What exactly is so evil about Chavez?

[devilgrrl]

Did he gas his own people? March everyone in a stadium to be slaughtered? What then?

What?

[DoYouEverWonder]

1. He was elected by an overwhelming majority

and the upper class Venezulans hate him because they're afraid he's going to take all their oil money and do things for the poor people.

[LostinVA]

81. Bingo n/t

[madokie]

96. Several times.

[Benhurst]

2. He won't allow

Big Oil to continue raping his nation.

It's not nice to stand up to Big Oil. George will get you if you do.

[Deep13]

28. wrong place

oops delete

[libnnc]

3. I'm waiting for an answer to that question too...

so far, it's just anti-commie tirades that make me think I've been transported back to the '50s.

"Better Dead than Red" dumb-ass shit...:eyes:

[bushisanidiot]

4. He calls AWOL Bush out on his crimes.. IN PUBLIC

we're not supposed to talk about those sorts of things in this country.

[William769]

5. Did Bush?

[LSK]

7. yes

http://icasualties.org/oif/

09/22/06 DoD Identifies Army Casualties (part 3)
Cpl. Marcus A. Cain, 20, of Crowley, La. Cain was assigned to the 4th Support Battalion, 1st Brigade, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Hood, Texas...died in Baghdad, Iraq, on Sept. 14 of injuries suffered...
09/22/06 DoD Identifies Army Casualties (part 2)
Sgt. Jennifer M. Hartman, 21, of New Ringgold, Pa. Hartman was assigned to the 4th Support Battalion, 1st Brigade, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Hood, Texas.....died in Baghdad, Iraq, on Sept. 14 of injuries suffered...
09/22/06 DoD Identifies Army Casualties (part 1)
Sgt. Aaron A. Smith, 31, of Killeen, Texas. Smith was assigned to the 4th Battalion, 27th Field Artillery Regiment, 2nd Brigade, 1st Armored Division, Baumholder, Germany....died in Baghdad, Iraq, on Sept.

[William769]

12. Those are not Bushs' people.

[LSK]

13. US Soldiers are not Bush's people???

Tell me, why are American soldiers dying in Iraq?

:wtf:

[William769]

16. So show me where bush gassed them or marched them in to a stadium

& slaughtered them. This is why so many people on our side have no credibility.

[LSK]

19. there is a word called METAPHOR

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/METAPHOR

met‧a‧phor  /ˈmɛtəˌfɔr, -fər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance, as in “A mighty fortress is our God.” