piece. Not one post in support of Chavez
in DU's history by wyldwolf. Searching both present and archives, there is no show of prior support by wyldwolf of Chavez. However there are thousands of posts by wyldwolf supporting the DLC and Blue Dogs and thousands of posts scorning anyone who dares to not support the corporatist viewpoint.

This is a hit piece mishmashed together drawn from every rabid right wing site one can find.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nick303 Donating Member (379 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 10:48 PM
Response to Reply #63
70. It's a linked article n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 09:49 PM
Response to Original message
64. How do you suppose he'd do on the quiz "A tale of two countries--which is which?"
Hint--both are in South America.

A. Granted its president the right to rule by decree in limited areas in April 2007.
B. Granted its president the right to rule by decree in limited areas in January 2007.

A. Its president blocked the renewal of the broadcast licenses of two TV stations and three radio stations in April 2007.
B. Its president blocked the renewal of the broadcast licenses of one TV station in May 2007 and has made threatening noises about a second.

A. During its last election cycle, its president was elected with 51% of the vote.
B. During its last election cycle, its president was elected with 67% of the vote.

A. Almost nobody but hard core internets tubes users know anything about what's been happening in this country recently.
B. A lot of users of regular media in the US and elsewhere have heard the name of this country and worry that it might become a dictatorship if it isn't already.

A. On the subject of this country we hear from the US House, the US Senate, and leading presidential candidates--crickets.
B. On the subject of this country we hear from the US House, the US Senate, and leading presidential candidates--thundering and righteous condemnation.


Vanna--the envelope, please!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chulanowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 10:21 PM
Response to Original message
65. I believe this is quite overblown
He did not cancel RCTV's license - The government dimply did not renew it. Given that the station was giving false and libelous "news" reports , advocating violent coup, and praising assassination attempts, I can't find this refusal to renew a broadcasting license to be very alarming. In fact I would hope that if FOX News ever sinks to the level that RCTV did (amazingly, this station makes FOX look good, how 'bout that?) their request for a license renewal will likewise be denied.

As others have noted, Chavez is entirely within the law to ask for the removal of term limits. This is not the method to autocracy - there is no subterfuge, no threat, not even a "national crisis". Providing free and fair elections, I would even say the removal of term limits of more democratic. Let the people elect who they want. If they think this one schlub can do the job each and every election, then by all means, they should be free to keep putting him in office.

But. Let's say I'm wrong. Let's say Chavez is making an attempt to become some tin-pot dictator, even if he's doing it without coercive measures and within Venezuelan law. Would it be preferable, in so many minds, that there instead be a more "democratic" government there such as the one we see in Colombia? This was, after all, the aim of the US-backed coup attempt. I suppose if your tax dollars pay for something, you kind of want to agree with it, huh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalsoldier5 Donating Member (248 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 11:41 PM
Response to Original message
76. Excellent Post!!
:toast:

It is very unfortunate that there are so many people here at DU who are fringe leftists first, and Democrats second.

I'm a Democrat because I love democracy, and am proud to be in the same party as FDR, JFK, and Clinton- three men who would take none of Hugo's shit. No matter how popular a leader might be or how liberal his beliefs may be, TOTALITARIANISM IS ALWAYS WRONG. I often wonder if the same people who use the "well, ugh, Chavez has the support of the people" argument would be as relaxed and supportive if Bush pulled the same power-grabbing stunts after 9/11 (90% approval rating era).

I'm with the mainstream liberals like Jon Stewart, the Clintons, Charlie Rangel, and Nancy Pelosi (certainly not neocons) when it comes to this crackpot Chavez: He's just a "thug." (Nancy's word)

My word for people who find ways to support ruling by decree and shutting down opposition media in the name of leftism: Kooks. :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tkmorris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 12:02 AM
Response to Reply #76
79. So let me get this straight
1) You love Democracy.

2) The Venezuelan people elected Chavez, and by all accounts continue to support his presidency by an overwhelming margin.

3) You think that Chavez is a "thug", and a "totalitarian".

Have I got that about right? Let me ask you a question, do you think the Venezuelan people are all "kooks" or is it just barely possible that they know their president better than you do, and perhaps their knowledge of the man hasn't been colored by the ridiculous reporting about him in the US press?

