Facts please, on the reasons to dislike or hate Hugo Chavez or his party

[upi402]

I would like to find information about Hugo Chavez that explains the hate for him.
This is a serious request. I'm not baiting, I really want to know.

Here is a link to a movie about him and his revolution if you haven't seen it. A MUST SEE.

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

Thanks

[Gabi Hayes]

1. He's a.......SOCIALIST! he wants to use the resources of his nation to

benefit those who do all the hard work extracting said resources, at least to some small extent.

this is ILLEGAL and IMMORAL in the world of capitalism

expressly forbidden


that is all you need to know

[Jigarotta]

8. yes, socialism, especially southish of the equator, is a virus...

to capitalism.

[Gabi Hayes]

16. yeah....and what about those damn Swedes and Finns and stuff

when are we going to invade them?

they REALLY hate us for our freedoms

[Jigarotta]

18. and those commie Canadians too! nt

[Gabi Hayes]

28. how could I forget....training terrists to get over here and steal

our precious freedom (except for those propounded in the first, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, ninth, tenth, fourteenth amendments, etc., which we don't use anymore)

[upi402]

55. um, can I break into this love fest and

remind you of those French evildoers???

:evilgrin: The French, cheese eating surrender monkeys :evilgrin:

[Gabi Hayes]

61. now you've gone too FAR, vraiment! alons y!

[carl_pwccaman]

124. There are Socialist Democratics but the Party is not Leninist or Marxist.

Democrats have no reason to support someone with bad human or civil rights records.

[knowbody0]

2. thanks for the link

i cannot get enough of this guy!

[diamondsndust]

3. Trying to get facts out of the Chavez bashers here is like

trying to get an intelligent sentence out of DUHbya.. ain't gonna happen... :popcorn:

[file83]

159. Popcorn: CHECK

:popcorn:

[Buck Laser]

4. I like him simply because he pisses * off.

Do I need any more profound reason?

[jwirr]

5. If you are *ss you hate him because he nationalized the oil wells

to help the workers and the poor. Real bad guy! :sarcasm:

[Jigarotta]

6. Chomsky on US Hysteria about Chavez...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1369291

[upi402]

9. Thanks to postman and greyhound

I am wondering about us feet on the street Democrats on DU though.

[BayCityProgressive]

10. I don't hate him

I am just weary of him. He is very close to Castro. Although Castro is no military threat, I really hope his "one party democracy" doesnt spread through latin america. That is really the only thing that worries me.

[Jigarotta]

14. well, I hope it Does spread.

I hope poverty is wiped out and the people of every country get to reap the benefits of thier own resources and toil instead of having to hand it over to the corporate Pirates wrapped in flags of other countries.

[BayCityProgressive]

21. so

you think one party communist rule should control latin America? Yeah worked real well the first time that happened....:eyes:

[Jigarotta]

37. is chavez a communist?

or is the idea of people not being in poverty communist?
or the idea if poor people can't be capitalized, is communist?
I thought we were over that 'ist' and into the terror'ist' mode.
after all, it's easier to just accuse someone, some country of being a terrorist, isn't it? just by say so, no border, boundaries like the old cold war days. how conveeeeenient for the PNACers.

"When I give food to the poor, they call me a Saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a Communist." -Dom Helder Camara

[BayCityProgressive]

49. I never said Chavez was communist

in my last post I said he is uncomfortably close to a communist dictator and I didn't want him to spread Castro's ideology of opression. Perhaps I wasn't clear in my post so I apologize. I read your post to mean you supported Cuba's one party communist rule. I did just read that the World Bank said Venezuela cut pverty and I am very happy about that. As I said before, I just hope he isn't taking everythign Castro is telling him to heart because in my view Castro is a tyrant even if he gives education and healthcare to people.

[Jigarotta]

50. not as tyrannical as bush then...

who Doesn't give health care and proper education for his people.

and Castro doesn't send his armies around the world for home invasion quests to kill tens of thousands. You should direct your anger where it is needed and where there may be a slim chance you have some influence on it (assuming you are american).

[vogonjiltz]

101. Unless you count...

Afghanistan and Angola.

[Judi Lynn]

107. This link might be helpful, if you've not seen it:

SECRET CUBAN DOCUMENTS ON HISTORY OF AFRICA INVOLVEMENT
National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 67
Edited by Peter Kornbluh

NEW BOOK based on Unprecedented Access to Cuban Records;
True Story of U.S.-Cuba Cold fear Clash in Angola presented in Conflicting Missions

Washington D.C.: The National Security Archive today posted a selection of secret Cuban government documents detailing Cuba's policy and involvement in Africa in the 1960s and 1970s. The records are a sample of dozens of internal reports, memorandum and communications obtained by Piero Gleijeses, a historian at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, for his new book, Conflicting Missions: Havana, Washington, and Africa, 1959-1976 (The University of North Carolina Press).

Peter Kornbluh, director of the Archive’s Cuba Documentation Project, called the publication of the documents “a significant step toward a fuller understanding Cuba’s place in the history of Africa and the Cold War,” and commended the Castro government’s decision to makes its long-secret archives accessible to scholars like Professor Gleijeses. “Cuba has been an important actor on the stage of foreign affairs,” he said. “Cuban documents are a missing link in fostering an understanding of numerous international episodes of the past.”

Conflicting Missions provides the first comprehensive history of the Cuba's role in Africa and settles a longstanding controversy over why and when Fidel Castro decided to intervene in Angola in 1975. The book definitively resolves two central questions regarding Cuba's policy motivations and its relationship to the Soviet Union when Castro astounded and outraged Washington by sending thousands of soldiers into the Angolan civil conflict. Based on Cuban, U.S. and South African documents and interviews, the book concludes that:

• Castro decided to send troops to Angola on November 4, 1975, in response to the South African invasion of that country, rather than vice versa as the Ford administration persistently claimed;
  
  
• The United States knew about South Africa's covert invasion plans, and collaborated militarily with its troops, contrary to what Secretary of State Henry Kissinger testified before Congress and wrote in his memoirs.
  
  
• Cuba made the decision to send troops without informing the Soviet Union and deployed them, contrary to what has been widely alleged, without any Soviet assistance for the first two months.
  (snip)

~snip~
Conflicting Missions also argues that Secretary Kissinger's account of the US role in Angola, most recently repeated in the third volume of his memoirs, is misleading. Testifying before Congress in 1976, Kissinger stated "We had no foreknowledge of South Africa's intentions, and in no way cooperated militarily." In Years of Renewal Dr. Kissinger also denied that the United States and South Africa had collaborated in the Angolan conflict; Gleijeses' research demonstrates that they did. The book quotes Kissinger aide Joseph Sisco conceding that the Ford administration "certainly did not discourage" South Africa's intervention, and presents evidence that the CIA helped the South Africans ferry arms to key battlefronts. Contrary to what Kissinger alleges in his memoirs, the first Cuban military advisers did not arrive in Angola until late August 1975, and the Cubans did not participate in the fighting until late October, after South Africa had invaded. The book also reproduces portions of a declassified memorandum of conversation between Kissinger and Chinese leader Teng Hsiao-p'ing to show that China had refused U.S. entreaties to continue participating in Angola because of South Africa's involvement, not because the U.S. Congress refused to allocate further funding for the covert war, as Kissinger claimed.
(snip/...)

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB67/index2.html

[upi402]

59. i think it would've done fine without US impediments for decades

i mean we are swingin' on communist china's meat and have our heels in the air for viet nam. so what is it that makes Americans so afraid of Castro?

answer; revolution! the overthrow of corporate rule.

[Djinn]

80. Ahh Bill Hicks

"I'll show you politics in America. Here it is, right here. 'I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs.' 'I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking.' 'Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding out both puppets!'"

The thing about most western "democracies" is that you have two parties advocating the same system, sure there may be minute differences around the window dressings (and even that's debatable) but the US currently only has parties advocating global theft via "capitalism" so how do you figure you have more choice and more democracy than the people in Cuba?

[upi402]

83. 2 sides of the same damn coin

That pseudo 2 party system frustrates me even more when Democrats wont or don't see that. It's a show, and without a single hot lick.

[LittleClarkie]

17. He has failings

And I don't think that pointing them out should get one labelled a "hater"

[upi402]

63. 'hater' labe is probably meant in a generic way. I know I didn't say it

[carl_pwccaman]

46. Human Rights Watch on Chavez...

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

It seems people wind up in prison for voicing opposition in papers.

Bush has a better record on that than Chavez, go figure, it doesn't work for Democrats to point to Chavez as if he were great, while pointing fingers at Bush.

[carl_pwccaman]

54. Chomsky on minimizing Pol Pot/Khmer Rouge Apologism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Noam_Chomsky

Just another reason why 'idols' and rhetoric, become part of a dangerous game.

Let's just say I have some linguistic theories of my own as to why Chavez is so popular among some, and why Chomsky is so controversial.

Democrats can do better. I hope they do. It's hard to argue for a better brand of idiocy to people who are already disenchanted, even when that better brand of idiocy really is better, I mean, for the sake of the country, Chavez and Chomsky aren't Martin Luther King or anything, give me a break.

[Douglas Carpenter]

77. what Chomsky actually said:

link to full article:

http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/other/85-hitchens.html

snip:"The Case of the Cambodian Genocide David Horowitz and Peter Collier were wrong, in the syndicated article announcing their joint conversion to neoconservatism, to say that Chomsky hailed the advent of the Khmer Rouge as "a new era of economic development and social justice." The Khmer Rouge took power in 1975. In 1972, Chomsky wrote an introduction to Dr. Malcolm Caldwell's collection of interviews with Prince Norodom Sihanouk. In this introduction, he expressed not the prediction but the pious hope that Sihanouk and his supporters might preserve Cambodia for "a new era of economic development and social justice." You could say that this was naive of Chomsky, who did not predict the 1973 carpet-bombing campaign or the resultant rise of a primitive, chauvinist guerrilla movement. But any irony here would appear to be at the expense of Horowitz and Collier. And the funny thing is that, if they had the words right, they must have had access to the book. And if they had access to the book.... Well, many things are forgiven those who see the error of their formerly radical ways."

snip"Chomsky and Herman wrote that "the record of atrocities in Cambodia is substantial and often gruesome." They even said, "When the facts are in, it may turn out that the more extreme condemnations were in fact correct." The facts are now more or less in, and it turns out that the two independent writers were as close to the truth as most, and closer than some. It may be distasteful, even indecent, to argue over "body counts," whether the bodies are Armenian, Jewish, Cambodian, or (to take a case where Chomsky and Herman were effectively alone in their research and their condemnation) Timorese. But the count must be done, and done seriously, if later generations are not to doubt the whole slaughter on the basis of provable exaggerations or inventions"
_________________________

and here is a link to the controversial article in the Nation that Chomsky wrote regarding the Khemer Rouge:

Distortions at Fourth Hand
Noam Chomsky & Edward S. Herman
The Nation, June 6, 1977

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19770625.htm

[upi402]

78. what chomsky really said AND what his detracter REALLY said

<from chomsky.info>

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/200601--.htm

I turned with interest to Oliver Kamm's critique of the "crude and dishonest arguments" he attributes to me (Prospect, Nov. 2005), hoping to learn something. And I did, though not quite what he intended; rather, about the lengths to which some will go to prevent exposure of state crimes and their own complicity in them. His substantive charges are as follows.



<on israel, wkipedia references anti semetism charges, here is dissident voice charge;>

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Apr06/Ash20.htm
and chomsky's reply to israel lobby?;
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=9999



<wikipedia references the Khmer charges;>

http://www.flagrancy.net/khmerchomsky.html
There is only one possible conclusion to all this, however: Chomsky is a Khmer Rouge supporter, as is anyone in America who paid federal taxes between 1979 and 1991.

<and Chomsky's prequel to the Khmen supporting charge>

It doesn't enrage anyone when I say this about enemies of the United States. Then it's obvious. What outrages them is when I try to show how these patterns also exhibited in our own society, as they are. If I were talking to a group of Russian intellectuals, they would be outraged that I failed to see the idealism and commitment to peace and brotherhood of the Russian state. That's the way propaganda systems function.

--Noam Chomsky

[Djinn]

98. your post is just another reason

why people shouldn't think looking something up on Wiki or googling a name constitutes research. The "Chomsky is Pol Pot apologist" crap has been endlessly and easilly refuted...next

[carl_pwccaman]

117. But his disputed reputation on the issue is good for Democrats how?

Hey, pick your idols and icons as you wish, call them what you wish, but dn't be surprised if past baggage that haunts them, also haunts you, when you get real opposition.

You're getting this from me and I've voted completely democrat the last election. Try to get votes from people who are not as decidedly anti-Bush, sometime, and get back to me.

[Djinn]

119. um what?

Because I said that the myth posted about Chomsky was in fact a myth you come back with some nonsensical stuff about my "icons" and their baggage???

If you'd posted a long debunked myth about Bush/Cheney or Hitler I would also have pointed out that it was bunk. Chomsky (who is not an icon of mine btw I'm an ornery Scottish socialist we don't do icons) has NO baggage on this issue. If I claim that you like to shag goats it doesn't mean YOU have goat baggage, it means someone LIED about you.

As for Chomsky's rep and the Democrats I really don't see the connection, Chomsky is not and to my knowledge never has been a Democrat. What are you talking about?

[carl_pwccaman]

121. DU, Democrats, Chomsky defense reactions, not helpful

I think Chomsky does have baggage, there are many people, rightly or wrongly, who are more moderate or independent, people who aren't particularly gung ho socialists or aren't so attached to the democratic party in America, for example, or people who are critical of Bush but who aren't in with the sloganeering of the left, who see Chomsky as provocative and problematic.

Rallying behind the interpretation of Chomsky is not helfpul to dealing with critics who understandably find Chomsky's attitude towards Cambodia similar to that of Socialists towards Stalin some time back.

It really doesn't matter if, among socialists, among the left faithful, Chomsky has explained himself, now does it?

Preach to the choir all you want. I agree with some of Chomsky's points, I'm not a right winger, but he isn't the best source.

[Djinn]

125. so what if people see Chomsky as problematic

he never claimed to speak for the Democrats so what has that got to do with anything?

Apart from the oft debunked lie that he ws a Pol Pot apologist why else do you view him as "not the best source", just as you don't need to "explain" your love of goats Chomsky doesn't have to "explain" his "excusing" about Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, because both are LIES.

People may find Chomsky's attitude whatever they wish, however if they equate what he said as apologia for Pol Pot's crimes then they are ignorant.

I can find most Democrats corporate shills but if I claim they made apologies for war criminals then I better be able to back it up.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

170. Ah, so it doesn't matter whether attacks on a person are TRUE or not

if they are somewhat successfully swifboated we should drop them like a hot potato, right?

This tortured RW logic makes my head hurt.

[LittleClarkie]

70. But they were right wingers, so that's okay

Near as I can tell, it depends on one's politics.

[upi402]

71. There we go! Thanks. And this from Amnesty was before Chavez

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGAMR530161997

Venezuela: The silent cry -- children as young as 12 brutally tortured and killed by the security forces

I can understand him needing to stop the murderous (literally) private media in Venezuela. As to the Army in the country, I wonder if there are groups who would like to soil Chavez, or perhaps renegade military. I'll look into your references to see if I can see where there is independent evidence of Chavez directing violence against helpless, peaceful citizens.

The repatriating of refugees is done by states all too often. SE Asia has that problem in spades, East Timor was a nightmare. Thai-Burma border, Thai-Kampuchee border, Africa... America does it to political refugees regularly.

[Douglas Carpenter]

74. Chavez - the media and free speech

If anyone of us tried to practice the degree of freedom of expression that is openly expressed in Venezuela 24 hours a day/7days a week -- we would be in a lot of trouble very fast.

In spite of the fact that the local private elite-owned media is overwhelmingly hostile to the point of having supported force and violence against the popular democratically elected government. This is something that would never be allowed in the U.S. media or almost anywhere else for that matter

link:

http://mondediplo.com/2002/08/10venezuela

snip: "Never even in Latin American history has the media been so directly involved in a political coup. Venezuela’s ’hate media’ controls 95% of the airwaves and has a near-monopoly over newsprint, and it played a major part in the failed attempt to overthrow the president, Hugo Chavez, in April. Although tensions in the country could easily spill into civil war, the media is still directly encouraging dissident elements to overthrow the democratically elected president - if necessary by force."

snip:

"After Chavez came to power in 1998, the five main privately owned channels - Venevisión, Radio Caracas Televisión (RCTV), Globovisión and CMT - and nine of the 10 major national newspapers, including El Universal, El Nacional, Tal Cual, El Impulso, El Nuevo País, and El Mundo, have taken over the role of the traditional political parties, which were damaged by the president’s electoral victories. Their monopoly on information has put them in a strong position. They give the opposition support, only rarely reporting government statements and never mentioning its large majority, despite that majority’s confirmation at the ballot box. They have always described the working class districts as a red zone inhabited by dangerous classes of ignorant people and delinquents. No doubt considering them unphotogenic, they ignore working class leaders and organisations."

snip: ""Take to the streets" thundered El Nacional on 10 April (in an unattributed editorial). "Ni un paso atrás! (not one step backwards)" responded the hoardings on Globovisión. Another TV company broadcast: "Venezuelans, take to the streets on Thursday 11 April at 10am. Bring your flags. For freedom and democracy. Venezuela will not surrender. No one will defeat us." The call to overthrow the head of state became so obvious that the government applied Article 192 of the telecommunications law. More than 30 times -for all television and radio channels - it requisitioned 15-20 minutes’ air time to broadcast its views. But the broadcasters divided the screen in two and continued to urge rebellion."
__________________


I would be very suspicious of all this U.S. media concern about Chavez's human rights record which incidently has improved dramatically since his government took office. And for the record Chavez's record with any credible, independent human rights groups is no worse and probably not as bad as the U.S. and many other western democracies and far worse than that of the leading receipients of U.S. Aid.

http://www.globalissues.org/HumanRights/Media/Propaganda/Venezuela.asp

"Reporting on the ongoing issues, such as the protests and Chavez’s economic policies in Venezuela have shown similar signs of one-sidedness, from both the mainstream media of western countries such as the U.S. and U.K., and from Venezuela’s own elite anti-Chavez media, which “controls 95% of the airwaves and has a near-monopoly over newsprint, and ... played a major part in the failed attempt to overthrow the president, Hugo Chavez, in April 2002.... The media is still directly encouraging dissident elements to overthrow the democratically elected president — if necessary by force.”

And let's compare his record to the largest recepients of U.S. aid
Here are the three largest receipient of U.S. aid (after Iraq) in order. Feel free to compare them with Chavez's record which is not perfect but a lot better than any of these three.

link for Venezuela: http://hrw.org/doc/?t=americas&c=venezu

1. Israel - link:

http://hrw.org/doc?t=mideast&c=isrlpa

2. Egypt - link:

http://hrw.org/doc?t=mideast&c=egypt

3. Colombia - link:

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


and here is the report on the U.S.'s own human rights record:

http://hrw.org/doc/?t=usa
__________________________

Also the good people at FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) on their weekly radio program Counter Spin did a special program regarding Hugo Chavez and the media on 3 March 2006.

Here is the link for downloading or listening online:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2832
_______________

The Venezuelan Revolution : 100 Questions-100 Answers



by Chesa Boudin, Gabriel Gonzalez, Wilmer Rumbos

Amazon link:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1560257733/sr=1-1/qid=1145697377/ref=sr_1_1/002-1846545-3744063?%5Fencoding=UTF8&s=books

[Judi Lynn]

112. Would you be good enough to find the part which proves Chavez

throws dissidents in prison?

You should know better than to throw a lengthy link in here and tell DU'ers to dive in there and find it.

You need to produce it yourself. Point out the evidence if you want people to believe you, just the way DU'ers do it.

On edit:

Speaking of evidence, here's something you might find interesting:

Prior to President Chavez' administration, there were hosts of political prisoners in Venezuela. Yet since Chavez has been in office, there have been no political prisoners. This is a fact documented by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, and even the US State Department's Country Report on Venezuela
(snip)

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

[carl_pwccaman]

118. Are you concerned about some of what Human Rights Watch is saying?

My main point was that Human Rights Watch is a bit of a better source, and that they have concerns, and if you don't have such concerns, then screw your claims to be for human or civil rights, it's just rhetoric, isn't it?

