Persuade John Kerry to change his mind about Chavez and Venezuela

[Classical_Liberal]

I am assuming Kerry said these things in ignorance.

refer to Du post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=476907&mesg_id=476907

Here is the link to the Kerry campaign's email.

http://www.johnkerry.com/contact/contact.php?sendto=1

Try to give constructive criticism, rather than verbal abuse. Rebut Kerry's points specifically. Also tell Kerry why it is to his advantage to support Chavez. Make specific points about "the oppositions" links to George Bush.

For reference use the Palast archive

http://www.gregpalast.com/columns.cfm?subject_id=20&subject_name=Latin%20America

Keep this kicked

[Classical_Liberal]

1. Kick

Kick!

[David__77]

2. He will not change his mind.

I disagree with Kerry strongly on this point. But I'm a Cynthia McKinney Democrat, not a DLC Democrat. I strongly support Kerry. There's no contradiction.

Kerry is not a solid progressive and is supportive of bad foreign policies that enforce US hegemony. This won't change. But progressives must support Kerry and defeat our common foe--Bush and his anti-Constitutional cabal.

[Classical_Liberal]

3. I never suggested we shouldn't support Kerry

but I think He can change his mind. He said he voted for the IWR because of Bush misinformation. I assume this is the same thing. Anyway it is worth a shot.

[Bombtrack]

4. Kerry can not bash Chavez, but he shouldn't support that scumbag

The man cozies up to half of the most rechid modern tyrants(Castro, Hussein, Mugabe), bashes America(not just Bush) on a regular basis, and solidifies his own power with strongarm tactics and squelching of dissent. No US president should support that. Elect Lyndon LaRouche if you want that

[Classical_Liberal]

5. Chavez is democratically elected`

unlike any of those dictators you just mentioned. He hasn't cozied up with any of them, though he maintained diplomatic relations. The US maintains such relations with undemocratic leaders as well. His opposition are the undemocratic ones who are trying to squlelch dissent. Read Palasts archive or do you question Palast and think Bush was democratically elected?

[Bombtrack]

6. So you should support everyone who's democratically elected?

Putin and Berlusconi were democratically elected, should I think that they should be supported because of that? Chavez attempted a coup himself before he was elected and he used derision and polarization (and anti-americanism) to get himself elected which he continues. The US president should not support one thug over another.

[Classical_Liberal]

It was a coup against a dictator

Putin and Berlusconi are right wingers. Chavez is a lefty. He has politics more like me than his opposition who are friends of Bush and Cheney.

[Padraig18]

8. So was Adolph Hitler.

A reprehensible thug is still a reprehensible thug, no matter how they got to be in power...

[Classical_Liberal]

9. Adolf is a right winger and elected with a small plurality owing

to a flawed constitution, there was also a back room deal involving German conservative Otto Von Bismark. Chavez is a liberal. Big difference between Chavez and Hitler.. The opposition to Chavez are composed of fascists and Bush supporters. They would all vote repuke in this country. Why is Kerry supporting republicans?

[Padraig18]

10. Chavez is a THUG

'Liberal', my Irish ass-- he's authoritarian.

[Classical_Liberal]

11. Citation Proof?

examples? I am waiting.

[Padraig18]

15. I don't play horseshit games.

And I won't play that one.

[Classical_Liberal]

18. In other words you can provide a citation for Chavez `

being an authoritarian.

I can provide a great proof that he is not

CHAVEZ VERSUS THE FREE TRADE ZOMBIES OF AMERICAS

GregPalast.com
November 28, 2003
Greg Palast
reporting from Caracas

It's as if they were locked in a crypt for the last ten years. The finance ministers of every Latin American nation last week signed on to a resolution in principle to join the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), the hemispheric expansion of NAFTA.

The walking corpse of Argentina's economy was there, as well as the long-deceased body of Ecuador and several other South American nations whose economies were long ago murdered and buried by the free trade and free market nostrums of the World Bank and the IMF.

Yet on they came. Stiff-legged, covered in rotting bandages, the official zombies marched to Miami to pledge, one and all, to sign on for their next dose of free market poison.

Every nation but one: Venezuela, the single and solitary nation to say "no thanks" at Miami's treaty of the living dead economies. Today, I met up with Venezuela's chief FTAA negotiator. Victor Alvarez was saved from zombification by his sense of humor. He noted that while the Bush Administration was preaching free trade to their dark-skinned compatriots south of the border, the USA itself was facing one of the largest penalties in World Trade Organization history for raising tariffs on steel products. He would have laughed out loud in Miami if it didn't hurt so much: the illegal US trade barriers have closed two steel plants in Venezuela........

http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/ftaa/1303.html

[Padraig18]

20. And editorail isn't 'proof', friend.

It's an opinion, and opinions are like assholes--- everyone has one, and they all stink.

Chavez is a THUG.

[Classical_Liberal]

23. So do you think Bush won the election?

? Are you saying Palast the man that uncovered the vote theft in florida is a liar?

[Padraig18]

25. Did I use the word 'lie'?

No, I did not. And FL has nothing to do with Chavez. :wtf:

[Classical_Liberal]

28. If it weren't for Palast there would have been no election theft

story.

http://www.gregpalast.com/columns.cfm?subject_id=1&subject_name=Theft%20of%20Presidency

[Padraig18]

30. WTF does that have to do with Chavez?

Nothing, that's what. :eyes:

[Classical_Liberal]

33. Same reporter on both stories thats what.

If we can't trust Palast on Chavez why should we trust him on election theft?

[Padraig18]

37. So freakin' WHAT?

no one has to march in lockstep because they liked one piece Greg Palast wrote. That does not make him the Great God of All Truth, Justice Wisdom and Light... :eyes:

[Classical_Liberal]

I trust him!

He investigates stories and provides examples ans citation from real live experience.

Almost everyone against Chavez are repukes or Tom Friedman Bush liberals.

[Padraig18]

41. Yeah, right!

Anyone who disagrees with Chavez thug-like, authoritarian stye MUST be a Repuke. Uh... sure. :eyes:

[Classical_Liberal]

43. Cite an example of someone who isn't

.

[Padraig18]

46. Me.

:wtf:

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

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

[Padraig18]

51. I resent the hell out of your ad hominem attack on me.

Furthermore, I gave you an example.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

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

[Padraig18]

54. People in Hell want ice water.

I note your SECOND ad hominem attack, for the record.

[Classical_Liberal]

56. Can't provide one

I see!

[Padraig18]

57. Why should I?

All your statements have been nothing but condescending and insulting to me.

[Classical_Liberal]

60. To prove that Chavez is authoritarian!

Provide proof of you claims. If you think providing proof is condescending, may I suggest you grow a thicker skin?

[Padraig18]

62. Give me a break!

Your posts have been nothing but rude and condescending toward me and my progressive credentials.

[Classical_Liberal]

65. I don't know you from Adam

I have honestly never seen you post anything but conservative positions, so you should provide cites.

BTW, your rebuttals have been nothing but insults. "horseshit, accusing me of "playing games. You haven't provided one citation for you claims, but you have given plenty of bluster..

[Feanorcurufinwe]

70. Check out http://www.amnesty.org and search on 'Venezuela'

Chavez's record is certainly troubling to say the least.

[Classical_Liberal]

75. Here is the entire record on Venezuela

http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-ven/index

It mentions destabilizations and calls for investigations of things. It also mentions the coup plots against him.

[AP]

103. Padraig, you need to get your facts straight. Chavez is more democratic

than any leader VZ has ever had, and he's infinitely more democratic than the goverenment in the US.

There aren't many governments on earth that wouldn't be pot calling kettle black when criticizing the level of democracy in VZ.

[Bombtrack]

44. Your oversimplification of the world is astounding.

The enemy of my enemy is NOT my friend.

[Classical_Liberal]

47. Provide a citation proving he is my enemy

. The opposition are supporters of Bush who are taking from the Venezualan people to enrich Bushco.

[Bombtrack]

52. how about a citation that there is such a thing as "bushco" There ISN'T!

double standards abound.

[Classical_Liberal]

55. You don't think the oil executives are Bush allies?

Dah?

[rinsd]

72. According to that logic....

Woodward's book on Bush should have been taken at face value.

No one should be taken at face value.

[Classical_Liberal]

76. Woodward has been pro-repuke for years too

.

[Aquarian_Conspirator]

84. It's getting harder and harder to support Kerry

Well, I guess we know what to expect of Kerry's foreign policy toward
south america. The further propping up of right-wing aristocrats in their continuing battle to maintain a grossly unjust and oppressive economic order which has the vast majority of latin america living in abject misery and fear. Yes, Chavez is a thug... to these whining aristocrats who are being forced to loosen their white knuckled grip on Venezuela's land, resources, and political system. He is also a thug to those american corporations, and their own thugs, who must now pay workers a livable wage and allow Venezuela to control the profits from it's own oil industry. ***Wah! wah! wah!*** Go ahead and cry for the whining fascists who don't have their own thugs in office anymore. Chavez is a thug, but he's the thug for the poor majority.

It's demoralizing, as someone struggling to support Kerry, to see him stoop to the level of rumor mongering for Otto Reich, re-cycling Reich's dangerously destabilizing fictions about Chavez's supposed support of narco-terrorists and communist guerrilla's. I will, of course, vote for Kerry, but if he ever lays a finger on Venezuela, I hope Venezuela bites it off and spit's it in his eye. The US has no more right to occupy, manipulate, and exploit, latin america then the USSR had to occupy, manipulate, and exploit, eastern europe. John Kerry, hands off Venezuela!

[Classical_Liberal]

87. Thanks I hope you say that to John Kerry

. We have to get rid of Bush, but that doesn't mean John doesn't have to answer to us.

[genius]

131. Only corporate whores don't like Chavez. The Venezuelans love him

We have no right to attack Bush for stealing the White House if we don't support Chavez who has the support of 70% of his people.

[TinaTyson]

79. Just stop and use a bit of reason for just a minute.

The meida in that country are very against him.

During the lockout in 2002-2003 they played non-stop opposition reporting and advertisement.

If he is so repressive why has he allowed them to exist and done nothing (other than tax them for the political commercials they ran) to influence or demand by force what they write?

Just think a little. It isn't that hard to see how ridiculous the "thug" claim is.

[Meshuga]

13. Chavez is a liberal? hahahahah!

n/t

[Classical_Liberal]

21. Do you doubt Greg Palast?

CRUISIN' FOR A BRUISIN' WITH HUGO
Greg Palast in Caracas
Saturday, November 29, 2003
E-Mail Article
Printer Friendly Version
Hugo Chavez has an attitude problem. Only last April the Venezuelan president escaped a kidnapping by the Chairman of the nation's Chamber of Commerce. This weekend, Chavez is facing a recall petition by the angry rich of Venezuela. He also faces the wrath of an angry rich American president who does not appreciate Chavez' bad attitude toward globalization a la Rumsfeld.



Annoying the moneyed and the powerful is Chavez' gift. And this week, at the meeting of the Congress of Andean Parliaments, he unwrapped a special surprise, a renewed proposal for PetroSur,
functionally, a Latin American OPEC.



Venezuela, not Saudi Arabia, has long been the USA's largest supplier of foreign oil. By combining Venezuela's huge state-owned oil company with Ecuador's, Brazil's and Trinadad's (all nations now headed by elected leftists), Chavez could create a bargaining hammer for hemispheric trade talks which, up to now, have been mostly a one-way lecture from the USA.



"If Exxon and Mobil can combine, and Texaco and Phillips, why not PetroBrasil and PdVSA?" Chavez asks, referring to the Brazilian and Venezuelan government operators.

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=296&row=1

[Meshuga]

27. Yes!

Greg Palast talk about merger of PETROBRAS and PdVSA? That's also laughable. That would be Lula's (Brazilian president) political suicide.

[Classical_Liberal]

29. You're a neoliberal

I see. You like Lula because he ineffectually chooses to work with IMF.

[Bombtrack]

32. You resort to unsubstantiated labeling/namecalling towards DUers I see

when you lose an argument.

You'll be hellof alot better informed when you start exposing yourself to non hard-left journalism and not being suspicious of everything that isn't. For every few asshole truth-stretching right-wingers you have some of the same types on the left. The counterpunches and whatreallyhappened.com's of the world are really nutballizing too many progressives

[Classical_Liberal]

34. Are you saying Palast in is an asshole truth stretcher from

the far left.

Interesting!

At least I provide citations to back up my claims.

[Bombtrack]

38. No, I like Greg Palast and I have read him. But I don't worship him

and take as gospel everything he says, nor do I for the non-aligned centrists and conservatives I read. Palast is perfectly respectable.

[Classical_Liberal]

39. Well he provided citations for his claims

You haven't.

[Bombtrack]

48. You're disputing that he's good friends with Castro, and has had good

relationships with Saddam Hussein and Mugabe? Why do I need citations of what is easily available knowledge. That he has made comments in borderline sympathy for the 9-11 attackers? I'm not arguing with Greg Palast, I'm arguing with you. How about a "citation" for calling Padraig a neoliberal.