Or do you perhaps think that Democracy is great, but it shouldn't apply to Venezuelans? Can't they have the president they want? What gives you any say in the matter at all? And, if you are just expressing your opinion because, well, you have one, why is Chavez your target? The country right next to him has a president with a FAR worse record, and yet none of the Chavez critics ever offer up so much as a peep against him. Why is that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalsoldier5 Donating Member (248 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 12:17 AM
Response to Reply #79
80. Arguing with the fringe is almost too easy...
1) Yes, I love democracy- even if it means right-wingers get elected from time to time.

2) The Venezuelan people elected the guy, and continue to support him without any intimidation from the hard-line, government backed Left I'm sure. :sarcasm:

3) Yes, I agree with our country's mainstream (and that includes Pelosi) and think shutting down opposition media is rather thuggish.

Now let me ask you a question: If after 9/11, when Bush was at 90% in approval ratings, he decided to shut down the New York Times and The Nation Magazine and vowed to deport all Arab Americans BUT had most of the public behind him, would you still justify such behavior in the name of "the people want it that way"?

Leftism/Socialism by means of popular dictatorship IS WRONG. ALWAYS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 12:36 AM
Response to Reply #80
81. There never was a shutdown, and Chavez opposition owns 80% of the media
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/081507D.shtml

Most consumers of the international media will be surprised to find that the controversy over Venezuela's oldest TV station, RCTV, is still raging. We were repeatedly informed that President Hugo Chavez "shut down" the station on May 27th. But in fact the station was never "shut down" - since there is no censorship in Venezuela. Rather, the Venezuelan government decided not to renew the broadcast license that granted RCTV a monopoly over a section of the publicly-owned frequencies.

This is a big distinction, although the U.S. and international press blurred it considerably. Jose Miguel Insulza, the head of the Organization of American States, noted last month that the "Venezuelan government is empowered to do what it did (non-renewal of the license)" and cited Brazilian President Lula Da Silva's statement that not renewing RCTV's broadcast license was as democratic an act as granting it. Insulza added that "democracy is very much in force in Venezuela."

These comments were not reported in the U.S. or other major media. Nor was Lula's original statement of the same argument. Nor was the statement of Lula's top foreign policy advisor, Marco Aurelio Garcia, who said "there are few countries in the world with as much freedom of the press as in Venezuela."

RCTV has not laid off any of its 3000 employees, and may reach as much as half the population through its cable and satellite operations. But the station is now battling the government again, claiming that it should not be subject to government regulation - including the law, which pre-dates Chavez, that domestic stations carry the president's speeches - because it is an international station. The government argues that RCTV is a domestic outlet because almost all of its production and audience are in Venezuela.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tkmorris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 12:43 AM
Response to Reply #80
83. I'll play
Only, we can't use the New York Times because a newspaper is not quite the same as a television station. One requires a license to use public airwaves while the other does not. So let's say at random we are talking about say NBC.

If NBC had inspired, encouraged, and participated in a coup attempt against Mr. Bush, in apparent collusion with elements of a foreign government, and Mr. Bush merely refused to renew their license to broadcast over public airwaves some years after the coup attempt, I would wonder what the hell took him so long. You do know that the station in question still exists right? And that it can stay on cable all it wants to, it simply has lost it's right to the PUBLIC airwaves?

Furthermore Chavez isn't deporting anyone, don't know where you got that one from.

He also is not a dictator. Dictators seize power, Chavez was asked to lead the country by the voters. If you have evidence of government intimidation, as you alluded to, I would suggest you share it because there are a ton of people that hate Chavez and would pay DEARLY for such evidence.

And BTW, Bush has in fact been seizing more and more power to the executive office since 9/11. As a result, his approval is currently in the toilet. If he stood for another election, he get his face handed to him. And that my friend, is Democracy. The people decide. The Venezuelan people have, and you have no reason to be pissed they didn't consult you first.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tkmorris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 02:02 AM
Response to Reply #80
88. For someone who finds it "easy" to debate the "fringe"
You sure bailed awfully quickly. Do come back, I enjoy opportunities to refute the anti-Chavez nonsense.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killbotfactory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 02:11 AM
Response to Reply #80
89. I would have no problem with Bush bumping an 'opposition' station to cable
If they tried to overthrow the government and abolish the constitution, like RCTV did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 07:08 AM
Response to Reply #80
100. Re (2)
"2) The Venezuelan people elected the guy, and continue to support him without any intimidation from the hard-line, government backed Left I'm sure"

Do you have any evidence for your assertion here that voter intimidation is responsible for the electoral success of Chavez and the Bolivarian Party?

Please post that evidence.

"Leftism/Socialism by means of popular dictatorship IS WRONG. ALWAYS."
As Chavez and the Bolivarian Party are working within a constitutional democratic framework, this would not be relevant.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #80
112. Then you are in serious need of another screen name - you are NOT a fellow LIBERAL.
Edited on Tue Aug-21-07 11:02 AM by ShortnFiery
GAWD, don't you hate it when DLC and New Way Centrists parade as "leftists" and/or "liberals?" :thumbsdown:

Proud to be a part of the LIBERAL "fringe." :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalsoldier5 Donating Member (248 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #112
114. Then Nancy Pelosi is "not a fellow liberal" either.
Or your views are beyond the fringe. One or the other. :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-22-07 06:30 AM
Response to Reply #114
132. That is a particularly poor choice.
Pelosi has demonstrated that she is very much a part of the War Party. But progressive politics is all just 'the fringe' to you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Douglas Carpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #76
106. If a leading American TV network openly participated in a violent coup against the democratically
Edited on Tue Aug-21-07 10:05 AM by Douglas Carpenter
elected government, do you believe that their license to use public airways should be renewed?

And I might add that when the coup leaders (which included the enthusiastic participation of these "opposition TV stations" management) - temporarily seized power and overthrew Venezuelan democracy, their first actions included arresting all THEIR opposition they could find,(Something Chavez NEVER did) shutting down and completely censoring the media, dismissing the constitution, dismissing the Attorney General and dismissing the democratically elected Congress and dismissing the entire judiciary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 12:39 AM
Response to Original message
82. Now let's hear your defense of Columbia's death squads
I assume you don't think that accounting for half of all the world's murders of union organizers makes Uribe a "dictator."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killbotfactory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 01:27 AM
Response to Reply #82
86. Uribe didn't call Bush the Devil
But, more to the point, he doesn't threaten US business interests, so he could act like Hitler for all the US cares.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 02:32 AM
Response to Original message
90. First 5 pages from Google is this blog making the "Hugo is Evil" circuit.
Reich-wing and "Moderate" Democrats both, spreading this confession of a former Chavez supporter.

meh.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maribelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 09:01 AM
Response to Original message
103. Mud Slides
In 1999, one year after Chavez was elected, massive mud slides destroyed whole urban areas and shanty-towns across the country. The poor that were not killed became homeless with no clothing, food, or possessions.

Why was there this total devastation to the poor of Venezuela?

Before the mud slides, I left Venezuela not comprehending two issues. Why were the poor living in such abject poverty in a Catholic country, arguably one of the richest in South America at the time? Why was this abject poverty literally dripping down the mountain sides - - where the scenic, panoramic views had to have been breathtaking, areas where in this country overlooking the ocean and a huge city would be considered expensive property?

After the mud slides, I understood. Simply put - - the poor were driven up into the dangerous hills by the rich. They had no other place to live.



Venezuela has the hemisphere's largest oil reserves and is America's No. 1 foreign source of crude. But because a corrupt elite, los cogollos (slang for big shots), has pillaged the country's oil wealth for generations, 80% of Venezuela's people live in poverty--and each year, searching for jobs, they scratch their way onto Caracas' perilous mountainside real estate. In those vertical, collapsible slums, potable water is a luxury, and violent crime is among the worst in South America. "We live in a constant state of emergency," said one rancho community leader.

That is largely why Venezuelans last year elected the populist, corruption-busting Chavez ...


Entombed In the Mud
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,36504,00.html



Why I'll bet the corrupt elite "pray in their catholic churches" for a violent end to Chavez. Allowing the people to democratically elect him for a third term would be something they could not tolerate. These los cogollos refuse to live as the Cubans in Miami have done for decades, self-exiled because of their greed and evil ways.

But the horrors suffered by the poor in Venezuela should be reason enough for these creeps to become "self-exiled."




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #103
113. Thanks so much for posting the article, Maribelle. Really helpful.
It's clear to see if things could have remained exactly as they were, the situation would have remained that way perpetually, if the people could have even survived it. The oligarchy has absolutely no social conscience whatsoever, obviously, considering how easily they embraced the results of "El Caracazo," when Carlos Andres Perez had had the military shoot directly into the crowds of poor protesting his measures which raised the cost of their public transportation, etc. wildly beyond their ability to pay.

He pushed them past the point of no return in 1989, and started the movement against the possibility that it could ever happen again at that very moment. I hope the peoples' response is thorough, and will put that possibility completely out of reach for future Venezuelan Presidents.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 09:07 AM
Response to Original message
104. It sickens me that many people here would support left-wing authoritarians...
...just because they are left-wing. I'm a socialist so make no mistake, I support Chavez's economic policies but I find his authoritarian tendencies disturbing. We shouldn't be apologizing for Chavez's authoritarianism just because he's "our" authoritarian. A "benevolent, populist dictator" is still a dictator.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maribelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #104
109. Chavez is not a dictator. That is merely a myth pushed by right wing fascists.
He wants to be democratically elected for a third term. If he were in fact a dictator, he would not need to be "democratically elected" again, now would he?

Nationalizing oil, which had been corrupted by the rich, does not make him a dictator.

Refusing fascists to broadcast "a violent overthrow of the government" on public airways is something that would have been done in this country.
So this, also, does not make him a dictator.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #109
123. Only partially true.
Having no term limits is fine in a country with a very strong tradition of liberal democracy. But where such traditions are not as strong term limits are necessary to protect the government from people with dictatorial tendencies. And as I stated before, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH CHAVEZ'S ECONOMIC POLICIES, so don't you dare claim that I'm bashing Chavez because he nationalized the oil industry (something I think should be done here, BTW). Oh, and I don't like what the right-wing morons in Venezuela spew, but it is the duty of anyone who loves Liberal Democracy to defend thier right to say it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maribelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-22-07 08:23 AM
Response to Reply #123
137. "Term limits" have absolutely nothing at all to do with protection from dictators.
Part 1 - Term Limits will do nothing to prevent coups

Sadly, the history of South America is fully supplied with political instability and repression under dictatorial regimes with sudden and sometimes violent overthrow of governments and seizure of political power, especially by the military, regardless of democratic elections. And as those countries continue to struggle with widespread, abject poverty, we watch the vast natural resources of these countries squandered on the rich and powerful. There is a long list of those that have done great damage to South America - - here are but a few.

1908 Juan Vicente Gómez – a military general intermittent dictator in Venezuela, which continued until 1935. He first seized power from President Cipriano Castro on December 19, 1908, while Castro was in Europe for medical treatment

1924–32 Carlos Ibáñez ruled Chile as a quasi-dictator, following a coup that overthrew President Arturo Alessandri (1868–1950). Ibáñez serves as president between 1927 and 1931, and between 1952 and 1958.

1930–34 Getúlio Dornelles Vargas dictator in Brazil. Between 1934 and 1937, he served as the elected president, as dictator between 1937 and 1945, as senator between 1946 and 1951, and finally as elected president between 1951 and 1954.

1946-72 In Ecuador the military led the government on and off from 1946 through 1972. The greatest example of the military leader assuming dictatorial powers in Ecuador is José Mariá Velasco Ibarra

1954–89 Alfredo Stroessner dictator in Paraguay threw President Federico Chávez' out of office in a coup d'état on May 4, 1954. Stroessner’s regime generally suppressed political opposition, and he is known for allowing Nazi war criminals to seek refuge in Paraguay.

1968-1975 General Velasco seized power on October 3, 1968 in a military coup . He the quintessential military dictator in Peru. Velasco overthrowing an elected and comparatively well liked president in Fernando Belaúnde Terry


Part 2 - Propagating a violent coup d'é·tat to overthrow a democratically elected president


Please forgive me if I truly believe irony abounds when one supports "the violent overthrow of a democratically elected president being telecast over public airways" on one hand, and on the other hand preaches that "term limits will protect the people from dictators." Public airways are not places where one can say anything they want. When Chavez closed down the perps, he did not prevent them from publishing their hate in other ways - - cable, the internet, printed brochures ...

Part 3 - don't you dare claim that I'm bashing Chavez because he nationalized the oil industry

I didn't. So I want to simply forget about the "don't you dare" idioglossia, where someone else might not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 09:56 AM
Response to Original message
107. Sorry wyldwolf, but knowing what I know about you here, I don't believe that you ever liked Chavez
much less openly support him. Really?!? No, like the right wing republicans who call in and rue that "the democratic party has left them" :eyes:, methinks that this is part of another New Way Campaign in support of *all things Corporate.* ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #107
108. and knowing what I know about you here, your reply isn't at all surprising (holding back laughter)
psst! I didn't write the piece.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #108
110. "I didn't write the piece. " True, but it's so much easier to smear than support the positive.
If anything, you are predictable. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #110
111. you're like the kid who loses a race then claims "my foot was hurting."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DuaneBidoux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 12:23 PM
Response to Original message
117. Indeed! The seduction of power does not just infect the right. All humans are vulnerable.
He is starting out exactly the way every single communist country started out. The rhetoric is identical.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 01:15 PM
Response to Original message
120. I'll take Chavez over any Saudi Arabian king any day
My car drives on Chevron gas exclusively. Compared to how the Saudi royal family treat their citizens as well are linked to the 9/11 terrorists (if you believe that story), I'll support Venezuela any day.

No, Chavez is not perfect. He is indeed a dictator. There are many of them in the World and they have have their fate in their hands sooner when they assume authoritarian power.

I would suggest people see the movie:






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
d_b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 06:55 PM
Response to Original message
126. *fart*
dictator dedicated to the poor > dictator dedicated to washington



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
justinaforjustice Donating Member (519 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 08:22 PM
Response to Original message
129. Venezuela's Doing Fine, It's the U.S. That's The Undemocratic Disaster
Let's look first at the the background profile of 19 year old Jeb Koogler from "The Moderate Voice" first quoted by a commentator above:"

"Jeb Koogler is a student at Brown University studying international relations and Middle Eastern politics. He spent 2006 in the Middle East, studying Arabic at the University of Jordan and later at a private institute in Damascus. He currently writes a blog on American foreign policy, with a particular focus on US relations with the Arab world."


I don't fault Mr. Koogler for his age; at 19, a few months can seem like a long time, but I do fault his lack of knowledge and experience with Latin American. It does not appear, from either his article nor his background profile, that he has any knowledge, personal or academic, about the reality of life and politics in Venezuela.

Like many anti-Chavez writers on this blog, it appears he gets all his information from the western press or U.S. State Department press releases, which are frequently one and the same.

If Mr. Koogler is truly a student of Middle Eastern politics, it appears he has learned nothing about the Bush-Cheney's devotion to fabricating facts: they lied to us about Iraq and are now lying to us about Venezuela. The Western media meekly reprints their fabrications.

I am an American lawyer who has been living in Venezuela since February of this year, prior to that I visited Venezuela and kept current on its politics from a variety of world and internet sources.

President Chavez has in no wise deviated from the strict terms of the Venezuelan Constitution. The authority to act by decree is in that Constitution. The enabling legislation received lengthy debate in the Venezuelan National Assembly, a freely elected body comparable to our Congress. President Chavez was given this power by a specified length of time previously to deal with specific issues. He dealt with those issues as authorized and the power lapsed after the specified period. He has again been given special authorization by the National Assembly for a specific purposes, which he is carrying out according to law.

President Chavez has won 4 national elections since 1998, all of which were reported to be fair and honest by international observers; he received an increasing number of votes at each election. During the last election, in 2006, President Chavez campaigned on a socialist platform. He was supported by some 23 political parties. He has been given the special powers to implement his platform, as the voters wanted.

President Chavez did not "close down" RCTV, it is still providing programing today in Venezuela by means of cable and satellite feeds. What the Venezuelan government did was refuse to extend RCTV's 20 year broadcasting license when it expired on May 29, 2007.

RCTV has a long history in Venezuela of broadcasting in the fashion of Fox Network. Not only did they violate the national laws against broadcasting ads for tobacco and liquor, but also disseminated pornographic materials. They then refused to pay the fines imposed by the Venezuelan version of the FCC. The law against these things long pre-dated President Chavez's election.

During the 2002, the RCTV offices were a virtual command center for those who illegally attempted a coup against the lawfully elected government. The head of RCTV was one of the key actors in the coup attempt. They kidnapped President Chavez and installed Pedro Carbona, formerly head of the Venezuelan Chamber of Commerce, into power. Mr. Carbona proceeded to close down the elected National Assembly and the Supreme Court. He instituted martial law.