[Vidar]

111. Great link. Thank you.

[stepnw1f]

7. kick (nt)

[northzax]

11. I don't hate him

but he's certainly overblown. I have a natural distrust of populist or nationalist demagogues, and let's be honest, Latin America doesn't have the best track record there. In the interest of maintaining his 'bolivarian revolution' Chavez is spreading Venezuela's oil windfalls around the continent, instead of investing it at home. He is making many of the same mistakes centralised revolutionary governments often do with reforms, for instance, instead of building a dozen scattered good hospitals, and training Venezuelans as doctors to staff them, he's building one huge one, and staffing it with Cubans. Sure, it looks good (and that one hospital will help a lot of people, but how many more could be helped by a dozen smaller ones?) but it's not sustainable, if the money from oil begins to recede. Take the same thing with education. instead of a dozen universities scattered around the country, he's building one huge one, guaranteed to be ideologically pure. not a good plan. And instead of developing domestic industry and systems, he's scaring away companies and giving money to other countries for political reasons. not sustainable.

And finally, the national oil company, that he controls, 'lost' $20 billion last year. vanished. into thin air. strange that, you'd think he'd demand a public accounting?

Think of it this way, the whole thing is held together by Chavez' force of will and personality. Why is he endorsing candidates in other countries' elections (see: Peru?) if it's not ok when the US does it, then how can it be ok when he does it? What would happen if, tomorrow, Chavez vanished? What would happen to everything he's involved with? If the answer is, it would fall into chaos, then wonder, to yourself, is he building a strong state, one that can function without him, or is he building a state that functions only because of, and for, him?

[LittleClarkie]

15. Sorry, too nuanced

Either you love him or you hate him. What did you think we wanted to have? A reasoned debate? Pfft.

:sarcasm:

[upi402]

23. yes, actually n/t

[upi402]

22. OK sure. But lets be honest -we shoot their elected leaders and unionists

Remember when Allende was hit by the CIA? - or the Contra cocaine, laundered drug money, and selling the very missiles to a certain nation in which we are to be dodging those missiles? (whew, breathe)

Propping up the Salinas crime syndicate.
Setting up Noriega, then testing weapons on Panama's citizenry to get him when he misbehaved a Bushler?

But wait there's more!
Somebody else can probably tell these tales better than me though.

Making America safe for exploiters to reach out and touch somebody. I just don't see the worry yet. Maybe someday POWER will corrupt him. I only like the fact that Castro is there because it pisses off the corporatists so bad. And if America wasn't screwing with Cuba in every way it can -Cubans would be doing great. But the corporatists don't care one whit about people, I know that to be true.

[northzax]

26. so because he's doing the same thing we condemn the US for doing

we like him because he calls Bush an asshole? are we that desperate?

[upi402]

87. no, really i don't think that way at all

For my part, I don't condone abuses of people or freedoms of the press. I just can't feel that I've seen enough evidence that Chavez has personally ordered any human rights abuses. As for the media -the Venezuelan private media is a murderous propaganda organ of the very powerful ruling elite. So to put a rabid dog in a cage is to allow society to be.

The elites there are ruthless and very powerful. Many charges may well be further lies by them. Or further set-ups and instigated incidents. And with BushCo doing its usual evil there, god only knows what's really going on. Shit -there's OIL there afterall.

[Djinn]

99. Don't know about you

but what I condemn the US for has ZERO to do with Bush, ZERO to do with the Repblican party. I condemn them for the same reasons I condemn the UK's imperialism (although they are waning) and the way Australia treats it's piss poor Pacific neighbours as our own playgrounds, the way I would have condemned the Romans had I been around in their heyday.

If and when Chavez EVER invades another nation, finances and arms an attack on a democratically elected government, funds and arms despots or uses trade treaties to outright steal then I will condemn him every bit as strongly as I condemn the US

[Peace Patriot]

12. See the new Noam Chomsky article on Chavez and the US anti-Chavez

hysteria. It addresses this very issue, and is quite informative and brilliant.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1369291&mesg_id=1369291

A good source of info on Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution: www.venezuelanalysis.com.

Negative feelings about Chavez by DUers or other north Americans are based entirely on over-exposure to our war profiteering corporate news monopoly propaganda, I find. I haven't found any negativsim about him that has any basis in fact. Really. There seems to be no real reason for this negativism. In truth--if you look at the facts, and know something about this matter--Chavez in reality seems to be pretty much the opposite of how our corporate news monopolies have painted him. He has been genuinely elected, several times, and is very popular in Venezuela and its region. His reforms are genuine. He is peace-loving and a believer in Constitutional government. I haven't read a thing he's said--about Bush, for instance, or US policy toward Latin America--that is not true. And I think some DUers and other north Americans are unwilling to analyze just how brainwashed they are, and accepting of the corporate news monopoly delusionary world.

[Sadie5]

20. Chavez might step over the line occasionally

but he has put the oil to use for the good of his people. No one cared before Chavez took over. And look how he had to fight to keep his elected position.

[northzax]

30. to be fair, Venezuela has a long and storied tradition of coups

like in say, 1992.

[upi402]

95. The Bolivar movement (and coup) and the Zapatista movement

are evil fighting the good masters? Nah, I just can't really see it that way myself. It seems that non-violence change works in civilized states. In brutish states it is more difficult to say. But I'm with ya in essence.

But when the CIA assassinates an Allende and a strongman is installed and supported with force, it's hard. It overlays onto Venezuela it seems.

[1932]

127. I believe almost every party that has held presidency in Venezuela

first came to power through a coup -- with Chavez's MVR being one of the few that didn't (although Chavez himself attempted a coup before he had a poltical party). Even the very person he tried to oust through a coup played a (small) part in his party's coup to take power decades earlier.

Richard Gott mentions this in his book on Venezuela.

[Name removed]

122. Deleted message

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

[1932]

128. Venezuelans wrote into constitution that ability to "pack" the court

because they wanted it reflect more contemporary political ideas, and not decades old political ideas of oligarchies that were able to stack courts with lifetime appointments.

Sumate is on trial for using foreign sources of money to influence elections. That's against the law in the US too, by the way. HRW's José Miguel Vivanco is a right wing tool. Google his name and see what you come up with.

The press is actually quite free in venezuela, thanks to Chavez. Prior governments severely limited press freedoms. That's mentioned in this movie:http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5832390545689805144&q=revolution+will+not+be+televised. In fact, as this movie shows, they're so free that they were able to take the one government station off the air. That's probably the only suppression of speech in the media that has happened in Venezuela since Chavez became president.

[Douglas Carpenter]

163. I frankly don't know of a freer press and media in the whole world

If anyone of us tried to practice the degree of freedom of expression that is openly expressed in Venezuela 24 hours a day/7days a week -- we would be in a lot of trouble very fast.

In spite of the fact that the local private elite-owned media is overwhelmingly hostile to the point of having supported force and violence against the popular democratically elected government. This is something that would never be allowed in the U.S. media or almost anywhere else for that matter

link:

http://mondediplo.com/2002/08/10venezuela

snip: "Never even in Latin American history has the media been so directly involved in a political coup. Venezuela’s ’hate media’ controls 95% of the airwaves and has a near-monopoly over newsprint, and it played a major part in the failed attempt to overthrow the president, Hugo Chavez, in April. Although tensions in the country could easily spill into civil war, the media is still directly encouraging dissident elements to overthrow the democratically elected president - if necessary by force."

snip:

"After Chavez came to power in 1998, the five main privately owned channels - Venevisión, Radio Caracas Televisión (RCTV), Globovisión and CMT - and nine of the 10 major national newspapers, including El Universal, El Nacional, Tal Cual, El Impulso, El Nuevo País, and El Mundo, have taken over the role of the traditional political parties, which were damaged by the president’s electoral victories. Their monopoly on information has put them in a strong position. They give the opposition support, only rarely reporting government statements and never mentioning its large majority, despite that majority’s confirmation at the ballot box. They have always described the working class districts as a red zone inhabited by dangerous classes of ignorant people and delinquents. No doubt considering them unphotogenic, they ignore working class leaders and organisations."

snip: ""Take to the streets" thundered El Nacional on 10 April (in an unattributed editorial). "Ni un paso atrás! (not one step backwards)" responded the hoardings on Globovisión. Another TV company broadcast: "Venezuelans, take to the streets on Thursday 11 April at 10am. Bring your flags. For freedom and democracy. Venezuela will not surrender. No one will defeat us." The call to overthrow the head of state became so obvious that the government applied Article 192 of the telecommunications law. More than 30 times -for all television and radio channels - it requisitioned 15-20 minutes’ air time to broadcast its views. But the broadcasters divided the screen in two and continued to urge rebellion."
__________________


I would be very suspicious of all this U.S. media concern about Chavez's human rights record which incidently has improved dramatically since his government took office. And for the record Chavez's record with any credible, independent human rights groups is no worse and probably not as bad as the U.S. and many other western democracies and far worse than that of the leading receipients of U.S. Aid.

http://www.globalissues.org/HumanRights/Media/Propaganda/Venezuela.asp

"Reporting on the ongoing issues, such as the protests and Chavez’s economic policies in Venezuela have shown similar signs of one-sidedness, from both the mainstream media of western countries such as the U.S. and U.K., and from Venezuela’s own elite anti-Chavez media, which “controls 95% of the airwaves and has a near-monopoly over newsprint, and ... played a major part in the failed attempt to overthrow the president, Hugo Chavez, in April 2002.... The media is still directly encouraging dissident elements to overthrow the democratically elected president — if necessary by force.”

__________________________

Also the good people at FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) on their weekly radio program Counter Spin did a special program regarding Hugo Chavez and the media on 3 March 2006.

Here is the link for downloading or listening online:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2832
_______________

The Venezuelan Revolution : 100 Questions-100 Answers


link on Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1560257733/sr=1-1/qid=1145697377/ref=sr_1_1/002-1846545-3744063?%5Fencoding=UTF8&s=books

[struggle4progress]

146. Lots of stuff about torture on the HRW US page:

http://hrw.org/doc/?t=usa

[struggle4progress]

147. Venezuela's neighbor Colombia seems to have a human rights crisis:

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

[Douglas Carpenter]

162. compared to....

And let's compare his record to the largest recepients of U.S. aid
Here are the three largest receipient of U.S. aid (after Iraq) in order. Feel free to compare them with Chavez's record which is not perfect but a lot better than any of these three.

link for Venezuela: http://hrw.org/doc/?t=americas&c=venezu

1. Israel - link:

http://hrw.org/doc?t=mideast&c=isrlpa

2. Egypt - link:

http://hrw.org/doc?t=mideast&c=egypt

3. Colombia - link:

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


and here is the report on the U.S.'s own human rights record:

http://hrw.org/doc/?t=usa
__________________________

Also the good people at FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) on their weekly radio program Counter Spin did a special program regarding Hugo Chavez and the media on 3 March 2006.

Here is the link for downloading or listening online:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2832

[northzax]

24. sure, his reforms may be 'genuine'

but what if they're the wrong reforms? How is it that a country that claims to export 2.5 million barrels of oil a day not be getting richer? Where is that money going? is it being invested wisely, in sustainable growth for the country? how is it that per capita income has decreased since 2000, when in every other oil exporting nation, it has increased? how can unemployment be in the 18% range, no lower than 2000 data, in a country that exports $80 billion worth of oil every year? How is it that fewer Venezuelans have access to safe drinking water in 2006 than in 2000, in an oil exporting country? where's that money going?

sure, the government is living high on petrodollars right now, but besides oil production (which appears to be diminishing) what else has Chavez done to help prepare Venezuela for 2010? 2015? 2020?

[rman]

167. Venezuela is getting 'richer', economy is booming

Car sales up 74% in May in Venezuela. Inflation lowest since 1986

Consumption is booming in Venezuela.

http://today.reuters.com/stocks/QuoteCompanyNewsArticle.aspx?view=CN&storyID=2006-06-06T172247Z_01_N06412011_RTRIDST_0_VENEZUELA-AUTOS.XML&rpc=66

https://www.economy.com/home/login/ds_proLogin.asp?script_name=/dismal/pro/blog.asp&cid=23491

----

Venezuela's Economy Expanded 9.4%

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000086&sid=aM6UjOxreCwE&refer=latin_america
Dec. 28 (Bloomberg) -- Venezuela's economy grew 9.4 percent in 2005 as President Hugo Chavez boosted government spending and increased subsidies for the South American country's poor.
Gross domestic product, the broadest measure of a country's production of goods and services, expanded for a ninth quarter in the October-to-December period, Central Bank President Gaston Parra said in a statement, without giving the fourth-quarter figure. Venezuela's economy expanded 17.9 percent in 2004.
Venezuela's economy has been boosted by government expenditures, which rose 38 percent through October. Venezuela's economy contracted 7.7 percent in 2003 and 8.9 percent in 2002.

---

On top of that: illiteracy has been virtually eliminated, healthcare, education and food made accessible to the poor, micro credits introduced to help startup of small businesses..

It's a socialist-capitalist mix and it's working quite well.

[upi402]

29. This is the same thing I find

I really can't find any other source but slick propaganda from the corporate media. Even the early anti Chavez reports in the British media seem to be derivative of the private news channels in Venezuela. These news Venezuelan channels are proved to be brazen liars and propagandists. People were murdered by anti Chavez goons as a result of the private news channels' promoting the raid on the palace and inciting the coup.

Americans are just as manipulated, even us DUers I fear. I'll reserve judgment on this issue because someone may post a set of irrefutable facts soon.

[northzax]

33. one fact that I keep posting, and the Chavezistas keep ignoring...

take the 1st quarter of 05. Venezuela reported exportable oil products of 2.8 million bbl/day. That should have generated $9.9 billion in export revenue, which PDVSA is required, under its charter, to deposit in the Venezuelan Central Bank. However, PDVSA said that it deposited $6.43 billion. (and outside estimates say it's as low as $4.8b, but let's just use their numbers)and remember, this is gross, not net, so there are no expenses to offset yet. so in the first quarter of the year 2005, one of three things was true:

1: the Government (Chavez himself) lied about the amount of oil pumped.
2: PDVSA lied about the amount of cash deposited.
3: 2.47 billion dollars vanished into the ether.

now we all know that Chavez wouldn't lie, so that rules out number one.(?) So you have either the company lying to the people of Venezuela about how much money they have (and downplaying their assets, not upgrading them) or someone lost a quarter of PDVSA's export revenue.

surely, someone can explain where the money went, you'd think Chavez would be screaming from the rooftops about people stealing money from the people?

[charlie]

39. Stratfor considers #1 most likely

They say Venezuela's production capacity is collapsing:

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:WVSDgp0o4J0J:www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php%3Fid%3D248553+%22first+quarter%22+2005+PDVSA+venezuela+billions+missing&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

(sorry about the cached page, the original is currently behind their premium subscription wall)

[Gabi Hayes]

45. they say! are those theys the Somesays from Faux News?

great sourcing

they say

they say

they say

too funny

[charlie]

48. Blam! One messenger dead

NZ ruled out his posited #1, I found that Stratfor disagreed.

I happen to think Venezuela dodged a bullet when the coup was thwarted, what with Carmona disbanding the legislature and courts and nullifying the constitution first thing, and our own ambassador meeting with him within a half a day of his being installed. It was all too familiar and depressing, and good to breathe out when it was over. The will of the ordinarily voiceless people triumphed for once.

Carry on with that machinegun, but choose your targets a little more carefully, okay?

[Gabi Hayes]

52. like I said....too freakin' funny

from Stratfor's own site:

World-Class Credibility
Lookit these fabulous encomia, from such well respected sources. those are the ONLY ones they list. wonder why that is.....



Fortune Magazine, on Stratfor :
“...increasingly relied upon by multinational corporations, private investors, hedge funds, and even the government’s own spy agencies for analysis of geopolitical risks.”

ABC News, on Stratfor :
“Often able to uncover the globe's best kept secrets and predict world-changing events in ways that no one else can.”

...............



Fortune Magazine on Fascism:

"Whether or not Fortune has adequately presented Fascist Italy is for others to judge. But as to Fortune's bias--that is easily stated. No 100 percent journalist can be more than a few percent Fascist, which is to say, he is by definition non-Fascist.

"But the good journalist must recognize in Fascism certain ancient virtues of the race, whether or not they happen to be momentarily fashionable in his own country. Among these are Discipline, Duty, Courage, Glory, Sacrifice."

like I said, consider the source

you want links?

you're so smart, you can find em just as quickly as I did

[charlie]

57. Aw hell, forget it

Carry on with the insults, I won't get in the way of your glee. I made it real fucking clear that I think the return of Chavez is good for Venezuela and the thwarting of our corporate militarists is good for us. But you won't have it. I know about Stratfor, I posted it to NZ for the reasons I stated.

[Gabi Hayes]

58. hey...lighten up....I missed the first part of your presentation.

only saw the Stratfor stuff

who else thinks their infrastructure is imploding?

got any other examples?

they say that Stratfor is just a tool of the likes of the Carlyle Group and World Bank

that's what they say

[charlie]

65. Hey, light up

Have a cigar, you smoked out a fifth columnist. You done good.

[northzax]

67. but Chavez is a fifth columnist

so that was a compliment, right?

again, why did PDVSA stop allowing external audits?

[upi402]

149. Seems like big oil and opec are not open to a revolutionary socialist

Last week the Venezuelan state oil company, Petroleos de Venezuela, or PDVSA, submitted its audited financial statements to the U.S. Securities and Exchange commission for 2003. The full 150 page document is here and can be read by anyone who wants to review PDVSA’s performance.

Now, financial statements of a state oil company may sound like something very dry and boring and indeed it can be. But there are a couple of important points that need to be made with respect to PDVSA’s SEC filing. These points shed light not only on the status of the oil industry in Venezuela but also on the nature of the Venezuelan opposition. Please be warned though, the post is heavy with numbers and is somewhat technical. But hopefully the reader can bear with me as the points gleaned from this analysis are important.

First it has been asserted quite frequently by the opposition that this financial statement would never be filed. The Chavistas running PDVSA were too incompetent to do it. Or there were so many irregularities in PDVSA that no outside auditing firm would sign off on it. And PDVSA was paying off all its debt issued in the U.S. so it wouldn’t have to file its SEC statement. These and many other assertions were made by the Venezuelan opposition. Well, now we can see, if there was really ever any doubt in the first place, what complete non-sense all of that was. PDVSA has met its commitments and shown is finances to be in order – and all signed off on by an affiliate of the big U.S. auditing firm KPMG.

Now, it is certainly true that this financial statement, which is from 2003, is quite late. Over a year late in fact. However, there were very extenuating circumstances (to say the least) that explain this. Lets remember that when 2003 began there was a strike involving PDVSA management wherein most of PDVSA’s managers and executives, including virtually its entire finance department. Worse still, the previous PDVSA management had outsourced the data and accounting functions to a company called INTESA which joined the strike and refused to turn over any finance records or computer systems even when ordered to by Venezuelan courts! Given this the extensive delays are understandable. However, PDVSA is catching up and claims that its 2004 financial statement s will be done by December of this year.

<snip>

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1580

[upi402]

150. is this the audited statement in question?

<snip>
So there we have it. A close analysis of an AUDITED financial statement sent to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission confirms that the Venezuelan government has consistently been telling the truth about this and it is the Venezuelan opposition that has been consistently lying. Wouldn’t it be nice to see some acknowledgement from the opposition blowhards on the internet who have consistently peddling the opposition’s bogus numbers? Francisco Toro, Gustavo Coronel, Miguel Octavio – apologies will be accepted. But given their track record of indifference to the truth I won’t hold my breath waiting?
<end snip>

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1580

[northzax]

153. read the date

that statement is from 2003. My calendar plainly says that is is June of 2006. 10 months ago, PDVSA filed a financial statement that was already 15 months late. Anything since then? there hasn't been a strike again, has there?

and the article states: However, PDVSA is catching up and claims that its 2004 financial statement s will be done by December of this year. That was in October of 2005. As of today, June 8, 2006, the SEC has not received the 2004 statements (the SEC Edgar site lists all corporate filings, PDVSA's is here:http://edgar.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?company=PDVSA&CIK=&filenum=&State=&SIC=&owner=include&action=getcompany) in fact, in April, they filed paperwork to notify the SEC that they would no longer be filing any reports (by paying off US debt, perfectly legal) So the 2004 report, promised in October, has not been filed, as required by US law (since the company was operating in the US, and had publcly traded debt in the US, a report is required)

lastly, I saw something else interesting...why does a company owned by the Venezuelan government have a charter, and business address, on Grand Cayman?

[upi402]

156. Thanks. Yes I knew the date and it was late -the reason obvious

it said. What do you think is up with that, pocket lining -or worse?

It's a state owned company and the owners are the people of the country. I wonder if the meddling by big oil etc along with the elite enemies-within have caused them to hit the 'I don't give a' switch.

Ven is seeking Chinese weapons too. BushCo loves that almost as much as the paradigm of a revolution of the people of the country. Ironic considering our start.

[northzax]

168. that's the reason you have an independant audit

to find out who is lining their pockets, and how. Let's be honest, it's a large corporation, as well as a pootly (apparently) overseen government agency, those two are ripe for corruption, even at lower levels.

[northzax]

66. who says it isn't?

Chavez? Why then, did he in 2004 mandate that PDVSA would no longer submit to an external audit, as it had for the past 15 years, and as every major corporation does?

I tend not to trust corporations that refuse to be audited, and I trust governments that refuse to be audited even less. But hey, it's Chavez, so it's all good.

[northzax]

60. you can't win, you know

when people have a crush on someone like this, you can't be the slightest bit critical of the object of their desires. It's a matter of faith.

[Gabi Hayes]

75. so who made you the expert? can't win with the likes of you,

either. can't stand the idea that he was elected over and over, with results certified by Carter, who can't even JUDGE the US elections, because they don't meet the basic standards necessary to judge

you seem to be well-steeped in 'facts' only inimical to Chavez

why do you hate Venezuelan democracy?

what's your agenda?

do you agree with the world bank's assessment that Venezuela could do better than reducing the number of those living under poverty by 10percent in the last decade?

of course you do

you probably also celebrate the fact that in the US, during the same period, that poverty has increased, the number of those without health care has increased, real wages have decreased, corporate profits have skyrocketed

hate to have what's happened in Venezuela happen here, now, wouldn't you?

why should we trust your solidly antiChavez agenda?

I cringe at the idea that he sets himself up, possibly, for a 25 year term, and you've presented lots of negative information, but the fact remains that his electorate continues to elect him, unlike what's happened in this country for the last two presidential cycles

if what you've said in other areas is true, it's troubling, certainly, but your presentation makes it seem (completely ignoring the inarguably positive changes taking place under Chavez' aegis) you side with the oligarchs in Venezuela, because, again, the people there have spoken, more than once, with reliable results

mucho gusto

[U4ikLefty]

84. and......no answer. That should tell you all you need to know about that

The adgenda is clear.

[northzax]

115. you are correct, the agenda was clear

it was 1:15 in the morning, my agenda was sleep.

[Greyhound]

69. I for one would like to know what's up. If they're in over their heads

or if it's the same old "movers & shakers" that have always mis-ruled Venezuela, it would be nice to have a clue.

[upi402]

97. could you find the source for that snip please?

I found a source for some info like this and it's hardly disinterested journalism. In fact, a bit spooky I think;

http://www.freemarketproject.org/specialreports/2006/hugo/hugo_execsum.asp

The Media Research Center’s Business & Media Institute looked at all 139 news and news-related stories on the broadcast networks about Hugo Chavez since he took power in 1998. Here are some of the conclusions:

*

‘Left-leaning’ Like John Kerry: The media downplayed the radical politics of Chavez by using the same terms they used for Democratic presidential candidates John Kerry and Walter Mondale. Few stories even acknowledged the anti-American nature of Chavez’s regime.
*

The Man Behind Citgo: Chavez exerts complete control over the state oil company which, in turn, owns one of America’s most famous gasoline retailers – Citgo. That amounted to $785 million in profits for Venezuela in 2005. Only four stories (3 percent) acknowledged the connection with Citgo.
*

Wrongs Not Rights: None of the networks paid any significant attention to the many human rights abuses of the Chavez regime. Left-wing groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch complained about murders, detentions, assaults on press freedom and control of the judiciary, but only 10 percent (14 out of 139) of the news stories made any mention of any violations. The phrase “human rights” was used in only one story about Chavez’s regime.
*

Turning Up the Heat on Bush: Each of the broadcast networks did a story about Chavez’s oil “gift” to America’s poor. Each one managed to find a Democratic spokesman and a recipient, who were happy to ignore Chavez’s politics. That low-cost aid, handled through Citgo, is now being looked into by Congress.

......................

[LittleClarkie]

13. Is it permissable to just not think he's the greatest thing since sliced

bread?

Is it permissable to have a differing opinion on the man, and the occasional criticism without being labelled a "hater"?

[Gabi Hayes]

19. of COURSE not! where do you think you are? DU?

he's the worst thing that ever happened to Venezuela

just ask those patriots who tried to overthrow him a few years ago

wait a minute....that was....Us!

[northzax]

27. hey, he knows how to put down a coup

ever since his coup was put down, that is.

[upi402]

32. could you expound please n/t

[northzax]

35. he led a coup of his own in 1992

it failed, and he was arrested. I remember reading something about people living in glass houses.

[Gabi Hayes]

76. righto! DAMN that Sam Adams, anyway.

Long live the King!

[upi402]

31. No labelling here. Why do you 'dislike' him was the O/P

[LittleClarkie]

44. I don't dislike him so much as the almost hero worship I see from

some of those who like him. Such things tend to bring out suspicion in me. One should be able to make critical comments about the man without being called a mole, troll or hater.

I do realize you're not doing such things in your OP. But what I've said above is why I tend to go into devil's advocate mode in some of the Chavez threads.

[upi402]

96. gadflys are good, i figure

[carl_pwccaman]

123. But gadflies risk being swiped when they bite the donkey's ass

[Djinn]

100. does that apply to crticism of Democrats?

because frankly criticising them leads to FAR more flamage than criticism of Chavez does, there is FAR FAR more Dem hero worship here than there is of Chavez and frankly for progressives there's FAR less to praise re the Dem's (ALL Dem's that is not just the ones we're allowed to call scum)

[upi402]

103. don't I know it

I feel like Richard Clarke, hair ablaze, trying to tell Condo Rice to take the warnings about Al Qeada seriously.
DINO's are corporatists that remove the possibility of an opposition party in America.
I can't sit silent, so I comment knowing I'll get lambasted. It's like debating against Bushler on a freeper board. It's taboo to demean the hero.

[northzax]

155. well, when one is on a board dedicated to the Democratic Party

one must expect that people will support members of that same party. I would think, at least.

[RagingInMiami]

25. I would like him a lot better if he keeps his nose out of other

Latin American countries' business.

[Gabi Hayes]

34. now THAT's funny! are you a comedian, or what?

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1867

whew...where's my towel? wiping tears from eyes

thanks for the hugh laff!

[northzax]

36. ahh, the old double standard again

it's bad for Bush to interfere, but good for Chavez to do so. Bush invaded Iraq, so that means Chavez gets a free invasion as well?

you really don't have a problem with the leader of a country endorsing a candidate in another country's political process, and promising money, if and only if, that candidate is elected? Really?

[LittleClarkie]

42. Coup by others: bad. Coup by Chavez: good.

Bombast from Bush: bad. Bombast from Chavez: good.

Binary support for Bush, brooking no dissent: bad. Binary support for Chavez, brooking no dissent: good.

Control over the media in America: bad. Control over the media in Venuzuela: good.

Nah, no double standards here. Nope. Nosiree.

[northzax]

62. I think we're on the same page

it's almost adolescent, the hero-worship of Chavez on some of these threads. thou shalt not criticize the lord thy god type stuff. It's the exact same tone the freepers use to idolize Bush, anything that paints him in even a marginally negative light is attacked and ridiculed. it's scary.

but they are fun to play with.

[upi402]

140. Do you really feel you're playing with us?

Seems like a bit of a 'manner of speech' hopefully. I mean, what does it say about someone who ridicules DUers who are glad that a repressive government was thrown off. Two things come to mind;

1) Chavez may not be perfect, I don't know. But he is being smeared far worse than Kerry and Max got smeared.

2) One day America may need to throw off a repressive government. An example would be a terrible problem for the elite repressors.

[northzax]

142. anyone who has blind faith

in a political leader is fair game. When every critical comment is either ridiculed, ignored or called biased, then you know you are dealing with hero-worship. Which is fine for a 12 year old with a crush, but not such a good thing when politics and power are involved.

I swear, sometimes I think that if Chavez appeared on Television, next to Chimpy, and both bit the heads off of live rabbits, the reaction from freepers and duers would be the same, "oh, he's just showing the poor another source of protien, what a great man!"

[upi402]

144. You have studied and investigated the allegations and find them valid?

I haven't come to that yet, myself. Granted, I don't have the time nor resources to head down there and investigate it. But I have seen misinformation, disinformation, and vicious lies charged against Chaez. And from all the usual evildoers too.

I'm not really swayed by the analogy you made, but I sure can see you general point 100%.
Unexamined patriotism, or anything, is not helpful to a civilized society -a civilized society that should withhold its consent to be governed where it's not deserved. I understand the "if you meet the Buddha in the road -kill him" concept. No problem here. The willingness and ability to think for myself and think critically is important. Detaching from ego is too, if I'm going to understand that facts may not be what informs opinion.

[northzax]

154. I've seen allegations from the well known evildoers at...

Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International

Well known fascists there, right?

[upi402]

157. LOL, yep I saw that, look below the surface. Who lodged them. and why

I haven't looked into it on a charge-by-charge basis. But I'm looking for a flagrant abuse that has Chavez's fingerprints directly. I sure wish Extra! by F.A.I.R. would tackle this, ot DemocracyNow! or The Nation.

[northzax]

169. why does it have to have his fingerprints directly?

can't running a country in which these sorts of things happen, without investigation (remember, one of the 'accusers' is the Venezuelan branch of Amnesty International) be a problem?

[upi402]

178. if you look, it's anti-Chavez mayors, troops from the old regime, paid

mercinaries and former elites. When you look you can see that they are charges only The only ones saying they actually happened are rightwing corporatist liars.

These sorts of thing happen in most all countries.
Especially a once impoverished country that is in extreme transition. Transitioning from exploiting the very poor as the elites get obscenely rich -to a country that is determined to help ALL its people for once. A huge change for the better. Not 100% perfect out of the gate. Of course not.
The situation there is like a housefire that is not engulfed, but there are hot pockets in the rubble. He didn't do what Rumsfeld did in Iraq and fire the troopers.

[U4ikLefty]

90. Okay, show me how Chavez (as opposed to Bu$h) has taken

the current Venezuelan system & made it worse...please tell me?!? I want SPECIFICS, not rhetoric. I didn't say examples that leave you to editorialize you OPINION on Chavez, but actual changes he has made to make Venezuela MORE of a fascist/repressive state. Remember, be specific!!!

Because before (if I'm not mistaken) the set-up was for the rich/light-skinned folks to own all the access to resources. By selling them to the rich westerners, they were assured big $$$ in their Swiss accounts...and avoiding paying those nasty taxes, of course.

Now take Bush & what he's done to the current system in the US. He had made it WORSE, not better. He has brought us towards a less fair economic setup. Bu$h is the OPPOSITE of Chavez, because Bu$h is taking our system down..and Chavez is taking their system and lifting it up from its current state.

[northzax]

143. it couldn't really have been worse

the question is, is he making it better?

[upi402]

148. Have you looked into the "press" there?

It makes Faux look like NPR. It has directly incited and caused the murder of the poor for the power and continued enrichment of the money elites. It does not cease it's malicious lies and incitement of the ignorant minions to undermine the Chavez movement in very dirty ways.

Could you cite support for your duality comparisons. The stuff I have found is not supportive. Every time I dig just a little I find the charges are not Chavez's fault, understandable and needed actions, or phony charges instigated by the money elites.

Comparing Chavez against Bush will be good, but the charges need to be as valid as the Bush violations.

[Djinn]

102. I certainly don't

you really don't have a problem with the leader of a country endorsing a candidate in another country's political process, and promising money, if and only if, that candidate is elected? Really?

People are allowed to have opinions, just as I can't fault any nation for deciding to stop sending aid to Palestine because the people democratically elected Hamas (don't agree with that decision just agree that nations are well within their rights to decide who they wish to assist) I can't fault another nation decideing that they have no interest in helping corporate kleptocracy

[upi402]

105. o/t but do you have a link for your sig line? n/t

[Djinn]

109. it's from the rightsatwork campaign

http://www.rightsatwork.com.au/

attempting to bust through the fog of Australian Idol/Big Brother & "our" boys' appearance at the World Cup to let Australians know their rights are being swept away...interestingly one of my most succesful pitches is pointing out the similarities between Howard & co's new IR legislation and the IR situation in the US. Even the most politically unengaged person knows that working people are screwed harder in the States.

[upi402]

110. Thanks, it's bookmarked

I must've missed that one.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[Gabi Hayes]

43. I think you made my point quite eloquently, friend.

do you eat with those fingers?

saw your well-reasoned, amply supported thread, btw

great work!

[Marie26]

91. Attempting to influence Peruvian elections

And He's gotten into trouble w/a lot of other Latin American countries for some of his activies & narrowly escaped being condemned by the OAS. Venezuela & Mexico have recalled diplomats over some things Chavez has said.


OAS sidesteps confrontation with Chávez -

"But the main flash point at the three-day General Assembly was Peru's demand Monday that the OAS condemn Chávez for his outspoken support for the losing candidate in Sunday's Peruvian presidential election, nationalist Ollanta Humala.

Chávez, a leftist populist and steadfast critic of the Bush administration, also has been accused by Nicaragua of meddling by offering cheap oil to municipalities ruled by the leftist Sandinista Front. And Brazilian media has complained that he persuaded Bolivian President Evo Morales to adopt a tough nationalization of his natural gas industry that has affected Brazilian investments.

But on Tuesday, Venezuela claimed victory. ''The declaration to condemn Venezuela has failed,'' Venezuela's envoy to the OAS, Jorge Valero, told The Miami Herald. Although the Peruvian initiative had enthusiastic U.S. backing, few other Latin American nations wanted to snarl the General Assembly with such a controversial issue.

Diplomats said Peru can claim partial success in raising awareness on Chávez's tendency for fiery rhetoric -- he has called the winner of Sunday's election, Alan García, a thief -- by obtaining pronouncements from Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, Canada and Brazil reminding countries not to interfere in the internal affairs of other nations.

- http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/nation/14755795.htm

Mexico, Venezuela recall diplomats over Chavez words -

MEXICO CITY (AP) — Mexico recalled its ambassador from Venezuela on Monday after Caracas said it would withdraw its top diplomat instead of apologizing after President Hugo Chavez warned Mexican leader Vicente Fox: "Don't mess with me, sir, because you'll get stung."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-11-14-mexicochavez_x.htm

[1932]

126. "Narrowly escaped OAS sanctions"??? Peru was ONLY country who wanted

them. Since when is one out of dozens "narrowly escaping"???

[upi402]

129. i thought the comment to mexico was alright too. not persuaded

the human rights events need a Greg Pallast style investigation.

[Judi Lynn]

131. I remember when Vicente Fox blew up after Chavez called him a lap dog,

basically, due to his slavish attachment to _Bush's FTAA plans, which benefit NO ONE but the very wealthiest in ever country involved. Can't see a thing wrong with people who represent their countries speaking out against something so destructive, and the people who try to force them upon other governments.

Fox got over it quickly. I can't believe anyone would try to use that event as something to rail against. Desperation, apparently. Or ignorance.

[upi402]

40. What in particular is your concern?

Is it the Cuban alliance or the encouraging other nations to be independent? Is it a general position that many choose to have? Or is it more of a social more?

Argentina finally told the IMF to take a piss and they are doing much better, no? Same with Brazil.nd in the next couple of weeks Indonesia will likely pay half it's IMF debt to be free of the IMF yoke.

[rman]

165. Governments of various Latin American nations do collaborate

What's wrong with that?

If there's one nation on earth that has been sticking its nose in the 'business' of Latin American nations - to the detriment of the local population and to the benefit of large corporate interests... you know which one that is.


Pirates and Emperors (3:44)
(US foreign policy 101)
A short educational animation film.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xA0pPqXJoAI

"...what would you say about a gang of vicious lowdown thugs who are trying to overthrow the government by attacking undefended civilian targets like schools, farms, hospitals an outreach centers?
Why. i'd say they are terrorists.
Wrong!
I'm sorry, the correct answer is "freedom fighters". At least that is what you called these thugs, aka "the contras" when you funded their campaign of terror and indiscriminate killing to overthrow the government of Nigaragua...."

[Zhade]

41. Good luck - there aren't many.

I mean, no guy's perfect, but the fools here who lie about him being a dictator consistently fail to acknowledge that the Carter Center has repeatedly signed off on the Venezuelan election process.

He's legitimately elected. So, there goes THAT lie.

[DemonFighterLives]

47. I don't know enough about the man to go too far into it

But I hate the fact that our country has to meddle and shun him and Castro. The world could be so much better without us dragging things down.
If it is true that dubby tried to whack him, then that puts him in a class with Kennedy and Wellstone, just a few others that bushco took out.

:dem:

[LittleClarkie]

51. I could go along with that

I don't know tons about the man either. I just don't like seeing unwavering support for anything that doesn't allow any dissent in the ranks. That's my only issue really.

[upi402]

53. Just curious what was reason behind mal feelings - dissent always!

:toast:

[LittleClarkie]

72. That's cool. My mal feeling come mostly not from Chavez

But some of his more ardent supporters.

[upi402]

86. I know

exactly that feeling. I had always thought Christianity was beautiful -as organized religions go. But the open hostility at anyone and anything different and attempts at total control, negating my freedoms, has me railing.

It just reaffirms that hateful language breeds animosity. Unity is the goal that is unattainable when significant information is omitted or ignored. That's why I want to be informed of the human rights abuses against Chavez. It's there but I haven't spent enough time to see it concretely, myself. I don't want to fail to see warnings that are important. I was suckered by Colin Powell and I ignored people I usually listen to.

[LittleClarkie]

116. I was suckered by Colin too. And I don't want to fail

to take a good look at someone just because he's closer to my own political position than someone else.

I've only skimmed the human rights site to see what their beef with Chavez is. He has some violations, but I don't know if they're more than, or less than, your average political leader. Most of his elections look like they were legit, but there was at least one that Jimmy Carter's group didn't approve of.

Some who like Chavez use a website for support that others have said is too biased in favor of Chavez, being affiliated with the Socialist Party or something. That thread was a while back, so I'd have to look it up to see what the issue was again. Lousy memory.

But forgiving abuses by someone shouldn't be easier because you like the man's politics or because you like the way he drives Bush nuts. I try not to be a Kerry apologist. I might fail. But if someone states their beef with him in a civil manner, That's all I want from either side of an issue.

Chavez seems to elicit strong emotions that obscure rational debate. I do appreciate your efforts to get at the meat of the issue. Good for you.

[Djinn]

106. who has said here

they brook no argument? all I've seen is people requesting unbiased info and countering obvious distortions (eg the dictator crap) is there really anyone here that has said "I'm not listening" and stuck their fingers in their ears when LEGITIMATE criticism is raised? Or might you be exagerating somewhat

[DemonFighterLives]

113. You will not see me unwaver

er, I will waver on some things.
On dubco, I give no quarter.
Chavez wanted to provide cheap oil to a certain state (forget the story)
Gee cheap oil-- can't have that in dubby's Americaa- his poor cronies would suffer.
:dem:

[Cleita]

56. He's a native american who has the support of the

majority of the people, most of whom are working class and poor.

The elitists are afraid of him.

[cushla_machree]

64. as long as he is elected, i don't dislike him

I like him because he makes me laugh when he blasts bush.

My only problem is what he might do if his power slips. Now, i love his idea of helping the poor, but i was under the impression that they don't really have a free press there. Which, doesn't sound like democracy to me.

He might start out ok, but i am afriad of what he will do when he starts losing control. First he subverts free press and political opponents. then what?

[Cleita]

68. This is the danger.

He is fighting us, who are backing the elitists who held power until he was elected. He has had to be dictatorial because of this. I hope it doesn't go to his head.

If he is successful and keeps to his original beliefs, it may change the face of South America for the better.

[upi402]

81. True. 2 things -power corrupts and law of unintended consequences

If he is an ardent altruist with a spiritual basis he may well escape between the horns of those two threats to his leadership term. If he steps down he will be an example for the world until the nukes or the germs go off.

[Marie26]

85. Latin America has

a long, sad history of charismatic saviors who let power go to their heads. So I'm inclined to be wary of Chavez, while hoping he can improve the problems in Venezuela.

[upi402]

88. for now lets enjoy the honeymoon

we can serve him divorce papers in the morning
:hangover:

[Greyhound]

73. Ironically, the press is not free there because the corporations that own

it want their power back and they hate Chavez. The State has 1 TV station and I'm sure they must print some type of paper, but all of the rest of the media is controlled by a small cabal of hard-core corporatist types.

[upi402]

79. Venezuela corporate media directly caused murders -nuff said for me

Chavez has to file the fangs of that dragon and maybe a rabid dog should be kept a safe distance from society.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

89. He doesn't subvert the free press. 90% of it is owned and operated by

his opposition! Yet, he still won the elections.

80% of the population love him
The top 10% (who used to be in charge) hate him

[upi402]

94. welcome to DU

and if you can make time, please please please watch the video link in my Original Post. It explains bogus the media charges. The media was a dirty dirty propaganda organ of the wealthy elite. He has let them exist despite their causing the coup and the murders of the Chavez supporter crowd.

[Djinn]

108. If ANY US President

from Bush the stupid to everyone's favourite hippie Jimmy Carter, had to face even half the revolt from a section of the community as Chavez does then it would be considered sedition at the very least (these days more likely simply terrorism) and the perpetrators would most definetly be sanctioned.

How long do you think the NY Times would last if it's owners/editorial staff started calling for armed insurection, shit they wouldn't even last long if they advocated a mass strike.

[Marie26]

82. Participated in military coup attempt in the 90's.

So, there's something.

[upi402]

93. I was looking at human rights abuses before 1998

and it is horrifying.

Since his time they are of a far lesser nature than the USA's abuses. Doesn't excuse them, but they are WAAAAAY milder than ours.

[rman]

166. With enormous popular support, pardoned afterwards...

that's something to.

[izzybeans]

171. That is also a reason to hate George Washington

[killbotfactory]

92. His worst "crimes" are with overblown rhetoric

But, I don't care about that.

In his deeds, so far, he has been on the mark.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

172. Are you an alternate-universe version of me who jumped dimensions?

That's EXACTLY what I think, and you put it much better than I could. :thumbsup:

Hm, maybe you/I came from the future, when my discourse is better-tuned than now.

[vogonjiltz]

104. I like him.

He bothers the Bush people. He is smart. He is slick. His political enemies are free to disagree with him. It's not like he is throwing people into the ocean from air planes like in Argentina.

[Bridget Burke]

114. The Generals of Argentina were our allies....

When they were disappearing their countrymen. For so many years, the USA allied itself with the worst right wing despots--just because they were "anti-Communist."

Chavez is not perfect, but so many of his enemies are angry because he's to the left of GW Bush. In fact, someone on this thread does not trust "populists." ???

[im10ashus]

120. Why look for reasons to hate someone? eom

[upi402]

130. Human Rights Abuse charge refuted -here's the snip;

snip from http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1691

One of the principal get-out-the-vote leaders for the opposition, a Bush Administration ally named Maria Corina Machado, was present in Miraflores (the Venezuelan version of the White House) in the middle of the unsuccessful 2002 coup d’etat against President Chavez.<3> Her reasoning? She was invited to have tea with the wife of dictator-for-a-day Pedro Carmona, apparently without a thought given to the violence going on around her nor how her friend came to reside in the President’s home. And yet federal charges against Machado and her organization, Sumate, are singled out in the 2005 report as an example of political intimidation.

[Judi Lynn]

132. Maria Corina Machado has some truly repulsive friends.

Here she is looking in on another one:

[upi402]

133. Bush State Department using questionable charges for its HR report

snip from http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1691


...the biggest methodological glitch in the State Department reports is they generally don’t do their own investigative research. Instead, they rely on a compilation of reports and allegations from local sources. For this reason, you will find all sorts of vague charges from unidentified sources. In the case of this year’s Venezuela report, you will find an unsourced reference to an assault from “four men believed to be DIM agents.” Even in the State Department’s wording, it remains unclear if they were indeed government officials or angry citizens. More importantly, there is no mechanism to fact-check the allegation because there is no source provided. In other words, anyone could have filed a report, and once published in the State Department paper, it becomes an accepted fact. Which brings us to the next topic…

[Judi Lynn]

141. Well worth reading. It makes points people here have tried to communicate

for ages to visiting wingdingers.

This was interesting:

Journalists don’t have any trouble getting the green light to do a Venezuela story these days. As one reporter put it, President Chavez “gives good quote,” and national newspapers are happy to publish two or three Venezuela-themed stories each week. That’s far more print space than any other Latin American nation receives. For this reason, readers may get the full run-down on State Department criticism of Venezuela, but they have to do their own research if they want to learn about the state of the media in, say, Peru (where a U.S. journalist was found guilty of “defaming” a narcotics trafficker last yea{1}) or Costa Rica (where “insulting the honor” of a politician is punishable up to three years imprisonment, and media laws require that public officials be granted space in private media to defend themselves from negative stories.{2})
(snip)

and this was something people should be able to figure out for themselves, but freeps can't:

Unfortunately, some journalists have a hard time separating the president and his administration from stories that don’t actually involve the executive branch. So when the State Department reports on abuses of power from municipal police authorities, the press tends to report on the problems of Venezuelan police in general, and round out the story with colorful quotes from the president. The implication is that local problems are attributable to the president. Domestic journalists would be hard pressed to link a story about police brutality in Los Angeles to the Bush administration, yet in the simplification of Venezuela reporting in the U.S. media, the line becomes muddled.
(snip)

something astounding:

It’s also important to note that the very week that the State Department praised academic freedom in Venezuela, a team of FBI and Los Angeles marshals paid an intimidating visit to a Venezuelan-American professor in California, interrogating him and his students about his political beliefs and association with the Venezuelan government.
(snip)

and this is excellent:

Venezuela, like many Latin American nations and most of the world, has some serious regional governance problems. The prison system remains brutal, and corruption is still an enormous challenge, particularly at the state and municipal levels. The key is context, both comparing Venezuela with the rest of Latin America, but especially comparing the country today to the Venezuela of 10 years ago. The human rights situation has vastly improved since the systematic abuses of the 80s and 90s. But nowhere will you find this missing piece of information in the State Department Report. This is not surprising, given that it is the voice of a political entity under an Administration with specific regional policy goals and opinions. It’s the job of reporters to put the report in context, not simply pass on the Administration’s party line. To do anything less represents an abdication of the media’s responsibility to the public.
(snip/)

Thanks as lot!

[upi402]

145. yeah, FBI interrogating a Venez. professor in LA as Venez. gets a nod

from the State Department for its academic freedom.

Definitely Bush's fault that the garbage bag broke on the way to the can though. :sarcasm: Seriously, I can't find where it is shown that Chavez's hand has directed an abuse that is valid. Just rogue cops/army with past practices from a previous era and malicious lies and smear by corporate elites and their blind minions.

[upi402]

134. 2005 State Department Report analyzed

snip from http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1691


The 2005 Report

The truth is, this year’s State Department Human Rights Report is actually quite favorable to Venezuela in most categories.

Here’s what the Bush Administration had to say about peaceful association: “The law provides for freedom of assembly, and the government generally respected this right in practice.”

Press Freedoms? “Print and electronic media were independent.”

Academia? “There were no government restrictions on the Internet or academic freedom.”

The much-maligned elections processes? “The law provides citizens with the right to change their government peacefully, and citizens exercised this right through periodic elections held on the basis of universal suffrage.<5>”

These points were mentioned, but not emphasized, in this year’s report. This is significant because a general clean bill of health becomes overshadowed by a laundry list of regional, situational or otherwise anecdotal and unsourced grievances.

[truthseeker777]

135. Car sales up 74% in May in Venezuela. Inflation lowest since 1986

Consumption is booming in Venezuela.

http://today.reuters.com/stocks/QuoteCompanyNewsArticle.aspx?view=CN&storyID=2006-06-06T172247Z_01_N06412011_RTRIDST_0_VENEZUELA-AUTOS.XML&rpc=66
and
https://www.economy.com/home/login/ds_proLogin.asp?script_name=/dismal/pro/blog.asp&cid=23491

[upi402]

137. welcome

:hug:

[upi402]

138. sorry truthseeker, I hit the wrong button

I meant to add you to my buddy list but hit the ignore button by accident. I fixed it now.

[truthseeker777]

139. no problem

...

[upi402]

136. The reason why -HR abuses back story

snip from http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1691

The two major areas where the U.S. really digs in to human rights violations in Venezuela were (irony alert!) detainee abuses and wiretapping without a warrant. As Lily Tomlin once said, “No matter how cynical I get, it’s impossible to keep up.” Yes, the Venezuelan prisons are a brutal mess, and police corruption remains a huge problem throughout the country. But these systemic problems go back generations. It’s responsible and fair for the State Department to point them out, but in a context-challenged media environment, the implication that this is somehow unique to the Chavez administration is one even the most fervent opposition member would not make with a straight face.

[letsgonova19087]

151. Does anyone else see the irony in this?

http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=104544&ran=77085


"Three other ships and about 2,000 sailors will join France, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, the United Kingdom and Venezuela in the Netherlands-led exercise "Joint-Caribe Lion 2006," to be held in the Caribbean Sea from mid-May to early June. They are the amphibious assault ship Bataan from Norfolk, the guided missile frigate Taylor from Mayport, and the amphibious dock landing ship Fort McHenry, based at Little Creek Naval Amphibious Base in Virginia Beach."


So Chavez, while spouting out a crapload of anti-American rhetoric...is training his troops with the US Navy?

Does anyone appreciate the irony of him crying about an alleged "invasion" while at the same time he's operating in an exercise with two AMPHIBIOUS ASSAULT SHIPS?


He's a joke.

[1932]

160. Huh? I don't follow.

I think it's Americans who are exaggerating his attitude towards the US.

He calls them as he sees them viz the US (eg, criticzing the bombing in Afghanistan in 2001, and saying that you can't fight terror with terror), but he's clearly not motivated by Bush. He's motivated by Bolivar, and his real enemey is neo-liberalism, which isn't confined to any one nation, neither is it contained by national borders.

My evidence? Here you go: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5832390545689805144&q=the+revolution+will+not+be+televised

[Rex]

152. He hates freedom(tm)?

Why do you hate freedom(tm)? :sarcasm:

[file83]

158. self-delete

.

