HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » (Hugo) Chavez taps hardli...

Fri Jan 27, 2012, 11:14 PM

View profile

 

(Hugo) Chavez taps hardline generals for inner circle

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2017351563_apltvenezuelachavezmilitary.html

President Hugo Chavez has been filling top posts in Venezuela's armed forces with hardline political loyalists, raising concerns among critics that the military leaders might not accept the results of this year's election if it goes against him.

The man named defense minister this month, Gen. Henry Rangel Silva, has been the bluntest: "A hypothetical opposition government starting in 2012 would be selling out the country; the Armed Force is not going to accept that," he told a Venezuelan newspaper in 2010.

Chavez, who according to recent polls has approval ratings above 50 percent, has assured opponents he would hand over the presidency if defeated.

Yet opposition leaders have been alarmed by the open political allegiance of the newly appointed generals, and especially Rangel's outspoken support of Chavez's political movement. The opposition has urged Rangel to abide by the military's traditionally apolitical role.



46 replies, 1743 views

Thread informationRemove bookmarkTrash this thread

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 46 replies Author Time Post
Reply (Hugo) Chavez taps hardline generals for inner circle (Original post)
Neue Regel Jan 27 OP
MADem Jan 27 #1
Fool Count Jan 28 #2
MADem Jan 28 #3
Fool Count Jan 28 #6
COLGATE4 Jan 28 #9
carla Jan 29 #36
MADem Jan 28 #23
bitchkitty Jan 29 #37
MADem Jan 29 #40
ronnie624 Jan 28 #4
MADem Jan 28 #5
joshcryer Jan 28 #7
MADem Jan 28 #12
Bodhi BloodWave Jan 28 #16
joshcryer Jan 28 #20
MADem Jan 28 #21
happyslug Jan 28 #28
joshcryer Jan 28 #29
MADem Jan 28 #30
joshcryer Jan 28 #8
COLGATE4 Jan 28 #10
joshcryer Jan 28 #11
Fool Count Jan 28 #18
MADem Jan 28 #13
joshcryer Jan 28 #19
MADem Jan 29 #34
joshcryer Jan 29 #35
hughee99 Jan 28 #14
UTUSN Jan 28 #15
Dreamer Tatum Jan 28 #17
ronnie624 Jan 29 #33
Dreamer Tatum Jan 29 #39
unkachuck Jan 28 #22
Angleae Jan 28 #24
MADem Jan 28 #27
EFerrari Jan 29 #43
Angleae Jan 30 #45
joshcryer Jan 28 #25
MADem Jan 28 #26
Neue Regel Jan 28 #31
unkachuck Jan 28 #32
Neue Regel Jan 29 #41
EFerrari Jan 29 #42
unkachuck Jan 29 #44
bitchkitty Jan 29 #38
Judi Lynn Jan 30 #46

Response to Neue Regel (Original post)

Fri Jan 27, 2012, 11:20 PM

1. They may as well stuff the ballot boxes and be done with it. nt

View profile

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #1)

Sat Jan 28, 2012, 12:48 AM

2. Yeah, just as well. Appointing a defense minister US doesn't like and stuffing ballot boxes

View profile

is exactly equivalent. Another "equivalent" thing would be if Chaves won that election fair and square,
since he would still remain in power this way and US doesn't like that. The only proper thing for that
bastard Chaves to do would be to resign immediately and over power to the people US likes. That
would be real democracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fool Count (Reply #2)

Sat Jan 28, 2012, 02:00 AM

3. Wow, aren't you a little fact-free extrapolator?

View profile

I'd settle for free elections. That's not going to happen though--Chavez has disqualified all the competitive candidates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #3)

Sat Jan 28, 2012, 05:14 AM

6. There are four outright falsehoods in those three sentences.

View profile

I am neither 'little" nor "fact-free" nor "extrapolator". That's three. And there was never a candidate competitive with
Chaves in those elections to begin with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fool Count (Reply #6)

Sat Jan 28, 2012, 08:41 AM

9. You might want

View profile

to get the spelling of your hero's name right - it's Chavez, not Chaves

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to COLGATE4 (Reply #9)

Sun Jan 29, 2012, 08:40 AM

36. The spelling may be incorrect

View profile

but their understanding is rock solid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fool Count (Reply #6)

Sat Jan 28, 2012, 09:31 PM

23. Well of course not--he wouldn't allow them on the ballot! nt

View profile

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #3)

Sun Jan 29, 2012, 09:12 AM

37. Talk about fact free.

View profile

Venezuela has fair elections, and there's never been anything that suggests otherwise. Why would you deliberately lie about something like this, that can be easily proven false?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bitchkitty (Reply #37)

Sun Jan 29, 2012, 01:50 PM

40. Suuure, anyone who wants to run can run! Oh wait...they can't. Never mind, then!

View profile

If that's what you call "fair" I wouldn't trust your judgment in any other areas, either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #1)

Sat Jan 28, 2012, 02:20 AM

4. Damned straight! What's wrong with him?

View profile

He should be putting his political enemies into positions of power, instead. Imagine appointing military leaders who might be loyal to him. It's not like he's had to worry about more than one attempted coup d'etat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ronnie624 (Reply #4)

Sat Jan 28, 2012, 02:27 AM

5. We're not talking friends, we're talking cronies. But whatever. Cheer him on, it plainly gives you

View profile

joy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #1)

Sat Jan 28, 2012, 07:39 AM

7. All voting in Venezuela is done via electronic voting.

View profile

There have been allegations in the past that it's been rigged, but I find those arguments specious at best.

It's not "pure" electronic voting.

You vote on a machine, it prints out your ballot, you put the ballot into a box, dip your pinky in cleaning solution, and then in ink that will not wash off for 3 days.

The allegations circled around people who, after voting on the machines, had ballots that did not match their wishes, and they weren't allowed to revote or "fix their ballot." Some allegations even surround arrests when people complained. I don't know the veracity of those allegations, but they weren't seen by the monitors who were there before, so I take those allegations with a grain of salt.

Overall I consider Venezuelan elections the cleanest in Latin America, if not the hemisphere (all of the America's).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #7)

Sat Jan 28, 2012, 10:48 AM

12. Doesn't matter who you vote for, it only matters who counts those votes.

View profile

Glad you think those elections are clean--I simply don't share your view. I think the entire process is rigged.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #12)

Sat Jan 28, 2012, 03:33 PM

16. and all the election monitors are in Chavez's pocket i assume?

View profile

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #12)

Sat Jan 28, 2012, 08:26 PM

20. Sure, but MUD has observers, just as the Democrats and Republicans can have observers.

View profile

So I don't buy that they'd be able to rig the vote count. The rigging would happen at the electronic voting level and the voting booth workers ask you to assure that the ballot you've printed is valid, that you actually chose it. This almost completely rids the possibility of "electronic vote rigging" because there is an actual paper trail. Now, it's possible that some people could be getting shafted in some deeply corrupt areas, I'm not discounting that (areas where the MUD candidate is a mole or something), but that's not going to impact the overall vote, and our vote isn't immune from such cronyism either.

But we do have irregular voting methods, one state uses paper ballots, another state uses electronic voting machines, another state requires ID to vote, another state requires vote registration card, some states have early voting, others don't, and so on. In Venezuela they have an elections administration that has unified the whole process throughout all of Venezuela. So parties can't look to weaknesses in the system in one state (some states won't allow felons to vote here, for example, so Republicans go after those voter rolls, etc). If there is a weakness in the system it would have to be systematic and I simply can't see where that would be. Everyone of voting age is required to have an ID, and the ink on the pinky finger prevents revoting (so even if you're in the wrong district the popular vote is going to work, there is no potential rejection of votes).

