Chavez says Obama did "nothing" to deserve Nobel

[Zorro]

Source: Reuters

Venezuela's socialist leader Hugo Chavez said on Sunday that U.S. President Barack Obama had done nothing beyond wishful thinking to earn the Nobel Peace Prize.

Chavez, who has mixed praise for Obama personally with criticism of his government's "imperialist" policies, said he thought it was a mistake when he read the U.S. leader had won.

"What has Obama done to deserve this prize? The jury put store on his hope for a nuclear arms-free world, forgetting his role in perpetuating his battalions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and his decision to install new military bases in Colombia," Chavez wrote in a column.

"For the first time, we are witnessing an award with the nominee having done nothing to deserve it: rewarding someone for a wish that is very far from becoming reality."

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091011/ts_nm/us_nobel_peace_obama_chavez_1

[WriteDown]

1. Uh oh. nt

[Flaneur]

2. Chavez is entitled to his opinion.

But hey, let's have another round of Chavez bashing. Thanks, Zorro.

[movonne]

11. I find that the repugs are siding with the ones they hate the most...is

this a strange occurence...have they turned into terrorist??? then why do the carry the big and I mean big american flags??? can anyone answer this question???

[AlbertCat]

52. I find that the repugs are siding with the ones they hate the most

What do you expect from knee jerk jerks? They latch on to anything that appears to be a problem for the opposition without thinking (because they are having trouble with the opposition themselves) so they cheer when the US loses the Olympics and they boo when the country is honored.

Now they find themselves anti-american as they can be....because they ARE. They don't get that wanting Obama to fail is wanting the US to fail. They're blinded by their utter rejection. They lost after being wrong, completely and utterly wrong, for 8 years and they can't deal with it. It must be hard to learn that everything you know is wrong.... especially when you thought you were on top of the world and knew everything. They have lost their minds.

Don't misunderstand me. I know the Dems don't have all the answers but then they don't think they do either.

[EFerrari]

64. The Republicans are anti-American, Chavez isn't.

He just praised Obama at the UN a couple of weeks ago. Chavez is a blunt man but his disagreement over this prize is just that. It's not some signal about a Big Message. Venezuela wants to improve relations with the US, just not at the cost of its autonomy.

The Republicans, on the other hand, will continue to envy every one of Obama's achievements and to hope he fails at everything and to claim he has. They're that stupid.

[Bumblebee]

20. you mean he doesn't deserve bashing? News to me!

I hear he fell sick. Probably Obama's Nobel did it to him.

[question everything]

3. Oh, yeah. Chavez is an authority on anything

except self promotion and ending freedom of the press and suspending the Constitution.

Yeah, right.

Had there not been oil in Venezuela he would be whimpering to himself.

[Robb]

4. Oh, boy.

:popcorn:

[name not needed]

5. This is gonna be entertaining.

:popcorn:

[treestar]

127. I know. You gotta love Hugo

He always has something to say.

:popcorn: :popcorn:

[onehandle]

6. The President for Life is...

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[Judi Lynn]

12. He will only be elected by a clear majority of the voters, of course. That's not the deceitful

"President for Life" moronic insult right-wing knuckle draggers attempt to pin on the President of Venezuela. It would do you some good to actually get in touch with the facts.

Venezuelan elections are always overseen by a horde of intenational observers, including Jimmy Carter's organization. They get CLEAN reports.

In addition to their open source code operation of their voting machines which allows access to anyone for monitoring purposes, they hand count 55% of the ballots.
Refer to a very recent post by Peace Patriot:

~snip~
There, they use electronic voting, but it is an OPEN SOURCE CODE system--anyone may review the code by which the votes are tabulated--and they additionally handcount a whopping 55% of the votes, as a check on machine fraud (five times the amount needed to detect fraud in an electronic system, according to experts whom I respect). Do you know what percentage of the votes is handcounted in the U.S.? ZERO PERCENT, in half the states in the country, and a meager 1% in the other half! In a 'TRADE SECRET' system!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=405&topic_id=24064#24184

[onehandle]

21. When you control the media and shut down opposition, you win.

Imagine Obama seizing Fox News, Right-Wing talk radio stations and Republican owned businesses and services.

President Obama for Life!

[IndianaGreen]

23. You need to stop watching Faux News

it certainly has poisoned your mind.

[Judi Lynn]

24. You need to do yourself the honor of getting informed on the subject you're attempting to discuss.

Media In Venezuela: Facts and Fiction
Written by Caitlin McNulty and Liz Migliorelli
Monday, 17 August 2009


~snip~
Media Sources in Venezuela

The preferred news source of most Venezuelans is television media. There are at least five nationally broadcasted television stations that dispatch via “free-over-the-air” and publicly allotted signals. These stations include Venevisión (controlled by Grupo Cisneros), Univision, Televisión de Venezuela (Televen) and previous to it’s closing (which will be explained later in the article), Radio Caracas Television (RCTV).2

For several decades, commercial television in Venezuela has belonged to an oligopoly of two families, the Cisneros and the Bottome & Granier Group. The tremendous influence of these parties reaches beyond broadcast networks into advertising and public relations agencies that operate for the welfare of the stations, as well as record labels and other societal industries that produce material to be promoted on the stations. Not only does the Cisneros family own Venevisión, the largest station in Venezuela, they own over seventy media outlets in 39 countries, including DirecTV Latin America, AOL Latin America, Caracol Television (Colombia), the Univisión Network in the United States, Galavisión, Playboy Latin America as well as beverage and food distribution such as Coca Cola bottling, Regional Beer and Pizza Hut in Venezuela. They also own entities such as Los Leones baseball team of Caracas and the Miss Venezuela Pageant.3 The reach of the Cisneros power is massive; the media monopoly broadcasts to more than four million television screens in Venezuela, giving it tremendous power and influence.

Globovisión, a channel that is widely broadcast in major metropolitan centers such as Caracas, Carabobo and Zulia and is also available on satellite on DirecTV, and CNN en Español are both private stations that have a harsh anti-Chávez rhetoric. President of CNN en Español Christopher Cromwell has said that Chávez may not like the programming on his network, but this meant that CNN was doing its job correctly. Another station, Valores Educativos Televisión (Vale TV) is a major regional network that is neither state-run nor commercially aimed, run by the Asociación Civil, which is managed by the Catholic Church.4 These smaller, regional networks are never mentioned in reports of media in Venezuela. Five major private television networks control at least 90% of the market and smaller private stations control another 5%. This 95% of the broadcast market was quick to express its opposition to President Chávez’s administration as early as 1999, soon after Chávez first took office.5 There are three public and state-controlled television channels that exist on the same national electromagnetic spectrum, including Venezolana de Televisión (VTV, established in 1964, a state-owned television network); Visión Venezuela (ViVe TV, established in 2003, a cultural network funded by the government that is not yet broadcasted nationally); and Televisora Venezolana Social (TVes, established in 2007 as RCTV’s substitute).6 These channels cannot compete with the privately owned, commercial media that serve as the dominant source of television news media in Venezuela.

Print media in Venezuela is diverse, but it depicts a greater opposition presence than seen in television networks. Many publications are corporate-owned and extremely critical of the Chávez administration. In comparison to the United States, where New York, the largest city, has only four daily papers (New York Times, Wall Street Journal, New York Post, Daily News), two of which are markedly sympathetic to the Bush administration, Caracas, the capital of Venezuela, has twenty-one daily papers. Whereas the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, USA Today and Washington Post are the only nationally distributed daily papers in the United States, Venezuela circulates eight daily papers nationally. A Washington D.C. based think-tank Council on Hemispheric Affairs (COHA) has described the print media situation in simple terms: “nine out of ten newspapers, including El Nacional and El Universal, are staunchly anti-Chávez.” 7

http://upsidedownworld.org/main/content/view/2059/1/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No excuse whatsoever for operting from a base of total ignorance.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

57. Admittedly, I Don't Know Enough About This Subject

Let me start of by saying that I acknowledge that privately run media in Venezuela is owned by the country's elite and is extremely critical of Chavez, to the point that some media outlets supported efforts to remove him from office. I realize that much. However, I've got to say, I agree with a poster further down the thread who argued that some sort of process should be in place (a trial? a hearing? something) that allows the state to present it's evidence and the media outlet to present theirs, to ensure that there's some fairness in the revocation of licenses.

Many on this board are quick to condemn the current ruler of Honduras for going down this path, and rightfully so. Shouldn't we just fair and condemn Chavez for it as well?

[EFerrari]

59. Um. No licenses have been revoked arbitrarily

and of course there are processes in place.

The radio stations that lost their licenses earlier this summer did so because they were out of compliance -- rich people don't think tax laws apply to them. They were given a grace period and the ones who didn't come into compliance lost their licenses.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

62. How Would We Know That?

What processes are there to ensure that, if I may ask? Because even the most pro-Chavez information being put out there portrays it as Chavez's call.

While I know that taxes were the reason given for some of the stations, I haven't seen anything stating that it was the reason for all - or even most - of the closures. Also, most information I've run across indicates that the initial investigations were launched because of these stations criticisms of the Chavez regime. Is that a fair characterization, from what you've seen?

[EFerrari]

66. Because "we" read the Latin American press?

But, like the right wing here that twists everything that Obama does until it's unrecognizable, the right wing there does the same thing. There are plenty of outlets on the air that criticize Chavez every day.

Venezuela isn't like us. If someone shut down their radio stations arbitrarily, they'd be on the street with pots and pans -- just as Hondurans are because their independent media has been shut down.


Edit; grammar

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

67. Do You Now.

You know, I'm not trying to be rude here, I'm simply asking you to provide evidence (lack of major demonstrations doesn't really qualify). If there's a legitimate, verifiable process that these stations go through, what is it? Because from everything I've run across, this is portrayed as Chavez's personal whim being made policy.

Don't get me wrong, you might very well be correct, but this isn't something I'd apt to take someone at their word on.

[EFerrari]

71. The process has been widely publicized in the press.

Conatel reviewed the ownership of stations on the public airwaves and sent out notices to verify ownership (to verify compliance with anti-monopoly laws) and to bring their taxes up to date. Those that complied are on the air, those that didn't, aren't.

Here's an article from France24 that doesn't seem to be particularly pro and may be a little con:

http://www.france24.com/en/20090801-venezuela-orders-closure-34-radio-stations

The issue was in the press for about six weeks so I'm sure if you look around the Latin American press on your own, you can find what you want. Google does pretty good translations if you want one. Our own media is pretty hopeless on anything that has to do with Chavez or Venezuela.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

79. Ah, k

From what I've read, some of the closures were due illegal tranfers of licenses (often through inheritances) and stations staying on the air despite the fact that their licenses had not been renewed. I'm unfamiliar with the anti-monopology aspect of this issue. At this point, I can see both sides of this issue. There are legitimate reasons for concern with the state of Venezuela's media, however, selective enforcement of regulations in an effort to silence Chavez's critics should also be a concern (if this indeed is taking place). Definitely something I need to look into a bit more. Thanks for your replies and your patience.

[EFerrari]

81. Selective enforcement would be wrong. If Chavez was going to do that

he's had many years and much more provocation than he does now, though.

There is a concerted effort between the right wing here and the right wing there -- much as we just saw when Demint and three Florida Republicans went to Honduras to show support for the coup. That both have substantial media holdings (here and there) doesn't make it any easier to get clear reporting, that's for sure.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

85. Agreed.

While I agree with your first point, I find myself wondering if he hasn't been forced to be more pragmatic in his approach because of the power held by his opponents? Though they clearly aren't the majority, they can still muster big numbers for demonstrations, and some of them are big players in the media and military. I'd certainly be treading a bit more lightly if I were in his shoes.

With that said though, I definitely have to dive into this a little deeper before I can confidently say that's what's taking place.

I definitely agree with your second point.

[spanza]

88. Read what indymedia says on that issue

And you'll notice there's "justification" in 1/10 of the cases. Of course it was him who gave the order, he said it himself to Cabello (chief of CONATEL) on state TV (VTV, canal 8).

Be careful 'cause some people here get their information in sites wearing the head of Chavez in their front page (venezuelananalysis), pretending it's objective and impartial. You could try to take serious venezuelan newspapers such as Ultimas Noticias (pro-govt) and El Universal or El Nacional (opposition) and draw a line of truth between what they say. Don't expect to get objective information in a forum where american people talk about issues from a country they've never been to.

[EFerrari]

98. So you have unsubstantiated accusation, smearing other posters

and some kind of wacky appeal to authority.

But you didn't know that there had been trials, amnesties or the circumstances around RCTV. Sounds like we have a real "authority" on our hands. :)

[clear eye]

70. Self-delete.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

72. You're Here to Argue Semantics, Apparently.

[L. Coyote]

26. The Freepers in Honduras did just that, Faux Democracy.

Of course, Chavez is the most outspoken defendant of Honduran democracy, not Obama.

Of course, if Obama seized right wing media, America would be media-less!!

[Judi Lynn]

32. You're right. We'd be screwn. n/t

[Judi Lynn]

27. More information you should have already known:

What is the Venezuelan News Media Actually Like?
by Andrew Kennis
Jul 15 2008

Listening to accounts by the U.S. news media and to the public postures taken by the Bush administration, one would think that there is no freedom of expression in Venezuela. The impression most U.S. citizens have is that the media is virtually under direct state control. Independent reporting, free from the government’s fiery rhetoric, has been noticeably absent. A careful and sober account of Venezuelan media that focuses on the most basic and uncontroversial facts of what constitutes the Venezuelan media today has been non-existent in mainstream U.S. media (and even in many independent sources as well). Such reporting could present a more accurate picture of the actual situation of freedom of expression in Venezuela.


~snip~
Ownership Structure and Editorial Leanings of the Venezuelan News Media

A Venezuelan Congressional leader protested to the New York Times in a June 2007 letter to the editor that: “broadcasters like Venezuela’s Radio Caracas Television use a limited public good – the broadcast spectrum – and must abide by long-accepted public-interest standard,” adding that the overwhelming majority of ownership “is in private hands, much of it owned by huge conglomerates.”

Starting with the television media, the favored new source of most Venezuelans, there are at least five nationally broadcasted television stations that transmit via “free-over-the-air” and publicly allotted signals (other accounts put the total as high as eleven, depending on different definitions of what is considered “national”). Even using the conservative estimate, previous to the RCTV closing, three of these five stations were privately owned and commercially operated. These included Venevisión (established in 1961, formerly owned by Mexico’s Televisa, but now controlled by Grupo Cisneros), whose television programs are picked up by a television source familiar to U.S. citizens, Univision; Televisión de Venezuela (Televen; established in 1988); and lastly, RCTV.

All three of these broadcast networks were overwhelmingly favorable to the two-day-long 2002 military coup that temporarily unseated President Chávez. The government’s claim that RCTV actively participated in the coup is well documented. So there is little controversy about the autonomy and independence of these corporate-run stations. Venevision and Televen both maintain that they do not want to be involved in political conflicts and strive to maintain “objective” positions. No prominent analyst has seriously contended, however, that either of these stations are “pro-Chávez.”

More:
http://www.mediaaccuracy.org/node/62

[onehandle]

30. Chavez has seized communications and property for 'media crimes' to limit certain criticism.

That is a fact.

You can discontinue propping up the paper dictator for my benefit.

But by all means, tell me how great Castro is.

[Judi Lynn]

31. The subject is Chavez. Do your homework, get the information straight. n/t

[Judi Lynn]

35. For the benefit of DU'ers who still haven't taken the time to research:

Does Chavez suppress media?
By Ralph T. Niemeyer on Thursday, August 27, 2009 - 04:14

What should be the norm in a democracy is not so in Venezuela. Other than good western free democracies such as the US, Germany, Italy, the UK and France Venezuela has no law prohibiting false accusations or the publication of inaccurate or strongly misleading information. If a newspaper or TV station would call Chancellor Merkel, Prime Minister Brown or President Sarkozy a lier, dictator, demagogue, fascist or stalinist the responsible editor in chief and publisher would be ending up infront of a judge. In Italy, Berlusconi would buy the station and bring it in line with the mainstream. Not so in Venezuela. The problem here is that a media law does not exist and the constitution drawn up by President Hugo Chávez, in this regard is too liberal, otherwise it wouldn’t be possible that the country’s media which in it’s majority is privately owned and alinged with the opposition could run campaigns against the government which just fall short of waging violence including an possible assasination of Mr. Chávez. In the 2001 constitution brought in by President Chávez as “Fifth Republic” the right to unrestricted information is emphasised but no provisions are made for potential abuse of this liberty. No law regulates how to deal with unrestricted misinformation.

The Role of the Media during the Coup d’état

This has been a problem in the coup’état of 11th April 2002 when the Spanish-US supported opposition briefly ousted President Chávez. In the pre-text of the upheaval the oppositional media had created an atmosphere of violence by openly advocating to overthrow the government in lieu of a shoot out supposedly between Chavistas and peacefully demonstrating opposition protesters leaving some 43 people dead. Balistic analysis later proved that it had been impossible for the Chavistas to have reached the demonstrators with their bullets from their position. Additionally, the US and Spanish government later had to admit that classified documents rather suggested that some of their agents had helped snipers to shoot from a building behind the Chavistas. The images went arount the world with the headline “Chávez shoots at peaceful demonstrators”. The state had no constitutional power to cease broadcasting licenses which in any democratic country in a state of emergency would be the normal scenario in a similar case.

There are, of course, other concerns for private media and their owners as in a socialist country the question of ownership plays a role. Miguel Otero, the owner and editor in chief of the Venezuelan daily El Nacional is quoted by the independent web newsforum venezuelaanalysis.com saying that “independent media disappears if the proposed constitutional reform is approved”. He is referring to a provision in the re-drafted constitution calling for a mix of private and communal ownership of businesses. This indeed might have been used for breaking up private media conglomerates which so far are dominating printed press as well as broadcasters. Chávez instead maintains that the constitutional reform would increase the freedom of expression as the whole society will participate in daily news-making by including popular power. Otero warned that this would ultimately lead to the media being forced to transmit “socialist values” which would lead to the “disappearance of democracy”. His intentions were, Chávez explained, to “create and distribute opinions on different topics of public interest and the production of radio and television programs as well as internet sites, newspapers and magazines that are independent from the state and of the major economic groups.” Indeed, the Venezuelan constitution of 1961 had similar provisions stating the superiority of collective interests over the interests of individuals which also allowed for the expropriation of private property in certain cases. The proposed constitutional changes fell through in a nationwide referendum held in December 2007.

European Parliament misinformed about shut down of TV

The European Parliament’s resolution to condemn the Venezuelan government for shutting down the traditional station Radio Caracas TV (RCTV) has provoked a fierce reaction from president Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías who denounced the declaration as being drawn by the “Franco-Fascist European Right”. Indeed, the resolution was kind of obscure as it demanded that media concentration should be averted and called on the Venezuelan authorities to renew the license of the private TV station for another 20 years. The freedom of speech and freedom of expression should be guaranteed, the resolution emphasised. That’s exactly what Chávez said his aim was.

In Venezuela 80% of the stations are privately owned. 85% of all income from commercials are earned by the two private stations Venevisión and RCTV. Two thirds of all TV broadcasting in Venezuela is controlled by these two stations

80% of all TV productions are conducted by companies directly linked to Venevisión and RCTV. These stations like all other privately owned media are controlled by conglomerates of the oppositional establishment of the country. The hypocrisy is unbeaten if one considers that in Germany, the 10,000 newspapers are owned and controlled by only 5 major corporations such as Gruner & Jahr, Bertelsmann, Springer, Burda and WAZ who also hold stakes in private TV stations. And, the same majority of the European Parliament seems to have no problem with Berlusconi attempting to buy another TV station in Italy while he was preparing his return to power. It also has been noted that President Nicolas Sarkozy was swept to power on the back of Vincent Boloré the media and construction tycoon controlling some 67% of French private TV channels and productions by this even overtaking Rupert Murdoch who has roughly 40% of the British media under his control.

More:
http://www.euchronicle.eu/does-chavez-suppress-media

[clear eye]

37. You mean the gov't took action against cos. that advocated its violent overthrow in a coup?

And supported the attempt financially? But it left them operational and still critical of Chavez?

How do you think similar behavior by some media outlets would play out in the U.S.? Do you think the companies would still be running their stations? Do you think the owners would be at liberty?

[spanza]

45. Then why wasn't there any trial?

0 trials until now...nada! why?
A bit strange?

[IndianaGreen]

49. Because Chavez wanted reconciliation

Had Chavez been half the Bolshevik I am, he would have them all tried and executed for treason.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

60. OK, but...

It's clear at this point, as licenses are being revoked, that "reconciliation" is not high on his list of priorities. It seems to me, there should be a legitimate process in place before taking such actions and not simply the whim of whoever happens to be in office at the time.

[EFerrari]

61. You're misinformed. nt

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

63. How so?

[spanza]

87. You repeat Chavez words there

But I know there was absolutely no case. In the occasions he's been able to prosecute, he's prosecuted with all his strenght.

"Had Chavez been half the Bolshevik I am, he would have them all tried and executed for treason"
How scary! Thanks god you just write in forums then...!

[EFerrari]

101. And yet you claimed in this thread that there have been no trials.

Fascinating.

[spanza]

104. To politicians, media owners and opposition parties?

Which trial? There are many people implicated in such a conspiracy. Where are they? The idea of amnesty is not acceptable unless it's given after a trial. I'm a citizen and I want to know the truth from the judicial institutions.

[EFerrari]

56. You have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

There were some trials and some convictions. There were also amnesties given. RCTV's license was not renewed and since their equipment belonged to the state in the first place, it reverted to the state as per their contract.

You've heard of contracts, right?

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

65. RCTV

What legitimate process was done through with the revocation of RCTV's license?

[EFerrari]

73. That license wasn't revoked. It wasn't renewed.

And RCTV is still on cable.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

80. True, but if a political motivation is behind the decision, is it an important difference?

[EFerrari]

82. RCTV hosted the coup in their studios.

I think a good argument for treason could be made. :)

Instead, the government waited five years for the license to expire.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

83. That's a Fair Point

[spanza]

89. Any proof about that?

Why aren't they in jail as all the people who took part in the coup then?

[EFerrari]

96. Yes, as a matter of fact.

It's all on tape. There was an Irish film crew trapped at Miraflores by the Carmona idiots. They filmed it all. And an RCTV producer later ratted them (RCTV) out as well for lying to the public about Chavez resigning, for withholding news all during the coup, for editing footage to make it look like the pro-Chavez demonstrators were violent. RCTV was outed in all their fraudulent glory for the world to see.

"The Revolution Shall Not Be Televised"

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

[spanza]

103. I saw it, thanks

but what does a documentary made by the irish guys who stayed for a week and got trapped in Miraflores during the coup has to do with the tribunals and the trials to find all the responsible individuals?

[spanza]

93. You're not telling the truth there aand you know it

[clear eye]

69. Not strange at all when you're trying to govern a powder keg.

Even after the coup attempt failed, the families of the media co. owners still controlled a lot of wealth and could have kept the country destabilized even if they couldn't win over the populace. Worse yet, Bush/Cheney were running the U.S., and if Chavez had baited the elites, who have always thought of themselves as above the law, with prosecutions no matter how justified, they might have cried out to their U.S. connections and gotten enough help to start a real war, eventually leading to a puppet dictatorship.

He did the calculus and decided that neither his country nor he would win that way.

This is a country w/ very few middle class. There are the ultra-wealthy and there are everyone else, who, in good years, are just surviving. By keeping much of the oil profits nationalized, and instituting some other measures to spread the resources around a little more equitably, Chavez has made life bearable for many. Even the International Development Bank says that income inequality in most of Latin America is so severe as to prevent growth to its economy, but cites Venezuela as being the exceptional country which has made progress. That's why most Venezuelans are fiercely loyal to Chavez no matter what anyone on the neighborhood TV set says about him.

BTW, Venezuela has a single payer healthcare system.

[clear eye]

74. Because it was part of the post-coup settlement.

Instead of prosecuting those who had backed the armed rebellion (but didn't participate in it directly), Chavez negotiated a truce. Do you think it would have been better to follow Columbia's example of endless civil war?

[spanza]

129. You say that if we, venezuelan citizens, would have known the exact truth (from a tribunal)

about what happened and who was responsible of the 2002 coup, there would have been a civil war "like in Colombia". Why? You really think prosecuting corrupted media people and showing to everyone that you are absolutely right when you accuse them would drive to political violence and inner division? I would say it's quite the opposite.

When you give amnesty in such a case, you do it after a trial. Otherwise, the problem is not solved because the people still have doubts with this kind of judge and party situation.

[IndianaGreen]

40. You are spewing baseless rightwing propaganda

and showing your ignorance to boot!

[Flaneur]

44. Sen. McCarthy? I thought you were dead.

That's Joe, not Gene.

[EFerrari]

55. No, he hasn't. That isn't a fact.

lol

[Judi Lynn]

29. Coup Co-Conspirators as Free-Speech Martyrs

Coup Co-Conspirators as Free-Speech Martyrs
Distorting the Venezuelan media story

5/25/07

The story is framed in U.S. news media as a simple matter of censorship: Prominent Venezuelan TV station RCTV is being silenced by the authoritarian government of President Hugo Chávez, who is punishing the station for its political criticism of his government.

According to CNN reporter T.J. Holmes (5/21/07), the issues are easy to understand: RCTV "is going to be shut down, is going to get off the air, because of President Hugo Chávez, not a big fan of it." Dubbing RCTV "a voice of free speech," Holmes explained, "Chávez, in a move that's angered a lot of free-speech groups, is refusing now to renew the license of this television station that has been critical of his government."

Though straighter, a news story by the Associated Press (5/20/07) still maintained the theme that the license denial was based simply on political differences, with reporter Elizabeth Munoz describing RCTV as "a network that has been critical of Chávez."

In a May 14 column, Washington Post deputy editorial page editor Jackson Diehl called the action an attempt to silence opponents and more "proof" that Chávez is a "dictator." Wrote Diehl, "Chávez has made clear that his problem with Granier and RCTV is political."

In keeping with the media script that has bad guy Chávez brutishly silencing good guys in the democratic opposition, all these articles skimmed lightly over RCTV's history, the Venezuelan government's explanation for the license denial and the process that led to it.

RCTV and other commercial TV stations were key players in the April 2002 coup that briefly ousted Chávez's democratically elected government. During the short-lived insurrection, coup leaders took to commercial TV airwaves to thank the networks. "I must thank Venevisión and RCTV," one grateful leader remarked in an appearance captured in the Irish film The Revolution Will Not Be Televised. The film documents the networks’ participation in the short-lived coup, in which stations put themselves to service as bulletin boards for the coup—hosting coup leaders, silencing government voices and rallying the opposition to a march on the Presidential Palace that was part of the coup plotters strategy.

On April 11, 2002, the day of the coup, when military and civilian opposition leaders held press conferences calling for Chávez's ouster, RCTV hosted top coup plotter Carlos Ortega, who rallied demonstrators to the march on the presidential palace. On the same day, after the anti-democratic overthrow appeared to have succeeded, another coup leader, Vice-Admiral Victor Ramírez Pérez, told a Venevisión reporter (4/11/02): "We had a deadly weapon: the media. And now that I have the opportunity, let me congratulate you."

More:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3107

[IndianaGreen]

13. concerned about all those military bases we are building in Colombia

as are all the other leaders in Latin America, including Brazil's President Lula.

[treestar]

128. doing away with term limits does not make one Pres for Life

He would still have had to win the elections. And he accepted it when the proposals failed. So this one is uncalled for.

Now when he goes against my Pres and my President is not Bush, he does bring some smell of sulfur into the room.

But he never tried to be President for Life.

[Braulio]

7. I guess Chavez agrees with President Obama

President Obama said he didn't feel he deserved the prize, so I guess Chavez is just agreeing with him. The point Chavez seems to miss is that it makes him sound somewhat petty to criticize a Nobel Peace Prize Winner.

A subject this post didn't mention is that Obama, dressed up with his Nobel Prize, is going to be a lot tougher to push around. And this means he may have a better chance dealing with the US Military Industrial Complex, the Israel lobby, and other bad influences on US foreign policy.

Which makes me think, the best thing for Chavez right now is change the topic, and not attack Obama -he sounds too much like a broken record with the Colombia issue. After all, there's no such thing as "American military bases" in Colombia anyway.

[IndianaGreen]

8. Obama referred to the Nobel as a 'call for action' not a recognition of accomplishment

Chavez can rightfully point out to actions taken by the Obama Administration that run counter to the spirit of the Nobel Peace Prize.

As Obama told the HRC dinner last night, it is up to us to keep applying pressure to Congress and to him to advance the issues we care about.

[clear eye]

86. Bases America's building, not "American bases". You misquote.

Some background on the Columbia/Venezuela thing--

~1/4M refugees of the Columbian civil war are in Venezuela. Columbia's civil war has been ongoing since 1948. The Colombian military has a very poor human rights record which has deteriorated in recent years. Abuses attributed to soldiers include regular murders of trade unionists and other civilians. There is strong evidence to suggest that elements of the Colombian military continue to collaborate with rightwing paramilitary death squads and drug traffickers. Impunity remains the norm in cases of human rights abuses, demonstrating a lack of will on the part of the Colombian regime to punish perpetrators. Many analysts feel that its continuation has been due to U.S. funds propping up the Columbian military. The current Columbian government owes its continued existence to heavy U.S. support.

Washington’s role in the current conflict between Colombia, Venezuela and Ecuador

by Cory Fischer-Hoffman
Monday, 03 March 2008, Caracas, Venezuela --

On Saturday March 1st Colombia's Air Force carried out a military operation in Ecuador, violating the sovereignty of its western neighbor nation. The bombing resulted in at least 17 deaths. One of the people reported to be among the victims is Raúl Reyes, commander and spokesperson for the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC). This attack is the continuation and escalation of an on-going war in Colombia that has persisted for 40 years due to US military funding and training of Armed Forces in Colombia. The United States has a long history of intervention in Latin America, ranging from military occupations, to financial support for the overthrow of democratically elected presidents to economic sabotage to military trainings of state and private death squads. In Colombia, the United States has taken particular interest in the oil, land, water, and agricultural resources as well as the ports and profitable cocaine trade, and more recently Colombia's strategic location in relation to Venezuela and Ecuador...

...With the recent tensions that Exxon-Mobile has created in Venezuela, by claiming rights to an inflated amount of funds from Venezuela's state oil company and furthermore, initiating various international lawsuits, resulting in the freezing of $300 million of PDVSA's assets, US-Venezuelan relations have become even more tense...

...Chávez has also faced the bind of a huge, mostly unguarded western border with Colombia, in which the FARC, the Armed Forces, and paramilitaries have crossed into Venezuela, bringing their internal conflict to Venezuela's door. Chávez has condemned the violence in Colombia, and its pouring onto Venezuelan soil. Based on Colombia's attack of Ecuador, Chávez has sent tanks to protect its border with Colombia.