[Classical_Liberal]

50. Yes I dispute he is friends with those people

and that he supported 9/11 hijackers. Provide citations for those things.

[Bombtrack]

63. ok

"Chávez is a close friend of Fidel Castro and they've held several meetings in both Cuba and Venezula since Chávez took office."

"He was also the first democratically-elected president to visit Saddam Hussein since the 1991 Gulf War"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Chavez

Chavez hails visiting Mugabe - http://www.news24.com/News24/Africa/Zimbabwe/0,,2-11-259_1490385,00.html

I'm still looking for the exact quote of what he said, but it was akin to the chickens coming home to roost after 9-11

[Classical_Liberal]

68. So a visit is a sign of friendship! come on!

Many democratically elected leaders have visited both of them.

[Bombtrack]

73. He's friends with Castro, I never said he was friends with Hussein

but he did show Hussein a respect non-thugs don't.

[Classical_Liberal]

77. In what way did he show respect in ways other democratic leaders don't

. He is no more friends with Castro than Kennedy was friends with Khruschev.

[Meshuga]

129. Lula a neoliberal? That's a new one!

You need to use other sources for your research... :-)

[genius]

126. Greg Palast was the one who brought out the truth about Florida.

Those of us here who are Democrats consider Greg to be a great hero of truth and democracy. Kerry needs to clean up his act on the Chavez issue or he will lose the votes of Democrats.

[Hav]

17. .

What has Hitler to do with Bismarck?
Bismarck died 1898.

[Classical_Liberal]

35. Ok Von Hindenberg

sorry.

[Zorra]

114. Hitler, like Bu$h, was never democratically elected. n/t

[Cuban_Liberal]

123. Wrong. Hitler WAS democratically elected.

You need to check your history.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

134. No he wasn't. He cut some deals and was also very "lucky".

http://www2.dsu.nodak.edu/users/dmeier/Holocaust/hitler.html

The Nazis gradually devised an electoral strategy to win northern farmers and white collar voters in small towns, which produced a landslide electoral victory in September 1930 (jump from roughly 3% to 18% of the votes cast) due to the depression. Refused a chance to form a cabinet, and unwilling to share in a coalition regime, the Nazis joined the Communists in violence and disorder between 1931 and 1933. In 1932, Hitler ran for President and won 30% of the vote, forcing the eventual victor, Paul von Hindenburg, into a runoff election. After a bigger landslide in July 1932 (44%), their vote declined and their movement weakened (Hitler lost the presidential election to WWI veteran Paul von Hindenburg in April; elections of November 1932 roughly 42%), so Hitler decided to enter a coalition government as chancellor in January 1933.

Upon the death of Hindenburg in August 1934, Hitler was the consensus successor. With an improving economy, Hitler claimed credit and consolidated his position as a dictator, having succeeded in eliminating challenges from other political parties and government institutions. The German industrial machine was built up in preparation for war. In November 1937, he was comfortable enough to call his top military aides together at the "Führer Conference," when he outlined his plans for a war of aggression in Europe. Those who objected to the plan were dismissed.

[genius]

117. Chavez is a great leader of the common man. We would be lucky to have him

as our leader. In the Venezuelan strike, it was the the rich corporateers who marched. Why? Because he had the courage to stand up to the corporate thieves who would enslave the people of the world in a ecological sewer. We couldn't do better than having a great man like Hugo Chavez as President here. The corporate thieves and the Bush faschists hate him becuse he is democratically elected and because he stands up for people and not for corporations. Anyone who opposes him is either uneducated or a corporate elitist.

[dpbrown]

12. The leaders of Pakistan and Haiti are unelected dictators

And those leaders seem just fine to Bush.

Venezuela is all about the oil. Oil barons want to control Venezuela's oil, and a democratically elected government is getting in the way is all.

Haiti had a democracy, and now they don't because of Bush.

Pakistan had a democracy, and now it doesn't because of Musharraf, but that's okay with Bush.

Venezuela has a democracy, but it won't if Bush is successful in destabilizing the government there.

Kerry should support Chavez because he's the choice of the people there, not the corporate oil barons here.

[Meshuga]

19. Chavez enjoyed 80% support during the election...

It fell down to 30%. If you read on Venezuela you will see the disatisfaction of the people and you will learn about the national strikes.

[Classical_Liberal]

31. Provide a citation from a liberal source

.

[Bombtrack]

36. oh, because only liberal sources are of merrit

How distorted is your worldview. How about "OBJECTIVE" sources

[Classical_Liberal]

40. You believed the weapons of mass destruction claims

. Cite a source that never made such claims, and didn't believe Bush.

[Bombtrack]

66. What? that's a lie. I never said I beleived any claims from Bush.

And I don't know what your talking about. You can't defend Chavez, so you get into this crap about citations and claims. How about admitting he isn't all you thought he was cracked up to be, unless you do in fact have Ramsey Clark/Lyndon LaRouche/internationalanswer type politics

[Classical_Liberal]

71. Why would I admit that since I don't believe it

and you won't prove otherwise?

[no name no slogan]

61. About those "strikes"

If you're referring to the walkout by upper-level management (and lockout of the workers) because they didn't like Chavez' social policies, I'd beg to differ with your definition.

As others have stated, Chavez has been elected AND re-elected in a country whose press is so right-wing it makes Fox seem like Indymedia. The media in Venezuela completely whitewashed the 2002 coup, instead stating that Chavez had "resigned" and was on his way out of the country. It NEVER told the full story that Chavez was kidnapped by several rich, white business owners, and was later released because of a loyal Army sergeant who didn't want to see his democratically-elected government replaced by yet another exploitocracy.

The arch-conservative, mostly white owner class in Venezuela cannot stand the fact that a mestizo who actually wants ALL the people of his country to control its resources (AND destiny). The fact that he refuses to play ball with the destructive policies of the IMF pisses off the neo-liberals of both parties in this country, who somehow feel "entitled" to the resources of other countries just because we're the US and "we know best".

[dpbrown]

80. Millions of outside dollars have been spent destabilizing Venezuela

Look at how skewed public opinion is in the US, given the propensity of the corporate weasels to spend tons of money to influence opinion. Recall that study done mid-year that showed that people who watched FOX news were most likely to believe three specific lies about Iraq - it is in that context that any erosion of support for Chavez has to be seen.

Slamming Chavez is a FreeperUnderground talking point, if you ask me.

Chavez is elected, and Bush doesn't like it because he wants to privatize Venezuela's oil, just like he's doing to Iraq's oil right now. And he's got Iran/Contra felons working on overthrowing Chavez, and he's got Death Squad Haitians running the new Haitian sweat shop nation. Nothing matters but profit to Bush.

End of story.

[Freddie Stubbs]

24. Kerry can't bash Chavez? He just did

[Merlin]

7. If he does not ammend his statement, I will give him NOTHING.

This is a dangerous, ill-conceived, naive, neocon-ass-kissing statement which says NOTHING about warning the Bushies against interfering in Venezuelan democracy. As it stands now, he has green-lighted the Bushies on a coup, and THAT is outrageous.

[zulchzulu]

42. I'll give double then

Sticking up for a two-bit corrupt thug like Chavez is political suicide. Chavez is an ass. He's caused nothing but havoc since having been in office in 1998. He's blocking a referendum on his awful policies. Good riddance.

[Classical_Liberal]

45. Citation for Chavez's thuggery please?

?

[zulchzulu]

58. Some links...

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/americas/01/19/venezuela.chavez/
http://www.fightthebias.com/Resources/Rec_Read/Dictator_In_The_Making.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2402717.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/country_profiles/1229348.stm

[Classical_Liberal]

78. the first link

says the lockout by Venezualas elites was a strike.

Second link openly supports coup plotters


The third and forth links don't claim what you claim.

[WyLoochka]

122. His "awful" policies

of hydrocarbon and land reforms that are allowing the natives of Venezuela access to their own resources in order to sustain their own lives? His "awful" policies of micro loans to the poor to build small new businesses and small agricultural plots so the poor can provide for themselves and at long last move into and grow the middle class?

I don't think we agree on what "awful" policy is.

Chavez is an anti-feudalist. The neo feudalist "thugs," whose truly "awful" policy is to totally control every vital resource for life sustenance the world over, have much to lose if they fail to topple Chavez.

What stops feudalism dead in it's tracks? Just like here in the US in the 30s and 40s - the deliberate strengthening and growth of the middle class.

It's pretty shocking to see so many Democrats put blinders on and march lock step with the neo feudalists in their desperate attempts to squash Chavez' efforts to grow a middle class in Venezuela in order to regain control of the oil so they can resume sending the profits out of Venezuela to the already obscenely wealthy instead of investing the profits into the economic, educational and health development of Venezuela's people, 80% of whom currently live in abject poverty.

The neo feudalists' predecessors here in the US called FDR's policies, aimed at raising up the poor, "awful." They called him every disparaging name in the book when he finally managed to smash through the feudalist blockade on the Supreme Court that had struck down his initiatives to raise the poor to middle class. The neo feudalists' goal is not only to stop Chavez but to roll back the wildly successful "awful" policies of the New Deal that created a huge middle class and thus put an end to feudalism here in the US.

I'm with Hugo in his battle against the new feudalists. He has real results to show for his efforts. Venezuela's economy has been growing, as a result of his micro investments in businesses for the poor, at a healthy 9% clip. And, unlike the US - the growth is resulting in jobs, educational opportunities and health care for the 80% of the poor sector of the population.

[zulchzulu]

14. Should Kerry say this in support of Chavez?

"Hi, I'm John Kerry. I'm here to tell you why I support Hugo Chavez.

He's doing a fantastic job. 80% of the population live in third-world poverty. 65% of those people make the minimum wage of $150 or less per month. I'm proud to announce that I enjoy his successes with his people being taken care of, namely that 36% live on less than $1 a day. With the fact that the basic monthly food basket for a family of 5 costs about $300, you can bet they must be pretty creative in their makeshift cardboard huts in the barrio. Lots of ways to fry dog and rats, so I have been told.

Venezuela can brag about its 30% unemployment rate too, thanks to our friend Hugo!

It was great that 18,000 state oil firm Petroleos de Venezuela workers who went on strike were fired by Chavez, who replaced them with soldiers and loyal personnel. Now that's what I call a leader.

Heck, if Hugo Chavez wants to stop selling oil to the US and causing a lot of economic damage to the country so he and Fidel can have a few chuckles, then, by golly, go for it, Hugo! Vaya para él, Hugo!"

[Classical_Liberal]

22. What were the stats before Chavez took over?

?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

16. Why?

Try to give constructive criticism, rather than verbal abuse. Rebut Kerry's points specifically.

I would like to see that done here. What is your constructive criticism? What are your rebutals to Kerry's specific points?

Kerry Statement on Venezuela

March 19, 2004

With the future of the democratic process at a critical juncture in Venezuela, we should work to bring all possible international pressure to bear on President Chavez to allow the referendum to proceed. The Administration should demonstrate its true commitment to democracy in Latin America by showing determined leadership now, while a peaceful resolution can still be achieved.

Throughout his time in office, President Chavez has repeatedly undermined democratic institutions by using extra-legal means, including politically motivated incarcerations, to consolidate power. In fact, his close relationship with Fidel Castro has raised serious questions about his commitment to leading a truly democratic government.

Moreover, President Chavez’s policies have been detrimental to our interests and those of his neighbors. He has compromised efforts to eradicate drug cultivation by allowing Venezuela to become a haven for narco-terrorists, and sowed instability in the region by supporting anti-government insurgents in Colombia.

The referendum has given the people of Venezuela the opportunity to express their views on his presidency through constitutionally legitimate means. The international community cannot allow President Chavez to subvert this process, as he has attempted to do thus far. He must be pressured to comply with the agreements he made with the OAS and the Carter Center to allow the referendum to proceed, respect the exercise of free expression, and release political prisoners.

Too often in the past, this Administration has sent mixed signals by supporting undemocratic processes in our own hemisphere -- including in Venezuela, where they acquiesced to a failed coup attempt against President Chavez. Having just allowed the democratically elected leader to be cast aside in Haiti, they should make a strong statement now by leading the effort to preserve the fragile democracy in Venezuela.
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0319d.html

[Classical_Liberal]

26. Plain text is Gregory Wilpert’s rebuttal.

http://mww.vheadline.org/

enator Kerry’s press statement was issued on March 19, 2004.

Italic text is Senator Kerry’s statement. Plain text is Gregory Wilpert’s rebuttal.

With the future of the democratic process at a critical juncture in Venezuela, we should work to bring all possible international pressure to bear on President Chavez to allow the referendum to proceed.

It is not up to President Chavez whether there is a referendum. Venezuela’s constitution clearly establishes rules that must be followed for a referendum to be called. The president has nothing to do with this procedure. If Kerry has any evidence that Chavez is preventing the referendum process from proceeding, then he should spell out what it is that he has done.

The Administration should demonstrate its true commitment to democracy in Latin America by showing determined leadership now, while a peaceful resolution can still be achieved.

U.S. interference in Venezuela’s referendum process will distort and damage Venezuela’s democracy more than help it. If there is outside interference, it is more likely that the results of the process will not be recognized as legitimate by one of the sides in the conflict and this would probably lead to violence, not to “a peaceful resolution.”

Throughout his time in office, President Chavez has repeatedly undermined democratic institutions by using extra-legal means, including politically motivated incarcerations, to consolidate power.

How does Kerry know that the incarcerations of some protestors were politically motivated? As the cases stand right now, it has not been clearly established that any of the arrests that have occurred during the recent spate of violent protests involved people who were innocent of all charges. As the cases proceed and come to trial, there will be plenty of opportunities to find out if this was the case. To prejudge the arrests as Sen. Kerry does, does not help.

In fact, his close relationship with Fidel Castro has raised serious questions about his commitment to leading a truly democratic government.

If relationships with undemocratic rulers are enough to question a leader’s commitment to democracy, then the commitment to democracy of just about every president in U.S. history must be questioned.

Moreover, President Chavez’s policies have been detrimental to our interests and those of his neighbors.

Exactly what “our interests” is is of course a much disputed issue. If it includes Venezuela’s opposition to the WTO and the FTAA, then, indeed, President Chavez’ interests have been detrimental to U.S. interests. However, many in the U.S. and in Latin America would argue that these institutions are not in the U.S. interest, but only in the interest of transnational corporations, such as the one that Senator Kerry’s wife is heiress to (Heinz Ketchup). Besides, governments are not there to pursue U.S. interests anyway, no matter where they are; only national and human interests.

He has compromised efforts to eradicate drug cultivation by allowing Venezuela to become a haven for narco-terrorists, and sowed instability in the region by supporting anti-government insurgents in Colombia.

Sen. Kerry stands in direct contradiction with U.S. government testimony that says that the Venezuelan government has been very cooperative with US drug enforcement agencies. More drugs have been intercepted by the Chavez government than any previous government. While this could reflect in increase in drug trafficking in Venezuela, it proves that Venezuela’s government has far from “compromised efforts.”<1>

Even the head of the U.S. Southern Command, Gen. James Hill, who is directly involved in plan Colombia and the U.S. anti-drug trafficking effort, has denied that there is any evidence of connections between the Venezuelan government and “anti-government insurgents” in Colombia.<2> If Senator Kerry has any evidence of such connections, he should provide them to the U.S. military so that they might be properly informed.

The referendum has given the people of Venezuela the opportunity to express their views on his presidency through constitutionally legitimate means.

Perhaps it would have been good to mention at this point that the recall referendum was proposed by President Chavez and his party when the country’s constitutional assembly wrote the new constitution. This fact directly contradicts Sen. Kerry’s questioning of President Chavez’ democratic credentials.

The international community cannot allow President Chavez to subvert this process, as he has attempted to do thus far.

Without mentioning concrete examples of President Chavez’ supposed efforts to “subvert” the referendum process, Sen. Kerry’s statement is pure innuendo that intends to slander a head of state.

He must be pressured to comply with the agreements he made with the OAS and the Carter Center to allow the referendum to proceed, respect the exercise of free expression, and release political prisoners.

First, the agreement Sen. Kerry refers to here was not made with the OAS and the Carter Center, but with the opposition. The OAS and Carter Center acted as facilitators for this agreement. Second, the agreement does not mention the recall referendum at all. Rather, it calls on both sides to reject violence and to support the constitution. While there has been some debate in Venezuela as to who started the violent protests, there is much evidence that members of the opposition sought out a violent confrontation with state security forces. As for respecting the right to freedom of expression, there is complete and total freedom of expression in Venezuela, more than at any point in Venezuela’s history. Finally, with regard to political prisoners, this is a term that Venezuela’s opposition uses for them, but one which internationally recognized human rights organizations have yet to adopt. As such, Senator Kerry is placing himself as a solid supporter of Venezuela’s opposition, which does not bode well for future relations between the government of Venezuela and a possible President Kerry.

Too often in the past, this Administration has sent mixed signals by supporting undemocratic processes in our own hemisphere -- including in Venezuela, where they acquiesced to a failed coup attempt against President Chavez.

Actually, the Bush administration’s signals with respect to undemocratic processes has not been mixed at all: as long as the undemocratic processes favor the Bush administration’s policy interests, it will support them. It is Senator Kerry who is sending mixed signals by issuing a statement like this, one which does not give Venezuela’s referendum process a chance to play itself out, which makes unsubstantiated claims about the Chavez government, and which encourages a recall referendum even when it is not yet clearly established that the requisite number of Venezuelan citizens want one.

Having just allowed the democratically elected leader to be cast aside in Haiti, they should make a strong statement now by leading the effort to preserve the fragile democracy in Venezuela.

Allowing a “democratically elected leader to be cast aside” in Venezuela via a possibly fraudulent recall referendum process would be little different from what happened in Haiti. It would destroy what has actually become a more vigorous democracy in Venezuela than ever. More people are involved in Venezuela’s political institutions now than before, from land reform committees, to local participatory planning councils, to public accountability efforts (“contraloria social”). This week thousands of candidates are being nominated for August regional elections of governors, mayors, state legislators, and city council persons. There have been absolutely no limitations on anyone’s ability to participate.

The only reason Venezuela’s democracy is in danger is because opposition forces have never accepted President Chavez as the legitimately elected president and have tried to undermine his presidency via a coup attempt and a politically motivated shut-down of the country’s all-important oil industry – an act that would have been considered completely illegal in any country in the world (and for which no one in Venezuela has been imprisoned). It is due to these acts of the opposition that President Chavez and his supporters are so suspicious of the signatures that were recently collected for the recall referendum. The best way to ensure that Venezuelan democracy remains strong is by making sure that all sides agree that the referendum is legitimate. This is the main reason why the process has been taking so long.

By issuing this statement, Senator Kerry is clearly taking sides in Venezuela’s conflict and is supporting the opposition. As such, he is placing himself to the right of President Bush, who has so far only supported Venezuela’s opposition more or less covertly.


<1> The U.S. Embassy in Venezuela says the following about the Venezuelan government’s efforts: “Against this upsurge in activity of Colombian narcotrafficking organizations operating in Venezuela, the Government of Venezuela (GOV) has attempted to pass expansive new legislation, refine the focus of its small force of criminal investigators and public prosecutors, and worked with the USG toward the development of improved intelligence, investigative, interdiction, and judicial capabilities. GOV drug enforcement officials are dedicated, professional, and sincere in their efforts to combat narcotrafficking and drug abuse in Venezuela.” The report also states that, “USG narcotics control efforts and programs underwent significant expansion in Venezuela in 2001.” (http://embajadausa.org.ve/wwwh1695.html)

<2> “U.S. General Sites Progress in Colombia”, The Miami Herald, October 9, 2003, Page 16A

Original source / relevant link:
John Kerry's website

[Feanorcurufinwe]

59. Despite the lack of formatting, I managed to answer.

With the future of the democratic process at a critical juncture in Venezuela, we should work to bring all possible international pressure to bear on President Chavez to allow the referendum to proceed.

It is not up to President Chavez whether there is a referendum. Venezuela�s constitution clearly establishes rules that must be followed for a referendum to be called. The president has nothing to do with this procedure. If Kerry has any evidence that Chavez is preventing the referendum process from proceeding, then he should spell out what it is that he has done.

If Chavez is allowing the referendum to proceed, then he's doing what Kerry is calling on him to do. So what's the problem?

The Administration should demonstrate its true commitment to democracy in Latin America by showing determined leadership now, while a peaceful resolution can still be achieved.

U.S. interference in Venezuela�s referendum process will distort and damage Venezuela�s democracy more than help it. If there is outside interference, it is more likely that the results of the process will not be recognized as legitimate by one of the sides in the conflict and this would probably lead to violence, not to �a peaceful resolution.�


Kerry didn't call for "U.S. interference", he called for demonstrating commitment to democracy by showing leadership



Throughout his time in office, President Chavez has repeatedly undermined democratic institutions by using extra-legal means, including politically motivated incarcerations, to consolidate power.

How does Kerry know that the incarcerations of some protestors were politically motivated? As the cases stand right now, it has not been clearly established that any of the arrests that have occurred during the recent spate of violent protests involved people who were innocent of all charges. As the cases proceed and come to trial, there will be plenty of opportunities to find out if this was the case. To prejudge the arrests as Sen. Kerry does, does not help.

check out: http://www.amnesty.org

In fact, his close relationship with Fidel Castro has raised serious questions about his commitment to leading a truly democratic government.

If relationships with undemocratic rulers are enough to question a leader�s commitment to democracy, then the commitment to democracy of just about every president in U.S. history must be questioned.


Kerry didn't say that did he? He didn't make some general statement that "relationships with undemocratic rulers are enough to question a leader's commitment to democracy". He made a specific statement about Chavez's close relationship with Castro.

Moreover, President Chavez�s policies have been detrimental to our interests and those of his neighbors.

Exactly what �our interests� is is of course a much disputed issue. If it includes Venezuela�s opposition to the WTO and the FTAA, then, indeed, President Chavez� interests have been detrimental to U.S. interests. However, many in the U.S. and in Latin America would argue that these institutions are not in the U.S. interest, but only in the interest of transnational corporations, such as the one that Senator Kerry�s wife is heiress to (Heinz Ketchup). Besides, governments are not there to pursue U.S. interests anyway, no matter where they are; only national and human interests.

I don't see any specific rebutal to Kerry's point here, just an attempt to impugn Kerry's integrity.


He has compromised efforts to eradicate drug cultivation by allowing Venezuela to become a haven for narco-terrorists, and sowed instability in the region by supporting anti-government insurgents in Colombia.

Sen. Kerry stands in direct contradiction with U.S. government testimony that says that the Venezuelan government has been very cooperative with US drug enforcement agencies. More drugs have been intercepted by the Chavez government than any previous government. While this could reflect in increase in drug trafficking in Venezuela, it proves that Venezuela�s government has far from �compromised efforts.�

<1>Even the head of the U.S. Southern Command, Gen. James Hill, who is directly involved in plan Colombia and the U.S. anti-drug trafficking effort, has denied that there is any evidence of connections between the Venezuelan government and �anti-government insurgents� in Colombia.<2> If Senator Kerry has any evidence of such connections, he should provide them to the U.S. military so that they might be properly informed.

Citations, please?

The referendum has given the people of Venezuela the opportunity to express their views on his presidency through constitutionally legitimate means.

Perhaps it would have been good to mention at this point that the recall referendum was proposed by President Chavez and his party when the country�s constitutional assembly wrote the new constitution. This fact directly contradicts Sen. Kerry�s questioning of President Chavez� democratic credentials.

In other words, you agree with this particular sentence in Kerry's statement


The international community cannot allow President Chavez to subvert this process, as he has attempted to do thus far.

Without mentioning concrete examples of President Chavez� supposed efforts to �subvert� the referendum process, Sen. Kerry�s statement is pure innuendo that intends to slander a head of state.

I find Kerry to be more credible than Hugo Chavez or Gregory Wilpert.

He must be pressured to comply with the agreements he made with the OAS and the Carter Center to allow the referendum to proceed, respect the exercise of free expression, and release political prisoners.

First, the agreement Sen. Kerry refers to here was not made with the OAS and the Carter Center, but with the opposition. The OAS and Carter Center acted as facilitators for this agreement. Second, the agreement does not mention the recall referendum at all. Rather, it calls on both sides to reject violence and to support the constitution. While there has been some debate in Venezuela as to who started the violent protests, there is much evidence that members of the opposition sought out a violent confrontation with state security forces. As for respecting the right to freedom of expression, there is complete and total freedom of expression in Venezuela, more than at any point in Venezuela�s history. Finally, with regard to political prisoners, this is a term that Venezuela�s opposition uses for them, but one which internationally recognized human rights organizations have yet to adopt. As such, Senator Kerry is placing himself as a solid supporter of Venezuela�s opposition, which does not bode well for future relations between the government of Venezuela and a possible President Kerry.


That is simply false. A lie. I glad it is not your statement, but someone else's. Because that frees me to be candid. The person who wrote this is simply lying in describing Kerry's statement this way. Apparently, Kerry's actual point - that Chavez should live up to the agreement he made, is irrefuteable, so it was necessary to resort to lies.


Too often in the past, this Administration has sent mixed signals by supporting undemocratic processes in our own hemisphere -- including in Venezuela, where they acquiesced to a failed coup attempt against President Chavez.

Actually, the Bush administration�s signals with respect to undemocratic processes has not been mixed at all: as long as the undemocratic processes favor the Bush administration�s policy interests, it will support them. It is Senator Kerry who is sending mixed signals by issuing a statement like this, one which does not give Venezuela�s referendum process a chance to play itself out,


Kerry is calling for the referendum process to be played out. Why falsely say otherwise?



which makes unsubstantiated claims about the Chavez government, and which encourages a recall referendum even when it is not yet clearly established that the requisite number of Venezuelan citizens want one.

Having just allowed the democratically elected leader to be cast aside in Haiti, they should make a strong statement now by leading the effort to preserve the fragile democracy in Venezuela.