The real rigging is at the top level, the denial of voter candidacy on trumped up charges. You look at how they kept LL from running and even tried to keep HCR from running. The administration can administratively deny people from being candidates, not judicially, administratively.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #20)

Sat Jan 28, 2012, 08:51 PM

21. Iran does that--they pick who is "allowed" to run.

View profile

Of course, even at that, they had to stuff the ballot boxes, because Ahmadinejad did not win the last election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #21)

Sat Jan 28, 2012, 09:54 PM

28. At least one pre-election poll support that Ahmadinjad won free and clear

View profile

The only nation wide poll done just before the actual vote, show him winning.

http://www.alternet.org/world/140656/pre-election_poll_predicted_ahmadinejad_win/

The actual poll:
http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/upimagestft/TFT%20Iran%20Survey%20Report.pdf

Please note the poll was done by phone, thus Ahmadinjad's greatest support group, the poor rural peasants without phones were NOT in the poll. Just pointing out the there is evidence Ahmadinjad won the election fairly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to happyslug (Reply #28)

Sat Jan 28, 2012, 10:05 PM

29. There were no election monitors in those elections.

View profile

"Free and clear" then, becomes a misnomer at best.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to happyslug (Reply #28)

Sat Jan 28, 2012, 10:10 PM

30. I vociferously disagree.

View profile

If you're a rural peasant, you are more likely to have a land line phone (thanks to the legacy of that Shah, who brought telephones and electricity to the rural areas). The cellphones (and their towers) are all in the cities.

It's a hell of a thing when the guy gets more votes in a town than there are residents.

He stole that election. It's why so many people are pissed off.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/08/19/how_ahmadinejad_stole_an_election_and_how_he_can_fix_it

Using even a minimal standard, there are good reasons for Iranians not to trust election results. The president-controlled Interior Ministry conducts elections in Iran. It denies opposition observers access to polling stations and counts the votes. Only half of Mousavi's observers were permitted to observe polling stations in the capital city of Tehran; they had even less access in the rest of the country. None of the observers were permitted to see whether the ballot boxes were empty when the vote began. Nor were they permitted to accompany the mobile ballot boxes, which collected nearly one-third of the votes. And no Mousavi or impartial observers accompanied the ballot boxes from local wards to the provincial committees and finally to Tehran for the count.

Before the election, the reformists' Committee for Safeguarding the Votes expressed concern that 54 million ballots were printed -- millions more than for past elections and 8 million more than the number of eligible voters. Moreover, some ballots did not have serial numbers. About 40 million people voted, but no one accounted for the other 14 million ballots.

The Committee for Safeguarding the Votes also said it found a large number of Mousavi votes after the election, including some in the northern forests of Iran. It surmised that these votes were removed from the boxes and replaced with votes for Ahmadinejad. Mousavi himself claims he has evidence that the total number of votes exceeded the number of eligible voters by as much as 40 percent in more than 170 constituencies. Some of the party observers claim ballots for Ahmadinejad featured the same handwriting in the same ink.

These accusations of fraud are credible. Even the conservative Guardian Council has acknowledged that as many as 3 million votes might have been fraudulent. But, given the way the system operates, no one knows with certainty how many votes were legitimate and how much fraud occurred.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Neue Regel (Original post)

Sat Jan 28, 2012, 08:33 AM

8. I predict a sweeping victory for HCR.

View profile

Just wait and see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #8)

Sat Jan 28, 2012, 08:42 AM

10. In any event,

View profile

he's getting his Military ducks in line, just in case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to COLGATE4 (Reply #10)

Sat Jan 28, 2012, 08:51 AM

11. HCR = Henrique Capriles Radonski, not Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías.

View profile

I don't expect a military coup, HCR is a unifying candidate, to transition the country from Marxist-Chavismo-insanity to social democracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #11)

Sat Jan 28, 2012, 07:04 PM

18. In your dreams, mate. Not without no-fly zones and NATO bombing, that's for sure.

View profile

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #8)

Sat Jan 28, 2012, 10:49 AM

13. Is the cancer recovery not going well? nt

View profile

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #13)

Sat Jan 28, 2012, 08:16 PM

19. Rumor has it they've resigned to prolonging it, but I take those rumors with a grain of salt.

View profile

Chavez has still been pretty out of the spotlight except for random appearances here and there so it's going to damage his campaign if he's not able to be in their faces for three-four months straight before the elections.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #19)

Sun Jan 29, 2012, 01:12 AM

34. I heard he's terminally ill, but you never know what to believe from these reports.

View profile

They kept floating that assertion about Castro as well, and he's like a Timex--takes a licking and keeps on ticking.