So if you read the above perhaps you can begin to get an inkling of why, between the games Exxon-Mobile is playing w/ its monetary claims; the spilling over of armed conflict from Columbia; the extravagant amounts of U.S. aid to the Columbian gov't which it uses to arm itself to the teeth; the occupation of Iraq initiated to get its oil reserves de-nationalized; and the U.S.'s historic uses of proxies to overthrow gov'ts in Latin America whose resources its corporations coveted; Chavez would be a bit leery of bases the U.S. has agreed to fund in Columbia.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

91. A Bit of Perspective

The indicators are that Chavez has played his own role in furthering the conflict in Colombia, so I'm not sure why you're singling out the U.S. on this one. We know that meetings between Chavez and FARC have taken place, with the express goal of the FARC importing weaponry through Venezuelan ports. We don't know what the tangible results have been, however, his sympathies for the organization are clear (he's publicly expressed them on a number of occasions). I would also add that the FARC are hardly sweethearts when it comes to crimes against civilians, not as a way of excusing the actions of the Colombian military, but simply as a way of keeping this issue in perspective.

[clear eye]

94. Citation on the deal btwn Chavez & FARC?

I've seen so much smoke being blown about Chavez, that you'll have to forgive me for wanting to see where the allegation came from.

Speaking of perspective, perhaps Chavez' motive for maintaining good relations w/ FARC has been to counterbalance the rw Colombian paramilitary and military, so that they wouldn't feel free to just waltz into his country to overthrow him and give their corporate allies access to Venezuela's oil. The militarization of Columbia predates Chavez's Presidency. Columbia's current President Uribe is particularly close w/ the rw paramilitary. see http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/28/world/americas/28colombia.html

The article also mentions Uribe's successful amending of Columbia's Constitution that allowed him his 2nd term, and his ongoing efforts for special dispensation allowing him to run for a third. Oddly, U.S. politicians and the U.S. media do not see this as in any way undemocratic.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

97. Perhaps

I agree with your point about Uribe - how it's clear that his efforts to continue running for President have been overlooked because of his close ties to the United States.

With regard to Chavez's links to the FARC, this one cites specifically the meetings I mentioned (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hjTxrr6nW90lagv18CDs7X-GJAQg) though Chavez has also campaigned to have the FARC removed from nations' lists of terrorist organizations in both Europe and the United States, has worked as a mediator between the FARC and the French, etc. Even if we dismiss the intelligence (which I'm not sure we should do), his actions publicly are enough for me to conclude that he is attempting to use the FARC to further his reach and increase his influence.

You may be right as to Chavez's reasoning though.

[IndianaGreen]

112. Chavez did not meet with FARC, that's Faux News propaganda

which DLC corporate pukes have adopted as their own.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

119. FOX News Propaganda!?

The story didn't even break with them. Do you have something that disproves it, because our intelligence community thinks it's legit.

[ChangoLoa]

121. It is sad but more than legit!

I remember when our Ministry of Internal Affairs, Rodriguez Chacin, went to rescue Clara Rojas in the jungle. In front of the cameras of TELESUR, he said to the FARC fighters: "In the name of president Chavez, we are watching your struggle very closely, keep that spirit of yours, keep on with your strength and COUNT ON US. Good luck, camaradas, and take care!"

The footage from TELESUR:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zYpEW_G1Nk&feature=related

[Mz Pip]

9. It's pretty funny

visiting a couple of rw message boards and read that now some of these idiots agree with chavez. Fat Tush agrees with the Taliban, and now his minions seem to be agreeing with Chavez. Oh but wait!!! Castro praised the choice so that absolutlely proves that Obama and Castro have exactly the same world view.

The hate is deep in them. They don't even make sense.

[CakeGrrl]

17. They would bloody their heads running into a wall

if taking a position even remotely supportive of the President was the only other option.

[EFerrari]

54. That's okay. Maybe they'll remember that Chavez backed Obama

and their heads will explode. They're not using them for anything anyway. lol

[gateley]

10. Add Chavez to Limbaugh's new list of BFFs. nt

[emulatorloo]

38. Just what I was thinking! nt

[struggle4progress]

84. There ya go!

:rofl:

[IndianaGreen]

14. BTW, when is the US going to extradite Cuban terrorist Posada Carriles

for blowing up a civilian jetliner in Venezuela?

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

68. Not Soon Enough, If Ever

[Andronex]

15. Obama, man of peace? No, just a Nobel prize of a mistake

Robert Fisk Sunday, 11 October 2009

His Middle East policy is collapsing. The Israelis have taunted him by ignoring his demand for an end to settlement-building and by continuing to build their colonies on Arab land. His special envoy is bluntly told by the Israelis that an Arab-Israel peace will take "many years". Now he wants the Palestinians to talk peace to Israel without conditions. He put pressure on the Palestinian leader to throw away the opportunity of international scrutiny of UN Judge Goldstone's damning indictment of Israeli war crimes in Gaza while his Assistant Secretary of State said that the Goldstone report was "seriously flawed". After breaking his pre-election promise to call the 1915 Armenian massacres by Ottoman Turkey a genocide, he has urged the Armenians to sign a treaty with Turkey, again "without pre-conditions". His army is still facing an insurgency in Iraq. He cannot decide how to win "his" war in Afghanistan. I shall not mention Iran.

And now President Barack Obama has just won the Nobel Peace Prize. After only eight months in office. Not bad. No wonder he said he was "humbled" when told the news. He should have felt humiliated. But perhaps weakness becomes a Nobel Peace Prize winner. Shimon Peres won it, too, and he never won an Israeli election. Yasser Arafat won it. And look what happened to him. For the first time in history, the Norwegian Nobel committee awarded its peace prize to a man who has achieved nothing – in the faint hope that he will do something good in the future. That's how bad things are. That's how explosive the Middle East has become.

Isn't there anyone in the White House to remind Mr Obama that the Israelis have never obliged a US president who asked for an end to the building of colonies for Jews – and Jews only – on Arab land? Bill Clinton demanded this – it was written into the Oslo accords – and the Israelis ignored him. George W Bush demanded an end to the fighting in Jenin nine years ago. The Israelis ignored him. Mr Obama demands a total end to all settlement construction. "They just don't get it, do they?" an Israeli minister – apparently Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – was reported to have said when the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, reiterated her president's words. That's what Avigdor Lieberman, Israel's crackpot foreign minister – he's not as much a crackpot as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but he's getting close – said again on Thursday. "Whoever says it's possible to reach in the coming years a comprehensive agreement," he announced before meeting Mr Obama's benighted and elderly envoy George Mitchell, "... simply doesn't understand the reality."

Across Arabia, needless to say, the Arab potentates continue to shake with fear in their golden minarets. That great Lebanese journalist Samir Kassir – murdered in 2005, quite possibly by Mr Obama's new-found Syrian chums – put it well in one of his last essays. "Undeterred by Egypt since Sadat's peace," he wrote, "convinced of America's unfailing support, guaranteed moral impunity by Europe's bad conscience, and backed by a nuclear arsenal that was acquired with the help of Western powers, and that keeps growing without exciting any comment from the international community, Israel can literally do anything it wants, or is prompted to do by its leaders' fantasies of domination."

more... <http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-obama-man-of-peace-no-just-a-nobel-prize-of-a-mistake-1800928.html|http://www.independent.co.uk>

[cali]

36. wow, what a load of bullshit Fisk churns out.

just imagine! Obama's been in office for 10 months and he has yet to solve the I/P mess. Laughable piece of crap you posted, dear.

Oh, welcome to DU.

[Andronex]

41. exactly...

"just imagine! Obama's been in office for 10 months and he has yet to solve the I/P mess. Laughable piece of crap you posted, dear."


The point Fisk is making is that it's too early to give out any awards for peace to the Obama administration, and at this point it is undeserved, a point of view shared by Obama himself, yet this seems too complicated for some people to understand.

[cali]

46. No, that wasn't the point Fisk was making

As for why it was awarded, I suggest you read what the Committee members had to say. Do consider informing yourself. As for Obama's modest acceptance, that indicates exactly nothing as to whether or not he agrees with you. What on earth do you expect him to say? Whether or not it was too early, can be debated. What can't be debated is Fisk's predictable savaging of Obama.

[RedCloud]

16. So how many more golden showers on Obama's parade must we endure...

Some of you have weeks worth of micturation available apparently.

[newtothegame]

18. Yeah but Chavez didn't like Bush so it's ok. n/t

[Judi Lynn]

19. A quote from a remark he made recently in New York:

~snip~
"He is still an enigma to me," said Chavez. "There are two Obamas so far. One Obama promotes peace. The other Obama promotes new military bases in Colombia. Let's see which one wins. I hope it will be the Obama who says the U.S. cannot impose anything on any country. Meanwhile, the Pentagon supports coup leaders in Honduras."

More:
http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2009/09/27/2009-09-27_venezuela_president_hugo_chavez_turns_on_the_charm_for_courtney_love_at_oliver_s.html#ixzz0TerRIJGf

[Judi Lynn]

22. Latinos Surprised by Obama's Nobel Prize

Latinos Surprised by Obama's Nobel Prize

El Diario/La Prensa, La Opinión, Posted: Oct 10, 2009

NEW YORK -- The news that President Obama had won the Nobel Peace Prize came as a surprise to U.S. Latinos, whose vote was decisive in electing the president, and who continue to have hope in his immigration and health care reform plans, reports El Diario/La Prensa. But above the incomprehension and even indifference of some Latinos, many more applauded the news. The League of United Latin American Citizens released a statement congratulating the president. But for Lisenia Espinel, an Ecuadorian who was among the hundreds of people who stood outside the White House yesterday in hopes of seeing the president, the decision was "a little hasty." She told Spanish news service EFE that she hoped Obama would open up a dialogue with Latin America, especially countries like Ecuador, Venezuela and Bolivia, that "remain somewhat hostile to the government of Washington."

LOS ANGELES -- An editorial in La Opinión called the naming of President Obama as winner of the Nobel Peace Prize "premature," considering the concrete achievements during his short tenure as president. "It is ironic that this honor comes at a time when the White House is considering sending more troops to Afghanistan, a war whose outlook is increasingly complex," editors write. "We are pleased by the recognition and hope the Nobel Committee’s optimistic vision is realized, because the challenges facing President Obama are immense." The prize won't help Obama win debates on health care and other issues domestically, editors write. Now Obama has the challenge of living up to expectations that continue to rise, the editorial concludes.

http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=9e06bf597c3988f86f53e54e85bff61d

[Cha]

95. Well, at least Fidel Castro gets it and sees

it as "positive".

"The Nobel Committee announced on Friday that Obama had won the peace price for his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."

The decision prompted surprise in many quarters and anger from Obama's conservative foes in the United States."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4098129

[robo50]

25. So Chavez is with the Taliban, Hamas, and the U.S. Republican Party?

Good to know who is on which side!

GEEEZE!

[Cha]

33. Good to know who doesn't get it..

that's for sure.

[Flaneur]

42. God, that's some stupid shit you're peddling.

[EFerrari]

53. So is Obama apparently because he said he didn't deserve it, too.

lol

[L. Coyote]

28. Poor Freepers can't call Obama a Chavista Socialist. LOL.

"Michelle, Please remind me to send Hugo a 'Thank You' note." :rofl:

[Cha]

34. Your take is

refreshing..thank you.

[emulatorloo]

39. Sounds more like Chavez is a Michael Steelista! n/t

[Mudoria]

43. The comedy tour continues...

[dhpgetsit]

47. He wants to be the new darling of Fox News.

[EFerrari]

58. "Do you know what Sean Penn says about Fox News?"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x377142

[47of74]

48. Saint Hugo Chavez strikes again

[RedCloud]

50. So? some more fences need mending. Chávez offered free aid to us!

...after Katrina while W was jerking off with McCain at a birthday party. So he at least cares more about us than your hate Chávez at all costs media would lead you to believe.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

92. You don't think that was merely a PR stunt?

[IndianaGreen]

105. Cuba offered medical assistance after Katrina

and it was rejected by Bush.

You middle class people always think that there has to be a caveat when someone offers help. How sad!

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

107. Middle Class, Schmiddle Class

When someone with a history of being at odds with our government offers our country aid, one should take pause. There's nothing in this world that comes for free and that's a lesson that applies to all people, not simply those in the "middle class".

[IndianaGreen]

110. That's capitalism talking, that nothing comes free. Jesus just rolled on his grave!

Those that live by capitalism shall die by it.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

120. ????

Really? You'd honestly argue that under non-capitalist systems things come actually do for free? Where are these magical, fairy tale places? Because I want to book a flight immediately.

[Fearless]

51. I guess he's angry the world is finding a new cult of personality.

[The abyss]

75. Please wake me up

When the US government announces a withdrawal of military force from Iraq & Afghanistan.

When the US government announces they lied about all those nasty weapons of mass destruction.

When the US government announces a cessation of drone attacks in Pakistan.

When the US government announces a halt to base building in SA.

When the US government acknowledges that they have lied to their own people for well over a century.


Ad nauseam

[EFerrari]

76. When we stop funding coups manned by SOA grads.

A nap sounds good to me.

[The abyss]

78. Sorry I didn’t state the SOA in my rant.

In my book it goes without saying.

Hey Eferrari, how you doin? I’ve been late too much debate as of late. Love to see you, Judi, Peace Patriot, Indiana and so many others still pumping out the news. Keep it up!

[pitohui]

77. oh ffs and you know what i almost agree w him in a way but what does a man profit?

the wish is the great wish of all humanity, that we not kill ourselves over bullshit...for the first time, a world leader other than jimmy carter has w/out shame expressed this wish and tried to take some ownership of our future

i have nothing aga. chavez but at this point he's just taking cheap potshots

find the REAL enemy DUDE, KTHX

[spanza]

90. He's become an orphan when Bush the 2nd passed away

[Bacchus39]

99. I thought Chavez wanted to be Obama's friend

a friend would have congratulated Obama.

[IndianaGreen]

111. A friend does not refuse to extradite a terrorist that blew up a jetliner in Venezuela

A friend does not build a gulag of military bases in Latin America to protect corporations.

[Renew Deal]

100. Funny thing is, neither did Chavez and he's been around a lot longer.

:shrug:

[Blandocyte]

102. Fuck Chavez and his lame ass country.

That was easy and gratifying. My apologies for the outburst-- I was "overcome with emotion" and should have chosen my words more carefully.

[MilesColtrane]

106. Ay, Hugo!

¡Tales celos!

[cstanleytech]

108. Guys, some of you make me shake my head in wonder and no, I am not talking about

you people who do not care for Chavez and or his policies but rather you here who are attacking people who voice their dissenting opinion about him.
I mean sheesh people, take a look at yourselves.

[BluDemocratGirl]

109. Mr. Chavez, what did YOU do?

Not a damn thing. So STFU!

[IndianaGreen]

113. Chavez brought free universal health care to Venezuelans, something that Obama won't do for us

[Zorro]

114. Let's hope we can get free universal mental health care

There's more than a few that could use some.

[spanza]

115. Tell the truth

Difficult thing to expect from someone pretending to be progressive and saying at the same time: "Had Chavez been half the Bolshevik I am, he would have them all tried and executed for treason"

[IndianaGreen]

116. US law has the death penalty for treason

People that try to overthrow a democratically elected government by force are traitors, and by all accounts, are eligible for the death penalty.

[spanza]

118. I don't agree with death penalty and with a president "having people executed"

The ones who agree with that shouldn't define themselves as progressives since it's the most archaic form of punishment.

[IndianaGreen]

122. Yea, tell that to the parents of a child abducted and murdered how they feel

Child Abduction Statistics

Some of the statistics behind child abductions in the US are staggering and others are less severe than most people think. More than 350,000 family abductions occur each year. That is nearly 1,000 per day. About 163,000 of these cases involve the concealment of a child, transporting out-of-state, or intent to keep the child permanently.

It is your job to know and understand these statistics so you and your family don't become a part of them. However, parents must be sure not to become victims of fear and end up projecting this fear onto their children. Listed below are some statistics that will help put things in perspective and alert you to the realities of child abduction as opposed to the myth.

According to USA Today, a study conducted by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, examined 403 attempted kidnappings by strangers or slight acquaintances that were reported by police or news media in 45 states from February 2005 to July 2006. The study did not look at successful abductions. Six in ten victims fought back and escaped, according to the ongoing study's initial findings. Three in ten ran away before any physical contact, and about 10 percent were saved when an adult nearby intervened.

While public fears and perceptions focus on stereotypical stranger type of abduction, in which an older adult male from outside a community preys upon an unsuspecting child for sexual gratification, initial research findings paint a different picture. Studies found that abductions by family members represented the most prevalent child abduction type.
On average, 2,185 children under the age of 18 were reported missing each day of the study year. That adds up to more than 797,500 children annually. Again, the vast majority of these cases were comprised of parental abductions and runaway cases where the victim was recovered quickly.

Each year there are about 3,000 to 5,000 non-family abductions reported to police, most of which are short term sexually-motivated cases. About 200 to 300 of these cases, or 6 percent, make up the most serious cases where the child was murdered, ransomed or taken with the intent to keep.

According to a study conducted by the chief criminal investigator in the Washington Attorney General's office, the average age of the child abductor in cases where the child was kept long-term and ended in fatality, was 27. Two-thirds of them were white, 73 percent were single and most had jobs requiring few skills. Before the murders occurred, 45 percent of the suspects had sexually assaulted a child and 31 percent had either raped or tried to rape a child in the past.

http://www.amberalertregistry.com/child-safety/child-abduction-statistics.html

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

123. Then Surely You Can Understand...

my criticisms of the FARC, an organization that has kidnapped children for ransom.

[IndianaGreen]

124. I fully agree with Fidel Castro's critcism of FARC

FARC needs to concentrate on the real enemy: the oligarchs running Colombia and their death squads that murder peasants and workers.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

125. FARC is Outdated

As far as FARC's goals are concerned, they're horrifically outdated and based on the assumption that Colombia is an agrarian society (which it no longer is). Frankly, they haven't had a clear idea of what they're striving for since the 1980s - when they briefly entered the world of electoral politics. Nowadays, their goal seems to be "do whatever it takes to keep the drug money flowing in". If that means executing unarmed peasants, kidnapping children, or extorting small business owners, then so be it. It's really quite sad, because early FARC is something I could definitely sympathize with...

[spanza]

130. For me, nothing justifies death penalty.

It's just homicide.

This article uses a typical right-wing conservative point of view. I consider it to be emotional and irrational.

[cstanleytech]

117. Little factoid for ya.

Obama cant just issue a decree like some sort of king that grants everyone heathcare, ya wanna blame someone blame the right people which is the senators and those in congress who are opposing him and or doing all they can to slow the passage of any kind of heathcare reform.

[slackmaster]

126. No he did not

He brought taxpayer-funded health care to Venezuelans.