Musharaff, a US-Backed, Nuclear-Armed Dictator. Who Gives a Crap About Chavez!

[Bonobo]

If this Musharraf thing doesn't finally put to rest forever the myth that the US gives a fuck about freedom, democracy and even security, then I don't know what else.

We are about to bomb Iran, a signatory of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, to prevent them from acquiring NUCLEAR POWER, while Pakistan, not a signatory and already in possession of TESTED NUCLEAR WEAPONS, extends the length of their military coup. Oh, did I mention that Pakistan is behind the illegal sale of nuclear technology around the world?

And that's our friend.

Bush is a traitor.

[LakeSamish706]

1. By God I think somebody has finally got it! We are and have been in...

deep shit for almost 7 years and its time others woke up to this fact.

[Peace Patriot]

2. If you're going to mention Chavez and "dictator" in the same sentence, please

explain what you mean.

Otherwise, you are helping the Bush Junta, collusive 'Democrats,' and the war profiteering corporate news monopolies accomplish their purpose of demonizing a leader who

1. Was elected, in transparent, honest elections, unanimously and repeatedly certified by the OAS, the Carter Center and EU election monitoring groups, who are permitted to crawl all over Venezuela during elections.

2. Has been repeatedly elected by the Venezuelan people, by ever increasing margins, no matter what the Bush Junta and its operatives do to befoul and discredit him. Won 63% of the vote in Dec. '06. Enjoys a 70% approval rating.*

3. Was rescued by the Venezuelan people, when tens of the thousands of them poured into the streets, and surrounded Miraflores Palace, during the 2002 rightwing military coup attempt, demanding that their elected president be restored, and their Constitution, National Assembly, court system and civil rights.**

4. Enjoys the friendship and support of other democratically elected and very popular leaders, including (but not limited to) Evo Morales (Bolivia), Rafael Correa (Ecuador), Nestor Kirchner (Argentina) and Lula da Silva (Brazil). The OAS just voted Venezuela in as a member of the OAS Human Rights Commission. Mercosur (South American trade group) just voted full membership for Venezuela.

5. Inspired and organized the Bank of the South, a highly popular new institution, to provide social justice-friendly, regional loans to South American countries, in order to evict the World Bank/IMF loan sharks and its ruinous financial policies from the region.

6. Has enacted genuine, palpably successful policies to greatly increase public participation in government and politics, to provide free education through university and free medical care to all Venezuelans, to wipe out illiteracy, and to help the vast poor population, never before served by government, in many other ways, while scrupulously following private property provisions of the Constitution.

7. Has engaged in no unfair or illegal jailings or suppression; has tortured no one; has invaded no one; has threatened no one. Venezuela, in fact, has the liveliest political culture in the western hemisphere.

8. Every Bush Junta "talking point" about Chavez--and echoed by the war profiteering corporate news monopolies--turns out to be grievously distorted, and often wrong on the plain facts. For instance, when Chavez denied a broadcast license renewal to the corporate TV station, RCTV, the corporate news stories failed to point out that broadcast airwaves belong to the PUBLIC (as they do here), that no broadcaster has any "free speech" right to use those airwaves, that governments around the world routinely deny licenses to broadcasters for violating the terms of the license, and that RCTV not only violated the terms of their license, they actively participated in the violent rightwing military coup attempt, in 2002--broadcasting outright lies to the public (that Chavez had resigned, and that Chavez supporters were shooting people--provable lies), hosting meetings of the plotters, and refusing to broadcast news from the legitimate government. If our Faux News actively supported the kidnapping of Nancy Pelosi, the shutdown of Congress and suspension of the Constitution, wouldn't we be justified in not renewing their license to use our PUBLIC airwaves? Peru (a Bush client state) denied license renewals to four TV stations over the last several years. It is a routine and legitimate function of government. But the parallel was ignored in all the corporate news stories. Also ignored: The RCTV slot was then given over to INDEPENDENT broadcasters, for broad-based programming, to give access to many excluded groups (minorities, the indigenous) and to small, creative, independent producers. How is that bad for "free speech"? The de-licensing of RCTV in truth ENHANCED free speech, and was done with scrupulous adherence to the Constitution and the rule of law. And the rightwing/corporate crowd still controls MOST of the TV/radio broadcasting in Venezuela.


You can see why I am sensitive about this "Big Lie"--"1984"-style--propaganda about Chavez, the "dictator." Our brains have been fucked over by these people. They put the "Big Lie" out there--the reverse of the truth, with no facts supporting the lie--and they repeat it over and over, drumming it into peoples' heads, in all of their monopolized news venues, so it begins to SEEM LIKE the truth, and then we--the poor, beset, looted, ravaged citizens--have to go find the truth ourselves and try to counter their lies, person by person, blog by blog.

Their methods for promulgating lies like this are interesting. They are aware that most people are not careful, critical readers, for instance, so a war profiteer news monopoly like AP uses phrases like "his critics say" (about Chavez), with no name identifying the source, no quotation marks, no attribution. ("His critics say" that Chavez is increasingly authoritarian.") We never know where this is coming from. Well, I tracked that one--through obscure sources--to a rightwing Catholic Cardinal in Venezuela, who spent his entire career in the Vatican finance office, and was one of the few people ever fired by the Vatican (during the fascist banking scandals of the 1980s). HE said that Chavez was "increasingly authoritarian." I have been unable to identify any other source that actually said this, except Con-woman Rice and Bush Jr.! "His critics."

Chavez's request to the people of Venezuela to run for a third term is another example of how this "Big Lie" machine twists the facts. Chavez has PROPOSED a change to the Constitution removing the 2-term limit. It is being debated in the National Assembly, and will be VOTED ON by the people of the Venezuela. And if they vote it up, Chavez will then have to stand for re-election, when his term expires, and be VOTED up or down, for a third term.

How does that make Chavez a "dictator"? Our own FDR ran for FOUR terms, and died in office during his 4th. He was a "president for life." Was he a "dictator"? (The foaming-at-the-mouth rightwing robber barons of that era called him a "dictator," too.) Running for office is vastly different (as night from day) than SEIZING office. Using your power--being a strong leader--on behalf of the majority (the poor, the workers, the lower middle class)--is NOT "authoritarianism." Fascists would like progressive leaders to be weak, indecisive, and without sufficient power to serve the people. And anything such leaders do, to curtail the overweaning power of the rich, will result in squeals of "authoritarianism," as is the case with Chavez. I can't find anything he's done to merit this accusation. Not anything! Not a single fact that holds up to inspection.

And when you look at who opposes Chavez--Bushites (talk about "dictators"!), the pampered rich oil elite in Venezuela, rightwing Catholic prelates (real democrats), rightwing paramilitary death squads in Colombia (--plot recently exposed to assassinate Chavez), and Exxon-Mobile and other global corporate predators, and also when you look at Chavez's policies, which are seriously challenging global corporate predator rule in South America, you begin to understand WHY they MUST demonize him. Nothing else has worked. The people of Venezuela--and indeed millions of South Americans--support these policies, and like and trust Chavez. They are impervious to the corporate press, and to Bush. And our corporate rulers live in dread of Chavez's Bolivarian revolution--social justice, peaceful change, real democracy, self-determination--spreading north.

I admit I'm on a tear to challenge this "Big Lie" that Chavez is a "dictator." It makes me angry and determined. I am not oblivious to the dangers of any politician getting too much power. God knows we've seen its ravages here. And I am well aware of the history of dictatorships, of both right and left. Politicians and governments need to be watched--and watched closely. But by every standard that I can think of, and have investigated, this charge against Chavez is bogus, and dangerous. It smells like the preliminary to a renewed fascist war against the people of South America. Hasn't the U.S. and its corporate predators, and its CIA tortures, destabilizations and assassinations, and its military/police state "war on drugs" boondoggle done enough harm in that region already?

Our war profiteering corporate news monopolies NEVER call Bush a "dictator" or "increasingly authoritarian," although there is overwhelming evidence of it. When are they going to start telling the truth about Chavez, and Venezuelan democracy, and the widespread support in the region for the peaceful and beneficial Bolivarian Revolution?

When Rafael Correa was running for president of Ecuador last year, and Chavez had just made his remark at the UN, calling Bush "the Devil," Correa was asked what he thought of this remark, and he replied that it was "an insult to the Devil." Correa's numbers soared--he had been running neck and neck against a rich banana magnate, to that point--and he won the election with 60% of the vote. We need to understand this. We need to understand why the vast majority of South Americans love Hugo Chavez, approve of his humor, and support his peaceful Bolivarian Revolution. It's because it's THEIR revolution. Not his. Theirs. And that's what THEY think of Bush. Now, at long last, they are empowering leaders who will speak THEIR minds, who will stand up to the bully in the north, and who will act in THEIR interest.

This is not about Hugo Chavez. It's about the people of South America. The Bushite/corporate obsession with Chavez is extremely distorted, and is based on fear of democracy, not fear of "dictatorship." They fear the majority. They fear the rule of law. THEY want to "dictate." And they are insanely projecting THEIR own ill intentions ONTO Chavez, who has shown NO evidence of ill intention. And, unfortunately, this evil process of projection is hard to banish from our minds--it is so persistent and repetitive--so that we can see things clearly. It is the Bushites and global corporate predators, and their Democratic Party colluders, who are the menace to us all, not Chavez, and not his many supporters in South America.


