Mr. Kerry. Please just keep your mouth closed about Venezuela.

[Imperialism Inc.]

I am so sick of this shit coming out of John Kerry's mouth about Venezuela. I guess I missed this when it came out. I am glad I did, but now I have seen it.

Why the hell does he see the need to say this stuff? Mr. Kerry, the vast majority of American's have no idea where Venezuela even is. There is no pressing need to take a stance on this issue. You want to woo Cubans in a state that will likely be a major fraud-fest like 2000 anyway? Fine, talk about Cuba and how you approve of embargoes or something. But god damn it shut the fuck up about Venezuela and the rest of Latin America so that people like myself, who care about it, and have been bringing you voters in my battleground state of Ohio (both in my private and professional life), can do so without despairing that it is going to be meet the new boss same as the old boss as far as Latin America is concerned.

Ugh ugh fuckin' ugh!

Sorry. Had to get that off my chest. Think I'll go throw up now.


Kerry Statement on the Referendum Process in Venezuela
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/foreignpolicy/venezuela_statement.html

May 27, 2004

The coming days will be critical for the future of democracy in Venezuela. President Chavez and all Venezuelans must understand that the international community will be watching closely to ensure that the signature validation process proceeds openly and impartially.

The Venezuelan people are entitled to a government that respects human rights and the rule of law, fights corruption and builds consensus through the democratic process. Yet after being democratically elected and promising reform, President Chavez has treated opponents as enemies rather than seeking to heal the divisions that have plagued Venezuela. He has undermined the constitution and used his Bolivarian Circles to repress peaceful dissent as his government systematically moved to expand its powers.

When the referendum process presented a legitimate challenge to his leadership, President Chavez lost an opportunity to demonstrate the popular support he claims to enjoy, instead showing a troubling disregard for the rule of law. Particularly concerning are recent reports of numerous human rights violations. Over the past weeks, President Chavez has used questionable pretexts to justify further arming of militias and intimidation of the press and the referendum’s supporters.

The disturbing trend towards establishment of an authoritarian regime must be reversed now, so that the referendum can begin a process of national reconciliation. President Chavez has a responsibility, as the head of state, to protect the interests of all Venezuelans by allowing the recall signatures to be reviewed in an atmosphere of calm and transparency. Representatives of the OAS and the Carter Center must be given full and unfettered access to all aspects of the process. Given the need to verify hundreds of thousands of signatures, more time should be granted if necessary to allow this process to be completed in an orderly manner.

To date, the Bush administration has regrettably chosen not to play a true leadership role in bringing international pressure to bear on President Chavez to allow the referendum to proceed without interference. Indeed, their tacit support for the ill-conceived April 2002 military coup against Chavez has undermined their ability to play that role. With our credibility and the hopes of so many at stake, I call on the Administration and our allies in the region to stand strong for the democratic process in Venezuela.

[mike_c]

1. aaarrrggghhhh....

Comments deleted. I am so disgusted.

[Classical_Liberal]

2. It has nothing to do with Florida

Florida is gone because Jeb is purging black people again. He is being advised by pnacers, which is why even though Bush should be drummed out of office the peace camp's job is not over, just because Kerry is in there and Kerry deserves no honeymoon. God the world would be so much better if Dean had won. Kerry really mislead the peace voters.

[JHBowden]

16. Kerry *is* overperforming in Florida

among the Cuban Americans. If Kerry has to talk a little smack about Chavez in order to win the election, I'm not complaining.

[Andy_Stephenson]

3. Yet, Mr Kerry says nothing about

rigged voting machines, human righs violations, corruption and disregard for the rule of law here at home.

Amazing...simply amazing.

[PaDUer]

12. Oust Kerry...

get a NEW candidate at the convention...IF the convention does go as planned?

[TruShade]

4. Agree

sometime silence id golden

[Tatiana]

5. Not surprising, but just as disgusting.

After all, our very own unions, such as the AFL-CIO funneled money towards the Venezuelan coup-plotters.

Just goes to show how much influence the powerful, moneyed pnacers control not only our own country, but the world.

[Solidarity]

6. Kerry Is Saying What He Believes

MiddleMen wrote: "Mr. Kerry. Please just keep your mouth closed about Venezuela. I am so sick of this shit coming out of John Kerry's mouth about Venezuela. I guess I missed this when it came out. I am glad I did, but now I have seen it.

Why the hell does he see the need to say this stuff?"

Because he is saying what he believes and is presenting his true foreign policy agenda. It's not very progressive and to most people in Venezuela it might even be considered right-wing and reactionary.

But, that is what Kerry stands for and I'm glad he is being frank about it and not trying to mislead us with some liberal sounding rhetoric on this particular question.

[Classical_Liberal]

7. The peace people were told it was just politics

and running to the middle to get elected. They were told because of this he was more electable. I didn't fall for the lie, but most of the rank and file did. Thanks for pointing out the truth. Kerry is probably just right wing. I would rather have an honest progressive than an honest conservative.

[lostnfound]

75. But 'Honest progressive' is never on the menu, is it? nt

[Imperialism Inc.]

8. Well, I was kind of holding on to the idea that it was all

Rand Beers (sp?) fault. But, I am growing doubtful.

[Classical_Liberal]

9. Kerry chose Rand Beers

it says something about him. The only reason to vote for Kerry is because he isn't Bush. That is a good reason. Having someone I like instead of just disliking him less than I dislike Bush would be much better.

[Imperialism Inc.]

10. True. Guess this is nothing new.

Just wish he would stop reminding me.

[Vladimir]

46. No you don't

if I was you I'd wish, and wish really fucking hard, that he'd remind me of it with his every sentence. That way you don't forget what the real fight, of which ousting Bush is a crucial yet peripheral element, is.

[pretzel4gore]

11. we're the hannibal lector of societies

maybe kerry's just guarding his flank, or something....surely the man isn't so stupid as to think we want what's best for the people of latin america etc(?)

[Imperialism Inc.]

14. I wish I could understand what you just said.

Can you offer a translation?

[pretzel4gore]

51. i have links to ward churchill's article...

concerning his comparison between himmler and columbus.....both had idea of paying their bill using stolen wealth, murder etc...i believe he mentioned hannibal (my fave serial killer btw) lector:
the idea that western society is basically innocent and guilty of nada but being better at 'survival' then the rest of humanity is a big lie. every crime in history has its roots in the seven deadly sins (and western society claimed christianity/goodness for itself too!). the result was/is massive dislocation of humanity, suffering etc, which are 'natural' consequenses of the 'serial killer' mentality. Thus our nations are where they are, and the rest of world where it is, as a result of ignorance and cruelty, greed, self delusion and big mistakes too often.
Kerry knows this, as do all informed people. But he dare not SAY IT, or else! So he panders to the mentality in public statement, in interest of getting power etc...when in position, he can return to ideals of peace corp/a.i.d/UN/redcross cresent etc

[sandnsea]

13. Gads, have an election, how horrible

"Representatives of the OAS and the Carter Center must be given full and unfettered access to all aspects of the process. Given the need to verify hundreds of thousands of signatures, more time should be granted if necessary to allow this process to be completed in an orderly manner."

AND, the Bush Administration has no credibility in Venezuela BECAUSE OF:

"their tacit support for the ill-conceived April 2002 military coup"

That's about as clear as a U.S. Presidential candidate can say that our country authorized a coup.

Just because the coup was wrong, it doesn't automatically make Chavez 100% right either. I've read about wrong-doings from both sides. What we need is leadership that supports real democracy and real economic changes that are truly for the people, which is exactly what Kerry is saying. No U.S. coups. Calm, transparent democracy with international oversight.

Again, gads, what a horrible position to take. :eyes:

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

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

[sandnsea]

18. Such as?

Chavez hasn't treated his opposition like enemies? He hasn't arrested dissenters? He hasn't tried to load the courts with additional judges?

It just amazes me how totally incapable of objectivity people on DU are sometimes. It's perfectly possible to have BOTH sides be wrong in Venezuela. The only way out is to try to restore a fair democratic process with international oversight. It's the right thing to do and I can't understand why people don't support it. It's the exact same thing he called for in Haiti, respect democracy.

It's stunning to me that people just don't understand that.

[w13rd0]

21. Hypothetical...

...Kerry is elected. The GOP plans and executes a MILITARY, VIOLENT coup with the assistance of the media, which we already know they own, and a foreign governments deep pockets. How would YOU treat the planners of such an effort?

Don't know about you, but that's the very definition of enemy and traitor to me...

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[Imperialism Inc.]

33. The 7 (forbidden?) lies, disinformation and distortions of John Kerry

Kerry Statement on the Referendum Process in Venezuela

May 27, 2004

The coming days will be critical for the future of democracy in Venezuela. President Chavez and all Venezuelans must understand that the international community will be watching closely to ensure that the signature validation process proceeds openly and impartially.

The Venezuelan people are entitled to a government that respects human rights and the rule of law, fights corruption and builds consensus through the democratic process. Yet after being democratically elected and promising reform, President Chavez has treated opponents as enemies rather than seeking to heal the divisions that have plagued Venezuela. 1 wow John Kerry is your memory that bad? Just take a glance down your speech page and you can see that the opponents in question tried to overthrow him in a coup but now it is his fault. How stupid are you John Kerry :eyes: He has undermined the constitution2 How exactly has he done this? and used his Bolivarian Circles to repress peaceful dissent He has never urged his circles to repress anyone. Looks like the poor getting involved in politics is a no-no for John Kerry as his government systematically moved to expand its powers. He was elected on a platform of reforming the government and creating a new Constitution

When the referendum process presented a legitimate challenge to his leadership, President Chavez lost an opportunity to demonstrate the popular support he claims to enjoy, instead showing a troubling disregard for the rule of law. 3 In what way? This is pure fabrication Particularly concerning are recent reports of numerous human rights violations. Over the past weeks, President Chavez has used questionable pretexts to justify further arming of militias 4No. He is wants to call up non-active duty folks. Hmmm, just like Kerry wants to do and intimidation of the press and the referendum’s supporters What is this based on? Is this kinda like the narco-terrorist Bush lie Kerry repeated before?.

The disturbing trend towards establishment of an authoritarian regime must be reversed now,5 False, unsupported assertion so that the referendum can begin a process of national reconciliation. President Chavez has a responsibility, as the head of state, to protect the interests of all Venezuelans by allowing the recall signatures to be reviewed in an atmosphere of calm and transparency.6 implies he is not letting that happen Representatives of the OAS and the Carter Center must be given full and unfettered access to all aspects of the process. implies they are not being given access which is a lie Given the need to verify hundreds of thousands of signatures, more time should be granted if necessary to allow this process to be completed in an orderly manner. So which is it Johnny? Support the rule of law or arbitrarily decide to violate the law and give them more time?

To date, the Bush administration has regrettably chosen not to play a true leadership role in bringing international pressure to bear on President Chavez to allow the referendum to proceed without interference. 7 uuummmmm no. The Bush admin did issue a couple very harsh threats to bring such pressures to bear. Kerry apparently wants even more of them??Indeed, their tacit support for the ill-conceived April 2002 military coup against Chavez has undermined their ability to play that role. With our credibility and the hopes of so many at stake, I call on the Administration and our allies in the region to stand strong for the democratic process in Venezuela.

===

There are 7+ examples. Is that enough for ya?

If you couldn't even spot 1 lie then I don't believe you know what you are talking about.

[sandnsea]

69. What about Fox, Lagos, Flores, Toledo

Nobody supports coups, but Chavez wasn't promoting democracy. It's amazing to me that the same people who are rightfully in complete hysterics about Bush can't see that Chavez is exactly the same, except to the left. It doesn't matter whether you agree or disagree with his reforms, the way he is going about it is wrong. Throwing everybody who disagrees with him out of the government, wanting special powers to grant him complete legislative authority, making up crazy rules on the reform election, get real, the guy is setting up a dictatorship.

Mr Fox - himself under pressure at home - said Venezuela's crisis had been caused by policies that polarised society and by the "erratic ways of the government".

Chile's Ricardo Lagos agreed but said solutions using force were not acceptable in the 21st century.

Peruvian President Alejandro Toledo
El Salvador's President Francisco Flores, however, said he supported the new leadership.

"We consider President Chavez's resignation as the culmination of a process of polarisation, confrontation and abuses of democratic principles," he said.

Peruvian President Alejandro Toledo said it was still too early to say whether the rest of Latin America could accept the new government as legitimate.

"I wasn't the greatest fan of the Chavez government and I recognise that the people have the right to remove their government, but they have to do so through democratic channels in adherence to the rule of law," he said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1927390.stm

[aneerkoinos]

164. What about them?

Some most pro-US and unpopular leaders of Latin America give half hearted support to US backed coup. The point being?

And what gives you the gall to say Chavez is not promoting democracy?

"Throwing everybody who disagrees with him out of the government,"

Sourde? Does his governement have the support of parliament? Only thing you show that you don't know what parliamentary democracy means.

"wanting special powers to grant him complete legislative authority,"

Source for this slanderous statement?

"making up crazy rules on the reform election,"

Source? What do you mean? Everything has gone according to Venezuelan constitution, judicial branch solving differences of opinion in interpreting the law.

[Imperialism Inc.]

36. I just have to add this. Because your statement is just too ridiculous.

"It just amazes me how totally incapable of objectivity people on DU are sometimes."

You know. Just recently I posted an article that was very balanced from VA. Several people thanked me for the link to what one called the most balanced article he had seen on Venezuela yet. I provided him with a link to a 3 part debate between VA and VCrisis so he could get more. Now I am "incapable of objectivity"

You know what is totally hilarious about that? Read Kerry's speech again. He attacks Chavez through the entire thing. In one sentence at the end he mentions the coup. But , it is in reference to Bush and so only really indirectly aimed at the opposition.

For all your snooty eyerolling comments one would think maybe just maybe you would have caught that. Where is you indignation at Kerry being "totally incapable of objectivity"? Or is the opposition blameless in your "objective" holier-than-thou eye rolling book?

Hmmm, could it be that you are the the one that is "totally incapable of objectivity"?

[Vladimir]

44. Oh give it up already

The vast majority of the media and the judicial system in Venezuela are anti-Chavez. That is why the coup plotters of 2002 are walking free instead of being in jail or dead as they would had they plotted a coup anywhere else. Chavez is taking on a racist establishment and you expect him to fight by the Queensbury rules? While his opponents plot coups and openly state that they want him dead? Why is it always one rule for the left, another for everyone else???!

the poor of Venezuela know the truth - that's why they returned Chavez in 2002. And they will return him again if they need to.

[JanMichael]

60. It's a hoot isn't it? Two standards, one for the Reich, one for the Left.

Ooops! I meant "Right" not "Reich"...Chavez has to fight with one hand tied behind his back and the Aristocracy gets to do whatever the fuck they want. And our own "Democrats" support that shit?

Venezuela is suffering from the exact same thing the US is suffering from; An Arrogant Plutocracy which owns most of the Media, Land & Money, in the country.

Of course we have more sophisticated coup d'etat than them, 2000 for example, but for the most part we're just a bigger richer ass-backwards Banana Republic.

[sandnsea]

72. Exact SAME standards

Apparently. The right abuses democracy so the left should too. It's all about whether you agree with the politics as to whether leaders should follow democratic processes. Is that it?

[peacetalksforall]

168. Jan Michael

You are precisely right!

[sandnsea]

71. Listen to yourself

You're giving a government permission to ignore the rule of law because you happen to agree with the politics. That's not democracy, that's an evil that belongs only with people like the Bushes.

[Vladimir]

76. Yeah, because I don't believe in absolute morality

The rights and wrongs of any action, any action at all, are completely dependant on the context. My problem is that the right always demands that the left plays by some mythical rules, while never agreeing to them itself. When your enemies come for you with a gun, clutching the constitution will do you no good if you ain't got a gun yourself. I have no doubt that you would decry a right wing coup in Venezuela, but my friend, I would rather the Venezuelans didn't have to go through another 10 years of RW tyranny just to satisfy some abstract desire for the left to play fair.

[noiretextatique]

98. perhaps he should focus his comment on democracy

on the US? since every thing you say about chavez is also true of his american opponent. respect democracy, indeed.

[peacetalksforall]

162. Respect Democracy? RESPECT DEMOCRACY?

If we respected democracy, Aristede would be in Haiti? What's the matter with you people?

[Classical_Liberal]

17. well acting like the coup plotters aren't really enemies of Chavez

and democracy.

[sandnsea]

19. Maybe Chavez is WRONG

Did you ever think of that? Just because the U.S. plots a coup against a leader, doesn't automatically mean the leader is right. BOTH sides can be wrong. The only way out is with democratic elections with international oversight.

What's so damned controversial about that?

[silverlib]

22. I humbly disagree...

Chavez is an elected president. The recall election has forged signatures. The American oil companies are biting at the bits for the oil in this country. Chavez has brought many of his countrymen out of poverty by the government held oil.

There is too much right about Chavez and too much greed from American oil companies to not stand behind this man.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

23. Maybe Kerry is WRONG.

Did you ever thing of that?

TWL

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[Imperialism Inc.]

34. Of course he didn't

He couldn't even spot one of several lies. His position has no merit.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

35. let me add to my post...

shit I wish i had proof read that!


thing=think!!!!!!


Middlemen, cheers.

TWL

[Imperialism Inc.]

27. I love it. Semi-tacit support for the coup.

Beautiful.

Bush was right just had the wrong methods eh? :eyes:

[Vladimir]

43. Well maybe he is

but that's not the question. The question is, should the US be plotting coups against him, and the answer is no. Its up to the people of Venezuela and no one else to decide the rights and wrongs of their governement!

[sandnsea]

55. Which Kerry said

And which I quoted in my post because it seems people read only what they wanted to read and missed the rest. Yes, it is up to the people of Venezuela, which is why Kerry supports a transparent democratic process with international oversight. Not such a radical position at all.

[Vladimir]

58. Why is international oversight

required? After Florida 2000, what right does the US have exactly to teach other countries about the democratic process?

[sandnsea]

70. Chavez agreed to it

That's why. And if you object so much to the games the Bushies played with the election, why the hell don't you object to the games Chavez is playing?

Why ARE there two different rules for the right and the left? Why is the left allowed to ignore constitutions and the rule of law in their governments? Why aren't you just as outraged when someone from the left violates democratic processes as you are when someone on the right does it?

[Vladimir]

73. Of course he agreed

what choice does a thrid world leader have exactly?

You know, I don't get outraged with Chavez, because ultimately if your enemies fight dirty you fight dirty. Thats if he has been manipulating things, and I am in no way accepting that as a fact (although I will grant you the strong possibility exists). You don't fight a tank with a water hose, you fight it with another tank.

[sandnsea]

79. Wow, that's wild

I understand the left much better now, definitely don't want a leftist in office anymore than a want a neocon right-winger.

There was a way for Chavez to make necessary changes in Venezuela. Abusing the constitution and legal processes, stacking the courts and constitutional assembly with his own people, abolishing the Senate; that wasn't the way to do it. And if you support that kind of thing, you don't support democracy so quit using that as a pretext to your outrage. You support leftist principles, any way you can get them.

[Vladimir]

81. Chavez has been as democratic

as a saint given the sitation. For pete's sake, all the media and judiciary have been against him from day one, and while we are at it many of the judges sitting when he took office were corrupt RW appointments. What would you do in that situation? And if he is such a brutal dictator, why is it that there are tens of recall petitions going in and disputed by no-one against opposition members of parliament? And why is it that the coup-leaders of 2002 are free? Why if he is such a monster???

[The Magistrate]

83. Well Said, Mr. Vladimir!

If Col. Chavez were a dictator, or even playing the game of politoics by the usual rules of the local league, his opposition would be dead in cellars long since....

[sandnsea]

84. I would follow democratic processes

I would work to change the judges through impeachment, trials, proof of corruption. I would work with the opposition, expose it, and change it through the Constitution. It is not a question of whether Chavez is "a monster", it's a question of democratic processes and rule of law. Chavez is a revolutionary, his own attempted coup in 1992 is proof of that. He is as willing to subvert the rule of law for his own purposes as the government before him was. If any country is ever to have democracy, leaders have to respect opposing views and bring those people INTO the governing process; not ostracize them. You ought to know that just by what's happening in this country right now. It would be just as wrong for a liberal U.S. President to ostracize the right as it is for Chavez to ostracize his opposition now.

And that is all John Kerry is saying.

[Vladimir]

85. Good luck surviving one week in office

martyrdom does not interest me much. Pluralism only works if the opposition is interested in talking, as opposed to shooting which is the Venezuelan opposition's main interest.

PS Your plan was followed, pretty much, by Allende in Chile. All it did was get him killed.

[sandnsea]

94. Allende, perfect example

He wasn't interested in creating a democracy, where the people come together and debate the issues and move forward in a majority concensus. He wanted to create a socialist govenment, period. He wasn't interested in listening to anybody who supported capitalism at all. When people with opposing views don't respect each other and work together, somebody gets killed. It doesn't matter whether you think socialism is a preferred form of government. Any government that is put in place without the concensus of the vast majority is doomed to fail. Or turn into a dictatorship. The exact same thing is happening with the right in this country today. They will either have to listen to the rest of the country or they will turn into a dictatorship and then we're going to have a war. And it would be helpful if the left in this country would figure that out so they could help fight the right correctly instead of being just as ideological in their views as the right is.

[The Magistrate]

100. Actually, Ma'am

You might want to look more closely into that episode. Dr. Allende was far more restrained in his acrions than were many of his supporters, and an excellent case could be made that, had he been willing to go to extremes, he might have remained master of the situation. Half measures are generally futile, particularly against determined opposition.

[sandnsea]

102. You just don't get it

It doesn't matter how "nice" you are, if you continue to push through your own agenda without listening to anybody else, people are going to become fearful and not support you when you need it. That's what Allende did. It doesn't justify the coup, but he didn't help his own cause by not gaining a true concensus. He had his ideas and everybody else be damned.

[The Magistrate]

104. My Understanding Is Sufficient For My Poor Purposes, Ma'am

When a conflict is clearly in train, the degree to which one succeeds in rallying, inspiriting, and even arming one's own supporters is often the decisive factor. Politics is not a gentleman's sport, Ma'am: it is a quarrel over splitting the swag, and violent disputes over shares in the spoil are only to be expected. Where the quarrel is at its most basic is between those who provide the capital and those who provide the labor, and it is here the potential for violence is greatest.

"There are two Spains: one which works, and one which eats."

[sandnsea]

108. Which is why concensus is preferred

Which Allende did not build and Chavez is not building. Therefore... violence. They both could have chosen different paths, but they didn't. They chose ideology over democracy. I reject that.

[The Magistrate]

110. Consensus May Be Prefered, Ma'am

It is not always obtainable, and when it is not, matters must be forced through or abandoned....

[sandnsea]

112. I disagree

I cannot believe anybody on a liberal board would support forcing through legislation at the expense of a democratic debate and the building of concensus. That IS dictatorship and if that's what the leftists are supporting in Chavez, I completely reject the whole thing. Kerry is calling this one right on the money, much more so than I even originally thought. I'm glad you folks have clarified your political views, I understand much more now.

[The Magistrate]

114. And Thus, Ma'am, Both Illustrate And Conceed My Point

We are clearly unable to reach a consensus on this matter we disagree on. Were it over something of more immediate importance; say, which of us would continue to receive the income we are accustomd to, and which of us would recieve a good deal less, we would likely be a good deal less civil in the exchange, and if either of us were possessed of the capability to force our desire in that question through, regardless of the other, doubtless we would do so, consensus or no....

[sandnsea]

116. But we aren't in positions of power

And we aren't sitting in the same room, and we aren't discussing specific policies for the betterment of a country or a people. So the fact that we cannot come to agreement does not concede any point, it merely means the stakes aren't high enough and the consequences of our discussion aren't relevant. There is no possibility that either of us is going to indivdiually influence any policy, so there is no need for either of us to make concessions. Kind of like a couple of people running for President right now. They can say anything they want because there's no possibility they'll actually be held accountable to implement what they propose.

[The Magistrate]

117. If We Were, Ma'am, We Would Reach The Same Impasse

"As above, so below: the large is writ in the small, and the small in the large."

[sandnsea]

119. An impasse is acceptable

A democratically elected President accepts it, and moves on to policy where concensus can be built. He doesn't force through his own agenda, no matter how right he thinks he is. That's what George Bush does, and again, I reject it.

[The Magistrate]

123. Not So, Ma'am

Where action is required, or seems very desireable, an impasse is not acceptable, and a person with powers of office to take action will do so, regardless of opposition desires.

[Eloriel]

134. You also ignore the reality that there are many times when

one side simply isn't negotiating in good faith:

and we aren't discussing specific policies for the betterment of a country or a people

There are many forces in this world who don't give a damn about the betterment of a country or a people. The folks we've got in the White House, of course, as well as the people who want Chavez gone. In the latter case, their interest in purely self-interest, tho they may assure themselves (as the Bush team seems to) that their interests are for the good of the country.