During the time that President Chavez's supporters were rescuing him from the island to which he had been removed and millions of people were demonstrating in the streets for his return, RCTV shut down its news operation completely, refused to broadcast news about the demonstrations supporting President Chavez, and broadcast cartoons for three days instead.

If any U.S. media outlet had acted similarly to RCTV, their management would have been fined, their license revoked and their management sent to jail. As in the U.S. it is illegal to incite the violent overthrow of the government.

President Chavez, however, acted more than judiciously. He did not close down RCTV or revoke its license. He did not prosecute its management for treason. The Venezuelan government merely refused to renew its broadcasting license when it came up for renewal. The channel has now been given over to an independent public broadcasting foundation, which is operating in a far more democratic fashion than RCTV ever did.

On the issue of human rights violations, I suggest that Mr. Koogler review the Amnesty International Reports on Venezuela, Colombia and the United States. He will find that Colombia, a U.S. ally, has an absolutely horrendous record on human rights, as does the U.S. By comparison, Venezuela is a bastion of civil liberties. Indeed, after living here, I can say that it is.

Unlike the U.S. and Colombia, innocent people are not kidnapped and tortured and jailed without trial as a matter of government policy.

As to term limits, as other commentators have noted above, the founders of the U.S. Constitution did not see fit to restrict our democracy by placing term limits on the presidency. The Republicans did that in reaction to the popularity of Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was elected to four terms by U.S. voters.

I too would be horrified to contemplate the possibility of George Bush serving more terms in office. Venezuela, however, has a constitutional mechanism for removing a renegade president. Their constitution provides that a national referendum can be held to remove a president during his term. Initiating the referendum requires the signatures of only 10% of eligible voters.

After failing in their coup attempt, and failing to bring down the Chavez government with an illegal oil strike, the oppositionists were able to initiate a referendum to recall President Chavez in 2005. The vast majority of voters voted against recalling President Chavez from office in that referendum. Then, in 2006, they again returned him to office with 68% of the vote. It should be noted that 85% of all eligible voters voted in the 2006 elections. It was found to be fair and honest by the Carter Center and the European Union's observers.

In the new constitutional reforms proposed by President Chavez, he calls for public financing for all elections, open access to public buildings for election meetings and rallies, and open access to the media for all candidates. In effect, this last provision establishes a "fairness doctrine" so all candidates can access the media.

The new reforms also gives constitutional standing to the community councils which are being established all over Venezuela. Community groups comprised of a minimum of 200 families are given the right to vote on community priorities and political issues and initiate community improvements, with direct funding and technical assistance from the government for carrying out the improvements. Far from establishing a dictatorship, President Chavez is making participatory democracy an actual reality in Venezuela.

Would that such democracy were a reality in the U.S. It is not. Our Constitution has been demolished by a handful of neo-conservatives who represent only the rich corporations. As long as we allow the rich corporations to buy our presidents and congressional representatives, as long as there is no public funding of elections in the U.S., we might as well be living in a banana republic.

Mr. Koogler might better spend his time working to restore U.S. democracy rather than attacking that in Venezuela. The Venezuelans are doing just fine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JunkYardAngel Donating Member (27 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-22-07 07:15 AM
Response to Reply #129
133. Thanks for your post
It's nice to see some cold hard facts about Venezuela and Chavez from someone on the spot, instead of opinions based on second hand "information" and fear mongering straight from the corporate media.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-22-07 07:36 AM
Response to Reply #129
135. It's wonderful seeing what's happening there, and to hope that what appears to be a strong
movement, an awakening in Latin America, can't be stopped by special outside interests hell bent on controlling Latin American resources and politics, grinding the poor back down into easily manageable cheap labor simply by killing off so many of them the survivors become too terrified to resist any longer.

It's important to so many that decency will win this time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-22-07 07:41 AM
Response to Original message
136. What utter bullshit.
Thanks but no sale - I'll trust the well researched Judi Lynn and others who KNOW what's going on, as opposed to some juvinile hack whose background and record doesn't match what he's spewing...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Don1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-22-07 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #136
138. Yup.
We need to expose this and other anti-Chavez propaganda here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3467240
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 02:46 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC