Reply #5: I greatly appreciate your effort to crawl out from under the mountain of garbage

[Peace Patriot]

that passes for news about South America in the corporate 'news' monopolies, and see some daylight. I have had to deprogram myself, too, and it takes time. Rotten banana peels and old fish and sometimes human body parts in the garbage 'news' (parts once belonging to union leaders in Bush's favorite S/A country, Colombia) tend to cling to your clothes and your spirit, as you try to find out the truth, and try to wade through the smelly, awful crap that isn't the truth--that is appalling lies, psyops and disinformation, that we are subjected to every day.

So, I want to discuss your two qualifiers, re Chavez and the South American left--because I think they are detritus from the 'news' garbage pile:

"I know there are folks here who don't care for Hugo Chavez. I assume they have their reasons."

The thing is, they don't ("have their reasons"), or, if they do (I suppose everyone has their reasons), they won't state them; they never provide convincing evidence, or any evidence at all, for their opinions--they merely make brief, accusatory assertions; they don't analyze, they don't think, they don't respond to facts and analysis with reasonable answers. They just, repeatedly--like the propagandists they appear to be imitating and getting their views from--rag on a few points that are easily disprovable, with a little research--or they merely issue invective--against Chavez, an elected political leader who has harmed no one, invaded no one, jailed no one unfairly, oppressed no one, broken no law, and in fact has done more for democracy in Venezuela, and in South America, than any leader, ever.

This is why President Lula da Silva, of Brazil, said the following, recently, of Chavez: "You can criticize Chavez on many things, but not on democracy."

Chiefly the propaganda point--despite mountains of evidence to the contrary--is this: That Hugo Chavez is a "dictator," or--since there is no evidence to support that--will soon become one. He's been in office ten years and hasn't become one yet, but, if you believe these anti-Chavez posters, he intends to become a "dictator," soon. Just you wait. In this they are aligned with Donald Rumsfeld*, who calls Chavez a "tyrant," again with no evidence whatsoever.

I won't do detailed analysis here of the list of "Chavez the tyrant" points pushed by the Bush junta and its lapdog secretaries in the corporate 'news' monopolies (and their echoers here at DU). I just want to say that I have tracked every one of them down, with months of research, and have posted much of this research here at DU as comments in various Chavez threads, and these charges against Chavez are--every last one of them--utterly bogus. He is NOT suppressing free speech. He is NOT ruling arbitrarily--without proper authority and precedent. He is NOT taking anyone's property or oppressing anyone in any way. He has yet to be in office as long as our own FDR (another politician against whom the rightwing used the word "dictator"), and his desire to run for and get elected to a third term is normal, for a popular president who has the energy and zeal to tackle big, structural problems. FDR ran for and won four terms in office. Our own founders opposed a term limit on the president as undemocratic. Many democratic countries do not have such a term limit. We didn't, until the 1950s, when the rightwing wanted to prevent a "New Deal" from ever happening again and wanted to begin dismantling the one we were all blessed with, as a result of FDR's four terms.

The rich have money and power and their rich peoples' clubs. The poor have only one asset: TIME. It takes TIME to undo the entrenched and corrupt power of the rich, and to create an equitable society in the teeth of their relentless greed and opposition to sharing the wealth.

"Organized money hates me--and I welcome their hatred." --Franklin Delano Roosevelt

That's the kind of president Hugo Chavez is. He is strong, focused, determined upon social justice, and is a driving force for cooperation among South American countries, economic integration, mutual aid, and self-determination, in their efforts to deal with the colossal bully to the north. He is a good president. He is very popular (60% range). Venezuelans think very highly of him, and of their country's economic improvement and political vitality. He is well thought of throughout the region--by most of the leaders and by the great majority of ordinary people.

Chavez recently lost a popular vote on on term the limit issue, and guess what? This "dictator," this "tyrant," this "president for life," said, "Okay," and moved on. The vote was very close--50.7% vs. 49.3%--and he could rightfully have contested it. He did not. His party may bring it back to the voters. And why shouldn't they? They have every right to do so, losing a vote that narrowly. Also, it was contained in a package of 69 amendments, on many different issues, including equal rights for women and gays (in a country with a particularly rightwing Catholic clergy--and the rightwing really hammered on the equal rights issue, in disgusting ways). The voters were confused. And the equal rights amendment probably sank the package. The point is that Venezuela is a DEMOCRACY. They have more power over their president than we do--certainly--and than many countries do. They can recall him. AND THEY GET TO VOTE ON THEIR CONSTITUTION! How's that for tyranny?

Furthermore, Venezuela's elections put our own elections to shame, for their transparency. Venezuelans have more rights than we do; they have a far more vibrant political culture than we do; they have honestly and cleanly elected leaders--in Miraflores Palace, in the National Assembly, and in local offices. The only entity that Hugo Chavez has been "dictatorial" toward is Exxon Mobil, and we can only applaud him for that, and wish we had a president who would do the same.

(Note: Venezuela's oil was nationalized before Chavez--as it is in many countries (Norway, for instance). All he did was to re-negotiate the deal between Venezuela and the big corpos to give Venezuelans a better cut of their own oil profits (which is used for schools, medical care, etc.). The other corpos agreed. Exxon Mobil went to court and tried to grab $12 billion in Venezuela's assets. They lost. So they HATE Chavez, as do their bloody-handed pals in the White House. That--and the newly forming South American Common Market--are why they hate Chavez. Also, he has helped throw their loan sharks--the World Bank/IMF--out of the region. Oh, and he opposes the corrupt, murderous, failed U.S./Bush "war on drugs." I guess they have a lot of reasons to hate this "monkey" (as he and other brown-faced leaders are called by the fascists at U.S. Embassy cocktail parties). Chavez has stuck up for Venezuelans and for the region, when he is supposed to kowtow. That is why they relentlessly slander him.)

*"The Smart Way to Beat Tyrants Like Chávez," by Donald Rumsfeld, 12/1/07
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/30/AR2007113001800.html


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


"...(Chavez's) influence and leadership in the move left that countries on the South American continent are undergoing, by and large in a peaceful manner...".

PEACEFUL is the hallmark of the leftist democratic movement in South (and also Central) America. There is no "by and large" about it. It is amazingly peaceful, in view of the violence, coup plots, unfriggingbelievable greed, racism, collusion with Bushites and other provocations by the fascist minority. This movement is peacefully transforming the continent in a way that I could not have dreamed of--even ten years ago; hell, even five years ago. It is very like the end of apartheid--but with NO VIOLENCE AT ALL.

This is a staggering accomplishment of the people of South America. It should not be stated grudgingly, or iffily. It is a political miracle.

There is only one armed leftist guerrilla group in Latin America--the FARC in Colombia (a country with one of the worst human rights records on earth). Chavez and other leaders have told them to release all of their hostages, disarm and demobilize, and Chavez, and also Rafael Correa of Ecuador, took very courageous steps late last year, and early this year--both of them putting their lives and careers on the line--to bring about a peaceful, political settlement of Colombia's 40+ year civil war (which harries both of their borders). The U.S. ended that effort on March 1 of this year, by dropping ten U.S. "smart bombs" on a FARC camp just inside Ecuador's border, killing the chief FARC hostage negotiator, Raul Reyes, and 24 others, in their sleep--just as FARC was about to release Ingrid Betancourt and several others to President Correa and French, Swiss and Spanish envoys, who were in Ecuador for that purpose. This Bushite-orchestrated attack on Ecuador's territory nearly started a war between Colombia and Ecuador--which is exactly what the Bushites wanted. Hugo Chavez was the key diplomat in stopping the war, for which the president of Brazil called him "the great peacemaker."

The Bushites have larded $6 BILLION (of our non-existent taxpayer dollars--borrowed from Saudi Arabia and China) in military aid onto the Colombian government. They are not about to allow peace to break out in Colombia. It is a military/police state boondoggle. It is also what Rumsfeld would call a "lily pad"--a Bush-friendly fascist haven from which to launch trouble into a sea of leftist democracies.

The FARC are armed, but they are not very violent compared to the Colombian military and closely associated rightwing paramilitary death squads. Amnesty International attributes 92% of the murders of union leaders to the Colombian military and paramilitaries, for instance, and only 2% to the FARC. Over 40 union leaders have been slaughtered in Colombia this year alone. It is unfair to use this one situation--Colombia--which the Bushites are deliberately prolonging--to qualify the left in South American as "by and large" peaceful. The left in South America is 99.9% peaceful. It is the rightwing, stoked by the Bush junta, who are not peaceful. They kill, they torture, they butcher, they beat, they intimidate, they bully, they plot assassinations and coups, and they steal from and hate the poor majority, especially the brown-skinned. To defeat them PEACEFULLY and democratically--by decades of hard work on civic institutions and social movement organizing, in the face of constant brutality, and in spite of billions of dollars in U.S. funding of rightwing political and military forces--is, as I said, a political miracle. It is not really miraculous, of course; it is the work of many people. But it is an unqualified success.

Evo Morales last Sunday won a referendum on his social justice presidency with nearly 70% of the vote! This is a country (Bolivia) where the Bush junta has been actively trying to instigate a civil war. It is a country where the indigenous were not allowed to walk on the sidewalks as recently as 1960. Morales is 100% indigenous, himself, and the majority of the country are indigenous, but have been enslaved and ruled by a white racist elite for centuries--an elite that stole all the land. The current elite is led by some truly bad, rich, lawless and violent people, who are still beating up on indians. And in the face of this ugly minority, Morales' commitment to peaceful struggle is profound. So is that of Rafael Correa, Hugo Chavez and now Fernando Lugo, all of whom live with Bushite bull's eye targets on their backs. They are all totally peaceful, and lawful. And that is...nothing short of amazing, considering how much the Bushites, and local fascists, hate them. They are hated like Martin Luther King was hated, and the way Gandhi was hated, and the way FDR was hated. They are hated for their strength and vision, and for their very peacefulness and righteousness.

They are not "by and large" peaceful. They are totally peaceful, as are the social movements that put them in office.

------

Once again, I, too, had to go through a process of educating myself about the baldfaced lying that we see in the corporate 'news' monopolies on this subject. They print whatever they can find that can be construed as negative, and indicating that somehow this amazing, successful, democratic revolution that has swept South America, is not peaceful and not positive. They print things without context, and without historical reference, and often use phrases like "his critics say" without identifying or quoting the critics. (because, if they did, you would know immediately that you shouldn't trust the "critics" in the U.S. embassy--their likely sources). They twist and distort and sometimes outright lie. And this is true across the board--from the New York Times to the Associated Press to CNN and, of course, the Miami Herald. It is mind-boggling. And what it brings to mind is the non-existent Iraq WMDs. It's that kind of pervasive lying. And it slips into our brains almost beneath consciousness, so that most people end up with a vaguely negative IMPRESSION of, say, Hugo Chavez, but they couldn't really tell you why. The corpo 'news' monopolies hammer away at this theme--"dictator-dictator-dictator"--but no item connected to it holds up to even superficial scrutiny. It is "in the air." That is what psyops and disinformation does. They shut off your rational brain and create highly manipulated IMPRESSIONS.

I have nothing good to say about the anti-Chavez snipers who visit DU, and who use these stupifying psyops and disinformation techniques here. They are not into facts, dialogue or analysis. They are not informative or even interesting. They contribute nothing to our understanding of South America, except to apprise us that there are some truly ignorant 'memes' making the rounds. I think it's useful and good--and essential--to criticize leaders, even (or especially) leaders you like and largely agree with. I've read some LEFTIST criticism of Chavez, Correa, Fernandez and da Silva, that is very thought-provoking and helpful. Some of it is quite negative, but always based on facts, reason and analysis. I may not agree, but I'm better informed for having read it. I have not read ANYTHING on the right--and certainly not anything by the anti-Chavez posters at DU--that is remotely thought-provoking or helpful in my understanding of these leaders, this movement, or Latin America in general. They are useless! And I don't think you have to bow to them as a DU interest group. They are clearly not leftists or even progressives. They are not even centrist. They are RIGHTWING, and communication with them is about as edifying as talking to rabid Bushites. They are rabidly anti-Chavez. They call him lowlife names, and are ALWAYS against him, no matter the situation, no matter the facts, no matter the context. And they mostly do "hit and run" posts--very negative, totally uninformative. Of late--just like the Bush State Department--they have started to do the same to other leftist L/A leaders as well. The leftists are automatically bad. And they always support Colombia--the worst government in the western hemisphere (besides our own), and one of the worst in the world.

Show me a DU poster who has "their reasons" for not caring for Chavez who can write one coherent paragraph on those reasons, with evidence that has not been time and again debunked, and I might withdraw this criticism. I have yet to see this.