[LaPera]

161. Well, he paid off Argentina's debt to the World Bank...so he must die

before he pays off other surrounding nations debt's and gets them out from under the thumb of the World Bank, the WB is furious, so Chavez must be killed.

Chavez also makes American oil companies pay their taxes in Venezuela...so he must die.

Chavez sells oil cheaply to the poor, Cuba and other "third world" countries, so he must die.

Chavez defies the oil company's controlled collusion of oil flow, so he must die.

Chavez was legally elected, so he must die.

Chavez mocks Bush, so he must die.

Chavez offered cheap oil to poor Americans for heating & wanted to help victims of Hurricane Katrina, so he must die.

Venezuela's economy is booming & inflation is low, so he must die

Venezuela sits on huge oil reserves, that the oil companies want for themselves, so Chavez must die.

Chavez has threatened to go the euro-petro instead of US dollars so he must die.

Chavez has avoided assassination attempts by the US & made them look bad, so he must die.

Chavez is beloved by the poor & working class in Venezuela, so he must die.

Chavez said: "I am a Catholic and a Christian and a very committed Christian", so he must die.

Chavez is a progressive liberal, so he must die?

Viva Hugo Chavez! Bravo!!

[upi402]

181. You've painted the big picture, I think

I haven't found real support for the accusations of human rights abuses. Not proved or questionable allegations get lodged by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

[rman]

164. Official DU Hugo Chavez Right-Wing Falsehood Debunking Thread

Official DU Hugo Chavez Right-Wing Falsehood Debunking Thread
Edited on Fri Feb-03-06 05:37 AM by JohnnyCougar

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=311462&mesg_id=311538

Holy balls. I haven't been on here much lately, but I am shocked at the right-wing extremist propaganda floating around here about Hugo Chavez. DU is usually my safe-haven from this sort of propaganda, but to see Chavez baselessly trashed on here by so many has made me feel compelled to post this. I will try and identify the top falsehoods repeated about Chavez, and give some appropriate context to them that lay these "tyrant" and "oppressor" claims to rest. And the fact that Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are being cited against Chavez irritates me on two levels. Firstly, these organizations put out reports on every country, and are almost wholly negative. Amnesty International's profile on France is about as long as the one about Venezuela. But I highly doubt France is considered a tyranny by anyone. Secondly, the reports ignore the context of the situation happening in Venezuela.

First of all, there are a few articles I suggest people read to get an understanding of Chavez's peaceful revolution in what once was a corrupt and oppressive state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050411/parenti
http://www.inthesetimes.com/issue/26/01/feature3.shtml

Secondly, if you read these articles (which I really, really recommend you read, because they are highly informative, well written and interesting) you will realize how desperate of a state Venezuela was in before Chavez took power. 80% of the country was poor, and 44% or so were officially in poverty (to the point where they couldn't afford proper diets). The former government was a band of corrupt cronies that languished of the profits of oil sales, and said basically "fuck the poor."

Chavez was the leader of a failed coup attempt in 1992 against the then scumbag of a president. But the coup failed, and Chavez took full responsibility, admitted his failure, and served his time in jail. The president whom he attempted to overthrow was impeached a year later.

Chavez gained a lot of supporters attempting that coup, and his base continued to believe in him. In 1998, Hugo ran for President and won. The poverty-stricken, starving, illiterate "brown skinned" Venezuelans supported Chavez in a landslide victory. Since then, Hugo has been trying to clean up a government that had run for decades on massive corruption. The middle and upper class in Venezuela hated him because he was "brown" and because of his fight against the kleptocracy they had grown rich with. The Venezuelan court was highly corrupt. The parliament was worse. The plutocracy used car bombs, coups and violent protests to try and undermine Chavez's democratically elected government. The right-wing television stations would run anti-Chavez propaganda uninterrupted for days at a time, using racist cartoons and outright lies to brainwash the middle class and the upper class into thinking Chavez was a tyrant. Right-wing publications in the US picked up on this propaganda and of course reprinted it here. Obviously, it still circulates.

Chavez has taken control of the Citgo oil company and used parts of its profits to start schools and free healthcare clinics for Venezuela's massive poor. This totally angered the right wing. But since Chavez has become president, Venezuela's poor are much healthier, millions of people can now read, and he is attempting to diversify Venezuela's economy. The people there love him. He is the first leader that actually cared about him in forever.

Here are some of the most prominent right-wing attacks on Hugo Chavez debunked.

Chavez is attempting to censor political speech and take control of the Venezuelan media.

After the corrupt right-wing media in Venezuela inspired a coup, kidnapping and later a ridiculous attempt to recall Chavez, as well as violent protests, Chavez made an anti-slander law to curb the false propaganda the private media was spreading. While no one, to my knowledge has been arrested for violating this law, it has worked to curb some of the anti-Chavez propaganda and racist remarks made in the private Venezuelan media. When asked in October if Chavez would actually arrest anybody with this law, he responded: "I am not going to accuse anyone because they insult me, I don’t care if they call me names, I don’t care what they say about me. Generally I do as Don Qixote said, if the dogs are barking it’s because we are working." Furthermore, there are many opposition media outlets in Venezuela, and only one state-owned outlet. Chavez could shut the opposition channels down, but he doesn't. He just limits the racist, riot-causing propaganda they usually encourage.

Chavez is packing the Venezuelan courts with cronies

This is true. But that's fine with me. The former judges were highly corrupt, and some were organizers of the coup. The Venezuelan courts were known for their widespread corruption before Chavez. These courts let off people that kidnapped Chavez at gunpoint during the coup attempt.

Chavez is hurting the economy

According to a press release in mid-2005, Venezuela has the fastest-growing economy in Latin America, with growth rates in the first two quarters of 7.5% and 11.1%, respectively. It had a 17.8% growth rate in 2004. The non-oil sectors grew at a faster pace than the oil sector, rising 8.7% and 12.1% in the first two quarters of 2005. Venezuela's economy is growing at the second-fastest rate in the world, topped only by China. Furthermore, Chavez's programs are wiping out illiteracy and providing healthcare to the poor for the first time ever. He has also been the first President to really enforce Venezuela's tax laws. The rich were getting away with cheating on their taxes time and time again. He has considerably raised the minimum wage. So basically, Hugo is allowing private enterprise to flourish (despite requiring them to follow tax laws) and still using money to support the poor. What he has already done has been nothing but a victory for human rights in Venezuela. Millions upon millions of people now have hope and health that would have never had it otherwise. But despite this, false right-wing anti-Chavez propaganda continues to circulate around the echo chamber...even on DU.

What Chavez has done is inspire a popular revolution with little to no violence at all, completely overthrowing a horrendously corrupt government in Venezuela and liberating masses of nearly starving poor. Instead of leading by force like he did in 1992, this time the revolution worked.

But I can say one more thing for sure: If I were next to Hugo Chavez, I would hug him, too!

If you know of more false propaganda being spread about Chavez, please debunk it below! I probably missed some things.

[Judi Lynn]

173. Thanks for posting this. It points out the very same right-wing charges

come back week after week, long after the correct answers were already common knowledge.

Latin America has gained far more friends since Americans started finding out what the right-wing idiot Republican Presidents were doing to destroy Latin American progress. We don't appreciate practising violent vampirism on other countries in our names.

[upi402]

174. debunk from your 1st link

...Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have catalogued but not confirmed human rights violations under Chávez<4><5>

Chávez supporters counter by alleging repression of Chávez supporters and social workers by anti-Chávez mayors.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez#Criticism

<end snip>

As I thought after slight digging; CATALOGUED BUT NOT CONFIRMED.

[upi402]

175. State Department -"may have erred" in accusing Venez of human trafficking

US: may have erred in Venezuela human trafficking report

...a State Department spokesman said.

Venezuela's embassy in Washington said that 21 persons had been tried for the crime in 2005.


<end snip>

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060606/pl_afp/usvenezuelatrafficking_060606230538

[Judi Lynn]

177. This's about the most obnoxious situation I've EVER heard!

God apparently has appointed the U.S. to be the world's overseer of "human trafficking!" They discovered they shouldn't have put Venezuela on their list. Big surprise. They only put their enemies on their list, anyway, and totally overlook all other situations, including the human trafficking right here, in River City. Jeezus H. Christ.

Best line of the article:

McCormack said that Venezuela had not told the United States about these 21 cases.

So Venezuela had actually tried 21 cases of "human trafficking," and didn't realize it had to go tell _{King George Bush} about it.

I don't think that's quite normal, do you? Countries having to inform the U.S. of all their court cases? Damned odd people in the White House. They are barely human.

[upi402]

176. Positive PROOF, Chavez is A-OK

But, he added: "It's going to take awhile. Sometimes leaders show up who do a great disservice to the traditions and people of a country."

-George W Bush, talking to a Venezuelan who thought Venezuela would be okay

IRONY

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060607/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_venezuela_1

Bush, President of the opposite day Party. Whatever he says, the opposite is true. Whatever they accuse others of, they are doing it. And this statement is classic pot calling the kettle black.

[Judi Lynn]

179. Priceless. Venezuelans voted for Hugo Chavez in LANDSLIDE

elections. He's still wildly popular with the great majority.

_Bush is popular with 29% of Americans. _Bush claims Chavez isn't up to par as a leader. :silly: :crazy:

[upi402]

180. Sometimes leaders show up who do a great disservice to the traditions and

... people of a country"

-Bushler, the master of pointing the finger of blame while 3 fingers are pointing right back at him.
The dolt wipes his butt with the constitution and lights his crackpipe with the Bill of Rights, then accuses a beloved leader who is lifting oppression and poverty from his people.

I still haven't found where he has even authorized human rights abuses, only unproven accusations and charges.

[killbotfactory]

182. My only problem with him is he goes a bit too far with rhetoric sometimes

Gives the press here and there a region to smear him (as if they ever needed a reason).

But, hell, when you're on TV for six hours in a row, every week, taking calls and stuff, you're going to have to ad-lib.

[rman]

183. It's hardly worse then some of the criticism of W in the US

Indeed, "they" don't need a reason to smear anyone. So there's hardly a point in "being careful with what we say", or for Chavez to be careful with what he says. The colorful language helps to draw media attention - and media attention is probably his best protection. How many popular Latin American presidents have been removed one way or another by the US, while hardly anyone noticed? Not this one though - if something happens to Chavez, the world will know. That alone will make the State Dept think twice before they order some kind of intervention in Venezuela.