_______________________________

*(I'm particularly interested in election systems, because of our stolen elections here. So I have looked into this issue, in some detail, in Venezuela. Venezuela uses electronic voting but it is an OPEN SOURCE CODE system--anyone may review the code by which the votes are tabulated--and they handcount a whopping 55% of the votes, as a check on machine fraud. Contrast this with our system: electronic voting with machines run on 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code, owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations, with many states doing ZERO handcounting, and even the best states doing only 1% (wholly inadequate) as a check on machine fraud. It has been a particularly egregious lie of the rightwing opposition--a lie devised by a Washington DC PR firm (Penn & Schoen) and Bush-funded USAID-NED operatives in Venezuela--that there is something wrong with Venezuelan elections. All actual evidence points the other way. Their elections are among the most honest and aboveboard on the planet.)

**(Recommended: "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised," the Irish filmmakers' documentary about the 2002 coup attempt in Venezuela. It will help you believe in democracy again, and raise your own American revolutionary spirits. DVD available at www.axisoflogic.com.)

[seemslikeadream]

4. The Revolution Will Not Be Televised

:hi:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxT6erdLmYY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqYhBEBp_5o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beiMlD3ny24

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wiM9ccvvnY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67HekrA9Jxs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KjptzJmY1A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lx_3n2FTpBY

[Balbus]

5. I don't see the word "dictator" and the word "Chavez" in the same sentence.

I see a period after the word "dictator" which would indicate an end to that particular sentence. The word "Chavez" does not appear until the next group of words - a second sentence. Thus, your diatribe and "please explain what you mean..." question are irrelevant.

A link for more information on the subject.

[Peace Patriot]

11. My bad. I should have said, "If you're going to use 'dictator' and 'Chavez' in the same

SUBJECT LINE, please explain what you mean."

It seems a quibbling point, though. And, as I am not sure what the author meant, by putting these words on the same subject line--with phrases that are obviously related to each other, in his/her thought process--I think my question is still relevant.

[blondeatlast]

7. No only are you completely missing the point, but your reading skills need

help. There's a period and a several words between the words "dictator" and Chavez.

It's wise to read the question carefully on an essay response, though. Lots of effort, but you failed to address the question asked.

C-

[Peace Patriot]

13. Well, I asked the author to explain. So, obviously, I missed the point.

That's why I asked.

And it seems to me you are making a big fuss about a minor error. Yes, I should have said, "...if you are going to use 'Chavez' and 'dictator'" in the same SUBJECT LINE (rather the same sentence). So what? The two thoughts are obviously related in the author's mind. So I asked what he/she meant. And I explained what my concern was, about linking a true dictator like Musharaff to an elected leader (Chavez) whom the Bush Junta accuses of a being "dictator," with no evidence to support it.

Is it a cheap shot? A casual repetition of a Bushite "talking point"? A thoughtless toss-off? A comment about too much DU discussions of Chavez? (i.e., we have other things to worry about). Ironic? NOT meant to reinforce Bush Junta lies--meant to do the opposite? I really don't understand the subject line--and I have legitimate concern about Bushite/corporate news monopoly brainwashing of north Americans against the perfectly legitimate, honestly elected, very popular, scrupulously law abiding, leftist president of Venezuela.

[upi402]

14. seconded! >>>The Revolution Will Not Be Televised

here here

get ready for the quasi-Dems to circle-shoot yet again. Just duck, they drop like flies of their own accord.

[NNN0LHI]

3. Careful saying bad things about the thug Musharaff

We have some people here who think he is the only thing preventing Osama from having nukes.

Don

[Peace Patriot]

8. Valerie Plame might have been helpful in that regard, but...

...oh, oops, pardon us for stepping over the dead bodies of her covert agents/contacts in the illicit nuke and WMD networks around the world.

Too bad. Twenty years of WMD counter-proliferation work eviscerated.

You get the feeling that the Bush Junta WANTS nuclear weapons to be used. It's like they want to bust the taboo on nuclear weapons use that has been in effect since Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They want somebody to do it. They have been setting up prime conditions for that to happen--threatening North Korea and doing everything possible to make them feel insecure, bullying Iran to such an extent that the Iranians would be crazy not to develop a nuclear deterrent, provoking Russia with open hostility and a missile system on their border, supporting dictatorship in Pakistan and havens for Al Qaeda, calling off the troops when they had OBL cornered at Tora Bora, smashing Iraq to pieces so that no real security exists as to interdicting weapons traffic, supporting Israeli aggression against Lebanon and Syria, and against the Palestinians, and on and on. Their every action seems designed to maximize nuke and other WMD proliferation, and provoke their use.

They may think that a limited nuclear exchange will give them more power, and lard the nuclear weapons industry with more looted U.S. taxpayer (and other looted) dollars. They seem oblivious to Carl Sagan's warning, in "The Cold and the Dark," that even a limited nuclear exchange will extinguish all life on earth (by raising a huge dust cloud that will kill all plant life within months). Perhaps they think that just the THREATS and the bluster and saber rattling will line their pockets and create conditions of such fear that they can justify retaining power, or, even if they consent to be removed from power (to be replaced with a D or R who is equally committed to the war budget), they can, in any case, continue to line their pockets, and rule by proxy with the billions and billions of dollars they have stolen.

I don't really know what these criminals are thinking. As with much else in our country right now, we are reduced to guessing and reading entrails. But of one thing we can certain: Their decisions will be based on their own private interest, and that of their rich pals, and not on our national interest, nor on the interests of our safety or the safety of other peoples. They don't want to stop terrible things from happening--terrorist attacks, rogue governments using nukes, illicit weapons trafficking. They thrive on those threats continuing, and hugely profit from them, and, as the American people get onto them, they likely wouldn't balk at ratcheting up the fear, by permitting--or even instigating--nuclear weapons use or other horrors.

So, it's no wonder that they got rid of the CIA's professional WMD counter-proliferation projects. They don't want honest information. They don't want the proliferation to be "countered." They want to USE it--for profit, for power. And many U.S.-based global corporate predators are involved in this game, and support them in it--corporations like Bechtel, who provide nuclear power and nuclear weapons expertise, and cleanup expertise (wherever there is a threat or a problem), and rake in billions of dollars from every threat, every problem, every negotiation and every expansion of nuclear technology, for whatever purpose. It's these "experts" who are actually driving policy, I think.

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

"The 12,000-page weapons declaration Iraq issued as part of the UN weapons inspection regimen listed 24 major U.S. corporations which gave substantial support to Iraq's biological and nuclear weapon and missile-building programs. The Bush administration tried to keep this aspect of the report secret even from the members of the UN Security Council. In the case of nuclear and biological weapons this kind of support was illegal since the 1970s.

"The companies named in the report include Hewlett Packard, DuPont, Honeywell, Rockwell, Tectronics, Bechtel, Unisys and Sperry, among others, along with the U.S. Departments of Energy, Defense, Commerce, and Agriculture. The Los Alamos, Livermore and Sandia nuclear laboratories provided training for Iraqi nuclear scientists. Of major industrial countries, only Germany had more business ties to the Iraqi regime."

http://www.newsandletters.org/Issues/2003/Jan-Feb/Lead_Jan03.htm

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

"This year, we call on groups to protest at the corporate offices of Bechtel, the world's number-one nuclear profiteer...our aim is to expose the continuing hypocrisy of the U.S. nuclear double standard and to directly confront the U.S. corporations who are perpetuating and profiting from a worldwide nuclear crisis and the war in Iraq. (snip)

"Through its 100 years of revolving-door relationships with government, Bechtel illustrates the connections between corporate profiteering and war, between nuclear power and nuclear weapons proliferation, between “free trade” and the exploitation of indigenous peoples, and between corporate power-brokers and decision-makers at the highest levels of government."

http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=3316

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

"Did Donald Rumsfeld Aid North Korea's Nuclear Program?: A New Report Reveals Rumsfeld Was On Board of Zurich Firm Abb Which Sold North Korea Two Nuclear Reactors"

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/05/03/0028228

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

"...confrontation is surely what the Bush Administration wants, viewing it as an opportunity for further punishment of the DPRK. Since demolishing the 1994 Agreed Framework, the Bush Administration has gone on to do everything in its power to worsen tensions. 'The U.S. never intended to honor the Agreed Framework and did not fully fulfill any of its provisions,' points out Alexander Zhebin of Russia's Institute of the Far East. 'The U.S. would love to place a bursting boiler at Russia's doorstep. Americans would sit back and watch it explode on TV, and let Russians, Chinese and Koreans sort out the consequences.'"

http://www.counterpunch.org/elich10272006.html

[Bonobo]

9. Thanks for the wonderful and informative post.

[SoCalDem]

6. George admires Musharraf, because he's a dictator who has

control of the military, has nukes, controls the judiciary (such as it is there), and is not afraid to USE power.. (just like Bush)..

[Eurobabe]

10. hey your sig looks like some of the spam

i've been getting lately! too funny...

[Nutmegger]

12. R&K #5 ...

Sending this to the greatest. :kick::kick::kick::kick::kick: