Obama Requests Funding for Venezuelan Opposition in 2012 Budget

[rabs]

Hil has a problem though. Ven. national Assembly passed a law in December making it illegal that foreign funds be used for political purposes in Venezuela.

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

By Eva Golinger - Correo del Orinoco International, February 18th 2011


The US government is setting the terrain for the 2012 presidential elections in Venezuela, soliciting funding to back anti-Chavez groups and help prepare a "candidate" to oppose Chavez. Republicans call for an "embargo" against the oil-producing nation.

This week, US President Barack Obama presented Congress with a $3.7 trillion dollar budget for 2012, the most expensive budget in United States history. Within his massive request, which proposes cuts in important social programs and federal jobs throughout the country, is a partition for special funding for anti-Chavez groups in Venezuela.

Included in the whopping $3.7 trillion request is over $670 billion for the Pentagon's ever-increasing annual budget, nearly $75 billion for the intelligence community and $55.7 billion for the State Department and the US Agency for International Development (USAID).

For the first time in recent history, the Foreign Operations Budget (State Department) openly details direct funding of at least $5 million to anti-Chavez groups in Venezuela. Specifically, the budget justification document states, "These funds will help strengthen and support a Venezuelan civil society that will protect democratic space and seek to serve the interests and needs of the Venezuelan people. Funding will enhance citizens' access to objective information, facilitate peaceful debate on key issues, provide support to democratic institutions and processes, promote citizen participation and encourage democratic leadership".

While the descriptive language justifying the diversion of millions in US taxpayers dollars to fund political groups in a foreign nation may sound "pretty", this type of funding has been a principal source of promoting subversion and destabilization in Venezuela against the democratic and majority-supported government of Hugo Chavez during the past eight years. According to public documents, just between the years 2008 to 2011, the US State Department channeled more than $40 million to the Venezuelan opposition, primarily directing those funds to electoral campaigns against President Chavez and propaganda slated to influence Venezuelan public opinion.

http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/6006

[Judi Lynn]

1. It IS an unexpected turn, seeing them clearly ADMIT they're underwriting the opposition, isn't it?

It's probably because they feel so successful now, they no longer are compelled to do all their business like that in the dark.

On edit:
Recommending!

[social_critic]

2. The Venezuelan government is neither democratic nor supported by the majority

The recent set of laws, the gerrymandering, the concentration of power in the president's hands via the enabling law (which allows him to legislate on his own), and the way the President ignores the popular will as expressed in local elections tell us that democracy in Venezuela is very weak and on its way out. But democracy wasn't gone far enough to allow the government to cover up the election results in September 2010, when the majority of the population voted for the opposition - which received 52 % of the popular vote, and the Chavistas only received 48 % of the vote.

Eva Golinger is a well known Chavista propagandist, she mines information for the regime and works very hard to post information to enhance Chavez' reputation. To do so, she lies, fogs, and covers up the truth. In other words, most of what Golinger posts is garbage. She's Chavez' English language Ms Goebbels.

[loudsue]

3. That is rightwing bullshit. Venezuelan elections -- overseen by Jimmy Carter --

most certainly have been democratic. It's the big oil and rightwing corporate complex that hates Chavez for empowering the poor. It's the big boys Chavez has hurt, NOT the citizens.

[ChangoLoa]

5. As a public university teacher, I've seen the army men salaries multiply

while ours plummeted. Today we earn between 2,000 and 3,500 BF per month. Divide it by 8, divide it by 4.3, as you like. Am I a big boy?

What order of priorities does it show?

Please understand that there is a progressive, anti-imperialist but not militarist opposition to Chavez. Venezuela is not divided between chavista revolutionaries and fascist anti-chavista.

[social_critic]

7. Seems many people are not aware of reality as it is in 2011

I guess she thinks Chavez is very popular. Or maybe she thinks Venezuela's middle class is made up of aliens from Mars? I thought it was oddly disconnected how she divided people into "big boys" and "citizens". It must be fantastic to go through life without doing nuances or looking at the details.

[ChangoLoa]

10. Black and white stereotyped thinking

American progressives and conservatives share their methods of comprehension toward us.

[Zorro]

11. Somewhat true

although I would not characterize the claque of anti-US leftwits that commence to cluck furiously whenever Chavez is criticized as "progressives".

[joshcryer]

17. Talking heads have changed our thought processes.

I used to be a big talking head fan (Crossfire, anyone?). But then I just had a realization that the talking heads are full of shit 99% of the time and that they take their extreme positions because that's what sells, not because that's what's sane.

Local TV news and national news hasn't fallen into this cycle, yet. Local TV sells all the violence that goes on (because people want to know about bad stuff more than good stuff), but they do occasionally do social news, that's good (such as mostly neutral election coverage, local celebration coverage, talk about city council stuff, etc).

But now it's either for or against, stop. Period. No shades of gray. No ability to say "I don't like it when such and such is persecuted, but I do like a state option for health care."

[ChangoLoa]

36. I think northern countries' interest toward our countries

is often expressed as a contest for the best packaged stereotype. For understanding the French or the German societies, many would use dense social/political science analytic tools, while for Latin America, The Treasure of Sierra Madre seems to be enough. For some reason, many think it's unnecessary to observe the grey tonalities of each problematic that concerns us. Therefore, discussion becomes a permanent false dilemma. No nuance.

And I say "many" as an obvious generality. I surely hope a majority of "northern" progressives don't fall into that "poor ergo primitive society" analytical trap. It's positivist nonsense. I know that European progressives generally don't. For Americans, I can't really say since my contact with them is very limited. What I can say is that, many times, talking about left-wing/ progressive politics with Americans is like talking about baseball with French people :)

I guess it has to do something with their History...(surely my holistic-marxist background speaking;-))

[EFerrari]

23. As usual, you provide name calling and innuendo. Check. n/t

[social_critic]

6. You are out of date - Chavez is no longer wanted by the majority

I am sorry, but you seem to be out of date regarding what's happening in Venezuela. During the National Assembly elections in September 2010, the majority of the Venezuelan voters voted for the opposition. This is a fact.

I live in Venezuela, which keeps me in touch a lot closer than all of you who happen to be living outside the country, and are using very old information. Don't forget Chavez is old news around here, he has been in power for over 10 years. People are just getting tired of his mismanagement and his tendency to be an autocrat.

[EFerrari]

22. And I have already, today, refuted that claim.

Chavez is polling at about the same as Obama, maybe a few points better.

Why would someone continue to make a claim that has already been shown to be false. :)

[joshcryer]

25. Obama is 51%, Chavez is 36%. I guess those are "about the same."

Obama: http://www.gallup.com/home.aspx

Chavez: http://www.boston.com/news/world/latinamerica/articles/2010/08/25/chavezs_popularity_down_in_venezuela_polls_finds/

Just FYI if it was around 5% spread I probably wouldn't have said anything but 15% is too large to let you get away with that.

[joshcryer]

26. Ahh, the is the latest poll I could find, places him at 38%. He dropped 42 points in 12 years:

http://www.reportero24.com/2011/02/consultores-21-popularidad-de-chavez-bajo-42-puntos-en-12-anos/

En Espanol

edit: image from link:

[loudsue]

8. If you are living there, of course you would have a better understanding.

But how did he stay in power if the opposition got the higher vote?

[social_critic]

15. Why is Chavez in power if the opposition got the higher vote?

The September elections were for the National Assembly, not the Presidential elections. Chavez chose to make these elections a referendum on his rule, and campaigned actively for his party representatives - his actions were so strong, some of them can be considered violations of electoral law.

The National Electoral Commission, which is run by Chavez partisans, re-destricted the country in what is called a gerrymander mode. This was a super-gerrymander, to such an extent that the opposition gained 52 % of the popular vote at the national level, but Chavez' party got about 60 % of the seats (with 48 % of the vote).
To make matters worse, Chavez requested that the lame-duck national assembly give him what is called an enabling law, with broad powers, which allows him to legislate WITHOUT THE INCOMING ASSEMBLY'S APPROVAL. Chavez is so anti-democracy, he not only had the gerrymander, he set it up to bypass the Assembly when it comes to new legislation, because he didn't even want to see laws debated with the opposition being in the chamber.

What else do we know? Chavez' party has consistently lost votes at the local level, and the opposition has gained. We also have poll results, which show that in general the people would rather see Chavez go away (Cuba or Lybia would be nice).

There are elections coming in 2012, and Chavez knows the majority is against him, so to make sure he wins (he intends to be president forever, like his buddies Castro, Kadafi, Assad, etc), he had the previously mentioned lame duck assembly pass laws to muzzle de media, control internet content, and other measures which allow him to muzzle the opposition and make sure he "wins" in one of those elections like they had in Egypt where Mubarak always won with a high proportion of the popular vote (even though everybody hated his guts).

Chavez' autocratic and tyrannical tendencies are well known to the Venezuelan people. People here get to watch his Sunday show, Alo Presidente, where his behavior is rather crude, bombastic, somewhat erratic, and definitely autocratic. Sometimes we call him Caligula, sometimes we call him Adolf, or Herr Fuehrer, because his regime is increasingly showing a militarist/fascist nature. He thinks he's a marxist socialist, but the guy is fairly uneducated, surrounds himself with thieves and bootlickers, so what we see evolving here is a very corrupt government where private property is allowed to stay alive as long as it does what the President says. And it can be very personal - anybody who gets in the guy's crosshairs is persecuted, jailed, or forced to flee the country.

I know people think I'm overdoing it, but this guy is definitely more of a fascist than anything else. Those around him are mostly into stealing and hauling the cash overseas, or gaining control of companies. In a sense, it's similar to what happened in Tunisia with that rapacious wife of the President giving her family all the goodies. In Venezuela's case, the goodies are going to Chavez' family, or to the people or families of those around him, senior military personnel, and of course to the Cubans who help keep his system going.

[joshcryer]

18. I think you're on to something with how foreign observers had less of a presence during the...

...parliamentary (2010) elections. You can expect neutral observers like the Carter Center to have no access during the 2012 elections.

[Peace Patriot]

9. There's the Hitler thing again--his propagandist "Ms Goebbels"!

You are projecting, social_critic.

There is absolutely no truth in any comparison of Chavez to Hitler (nor in any comparison of Evo Golinger to Goebbels).

How many Jews and other minorities has Chavez shoved into the ovens, hm? How many Jews and other minorities has Chavez harmed even slightly? Chavez has actively promoted the rights of women, gays, African-Venezuelans, the Indigenous and other excluded groups and has been praised by Jewish groups in Venezuela for his immediate and vigorous response when any anti-Jewish incident has occurred. Chavez even risked sending the term limit amendment to defeat by including an amendment for equal rights for women and gays (likely one of the main reasons the Chavistas lost that vote by a hair).

How many countries has Chavez invaded? How many world wars has Chavez started? What "master race" has he fantasized that he is part of? How many millions has he slaughtered and how many communities, cities and countries has he destroyed to inflict a "master race" and its hideously brutal notions on the rest of us? Lula da Silva, president of Brazil, called Chavez "the great peacemaker" because he refused the bait to go to war with Colombia when the Bush Junta dropped 500 lbs "smart bombs" on Ecuador's territory in March 2008. When the CIA finally yanked Colombia's "little Hitler," Alvaro Uribe (now there's an apt comparison!), and replaced him with Santos, Chavez jumped at the chance for peace between Colombia and Venezuela, and was instantly in Bogota at Santos' invitation, signing peace accords. Chavez has been in power for ten years--having won overwhelming electoral majorities every time he's run for office, in honest and transparent elections--and hasn't even slightly aggressed against another country or any minority, and he and his government have, on the contrary, fostered huge improvements in public participation and were the pioneers of peaceful cooperation and the "raise all boats' philosophy among Latin American countries, with their promotion of the Bank of the South (regional development funding independent of the World Bank/IMF), UNASUR (South American EU-type structure), ALBA (barter trade group for the Caribbean and Central America) and numerous beneficial alliances including with Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and many other countries.