The latest thing I saw was this:

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-01-23/americas/world_americas_venezuela-chavez-health_1_venezuela-s-national-assembly-venezuelan-president-hugo-chavez?_s=PM:AMERICAS

Within this article are the expected denials, but I'll just excerpt the assertions about his health/condition:

...Cancer has spread in Hugo Chavez's colon, spine and bones, and the Venezuelan president could have only nine months to live, Spain's ABC newspaper reported Monday, citing medical records provided by unidentified intelligence sources.

"His health appears to be deteriorating at a more rapid pace. Clearly there has been metastasis in the bones and the spine," the ABC report says, citing what it said were doctors' observations after medical tests December 30....According to ABC, in June doctors diagnosed Chavez with prostate cancer but said he could live for five years or more with treatment.

In late October, ABC says, the president's medical team said the number of cancerous cells in his bone marrow had increased. In late December, according to the newspaper, doctors said they had found a tumor in Chavez's colon. The president was refusing a more intense recommended treatment and could have only nine months to live, ABC says, citing medical records.

Citing a January 12 medical report, ABC says Chavez was receiving "increasing doses of painkillers and stimulants that have helped him give the impression that he is stabilizing and have given him a high level of visibility."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #34)

Sun Jan 29, 2012, 01:19 AM

35. Yeah, that's the rumors I'm talking about.

View profile

The opposition thinks this is the best way to end his reign, have him prolong his life, lose in elections because he's unable to campaign, and then die afterward as a loved and cherished leader of the Venezuelan people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Neue Regel (Original post)

Sat Jan 28, 2012, 10:54 AM

14. It looks like he's setting up "Plan B" just in case. n/t

View profile

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Neue Regel (Original post)

Sat Jan 28, 2012, 01:07 PM

15. R#1 & K for, how do you say "Quelle surprise" in tinpot dialect. Not really a question. n/t

View profile

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Neue Regel (Original post)

Sat Jan 28, 2012, 04:25 PM

17. "...has assured opponents he would hand over the presidency if defeated."

View profile

The hallmark of any great democracy: assuring opponents you'll play by the rules of the game.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dreamer Tatum (Reply #17)

Sun Jan 29, 2012, 12:59 AM

33. He is forced to make assurances by an endless cadence of false accusations.

View profile

Answering to people is what democratically elected leaders do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ronnie624 (Reply #33)

Sun Jan 29, 2012, 12:11 PM

39. Poor, poor Hugo.

View profile

All that power grabbing is causing the wrong IMPRESSION...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Neue Regel (Original post)

Sat Jan 28, 2012, 09:12 PM

22. what's so unusual?

View profile

"...filling top posts in Venezuela's armed forces with hardline political loyalists..."

....what top posts within the US armed forces are filled with generals opposing Obama?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unkachuck (Reply #22)

Sat Jan 28, 2012, 09:40 PM

24. Most of them.

View profile

You'll find that most generals and admirals are republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angleae (Reply #24)

Sat Jan 28, 2012, 09:45 PM

27. Not in my experience. They're more closely divided than many might suspect. nt

View profile

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angleae (Reply #24)

Sun Jan 29, 2012, 03:51 PM

43. Um, seems like the last general that came out against Obama, McChrystal, was canned. nt

View profile

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EFerrari (Reply #43)

Mon Jan 30, 2012, 05:15 AM

45. They won't publically come out and state it. They've lasted too long to be that stupid (generally).

View profile

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unkachuck (Reply #22)

Sat Jan 28, 2012, 09:42 PM

25. It is illegal for armed forces to show any political favor in the US.

View profile

You can't even attend a political rally in a uniform for instance.

So you cannot know if they favor or are opposed to Obama for that reason.

They may well in fact be opposed to him privately.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unkachuck (Reply #22)

Sat Jan 28, 2012, 09:43 PM

26. I know a few flag/general officers with GOP leanings who are in high wire jobs right now.

View profile

They're smart enough to put their biases aside, suck it up, and work for, not against, their Commander in Chief.

During the Bush years, I knew no small number of senior leaders who voted for a Democratic ticket when they pulled the curtain. One of them is running the VA now.

The difference is this--in the US, it's very bad form to cheerlead in uniform in a partisan way. You can cheer for the commander in chief after a military victory, you can't cheer for the President in a reelection bid. When you do (like that asshole did from the pulpit in uniform during the Bush years), you find yourself in receipt of orders of the "retirement" variety.

Also, anyone who becomes a general or admiral in the US military has earned the rank--he or she isn't the fortunate friend or cousin of El Presidente who got fast-tracked through the system and skipped ranks to get the full fruit salad on the chest and the gold on the hat and epaulets. They all come up pretty much the same way, through a few accession tracks, and they all have to check the same experience blocks in order to qualify for promotion. It's a long, strange trip to get to the top of the heap--not a quick and easy jaunt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unkachuck (Reply #22)

Sat Jan 28, 2012, 11:03 PM

31. Can you tell me, what is the "official salute" of the US military?

View profile

From the article:

During his 13 years in office, Chavez has long promoted trusted officers and has increasingly sought to put his political stamp on the military command. Chavez survived a failed 2002 coup in which dissident military officers were involved, and has since tried to ensure tighter control.

Chavez also instituted a new official salute, "Socialist fatherland or death," which he later changed during his cancer struggle to "Independence and socialist fatherland."

As for the newly promoted generals, Chavez says they lead a military that is becoming progressively "more revolutionary, socialist, committed."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Neue Regel (Reply #31)

Sat Jan 28, 2012, 11:27 PM

32. '...what is the "official salute" of the US military?'

View profile

....the peace sign?

"...Chavez survived a failed 2002 coup in which dissident military officers were involved,..."

....if democratically elected Obama survived a failed coup attempt in which 'dissident military officers' were involved, wouldn't Obama be very cautious with military positions and promotions?

....what's so unusual?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unkachuck (Reply #32)

Sun Jan 29, 2012, 02:44 PM

41. Think about history for a moment...

View profile

Take as much time as you need...now, tell me, how often do you remember a nation's military having a verbal official salute? I suppose "Independence and socialist Fatherland" is a slight improvement over "Socialist Fatherland or death", but do you think it is in a nation's best interest for its military to be in the business of endorsing a particular view of social policy? Would you be comfortable if our troops had to address senior military members with "Capitalist Homeland or death!"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Neue Regel (Reply #41)

Sun Jan 29, 2012, 03:48 PM

42. You mean, instead of imposing US economic interests all over the world with drones

View profile

black sites and assassinations? That it was an improvement?

Lmao

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Neue Regel (Reply #41)

Sun Jan 29, 2012, 10:02 PM

44. "...I will obey the orders of the President..."

View profile

US Armed Forces Oath of Enlistment

"I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

"...I will obey the orders of the President...",....who in our money-based electoral/political system has the financial resources to purchase a billion dollar Presidency?

....since it costs one billion dollars to become a President, isn't taking the oath, "...I will obey the orders of the President..." and "Capitalist Homeland or death!" pretty much equal?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Neue Regel (Original post)

Sun Jan 29, 2012, 09:26 AM

38. Goddamnit! He's doing it again!

View profile

He's not letting the USA decide what is best for the people of Venezuela. He needs to let corporate America make his appointments. Bastard!!!!!

Those Venezuelans don't know which side their bread is buttered on, evidently. Time to start inventing atrocities, faking events and flooding the airwaves and the Internets with bullshit.

</sarcasm>

Neue Regel - new rule? Whose new rule?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bitchkitty (Reply #38)

Mon Jan 30, 2012, 05:56 AM

46. This crapfest is going to be far worse this year each week as the Presidential election approaches.

View profile

Same old pattern, same old charges, same crappola, it happens every time a big political deal comes along in that country.

We are physically supporting the opposition through our government's political gifts, sending taxpayers' dollars to their journalists, and sustaining their anti-Chavez opposition hate-groups (pro-democracy NGO's? Ha ha ha), and conferences in Washington with the anti-Chavez leaders, bless their hearts.

And we sit here like mushrooms, in the dark, usually, with the feeblest among us swallowing everything the corporate media dumps on us, and damned happy to do it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread