Obama Calls Hugo Chavez Enemy Of U.S. Urges Sanctions Against Venezuela!

[Better Believe It]

Yahoo News
Reuters
July 16, 2008

Chavez says U.S. ties would be no warmer with Obama

CARACAS (Reuters) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said on Wednesday his prickly relations with Washington would not improve even if Democrat candidate Barack Obama wins the U.S. presidential election in November.

"The two candidates for the U.S. presidency attack us equally, they attack us defending the interests of the empire," Chavez said at a meeting of his socialist party.

Obama said earlier in his campaign that he would be prepared to sit down to talk with Chavez. But in recent weeks he has called the leftist Venezuelan leader an enemy of the United States and urged sanctions against him.

Chavez also had previously expressed a hope that the end of the Bush administration would bring warmer ties between the two countries.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080717/pl_nm/venezuela_obama_dc_1

Is this true?

I really hope not.

We don't need anymore movements toward "the center" by Obama.

If any has more information on Obama's statement please provide it with a link.

Thanks.

[blogslut]

1. Oh, joy

You're back.

[NightWatcher]

2. move to the center expected, but damn WHIPLASH. So much for heating oil help for the poor

Will this end Citgo's low income heating oil program? you bet.

Obama, you're winning. Stop running to the center

[Demit]

4. I think he overshot the center some time ago.

[NattPang]

9. Please explain HOW Obama has "overshot" on this.

"We have to hold Venezuela accountable if, in fact, it is trying to ferment terrorist activities in other borders," Mr. Obama said. "If Venezuela has violated those rules, we should mobilize all the countries to sanction Venezuela and let them know that that's not acceptable behavior."

What am I missing?

I don't see what you seeing that I am not.

[Demit]

144. The article claims Obama has already called Chavez an enemy of the US. No ifs there.

[RoyGBiv]

153. OH! The article claimed it ...

Article has a voice of its own, does it? Reporters, in this day and age especially, never, never, never spin analysis toward a particular point of view, do they?

You do realize the only person quoted in that article was Chavez, yes?

[davidsharon]

168. I don't recall Obama calling Chavez enemy of the state

Before today.

[RoyGBiv]

176. Funny though ...

The actual quotes offered from Obama (and there are no quotes from Obama in the article in the OP) don't even have the word "enemy" in them.

Strange, that.

[countingbluecars]

3. Tough campaign talk,

but Obama has been clear that he will sit down and talk with leaders such as Chavez.

[Better Believe It]

6. Will Chavez Now Conclude He Should Not Meet With Obama?

Chavez may not want a meeting with Obama anymore than George Bush after this "tough" talk calling for economic sanctions and describing Chavez as an enemy of the American people.

I think Chavez may be very disappointed in Obama and now feels that a change in Presidents won't signify a significant and progressive a change in American policy toward Venezuela.

[countingbluecars]

20. My guess is Chavez will be

asking for a meeting as soon as Obama takes office. The name calling will end and diplomacy will begin.

[EFerrari]

101. Do you think this is just posturing on boths sides? It's possible

maybe even politically necessary?

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

104. Not only that I think Obama benefits from Chavez saying he's no different than McTaint.

Now these asshole right wingers can't come out and say that Chavez and Obama are best friends. Which is good for domestic consumption.

[EFerrari]

108. Interesting. That could be right. n/t

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

110. I remember reading once that Chavez said he wouldn't want to show

support for particular US candidates he liked because it would be used against them. I mean in this case I have no idea and talking out of my ass. But he's a pretty astute guy politically.

[EFerrari]

111. I remember that, too. Yeah, he's no dummie. n/t

[polmaven]

61. Worse yet,

Will Chavez now conclude that the US doesn't deserve any more cheap heating oil being supplied to Joe Kennedy's program?

[rox63]

112. Did you miss all the IF's in Obama's statement? n/t

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

113. I doubt it. After all the shit that flew between him and Alvaro Uribe

he's trying to mediate between Colombia and Ecuador for the normalization of relations.

[cbc5g]

5. Here's some quotes .. and he never said its SET IN STONE

Mr. Obama told Walter Pacheco of the Orlando Sentinel last Thursday he'd personally meet with Mr. Chavez:
"One of the obvious high priorities in my talks with President Hugo Chavez would be the fermentation of anti-American sentiment in Latin America, his support of (Marxist narco-terrorists) FARC in Colombia, and other issues he would want to talk about," Sen. Obama said then. "It is important to understand that ignoring these countries has not led to improved behavior on their part and it has not served our national security interests."
But in a speech in Miami the very next day, Mr. Obama said any Latin American government that supports FARC (the Spanish acronym for the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) should be isolated.

"We will shine a light on any support for the FARC that comes from neighboring governments," Mr. Obama told the Cuban American National Foundation. "This behavior must be exposed to international condemnation, regional isolation, and -- if need be -- strong sanctions. It must not stand."

"We have to hold Venezuela accountable if, in fact, it is trying to ferment terrorist activities in other borders," Mr. Obama said. "If Venezuela has violated those rules, we should mobilize all the countries to sanction Venezuela and let them know that that's not acceptable behavior."


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/obama_obfuscates_on_chavez_far.html

[Better Believe It]

12. Obama Should Stick To The Facts And The Truth

Obama knows for a fact that Venezuela and Chavez are not "fermenting terrorist activities" so why did he even suggest this might be happening to a meeting of the right-wing Cuban-American National Foundation?

And Obama surely knows that Hugo Chavez called upon FARC to release all of their hostages and to end their armed activities in Columbia, so his claim that Chavez's "supports FARC in Columbia" is simply not the truth.

So why is Obama spreading that untruth about Chavez?

[vaberella]

36. Actually Obama is half right.

Chavez was supporting Columbia to get release the imprisoned FARC soldiers, which has been deemed as support of the FARC and their actions (this is not true, however it's the interpretation). FARC had a good cause but went lost in corruption and their blacklisting. However, Chavez as you stated as told them to end their acts and he's trying to help restore order in Columbia as slow going as it is and under massive misconstruing by the US media.

[Freddie Stubbs]

124. What proof do you have that

Obama knows for a fact that Venezuela and Chavez are not "fermenting terrorist activities?"

[Better Believe It]

147. I Have All I That You Or I Should Need

Unless Obama is completely uninformed about Venezuela and actually believes right-wing anti-Venezuela propaganda I don't think for a moment that Obama actually believes that Venezuela and Chavez are supporting terrorist activities.

Do you think that Obama really believes that neo-con right-wing propaganda?

I don't.

I think he's smarter than that.

Don't you?

However, as you know, I can't prove a negative .... that Venezuela does not support terrorist activity.

That's an old and cheap debating trick which most DU'ers, including me, won't fall for.

[NattPang]

7. Is there a quote in there as to what Obama said exactly?

Because unlike your title suggests,
I couldn't find it in this article.

Thank you for providing the quote,
as that would be very much appreciated.

[Better Believe It]

17. Here's The Quote From The Article

I think you need to read a post before commenting on it.

Here's the exact quote from the article:

"Obama said earlier in his campaign that he would be prepared to sit down to talk with Chavez. But in recent weeks he has called the leftist Venezuelan leader an enemy of the United States and urged sanctions against him."

Now if you had actually read my post you would have also seen my request for more detailed information on Obama's statement, hopefully a complete direct quote of Obama with a link.

Yikes!

Once again, please read articles and posts before you comment on them!

OK?

[NattPang]

43. That is not a quote from Obama.

If you don't know the Corporate media yet,
You haven't been paying attention.
There is a reason why they are NOTE using
an Obama direct quote, which should be obvious
to those who pay attention about such things.

[EFerrari]

76. The problem is, Obama has said these things. I heard him

during one of his televised speeches -- Chavez suppresses the media, he is a demagogue, he uses anti-American rhetoric. It was really depressing. And that was before he secured the nom.

Whoever is advising him on Latin America needs to be put on a time out.

[DevonRex]

89. Didn't the government take control of at least some of hte media?

And I have certainly heard anti-US talk from him.

In the quotes I have read here, Obama has said IF Venezuela does X then the US will do Y. Pretty standard stuff, imo.

[EFerrari]

99. No. The government waited 5 years not to renew the license

of a teevee station that helped stage a coup in their studio.

And, when I heard Obama, anyway, his statements were not conditional. Not if x, then y.

Eta: It's possible that Obama needs to look "strong" and that Chavez does as well. It's not a great way to start a relationship, that's for sure.

Eta2: And Chavez in the past has been very careful to criticize Bush and his administration in terms very similar to the ones you find in GD. Not anti-American but anti-Bush and anti-exploitation.

[justinaforjustice]

143. No, Global's License Expired, Not Re-Newed.

Chavez did not "take control of the media". The reverse was true, Global TV actively supported the right-wing coup against Chavez in 2002, broadcasting only opposition propaganda, including photo-shopped video footage which falsely placed the blame on Chavez supporters for shooting at opposition protesters. The shooting was done by opposition snipers at Chavez supporters and not vice-versa.

The head of Global TV joined in the "inauguration" of the coup's putative presidential replacement, formerly head of the federation of Businesses, who thereupon abolished the Supreme Court, the national assembly and began arresting members of the lawfully elected government. The Bush administration immediately sent a letter endorsing the coup, which they had definitely helped to pay for and, most likely, plan. The leaders of the coup met with high U.S. officials in Washington in the months prior to the coup.

When Chavez returned to power after having been kidnapped by the opposition he would have been fully justified in shutting down Global TV, but he did not. Last year, Global's broadcasting license expired and the Chavez government choose not to renew it. Global and previously been charged with violating the licensing rules by advertising liquor and cigarettes as well as promoting sexually objectionable material. Throughout the years since the coup, Global continued to use its air waves to launch attacks on the Chavez government.

Had any American TV company helped to launch a coup against George Bush, the top officials would no doubt be immediately jailed and charged with treason. Chavez's response was very mild in comparison, he simply let the broadcasting law take its course.

[Cleita]

173. He needs Noam Chomsky as his advisor.

Let's start writing him.

[leftchick]

179. if only

:(

[Better Believe It]

180. That Would Work!

That would be a shocker and it would guarantee his election victory!

[leftchick]

177. really not surprising to me

his foreign advisers are following standard US imperialist garbage, "do what we say or else". It is all such bullshit, It is way past time america quit bullying the fucking world and took care of its own citizens. Is that too much to ask? Apparently it is to the corporatists who are running this country.

[SidneyCarton]

126. That is not a direct quote from Obama,

it is a quote from the Yahoo News page, which summarizes Obamas points and overlooks whole parts of his statement. Thanks for the flamebait, it's always fun!

[geek tragedy]

8. It's hot air that benefits both Chavez and Obama.

Makes Obama seem 'safe' and 'pro-America' while allowing Chavez to continue his pose of anti-US imperialism while selling us oil.

[rebel with a cause]

37. I agree with you and will go a litte fruther with this

Obama has, and will, be attacked by the right wingers as weak in his stance against those seen as enemies of the US by the right wingers/hawks. By Obama saying "if" he is saying only "if" these things are somehow true or "if" they become true, then this is what we should do, not that we should be doing them now. By Chavez making his statement (and Chavez is smart), he is taking away the right wingers chance of saying that he endorses or supports Barack. Don't forget mccain's claim that Barack was endorsed by Hamas and others, and their attack on Barack personally because he is willing to meet with all sides to talk. To me this is a win-win situation. No foul, no loss.

[geek tragedy]

42. Nobody's going to vote for McCain because they

feel Obama is insufficiently pro-Chavez.

[rebel with a cause]

75. Huh?

I don't believe I said anything about people voting for mccain because Obama was/was not pro-Chavez. I merely agreed with your first post and added that this might help take away the right wing attack ads that 'American's enemies' supported Obama.

[geek tragedy]

102. I was agreeing with you. n/t

[rebel with a cause]

115. Okay, I am sorry I didn't caught on.

I am a bit out of it today. Just ask my dogs whom I keep forgetting to take out. :D

[KittyWampus]

10. Why do you ask "is this true"? We all know your game.

[Better Believe It]

14. Because I Hope It Isn't

This is serious business even it you think that "playing politics" with Venezuela is some sort of game.

[SidneyCarton]

129. Oh, be honest, we're currently between outrages here

And you're hoping that you can get ahead of the curve and snag the first post on the new crisis. Congrats, you've nailed it!

[Kaleko]

148. Exactly. I've been watching Mr. BBI

post Chinese government propaganda about the Tibetan riots earlier this year and have challenged his disinformation campaign many times.

Now, here he is again... :argh:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

11. What you actually have there is a quote from Chavez calling Chavez an enemy of the US.

And, hell, he ought to know.

He's not high up the list of significant enemies of the US, though - he's a bad ruler, but not as bad as many.

[Imagevision]

13. Six months ago Chavez was ranting about how he was looking forward to meeting with Obama, what

happened?

[Better Believe It]

21. Chavez Rants? How's That For An Unbiased Caption!

Perhaps Obama's personal attack on Chavez claiming he supports terrorists in Columbia (not true) and the threat of economic sanctions against Venezuela had something to do with his change in tone.

What do you think?

[ieoeja]

55. Obama said "if" it is proven that Venezuela supports FARC, then etc. n/t

[DevonRex]

91. Some folks here seem to be clueless about the if/then type of

statement.

[Radical Activist]

66. This article is bullshit. That's what happened.

So is the headline.

[mckeown1128]

94. So is the OP. nt

[Rosa Luxemburg]

15. Chavez may not be as nice as you think he is

doesn't he like to take away the people's rights?

[vaberella]

22. I hate that crap!!! Watch this film listed below:

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
You can watch it for free on google.com If you can get the dvd, I recommend it.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5832390545689805144

Get your facts before your start spouting US propaganda tactics.

The film details the undemocractic coup that was allowed and inadvertently promoted by the US and Oil bigwigs in Venezuela to get rid of Chavez, which was successful and in two days the people took over the Presidential house, with the military turning against the Oil bigwigs and MOCK Presidency to bring back Chavez.


People have no idea on Chavez when they say that.He's the one who made sure everyone in the country, even the poor would be educated in the bloody constitution. Plus, he's also the one that makes it possible for the people to openly communicate with him. Thirdly he's the one President that allowed public television to basically lambast him because no other president gave the Venezuelan people those damn rights.

Here watch this film:

[justinaforjustice]

96. Human Rights and Democracy Are Thriving in Venezuela.

I am an American living in Venezuela, true participatory democracy is alive and well here, despite the claims of the Bush administration. In fact, it is the U.S. which no longer has a democracy. Bush-Cheney have demolished our once great Constitution. It is Bush-Cheney who are "taking away the people's rights", not President Chavez.

The Venezuela Constitution, which was drafted by the Chavez government following his first election in 1998 and passed in a national referendum, has some of the most expansive civil liberties and human rights provisions in the world, and Chavez has continued to carry out the provisions of that Constitution.

There is a constitutional right to health care, education, adequate housing and adequate nutrition. There is a constitutional right to unionize and form cooperatives (and all labor laws must be construed in favor of the worker, not the employer). The government even provides low interest loans to start up cooperatives and small businesses. I know that as I am working in a new cooperative.

Here, there is a constitutional prohibition against use of torture and the death penalty, as well as all the rights to due process as used to recognized under the now-defunct U.S. Constitution.

Unlike Bush, President Chavez was elected in fair, internationally approved elections where all the votes had a paper trail. There is an automatic recount of a certain percentage of the votes in all elections.

Public education is free to all from pre-school to the university Ph.d level.

Chavez has not invaded any other countries, has not kidnapped or tortured anyone, has not held detainees without charges, bail or the right to counsel. There is no "no fly" list here, no internment camps under construction and Chavez has not conducted any mass arrests of supposed illegal immigrants. There has been no Postville in Venezuela under Chavez. It is our lawless, constitution-defying Bush government which has carried out all the foregoing horrendous acts. So, consider the source when the Bush-Chaney government and our national media accuse Chavez of being a dictator. They oppose Chavez because he will not be their puppet, because he dares to use Venezuela's oil profits to actually help the majority of the Venezuelan people. Just who benefits from U.S. oil company profits? Certainly not the majority of Americans.

The American people would do well to look to Venezuela as a model for the social programs we so disparately need in the U.S. -- universal free health care, free education, subsidized housing and food for the needy, support for unionization efforts for the workers, support for cooperatives and small business creation. And, most importantly, for real democracy at every level of decision-making. Those are the programs that President Chavez and his government are working to implement. Oh, and gasoline here is 14 cents a gallon.

[Kaleko]

149. Thank you for that first-hand account, JustinfJ!

And welcome to DU :hi:

[bvar22]

152. !...Recommending Post #96 (justinaforjustice) for Greatest Page.

Quick Chavez Review.
President Chavez has used a per centage of Oil Profits to:

*Heal the sick

*Educate the ignorant

*Shelter the homeless

*Feed the hungry

*Empower the disenfranchized


YES!
I can see why some Americans HATE Chavez.

I pray the Bolivarian Democratic Reforms migrate to El Norte!
VIVA Democracy!



"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[SurfingAtWork]

16. Thank you for your "concern"

[Median Democrat]

23. Without a Direct Obama quote, Article Is Useless

I have read enough contradictory MSM news articles with opinion pieces disguised as journalism that I am not going to get worked up about an article's characterization of Obama.

[vaberella]

39. THANK YOU!!! This is all lies!!

[vaberella]

18. There are posters here who believe this crap?! Who wrote this?!

There's too many misconstruing facts. I think Reuters is pulling a fast one on us and just reporting crock. Chavez has a goal to make South America and the Caribbean independent of Western Powers. Plus he has massive influence, it's not smart to alienate him and Obama would know that. Further more, Obama has said in the past several times he's willing to talk to Chavez. Lastly, there are is no information based on FACTS that Chavez is a terrorist or "fermenting terrorism. Obama is smart enough to know that. The closet to terrorism might be when the US supported the NON-DEMOCRACTIC "coup" against Chavez.

As for Chavez's side, I could believe Chavez say he's the enemy of the US as long as Bush is in power. However, I think he can see Obama as something of an enligtened figure and would be helpful in SA and Caribbean indepdendence.

[redcatcherb412]

19. Chavez is a dyed in the wool Commie

And BO surely sees that, plus all Chavez has done is nationalize and take over media. Right in line with his party line. BO is right in taking the stance. Don't need another Castro in the south.

[Better Believe It]

24. Oh You're A "Redcatcher" That's Just Wonderful!

I hope the Joseph McCarthy and J. Edgar Hoover aren't your role models.

Do you think the United States ought to invade Venezuela to catch and jail that "commie" Chavez and any other "commies" we might find in Venezuela?

[redcatcherb412]

32. LOL

Ya really otta google what a real 'redcatcher' is. Sorry, too young for McCarthy-ism or Hoover-ism.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

98. "too young for McCarthy-ism"

You're never to young, redbaiter.

[Forkboy]

25. P.O.E.

[TooBigaTent]

27. Go back to your right-wing home. nt

[vaberella]

28. Get your facts...

Actually Chavez is more of a Marxist and so is Obama a lot of the time. Communism as the way it's promoted today in places like Cuba, Russia, and China is COMPLETELY different from what Marx has said, if anyone has ever taken the time to read the Communist Manifesto and his 3 Volume over 1000 pages (per book) Capital. Marx would be rolling in his grave.

It's nothing as it's promoted and your statement says to me you've never bothered to really read Marx to know what you're talking about in regards to "true communism" as it's related to Marxism---which actually promotes Free Trade and Capitalist movement to something beyond.


All Marxism is, is basically giving the people the right to distribute what they've earned and not the Capitalist the rigth. For example, you work in a factor and you make 10 shoes per hour for 8 hours. The Capitalist sells the shoes for 30 a pop but gives the workers .10 of the profit and splits the rest amongst himself. This is what Marx is bashing. The labor makes the product and machinery yet it's the Capitalist who profits and says what goes where with the laborer left with nothing but lousy incentives. If you think this is right and we were born to be worthless worker bees then call them Commies with disdain. However, as someone who supports the working class, I think we have a right to distribute what we work so hard in producing.

In Venezuela, the people were being ripped apart. The Oil owners were basically profiting like bloody Exxon profits off of us and the people in the country don't get a damn cent. Did you know before Chavez over 60% of the population was in destitution? And no one cared. The government ran roughshod over the people and shut them up with a few well placed bullets if they acted up.

People get your facts together. You're all sounding as bad as the Repubs, obviously international diplomacy is not on many people's lists by the statements made here in regards to Chavez and the knowledge of his actions or what he represents.

[PVnRT]

31. Hear about that new baseball team, the "Mets"? Man, they're bad

Oh, wait, it's not 1962. Bye.

[RethugAssKicker]

33. You don't know shit about Chavez.. You bought the

US propaganda hype hook, line and sinker !!....Take it where less educated people post.... DU is not for fools.

[redcatcherb412]

35. I dunno

You're here aren't you ?. Chavez is pretty transparent in his goals, even a 'fool' can see what is there.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

100. LOL

I really don't think you've got grounds to accuse anybody else of being "transparent in his goals," or stating "even a fool can see what is there."

[fascisthunter]

131. FAIL

[sniffa]

70. .

[DustyJoe]

146. .

68..

[tkmorris]

103. You came straight from my parent's LR, circa 1955

Awesome!

[frylock]

109. who won the '69 world series?!

do you have an answer, comrade?

[Warren Stupidity]

164. get a gps

being this lost on the internet these days is inexcusable.

[wyldwolf]

44. Crap? Here's an excerpt from Obama's speech in May

No wonder, then, that demagogues like Hugo Chavez have stepped into this vacuum. His predictable yet perilous mix of anti-American rhetoric, authoritarian government, and checkbook diplomacy offers the same false promise as the tried and failed ideologies of the past. But the United States is so alienated from the rest of the Americas that this stale vision has gone unchallenged, and has even made inroads from Bolivia to Nicaragua. And Chavez and his allies are not the only ones filling the vacuum. While the United States fails to address the changing realities in the Americas, others from Europe and Asia - notably China - have stepped up their own engagement. Iran has drawn closer to Venezuela, and just the other day Tehran and Caracas launched a joint bank with their windfall oil profits.



http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/renewing_us_leadership_in_the.html

[sufrommich]

50. Obama is right about this,I don't see what the

problem is.

[zulchzulu]

26. Chavez recently said he would cut off oil to the United States

What the hell is someone running for President supposed to say?

http://www.kten.com/Global/story.asp?S=8669093

I used to like Chavez somewhat, but he's a loose cannon. A bullet will take him out soon enough, probably from his own ranks.

[redcatcherb412]

29. Soon probably won't be soon enough.

But a welcome prospect.

[vaberella]

30. Actually he's threatening not to sell or at least

force OPEC to use euros to throughout the US dollar. A move like that censures US power with oil. However he gives free oil to the Bronx area of New York. I know because I live in NYC.

[redcatcherb412]

34. He should cut U.S. off from his oil

Will definitely get the 'no we can't drill here' folks to change their tune.

[vaberella]

38. True, however, if he changes the money used to purchase oil within OPEC

the US is in a bigger disadvantage. The thing is actually it would basically almost destroy America. It's one of the things that props America up and has the Chinese and Japanese depedent on the american dollar. You have to have dollars to buy oil, so if you have yen, euro or whatever you need to change it for the American dollar. That supplies our economy with a flood of foreign money and they are dependent on our dollars to get oil. Take out the dollar and let's say use the Euro, Europe becomes a hegemony and effectively turning the US almost to a 2nd world nation. Hence me moving to China in future if we move unilateral. I believe Obama will win and change our bleak future under McCain.

But the dems have had TWO stolen elections, I wouldn't be surprised by a third one. I just know I have to fly the hell out of dodge as soon as that happens.

[zulchzulu]

53. How exactly does Chavez give "free oil" to the Bronx?

I know I've seen the claim. I've never seen the particulars as to actually how he deploys oil supplies in zones like the Bronx. I've heard the claim about New Orleans.

Put it this way. If Chavez is helping the poor in the US, I'm all for it. I just don't trust the guy. He's not exactly an angel with his own people that dare go up against him.

[rox63]

116. I know Venezuela provides oil to Joe Kennedy's Citizen's Energy non-profit

Which distributes it to poor households that need help to afford heating oil.

[anonymous171]

40. Chavez doesn't really like America, in case you haven't noticed.

[vaberella]

49. Given the US's history in SA and the Caribbean can you blame him?

Our foreign policy in the US has been debated for years because of the moves we've made which have been disasterous.

[anonymous171]

52. Of course. His dislike may be justified but it is still dislike.

[EFerrari]

79. Chavez doesn't like Bush criminals. He likes Americans just fine

in case you haven't noticed.

[wyldwolf]

41. and he's correct. Just like Brian Schweitzer

"Hugo Chavez. The Saudi royal family … the leaders in Iran... rats, crooks, dictators..."

Brian Schweitzer on 60 Minutes 23 Feb 2006.

[Meshuga]

65. I totally agree with Schweitzer

:thumbsup:

[tkmorris]

105. Another throwback to a bygone age...

When men were men, and women were dainty little creatures in really impractical footwear.

[NattPang]

45. You have failed with this post.

Obama is not quoted has having said what the
headline of your op said he said.

A reporting not quoting but reporting on what was said
doesn't make Obama as having said it.

Please, in the future, stick to the facts.
Facts include what one actually has said,
not what is said that he said.

Trusting the Corporate media
is like trusting that the gun is loaded with blanks
because they said so, and so you put it to your head.

In other words, you've exhibited foolishness that can be
quite dangerous.

Are we clear on that?

[wyldwolf]

48. Here's what Obama said in May

No wonder, then, that demagogues like Hugo Chavez have stepped into this vacuum. His predictable yet perilous mix of anti-American rhetoric, authoritarian government, and checkbook diplomacy offers the same false promise as the tried and failed ideologies of the past. But the United States is so alienated from the rest of the Americas that this stale vision has gone unchallenged, and has even made inroads from Bolivia to Nicaragua. And Chavez and his allies are not the only ones filling the vacuum. While the United States fails to address the changing realities in the Americas, others from Europe and Asia - notably China - have stepped up their own engagement. Iran has drawn closer to Venezuela, and just the other day Tehran and Caracas launched a joint bank with their windfall oil profits.

[Better Believe It]

57. Obama's Quoted Statements Are Pretty Bad And You Support Them?

Obama's actual quoted statements were actually WORSE than the original article suggested! So what's your point?

When I asked for help in finding out what Obama's actually said, Obama's exact quotes and a link was provided by another poster.

So are you defending and supporting these comments by Obama? Well, come right out and say so, don't beat around the bush.

Here's what Obama told Walter Pacheco of the Orlando Sentinel on May 22nd:

"One of the obvious high priorities in my talks with President Hugo Chavez would be the fermentation of anti-American sentiment in Latin America, his support of (Marxist narco-terrorists) FARC in Colombia, and other issues he would want to talk about,"

And in a speech delivered before the right-wing Cuban-American National Foundation on May 23rd Obama said:

""We will shine a light on any support for the FARC that comes from neighboring governments. This behavior must be exposed to international condemnation, regional isolation, and -- if need be -- strong sanctions. It must not stand."

Obama continued, "We have to hold Venezuela accountable if, in fact, it is trying to ferment terrorist activities in other borders. If Venezuela has violated those rules, we should mobilize all the countries to sanction Venezuela and let them know that that's not acceptable behavior."

Obama knows for a fact that Venezuela and Chavez are not fermenting "terrorist activities" so why did he even suggest this might be happening to a meeting of the right-wing Cuban-American National Foundation?

And Obama surely knows that Hugo Chavez called upon FARC to release all of their hostages and to end their armed activities in Columbia, so his claim that Chavez's "supports FARC in Columbia" is simply not the truth.

So tell us why you think Obama is spreading these untruths about Chavez and Venezuela?

[shagsak]

90. Can you prove beyond shadow of a doubt

That Chavez has never supported the FARC? I have read in countless articles that Chavez supported FARC at one time. Are they all propaganda as you say?

Couple of links I found.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/venezuela/2100051/Venezuela's-Hugo-Chavez-ends-support-of-Farc-rebels.html

http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2008/07/14/the-farc-narco-terrorism-and-hugo-chavez.html


Please inform me as I may have fallen victim to the right wing propaganda machine. I know if it were me, I would make sure I had all the facts before drawing a hard line in the sand. You asked why Obama is spreading lies, and that is a big accusation. Why would you ask it like that?

[SidneyCarton]

134. Sooooo...

What exactly are you trying to prove here. There are a lot of "if's" in that statement. This is a hypothetical, if we're going to crucify people on hypotheticals, we all end up getting the rough manicure.

[jody]

46. Is that what supporters can expect from the presumptive presidential candidate of Change? n/t

[vaberella]

51. This is much like the crap on him about raising taxes---there are blog news articles on that too.

There is no direct quote from Obama you'd notice. And all of Obama's past statements contradict the above.

Obviously there are people lieing and you seem to fall for it.

[IndianaJones]

47. he's right. nt.

[Overseas]

54. Yeah, golly gee, why oh why would Obama talk tough about Chavez?

Yeah, man! Just because the US government wanted to depose Chavez and still does, doesn't mean Obama has to go along with that. Gee golly. He should stand up against world opinion and go do some photo ops with Hugo.

[anonymous171]

56. YEAH! They should go visit Mosque together too!

Wouldn't that be AWESOME!?

[Better Believe It]

58. To Win Over World Opinion Which Is With Chavez?

World opinion on Venezuela is with Chavez, not the Bush government

[Overseas]

67. World knows Bush is deranged. Many Western allies dislike Chavez.

There is a strong international anti-Chavez propaganda campaign it would not be worth Obama's while to go against.

[Radical Activist]

59. Why isn't there a quote from Obama?

Haven't we been through this enough to not trust any media characterization of what Obama says without seeing a direct quote in context?

[Better Believe It]

62. Here's The Exact Quotes Once Again

Here's what Obama told Walter Pacheco of the Orlando Sentinel on May 22nd:

"One of the obvious high priorities in my talks with President Hugo Chavez would be the fermentation of anti-American sentiment in Latin America, his support of (Marxist narco-terrorists) FARC in Colombia, and other issues he would want to talk about,"

And in a speech delivered before the right-wing Cuban-American National Foundation on May 23rd Obama said:

""We will shine a light on any support for the FARC that comes from neighboring governments. This behavior must be exposed to international condemnation, regional isolation, and -- if need be -- strong sanctions. It must not stand."

Obama continued, "We have to hold Venezuela accountable if, in fact, it is trying to ferment terrorist activities in other borders. If Venezuela has violated those rules, we should mobilize all the countries to sanction Venezuela and let them know that that's not acceptable behavior."

Obama knows for a fact that Venezuela and Chavez are not fermenting "terrorist activities" so why did he even suggest this might be happening to a meeting of the right-wing Cuban-American National Foundation?

And Obama surely knows that Hugo Chavez called upon FARC to release all of their hostages and to end their armed activities in Columbia, so his claim that Chavez's "supports FARC in Columbia" is simply not the truth.

So why is Obama spreading these untruths about Chavez and Venezuela?

[Radical Activist]

64. So the title of your post is a complete lie?

Nowhere in that quote does he urge sanctions or call Chavez an enemy of the US. Please correct it.

[Better Believe It]

73. No, That's A Quote From The Article

So are you claiming that the article is a complete lie and the anti-Chavez quotes from other posts are also a lie?

Once again, before a poster comments on an article or post they should read it first!

OK?

[ieoeja]

106. Read the highlights.

"We have to hold Venezuela accountable if, in fact, it is trying to ferment terrorist activities in other borders. If Venezuela has violated those rules, we should mobilize all the countries to sanction Venezuela and let them know that that's not acceptable behavior."

[Radical Activist]

138. Your post subject is a complete lie.

So is the suggestion in the article.
I read the Obama quote. He doesn't say either of the things you claim. You either can't read or you're generally full of shit.

[Zodiak]

182. This cannot be a direct quote

Because "fermenting terrorism" doesn't make sense and Obama isn't like Bush, misusing words.

The word is "foment", synonym of "incite".

[anonymous171]

60. Wow. Some serious Chavez worship in this thread.

[Better Believe It]

63. Kinda Like M.L.King, Nelson Mandela & Barack Obama Worship?

Not at all.

Just searching for the truth and rejecting right-wing anti-Venezuela propaganda.

[Breeze54]

68. Oh, great! And fuck all the Americans depending on discount heating oil from him too!!

"he has called the leftist Venezuelan leader an enemy of the United States and urged sanctions against him." :grr:

[druidity33]

155. please read the article

Obama says no such thing. The OP is full of shit.

:shrug:

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

69. I believe President Chavez just did Senator Obama a huge favor. n/t

[uponit7771]

71. OBAMA DIDN'T SAY WHAT THE OP CLAIMED !!!! THE OP IS WRONG !!! THX

[Better Believe It]

74. Yes He Did! Here's The Obama Quotes

Here's what Obama told Walter Pacheco of the Orlando Sentinel on May 22nd:

"One of the obvious high priorities in my talks with President Hugo Chavez would be the fermentation of anti-American sentiment in Latin America, his support of (Marxist narco-terrorists) FARC in Colombia, and other issues he would want to talk about,"

And in a speech delivered before the right-wing Cuban-American National Foundation on May 23rd Obama said:

""We will shine a light on any support for the FARC that comes from neighboring governments. This behavior must be exposed to international condemnation, regional isolation, and -- if need be -- strong sanctions. It must not stand."

Obama continued, "We have to hold Venezuela accountable if, in fact, it is trying to ferment terrorist activities in other borders. If Venezuela has violated those rules, we should mobilize all the countries to sanction Venezuela and let them know that that's not acceptable behavior."

Obama knows for a fact that Venezuela and Chavez are not fermenting "terrorist activities" so why did he even suggest this might be happening to a meeting of the right-wing Cuban-American National Foundation?

And Obama surely knows that Hugo Chavez called upon FARC to release all of their hostages and to end their armed activities in Columbia, so his claim that Chavez's "supports FARC in Columbia" is simply not the truth.

So why is Obama spreading these untruths about Chavez and Venezuela?

[RoyGBiv]

160. You're being obtuse ...

Nowhere in those actual Obama quotes does he say Hugo Chavez is an enemy of the United States, and you damn well know it.

[anonymous171]

72. "Chavez said there was no difference between the two [McCain and Obama.]"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/17/usa.uselections2008

[EFerrari]

80. In their rhetoric about Venezuela and, he's right. n/t

[Unsane]

77. Do you really think Chavez is a friend of the U.S.?

I mean...really? Come on.

[EFerrari]

78. Chavez has never been anti-America but anti-BushCo. n/t

[anonymous171]

81. Not anymore. I have no doubt he will continue his rhetoric once Bush is out.

Chavez, who in the past implied that he favoured Obama over his Republican rival, John McCain, today declared a plague on both their houses.

In a speech to supporters, Chavez said there was no difference between the two and that US-Venezuela relations would not improve if Obama won in November. The problem, Chavez said, was the nature of the US itself.

"Let's not kid ourselves, it is the empire and the empire must fall. That's the only solution, that it comes to an end."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/17/usa.uselections2008

[Better Believe It]

85. Unless Obama Drops His "Tough" Rhetoric When He Becomes President

And if Obama doesn't drop his "tough guy" rhetoric against Venezuela will he follow it up with "tough" actions such as sanctions against Venezuela?

[EFerrari]

87. The empire and the people are two different entities.

In case you haven't noticed.

[Better Believe It]

82. He's Not An Enemy Of Mine, He Is The Enemy Of Bush & Company

Chavez has done nothing to hurt the average working person in America.

Tell me how you think he has hurt us .... and by us I'm not talking about the corporate interests that run this nation.

[ecstatic]

83. Guess we better elect John McCain then...sheesh, will you people ever stop

We have less than 4 months until GE day. You won't be happy until it's McCain getting inaugurated next January. At which point, you'll turn Obama into a hero AFTER the fact (just like you did with Gore and Kerry). :eyes:

[anonymous171]

84. Kerry was villified at first. It's taken years for people to get over it.

You know, the usual "skull and bones" conspiracies surrounding Kerry's 2004 run.

[Better Believe It]

86. Why Do You Draw That Conclusion?

Do you really think McCain would be better and why?

[HCE SuiGeneris]

119. You have yet to post a positive article about Obama in your time here.

However, you are the master baiter for stirring ill will against him. What candidate do you support?

[Better Believe It]

122. That's Not True: Are You Monitoring Everyone's Posts?

Well, if that's your "assignment" you've fallen down on your job!

You clearly haven't read mine.

But, since you have a lot of time to kill and apparently have nothing to contribute to this discussion, go ahead and read EVERY comment I've
posted on DU. All 786 now!

Now I'm not responsible for Obama's actions or statements.

So don't blame me if Obama does something that upsets progressives such as support to FISA, attacks on Chavez, etc.,

Have you written to writers for The Nation, Common Dreams, the Progressive, Alternet, In These Times, Counterpunch and a dozen other progressive publications/websites to express your outrage over the fact that they dare criticize anything your "perfect" candidate has said or done?

Obama said that he welcomes such criticism.

Why don't you?

You don't speak for Obama.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

141. A representative sampling of your concerned OPs:

Obama Should Get Behind This Move Against The Oil Speculators
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=6488333

Obama: New And Not Improved - New York Times Editorial
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=6458150

Obama Turns Centrist
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=6441969

Obama, Iraq and Change: What Can We Believe In?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=6458613

Brother Obama, We've Had Enough Presidential Theology: Feed The Hungry. End The War
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=6445286

Memo to Obama: Moving to the Middle is for Losers by Arianna Huffington
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=6458114


Your quote: "Now I'm not responsible for Obama's actions or statements." Well, shit howdy. Could of fooled me with the amount of "concern" you exhibit...

[Better Believe It]

150. You Carefully Pick & Choose Only 780+ More To Go!

Everyone will be looking forward to your final report on their posts!

[stimbox]

159. Comrade Better Believe It, you are not posting correct thought and articles... n/t

[DevonRex]

93. Man, I wish I could K&R your response. **RECOMMENDED** NT

[Enrique]

88. Obama has always had the establishment democratic attitude toward Chavez

how is this a flip-flop?

[DevonRex]

92. Hmm. You seem to be regularly concerned about stuff here.

And you seem to be clueless about simple things like understanding IF/THEN statements. Also, you seem to be concerned anytime some biased news agency wants you to be.

[Better Believe It]

107. Are You Also Regularly Concerned About "Stuff"?

Gee .... I sure hope so!

And I'm "clueless" about the simple "stuff" things that concern you?

Whatever.

[ronnykmarshall]

95. Oh dear.

:hide:

[ElsewheresDaughter]

97. noisy cicadas

[mckeown1128]

114. BREAKING NEWS!!!! Obama delcares CANADA ENEMY OF US....

I've heard Obama say that if anyone uses a Nuclear weapon we would retaliate full force. If the Candadians bought an old russian nuke and used it on Detroit... Obama would go to war with Canada....


OUTRAGE OUTRAGE OUTRAGE OUTRAGE OUTRAGE OUTRAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[olkaz]

117. This is one thing I just can't understand about DU.

I'm as progressive as the next DU'er, but the fascination and support for Chavez... I'll never understand it.

[anonymous171]

118. I don't either.

He's not dictator but is always pushing the envelope in that regard. Plus the fact that he uses America as a scapegoat like Bush uses "terra", you know "IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH ME YOU ARE HELPING THE TERRORISTS!"

[vaberella]

130. BS, you obviously know nothing about Chavez.

He is far from a Dictator, to even be pushing the envelope on dictator. I find it ludicrous to even equate him as such. He was Democratically elected and is a strong promoter that people should be elected to Presidency.

Chavez has done some questionable things but most of his is a logical reasoning. As for America as a scapegoat. For a progressive I'm a appaled you say such a thing. Chile-US, Nicaragua-US, Venezuela-US. Brazil-US, Haiti-US, Peru-US, and basically many other nations all in the SA and Caribbean have had bad relationships with the US. The US's foreign policy has been disastrous...hello need I even waste the time to mention School of the Americas?! Huh?! That school has been the foundation of so many genocidal maniacs in the SA and Caribbean it's disgusting and they're being taught on our turf.

Do the reading, get caught up...http://www.soaw.org/

His anger towards the US is not even in dislike of the US but capitalist manipulation of his country and his countries resources which have US backing. His entire goal is to make SA and Carib totally independent of Western powers, the way Africa is not. For example DeBeers the jeweler has kids mining in dangerous diamond pits to their deaths, but they make the profit when Paris Hilton tells daddy she wants a new set of 10 million dollar earrings. Where does that 10 million go? You can sure as well bet it doesn't go to those miners. So who's being violated of the resources. The workers are devalued of their lives or health, or both on low wages and DeBeers is living like kings on their profit.

That's what was being done in Venezuela to the oil until he made it state owned and the people started benefitting from the oil they were digging. Not the minimal elite. His battle is for the poor and working class, the uneducated in his country not the elite and that needs to be recognized, if not respected. There is a lot of crap on this and that about him but obviously people are not doing the reading, or just reading the stuff by MSM and watching the stuff by MSM. There's more to it than that...hence the reason if I want to know on Chavez I've moved to the BBC.

Here watch this film on him called The Revolution Will Not Be Televised---it's completely true and filmed on point and the Irish (from Ireland) filmers didn't even know something like that was going to happen. They were thrust in the middle of a coup, when they only came to film the Venezuelan government workings--not a coup.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5832390545689805144

[anonymous171]

132. Hey! I'm not saying America has done some incredibly shitty imperialistic things to Latin America

That would be incredibly ignorant. All I'm saying is that we should be on our guard about Chavez. I don't trust him, even though his leftist reforms are cool.

[Better Believe It]

120. It's All About Class

Chavez and the revolution in Venezuela is taking on the corporate interests, including those in the United States, and the revolution is helping to improve the lives, health care and general living standards of the working poor in Venezuela.

The rich tend to oppose Chavez and the revolution while the poor working class majority support the revolution.

I'd suggest you read some serious articles on Venezuela that will help you to understand what is happening.

Don't rely on the corporate media for your information.

Here's one website that presents news you won't find in the establishment press.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/

[vaberella]

121. Finally someone who has the knowledge of the situation.

[anonymous171]

128. He is so not a revolutionary. He's just a politician who likes to imagine himself as one.

He's not a dictator either. He's just a leftist president who doesn't like America's economic policies.

[vaberella]

133. Actually he is revolutionary in the moves he's making in the SA

and Carib. He's been given more clout than Castro, of course that's because a lot of his former revolutionary counters have become president of their own countries. So they all have the similar background.

The thing is, he is revolutionary to what was there for over a 100 years. So in essence his complete radical difference makes him a revolutionary. Further more, the people mobilized under him and his own military rather than follow the dictates of the mock President and his supporters after Chavez's crew, turned on these idiots and took back the Presidential home effectively kicking out the coup creators. That's revolutionary.

[harun]

151. Maybe you need to learn about Chavez beyond what CNN tels you

about Chavez.

I only assume you don't know much because your post actually contains NO actually critical comment of Chavez just a statement of "lack of understanding".

If you have actually "done your homework" on the subject and have clear reasons against the guy then my bad.

[RoyGBiv]

158. Me either ...

Well, no, I do to some extent. It's the fact he was almost ousted by a Bush-backed coup, and it all got caught on video (from the inside) for the world to see. It very clearly shows how the media has been manipulated against Chavez.

The problem is the subsequent assumption that took hold, which is basically since Bush hates him so much and since it is a clear fact the media was used to show him to be far, far worse than he was, he must be (leap of logic coming) an incredible leader.

One really doesn't need the mainstream media (here or there) to see Chavez's ample flaws. I don't really think he's a bad guy or leader deep down, and his heart seems to be in the right place most of the time, but, well, let's just say I wouldn't want to live there. And, I wouldn't vote for him if he were here.

[Danger Mouse]

123. So you lied about what Obama said, and you won't confront anyone who calls you out...

on your LIE.
Very telling.

[Better Believe It]

125. Here Is What Obama Said And You're Calling Them Lies?

Here's what Obama told Walter Pacheco of the Orlando Sentinel on May 22nd:

"One of the obvious high priorities in my talks with President Hugo Chavez would be the fermentation of anti-American sentiment in Latin America, his support of (Marxist narco-terrorists) FARC in Colombia, and other issues he would want to talk about,"

And in a speech delivered before the right-wing Cuban-American National Foundation on May 23rd Obama said:

""We will shine a light on any support for the FARC that comes from neighboring governments. This behavior must be exposed to international condemnation, regional isolation, and -- if need be -- strong sanctions. It must not stand."

Obama continued, "We have to hold Venezuela accountable if, in fact, it is trying to ferment terrorist activities in other borders. If Venezuela has violated those rules, we should mobilize all the countries to sanction Venezuela and let them know that that's not acceptable behavior."

Obama knows for a fact that Venezuela and Chavez are not fermenting "terrorist activities" so why did he even suggest this might be happening to a meeting of the right-wing Cuban-American National Foundation?

And Obama surely knows that Hugo Chavez called upon FARC to release all of their hostages and to end their armed activities in Columbia, so his claim that Chavez's "supports FARC in Columbia" is simply not the truth.

So why is Obama spreading these untruths about Chavez and Venezuela?

[Danger Mouse]

127. That's why he said 'IF' 'IF' 'IF'!!! Do you lack reading skills?

But anything to smear Obama, right?

[vaberella]

135. hahahahaha I love it..."do you lack reading skills"

:rofl:

[Danger Mouse]

136. The title of the OP is a blatant lie.

But some DUer's have their head shoved so far up Chavez's ass they can't tell day from night.

[Better Believe It]

137. There Are No 'If's" Either Chavez Is A Terrorist Supporter Or He Isn't

Contrary to what Obama suggests, Venezuela IS NOT fermenting "terrorist activities" period. Unless Obama has some indication that Venezuela is engaged in "terrorist activities" why would he even say "if"???

Once again, Obama knows for a fact that Venezuela and Chavez are not fermenting "terrorist activities" so why did he even suggest this might be happening when he said "if" to a meeting of the right-wing Cuban-American National Foundation?

And in following statement Obama did not even say "if". He flat out charged that Chavez supports "marxist narco-terrorists" FARC in Columbia!

Here's what Obama told Walter Pacheco of the Orlando Sentinel on May 22nd:

"One of the obvious high priorities in my talks with President Hugo Chavez would be the fermentation of anti-American sentiment in Latin America, his support of (Marxist narco-terrorists) FARC in Colombia, and other issues he would want to talk about,"

Obama surely knows that Hugo Chavez called upon FARC to release all of their hostages and to end their armed activities in Columbia, so his claim that Chavez's "supports FARC in Columbia" is simply not the truth.

So please quit playing with Obama's words and tell us why is Obama spreading these untruths about Chavez and Venezuela?

[Danger Mouse]

139. Why are you so concerned? And your OP title is still a deliberate lie.

[Radical Activist]

140. "If" you really believe what you're typing then you're a total fucking moron who can't read.

Notice the "if."

[RoyGBiv]

154. Yes ...

That's the kind interpretation anyway, misunderstanding through ignorance.

Either that, or he's a not-so-secretive disruptor.

Whatever the case, criticizing Chavez isn't even a move to the center. A lot of people on the leftward side of the aisle are very critical of the Venezuelan leader. If supporting Chavez turns into the litmus test of one's liberal credentials, I'm afraid to say most people are going to fail that test.

[Better Believe It]

156. Sorry: I'm Just Not Going To Repeat The Right-Wing Smears Against Chavez

Not a single person claiming to be "left" or "progressive" is supporting the Bush governments and other right-wing propaganda against Chavez and Venezuela.

We may have, and many of us do have political disagreements with Hugo Chavez (as do many progressives and radicals within Venezuela) however, we do not echo the anti-chavez right-wing and red-baiting propaganda of the Bush government and its supporters.

[RoyGBiv]

157. And this is relevant how?

You're talking in circles, apparently conflating the Bush administration with Obama.

[Better Believe It]

161. Progressives Who Understand What's Going On Don't Echo The Right-Wings Anti-Chavez Propaganda

A few posters in this string have done so.

I think they have been misled by very effective and constant mainstream media propaganda against Venezuela and Chavez.

I hope they take the blinders off and try to figure out for themselves what is actually happening in Venezuela and not rely so much on the corporate media for their information.

They need to read articles that appear in alternative progressive/radical news sources.

[RoyGBiv]

162. Again, missing the relevance ...

Can you keep a straight train of thought going, or do you always meander around like this?

[EFerrari]

145. The OP is not lying. n/t

[Danger Mouse]

166. Okay. Deliberately misleading, then.

[EFerrari]

183. No, that's pretty much what Obama keeps saying.

As a supporter of both parties, I hope this is campaign talk and not what he actually thinks. :shrug:

[iconicgnom]

142. That doesn't describe a move toward "the center" of anything.

It describes a straightforward neocon move, and the neocon movement is extreme and radical

[provis99]

163. look who just ordered himself a pizza

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=219108


Only 20 posts and gone. Freepers are trying less and less to hide themselves these days.

[Marie26]

165. Not really. He's changed positions a few times,

sometimes urging sanctions, sometimes diplomacy. It's not nearly as stark as your headline suggests.

[Better Believe It]

167. It Still Was Pretty Bad

I wrote in the original post:

"Is this true?

I really hope not.

We don't need anymore movements toward "the center" by Obama.

If any has more information on Obama's statement please provide it with a link."

Another poster provided the link I requested and his quoted statement was pretty bad in my opinion.

I find it difficult to believe that Obama actually believes the statements he made regarding Chavez and Venezeula supporting terrorists.

So who was Obama trying to satisfy with his comments?

[Marie26]

169. It's not that hard to believe

That's pretty much the mainstream opinion in the US & in the Democratic Party. Obama isn't a radical, here. He's not going to be allying w/Chavez against the neoliberal mainstream & US interests. Chavez is a threat to US power in the region & as such must be undermined whenever possible.

[Duder]

170. Chávez is also a politician

Policies aside, the people of Venezuela seem much more drawn to Obama than McCain. "I would say that traditionally here in Venezuela, most Venezuelans support a Democratic Party candidate," says Steve Ellner, Venezuelan-based author of the recently published book "Rethinking Venezuelan Politics." "And that cuts across political and ideological differences."

That affinity is reflected worldwide in a recent survey by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, which showed that respondents in most all countries surveyed say they have more confidence in Obama than McCain. The survey included 24,717 responses across 24 countries, including Brazil and Mexico in Latin America.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0716/p06s02-woam.html?page=1">Could an Obama win hurt Chávez?

[Cleita]

171. This would be a very bad move for Obama to continue the official USA

position on American hegemony in Latin America that has been in place since the Monroe Doctrine. It's based belief that we should keep Latin America in place for our benefit and enrichment. This way we can exploit it without the bother of governing it. What we do is back any government, no matter how brutal, that does what we want them to while we allow the same leaders to do their share of stealing for their enrichment. And if a country tries to become independent of American interests like Chile (my country) we should smash them into submission. Now Chavez is doing the same with Venezuela and of course Bush has been dying to smash him. I hope Obama reconsiders. Diplomacy would be a better avenue of change.

[mckeown1128]

172. reconsiders what?

Obama didn't do what the title is implying he did. What do you think Obama said or did?

[Cleita]

174. Go down to post #76 by

sfexpat2000. I trust this DUer because I know how carefully she follows Latin American affairs. Apparently he did say it.

[Better Believe It]

175. Obama Needs To Reconsider These Statements And Back Off!

Here's what Obama told Walter Pacheco of the Orlando Sentinel on May 22nd:

"One of the obvious high priorities in my talks with President Hugo Chavez would be the fermentation of anti-American sentiment in Latin America, his support of (Marxist narco-terrorists) FARC in Colombia, and other issues he would want to talk about,"

And in a speech delivered before the right-wing Cuban-American National Foundation on May 23rd Obama said:

""We will shine a light on any support for the FARC that comes from neighboring governments. This behavior must be exposed to international condemnation, regional isolation, and -- if need be -- strong sanctions. It must not stand."

Obama continued, "We have to hold Venezuela accountable if, in fact, it is trying to ferment terrorist activities in other borders. If Venezuela has violated those rules, we should mobilize all the countries to sanction Venezuela and let them know that that's not acceptable behavior."

Obama knows, or should know, that Venezuela and Chavez are not fermenting "terrorist activities" so why did he even suggest this might be happening to a meeting of the right-wing Cuban-American National Foundation?

And Obama surely knows that Hugo Chavez called upon FARC to release all of their hostages and to end their armed activities in Columbia, so his claim that Chavez's "supports FARC in Columbia" is simply not the truth.

[leftchick]

178. from may...."No wonder, then, that demagogues like Hugo Chávez have stepped into this vacuum,"

I find this appalling.....


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/obama_obfuscates_on_chavez_far.html

Obama Obfuscates on Chavez & FARC
By Jack Kelly

Should Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez be engaged? Or isolated? Presidential candidates debated this question in Florida last week.

Make that a presidential candidate debated this with himself in Florida last week. Sen. Barack Obama took both positions on successive days.

Mr. Obama told Walter Pacheco of the Orlando Sentinel last Thursday he'd personally meet with Mr. Chavez:
"One of the obvious high priorities in my talks with President Hugo Chavez would be the fermentation of anti-American sentiment in Latin America, his support of (Marxist narco-terrorists) FARC in Colombia, and other issues he would want to talk about," Sen. Obama said then. "It is important to understand that ignoring these countries has not led to improved behavior on their part and it has not served our national security interests."
But in a speech in Miami the very next day, Mr. Obama said any Latin American government that supports FARC (the Spanish acronym for the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) should be isolated.

"We will shine a light on any support for the FARC that comes from neighboring governments," Mr. Obama told the Cuban American National Foundation. "This behavior must be exposed to international condemnation, regional isolation, and -- if need be -- strong sanctions. It must not stand."

ABC's Jake Tapper was confused. "So he will meet with the leader of a country he simultaneously says should be isolated? Huh?"







Obama: Bush fostered Chávez rise
'Negligent' foreign policy created void
Senator Barack Obama renewed his call to ease restrictions on Cuban-Americans, which CANF head Jorge Mas Santos endorsed. Senator Barack Obama renewed his call to ease restrictions on Cuban-Americans, which CANF head Jorge Mas Santos endorsed. (Wilfredo Lee/Associated Press)

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/05/24/obama_bush_fostered_chvez_rise/

Globe Staff / May 24, 2008

MIAMI - Democratic presidential front-runner Barack Obama yesterday accused President Bush of complicity in the rise of his most fervent nemesis in Latin America through what Obama called a "negligent" US foreign policy that has created a void for anti-American leaders to extend their reach in the region.


"No wonder, then, that demagogues like Hugo Chávez have stepped into this vacuum," Obama said yesterday, referring to Venezuela's autocratic president who called Bush "the devil" during a United Nations speech and who has become a villain among American conservatives.

"The United States is so alienated from the rest of the Americas that this stale vision has gone unchallenged, and has even made inroads from Bolivia to Nicaragua," he said.

Obama made the charge before a luncheon at a Miami hotel hosted by the Cuban-American National Foundation, a nonpartisan group that has for decades held a hard line against easing relations between the United States and Cuba and found itself typically allied with Republicans.

[Better Believe It]

181. This Would Have Been A Much Better Lead Caption To The Post

"Obama Charges Chavez Supports Terrorists, Says Strong Sanctions Against Venezuela Might Be Needed"

The lead post caption that some have objected too was "Obama Calls Hugo Chavez Enemy Of U.S. Urges Sanctions Against Venezuela!"

It was based upon the Reuters reporter who wrote in the linked story:

"But in recent weeks he has called the leftist Venezuelan leader an enemy of the United States and urged sanctions against him."

A better and more accurate caption based upon Obama's actual quoted statements which were found later by a different poster could have been:

"Obama Charges Chavez Supports Terrorists, Says Strong Sanctions Against Venezuela Might Be Needed"

There.

I think that's a pretty good and accurate caption on Obama's comments.

Does everyone agree?

Once again here is what Obama said:

Obama told Walter Pacheco of the Orlando Sentinel on May 22nd:

"One of the obvious high priorities in my talks with President Hugo Chavez would be the fermentation of anti-American sentiment in Latin America, his support of (Marxist narco-terrorists) FARC in Colombia, and other issues he would want to talk about,"

And in a speech delivered before the right-wing Cuban-American National Foundation on May 23rd Obama said:

""We will shine a light on any support for the FARC that comes from neighboring governments. This behavior must be exposed to international condemnation, regional isolation, and -- if need be -- strong sanctions. It must not stand."

Obama continued, "We have to hold Venezuela accountable if, in fact, it is trying to ferment terrorist activities in other borders. If Venezuela has violated those rules, we should mobilize all the countries to sanction Venezuela and let them know that that's not acceptable behavior."

Obama knows for a fact that Venezuela and Chavez are not fermenting "terrorist activities" so why did he even suggest this might be happening to a meeting of the right-wing Cuban-American National Foundation?

And Obama surely knows that Hugo Chavez called upon FARC to release all of their hostages and to end their armed activities in Columbia, so his claim that Chavez's "supports FARC in Columbia" is simply not the truth.