And, on top of all this, the Chavez government were the pioneers in reducing poverty. They've cut poverty in half and extreme poverty by over 70%--way in advance of other countries--and were just designated "THE most equal country in Latin America" on income distribution, by the UN Economic Commission on Latin America and the Caribbean. And they influenced Brazil to use their new oil discovery to benefit the poor. And, speaking of Brazil, one of the other things that Lula da Silva has said about Chavez is this: "They can invent all sorts of things to criticize Chavez, but not on democracy!"

Your snide slipping in of "Goebbels" betrays your duplicity. Your implication that Chavez is Hitler betrays your mind-boggling extremism.

And you hoist yourself on your own petard when you admit that the "rightwing opposition" won seats (about 40%) in the national assembly in the recent by-election (after having boycotted prior the election, which you don't mention). WHO INVITED THE CARTER CENTER, the OAS and other election groups to HELP SET UP Venezuela's election system and aggressively monitor it, to insure honest, transparent elections? You sneer: "But democracy wasn't gone far enough to allow the government to cover up the election results in September 2010." It was the CHAVEZ GOVERNMENT that made those rightwing gains POSSIBLE! It was the Chavez government that invited the Carter Center and other election experts into Venezuela. It has been the Chavez government that has vigorously fought for clean, transparent elections. And they have never committed even the slightest transgression against that system.

Venezuela's election system has been time and again certified as honest and aboveboard by these international groups. There has not been even the slightest hint of election fraud. So, to suggest that the Chavez government MIGHT HAVE "covered up" rightwing wins, IF ONLY they had had enough to power to do so, reveals the "Mad Tea Party" quality of your thinking. It is not real. And its contradictions seem right out of "Alice in Wonderland": Chavez is Hitler (you imply) but Chavez doesn't have enough power to fix an election; but, hey, he would have fixed the election IF he'd had enough power! Does it not occur to you that Chavez doesn't have enough power to fix an election because he doesn't want such power? Is that not the more reasonable conclusion, considering the Chavez government's invitation to all these international election experts to ENSURE clean elections in Venezuela?

As for gerrymandering, the rightwing gave up their say in the design of electoral districts by boycotting of the prior election (which is probably why you don't mention their boycott). It was their own fault. Are the Chavistas supposed to compensate for rightwing stupidity? Well, maybe so--if democracy were a perfect system. It ain't. And you'll find gerrymandering in every democracy on earth. Political groups tend to take advantage of a stupid opposition where they can. It may be ethically dubious. It is NOT anti-democratic. It is a common practice. Majorities try to enhance their power. The opposition needs to be vigilant. But in the case of Venezuela's rightwing opposition, it's just whining. They did it to themselves!

The most apt comparison for Chavez is Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He has created a "New Deal" for Venezuelans, in the face of decades of malfeasance and greed by prior rightwing governments--and such an effort takes strong leftist leadership. The rightwing of FDR's era also called him a "dictator." That is "organized money"'s response to any strong leftist leadership on behalf of the poor majority. "Organized money hates me--and I welcome their hatred!" That was FDR's reply and it is an apt description of Chavez's viewpoint. Chavez, like FDR, has never stepped over the bounds of democratic process and constitutional government, even in the face of assassination plots and coup d'etat attempts by the "rightwing opposition," which both of them suffered. Chavez is a passionate believer in democracy and he welcomes your hatred.

And we will see what happens in 2012. FDR also had by-election ups and downs. It's a hazard of being popular--of having been re-elected. Whatever you can't fix starts being blamed on you, despite whatever dramatic improvements you have instituted. And in Venezuela there was the novelty of the rightwing deigning to participate in this by-election. They boycotted the prior election under Bush Junta tutelage. This new USAID strategy seems to be working a bit better for the advocates of "organized money." But I tend to doubt that Venezuelans will vote against their "New Deal" when it comes down to that, in 2012. Our forefathers and foremothers here in the U.S. elected FDR to four terms in office, because FDR's "New Deal" was so obviously beneficial to the majority. It's taken 70 years for our advocates of "organized money" to undo it. They've almost completed their wreckage. I hope that doesn't happen to Venezuela.

I have absolutely no worries about Venezuelan democracy. It's far better than our own, from what I can see. But I do have worries about U.S. aggression and interference in collusion with Venezuela's coup-prone rightwing. That remains a danger. It is not Chavez who is dangerous. It is the U.S. and its multinational corporate bosses and war profiteers. And it is absolutely disgusting to me that a government that purports to be a Democratic Party government, here, is funneling multi-millions of our tax dollars to rightwing groups and also covertly to rightwing 'journalists' in Venezuela (which came out in a recent FOIA response with all the 'journalists' names redacted). I'm glad that the Venezuelan national assembly has tried to stop this subversion. It is the tragedy of our democracy that we can't stop it on this end, nor stop any of our government's wrongful actions against us and others on behalf of "organized money."

[social_critic]

16. Chavez' Jews are the Middle Class

If you had heard Rafael Ramirez give his famous speech where he ranted and raved about the middle class, where he spit saliva as he screamed over and over "WE HATE THE MIDDLE CLASS, WE HATE THE MIDDLE CLASS", you would realize that indeed there's something dark going on in Venezuela. The Middle Class they hate so much tends to be a tad whiter than the President, and they tend to be descendants of immigrants. And they are being persecuted in many ways.

This is one reason why the ongoing flight from Venezuela tends to be mostly the descendants of immigrants who can recover their european nationalities - european consulates are mobbed by people trying to figure out if they can get their second nationality so they can escape. The flight of the middle class does of course include criollos, meaning those who are mixed in with natives and blacks, and whose families have been around for 100s of years. But the criollos go to the US, or to Panama, or Colombia. If they are educated professionals, they go to Canada, Australia, the middle east. Over one million have fled already, and the flight is accelerating.

But let's change the theme: I called Eva Ms English Goebbels because that's what she is, a propaganda chieftain for the pro-Chavez camp. I've heard arguments about what her exact role is in various publications, from Correo del Orinoco to Venezuelanaysis. But I've watched her for many years on TV, and read her junk. And it's evident she's behind a lot of the English language propaganda issuing forth from the Chavez machine. And I suspect the machine is quite extensive and well oiled.

For example, I bet those pro-Chavez "Venezuela experts" who sign letters criticizing Human Rights Watch and other organizations when they criticize Chavez, are paid for by organizations run by the Venezuelan government, and Golinger is probably behind the whole mess. When Mark Weidsbrodt writes his pro-Chavez propaganda, I'm sure there's cash in play, and I bet it's Eva giving the marching orders. She's just too smart and too well spoken to be ignored in a government where most of the top echelon is known for being somewhat stupid. Without Eva, a lot of the propaganda we see coming out of Venezuela would be like the baloney we see coming out from the ayatollahs in Iran. But with Eva, it does have that smooth look to it which tells me Eva and the people she pays are behind it.

[rabs]

27. FDR; someone agrees with you

This is OT from the Ven. issue but posting it because it comes from a most unusual source.


------- Translation mine ---------------

¿Cómo le gustaría ser recordado?

How would you like to be remembered?

Como un presidente que hizo una diferencia para el futuro de este país.

As a president who made a difference for the future of his country.

Cuatro nombres: Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan, López Pumarejo, Carlos Lleras. ¿Con cuál se identifica más?

Four names; FDR, Ronald Reagan, Lopez Pumarejo, Carlos Lleras. With which one do you identify most?

Me encanta cómo la historia juzgó a Roosevelt. No por haber ganado la guerra, sino por lo que hizo internamente en Estados Unidos. Reconstruir el país, sentar las bases para el progreso y ser un presidente muy justo.

I am delighted with how history judged Roosevelt. Not for having won the war, but for what he did internally in the United States. Rebuild the country, set the bases for progress and for being a very fair president.

¿Por qué dicen que Roosevelt fue un traidor de su clase?

Why is it said that Roosevelt was a traitor to his class.

Porque viniendo de la élite sorprendió con sus políticas progresistas y de alto contenido social. La historia demostró que no traicionó a su clase, sino todo lo contrario: permitió que se viviera en un país mucho más próspero y justo.

Because coming for the elite, he surprised with his progressive policies of high social content. History demonstrated that he did not betray his class, but, to the contrary, (he) allowed living in a nation much more prosperous and just.

Usted piensa ser un traidor de su clase?

Do you think you are a traitor to your class?

Si es por las mismas razones, me sentiría honrado.

If it is for the same reasons, I would feel honored.

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

The president is none other than Juan Manuel Santos of Colombia. The interview appeared in this week's edition of SEMANA magazine.

An odd question also is in the interview, and an even odder response, with no further explanation.

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

SEMANA: ¿Quiere reelegirse?

Do you want to be re-elected?

J.M.S.: Preferiría no hacerlo.

I would prefer not to do it.

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

Strange response, considering he has only been in the presidency for a little over six months.

Remarks above are near the end of the interview.

http://www.semana.com/noticias-nacion/preferiria-no-reelegirme/151760.aspx

[Judi Lynn]

28. It would be important if there were a progressive there with the same burning desire

to see the table continue to be overturned, and the oligarchy required to allow the infrasture needed for the well-being of the poor to be developed, strengthened.

It takes someone who's willing to give his life, if necessary, since we ALL know what happens to real progressives in the U.S., once it's understood they aren't corruptible. What happens to them here, also happens to them in other countries, one way or another, any time it's "humanly" possible. We do know what the Economic Hitman as said, as well as former CIA guys.

Interesting interview. Thank you.

[joshcryer]

35. If "real progressives" "aren't corruptable" why can't Colombia have many of them who give...

...some of their life? Why must it be one person who gives their entire life?

Note, you mention "a progressive" which I assume you are talking about here.

It makes little sense to me why one person must achieve good.

[joshcryer]

34. pro-America, good relations with Uribe, trusting relationship with Chavez, anti-NAFTA.

An enigma to be sure. Good interview. Glad that Colombia could have an option to elect someone else.

[ChangoLoa]

4. Beware, this is written by the Venezuelan government's newspaper

http://www.correodelorinoco.gob.ve/english-edition/

WHICH "opposition" groups are receiving money and how much??? Why is there no detail at all in this article?

In their calculation, any NGO, any group receiving funding from abroad is "opposition".

All in all, the totality of them receive the ridiculous sum of 5 million USD per year. You clearly can't "influence Venezuelan public opinion" with 5 million USD scattered along tens of different groups.

This amount of money is peanuts and it should be obvious. The only thing that the government's employee Eva Golinger (the author) is confirming is that the Obama administration has a very passive policy toward Venezuela. And I'm glad to hear that.

[Bacchus39]

13. yep, you got it exactly n/t

s

[Zorro]

14. I believe Ronald McDonald House is considered an opposition NGO

[joshcryer]

19. Heh.

[robertosilvers]

12. Chavez democratic legitimacy questioned

How is it legitimate for Chavez and his lame duck, rubber stamp National Assembly to prohibit civil society from working on the protection of political rights?

Banning foreign funding essentially does so as domestic funding has already been intimidated and audited into silence.

It is well beyond international democratic norms to prevent civil society from performing its essential watchdog role. Doing so only highlights the fact that the Chavez government does not respect or protect the political rights of his opponents.

Imagine if the US government persecuted all companies and foundations supporting political rights of minorities in the US.

Then a one-party US Congress prohibits foreign funding for the same cause, leaving blacks, hispanics, gays etc. with no one standing up for their rights.

That’s what is happening in Venezuela. Citizens of all political stripes have the right and responsibility of government oversight and participation. That’s what gives any democratic system legitimacy.

(And meanwhile, the Chavez government funds US organizations. Hypocrisy?)

It is incorrect to indicate without condition that Venezuela is not a one party state. The law in question was passed by a 95% Chavez-supporting parliament in the waning days of its mandate. Over the past five years, that Assembly has supported the president without question, debate, investigation or any semblance of oversight. Therein qualifying as a one party system.

It is all well and good to respect the native peoples of any nation. That does not, however, justify the marginalization of any political opposition.

Chavez’ rhetoric is good. I get it. But the facts on the ground simply differ. Unfortunately, the current Venezuelan government doesn’t even allow real debate of ideology or policy.

If their ideas are so fantastic, why do they feel the need to silence critics?

[joshcryer]

20. Your post prompted me to dig a bit about foreign donations in the US.

It does appear that foreign donations are happening (on all levels), and the people who are mostly against it? Teabaggers. This is quite surprising to me because I thought it was illegal to accept foreign donations, but apparently it is not, except as it relates to election law, and even then the lines have been somewhat muddled by Citizens United (which some liberals have contested, but not on "foreign government corruption grounds" so much "corporate corruption grounds").

[EFerrari]

21. You might look into the decades of US funds that have flowed into

Latin America in service of corporate interests over democracy.

That would be a place to start. :)

[social_critic]

29. Let's stick to the facts as they are today, shall we?

The Venezuelan people are divided. A slight majority opposes the government. The government has passed laws making it illegal for international human rights and workers' rights NGOs to operate in Venezuela. The government forbids the entry into the country of multinational human rights organizations. The government ignores the will of the people during elections, muzzles the media, and carries out arbitrary detentions, confiscations, and other abuses. Corruption is rampant. Crime is the highest in Latin America. Venezuelan jails are horrible hellholes where inmates are killed by the dozen per month. And on and on and on.

Mr Chavez, who has clear autocratic tendencies and wants to perpetuate himself in power forever, has a network of friends characterized by their very nature as dictators, tyrants, and autocrats. These include Muammar Kaddafi of Lybia, Assad of Syria, Amahdinejad of Iran. He has openly mused about Idi Amin being a nationalist, expressed deep admiration for the longest living dictator in the Western Hemisphere (Fidel Castro), and has written glowingly about Carlos "The Jackal", who is now on trial in France for the terrorist murder of 11 people.

The Venezuelan economy is a shambles, inflation is about 30 %, GDP per capita has dropped for 2 years, and continues to drop, crime is horrific, there are increasing shortages of food and medicine, and wages are failing to keep up with inflation as unemployment goes higher and higher.

And this, my friends, has nothing to do with the USA, President Obama, or whatever the Venezuelan government did 10 years ago. Chavez has been in power for a long time, oil prices are at much higher now than when he took power, but his conduct is so apalling, the country is being ruined, human rights are being abused, and things are getting a LOT worse everyday. And I think this is what we should be discussing.

[flamingdem]

24. I guess he didn't like "Las Venas Abiertas de Sud America" that Hugo gave him! nt

[social_critic]

30. Why should he like trash?

People like Chavez like to blame others for problems. That book is trash, because Latin America's problems today are not caused by anybody except for Latin Americans themselves. The thesis in that book may seem acceptable to generation X finger pointers in the US.

But life is tough, and god takes care of those who take care of themselves. Latin America's problems are caused by Latin Americans, can be solved by Latin Americans if they can ever trash people like Chavez and get down to work for real. Anybody who thinks they are caused by the US just hasn't lived down here nor understand the way things work. Chavez is just a moron and a megalomaniac, who is governing like a mixture of Emperor Caligula with Adolf Hitler, that's all.

[flamingdem]

31. Has Generation X read that book, dude you are in LALALAND

how do you come to these conclusions. You just want to strike out at someone, yes we get that, yawn.

[Judi Lynn]

32. He could have done worse, couldn't he? Wikipedia has an interesting take.

I never looked for it before, but it is interesting:

Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent (in Spanish Las venas abiertas de América Latina) is a book written by Uruguayan journalist Eduardo Galeano in 1971.

In Open Veins of Latin America Galeano analyzes the history of Latin America as a whole from the time period of the European discovery of the New World to contemporary Latin America, arguing against European and later US economic exploitation and political dominance over the region.

The Library Journal review stated, "Well written and passionately stated, this is an intellectually honest and valuable study."<1>

~snip~
As a result of this international exposure, the book's sales are reported to have risen sharply—it was the 54,295th most popular book on Amazon.com on one day, but it moved to #2 on the list a day later.

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

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our first quarter 2011 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

Click here to donate