Allowing a �democratically elected leader to be cast aside� in Venezuela via a possibly fraudulent recall referendum process


Is it fraudulent? lol


would be little different from what happened in Haiti. It would destroy what has actually become a more vigorous democracy in Venezuela than ever. More people are involved in Venezuela�s political institutions now than before, from land reform committees, to local participatory planning councils, to public accountability efforts (�contraloria social�). This week thousands of candidates are being nominated for August regional elections of governors, mayors, state legislators, and city council persons. There have been absolutely no limitations on anyone�s ability to participate.

The only reason Venezuela�s democracy is in danger is because opposition forces have never accepted President Chavez as the legitimately elected president and have tried to undermine his presidency via a coup attempt and a politically motivated shut-down of the country�s all-important oil industry � an act that would have been considered completely illegal in any country in the world (and for which no one in Venezuela has been imprisoned). It is due to these acts of the opposition that President Chavez and his supporters are so suspicious of the signatures that were recently collected for the recall referendum. The best way to ensure that Venezuelan democracy remains strong is by making sure that all sides agree that the referendum is legitimate. This is the main reason why the process has been taking so long.

By issuing this statement, Senator Kerry is clearly taking sides in Venezuela�s conflict and is supporting the opposition. As such, he is placing himself to the right of President Bush, who has so far only supported Venezuela�s opposition more or less covertly.

No, Kerry is clearly not taking sides. What in the statement could be construed as support for the opposition?

[Classical_Liberal]

64. What in the statement could be construed as support for the opposition?

alot of stuff you cut out like

"Throughout his time in office, President Chavez has repeatedly undermined democratic institutions by using extra-legal means, including politically motivated incarcerations, to consolidate power. In fact, his close relationship with Fidel Castro has raised serious questions about his commitment to leading a truly democratic government.

Moreover, President Chavez’s policies have been detrimental to our interests and those of his neighbors. He has compromised efforts to eradicate drug cultivation by allowing Venezuela to become a haven for narco-terrorists, and sowed instability in the region by supporting anti-government insurgents in Colombia."

and

" The international community cannot allow President Chavez to subvert this process, as he has attempted to do thus far."

[Feanorcurufinwe]

67. A example of a common type of fallacious reasoning.

I asked for statements that could be construed as support for the opposition. You quoted statements that were critical of Chavez.

As Ralph Nader or numerous posters on this board demonstrate, criticism of a politician does not equate to support for a particular opponent of that politician.


I agree that Kerry criticized some of Chavez's actions in his statement. But I still challenge you to show anything in the statement that can be construed as support for the opposition.

[Classical_Liberal]

81. Bad example since Nader's activities do support the opposition

Gore would be President if not for Nader.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

85. I find it impossible to believe that you don't understand this example.

But despite my suspicions I will simplify it even more:


When Nader criticizes Bush, he is not voicing support for Kerry.

By the same token, when Kerry criticizes Chavez, he is not voicing support for the opposition.




:eyes:

[Classical_Liberal]

90. Sill don't understand your example

since Nader's actions do support Bush.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

94. I don't believe you.

[Classical_Liberal]

97. Don't believe me about what?

?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

99. I don't believe what you said in the post I responded to

by saying "I don't believe you".

lol





Here is another simplification for you:


Joe: A
Harry: I don't believe you.

Quiz: What statement did Joe make that Harry doesn't believe?
Answer: A

:eyes:

[Classical_Liberal]

101. You don't believe I don't understand your example

?

What's your point?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

104. lol

my point is what I said, which you've now repeated. So it looks like you understand my point.

[sangh0]

69. And how does stating those facts represent "support for the opposition"?

Kerry claims

1) Chavez has repeatedly undermined democratic institutions by using extra-legal means including politically motivated incarcerations, to consolidate power,

2) his close relationship with Fidel Castro has raised serious questions about his commitment to leading a truly democratic government

3) Chavez’s policies have been detrimental to our interests and those of his neighbors

4) He has compromised efforts to eradicate drug cultivation by allowing Venezuela to become a haven for narco-terrorists,

5) sowed instability in the region by supporting anti-government insurgents in Colombia.

While you have done nothing to refute these facts (you have only asserted they are wrong)

1) Supported by Amnesty Intl
2) Castro is no democrat
3) Explained above
4) Amnesty It'l
5) ???

[Classical_Liberal]

82. You obviously don't follow threads very well

Thanks anyway.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

86. And how does stating those facts represent "support for the opposition"?

[Classical_Liberal]

93. Because those were slanders not facts as I have already

shown with numerous other citations.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

95. You have done nothing of the sort.

The readers of DU are sophisticated enough to detect bullshit when it's piled 10 feet high.

[Classical_Liberal]

98. I provide cites

what cites do you provide?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

100. You haven't

shown those to be 'slanders not facts'.

Your citations prove nothing of the sort.

[Classical_Liberal]

106. If my sources didn't convince you nothing will

.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

109. Can't be convinced that the Earth is flat, either, no matter who you cite.

Just for the record.

[Classical_Liberal]

110. You do try to prove it's flat with no evidence

I admire your moxy. Thanks for keeping this bumped.

[rinsd]

74. How is it to Kerry's advantage?

"Also tell Kerry why it is to his advantage to support Chavez"

In the world court of opinion? Future relationship with Venezeula?

Or the election?

Because I don't see how standing shoulder to shoulder with Chavez is going to win Kerry ANY votes and could lose him some. Especially after his critique of him.

[Classical_Liberal]

83. Well he sits on lots of oil and his policies

if extended to the rest of Latin America would be good for us because it would make Latin America more middle class, so their would be less immigration from that region owing bad economic circumstances. It is also good for us because it harms free market fundies, which should be a liberal goal in my mind. He is more FDR than Castro. His success is the success of the idea of "social safetynets" and against privatization of every bloomin thing! Why do we want the Chile model to succeed in Latin America when that is what we are fighting in this country?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

88. You post is so full of unfounded assumptions and false premises

it is totally meaningless and impossible to respond to. But it doesn't need a response because any thinking individual who reads it will be able to come to that conclusion on their own.

[Padraig18]

89. Careful, Feanorcurufinwe!

Next he'll hurl the 'I've seen you opost nothing but support for conservative policies' javelin at you... :P

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

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

[Padraig18]

96. It's only conservative, if you're a screaming left-winger.

And if the shoe fits...

[Classical_Liberal]

102. Am I suppose to be hurt? Is being a lefty a bad thing?

?

[Padraig18]

105. Nope.

But what looks 'conservative' to you may not, in fact, BE conservative; it's just your perspective. Remember that, why don't you, before you start hurling slander around?

