Chavez says he won't condemn Libya's Gadhafi

[The Northerner]

CARACAS, Venezuela – Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said on Monday that he won't condemn Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi and he warned that the United States is preparing an invasion of the North African country to seize control of its oil reserves.

"We must be prudent. We know what our political line is: We don't support invasions, or massacres, or anything like that no matter who does it. A campaign of lies is being spun together regarding Libya," said Chavez, in a televised speech to a crowd of graduates who had just received diplomas from state universities.

"I'm not going to condemn him (Gadhafi)," he said. "I'd be a coward to condemn someone who has been my friend."

The U.S. government is behind the campaign to remove Gadhafi, he added.

"The United States has already said it's ready to invade Libya, don't you see? And almost all the countries of Europe are condemning Libya ... What do they want. They are rubbing their hands together. Oil is what's important to them," he said.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110301/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_libya_latin_american_allies

[Puregonzo1188]

1. As I said in LBN Chavez keeps some pretty awful company and it's worth condemning.

But that doesn't change the fact that he's very popular among his own people and he has been very successful in both reducing poverty and proposing the first viable alternative to neoliberalism in decades. Which is where this thread is going and is quite frankly intellectually dishonest since very few of the people on this board who have a fixation on Chavez would hold Obama to the same standards for the company he keeps. Not that that makes either one right--it doesn't. I'm sick of the double standards, hypocrisy, and intellectual dishonesty that is so pervasive in our discourse that it even seeps into discussions on a so-called progressive message board. Talk about hegemony.


As far as invading for the oil, it wouldn't surprise me if the US used the ongoing humanitarian situation in Libya as a pretext to enforce oil privatization's there. Remember, Saddam Hussein was a bad guy too, much worse than Gadhafi. So was Milosevic for that matter. But our so-called "humanitarian interventions" mostly just resulted in privatizations, neoliberal policies, and new markets for corporate influence. Our motivations are never humanitarian.

That being said--Gadhafi is a thug and Chavez is wrong to praise him. Though no one in Libya actually wants the US to intervene (perhaps they remember Reagan) and I wish progressives would stop lending moral capital to Empire.

[snagglepuss]

2. I am progressive and a one time admirer of Chavez but if I have learnt anything

over the years it is not to put people on pedestals. Chavez may have done some good but his stance of Gadaffi is despicable. That he can't see Gadaffi as the sociopathic, narcissistic criminal that he is speaks volumes about Chavez. At a certain point it is sheer foolishness not to judge others by their associations.

[OneGrassRoot]

3. Very well said. I agree with everything you wrote. :) n/t

[Puregonzo1188]

6. Thank you for your very reasonable, and rational reply. I can respect what you're saying.

I don't think Chavez should be put on a pedestal or anyone for that matter. He's not a saint and he's not the greatest civil libertarian in the world either. He's also not the antichrist, a dictator, and he's certainly not in the same ideological vain as Hitler, Franco, and Mussolini as one DUer said the other day.

I agree his associations are horrendous and he's very problematic as an individual. That being said his policies have been remarkable in reducing poverty and Venezuelans enjoy one of the highest satisfactions with democracy in the region. He's helped develop and implement the first viable model to neoliberalism and he was very influential in the shattering of the Washington Consensus. And I think what he's done for regional cooperation and helping to diminish the hegemony of the IMF, World Bank, and the US is more or less a historic turning point in Latin America. A lot of people try to use his associations or flaws to undermine that and reassert the neoliberal order that brought so much misery to so many. Which puts progressives in a difficult position--not putting Chavez a pedestal or uncritically defending him, but also not taking place in an assault on the peoples of Latin America.

There are valid criticism of Chavez. His support for Gadaffi is one of them. His overly personalized style of rule is another, as is his the inevitable outgrowth of that--the lack of institutionalizing his reforms. I don't think we can dismiss as merely a thug or tyrant though--he has popular support because his policies have been so dramatic in improving the lives of people who live in very destitute conditions, conditions I don't think most DUers can imagine.

I guess I think it's possible to support the economic policies of Chavez, admire what he's done for the region as a whole, and also believe that while he's not a dictator (or Hitler as some DUers seem to think--a statement that is disgusting vile because it so demeans the experience of those who were victimized by fascism), he certainly deserves to be criticizes.

[Peace Patriot]

10. "Our (U.S. corporate/war profiteer) motivations are never humanitarian." True words!

I do think that we need to make a distinction between "us"--"we the people" of the U.S.--and our true rulers, multinational corporations and war profiteers. So I defined "our" in quoting you.

I have experienced "the scales falling from eyes" on both WHO "the U.S." is, when U.S. financial, diplomatic and military decisions are made (and it ain't "we the people") and the COMPLETE LACK OF GOOD INTENTIONS by those entities who are calling the shots.

I think that this is what Chavez was trying to explain, and it is a very difficult thing to explain. It has clearly put him in a bind. But it is REAL. The U.S.--that is, its real rulers--have NO INTENTION of democracy or humanitarianism in Egypt, Libya or anywhere else, including here.

To use what is likely a genuine revolt against Gaddafi--but possibly having pushed it to erupt prematurely--for the purpose of PRIVATIZING Libya's oil, is the height of cold cynicism and ill intention.

In truth, Gaddafi hasn't been such a bad ruler. He is no "Saddam Hussein" (not that easy to demonize). I urge people to read his Wiki bio--a particularly well-written and objective view of his long tenure as a sort of king of Libya. I would say that his rule has been characterized most of all by a desire for independence from western corporate rule. That was the early part. But, after the Lockerbie bombing--which he apologized for and paid reparations for--England and other European countries allied with him, entirely overlooking the lack of democracy in Libya, in order to access Libya's oil. That alliance and support is directly responsible for this flame-out by Gaddafi (in addition to his personal responsibility for it, and the responsibility of those around him).

What Chavez, Lula da Silva and other leaders of the new South American left have been trying to do, on the world scene, by befriending leaders like Gaddafi and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, is to DE-FUSE situations where our corporate/war profiteer rulers have very bad intentions--as with Iraq, the intention to slaughter tens of the thousands of people, destroy their societies and place U.S.-friendly tyrants over them. This is why Lula da Silva went to Iran and Turkey, and invited Ahmadinejad to Brazil--and why Chavez invited Ahmadinejad to Venezuela. Lula, in concert with Chavez, was trying to broker to deal for the removal of Iran's fissionable material to a neutral location, to HEAD OFF U.S. Iraq-like sanctions that have only one purpose--they are prep for war.

Both Chavez and Lula are genuine democrats. Lula has said, of Chavez, that, "They can invent all sorts of things to criticize Chavez, but not on democracy!" He has also called Chavez "the great peacemaker." And every objective evaluation of Chavez's policies and actions reinforce Lula's view.

And they have BOTH taken the risk of being condemned by the corporate/war profiteer press for their efforts at PEACE. One of the common bonds and policies of the left in Latin America is that, through cooperative economic/political action amongst Latin American countries, they can build a prosperous, socially just future for their region, but this future depends on PEACE--in their region and in the world. And these leaders have gone out of their way to achieve peace--for instance, with Colombia (a very militarized U.S. client state). When the Bush Junta was in power, Lula proposed that they create a "common defense," under the auspices of UNASUR, because the Bushwhacks had reconstituted the U.S. 4th Fleet in the Caribbean, which Lula said was "a threat to Brazil's oil." (They all understood the threat to Venezuela's.) But they would prefer NOT to pour resources into defense. They want and need a peaceful world.

The current circumstance, with Gaddafi freaking out and bombing his own people, obviously presents a dilemma for Chavez, who doesn't want to "pile on" --because, by "piling on" (condemning Gaddafi), he and Venezuela will find themselves on the wrong side of a U.S.-led NATO invasion of Libya, that will NOT result in Libyan democracy and independence, but rather in a western protectorate, like Iraq, or the military-run U.S. friendly government of Egypt (being set up, as we speak).

Frankly, I think that what happened in Libya is the premature triggering of a revolt, by the CIA, in order to invade Libya--and I think that that is what Chavez suspects as well. It's not that the revolt is not genuine. And it's not that Gaddafi shouldn't be removed. It's that the revolt is not entirely in the control of democratic forces. It is infiltrated by the western powers who have been in accord with Gaddafi until now. This was less true, or not true, in Egypt--but the problem in Egypt is that the U.S. military controls the Egyptian military, the only force in the country that ended up being capable of calming that revolution and serving U.S. interests.

Rightwing idiots--echoing the corporate press--try to portray Chavez as a "dictator" (completely untrue) in love with other authoritarian (Ahmadinejad) or dictatorial (Gaddafi) leaders. This feeds the "bogeyman Chavez" psyops campaign that has been going on for half a decade. But these idiots and propagandists CAN'T TAKE IN THE FACT that Lula da Silva ALSO invited Ahmadinejad to Brazil and went to Iran trying to head off a U.S. war. This is a CONCERTED policy of Latin American leaders, and it has nothing to do with their approval of oppression in other countries.

Evo Morales, a close Chavez ally, recently criticized Gaddafi for his violent repression. I don't know if these leaders disagree on how to handle this situation, or are basically in accord, but have chosen to handle it differently in public. It has the potential for being a powerful U.S. "divide and conquer" weapon. But these and other Latin America leftist leaders are well aware of U.S. efforts to divide them. So I suspect that back-channels are active, trying to prevent another U.S. conquest of a third world country.

If I am seeing Chavez's "bind" accurately, then I would not know what to advise him, if my advice were asked for. Should he join the utterly hypocritical and ill-intentioned U.S. corporate/war profiteer interests in condeming Gaddaffi? Should he make a tempered condemnation, or what? Should he remain largely silent? He is rather an extraordinary leader in revealing this dilemma openly and trying to explain it to Venezuelans. Would that our own leaders showed such candor, so that we at least know what's going on! But they never will, cuz they are NOT acting in our interest or anybody else's.

[cali]

12. I'm sorry, but that's just pitiful

adulation is a dangerous thing.

[Peace Patriot]

46. I've tried to be thoughtful, and to understand the world and the propaganda we are subjected to.

I guess you just want to promote that propaganda by feeding the "dictator" lie about Chavez, accusing me of adulation. I don't "adore" any leader. But neither do I think that Chavez is a "dictator" or anything close to a "dictator." I guess you just can't grasp that nuance. You think that because I don't hate Chavez, I worship Chavez? That is simplistic thinking. You think that my not believing the propaganda about Chavez means that I adore Chavez? It doesn't. It means that I respect Chavez and respect the truth. I have thoroughly investigated this charge against Chavez and it is not true. The only entities that Chavez "dictates" to are Exxon Mobil and "organized money" (as FDR put it). Ordinary people in Venezuela have never had a better government nor one more devoted to their rights and their interests. And they did it themselves--they put the Chavez government in power and kept it there--in spite of coup d'etats, oil bosses' strikes and every manner of attack. Chavez may have his flaws but he is a genuine democratic leader. You are the one who wants things to be black and white, it seems to me. For some reason, you want to believe in this bogeyman and you want everybody to pile on and hate Chavez.

I have raised a good point, that both Chavez and Lula da Silva invited Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to their countries, and Lula went out of his way, traveling to Iran and Turkey, to try to get Iran removed from the U.S. hit list. Chavez and Lula met every month or tri-monthly to devise policies like this, for defense of third world countries--mainly Latin American countries that came under U.S. attack--notably Bolivia and Honduras. But they and other leaders in Latin America have also recognized that they have a common interest with "third world" countries across the Global South (Middle East, Africa, Asia). The differences between Lula da Silva and Hugo Chavez, democratic presidents, on the one hand, and Ahmadinejad, head of an Islamic state, are stark. Neither Lula nor Chavez invited Ahmadinejad to their countries, or went out of their way to support Iran against U.S. aggression, because they approve of shooting protestors or oppressing women. They are both champions of women's rights and they have never harmed protestors. So there is ANOTHER REASON why they befriended Iran, and it is the SAME REASON that Chavez befriended Libya. It is their belief that for the "third world" to prosper, and overcome exploitation by the "first world," the "third world" must be unified, must have each other's backs, must resist "divide and conquer" tactics and must resist "first world" targeting of individual countries.

This is why Chavez befriended Gaddafi (once a champion of "third world" solidarity). Chavez is as different from Gaddafi as night is from day. Gaddafi lives in splendor. Chavez drives a Volkswagen. Chavez puts everything to a vote. Gaddafi is a tyrant. Chavez has harmed no one. Gaddafi has harmed many, in his self-adulating rule. Chavez has held his country together peacefully and since 2002 has prevented its internal divisions from erupting in armed conflict. Gaddafi has now stoked a bloody civil war to keep himself in power. They do have one thing in common, though--which is the common belief of all of the new leftist leaders in Latin America--that "third world" countries should retain control of their own resources and should work together to bolster their sovereignty.

GIVEN THIS KNOWLEDGE--of the commonly devised policy of leaders like Lula and Chavez--it is stupid-making to allege that Chavez befriended Gaddafi because Gaddafi is a dictator, and that Chavez is somehow similar to Gaddafi because he visited Libya on a diplomatic mission. It is simply not true that Chavez is even remotely like Gaddafi. Good world leaders meet with obnoxious world leaders all the time, to encourage trade and peaceful resolution of differences, to find common ground, to promote cultural exchanges, and, in the case of "third world" countries, to devise ways to oppose "first world" bullying--and especially to prevent catastrophes like the U.S. invasion of Iraq. And, as a result of Chavez's diplomacy in Libya, he is in a position to influence Gaddafi to end the civil war in Libya--where pro- and anti-Gaddafi military factions are engaged in armed combat-- and at least to stop the violence and talk peace at a negotiating table. And that is exactly what Chavez has just proposed (yesterday).

You have to know something about the world in order to understand this situation in Libya. It is not like Egypt. It is a civil war. And there are probably only two ways to stop it--diplomacy or a U.S. invasion. Do we really want another U.S. invasion? Another Iraq? Another Afghanistan? Chavez is proposing the peaceful way--diplomacy--and is in a good position to propose it, because he hasn't sided with one faction. What is happening now in Libya is tribal warfare, with both sides armed to teeth with modern weapons provided by our very own war profiteers. I'M GLAD that Chavez can make a phone call to Gaddafi. I'M GLAD someone has kept their head and is committed to peaceful solutions. Maybe it was a mistake for Chavez to befriend Gaddafi. It was certainly a public relations mistake. But I can't judge it. I am not the president of a "third world" country that happens to have the biggest oil reserves on earth and is high up on the U.S. target list. Chavez has to act for his country, his people and his region. But, whatever we might think of that action, this is a crisis in which Libyans are shooting each other and dropping bombs on each other, and dying in the thousands. How to stop it should be our concern and not how to use it to beat up on Chavez with yet more lies.

[DireStrike]

52. Where are you getting your information about the libyan conflict?

I hear very little about a civil war, or two-sided conflict.

[dionysus]

13. is that you, hugo?

;)

[joshcryer]

49. Did you write Gaddafi's speech today? He said the revolt was CIA backed.

[DireStrike]

50. There are only so many allies you can have when you oppose the empire

It so happens a lot of them are dictators.

It's a shitty world.

I think the anti-Chavez propaganda has done a wonderful job of making people suspicious, just waiting for that one bad card to flip over so they can say "Aha! He IS a bad guy!" I've noticed that tendency in myself as well. The situation is enormously complicated.

Chavez can now either denounce an ally at a time when it looks like bandwagon jumping, or be seen as allying with dictators who fire on their own people. Most likely his response is calculated in regard to which of these two nasty options he thinks Venezuelans will find more palatable.

[TreasonousBastard]

4. Oil is what's important to Chavez-- it's what...

financed all of his "reforms." Venezuela could be a great place if it got beyond its primary products of oil and beauty queens.

Handing out the oil money to poor people is OK for a while, but building a structurally sound economy and society would be the point and is further beyond his thought then it is to the oil sheiks.

And it it makes you wonder when he talks about his loyalty to a possibly insane and obviously brutal dictator who so easily kills his own people.

[stevenleser]

9. Exactly. It's hard to say that Hugo accomplished anything economically when the deck is so

stacked in his favor with a country rich in the most in-demand natural resource.

It would be hard to fail in that kind of a scenario. Take that away and what did this guy supposedly accomplish if anything? Ranting against the US no matter the circumstance or whether it is warranted? Thanks but no thanks.

[BlueCheese]

45. Good one.

I laughed out loud at "beauty queens." Don't forget the baseball players, though.

[UTUSN]

5. Whatever *would* there be for Huguito to condemn aboutKADAFY?!1 There,30yrs hereafter, goeth Huguito

After "election" and "election."

[Puregonzo1188]

8. Internationally monitored elections in the nation with the second highest satisfaction with

democracy in the region.

Seriously, you may not like Chavez, which is your right, but when you make these outrageous points of comparison you demean the experiences of the people in Libya who are lively under a very real tyrant who is massacring people right now. It's insulting and I wish you'd think before you post such nonsense.

[UTUSN]

14. Hey, I don't give *you* advice about your posting & didn't ask for yours. It's called free speech.

But free speech is another one of those things Huguito can't handle. And without ceding to whatever fact content about Huguito's elections, I submit that even honest elections can have bad results; viz., the LBN thread about a Wisconsin poll in which, if they could do it over, they wouldn't put WALKER in office.


And, since you missed it, it was and is Huguito who chose back when and now to flock with KADAFY et al. I assure you, I don't have the power to make those choices for Huguito: Really, I don't!1

[Puregonzo1188]

15. And we're engaging in it. I wasn't giving you advice, I was letting you know how I felt about you

I felt about your demeaning the dead in Libya to make a cheap political point. I found it rather vile to quite honest.

And there's freedom of speech in Venezuela. There's opposition media. And there's opposition parties. And opposition rallies. And there's opposition in the parliament.

There was an incident in which RCTV lost its concession to broadcast over the public airwaves. They currently broadcast in Venezuela via satellite. There are more private media channels with concessions to broadcast on Venezuelan and speech is more or less freer now than most previous periods in Venezuela's history. Chavez's heavy handedness with opponents bothers me, but you know it is a country where people tried to overthrow the democratically elected government and continue to run around the country and advocating doing so.

In our country Quakers are spied on by the FBI, which was founded by the way to harass members of the Communist Party. The Socialist Workers Party, a legal political entity, is exempted by the Supreme Court from FEC disclosures due to the history of FBI harassment (including an attempt to incite an assassination of one of their Presidential candidates). And I would ask you to ask Fred Hampton about freedom of speech of the United States, but our lovely government made sure that that's not a possibility. Just because we have two parties that march lockstep doesn't mean we tolerate actual dissent.

In our country, the President has claimed the right to execute an American citizen without a trial and the independent judiciary has refused to rule on the issue (it's a "political question"). Venezuela hasn't had a death penalty since 1863. Yet, Chavez is the dictator.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[UTUSN]

39. Ah, I'm such a magnet for clean fighters!1 n/t

[Modern_Matthew]

7. Maybe some people here will quit idolizing him. n/t

[msanthrope]

27. Not a chance. There's too many excuses available--'mistranslation'

or 'he's taken out of context' or 'the American media doesn't like him....'

[EFerrari]

11. Nothing demonstrates the media war on Chavez more clearly

than this non-story which gets published and posted over and over in different forms.

Chavez nor any other member of OPEC is going to condemn Gaddafi.

On the other hand, where are the endless stories about Cameron who was out touring the ME with weapons manufacturers?

[Puregonzo1188]

17. I'm glad I'm not the only one whose noticing this.

Chavez is wrong to praise Gaddafi and I'm not going to be uncritical of this. That being said the subtler implications--that Chavez praises Gaddafi because they are one in the same (since you know Chavez recently massacred 2,000 people) and that Chavez is a dictator because he rejects neoliberalism and capitalism and democracy are one in the same (Just like being a US client-state and a free nation) I'm not falling for.

And it's so abundantly clear we're only focusing on Chavez's opinions of this matter just to demonize. Where are the stories about what the leader of ever 193 nations thinks of Gaddafi? Just official US enemies. It's the Chomsky-Herman propaganda model in full swing.

[Freddie Stubbs]

20. Perhaps there aren't any stories about the leaders of the other 193 nations because

none of them are supporting Gaddafi.

[EFerrari]

24. Chavez is not supporting Gaddafi. n/t

[EFerrari]

25. Chavez has said he does not approve of or agree with

"decisions taken by his colleagues around the world". That's as close as he's going to get to criticizing Gaddafi. And that's closer than anyone else in OPEC has come.

[Freddie Stubbs]

18. So, it's the media's fault that Chavez supports this bloddy dictator?

[Puregonzo1188]

21. Oh yes, you read everything so correctly.

[EFerrari]

23. Chavez is not supporting a bloody dictator, Freddie, THIS is suport

for a repressive regime:

Admiral Mullen, thanks Bahrain's dictator King Khalifah for his handling of anti-government protests

Mullen thanks Bahrain's king for handling of unrest
By Kevin Baron
Stars and Stripes
February 25,2011

MANAMA, Bahrain — The streets of the diplomatic area were quiet Thursday night as Adm. Mike Mullen met with Bahrain’s King Hamad ibn Isa Al Khalifa to discuss the political unrest here, offering reassurances from one military to another.

A picture of Mullen meeting the king was a front page, full color feature for the English-language Daily Times, under the bold headline: “U.S reiterates full backing for Bahrain.”

Mullen’s spokesman, Capt. John Kirby, said the chairman solicited the king’s viewpoint and “thanked the very measured way in which they’ve been handling the popular crisis here.”

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=439&topic_id=529056

[Ignis]

32. Our "carpet of gold or carpet of bombs" foreign policy at work!

:puke:

[EFerrari]

35. Which is why they need us to focus on Hugo Chavez. Natch. n/t

[Arkana]

16. The fuck?

We're not preparing to invade Libya. What is Chavez smoking? And why is he defending Moammar the murderer?

[leftstreet]

19. CHAVEZ POURED PASTA DOWN MY SINK

:cry: :cry: :cry:

[EFerrari]

26. Chavez held up my kitteh.

[myrna minx]

47. I heard he's Facebook friends with Julian Assange!

[TBF]

22. He's right about the oil -

whether Chavez or Gadhafi are dictators or not, the US couldn't care less. What this country cares about is that oil.

[Lyric]

28. No--that's what the government cares about.

The country is the people, and as one of those people, I assure you that quite a few of us care a LOT more about the people of Libya than about the oil.

Our government is supposed to represent the people, but we all know that the only "people" the government gives a damn about anymore are the ones with gated palaces, Learjets, and Congresspeople on their corporate payroll.

[TBF]

31. I can agree with that assessment. nt

[Peace Patriot]

30. Stupid, incoherent RW emissions about "Huguito" and "Hugo" make it possible for Bush, Cheney &

Rumsfeld, and their ilk, to slaughter tens of thousands of innocent people for domination of the world's resources.

We--the folks in whose name these awful deeds are committed--need to make an effort to understand the world. We are among the most disinfomed people on earth, subjected to non-stop, 24/7, corporate/war profiteer propaganda.

One of the most intense propaganda campaigns that we have been subjected to is the personalization of Venezuela's democracy revolution as "Hugo Chavez" and the relentless demonization of that figure. President Hugo Chavez may have his flaws, as do all human beings, and all leaders, but the truth is that Venezuela's democracy revolution has been as dramatic as anything in Egypt and is a revolution of the people, who, through their courageous and massive defense of their democracy in 2002, and many other collective and individual actions--on re-writing their constitution and putting it to a vote, on conducting honest, transparent elections, on standing up to multinational oil corporations and demanding fair treatment for the Venezuelan people, on getting the oil industry back on-line after the crippling oil bosses' lockout, on awesome grass roots organizing for elections and other endeavors, on seizing the educational opportunities that THEIR government created for them, and so many other actions--HAVE CREATED THEIR OWN "NEW DEAL."

And THAT is WHY "Hugo Chavez" is demonized. He is actually a very good leader, but he is not and has never been the real issue to our corporate/war profiteer rulers. It is the people of Venezuela who scare the beejeebers out of them.

Our rulers don't want democracy in Venezuela any more than they want it here. Demonizing Chavez is one of their tactics for slandering democracy, as it has developed in Venezuela with Venezuelans' commitment to social justice and to their own sovereignty as a people. They were the first--the pioneers--of this huge democracy movement in Latin America. They also control a resource on the southern edge of the U.S. "circle the wagons" area--Central America/Caribbean--that the Pentagon intends to include in that region--Venezuela's Caribbean oil coast and northern oil provinces. And their democracy is a prime U.S. target because of these two things: their leadership of the democracy revolution in Latin America, and their huge oil reserves.

Thus, in the stupid, incoherent RW grunts and guffaws that we are witness to, here at DU, about "Hugo" and "Huguito," we see the echoes of this mindboggingly hypocritical creation--"bogeyman Chavez, the dictator." It can't be democracy that our corporate/war profiteer rulers oppose. They are the self-proclaimed, virtuous champions of democracy, don't ya know? --the benevolent masked men who spread "freedom and democracy" to the huddled masses. They are the great humanitarians who are shocked--SHOCKED!--by human rights abuses in Cuba while they torture prisoners on the other end of the island and designate the prisoners as "enemy combatants" to deprive them of all human rights. They are the bastards who supported Mubarak for 30 years and are now using their leverage (our tax dollars) with the Egyptian military to head off a real democracy revolution in Egypt (--one that establishes itself as independent of U.S. corporate/war profiteer interests). They are the bastards who are dismantling democracy, here--with their "Trade Secret" voting machines, their wars, their bankster bailouts and their attacks on teachers and labor unions. Those calling Chavez a "dictator" are the real bastards of this world, believe me--our own corporate/war profiteer rulers.

They fear democracy. They fear it like the plague. And those who allow themselves to be tools of this anti-democratic propaganda--this hatred of Venezuelan voters and citizens, for electing real leaders, and hatred of many other peoples for doing the same thing--have much to answer for. Whatever their level of consciousness, they are contributing to making our people into stupid sheep. We need to understand the world, not wallow in utter stupidities about "Hugo." And we have a lot of propaganda to overcome, in order to see the world as it is, and not how our propagandists paint it.

In the world as it is, Chavez is reluctant to play U.S. corporate/war profiteer games over Libya. Maybe he should. Maybe he should mouth their hypocritical crapola about Gaddafi. It would be far less hypocritical in his mouth than in theirs. But he has chosen not to do that. And he has tried to explain why to his people, who have voted for him, time and again--in elections that are far, FAR more transparent than our own--among other things, to conduct Venezuela's foreign policy. Maybe it would be more "politic" to condemn Gaddafi. Maybe a U.S./NATO invasion of Libya, and domination of Libya for decades to come, cannot be prevented, and Chavez should just resign himself to this and try to earn some "brownie points" with the corporate/war profiteer press. (Of course, they will never credit him with it, if he does.) He has chosen not to be a liar and a hypocrite, and has tried to explain why he has been silent. Maybe that is not the best "public relations" way to handle this situation, but it seems much more honest to me than this spectacle in Washington, England and Europe, of the vultures poised to jump on Libya. Chavez's intentions in befriending Gaddifi were peace and "third world" solidarity. THEIR intentions are controlling the oil, at any cost. They have NO good intentions. And, unfortunately, Gaddafi is making it easy for them.

I urge my fellow and sister Americans to reject kneejerk, rightwing "talking points" about this situation, and THINK, and get informed. When you see the president of Venezuela referred to disrespectfully as "Huguito" and "Hugo," translate this into its real meaning: the people of Venezuela and THEIR democracy. And please try to understand how you are being manipulated with this "bogeyman" creation.

[Ignis]

33. Thanks for posting this, even if you're swimming upstream.

:thumbsup:

[Catherina]

42. Thank you for taking the time to write such well thought-out posts

and laying out the truth.

[Cleita]

51. +1000

[upi402]

34. A friend like this says everything about YOU Chavez

done

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

37. ...and therefore Chavez murders his own people, just like Qadafi! QED!

:crazy:

[apocalypsehow]

38. Of course not: they're two peas in a pod. Two dictator's with little regard for human rights or

civil liberties, and megalomaniac egos to boot.

Why would Chavez condemn one of his chums? :shrug:

[howard112211]

40. "Mubarrak is not a dictator" / "Julian Assange is a terrorist" - Joe Biden

Politicians make "pragmatic" statements sometimes. Should I be surprised that Chavez is "playing the game" ? :shrug:

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

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

[Catherina]

44. No one's going to be swayed by childish knee-jerk posts devoid of content or logic

Your posts rock Peace Patriot. I don't agree with you about this being a civil war because Gaddafi has very little support and the majority of the country is united against him. Other than that small disagreement :yourock:

[Kurovski]

43. Let's eat his head smeared with apple butter!

[myrna minx]

48. I believe his head was the recent ingredient on Iron Chef!