Kerry Attacks Venezuela's Chavez

[TomSeaverr]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040322/pl_nm/venezuela_usa_dc&cid=615&ncid=1963&sid=96378800

[ThirdWheelLegend]

1. Anyone have the link to the Kerry statement?

I can't find it on his site.

Thanks,

TWL

[Alenne]

2. link

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0319d.html

[ProudDad]

14. Just proves

that Kerrey's not much better than bush when it comes to the needs of big capital... He'll always come out for the rich and priveleged against the weak and working people.

He's still an improvement over the fascists currently serving as mouthpieces of the rich.

[corporatewhore]

3. well i dont suppose a freetrader could like a guy who is looking out for

his people by standing up to economic injustice "FTAA is the PATH TO HELL,"- hugo chavez check out this great article by palast http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/ftaa/1303.html

[pnorman]

4. It's still ABB with me, but

the above underscores why the democratic wing of the Democratic Party will be only a third of the way home by electing Kerry.

Parallel to getting him elected, a NEW political configuration will have to be on the way to being established, and PRONTO. That'll take supporters of Wellman, Feingold, Kucinich, among others... and YES, also of Nader.

pnorman
STAND UP, KEEP FIGHTING http://shows.implex.tv/wellstone

[pnorman]

12. I had a followup posting to this,

but I just realized that this was the wrong forum. look for it in Activism/Events under: "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised"

pnorman
STAND UP, KEEP FIGHTING http://shows.implex.tv/wellstone

[AP]

27. Huge mulitnationals are controlling US gov't with the easy profits from

neoliberalism.

Democrats should want them to work hard for wealth.

This is just feeding that hand that bites.

[ButterflyBlood]

5. oh well

at least Kerry isn't expressing support for Robert Mugabe.

[Zorra]

6. Oh, no. Bad move. Bad, bad move.

Don't blame me I voted for Kucinich.

[corporatewhore]

7. so did i !

[fearnobush]

8. Looks like he is playing it safe.

Or perhaps to garnish some votes. If he came right out with a Chavez endorsement, the thugs would eat him alive with the Narco terror and Castro crap. So I'm not convinced he is totally anti-Chavez, especially with his last paragraph, that acknowledges to the Bush Coup attempt.


Kerry said Chavez's "close relationship with Fidel Castro has raised serious questions about his commitment to leading a truly democratic government."


But his statement also chided the Bush administration for sending "mixed signals by supporting undemocratic processes in our own hemisphere," saying it had "acquiesced" to a brief 2002 coup against Chavez. Washington denies it was involved in the coup.


Too often in the past, this Administration has sent mixed signals by supporting undemocratic processes in our own hemisphere -- including in Venezuela, where they acquiesced to a failed coup attempt against President Chavez. Having just allowed the democratically elected leader to be cast aside in Haiti, they should make a strong statement now by leading the effort to preserve the fragile democracy in Venezuela

[Mairead]

22. I think if he were "playing it safe" he'd keep his mouth shut.

He looks like he's sending another reassuring message to our rulers about his loyalty to their interests rather than ours.

[sangh0]

34. Yes, it's awful for Kerry to call for greater democracy in Venezuela

and criticize Bush* for supporting non-democratic forces in Venezuela, and Haiti. It's obvious he is in thrall to the ruling interests which just LOVE things like the exercise of free expression, and the release political prisoners.

[Classical_Liberal]

57. Your wrong

The opposition are forging signitures, and they are the same people who created the coup against Chavez in the first place. Furthermore the only political prisoners Chavez is holding are coup plotters in the military. People who might be put to death for sedition in the US.

http://www.gregpalast.com/columns.cfm?subject_id=20&subject_name=Latin%20America

[Classical_Liberal]

56. I hope your right

but Kerry also claimed Hugo held political prisoners, and supported the referendum without mentioning the Chavez is opposed because of forged signitures.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

9. Just read the Kerry statement...

And he comes across as a globalizing corporatist.

"Moreover, President Chavez’s policies have been detrimental to our interests and those of his neighbors."

Who is "our" in the 'our interests'?

This pisses me off. :shrug:

Why is Kerry making it harder for me to vote for him?

TWL

[corporatewhore]

10. have you seen this palast article chavez vs free trade zombies

of the americas http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/ftaa/1303.html

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

52. Read the rest of the paragraph and you have your answer

He specifically sites narco terrorism in Columbia. While I have empathy for the poor in Columbia and realize cocoa is a cash crop for them, I thik wrapping bombs around the necks of kidnap victims and then releasing pics to the press is indeed terrorism.

I am not anti-Chavez and I think Kerry DID differentiate between a recall referendum and a coup.

[Classical_Liberal]

58. This is a claim made by Bush and no proof has been provided

to back it up. Why the hell should we take Shrubs word on anything?

[sandnsea]

11. Kerry Shows Leadership

The Bush Administration are shitheads:

"Too often in the past, this Administration has sent mixed signals by supporting undemocratic processes in our own hemisphere -- including in Venezuela, where they acquiesced to a failed coup attempt against President Chavez. Having just allowed the democratically elected leader to be cast aside in Haiti, they should make a strong statement now by leading the effort to preserve the fragile democracy in Venezuela."

But so is Chavez and he needs to behave in a democratic manner consistent with the international community:

"The referendum has given the people of Venezuela the opportunity to express their views on his presidency through constitutionally legitimate means. The international community cannot allow President Chavez to subvert this process, as he has attempted to do thus far. He must be pressured to comply with the agreements he made with the OAS and the Carter Center to allow the referendum to proceed, respect the exercise of free expression, and release political prisoners."

There is rarely a 100% right or wrong in any situation. Those who are convinced every country the U.S. has a conflict with is automatically right are annoying. Just as annoying as those actually on the right who never find fault with the U.S. at all. Some sort of twisted self-serving ignorance that I'll never understand.

[Old and In the Way]

13. Good post sandnsea

I saw Kerry's remarks pretty the same way.

(1) Play along with the referendum and make sure that the democratic process is protected. If you win (as you should), the US should rrespect the people's choice.

(2) Venezuala is important to US interests (oil) and Kerry will not be trying to overthrow your government as this Roilist administration is apparently attempting.

Actually, I think he was sending a message of support to Chavez in a way that the RNC spin machine will find difficult to distort.

Of course, if one's worldview is biased against Kerry, one will attempt to paint this as "Kerry = Bush". Hey, if you want to vote for Nader and keep Bush, more power to ya.

[Zorra]

16. I'll just take y'alls word for it.

Because I am going to vote for Kerry.

And really hope that the opposition to Chavez has not been sponsored by the US and carried out by the SOA.

[sandnsea]

17. He criticized it

Right in that statement. The U.S. involvement in overthrowing democracies. That's why he tied Haiti into the paragraph about the Venezuelan coup. He doesn't approve of everything Chavez is doing, but at the same time U.S. backed coups aren't the way. Did you miss that or what?

[Zorra]

20. Yes, but...

The statement is riddled with ambiguity.

I have reservations about the situation in Venezuela. Did the opposition gain momentum because of covert US intervention? If so, then it is hard to blame Chavez for being somewhat repressive, because he would only be trying to maintain the stability of his government by clamping down on the enemies of his state in the face of being overthrown from within by insidious foreign interests. If the referendum is the result of the actions of these hostile foreign interests, (and Chavez knows this), then the referendum is bogus and there is no legitimate reason for him to acquiesce to the sponsors of the referendum, because the referendum was initiated by hostile outside forces bent on overthrowing his democratically elected administration.

I don't know if this is what is actually happening in Venezuela, but unfortunately republican administrations have a well documented history of sponsoring this type of covert activity in Latin American nations. So I am very skeptical about the democratic validity of the opposition movement in Venezuela, and don't know if Kerry is morally justified in stating that Chavez should acquiesce to the opposition and their referendum.

[sangh0]

35. Riddled with ambiguity?

Imagine that! An ambigous statement issued in the heat of a campaign. Will wonders never cease?

[AP]

38. I'm not sure that Chavez has been at all "repressive" about the recall.

Have you read this: http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1136

...

The referendum has given the people of Venezuela the opportunity to express their views on his presidency through constitutionally legitimate means.

Perhaps it would have been good to mention at this point that the recall referendum was proposed by President Chavez and his party when the country’s constitutional assembly wrote the new constitution. This fact directly contradicts Sen. Kerry’s questioning of President Chavez’ democratic credentials.

The international community cannot allow President Chavez to subvert this process, as he has attempted to do thus far.

Without mentioning concrete examples of President Chavez’ supposed efforts to “subvert” the referendum process, Sen. Kerry’s statement is pure innuendo that intends to slander a head of state.

He must be pressured to comply with the agreements he made with the OAS and the Carter Center to allow the referendum to proceed, respect the exercise of free expression, and release political prisoners.

First, the agreement Sen. Kerry refers to here was not made with the OAS and the Carter Center, but with the opposition. The OAS and Carter Center acted as facilitators for this agreement. Second, the agreement does not mention the recall referendum at all. Rather, it calls on both sides to reject violence and to support the constitution. While there has been some debate in Venezuela as to who started the violent protests, there is much evidence that members of the opposition sought out a violent confrontation with state security forces. As for respecting the right to freedom of expression, there is complete and total freedom of expression in Venezuela, more than at any point in Venezuela’s history. Finally, with regard to political prisoners, this is a term that Venezuela’s opposition uses for them, but one which internationally recognized human rights organizations have yet to adopt. As such, Senator Kerry is placing himself as a solid supporter of Venezuela’s opposition, which does not bode well for future relations between the government of Venezuela and a possible President Kerry.

...

[Zorra]

83. Thanks. I had not read that before. An interesting rebuttal.

I researched the author of the article you posted. He seems to have a great deal of credibility. He wrote this back in 2002:

The orchestration of the coup was impeccable and, in all likelihood, planned a long time ago. Hugo Chavez, the fascist communist dictator of Venezuela could not stand the truth and thus censored the media relentlessly. For his own personal gain and that of his henchmen (and henchwomen, since his cabinet had more women than any previous Venezuelan government’s), he drove the country to the brink of economic ruin. In the end he proceeded to murder those who opposed him. So as to reestablish democracy, liberty, justice, and prosperity in Venezuela and so as to avoid more bloodshed, the chamber of commerce, the union federation, the church, the media, and the management of Venezuela’s oil company, in short: civil society and the military decided that enough is enough—that Chavez had his chance and that his experiment of a “peaceful democratic Bolivarian revolution” had to come to an immediate end.

This is, of course, the version of events that the officials now in charge and thus also of the media, would like everyone to believe. So what really happened? Of course I don’t know, but I’ll try to represent the facts as I witnessed them.
snip-------------
Chavez’ opposition, which primarily consisted of Venezuela’s old guard in the media, the union federation, the business sector, the church, and the traditionally conservative military, never cared about any of these achievements. Instead, they took advantage of their media monopoly to turn public opinion against him and managed to turn his biggest liability, his autocratic and inflammatory style, against him. Progressive civil society had either been silenced or demonized as violent Chavez fanatics.
snip--------
......This coup shows once again that democracy in Latin America is a matter of ruling class preference, not a matter of law.

(Gregory Wilpert lives in Caracas, is a former U.S. Fulbright scholar in Venezuela, and is currently doing independent research on the sociology of development)

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0412-08.htm

[Classical_Liberal]

59. Here's the problem

they opposition has put forged signitures on the referendum. Chavez has done nothing to stop the referendum but supporting forged signitures on it, in no way helps the democratic process. Please read

the Palast archive.

http://www.gregpalast.com/columns.cfm?subject_id=20&subject_name=Latin%20America

[ProudDad]

15. Be Careful

I'm afraid that you are buying into the U.S. capitalist media machine's version of what Chavez is about or what he has or hasn't done. I know for a fact that they lie about Cuba and Castro, I think they're lying about Chavez too.

Chavez' opposition is the oligarchy and their hired managers, not the people of Venezuela. They own all of the newspapers, radio and TV in the country (hmmm, much like here, eh?) and bombard that country with their lies and propoganda against a popular and populist president. Imagine a country whose people overthrew a U.S. sponsered coup!! What a joy!!!

I agree that Kerrey is trying to position himself against Chavez and for him at the same time...So the mudslingers at the WH can't mess him up too much but he can still exploit the hell out of that country for Big Oil.

Gee, another skull and bones yalie who's totally pro-big, rapacious capitalism. Who would'a thunk it? :wow:

[sandnsea]

18. Kerrey isn't running

Maybe you should be careful.

While people aren't starving in Cuba, it also doesn't mean they're free. And it certainly doesn't mean 99% of the population is "electing" Castro. Get real. He's a dictator and the country would be better of with an open economy and democracy. The same people who pitch a fit about having a designated protest area support dictators who allow absolutely no protest area and lock people up if they try. Same with Venezuela. Wake the fuck up. :crazy:

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[sangh0]

37. Which is why Kerry called for "regime change" here in the US

but there will always be some who want to deny democracy to others for their own partisan ends. Fortunately, Kerry defends the democratic process against intrusions from the authoritarian right and the authoritarian left.

[Classical_Liberal]

62. Chavez isn' t the authoritarian left

http://www.gregpalast.com/columns.cfm?subject_id=20&subject_name=Latin%20America

[sangh0]

64. No, Chavez isn't the authoritarian left, but some DUers are

,

[Classical_Liberal]

72. Duers aren't the issue though

. Some duers are also authoritarian right.

[FreeSpeechCrusader]

53. am I missing something

I read the post that this is in response to, and I only see that they state that our government lies to us about Cuba. I did not see the poster heaping praise onto Cuba, its policies, or Castro.

[Classical_Liberal]

61. Castro isn't elected. Chavez is!

http://www.gregpalast.com/columns.cfm?subject_id=20&subject_name=Latin%20America

They are similar only in that the neoliberals oppose democratically elected leftists as well as commies.

That tells us alot about how reactionary neoliberals are that they would put Castro and Chavez in the same column.

[Meshuga]

33. Great point!

"There is rarely a 100% right or wrong in any situation. Those who are convinced every country the U.S. has a conflict with is automatically right are annoying. Just as annoying as those actually on the right who never find fault with the U.S. at all. Some sort of twisted self-serving ignorance that I'll never understand."

Chavez was democratically elected and should serve his term under the terms of the constitution in Venezuela. Nobody (especially the US) should support any illegal way to bring Chavez down. However, he's not exempt of criticism just like the right wingers think that Bush should never be criticized.

[sangh0]

36. The Venezuelan Constitution provides for recall attempts

so support for allowing the recall to proceed is consistent with constitutional principles.

[AP]

65. I'm not sure that Chavez hasn't been supporting it.

[Classical_Liberal]

66. The consitution doesn't call for for fraud

Chavez opposes the referendum because the opposition is forging signitures.

[sangh0]

69. I see your arguments

are as cogent and well-thought out as they usually are

[Classical_Liberal]

73. Kerry in his press release falsely claimed Chavez opposes

the referendum on principle.

See

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0319d.html

Not my fault you aren't following the issue.

[Classical_Liberal]

63. Except that the criticism is mostly bunk made up by shrubco

and the neoliberals.

http://www.gregpalast.com/columns.cfm?subject_id=20&subject_name=Latin%20America

[dkf]

19. Venezuela = oil

That's all I've got to say.

[drfemoe]

21. and Cuba

refines most of it. Is that the crime?

[MadHound]

24. Let's see here

Pro Iraq war, pro Patriot Act, pro Medicare bill, pro NCLB, pro NAFTA, pro big business, anti Chavez. So once again, what's the difference?:shrug:

Oh yeah, yeah, it will be a kinder gentler screwing that we will get under the Democratic version of corporatist rule:eyes:

[AntiCoup2K4]

31. Exactly....

S&B/PNAC vs S&B/PNAC.

Who loses? America. And the rest of the planet.

[sangh0]

39. Kerry isn't anti-Chavez

but if you repeat a few hundred times, you might convince the already convinced.

[MadHound]

45. Sorry Sang, but that doesn't fly

<snip>"In his declaration dated March 19, the Massachusetts senator accused Chavez of undermining Venezuela's democracy. supporting Colombian rebels and "narco-terrorists" and trying to torpedo a constitutional bid by foes to hold a referendum on his rule.

Condemning Chavez's policies as "detrimental to our interests," Kerry said the United States should lead international pressure to persuade him to allow a recall vote."<snip>

No matter how you try to spin it, it sounds like once again Kerry is bowing to the will of his corporate masters, and is agitating for some sort of coup for a democratically elected, popular South American leader. After all, there is oil at stake here, and heaven forbid if the corporatists can't get their grimy hands on it. Instead of using this situation as club to beat Bush with, Kerry is instead opting for his master's wishes. Care to bet that there is an overthrow of Chavez under a Kerry administration?

Wake up people, this is simply more of the good cop/bad cop routine that the corporate masters of both parties are using in order to get their way. We saw this under Clinton, hopefully we learned our lesson from it.

[sangh0]

48. So any criticism of Chavez makes Kerry "anti-Chavez"?

Chavez has been supporting narco-terrorists (no quotes, it's an accurate description) and has been trying to torpedo a consitutional bid to hold a referendum on his rule, facts your post does nothing to refute.

[MadHound]

54. Perhaps you haven't been paying attention

The narco-terrorists in Venezuela have ties with the anti-Chavez people who were behind the US backed coup. So that would lead one to believe that Chavez is actually fighting against the narco terrorists. You have simply bought into the US media spin, where black is white, and totalitarianism is democracy. Perhaps you need to do a little more research before expounding on a situation that you know little about. <http://www.narconews.com/threedays.html>

And the reason that Chavez is trying to torpedo the referendum is for two reasons. One, this is a constitutional ploy led by those same anti-Chavez forces that pulled off a three day coup two years ago. Why should he coddle such anti democratic forces? Secondly is that time and again, Chavez and the people of Venezuela have proven that the overwhelming majority of the population is solidly behind Chavez. Why should this government waste time and more importantly money on a referendum that is pointless. Chavez would be opening himself and his country up to massive voter fraud.

It is also interesting to note, from my above link, that many of those "narco terrorists" are actually US backed mercanaries and counter terrorists from over the border in Colombia, were they have been keeping that country in turmoil for years and decades now. Now isn't that interesting.

And no, constructive criticism of Chavez doesn't make Kerry anti-Chavez. However I hardly see how describing Chavez's policies as "detrimental to our interests" is constructive. This isn't the US that Chavez is in charge of, it is Venezuela and he has to look out for the best interests of his people. When Kerry is accusing Chavez of undermining democracy, even though it was the US who backed the anti-democratic coup, well I would have to say that Kerry, at the behest of his corporate masters, is anti-Chavez.

But hey Sang, keep on buying that propaganda. It make life so much easier to live when the world is spoon-fed to you, rather than actually having to dig into the facts and history of a situation.

[sangh0]

60. Perhaps you haven't noticed the difference between fact and speculation

Chavez is not fighting against the narco-terrorists, and claiming that I'm buying into spin is a lot easier than proving it.

ANd regardless of why Chavez is fighting the referendum, the fact is that the referendum is a part of their democratic and constitutional process. To suggest that some Venezuelan citizens should be denied their constitutional rights is undemocratic. It's an awfully odd way to defend democracy.


However I hardly see how describing Chavez's policies as "detrimental to our interests" is constructive.

You also don't see why anti-Chavez citizens should get their constitutional rights observed. Maybe that's because you see Chavez as such an unalloyed good that his undemocratic tendencies are seen by you as "in our interests".

So you can try to ridicule my ignorance all you like, but that won't hide your desire to deny Venezuelans their constitutional rights, while hiding behind the banner of "democracy". The last thing we need is for the left to argue that limiting democracy is the way to save democracy. We get enough of that from Bush*

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

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

[sangh0]

70. narconews is not credible

I don't know why you think including such a link makes your arguments more credible.

[Classical_Liberal]

71. Those are direct quotes from Kerry's press release

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0319d.html

[redqueen]

100. "Chavez has been supporting narco-terrorists"

Got a cite for that?

[zulchzulu]

50. Simply wrong

You're painting with a mile wide brush.

Kerry is not "pro Iraq War". We've discussed the IWR a billion times here. Do a search. To say he's "for the war" is simplistic.

The Patriot Act is going to sunset on January 5, 2005. When it was enacted, it was at a dark time. Fortunately, Kerry was part of putting in the sunset laws.

Kerry is NOT for the recent Medicare bill. Perhaps you forget that he was leading the filibuster against the bill?

Kerry is for proper funding of NCLB and amending certain sections of it as well.

Pro big-business? That sounds like a simplistic Naderism to me.

As for the differences between Bush and Kerry, surely you know. Do we have to do your homework for you?

On the issue of Chavez, here are some of the statements from Kerry:

"With the future of the democratic process at a critical juncture in Venezuela, we should work to bring all possible international pressure to bear on President Chavez to allow the referendum to proceed.
(snip)
Throughout his time in office, President Chavez has repeatedly undermined democratic institutions by using extra-legal means, including politically motivated incarcerations, to consolidate power.
(snip)
Moreover, President Chavez’s policies have been detrimental to our interests and those of his neighbors. He has compromised efforts to eradicate drug cultivation by allowing Venezuela to become a haven for narco-terrorists, and sowed instability in the region by supporting anti-government insurgents in Colombia."

If Chavez wants to block the referendum from the will of the people, then the international community should be able to let him know that he is wrong.

Of course, Venezuela has oil. One easy way for Kerry to get exploited by the Bush campaign is to just let Chavez do whatever he wants and try to stop sending oil to the US.

As for Chavez being ripe for a referendum, consider these atrocious facts about the people of Venezuela:

"80% live in poverty, 65% make the minimum wage of ~$150 or less per month, and 36% live on less than $1 a day. The basic monthly food basket for a family of 5 costs about $300."

Link

[MadHound]

55. No, not wrong, I simply don't buy into the corporatist spin that's all

1. If one is against the war, one doesn't vote for a resolution that enables it, no matter how many toothless provisions one puts in it. Or better yet, one does his FUCKING JOB and listens to his constituents, who were overwhelmingly against the IWR. Trying to spin a pro war vote into an anti-war stance is disingeous at best and insulting to the US population to boot. Also, if Kerry is so damn anti-war, why is wanting to put in an additional forty thousand troops? Not very dovish my friend.

2. Wrong, only sixteen provisions of the Patriot Act are going to sunset in '05. The most horrendous provisions, like sneak and peek searches, are in play forever. And dark time or not, Kerry should be doing his job and reading the bill before he rubberstamps it. If he doesn't have enough time, hell, hold up the bill until he does read it. Don't just roll over like a dog trying to please it's master. Unfortunately, that seems to be a common trait amongst Congressional Dems these days.

3. Well gee, if Kerry was so fired up against the Medicare bill, why the hell did he skip the final vote on it? And it wasn't really a filibuster Kerry gave, it was more of a prime time speech that lasted aprox forty five minutes, and then he was back out on the campaign trail. Sen. Kennedy was the one who did the heavy lifting on the filibuster.

4. And if Kerry wanted to amend sections of NCLB, and provide proper funding for it, why didn't he advocate for these matters when the bill was before him. Why did he go ahead and vote for the unfunded abomination when he knew that it was a fatally flawed bill? He may talk the good talk, but his follow through is atrocious.

5. Simple Naderism, I love it! So our government isn't hopelessly corrupted by big business? The fact that there are dozens of corporations who give thousands and millions of dollars to both 'Pugs and Dem presidential candidates as a way of hedging their bets doesn't trouble you? The ample evidence we have from Bush, Gore, and Clinton of doing the bidding of their campaign contributors doesn't raise an alarm in your world view? Hell, even Eisenhower was warning of the corruption of government by the military industrial complex forty five years ago, yet you say that all of this ruckus is simple Naderism? Man, I want to live in your world, where apparently the skies are not cloudy all day:eyes:

6. And yes, I know the differences, and similarities too, between Bush and Kerry. But apparently you can be played like a violin by buying into this good cop-bad cop mummers show these two are putting on. I suppose that you think NAFTA was a good thing, or the '96 Telecom act, or welfare "reform". All right wing policies put into place by a supposed Dem. And Kerry is already promising to ratchet up the war, continue that abomination known as the Patriot Act, and bascially roll over any time his corporate masters tell him to. The only damn difference these days between 'Pugs and Dems is how fast they're going to take us over the cliff edge, for neither is going to change the direction we're heading. Don't you get it? We're living in the second Gilded Age in this country, when the labels Democrat and Republican don't matter, just the color of your corporate money. I suggest you go read Kevin Phillips as a little wake up call.

As far as Chavez goes, I refer you to my post 54 above. It will answer your questions.

[sangh0]

68. You must be buying the fringe left spin then

1) A vote for IWR is a vote for IWR. Not a vote for war. That's just fringe spin

2) Sneak and peek searches will be expiring and Kerry has said he doesn't support them

3) More fringe spin plus some ignorance about how a bill passes. (Hint: 49 votes is as inefffective at stopping a bill as 48 votes)

4) More fringe spin plus some ignorance about how govt programs are funded. The money comes in a seperate vote, later on.

5) More spin, with nothing to offer. Just another ract

6) Like many on the fringe, you end with another rant about how you're the only one concerned about money in politics.

[MadHound]

75. Nope, just doing research Sang

1. If a yes vote for the Iraq WAR Resolution isn't a vote for WAR, what is it?

2. You haven't done much research on the Patriot Act. Sneak and peeks will not sunset, along with some of the other more odious parts of the Patriot Act. <http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11854>

3-6 Sorry, but your dismisal of these topics as "just spin" is disengeous at best. Why don't you go do some research, provide some facts to refute my arguements, then we will have something to talk about. Baseless accusations of using spin are just that, baseless. Facts, sources and links are more in order. But hey, I've come to expect this from you.

[sangh0]

77. Here's a radical concept

1) A vote for IWR is "a vote for IWR"

Anything else is just an opinion

2) Kerry has siad he would repeal sneak and peek.

3-6) Your denial of using spin is disingenous at best. Why don't you go do some research, provide some facts to refute my arguements, then we will have something to talk about. Baseless accusations of using spin are just that, baseless. Facts, sources and links are more in order.

[zulchzulu]

78. Simplistic...

Kerry's IWR vote was for the UN to continue WMD inspections and to build a multinational coalition to disarm Iraq and go in as a last resort. That does not mean "WAR" like you have a choice of two big buttons with one for "PEACE" and one for "WAR". It's not that simple.

I posted the laws that will sunset on 1/5/05 with the Patriot Act. Yes, it needs to be repealed. But that is a start.

[zulchzulu]

76. I agree with you more than not, but...

1. The IWR that Kerry signed on for was for the UN to continue inspections, not unilaterally attack. I personally protested the war in the streets, but I understand Kerry's stance. Bush lied. We have to deal with "now" now.

2. I don't agree with the Patriot Act and would have voted with Feingold on the issue if I was Senator. I do however see how Ashcroft has added new provisions to the Act and Bush exploited the 911 paranoia at the time to get the Act passed. The documentation of the Act was 1,200 pages. It was rushed through Congress carelessly. Fortunately, there are many parts of the Patriot Act that will sunset on January 5, 2005.

From this PDF link:
The temporary provisions are: sections 201 (wiretapping in terrorism cases), 202 (wiretapping in computer fraud and abuse felony cases), 203(b) (sharing wiretap information), 203(d) (sharing foreign intelligenceinformation), 204 (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) pen register/trap & trace exceptions), 206 (roving FISA wiretaps), 207 (duration of FISA surveillance of non-United States persons who are agents of a foreign power), 209 (seizure of voice-mail messages pursuant to warrants), 212 (emergency disclosure of electronic surveillance), 214 (FISA pen register/ trap and trace authority), 215 (FISA access to tangible items), 217 (interception of computer trespasser communications), 218(purpose for FISA orders), 220 (nationwide service of search warrants for electronic evidence), 223 (civil liability and discipline for privacy violations), and 225 (provider immunity for FISA wiretap assistance).

3. I don't necessarily agree with Kerry that he went back to Iowa to campaign instead of voting, but his vote would have been meaningless due to the overwhelming GOP vote. Find out his stance:
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2003_1206b.html

4. Kerry's stance on NCLB is a valid opinion:
"John Kerry believes that the goals of the No Child Left Behind Act -- ensuring that all students learn to high standards and closing the achievement gap -- are the right ones for America’s children. However, to date we have fallen short of these goals due to insufficient funding and problems with the law. Kerry will make important changes to the No Child Left Behind Act to help students reach high standards."
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/100days/education.html

5. Like you and just about everyone I know, I feel it costs too much to run for President and that there needs to be solid change in the future with real campaign finance reform. But we are dealing with "now". We have to win and beat Bush. And presently, the only practical way to do it is through the means at hand today.

Jefferson's America was run by the rich landowners, today's America is run by those with corporate connections. We have eight months to beat Bush and it is highly unlikely that we are going to change much in that venue.

6. I'm living in reality, not some experimental college book poli-sci theory world. This election is like a hard-core game show with immediate concerns. You have a choice of three doors with two conclusions.

Door #1: George Bush and more of the same
Door #2: John Kerry and a lot of improvement and some progressive change
Door #3: Third party candidates that only take away the votes for either Bush or Kerry.

Better yet, you have a choice between:
1. Reality
2. Wasting your time

[Robb]

25. Kerry walks on water, critics say he can't swim.

"Too often in the past, this Administration has sent mixed signals by supporting undemocratic processes in our own hemisphere -- including in Venezuela, where they acquiesced to a failed coup attempt against President Chavez. Having just allowed the democratically elected leader to be cast aside in Haiti, they should make a strong statement now by leading the effort to preserve the fragile democracy in Venezuela."

Let's review.

A presidential candidate who is polling ahead of the incumbent in many states in March has just said two things that are 100% the opposite of the current admin's spin:

1) The Bush administration supported a failed coup against a democratically elected leader in Venezuela,

2) The Bush administration supported (by way of omission) a successful coup against a democratically elected leader in Haiti.

Irrespective of the rest of the statement, I find this part absolutely amazing. But few want to give him credit for this part. :(

[CWebster]

26. That was just his ass-covering statement

to demonstrate that there was some differences -although his previous tone contradicts his conclusion. More of the usual double-talk.

[Robb]

28. I see it exactly the opposite.

I would think his ass would be better covered with statements supporting globalists, rather than supporting fragile democracies out of favor with the big corporations. :shrug:

So I guess we disagree.

[messiah]

29. Kerry is a right wing economic authoritarian guru!.

Kerry is a piece of trash. If you are economically right wing then your a right winger and a authoritarian. Now I know that Kerry can not be trusted. One that fights for injustice in the world is not a liberal!.

[Meshuga]

30. I wish Kerry didn't ...

attack Chavez because attacks from America only makes Chavez stronger.

Chavez feeds on attacking the "imperialists" in North America. The US is seen as the country that unofficially supported dictators in South America in the 1960's and 1970's and because of that there is still the lack of trust for the American government. Chavez uses the popular anti-imperialist sentiment to be elected. But Chavez IS a corrupt prick who has conections to the Colombian FARC which kills and intimidates elected officials all around Colombia.

I'm glad Kerry has these sentiments for Chavez but it's better to stay quiet and provide a roadmap for how we are going to deal with South America to help heal a shaky relantionship with our neighbors from the south. We do need their trust and Bush's is doing a terrible job so far!

[AP]

32. For the sake of American democracy, I feel Chavez needs to break grip of

oligarchy and the oil companies.

It's the easy profits from neoliberalism with which the oil companies buy themselves an American government which then does their bidding.

I feel Chavez is doing the US a favor by fighting this battle.

I don't know if Chavez is made stronger by having people in VZ think that neither Bush nor Kerry want to work with him. However, if that's the case, then good.

[w4rma]

47. U.S. ..Gen. James Hill..denied that there is any evidence of connections..

Monday, Mar 22, 2004
By: Gregory Wilpert - Venezuelanalysis.com

...
Sen. Kerry stands in direct contradiction with U.S. government testimony that says that the Venezuelan government has been very cooperative with US drug enforcement agencies. More drugs have been intercepted by the Chavez government than any previous government. While this could reflect in increase in drug trafficking in Venezuela, it proves that Venezuela’s government has far from “compromised efforts.”<1>

Even the head of the U.S. Southern Command, Gen. James Hill, who is directly involved in plan Colombia and the U.S. anti-drug trafficking effort, has denied that there is any evidence of connections between the Venezuelan government and “anti-government insurgents” in Colombia.<2> If Senator Kerry has any evidence of such connections, he should provide them to the U.S. military so that they might be properly informed.
...
Perhaps it would have been good to mention at this point that the recall referendum was proposed by President Chavez and his party when the country’s constitutional assembly wrote the new constitution. This fact directly contradicts Sen. Kerry’s questioning of President Chavez’ democratic credentials.
...
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1136

<1> The U.S. Embassy in Venezuela says the following about the Venezuelan government’s efforts: “Against this upsurge in activity of Colombian narcotrafficking organizations operating in Venezuela, the Government of Venezuela (GOV) has attempted to pass expansive new legislation, refine the focus of its small force of criminal investigators and public prosecutors, and worked with the USG toward the development of improved intelligence, investigative, interdiction, and judicial capabilities. GOV drug enforcement officials are dedicated, professional, and sincere in their efforts to combat narcotrafficking and drug abuse in Venezuela.” The report also states that, “USG narcotics control efforts and programs underwent significant expansion in Venezuela in 2001.” (http://embajadausa.org.ve/wwwh1695.html )

<2> “U.S. General Sites Progress in Colombia”, The Miami Herald, October 9, 2003, Page 16A

[RichM]

40. This is just Kerry proving he's a garden-variety US politico, with the

required Cold War mentality.

Condemning Chavez's policies as "detrimental to our interests," Kerry said the United States should lead international pressure to persuade him to allow a recall vote.

- This is precisely the position Bush would take. No difference.

Kerry said Chavez's "close relationship with Fidel Castro has raised serious questions about his commitment to leading a truly democratic government."

- Standard US politico bullshit, still fighting the Cold War, both parties being exactly the same in this respect. No difference.

[Bombtrack]

41. Although I think Chavez is a thug, Kerry doesn't and shouldn't need to say

such harsh things to a leader of a country who's relationship with us is not unrepairable. I never defend Chavez from charges of his strongarm tactics, because most of them are true, and I'm not going to defend Kerry for his dumb decision here

[Lydia Leftcoast]

42. What it sounds like to me is:

He's signalling to the Establishment, "See, I may have been an antiwar firebrand thirty years ago, but I've grown up now, and I understand the need for U.S. business interests to run the world." :grr:

This is the type of thing that Clinton did with "Sista Souljah," and it does not bode well.

And don't tell me he has to do this to appeal to the "Middle American" vote. Most of them wouldn't be able to tell you which continent Venezuela is on.

He's telling the multinationals that if elected, he'll be a good boy.

[sangh0]

43. re: Sista Souljah

It may sound so great, but IMO it's important to note that Clinton then went on to become The US's "first black President".

Under Clinton, the rate black home ownership, employment, education level, went up while the rates of poverty, illegitimacy, frug use, etc went down

[no name no slogan]

85. And black incarceration went through the roof under Clinton, too!

And, BTW, Clinton is not the "first black president" as so many like to claim. To call him so is an insult to real black leaders in this country.

The prison population more than DOUBLED under Clinton, and most of those imprisoned were young black males. Kind of strange, considering crime had been on a downward slide since the 70s, and all of a sudden our prison population skyrocketed.

Also, the other stats you cite (home ownership, education, employment, etc.) did go up, but not as quickly as they did for whites. The numbers went up with those of the general population, owing to the economic "expansion" of the 1990s (which owes as much to Alan Greenspan as it does to Bill Clinton).

[Sanity]

44. Good. Chavez is a brutal thug.

And Kerry's doing the right thing.

[Classical_Liberal]

74. Chavez's opposition are the brutal thugs

Kerry should know better

http://www.gregpalast.com/columns.cfm?subject_id=20&subject_name=Latin%20America

[Merlin]

46. This is a clumsy, arrogant signal to Bush that it's ok to take out Chavez.

Kerry should know better, but apparently doesn't.

Godam it, this son of a bitch had better get down off his high horse and start listening to those of us who form the backbone of this party. There is way too much riding on this election. And he's the guy.

I'll be damned if I'm going to sit back this time and let him get taken down the same way Gore was. This time, I'm going to scream bloody murder about it.

So Kerry had better start showing some savvy fast, or he's going to find a growing outcry right here in his base, and it's going to explode in his face in a very embarrassing manner. That's a promise.

[Solidarity]

79. Kerry Could Care Less About What Progressives Think

Kerry could care less about what you think. He's got the nomination locked up and you and others will back him (ABB) no matter what he says or does. What are you going to threaten to do ...vote for Nader or a Green Party candidate? Go ahead. He doesn't care!

God .... why is it that so many well-intentioned progressive people can so easily be mislead? I guess it's just out of desperation and the feeling you have nowhere else to go.

[Merlin]

80. Wrong. He needs people like me a hell of a lot more than you think.

People like me can make the difference between him bringing in $80 million through the fat cats and $200 million through us regular folks, too, willing to chip in 1 or so large each.

That's what Howard Dean had going. That's what Kerry could get going too if he'd get off his freaking high horse.

[dpbrown]

82. Kerry can't win by being a better Bush than Bush

He can't win by being a better "architect" in the made-up war on terror than the inventor of the made-up war on terror, Bush.

Kerry can't win without bringing democrats and progressives into the tent.

And he won't win by being even more hardcore in opposition to democratically elected leaders in South and Central America.

[sangh0]

84. From God's mouth to your ear

I just love when people who have NEVER won an election tell someone with 30 years experience winning elections what they MUST DO in order to win. Invariably, it turns out to be "You MUST agree with me!"

[dpbrown]

86. I've done my research and I've shown the result

I spent plenty of time and energy examining the 40/40/20 rule and VNS exit polling data before concluding that there is an weight of voters who count themselves among the progressives who don't go in for more militarization and more unilateral invasions and more corporate handouts and more swaggering machismo.

The conclusion is that there are only about 5 million conservative-leaning voters out there who will consider a Democrat. Compared to 3 million who already did not vote for a Democrat by voting for Nader (and Nader's polling higher this time than he did last time).

Progressives are being opposed, but they are moving up in strength.

Offer them nothing with the Democratic candidate at our universal, mutual detriment.

And it has nothing to do with "experience" in winning elections to understand that.

[sangha]

90. Well, isn't that special!!

I'm sure Kerry has never looked at polling numbers.

[Merlin]

96. Yeah, it IS special.

At least he's using his brain. He's researched something and come up with a reasoned opinion.

That's a hell of a lot better than simply kissing a politician's ass because he's won the party's nomination.

You may not have been around long enought to know it, but it is EXTREMELY important for us to hold Kerry's feet to the fire throughout this campaign. Ask those who deferred to the "wisdom" of Gore, Dukakis, Mondale...

[sangh0]

97. All that research, adn he came up with Venezuela as the important issue?

In that case, I'd say he wasted a lot of time.

Anyone who thinks that Venezuela, a nation most AMericans couldn't locate on a map, is an issue important enough to affect the election, has a serious problem understanding what a campaign is about.

Ask those who deferred to the "wisdom" of Gore, Dukakis, Mondale...

Gore, Dukakis, Mondale lost because of Venezuela? I don't think so

[dpbrown]

98. You should be careful how much energy you put into attacking DUers

Keep your eye on the ball - the ball is getting elected and getting Bush out. Obnoxious positions that alienate Democrats rob the Democrats of a potentially clear distinction from the Republicans.

The Democrats can easily wrap themselves in a simple message, "We're for justice, people, and democracy - we're for you - and the Republicans are just in it for themselves."

Is Venezuela the only issue? No. But by taking up the banner for more corporate welfare, for Skull & Bones overthrowing of democratically elected governments - in Haiti to restore slave labor, in Venezuela to prize oil resources for gluttonous privatization - the Democrats threaten to yield even that high ground to the Republicans.

These FreeperUnderground talking points attacking Chavez are straw men who threaten to erode the lead Democrats could easily have with real people, who understand protecting democratically elected governments, and who understand that Bush's government ISN'T ONE.

But I understand how hard it must be to see the grassroots from a high horse.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[sangh0]

99. Yeah, right

Like what I say on DU is going to affect the election. Your post is filled with the usual sanctimony and self-glorification. I laugh at your grassroots.

And then I go to work where I deal with the "grassroots" every day. Unsurprisingly, they don't give a damn about Venezuela, corporate welfare or Skull and Bones.

[dpbrown]

102. Your disrespectful attitude toward liberals here reverberates elsewhere

And turns people off, although you probably don't notice if you surround yourself with Chavez-haters.

Democrats should stand for democracy:

1. Kerry should laud Spain for practicing democracy.

2. Kerry should condemn the death squad leaders and failed Iran/Contra felons for overthrowing democracy in Haiti.

3. And Kerry should condemn attempts to overturn democracy in Venezuela.

It's not about Venezuela (you keep harping on how "it's not" because you lost that argument), it's about supporting democracy throughout the world, and that's a much better position to be in than parsing support for dictators like Musharraf instead of elected leaders like Aristide. Regular people can understand that, despite what the corporate media feeds them.

[Merlin]

95. I just love when people are so naive they think only the politician knows.

Kerry has won lots of elections IN MASSACHUSETTS.

If you think that those of us who disagree with him don't know a thing or two about politics, then I suggest you grow up first before you start talking out of the top of your head.

Kerry is not God. Not any more than Gore was. Or Dukakis. Or Mondale. Kapiche?

[Solidarity]

87. Kerry Doesn't Need You, He Needs Lieberman and Biden

He's got you no matter what he says or does! Since liberals and progressives are pretty much united behind his campaign why in the world should he not "move to the right" and become on some issues "Republican lite"? You supposedly have nowhere else to go .... isn't that right? So sit back, send money, cuss a bit and watch the show! Anybody But Bush!

He'll get plenty of money from organized labor and other groups on top of the 80 million or more from corporate sources.

[gate of the sun]

93. good point about the message to bush

I guess we won't be hearing any dissent from Kerry should bush decide to openly invade the country and put in a more friendly leader. I mean friendly in regards to more friendly to US interests.

[RichM]

49. Another demonstration that Kerry is not very different from Bush.

Bush would take exactly the same positions on Cuba & Venezuela. Both parties represent US imperialism in much the same way; no one should expect Kerry to sound much different than Bush, because he isn't much different. Both aim at enhancing the global control of US corporations.

Look at this repulsive phrase:

Condemning Chavez's policies as "detrimental to our interests," Kerry said the United States should lead international pressure to persuade him to allow a recall vote.

Translation: Kerry wants US control of Venezuelan oil, and supports US-directed regime change there. A typical America-uber-alles politician; party affiliation makes no difference.

[sangh0]

51. "they acquiesced to a failed coup attempt against President Chavez."

Just like Bush*?

Where has Bush* said that he "acquiesced to a failed coup attempt against President Chavez"???

[dpbrown]

81. Chavez is elected and Bush is trying to overturn his gov't.

Kerry shouldn't be taking on Chavez. Hello, that's democracy working down there.

Meanwhile, the Skull and Bones corporate insiders that are pulling the strings are sending millions to the opposition, trying to destabilize Venezuela.

This is not where Kerry should be trying to stand out on foreign policy.

Why is Kerry anti-Chavez? Why is Kerry anti-democracy in Spain? Why can't Kerry understand that Bush's military foray into Iraq is a disaster built on lies, and the disgraced former felons who've overturned democracy in Haiti and are trying to overturn democracy in Venezuela are the enemy, not Chavez, not Aristide, and not democracy?

This is very troubling.

[Classical_Liberal]

88. I agree.

You are very articulate about it. I hope you write Kerry as I have suggested in this post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=477586&mesg_id=477586

[gate of the sun]

94. very troubling indeed

the warning signs are right in our freaking faces. I can't believe on Du we are fighting about this. It's pretty clear what's going on. He's letting everyone know right now where he stands and for most of us I don't believe that's what we stand for. I thought this is what we've been talking about and fighting against these last few years. Suddenly we have a board full of people defending the sentiments that go against what we hoped to be rid of. It's very troubling indeed.

[youngred]

89. way to distance himself from Bush foes

and the foreign leader comment, a very unfortunate choice though

[sangha]

91. Good idea

I'm sure the way to win elections is to position oneself as far away as possible from the people who might consider voting for you.

[youngred]

92. I'm just explaining the rationale

lord knows I hate the reasoning and result

[digno dave]

101. how many people posting here have actually BEEN TO VENEZUELA?

I am not sure where i stand with Chavez, but it is very curious to me how much support he gets on this board.