[Eloriel]

128. Look, Chavez HAS the support of a majority of Venezuelans

The ones who don't support him are the minority, but they're the rich and mighty.

Your consensus-building notions are lovely, but not very practicable when the opposition is comprised of extremists. Do you seriously believe that the left in our country should build consensus with the neo-cons and other extremist rightwingers? It's not possible, frankly. In fact, it could be argued that the trouble we're IN in this country is precisely because the left did engage in what could be called consensus-building: we "compromised" (gave in), they took advantage again and again and again. They lied (again and again and again), we believed them, and they won and kept winning, and in the process dragged the government ever more rightward.

I agree totally with Howard Dean: no compromise with extremists!

[aneerkoinos]

180. All you are saying

is that the status quo must be preserved at all costs and the have-nots should have no democratic rights to have their say in politics. You are not qualified to speak about democracy because you oppose it.

[sandnsea]

213. Oh for the love of god

I am not. I am saying all people in a democracy have a voice and in order for a democratic government to work, that's the way it has to be. The people posting in this thread are the ones that are saying that it's acceptable to install governments because they're for the good of the people, by any means necessary. Leaders should just force their will through and the opposition be damned. I do not even know how supporting free debate between opposing sides can be considered not supporting democracy. This is just nuts. I really had no idea there were people on the left who were willing to go so far to have their own system of govenment put in place. Eye opening.

[Judi Lynn]

219. DU'ers don't think this way.

I haven't read many of your posts, but I saw this one, and it really looks bogus:

The people posting in this thread are the ones that are saying that it's acceptable to install governments because they're for the good of the people, by any means necessary.

I have a feeling if I read this entire thread I won't find ONE DU'er who has implied this is appropriate.

Maybe you're reminded of the coup attempts on Carlos Andres Perez, the entirely corrupt and vicious predecessor to Hugo Chavez (who was pardoned for the coup attempts) who was impeached for his massive corruption in office. I'm sure a lot of people believed Carlos Andrez Perez did NOT fullfil his job requirements and needed to go.

By the way, Perez censored and intimidated the press, and authorized the killing of many poor people during an uprising he created.


Perez

[Vladimir]

222. The great thing about governments

acting for the good of the people is that they have the support of the majority of those people almost by definition. So while they will in certain circumstances have to treat the anti-humanists and RW thugs with less than kid gloves, the sentiments evoked by statements like 'by any means necessary' are almost automatically not appropriate to them.

To paraphrase the Magistrate's old saying a bit:

kill 1 landowner, free 1000 slaves.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

106. I think you'd better look more closely at the history

of the Chilean coup.

What happened was typical of what happens in a nation or business or any kind of organization when somebody new comes in and tells the insiders that they're not going to get away with their dirty tricks anymore: they start sabotaging the newcomer.

I've seen it happen in businesses, colleges, churches, and even social groups.

[sandnsea]

107. Not the point

The point is, you still have to listen and work with all those groups and build a concensus. You just can't push through your ideological agenda and expect everything to be rosy. And that IS what Allende did. He may have been elected, but it wasn't with a majority vote and he wasn't supporting a democratic process, and he didn't care what the other 60% of voters, who split their vote, thought.

[AP]

124. I can't believe you're blaming the victim of an assassination.

[sandnsea]

133. I'm not

I'm saying that ideology does not support forced governmental policies. And that when leaders force their ideology at the expense of democracy, violence can be expected. Not condoned, but expected. I honestly cannot believe people are supporting forced socialism just because they happen to belive in socialism. It's bizarre to me. Governments should always operate with open debate, concensus of the people, and restraint where disagreements arise. Bush isn't doing that, Chavez isn't doing that, Allende didn't do that. It doesn't work and it's morally and ethically wrong, regardless of ideology, that's all I'm saying.

[AP]

135. You're saying that leaders shouldn't try to govern for the benefit of the

citizens if it's going to get the fascists so riled up that they might shoot somebody.

That is a sick sentiment.

I can't believe you want to measure good government by how little resistance it encourges from from the fascist oligopoly.

We'd still be a monarchy, and a british colony if that were a sensible rule, and germany would be under the fourth reich.

[sandnsea]

139. Read the thread

I really don't want to have this argument again. I reject forced ideology over democracy, it's that simple. If you support a forced government just because you think it's the right government, then go rethink our own Constitution. I don't believe you do, I hope to god you don't. That's what we've got with George Bush right now. These people say Allende and Chavez should just go ahead and force through socialism because it's for the good of the people, regardless of the fact that obviously everybody in those countries don't agree. I say forced socialism, or any other ideology, is dictatorship. Dictatorship is going to be violently fought for as long as possible, whether it be a socialist dictatorship or a fascist dictatorship.

Either leaders listen and work with people with opposing political views or violence ensues. That's democracy. Pure and simple.

[The Magistrate]

143. Democracy, Ma'am

Is that condition here the side with one more vote holds the power of office: you are speaking more of politeness than of democracy, at bottom....

"An election differs from a civil war only as the bloodless surrender of a force outnumbered in the field differs from Waterloo."

"Democracy is a system of government based on the proposition the people know what they want, and ought to get it good and hard."

[sandnsea]

145. Then let's go to representative government

Which is actually what we have, not a pure democracy. We do not have a majority rules country, we have a Bill of Rights that respects the minority view as equal to the majority view. My mistake for presuming that when we were talking of democracy, we were talking of it in terms of the way it is supposed to exist in this country.

[The Magistrate]

149. Not In The Congress, Ma'am

The minority may wield certain obstructive tools in the Senate, such a the filibuster, but in the House, majority rule is absolute. It is similarly absolute in the Executive: the losing party gains no reprsentation or influence there whatever.

[sandnsea]

155. Certain rights still must be protected

They cannot pass laws and rewrite the Constitution and throw out judges and all the rest just because they're in the majority. They cannot force through a whole new governing process just because they're the majority. We are a country that is based on the rights of the minority which usually stops the majority from overstepping their bounds. If not in the legislature, eventually in the courts. Chavez is doing exactly what George Bush is trying to do, only from opposite ends of the political spectrum. It is not democracy.

[Darranar]

172. There was a referendum on the Constitution...

the people of Venezuela backed the new one Chavez supported.

Isn't that democratic?

[AP]

148. "I reject...Democracy" -- yeah, I can tell.

What's a "forced government"? Is that when you finally enfranchise 80% of the population and the oligopoloy resists?

[sandnsea]

153. Nope,

not doing it again. Read the thread. The argument is that it's okay for Chavez to force through socialism because it's for the good of the people. It's okay for him to stack courts, stack the Constitutional Assembly, give himself complete power to legislate, whatever it takes. He can do whatever he wants because they agree with is political ideology.

Sorry, that is not democracy.

[AP]

154. "force through"..."socialism"...you're living in a FANTASY WORLD

You like Kerry. We understand. But it doesn't help Kerry or you to blindly defend EVERYTHING he says.

You clearly have no idea what is going on in VZ, and I sense that you're afraid to find out the truth.

[sandnsea]

156. Read the damned thread

THAT is what the people in THIS thread are saying. READ IT.

[AP]

159. Whatever other say, it's doesn't excuse you.

[AP]

158. You are inventing facts and characterization and even terminology ("forced

politics").

You know why you have to do that, don't you?

Because you're not dealing in reality.

Forget Kerry for a minute, and go read something.

Hell, read American history. Everything that Chavez has done has a precedent in American history, from Washington and Jefferson, to FDR, right up to Bill Clinton (who, by the way, liked Chavez and agreed that his polices helping the poor were sensible and that their enfranchisement would strenghten democracy).

Why are you even a democracy if you don't believe that the downward flow of economic, political and cultural power creates more overall wealth and a happier and healthier democracy?

[aneerkoinos]

188. Democracy

Once again, you show that you don't have the slightest understanding of what democracy means.

If majority through parliamentary process chooses socialism against the will of capitalist minority, why is that "dictatorship",

but when majority chooses capitalism against the will of socialist minority, somehow you don't consider that dictatorship?

[sandnsea]

212. Yes I would

But the socialists have a voice in this country. The people have fought and worked to restrain capitalism to make it fairer to the people. Bush is attempting to remove all those restraints and we call him a Hitler. Chavez does it in Venezuela and you call him a hero. It's too opposite sides of the same coin. Leaders MUST listen to opposing views and legislate accordingly. If they don't, you don't have a democracy. I swear, it really isn't complicated.

[Judi Lynn]

220. You should bring proof of your wild charges against Hugo Chavez

It would be appropriate that you provide any creditable references to Hugo Chavez's removing "all those restraints."

Don't fling charges and accusations around without proof. That's simply not sensible. It might work on certain message boards, but not among reading people.

[aneerkoinos]

224. *sigh*

See my post 197 on what democracy means. On democracy I'm a fundamentalist. Even if people through democratic process decide to abandon democracy and choose fascism, that is their democratic right. And if Bush was elected through a process that would fill even the minimum requirments of democracy (which he didn't and thus US is not a democracy), he would have the democratic right to lead the country where he wants to.

There is no such "MUST" for leaders you speak about in democracy, in fact, a functioning democracy can do without any elected leaders at all and be a better democracy. It is whole other matter that reasonable men prefer to be lead by leaders who can compromise.

But nothing of you say has anything to do with Chavez. He's not a socialist (I would not mind if he was), and for what I know he really does listen to all views, and actively promotes policies that even more views would have access to audience, not only views of the corrupt commercial media conglomerates, but also various grass roots media having real means of practicing freedom of speach. In this aspect Chavez' policies have indeed been admirable and it is not exaggeration to say that he's been the biggest promotor of freedom of speach in our times.

His problem is that he was elected on anti-neoliberalist agenda, because neoliberal economical model that was forced down on Venezuela was hurting the vast majority of people (and he was honest about his promises unlike many who have been elected on similar agenda but betrayed their promises) and Washington acts paranoid against anyone attempting to prove that other that neoliberalist (by other word neocolonialist) might work and benefit their people. Succesfull renouncing of the neoliberal model is the worst nightmere of Washington neocolonialists, and cannot be allowed, it must be made to fail by destabilising the country.

The weapon of choise for Washington and the small and corrupt oligarcy dependent on Washington and its neoliberal policies is the commercial media conglomerates, which with their blatant propaganda smear and hate campaign (that seemingly has fooled most western media and you too, at least to some extent) against Chavez have instigated most of the opposition. Propaganda works and bigger lies work better than small lies, ask Goebbels, Murdoch and Cisnero if you don't believe, but propaganda is not an "opposing view", in the sense you mean, legitimate but conflicting interests of various parts of population, something that a good leader should listen to and find compromises to.

[Vladimir]

160. Allende failed. Pinochet won. Thousands died.

I am sure you don't like Pinochet either, but those were the options on the table. Its a fantasy to pretend otherwise. Allende then, and Chavez now, both make the classic error of, as the Magistrate so well put it, playing half a game. Allende lost - I hope Chavez doesn't, because the outcome will likely be misery for Venezuelans.

[sandnsea]

166. Democracy was an option

It requires concensus. Allende failed to move towards it, I'm not sure that was ever his intention. It appears Chavez may be making the same mistake. And people who are supporting an ends justifies the means approach are making a huge mistake.

[AP]

170. Allende won an election. It took an assassination to remove him. He had

consensus. That's why killing him was the only option for getting rid of him.

How much more consensus do you think a guy should be trying to create when his opposition realizes nothing but killing him would work to protect their interests.

[sandnsea]

196. He had 32% of the vote

He did not win the election with a consensus and he didn't create one when he took office. That's what happened. He wanted to implement socialism and to hell with everybody else. It doesn't justify a coup, certainly doesn't justify Pinochet, but that is still what happened.

[AP]

229. He won the election. He was entitled to coalition govern. He was MURDERED

becasue they oligopoly didn't like the way he was going to govern.

He's supposed to concede to people who are willing to murder if they can't get their way?

ABSURD!!!!

[AP]

232. Allende couldn't come to a consensus with Wall St. They're not even ...

...entitled a voice in Chile's government.

[Vladimir]

174. Bloody hell

what do you do when your enemy puts a gun to your head? What do you do? Do you scream about consensus? Or do you blow his motherfucking brains out?

The RW is not interested in reform. Your consensus means pandering to their prejudices in order to save some democracy inscribed on a tablet somewhere. I can tell you for free, Venezuela is more democratic today than Chile ever was under the RW. By about a million miles.

[AP]

167. That's the bottom line. People pretend that the ideal is the only option..

..the fact is you have stark choices. You had Allende or fascism, Chavez or fascism, Blair or Tories, Kerry or fascism, McGreevey or Republicans, and (I believe, although many disagree) Mugabe or neoliberalism.

