Why I Parted Ways With Chávez - NY Times Op-Ed

[groovedaddy]

Why I Parted Ways With Chávez By RAÚL ISAÍAS BADUEL - NY Times Op-Ed - Saturday, Dec. 1, 2007


ON Dec. 17, 1982, three of my fellow officers in the Venezuelan Army and I swore our allegiance to the Bolivarian Revolutionary Army 2000. We considered ourselves to be at the birth of a movement that would turn a critical eye on Venezuela’s troubled social and political system — and formulate proposals to improve it. One of the officers with me was Hugo Chávez, the current president of Venezuela, whom I have known since I entered the military academy 35 years ago.

Hugo Chávez and I worked together for many years. I supported him through thick and thin, serving as his defense minister. But now, having recently retired, I find myself with the moral and ethical obligation as a citizen to express my opposition to the changes to the Constitution that President Chávez and the National Assembly have presented for approval by the voters tomorrow.

The proposal, which would abolish presidential term limits and expand presidential powers, is nothing less than an attempt to establish a socialist state in Venezuela. As our Catholic bishops have already made clear, a socialist state is contrary to the beliefs of Simón Bolívar, the South American liberation hero, and it is also contrary to human nature and the Christian view of society, because it grants the state absolute control over the people it governs.

Venezuelan society faces a broad array of problems that have not been addressed in the eight years Mr. Chávez has been in office, even though the present Constitution offers ample room for any decent, honest government to do so. Inflation, threats to personal safety, a scarcity of basic supplies, a housing shortage and dismal education and health care are problems that will not be resolved by approving this so-called reform.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/01/opinion/01baduel.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

[DavidDvorkin]

1. Flood of posts to follow?

Many accusing this guy of being a CIA plant?

[Warren Stupidity]

2. "nothing less than an attempt to establish a socialist state in Venezuela"

No shit. And that has been the openly stated intention. So basically 'long time Chavez supporter' RAÚL ISAÍAS BADUEL, is finally splitting with openly socialist Chavez after 25 years, because openly socialist Chavez is openly proceeding to implement socialism? OK.

Next?

[papau]

4. LOL - that was my thought also! :-)

[BridgeTheGap]

3. Funny thing happened on the way to standing up for the poor and down trodden!

Ignore problems long enough, the shit eventually hits the fan.
People who have got it good tend to resist change.
People being shit on ALWAYS resent it.

[Stuckinthebush]

5. Abolishing presidential term limits is foolish

It makes Chavez look like a dictator or dictator-wannabe. Overall, the changes made in Venezuela have been positive. Any time you can distribute national wealth to the very poor of your nation, it is generally a positive thing. The establishment, of course, hates this but that is to be expected. Chavez has many flaws. One of those is his propensity to say outlandish things which makes him look a bit unstable. This push by the legislature and Chavez to abolish term limits is also foolish in that it gives his enemies more ammunition. How long before some country like the US says, "Well we can't have a dictator in South America!", and starts to invade?

[provis99]

6. term limits are anti-democratic

They prevent the voters from picking the person they want to lead.

[Stuckinthebush]

15. So you are OK with Bush pushing for a repeal of limits?

In theory, term limits are bad for democracy. I'll give you that point. We know, however, that in reality it doesn't work that way. Look at the US Senate for instance. Once in the Senate, you can take your position to your grave if you'd like. The money that comes with that power assures you of re-election.

Term limits are good in that they limit the amount of power one individual can have. This is a very good thing.

[groovedaddy]

7. Americans elected FDR 4 times

was that a bad thing?

[frylock]

8. it sure was..

for republicans.

[Yupster]

11. The fourth time was bad

He was in no shape to govern when he was elected in 1944. He should never have run.

I'm for term limits.

I realize we lose a good third term of a good president once in a while, but on the other hand we avoid the President For Life crap that other countries suffer under.

I wish we had term limits in congress too. Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd getting reelected at age 90 + is ridiculous. There is no way a 90 year old should be making decisions for a nation. Most families don't even trust 90 year olds to go to the store by themselves.

[Stuckinthebush]

14. As I said above...

If your country has term limits in place, and then you try to abolish them to retain power, it looks a bit dictatorial.

Would you be OK with Bush pushing for a removal of term limits? I wouldn't.

[Benhurst]

10. There were no term limits in this country until the Repubs put them through in

reaction Roosevelt electoral victories. The British prime minister does not serve with term limits. Does that make him or her look like a dictator?

Of course the corporate press in America is ranting and raving. Our corporate masters wish for the return of the old order in Venezuela and have continued their attacks even after their coup against Chavez failed.

Dictatorships in Latin America (which Venezuela doesn't have and won't have if the reforendum passes) have never bothered the U.S. Government unless the leader in question was, or was threatening to, transfer wealth from the ruling classes to the people and deprive corporate America of its stranglehold on the country.

[Stuckinthebush]

13. If your country has term limits in place

and you then try to remove those limits so you can retain power, then yes, it does look a tad bit dictatorial.

What would you say if Bush tried the same thing? I dare say you'd be a bit put off by it.

[Benhurst]

16. There was talk about it for Reagan (and he was already suffering from

Alzheimer's!) and about doing it for Clinton.

After all, the "villain" who brought about the limitations was FDR, a dictator and tyrant if there ever was one.
:scared:

There is no term limitation on the British prime minister; but there are free elections.

I find our lack of honest elections far more a threat to the Republic (or what's left of it after two stolen presidential elections and the subsequent shredding of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights) than unlimited terms.

[PDJane]

9. I would also point out

That there is nothing at all inherently wrong with socialism. Socialism does not equal totalitarianism. You can have a socialist democracy. That's a red herring. In fact, socialism tends to spread the wealth around a little more equally. True, it tends to remove the possibility for making obscene amounts of money. It also tends to eradicate obscene poverty. This is not a bad thing, people.

Term limits aren't necessarily a good thing either. Canada has not had them; the situation tends to be self-correcting! Of course, we have paper ballots, hand-counted too, and a different method of identifying voters.

All of this frezy is trumped by your media and your government, as a way to bring back the status quo.

[ret5hd]

12. Here is a film snippet that shows the TRUE HORROR of socialism:

oh my god, the horror. The HORROR!

http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/19529-michael-moore-cut-this-scene-from-sicko-because-no-one-would-believe-it

[groovedaddy]

17. It can be argued that without democracy, it ISN'T Socialism

At least that's my read on it.