[Classical_Liberal]

107. I didn't hurl slander

only my observation. I observe what I observe.

[Padraig18]

108. So do I... n/t

[Feanorcurufinwe]

111. And we can't prove otherwise, because those posts have been deleted.

Ironic, isn't it? lol

[Classical_Liberal]

92. Such as!

?

[sangha]

112. Not only that, but he doesn't explain how it would help Kerry

He explains why it would be good for the people of Venezuela, Latin American, and the American people, but he doesn't explain how it would help Kerry win the election.


But he has cites!!

[Classical_Liberal]

115. So Kerry isn't obligated to care about what is good for America?

? It is good for Kerry because it will be a foriegn allie? Doesn't he campaign on the fact that foriegn leaders like him better than Bush?

[sangh0]

125. Answer the question, if you can!

You said supporting Chavez would help Kerry. Now, you refuse to back your assertion, and try to distract with the BS about how Kerry doesn't care.

[rinsd]

130. Okay....

"if extended to the rest of Latin America would be good for us because it would make Latin America more middle class, so their would be less immigration from that region owing bad economic circumstances."

That's assuming alot isn't it? There would have to be a dramatic rise in the standard of living and even then wouldn't the immigration just shift to lesser developed countries? I agree in part that economic stability would help alleviate immigration from said region but the situation presented is a bit rosy.

"It is also good for us because it harms free market fundies,which should be a liberal goal in my mind."

Depends how you have defined liberal. This leans more towards leftist than liberal persay. But again its personal definitions.

"He is more FDR than Castro."

I agree Chavez is more FDR than Castro could ever hope to be ;-)

"His success is the success of the idea of "social safetynets" and against privatization of every bloomin thing!"

Europe if anyone shows the success of the social safety net and even there they are having difficulties.

I still don't see how it is to Kerry's advantage in a capitalist and at best moderate country to embrace a embattled leftist of a foreign country before he has been elected. Why there may be a small downside, I just can't see the advantage in Kerry doing as you propose.

[Tim_in_HK]

113. Ugh . . .

No way. Chavez is awful.

[Merlin]

116. To mindless idiots who think it's ok to overthrow democracies.

If you are so utterly ignorant of things that you would defend Kerry's idiotic green lighting of Bush's coup attemts against Chavez, then you should really become a Republican.

Chavez may have his faults. But if you can't see that the only reason the Bushies are trying to overthrow him is because of his policies favoring the poor and his attempt to strengthen the Latin American oil producing nations' alliance, then you don't have a head.

If you can't understand that overthrowing a man another nation's people elected their president is just plain wrong, and counter-productive, and guaranteed to set the entire continent against us (again), then you don't have a heart.

If you think you should just kiss Kerry's ass and not criticize him to keep him on the straight and narrow now that he's the nominee, then you haven't been around the block for Dukakis, Mondale, Gore and others who's blundering campaigns caused us to suffer four long fucking years of hell each time they screwed things up royally because they wouldn't listen to the people in the party.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

118. What a totallly false and baseless characterization.

"Kerry's idiotic green lighting of Bush's coup attemts against Chavez"

is how you characterized this statement:

Kerry Statement on Venezuela

March 19, 2004

With the future of the democratic process at a critical juncture in Venezuela, we should work to bring all possible international pressure to bear on President Chavez to allow the referendum to proceed. The Administration should demonstrate its true commitment to democracy in Latin America by showing determined leadership now, while a peaceful resolution can still be achieved.

Throughout his time in office, President Chavez has repeatedly undermined democratic institutions by using extra-legal means, including politically motivated incarcerations, to consolidate power. In fact, his close relationship with Fidel Castro has raised serious questions about his commitment to leading a truly democratic government.

Moreover, President Chavez’s policies have been detrimental to our interests and those of his neighbors. He has compromised efforts to eradicate drug cultivation by allowing Venezuela to become a haven for narco-terrorists, and sowed instability in the region by supporting anti-government insurgents in Colombia.

The referendum has given the people of Venezuela the opportunity to express their views on his presidency through constitutionally legitimate means. The international community cannot allow President Chavez to subvert this process, as he has attempted to do thus far. He must be pressured to comply with the agreements he made with the OAS and the Carter Center to allow the referendum to proceed, respect the exercise of free expression, and release political prisoners.

Too often in the past, this Administration has sent mixed signals by supporting undemocratic processes in our own hemisphere -- including in Venezuela, where they acquiesced to a failed coup attempt against President Chavez. Having just allowed the democratically elected leader to be cast aside in Haiti, they should make a strong statement now by leading the effort to preserve the fragile democracy in Venezuela.
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0319d.html

[Merlin]

119. What a blind and politically naive reply.

After the Bushies succeed in their coup effort in Venezuela, what will Kerry be able to say? Nothing.

Why?

Because they will throw these words right back in his face:

Throughout his time in office, President Chavez has repeatedly undermined democratic institutions...

[Feanorcurufinwe]

120. In other words, you are not denying the falsity of your characterization.

And your fantasy hypotheticals are not persuasive.

[Dr Fate]

135. Where did Kerry say he wanted to overthrow Chavez?

I read Kerry's statement and he never mentions overthrowing him...

[Zynx]

121. Chavez is a classic Latin American strongman with no interest in democracy

or individual freedoms.

[WyLoochka]

124. Bull-oney

The "classic Latin American strongman" is a right wing authoritarian puppet aided, abetted, and assisted every step of the way by covert operators whose interests are in the perpetuation of feudalist societies.

Evidently you know zilch about the efforts Chavez has made to strengthen the democratic movement in Venezuela and throughout Latin America. He is engaged in a classic battle against the anti-democratic, neo-feudalist thieves, who for decades, have raided his peoples' resources for their own profit, and left 80% of Venezuelans in abject poverty.

[Zynx]

132. I am well aware most Latin American strongmen have been rightwing.

However, I would like to see any evidence that Chavez is strengthing democracy and is not some kind of left-wing thug.

[Dr Fate]

136. Are his policies working- and what are they?

That is another issue that rarely gets adressed...

[Freddie Stubbs]

138. If he wants to strengthen the democratic movement in Latin America

why in the world is he an ally of Castro?

[Classical_Liberal]

127. Provide a citation!

. No I don't take your word for it.

[Zynx]

133. I don't take your word for it either.

You are simply protecting Chavez because he is leftist. If he were right-wing, you would be all over his heavy-handed tactics.

[elperromagico]

128. And give Bush another issue to call Kerry a flip-flopper on?

[corporatewhore]

137. have you seen Hugo Chavez vs the Free Trade Zombies of the Americas

by palast its great