Some of those choices are easy, and the good guy is pretty good. Some aren't great chocies. But they're obvious choices.

Allende was a good choice. He was going to be a fantastic leader, which is why they killed him in such a spectacular fashion (the CIA was making an example of him, and a great deal of the wealth Wall St stole from developing countries around the world over the next 30 years probably wouldn't have been made if Allened had lived -- he was the 6 trillion dollar man, and his death was worth it for the neoliberals).

Anyway, the fact is, you usually have two choices in politics, and the people who say that if the liberal isn't pure of heart and the best person in the world, then it's better going with the fascist are ignorant or RW'ers (or both).

[Vladimir]

185. You know AP

we may not always agree, but you talk a fucklot of sense sometimes.

[sandnsea]

198. So totally irrelevant

It isn't about the two choices. It's about what happens AFTER the choice is made. Nobody said go with the fascist because the liberal isn't pure of heart. I swear to god people can't fucking read around here. All I ever said that NO MATTER WHO is in power, they MUST respect the opposition. On either side. Or else you get a dictatorship. That's it. How incredibly racial, respect opposing views. My god. Shoot me dead.

[Vladimir]

200. The fascist would

shoot you dead that is.

Do you respect racists? I anticipate your answer is no - in which case you have already accepted that consensus sometimes involoves not listening to certain people. The issue then is only where you draw the line.

[sandnsea]

203. They are HERE

And you gotta' accept it and you gotta' listen to the fucktards. They get a right to speak their mind and everything. You don't write laws to lock them up just because you get into a position where you can. You respect the Constitution and rule of law, as it's written, because that's the only way you can guarantee rights for everybody. You KNOW that. I cannot even remotely believe I'm having this crazy-assed debate on a liberal board, I just can't.

Just because you want socialism doesn't mean it's acceptable to get it by any means.

[Vladimir]

204. Actually I would lock racists up n/t

[sandnsea]

205. Well see there

Another reason I guess I'm glad the left isn't in charge. Ideology over democracy. It's good to know where they stand.

[Vladimir]

207. Democracy over pandering to racism more like

with all due respect, your idea of democracy couldn't work in a school classroom, much less in the real world.

[sandnsea]

209. Only leftists need apply

I supposed your idea of running a classroom includes kicking out any kid that says something you disapprove of. That wouldn't work well in a classroom, just like it wouldn't work well in a democracy. Again, I just cannot even believe I'm debating freedom of speech and respecting opposing views in a liberal forum. Wild, just wild.

[Vladimir]

211. My idea of democracy involves

kicking the shit out of racists, yes. I would derive some pleasure from it, having been abused due to my nationality more than once in my life. What people want to think is none of my business - noone is advocating a thought police. But when you try to racially discriminate against someone, then to quote Ice Cube:

"but that's when I go psycho, like Norman Bates"

[sandnsea]

214. Let me guess

You're 26.

What people think is none of your business, even if its racist. Locking them up or kicking the shit out of them doesn't solve anything. If that were the case, there's undoubtedly some people who think you should be locked up for what you think. Where does it end?

We live in an imperfect world with imperfect people. The only way out is open debate and truly listening to all sides, in a democratic setting.

[Vladimir]

215. 26?

If you are trying to guess my age you guess wrong. As for the rest of it - I have no interest in trying to listen to racists, in the sense that there is no circumstance under which I would consider it good to implement even 1 iota of racial discrimination into law. So its a waste of time.

[sandnsea]

216. You have to

You have to listen to them, not to implement law, but to begin to have the kinds of discussions that can lead to change. You have to listen, to root out the errors in their thinking. You can't just kill them all, that's what we're trying to do to the terrorists and we all agree, that won't work.

As to your age, you sound like you're of the 25-32 generation that has wanted to kill everything since the day they were born. That's all.

[Vladimir]

217. I don't think we should kill them

but I do think recially discriminating against someone should be a criminal offence leading to a rehabilitative stay in a jail. Much more so than smoking dope for example.

I don't want to kill everything. And I certainly haven't felt that way since the day I was born. On the other hand, I have lived on refugee allowance, lived in a city while it was being bombed, seen my country demonised and been discriminated against because of it. At the sharp end, consensus never seems to have that... je ne sais quoi about it.

On edit: maybe community service instead of jail. If the offence was minor.

[sandnsea]

218. Beat the shit out of them

That's what you said.

Consensus, your country had consensus and all was well and then the bombs fell? I'm trying to think of a country where that has happened and none come to mind. Although I am honestly sorry for what you have had to live through.

[Vladimir]

221. So I exaggurated a bit

the sentiment stands, the rest is quabbling about the kind of punishment to be meted out.

My country certainly didn't have a consenus. Half the problem was that the humanist opposition was busy trying to formulate a consensus with the racists running it instead of revolting.

On edit: actually, a more accurate summary is that consensus existed, was trampled all over by the RW, and the left spent 10 trying to pretend that the consensus was still there and talk instead of fighting.

[The Magistrate]

86. There Is Nothing Wrong With Revolution, Ma'am

Our own country was founded by one, after all. Mt. Lincoln spoke often to the effect that people have a right to revolutionize against their government, and was hardly the originator of that view. What a revolution does not have the right to do, of course, is succeed: it may do so, but it may also fail. It is up to the revolutionaries to determine that, in conflict with their opponents.

The question to be asked is not whether a thing is a revolution, but whether the revolution in question is one that may improve the lot of the mass of the people, or whether it will work instead to their detriment. It seems to me that the revolutionary drive of Col. Chavez tends towards inproving the lot of the mass of the Venezuelan people, and therefore that it ought to enjoy the support of progresive and left people everywhere.

[sandnsea]

88. After the revolution

That's the question. If democratic processes aren't respected after the revolution, then there has been no revolution. Only the exchange of one dictatorship for another. And that's the danger of Chavez. None of them have worked for the people in the end, none of them. No, not even Cuba, despite some people's idealism of Castro. I don't support leftist ideology purely because it's leftist ideology. If there isn't democratic debate and a meeting of the minds in a legislative process, then that is a government I cannot support.

[The Magistrate]

96. By Definition, Ma'am

Revolution is the overthrow of an existing legal order: it is not a legal but an extra-legal process, accomplished in all instances, in the final analysis, by those who want it to succeed coerceing and even killing those who want it to fail. It is more likely to succeed, of course, if the former outnumber the latter, God being on the side of the biggest battalion, and so could, perhaps, in that crude sense, be called a democratic expression in many instances.

[sandnsea]

99. That is complete hogwash

The idea that because a military overthrow succeeds it is an expression of the people is ludicrous. Totally and completely ludicrous.

Regardless, if a new governing process is to be successful, no matter how it got into place, it has to have the support of the majority of the people. And to get that, all sides have to listen to each other and work together.

Iraq ought to have taught you that.

[The Magistrate]

101. You May Believe What You Please, Ma'am

Most revolutions are not military adventures, but take a regime wielding a military for their target. Coup d'etat and revolution are different concepts.

Neither thing, of course, has the slightest relevance to the current position of Col. Chavez: he was elected to office by the people, and has, in office, done nothing more or less than what he promised his supporters to do, and what everyone on both sides of the question knew was his intent.

Do not, by the way, Ma'am, mistake the majority of the monied classes for the majority of the people in assessing popular will, nor the majority of one ethnic caste for the majority of the people. In our country, after all, if only white men voted, the reactionary party would enjoy solid majorities in every election, though you would hardly call that the will of the people, and if there were also property and income qualifications, those majorities would be much higher.

[sandnsea]

103. So is George Bush

For chrissake, do you not understand? Being elected into office does not give any leader the right to push through an ideological agenda. That is exactly what George Bush is doing and that is exactly the same excuse he gives for it, he was elected and he is doing what he promised his supporters he'd do. And the rest of the country be damned.

It DOES NOT WORK. A leader listens to everybody in his country and creates policy based on concensus. Not extreme ideology from the right or the left.

[The Magistrate]

105. That Reptile Was Not Elected, Ma'am

He received fewer votes, and was installed in office by a variety of criminal and quasi-legal machinations....

[sandnsea]

113. He thinks he was

And so do his supporters, so the argument is legitimate in their minds. Just like Chavez makes his argument, he was elected so he can do what he wants. That isn't right, that isn't the way a democracy works.

[The Magistrate]

115. The Vote Total Is A Matter Of Objective Fact, Ma'am

And actually, it is the way democracy works: if you are voted into office, you can do as you please, within the constraints of law and the consitution, anyway....

[sandnsea]

118. Ah, the law and the Constitution

Which is exactly what Chavez is circumventing and subverting, so he can do things EXACTLY the way he wants.

And no, just because you are voted into office, it does not mean you can do exactly what you want. I have worked in various groups and just because I've been elected President, I've never thought that that meant I had authority to turn the organization on its head. It means I'm capable to respecting the process, organizing an agenda, and building concensus and making concessions.

[The Magistrate]

122. Was There Not, Ma'am, A New Constitution Constructed There?

These things are plastic, treated properly. Nor do any reports from Venezuela convince me Col. Chavez has acted either extra-legally, or extra-constitutionally: his opponents have charged that, but that is not quite the same thing....

While you may not have chosen to exercise the whole of your prerogatives, and may well have been wise not to do so, you were under no requirement to act as you did....

[sandnsea]

130. A new constitution

Written by Chavez supporters that reduced the power of the Congress and eventually, the Senate altogether. At which point, he asked for special powers to legislate by decree without parliamentary oversight.

Exercising restraint is what democracy is all about. If you don't, you're a dictator. And as to the post above, the only time it is remotely necessary to exercise your power without concensus is in a time of national emergency, immediate and totally destructive events. Not to change the banking system or nationalize all commerce or divy up land amongst the people. All of that must be done with a concensus of the people, the vast majority of the people. If it is not, it is simply stealing from one group and giving to another, the same as what they occused the opposition of doing, in reverse. That's what Chavez is doing in Venezuela and I just do not see it as a democracy.

[AP]

132. The new constitution devolved power downward and outward.

The old consitution hadn't been doing much to promote democracy, had it?

[sandnsea]

136. It doesn't matter

If it wasn't written with input from all the people with varying political views in Venezuela, it's not a democratically written Constitution. Again and again, I reject ideology over democracy.

[AP]

137. The first one wasn't written with input from the people and only served

to prevent people from having input.

[sandnsea]

141. Neither was the second one

Two wrongs don't make a right.

[AP]

147. Uh, yes it was. It was written and passed by a gov't which enranchised 80%

of the population for the first time in its history.

[The Magistrate]

138. And Thus, Ma'am

All perfectly constitutional: there is nothing at all which says the rules cannot be changed in the middle of the game, if one has the votes to do it under existing mechanisms.

Government, Ma'am, is largely an exercise in stealing from one group and giving to another: it is most usual that the poor are stolen from, and the rich given to, of course, and when a government operates in reverse of that, the novelty of the spectacle gives rise at times to shocked outcry that something new and horrible is being done.

You seem to be requesting not the consensus of all the people, Ma'am, but the consensus of all the large landlords, bankers, and commercial magnates, be secured befoe any reform of their practices to the benefit of the majority of the people may be undertaken by any democratically elected government. That is not democracy but oligarchy, Ma'am, and surely it is not your intention to argue in favor of that venerable form of governance....

"Conservative, n.: In politics, a statesman who is enamoured of existing evils, as opposed to a Liberal (n.), who wishes to replace these with new ones."

[sandnsea]

144. Oh bullshit

This country has operated with the concensus of both the workers and the wealthy for quite some time, up until Reagan, primarily. I never said only listen to the wealthy, you just made that up. I said all parties must be part of governance or it won't work and it's not a democracy and Chavez, apparently, is not creating a democracy in Venezuela. Or at least, people in this thread don't care if he does as long as the people get the socialism that the people in this thred support.

[The Magistrate]

146. Many People, Ma'am

In many periods of our history, would be surprised at your belief there has been an easy consensus between the wealthy and the rest in our country throughout its history prior to the ascencion of Reagan.

Though you may not be aware of it, in your analysis of the situation in Venezuela, you are indeed requiring that the large property-owners agree in a consensus to measures aimed at restricting their current properties and prerogatives before these can be carried out by a government that enjoys majority support amonmg the populace. The oligarchs will never agree to that, and the people are under no obligation to await their agreement before taking steps to benefit themselves.

[sandnsea]

150. It's not easy

And again, you're putting words in my mouth. I said for the most part because I fully recognize there hasn't been a full concensus between the wealthy and the rest of the country. And I recognize that it has taken real battles for workers to get their rights, blood shed, the whole thing. But the oligarchs have agreed to a balanced governance between them and the people here, and it can happen in Venezuela as well. That is the only way out, in the final analysis, sitting down at the table and having the talks and hammering it out. Forced policies of any kind do not work in the long run.

[AP]

151. "Forced policy"? What the hell is that?

[The Magistrate]

152. Real Battles And Bloodshed, Ma'am, Are The Medium

Not negotiations around a table: that is true in all times and places....

[sandnsea]

169. Without democracy

and diplomacy, you are right. Which is what I've been saying all along.

[Vladimir]

179. Tell that to black people n/t

[Vladimir]

171. And how would you have written a new constitution?

What methods would you have used - holding a referendum on the constitution point by point? A government is, among other things, in charge of writing such documents. You elect your government precisely for the purpose of having such matters as constitution writing taken care of!

If you are telling me politicians should only exercise power within a consensus, I suggest strongly that you think about the implications of your statement. One can almost never have consensus on an issue. Once again - you elect a government, it acts. In most of the cases, in whatever country you care to name, there will be no clear consensus on how to act. how do you care to get consensus on land reform, when the landowners have nothing to gain by it? I'll tell you how - you give them something to gain - like for example their lives. You may not like that, but I don't like 80% of Venezuela living in poverty for any longer than is necessary in order that we reach some mythical consensus with the RW. It would be a lovely world if we could all get along singing happy songs, but I'm afraid this world we do not live in. There are people, with significant resources, who do not want Chavez to succeed. It is them, and not Hugo, who are acting undemocratically.

[sandnsea]

173. Let Bush write a new one

How about that? Hmm? Like that idea?

That's what Chavez did. He got into office, appointed all of his own people to write a Constitution. Didn't listen to any opposing views. The ends do not justify the means, they just don't.

[AP]

176. If Bush were rewriting the constitution to enfranchise 80% of disen-

franchised Americans, and to reduce the power of a few to prevent power from flowing to that 80% would you complain? Would you say, no, so long as the oligopoly is willing to kill to hold on to power, we have to come up with solutions that don't encourage them to kill.

According to your formula, it would pay to be homicidal.

[sandnsea]

181. Silly me, I believe in a voice for everyone

Hell yes I'd complain. Just like the 20% on the left in this country have a right to complain now, just like their views would need to be listened to if we were to write a new constitution tomorrow. Wouldn't you agree with that?

[Vladimir]

183. Indulge me

1% of the population hold 99% of the wealth in a country. The other 99% of the country want it, the 1% don't want to give them jack. And your solution is...??

[sandnsea]

187. Build concensus

I'm sorry. I believe in the democratic process. I believe in change from within. I believe in leaders who respect that process and respect all the citizens. We have that 1% scenario in this country and you know it. We bump along, get in fights, it swings back and forth, and we make it work. I think it can work in Venezuela too. Maybe Chavez should get some European leaders in there to help him move forward. But it has to be done democratically, with all the people in the country participating in the process. That's just what I believe.

[Vladimir]

189. At least you are consistent n/t

[AP]

227. the oligopoloy's problem isn't that they aren't getting heard...

...it's that they aren't getting their way. And that's how democracy works. You do what's best for the majority, which includes reforming government so that the rich don't get to both be heard AND get their way ALL THE TIME.

[Vladimir]

177. Actually, yes

if that's how the system worked here, if changing the constitution was that easy, then that would indeed be the implication of electing a new government. You get what you vote for. I wish it was - it might teach Americans to value their vote better if more was at stake!

[sandnsea]

182. Now that's a banana republic

I actually don't think you mean that. New constitutions every time we have an election. Written by the majority while ignoring the minority. Yep, that's just a brilliant idea. :eyes:

[Vladimir]

184. The difficulty of changing

the constitution is one of the great historical failures of the American political system.

[sandnsea]

190. OH god no

It's the absolute BEST thing about the Constitution. Can you imagine this country if the House had complete control over the Constitution and all legislation? It would be a nut factory. People go off on temporary flights from sanity enough as it is, jump on wild bandwagons, and way too much of it makes its way into legislation. 3 strikes and you're out. Locking up drug users. Anti-gay laws. Blue laws. All kinds of whacked out laws. Can you imagine if we could change our constitution as easily as we legislate? Oh, totally fucked up, completely. I can't even imagine. Rethink that one, seriously.

[Vladimir]

191. With all due respect

you are the one who needs to rethink. The US constitution was undoubtedly the most progressive constitution of its time - sadly its time was a few centuries ago. The reliance of the entire American system on a nigh-on-unchangeable constitution has leant stability to the status quo, but also slowed down to a halt the progressive movement in a society that was once (a few centuries ago) the beacon of progress for the world.

[sandnsea]

202. Probably slowed fascism too

Jesus christ, it's not just YOUR view of the world that you need to consider. All kinds of crazy things can happen when you don't have a steady and respected governing process. Look at the rest of the world. Countries that don't have a respect for their government, because of corruption, right or left, don't work. Ours is in serious danger of not working because of a total lack of respect for the process by those on the right. After this thread, it would be in just as much danger if those on the far left were in charge. A government just cannot function if the opposition is disrespected and ignored. It isn't all that complicated to comprehend. Look around you, examples are everywhere.

[Vladimir]

206. As Nye Bevin, the founder of

the British National Health Service once memorably said:

"That is why no amount of cajolery can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party that inflicted those experiences on me. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin. They condemned millions of first-class people to semi-starvation."

[aneerkoinos]

197. Dictatorship of the majority

"Exercising restraint is what democracy is all about."

Not so, even a bit. Democracy means that ALL power, 'kratos', belongs to the people, 'demos', and to nobody else, so there can be no restraint set on democracy. Only democratically acceptable restraints are those that a democracy chooses to pose on it self through democratic process, which of course most times is very prudent IMO.

[aneerkoinos]

175. question

If a leader is guilty of corruption and orders troops to shoot unarmed demonstrators, and the judicial system is broken and there is no legal way to remove the corrupt leadership, do you think revolution attempt is justified?

[Eloriel]

120. "Just because the U.S. plots a coup against a leader

doesn't automatically mean the leader is right."

Ugh.

No, but when the "leader" has been democratically elected, it:

(a) makes the U.S. wrong (and IMO that's ALL one needs to know) and

(b) usually indicates that the "leader" isn't doing what U.S. corporate interests want OR is taking his/her country further down the path to socialism or communism (which is basically saying the same thing in different words).

We need to stay the hell out of Venezuela and let them do their own thing. There is NO argument anywhere that Chavez's opponents are the country's oligarchy, and his supporters are the poor. IMO that's reason enough for the U.S. to stay the hell out.

Nor have I seen credible reports of any atrocities or wickedness or even anti-democratic activities from Chavez. A lot of people (including so-called journalists in mainstream media like the NYT) throw around accusations, but the funny thing is they never seem to have anything to support those charges.

[Imperialism Inc.]

32. Yes. Horrible and full of several lies and much disinformation.

Apparently rolling eyes back in reponse to your rolled eyes is now against the rules.

Probably make more sense to just remove the icon from those available but oh well.

[silverlib]

20. His "policy" on Venezuela gives me nightmares...

I keep telling myself that I can't agree with him on everything, but this is a very important issue to me. I, too, wish he would just say nothing about Venezuela.

[JayS]

26. Kerry hasn't accepted the nomination yet................ :) n/t

n/t

[Pastiche423]

28. He hasn't been nominated yet................. ;-)

[JayS]

31. So it's not too late for a President Edwards? :) n/t

n/t

[weedthesmoke]

29. Like it or not most Americans disagree with socialism

Chave may get the American left hot with hopes of a socialist success but the majority of realists know it will fail like every other third world attempt to drag down the upper class to the middle lower class while the leaders bask in the cash.

[w13rd0]

30. And in this country...

...we have a system which is far from capitalism.

What do you call it when a nations most precious resource is mandated via state monopolies legislated by the only two viable parties? That's what we have in this nation.

Lookup intellectual property, and the legal fiction known as "corporate personhood". At their root, VERY UN-capitalist concepts.

[Bombtrack]

40. At least socialists have a set of policy ideas. Chavez doesn't have a

policy. He basically seeks to destroy the private sector without having anything to replace it with. He's the definition of a demagogue and like Bush believes he can only retain power by sharpening the devide between people.

[Judi Lynn]

41. I'm surprised you don't provide any articles to bear out your assertions

of Chavez's attempts to destroy the private sector, being a demagogue, and whatever else it is you're pushing.

A lot of serious DU'ers do like to get information before coming to conclusion. A fairly well-balanced person really likes to get real information first.

You'll probably find sensible people don't just take your word for important matters.

[WyLoochka]

52. Contrary to your bomb

Bombtrack, Chavez is a policy "wonk." He has educated himself by being a voracious reader of the complete spectrum of economic theory in history and practice. He recognizes that the "policies" forced on Latin America by the IMF and World Bank backed staunchly by multi national corporations and the US government, whether headed by Democrats or Republicans, will continue to subject 80% of Venezuelans to lives of permanent, hopeless, abject poverty.

He has an overarching "policy" of using the resources of Venezuela, number one being the oil, to educate and make micro loans to the poor to make possible the creation of small businesses and small agricultural plots amongst them so that they too can be "entreupreuners" and raise themselves up out of poverty and create a large, vibrant, educated, stabilizing middle class free from having to live under the policies of continued deprivation for the natives of Latin America and bounty for the already wealthy from abroad, which have been designed largely in Washington DC decade after decade after decade by Republicans and Democrats alike.

Chavez has a policy to replace the continued theft and pillaging of the resource wealth of Venezuela by the already wealthy alright and it is working. The Venezuelan economy has been growing at a healthy clip. That is why his opposition is so very desparate to get rid of him. He is showing economic growth from the bottom up works and shoving it in the faces of the "trickle down is the only way" liars.

[Bombtrack]

54. The Bolivar has lost 80 percent of it's value since he took office

Yeah that's really showing how successful he has been.

[AP]

66. The poor are more than 80% wealthier, and key commodity prices are fixed

so that inflation doesn't touch the poor.

So, actually, the power of the wealthy has dropped by 80%, which pisses them off.

The economy is adjusting from inequitable to equitable, and the government is managing in a way that is shifting economic power down to people who had now power before.

Why so hostile to that?

[Bombtrack]

74. "the power of the wealthy" You mean the wealth of the wealthy?

Or upper middle class, or middle class, or working class with some property. Most of these people worked to attain what they have. Like all countries and it did have a lazy aristocratic ruling class and in Venezuela the devide was very sharp but there are still a huge number of hard working people being affected unfairly and it is not justified because alot has been redistributed to the poor. Are gas station owners there "the rich" no, they aren't, but their earnings have been litterally decimated by Chavez's price controls with no subsidies to help them. You charged me with ignorance, I'd like some specificity of what I'm missing.

[AP]

121. The upper class in Venezuela doesn't work to attain what they have.

They have socialism for the wealthy. They hold back other people who just want to be fairly rewarded for their labors so that the rich can keep what they don't deserve to have (inherited privielege and wealth).

[Bombtrack]

228. A hell of a lot more people than those you just described in Venezuela

are being negatively affected by the fact that Chavez' economy has destroyed the value of it's currency. Which is why he doesn't want an election

[Vladimir]

77. And lets not forget the racial element

most of the rich are white settlers. Most of the poor ain't.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

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

[Vladimir]

42. The majority of realists??

Lets remember for a second September 11th... no, not that one, I mean 9/11/1973. That is when a US backed coup overthrew the democratically elected socialist government of Chile and replaced it with Pinochet. I suggest you tell the tens of thousands of victims of his death squads about your realism.

[Bombtrack]

48. I suggest you direct that blame where it belongs. Henry Kissenger

People all to often like to demonize "the US government" period for the actions of scumbags that have used our agencies and overall foriegn policy to besmerch the rest of us. The congress did not back that action. Nor the illegal campaigns in Laos and cambodia, nor the Iran Contra scandal.

What is your point? A candidate for US President isn't allowed to have an opinion about a Latin American country because of what Henry Kissenger used the executive branch to do?

Kerry has been fighting the anti-peace, anti-human rights injustices of the US and the west since he got home from Vietnam, and calling a spade a spade with a Castro wannabe who's country's economy happens to be being destroyed by him is not tantamount to Imperialism.

[Vladimir]

49. Chavez is the Ace of Spades

And my point wasn't about Kerry, it was about the comments made on socialism. But if you wish to discuss Kerry - he has a right to an opinion, he is just wrong. What do you expect would happen to the leaders of a failed coup in the USA?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

93. Most Americans don't even know what socialism is

only that they're not supposed to like it.

Of course, there's the pesky example of the Scandinavian countries, where sixty years of democratic socialism have brought some of the highest across-the-board living standards in the world, but we never mention those except to spread lies about "high suicide rates."

[Eloriel]

140. Don't assume support for Chavez is because of support for

socialism. I support Chavez because he's the democratically elected leader of Venezuela; because his opponents are the oligarchs in the country; because he is using his country's oil money to help the poor instead of further fatten the rich; and because the Bush cabal tried to overthrow him -- that's reason enough, frankly, just right there.

I don't CARE if he institutes full socialism. I don't consider it my business. And I also don't think it's the U.S.'s business.

[Judi Lynn]

37. An Open Letter to John Kerry:You Are Wrong on Venezuela, Senator

March 24, 2004

An Open Letter to John Kerry
You Are Wrong on Venezuela, Senator
By EVA GOLINGER

As a registered Democrat who supports major changes to current US governance, I must express my utmost disappointment and disillusionment with your March 19, 2004 Statement on Venezuela. I am a US citizen of Venezuelan origin. I have voted on the democratic bill since I was first legally permitted to vote many years ago. Along with many other residents and citizens in this country, I believe the current US administration has acted in ways contrary to my beliefs and perceptions of democracy and progress, and has betrayed notions of what the United States of America should truly represent and pursue in the world community.

Up until Friday's statement, I had hope that you, as a presidential candidate, could offer the American people a true alternative and change from the brutal, insensitive and interventionist government we have had during the past four years. As a Venezuelan-American, I must tell you that your statement on Venezuela is not only highly misplaced, but also demonstrates how truly uninformed you are about the situation in Venezuela. It also leads me to believe that you have been influenced by interested parties insisting you take a stand on this issue in their favor.

You declare that international pressure should bear on President Chavez to allow the referendum to proceed, which clearly demonstrates your ignorance of the referendum process in Venezuela. As per the Venezuelan Constitution, certain procedures must first be completed before a recall referendum can be held on President Chavez' mandate, and those clamoring for the referendum have yet to fulfill the necessary requirements that would permit such a vote to take place. It may be easy for you to make a statement on an issue you do not fully understand or care about, merely to acquire approval from a targeted voting pool, yet I would warn you to not make such whimsical declarations without first examining the entire situation.

You, as others in the current administration and congress, may feel as though President Chavez is somehow interfering in the referendum process. But, Mr. Kerry, I suggest you seek out other news and information sources than those currently serving you, because a more accurate report of the events in Venezuela would demonstrate to you that President Chavez has taken no steps whatsoever to impede a recall referendum. Venezuela's Electoral Council and Supreme Court are currently determining whether hundreds of thousands of potentially fraudulent signatures are subject to further review and certification. Determining whether substantial numbers of signatures on a very important petition is an issue, which I hope, you would consider worthy of scrutiny and absolute certainty. Or would you permit such a situation to occur in your own election and just let potentially fraudulent votes against you be counted without any further verification or review?
(snip/...)

http://www.counterpunch.org/golinger03242004.html

[Bombtrack]

38. Everybody bashes the statement WITHOUT POINTING OUT FALSEHOOD

Poor Chavez, it hurts his thuggish feelings so much when you point out his dissapointing behavior.

If you notice, Kerry calls the Bush support for an attempted coup against Chavez "ill-conceived".

Critisizing Chavez does not make you a coup supporter, being an apoligist for chavez however highlights a clear narrow-mindedness in my opinion.

[PATRICK]

47. Yes about criticizing Chavez

WHEN it is clear he and his country are no longer threatened by a covert national emergency and imperialist corporate schemes to reverse legal elections. This isn't exactly California. This is a nation whose destiny as abused puppet or sovereign progressive government is on the line. It would be better if any elections were held when Kerry was in office.

IF Chavez could behave democratically without- say risking getting murdered or an undemocratic fascist coup transpiring- he can prove himself then not in today's impossible double blind.

Are all the leaders who have been duly elected(unlike Bush) supposed to be pansies to the whims of American arrogance? Is Israel, fighting for its national survival, that ideal a democracy or any nation standing up for its survival and sovereignty? The law of survival pre-empts other niceties, and merely the whiff of fear in this country of ours seems to demonstrate crazier "regressions" than Chavez' strongman offenses.

This is not to say Chavez is acting purely or will reform after outside influence diminishes. Complaining to a neighbor that he is using too much water in a drought does not apply if his house is burning down.

Just speaking up for another threatened nation, not any individual.

[Bombtrack]

50. I don't disagree with you. You're point is very cogent

I just think alot of people here are very much entrenched in the horde-think anti-globalization counterculture where the dogma runs along the lines of scapegoating the US and Israel for most of if not all the wrongs in the world and to them there is only a good left and a fascist right, and the realist-third way is a fairy tale, or just a touched-up wing of the fascist right.

Believe me I fully acknowledge that many of the militant parts of Chavez's opposition would be worse than him, but that does not mean ipso facto that the Chavez opposition movement or the idea that better leadership exists for Venezuela is evil and imperialist.

And it just so frustrating the knee-jerk idiocy with which they call you directly or indirectly a coup-supporting Imperialist neocon for defending John Kerry and his position.

[AP]

63. What about Chavez do you think people are apologizing for?

[Bombtrack]

80. The injustices that Kerry had the Gaul to bring up

"Yet after being democratically elected and promising reform, President Chavez has treated opponents as enemies rather than seeking to heal the divisions that have plagued Venezuela. He has undermined the constitution and used his Bolivarian Circles to repress peaceful dissent as his government systematically moved to expand its powers.

When the referendum process presented a legitimate challenge to his leadership, President Chavez lost an opportunity to demonstrate the popular support he claims to enjoy, instead showing a troubling disregard for the rule of law. Particularly concerning are recent reports of numerous human rights violations. Over the past weeks, President Chavez has used questionable pretexts to justify further arming of militias and intimidation of the press and the referendum’s supporters."

In stead of refuting it, they get outraged at the critisism on it's face. Are we six year olds? Many of these are the same people constantly complain in Israeli/Palestinians that "you know, you can't critisize Israel without getting called an anti-semite", well howabout the other side of the coin. Me and a few other of the more realist foreign policy stripe at DU have a very difficult time critisizing either Venezuela without being implied or directly said that we are pro-coup, neoconservative, right-wingers, or directly related to middle east issues, we get pegged as racists for adressing the sad state of Islam or most muslim governments, or right-wing neocons for not having a problem with killing terrorists, or believing that we are actually at ideological war with Radical Islam.

[AP]

125. I doubt you or Kerry could substantiate those claims.

[Judi Lynn]

39. A Vene. right-wing "exile" group in Tampa Bay takes credit for Kerry's

new position opposing Hugo Chavez, the twice elected President who concerns himself with the 80% poor people of Venezuela.

Here's a letter from their grubby President, Curtis Reed:

Letters



Published: Tuesday, March 23, 2004
Bylined to: Curtis Reed


Tampa-based Free Venezuela, Inc: Our goal is regime change in Venezuela

Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 17:39:42 GMT
From: Curtis Reed [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Error: It was Venezuelans in TAMPA

In David Coleman's article "Venezuela's relations with USA to improve if Bush 2 loses election this fall" you stated that Senator Kerry's statement regarding the Chavez regime amounted to "Parroting anti-Venezuelan Miami Herald propaganda."

In fact, the Kerry position statement was the result of the effort of Venezuelan-Americans from the Tampa area who contacted his camp and conducted an education campaign to be sure that Kerry understood what a threat the Chavez regime represents to US interests, regional stability, and how it endangers democracy across the hemisphere.

We have been working constantly over several years to establish good contacts with our representatives, and it was through those contacts that we made direct contact with John Kerry and delivered to him the message you will find below.

We are now in the process of publishing more Op-Ed articles, organizing round table discussions about the Chavez regime, and speaking out on nationally syndicated radio shows. Let there be no confusion: the "Miami Mafia" had nothing to do with this. It was the result of hard work by US citizens and Venezuelan expatriate organizations like FREE VENEZUELA that we influenced Kerry, and we will continue to push US policy until we achieve our goal.

Our goal: regime change in Venezuela.

Finally, let your communist friends know that their propaganda machines are failing, and the tide has turned against the Chavez dictatorship. We have convinced Democrats and Republicans alike that Chavez and his criminal henchmen are the antithesis to Democratic principles.

Have a nice day.

Curtis Reed
[email protected]
http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=16656
(Free registration required)


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


Also, for people who want to look around for more information, there was a joint parade composed of Venezuelan "exiles" and Miami Cuban "exiles" on one of the days over a year ago when the rest of the world was holding an anti-war parade.

Theirs was an anti-Chavez parade, and their two guests of honor were Pedro Carmona, a powerful business man in Venezuela, and Carlos Ortega, the USAID-funded labor boss who called strikes to help the business owners perpetrate the illusion the working people were on strike in protest against Hugo Chavez. Of course anyone who can spend time reading would know already this is wildly deceitful.

Ortega is currently "on the lam" as he's unpopular in Venezuela right now.

There is a true connection between the wealthy Venezuelans in Florida, and the wealthy Cubans.

[PATRICK]

45. Premature except for elections taking place this year

and why bring it up at all? The issue of the Bush coup was important in its own anti-Venezuelan context. Knowing the connections of this anti-Chavez group to the Bush people as with Haiti should at the least have warned off the Kerry people. Unless he wants to get suckered into supporting Bush via the back door- as in Iraq- he had better lay off this obtuse outreach to the very worst of the Latino exiles in Florida.

This is a complete mystery to me why Kerry boldly exhibits a load of ignorance hard at work speaking out on a minor subject whose only seeming effect is to harm Venezuela's future freedom. It is disturbingly reminiscent how policy ideals conjoined with sharp criticism of Bush led to Kerry's Iraq vote. Is this a type of bear trap he just can't resist or what? Or is he playing the exiles for November thinking once again he has really no control over the situation anyway?

Any nation that has an important election this year could be in for a world of suspicious looking trouble or has no one noticed yet? Spain, S.Korea, France, etc, etc.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

53. Oh, it's OK. Kerry's just playing (rightwing) politics again.

He doesn't REALLY mean it. Just like he didn't REALLY mean his IWR vote. Just like he doesn't REALLY mean he wants more troops in Iraq.
He just wants to show that he is almost as much of an "anti-communist" as the Birdbrain-in-Chief.

All you lefties just be quiet and go along with anything the DLC nominee says. After all, he's not as bad as Bush.

I wonder if would be this sanguine if he's elected and the rightwingers in this country decide to launch a "referendum" to oust him?

[AP]

57. Kennedy had to do the same thing to get elected in '60.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

68. Which led to the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis.

And, to the escalation of the war in Vietnam. All to prove that he was as anti-communist as Nixon.

Now we have Kerry following the same track with his interference in Venezuela and backing of Bush in Iraq and the sham "War on Terror".

[AP]

126. JFK refused to give air support to bay of pigs invaders. Every member...

...of JFK's cabinet advised him to attack Cuba (which, we later learned would have resulted in nuclear war), but JFK overode them...JFK was going to reduce troops in Vietnam (which is noted in the Beschloss LBJ books and mentioned most recently by Robert McNamara in Fog of War, the last E. Morris documentary).

If Kerry acts like JFK, we'll be doing just fine (so long as he doesn't get shot).

[AP]

56. I think it's just talk. When he said it I was pissed because I thought it

was going to help the opposition with the signature repair process.

However, it looks like it didn't (and who knows--maybe it helped Chavez).

I'm sure that he's just doing what JFK did when he ran -- sound like a bigger shit on national security than Nixon, win, and then behave more or less like a human being in office.

[tinanator]

59. a faith based pig in the poke

we dont deserve better than that? Yes we do. That is democracy?
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO its not.

[AP]

61. It's the kind of faith that, if you didn't have in '60, could have given..

...you Nixon, and we can see what Nixon did to South America and SE Asia from '68 on.

To me, the strategy is obvious, and the choice the voters have is obvious.

[Vladimir]

62. Sadly you are right n/t

[tinanator]

87. convoluted illogic

the word democracy does not equate to dishonesty. Whenever someone points back at some bygone occurrence (no matter how farfetched or misbegotten), all I can do is check the calendar and make sure it
IS NOT 1960, or 1968, or 1980 or whatever. Bloodstained hands are bloodstained hands.

[AP]

127. And Kerry doesn't have blood stained hands. He's just saying what needs

to be said to keep FL in play so that Bush has to spend money and time there, and if he's running with JFKennedy's '60 strategy, I say more power to him.

If he turn out to be an asshole after he's elected, we'll hold his feet to the fire, but I don't know how he can be worse for Chavez than Bush has been (have you noticed what's happened in VZ since 2001...did you notice they had a coup?).

[tinanator]

193. we all do

thats what im saying
and him certainly more than those of us deprived of a vote or candidate against the war.

[TruthIsAll]

65. I agree 100%. And he says zilch about BBV. Well, ABB...

TIA

[Lydia Leftcoast]

67. All you Chavez haters should see The Revolution WIll Not Be Televised

Don't even listen to the soundtrack if you're convinced it's "leftie propaganda."

Just look at it and see the coup plotters condemn themselves with their own words and actions.

[Bombtrack]

82. The resurrection of Goebbels

This "documentary" is a proof of talent being used for mean purposes. The fact that it is financed by the venezuelan government gives it a lack of legitimacy in the purpose of searching for the truth of what really happened those horrible days of April 2002 in Venezuela, something even we venezuelans don't know for sure.

There are ways of lying, and the directors of this stuff lie both by omission and by knowledge.

The venezuelan political process is too complex to be easily understood by foreign audiences, and they take advantage of that. For instance *POSSIBLE SPOILERS* they show pro-Chávez demonstrators shooting at an empty street (what the hell they did that for?) in a way of saying they didn't kill anyone, but didn't bother showing the images we all saw here, of opposition demonstrators (and a journalist) falling dead or injured at the other side of that "empty" street. They can't explain why the chopper of the political police was the only one authorised to fly over Caracas that day and did nothing against the snipers that were all over the roofs of the buildings nearby the presidential palace, something that would exhibit how inefficient would be the security measures to guard the President. A few days after the "coup", the chief of the military guard in charge was asked at the National Assembly (our Congress) why didn't they act against the snipers and he said "'cause they weren't there to act against the president", isn't that a confession?

There is so much more, the fact that the highest rank military announced that Chávez had resigned and 2 days later he said he had lied because "that's politics" and nowadays is the Minister of Internal Affairs of Chávez' administration.

It would take me thousands of words to explain all the lies depicted in this "documentary", made with the intention of selling the world an image of the good old Hugo Chávez who rules for the poor and the bad rich opposition that wants him out at all costs, when the truth is that 60-70% of people rejects his government, and that percentage includes the poor.

I hope those of you who have seen and bought this will be able to see a different version that is being made by a group of venezuelan people showing no less than 30 lies.

Nazi propaganda has returned!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0363510/

[Lydia Leftcoast]

91. Bombtrack, that message is VERBATIM from

the Internet movie database.

If you're not the person who posted the imdb message, then you need to put quotes around it and indicate that it's not yours--unless you're really a wealthy Venezuelan.

Note, in any case, that it has received some critical replies.

I don't think there are any angels in Latin American governments, but frankly, the tone of some of the anti-Chavez posters reminds me of some of the things Miami Cubans said on message boards during the Elian Gonzalez affair. "If Elian goes back to Cuba, Castro will kill him! He's not really happy to see his father--he's clearly been drugged!"

For me the clincher in the documentary (Have you actually seen it, or are you just quoting someone else's opinion as your own?) came after the coup when the self-appointed president (who later ended up in Miami with his ideological bedfellows) declared that he was dissolving the national assembly and the supreme court and silencing the government broadcasting stations in the name of "democracy."

[Bombtrack]

95. Gee I was really trying to disguise that by PUTTING THE FREAKING LINK

in the post.

I am not quoting someone else's opinion as my own I'm posting a link that poke's holes in the entire semblance of fairness of the movie.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

97. Which you have or have not seen?

:shrug:

[Bombtrack]

109. No, I haven't. It's sort of something one would have to seek out

because I'm not living in Venezuela having my government propaganda fed into my cable. We only have fox news here for that.

[NormanConquest]

111. So laziness is your only excuse?

It's not Venezuelan government propaganda, either...it was made by two Irish independent filmmakers.

It's available on Netflix, too, if you're interested.

[AP]

129. You are coming off incredibly poorly here.

Do you understand Spanish?

[lockdown]

208. Funny that, I saw the documentary on BBC.

Fancy, the BBC are foisting Venezuelan government propaganda onto their viewers.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

231. That's really rich

Using some rich Venezuelan's opinion of a movie that he himself has not seen as the basis for his arguments.

I have seen the film, and it was not on Venezuelan state TV either. It was at one of the movie theaters in Minneapolis that plays first-run foreign and independent films. Before that, it was making the rounds of film festivals around the world.

It's out on DVD now, and I think that some of the people on this thread really need to rent it and then argue from a more informed position.

[AP]

131. And the even better part of the movie was, when the legitimate gov't

took over, they had that same guy arrested and they read him his constitutional rights -- the rights he had suspended -- and he looked pretty relieved to hear those rights.

[lostnfound]

78. Well put, Middlemen. nt

[Cascadian]

89. So does this mean Kerry will want to send troops to Venezuela?

That's all we need. Why the hell can't we just keep our noses out of other countries' businesses? OOPS! I forgot. Venezuela has oil!

:eyes:

I think Kerry should just keep quiet about this. Let Venezuelans decide on who they should want.

If we truly believed in spreading democracy worldwide, U.S. tanks would be rolling into Belarus about now. If you don't know what I am talking about look at this country and their despot....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/country_profiles/1102180.stm


John

[Vladimir]

90. Uzbekistan! Mommy, I want us

to invade Uzbekistan! and Turkmenistan too, they are waaay nasty!

[Cascadian]

92. Turkmenistan...now that is truly a messed up country.

Their leader I think has just beaten Kim Jung Il as the world's most strangest dictator. Have you heard about the man they call "Turkmenbashi- Leader of the Turkmen"? He is truly bizarre! I have heard he pours boiling oil over those who disagree with him. And this guy is our ally? Sounds a bit like Saddam, don't you think?


John

[Vladimir]

165. Yeah, Turmenbashi is the daddy of all dictators! n/t

[Judi Lynn]

142. Timeline from 1988 to 1986, covering the timeline up to the impeachment

of Carlos Andres Perez, who was the President against whom Hugo Chavez attempted 2 coups:

1988 Dec 4, In Venezuela, former President Carlos Andres Perez was declared the winner of the country's presidential election.
(AP, 12/4/98)

1989 Carlos Andres Peres took office and instituted bold reform plans. Increases in fuel costs and government reforms in Venezuela sparked extensive rioting and looting with hundreds of people killed.
(WSJ, 4/15/96, p.A-1)(WSJ, 5/22/96, p.A-16)(WSJ, 4/27/98, p.A16)

1989 An IMF loan was made to Venezuela.
(WSJ, 6/7/96, p.A15)

1990 Dec 7, As President Bush arrived in Venezuela on the last stop of his South American tour, his chief spokesman, Marlin Fitzwater, warned Iraq that there was "no lessening in the threat of war," despite Iraq’s promise to release its hostages.
(AP, 12/7/00)

1991 US Customs intercepted a large cocaine shipment and began investigations. It was found to be part of a CIA operation out of Venezuela.
(WSJ, 11/22/96, p.A12)

1992 Feb 4, In Caracas, Venezuela, there was a coup attempt but Lt. Col. Chavez failed to capture the presidential Palace and was forced to surrender. He served 2 years in prison.
(WSJ, 6/12/03, p.A10)

1992 Nov 27, In Venezuela some 15,000 rebel forces under Lt. Col. Hugo Chavez tried but failed to overthrow President Carlos Andres Perez for the second time in 10 months. The coup left dozens dead and Chavez was jailed for 2 years and then pardoned by Pres. Rafael Caldera. Chavez was elected president Dec 6, 1998.
(AP, 11/27/97)(WSJ, 4/27/98, p.A16)(SFC, 12/7/98, p.A9)

1992 Irene Saez, the Miss Universe of 1981, was elected mayor of Chacao. By 1997 she was being considered for national leadership.
(SFC, 8/19/97, p.A8)

1993 Aug 31, Venezuela president Carlos Perez fled.
(MC, 8/31/01)

1993 Pres. Carlos Andres Perez was impeached. He was later charged with misusing $17 million security fund for election debts and a lavish inauguration.
(SFC, 5/31/96, A16)

1993 Rafael Caldera was elected president and promised not to increase fuel costs.
(WSJ, 4/15/96, p.A-14)

1994 Jan, Banco Latino failed and sparked a run on the currency that put the nation into its worst economic crises. Chairman Gomez Lopez left the country just before a warrant for his arrest on charges of fraud was issued. Ricardo Cisneros was on the board and fled after being charged with playing a role in the bank’s failure.
(WSJ, 7/31/96, p.A1)(WSJ, 9/18/96, p.A14)

1994 Pres. Caldera pardoned Hugo Chavez for the 1992 coup attempt, and asked him to leave the military.
(WSJ, 4/27/98, p.A16)

1994 Financial controls were imposed on the currency and the exchange rate was set to 170 to the US dollar. Almost the entire private banking system had to be nationalized at a cost of $8.5 billion, equivalent to three-quarters of the national budget. Responsible bankers took much of the money and fled abroad.
(WSJ, 12/12/95, p.A-15)(SFC, 12/8/99, p.A17)

1994 A riot and fire at the Sabaneta Prison in Maracaibo left 108 inmates dead.
(SFC, 10/24/96, p.C4)

1995 Venezuela devalued its Bolivar currency 41% to 290 from 170 to the US dollar.
(WSJ, 12/12/95, p.A-15)

1996 Jan, The government reopened the oil sector to private foreign investments.
(WSJ, 6/7/96, p.A15)

1996 Apr 15, Tens of thousands of striking Venezuelan teachers defied a government order to go back to their classrooms. The month-old stoppage has kept more than 6 million children out of school.
(SFC, 4/16/96, p.A-9)

1996 Apr 15, Pres. Rafael Caldera was expected to announce increases in fuel prices by as much as 850% from the 13-cent per gallon current cost.
(WSJ, 4/15/96, p.A-1,14)

1996 May 30, Former Pres. Carlos Andres Perez was convicted on corruption charges. He was sentenced to prison for 28-months and fined for misappropriation of $17 million from a secret security spending fund.
(SFC, 5/31/96, A16)(SFC, 5/28/97, p.A12)
(snip)

http://timelines.ws/countries/VENEZUELA.HTML

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

BBC timeline:

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


HUGO CHAVEZ
The colourful president survived 2002's short-lived coup


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

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

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

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/americas/country_profiles/1229348.stm

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

From a U.S. State Department report on Venezuela from 1993:

Particularly in the months prior to the suspension from office
of President Carlos Andres Perez, the Government met regularly
with media owners to discuss issues considered sensitive,
resulting in some self-censorship. Journalists claimed that
the Government indirectly practiced censorship throughout the
year by denying reporters access to many government buildings
and officials. Journalists and local human rights groups also
asserted that security forces specifically targeted and used
excessive force against reporters covering public
demonstrations.

In April the Government suspended two satirical television
programs for allegedly broadcasting scenes with "explicit
sexual connotations" in a time frame when that type of
programming is not allowed. Most in the media argued, however,
that the suspension was aimed more at the political satire and
parodies of government inefficiency featured in these
programs. A week after the suspension, the Supreme Court
overturned the Government's action, and the programs returned
to the air. Bombs damaged the homes of two journalists known
for being highly critical of the Government, one of whom
received a series of telephone threats. Subsequent police
investigations failed to identify those responsible for the
bombings. In June the Government banned for alleged security
reasons the broadcast of an interview by a popular journalist
with former coup plotter Hugo Chavez.

The media continued to criticize the Government for abuse and
restrictions that occurred in reaction to the two 1992 coup
attempts. In the aftermath of the February 1992 attempt, the
Government temporarily imposed censorship, seized some
publications, screened articles, and briefly impeded the
distribution of newspapers. During the November 1992 attempt,
the Government temporarily closed a radio station which it
charged had broadcast messages of support for the coup forces.
Two journalists were allegedly killed by security forces and
others reportedly beaten while covering the coup attempts and
related civil unrest. Investigations and court cases regarding
the abuse of journalists moved slowly. In February a group of
journalists formed the Committee of Human Rights of the
National Association of Journalists to monitor the
investigations and court cases and promote respect for human
rights and the freedom of information.
(snip)

Also an interesting commentary on torture and Vene. prisons:

c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment

Torture is prohibited by law, but physical abuse of detainees
continues. This abuse reportedly includes the use of electric
shock, beatings, rape, and near suffocation, usually during the
interrogation of detainees. In its annual report on Venezuela
released in November, Amnesty International maintained that
torture and ill-treatment are widespread and sometimes resulted
in death. Most of the victims come from the poorest and least
articulate parts of society, but political activists, student
leaders, and members of grassroots organizations have also
reportedly been victims of torture and ill-treatment as a
result of their activities. PROVEA documented 105 cases of
torture from October 1992 through September 1993. Red de Apoyo
por la Justicia y la Paz, another human rights organization,
reported 90 incidents of torture from March through May alone.
All of the major human rights groups asserted, however, that
these numbers are low because many victims remain silent about
abuse due to fear of retribution.

According to PROVEA, 32 of the reported torture incidents were
carried out by DISIP, 18 by the Technical Judicial Police
(PTJ), 17 by the National Guard, 17 by the armed forces, 13 by
state police, 7 by the metropolitan police, and 1 by municipal
police. Amnesty International asserts that torture continues
in Venezuela, primarily because the courts failed to
investigate complaints of torture properly and bring those
responsible to justice. In addition, a number of human rights
groups report that the lack of independence of the Institute of
Forensic Medicine, which is part of the PTJ, prevents forensic
doctors from being impartial in their examinations of cases
where torture may have been involved. Very few cases of
torture have resulted in convictions.

Prison administration is very poor due to underfunding, poorly
trained staff, and corruption among prison officials. There
are 33 prisons for an inmate population that numbered 25,610 in
August. Of this number only 9,747 had been sentenced. In 1991
the Attorney General's office assigned representatives to the
14 worst prisons to monitor conditions. The increase in
violence and the persistence of deplorable living standards in
the prisons, however, indicate that these representatives faced
severe difficulties in improving conditions. Funding for
prisons remained extremely low.

Numerous prison riots occurred in 1993 due to poor prison
conditions such as extreme overcrowding, inadequate diet,
minimal health care, and physical abuse by guards and other
prisoners. Weapons and illegal drugs are easily smuggled into
most prisons, and violence within the prison system is
growing. PROVEA reported that from October 1992 through
September 1993, 195 prisoners were killed and another 387
wounded by other prisoners (these figures do not include
victims of the November 1992 Reten de Catia massacre). PROVEA
acknowledged, moreover, that these figures were conservative,
reflecting only incidents covered in the press or received
firsthand by PROVEA. At least one expert on Venezuela's
prisons asserted that the total number of violent prison deaths
for the year approached 600.
(snip)

http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/democracy/1993_hrp_report/93hrp_report_ara/Venezuela.html

[Vladimir]

178. Goddamn I'm glad to see you in this thread! n/t

[Judi Lynn]

199. Hi there, Vladimir.

Do you remember reading recently about Colombia's Uribe buying lots of tanks, etc. and also about Colombian paramilitaries being discovered in the last month in a large number, like 130 or more men at a ranch outside Caracas belonging to Roberto Alonso, a Cuban "exile?"

I just went to search for more on that, since it seems the Colombian paramilitaries (which ARE extensions of the Colombian right-wing controlled military) have been violating the Venezuelan border more than we knew.

I'm going to post this info. here merely as it gives a bit more insight on how many ways the right-wing appears to be intent on overthrowing the current Venezuelan government. We really need all the news we can get:

VENEZUELA: Landowners and paramilitaries terrorise farmers

Robyn Marshall, Caracas

The peasants of the Venezuelan countryside are being terrorised. Three peasant leaders were assassinated on April 23, in the state of Portuguesa.

All of the leaders — Jose Rodriguez, Gabriel Paredes and Juan Baptista — were shot four times in the head. They had been legally working the land after receiving letters from the National Institute of Land.

``We presume the deaths have been caused by the so-called absentee landowners’‘, said Miguel Ulises Moreneo, president of the Peasant Federation of Venezuela. ``This makes 120 peasants who have been assassinated between 2003 and this year.’‘ To date, none of the murders have been solved. While cases have gone to court, right-wing judges have let the accused go free.

Venezuela’s peasants and indigenous communities are also facing terror from paramilitaries. Four paramilitary groups based in the Colombian province of Northern Santander have carried out massacres, torture and kidnappings on the Venezuelan side of the bordering Rio de Oro river. This mountainous bordering area contains the reserve that is the home of the Bari people.

The Colombian paramilitary known as the Self-Defense Unit of Colombia has assassinated nine peasants — some Colombian, some Venezuelan — and burnt three schools close to the indigenous community — the only schools for about 500 children in the region. They also destroyed a food cooperative, a store of medicines and a video room. The paramilitaries killed birds, cattle and domestic animals and took away people’s means of livelihood, including all the boats and the outboard motors.
(snip/...)

http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2004/584/584p18b.htm

[Vladimir]

201. A* research - as usual

As I said to sandandsea before - how do you build consensus with someone who wants to shoot you?

[genius]

157. This kind of stupidity on Kerry's part is the reason I backed Kucinich

If we are going to insert any common sense into Kerry, we need to push for him to listen more to those who have taken the time to research matters. He may have been fooled by Bush when it came to the IWPR. Were any of us?

[AP]

161. If he's only doing it to make trouble for Bush in FL, it's smart and it...

...should be the kind of thing that attracts you to his campaign.

[Cascadian]

163. I like Kucinich.

I seriously hope the people at the Democratic Convention in Boston will give him a chance to speak before the thousands. It is time the progressives get their say and help shape the Democratic Party. I also signed the petitions of everything that Kucinich is advocating. I am truly glad he has not pulled out.


John

[supercrash]

186. I wouldn't mind....

If Kerry brought up the anthrax terrorist, I mean what the fuck...

We HAVE been attacked since 9-11

We HAVE been attacked with wmd's

Yet, nobody is talking...These are the real issues...Not Chavez

[Judi Lynn]

194. Chavez is an issue for people who find Bush's backing of the coup

to be immoral and unacceptable policy for this country.

Because of the intensity of support on the part of the Venezuelan population, it was unsuccessful.

We are aware that _Bush's administration was in there molding and coaxing and funding the players and are allied to the coup plotters. Period.

Our country's correct position toward its neighbors is totally important to some Americans. We mean no invasions, no destabilizing, no covert ops, no covert bribing of business and union corruptible officials to steer Venezuelan government in our direction at the expense of the people.

[peacetalksforall]

192. Kerry - a grand disappointment and I don't know what I'll do.

I try to shut up about him. I thought it was my contribution to a cohesive Repub-Dem fight if I kept quiet in my criticism, even though I'm an Independent. But, this speech is way over the line and I'm completely disgusted by it.

We, the United State of the Americas, are going after Chavez because he didn't roll over for the United States of the America oil companies. Our diplomats, intelligence, and military are all being used to get him out of there - for profit and to prevent the little people of Venezuela to get ahead.

Right wing Cubans are participating because Chavez gets along with Castro.

He was elected so we're dealing more with democracy then socialism, Socialism is not communism. The world needs more socialism to keep from eradicating all the little people except those who need to be kept to wash and polish the limousines and the floors and a few other chores like lay oil pipelines and take money at the gas station.

I don't know what I'm going to do. I cannot tolerate anyone who has to pander to the Cuban-Americans. I can't believe a wealthy man like Kerry had to/has to take money from CANF and the other organizations, so he must be doing this for votes and not pay back for their payment to him. Well, if indications are accurate - there are Cuban-Americans who are breaking away from the Miami and Florida mold and he should figure that out.

I am totally disgusted with him over this and the Iraq killing and funding.

What's a person to do when no one represents them that stands a chance?

As of today, he is a Bush2. Is there any hope?

[Vladimir]

195. Vote Kerry

I'm serious mate - there is no choice. Unless you are in a bedrock Republican state - in which case indulge your vote where you like (I'd use it for toilet paper myself) - then for god's sake vote Kerry. If only because of abortion rights.

[kiahzero]

210. Oh no!

Kerry's criticizing a regime for human rights abuses! No Democrat should ever do that! :eyes:

http://www.hrw.org/doc?t=americas&c=venezu

There are human rights abuses, and Kerry is right to point them out.

What gets me the most is that some here expect the exact same thing Reagan did in foreign policy - ignore the sins of governments which lean the correct way ideologically, while attacking those who have opposing ideologies.

[Judi Lynn]

223. Here's more information on the Human Rights Watch incomplete

assessment of a media problem in Venezuela:

Two Venezuelan Mayors
Press Freedom, Soft Drinks, and Democracy in the Andes

by Justin Podur; ZNet Venezuela Watch; August 03, 2003

A recent Human Rights Watch report, which was harshly criticized by supporters of Venezuela's 'Bolivarian Revolution', said that "there are few obvious limits on free expression in Venezuela. The country's print and audiovisual media operate without restrictions." Two months after the report was published, on July 14, one of the country's audiovisual media outlets came up against a rather serious restriction-it was shut down and its equipment confiscated. The outlet in question is called CatiaTV, but it was not shut down by the Chavez government but by the mayor of Caracas, Alfredo Pena, who is an opponent of Chavez.

CatiaTV was an experiment in genuine community television. It was started by a group of people in Catia, a vast and extremely poor borough of Caracas, who thought to film one of the community's events to show it to the community. It gave poor people the opportunity to make their own programs, about themselves, for themselves. In April 2002, when the coup against the Chavez government took place, workers in CatiaTV were instrumental in helping to get the state television channel, Channel 8, back online, breaking the monopoly of misinformation of the private television networks and facilitating the reversal of the coup.

Reporters Without Borders (which did protest against the closing of CatiaTV), demonstrating a disappointing lack of understanding of the Venezuelan media situation, said that reporters there were "caught between an authoritarian president and an intolerant media." The private networks are advocates of a coup, call supporters of Chavez 'monkeys', and distort information to a remarkable degree. But the people can't rely solely on the state media. This is exactly what makes community media like CatiaTV so important. It is also why Alfredo Pena shut it down.

Who is Alfredo Pena? The mayor of Greater Caracas was a supporter of Chavez and had been a journalist himself (his email, should you want to write him and tell him to give CatiaTV their transmitter back, is [email protected]). But his more recent fame has come from his use of the Policia Metropolitana in Caracas. There is evidence that Pena's police were instrumental in the coup, murdering Chavistas on April 11 2002 in actions that were blamed on the government and used to justify the coup. A reporter for the Narconews Bulletin, Alex Main, describes some of the actions of this police force during the coup in April 2002:
(snip/...)

http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=3993§ionID=45

[peacetalksforall]

225. Read the JudiLyn message above twice.

Got the names straight? Affiliations?

Here are two angles?

Reread the involvement of right wing U.S. diplomats, military, and intelligence in the coup attempt as well as the Cuban-American assistants. Read about their motivation.

Prove the allegations against Chavez and prove his phoniness in reagrd to the people.

[Judi Lynn]

226. I'm afraid they left. Too bad. Such a pleasant chat, wasn't it? n/t

[silverlib]

230. If this is a dupe, my apologies...from the ThirdCoastActivist re:Coca-Cola

I've been trying to keep up with it, but had to leave the board for a while...

A Snip from www.thirdcoastactivist.org/

Gathering signatures to remove Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez Gregory Wilpert and Martin Sanchez, Venezuelanalysis.com (May 31)
According to union spokespersons, workers at a Coca-Cola plant in Antimano, Caracas, were fired from their jobs for refusing to go repair their signatures, which were included in the anti-Chavez signature drive without their authorization or under pressure. The workers introduced a formal complaint at the Ministry of Labor, and claimed that similar situations were experienced at Coca-Cola plants in the states of Carabobo, Lara, Bolivar, and Monagas. The Venezuelan subsidiary of Coca-Cola is owned by billionaire Gustavo Cisneros, who also owns Venzuela's biggest TV network, and who is believed to be the main economic supporter of the anti-Chavez movement in Venezuela.
According to the pro-government campaign team, Commando Ayacucho, an examination they conducted of the records to be repaired, 5,382 deceased persons were found in the records during the first two days. Spokesperson William Lara said that the Commando Ayachucho would formally request the CNE to remove these names from the registry.

[peacetalksforall]

233. I don't get this, too tired...some workers whose names were

forged (probably by someone acting on behalf of their employer, head of Coca-Cola in Venezueala), were fired?...And they were fired for refusing to 'repair' their signatures? I need help.

[silverlib]

234. I understand the confusion...

I think their signatures were flagged as fraudulent after they filed a complaint. The company wanted them to go and verify that their signatures were legit (in other words 'repair). When they refused, they were fired. The wording is poor, to say the least, but the actions of the company are terrible and very representative of what is going on in Venezuela.

Here's the link.

http://www.thirdcoastactivist.org/

I'm tired too - calling it a night.

[Moderator]

235. Locking.

Owing to length.

If posters would like to continue this discussion in subsequent threads they're welcomed to do so.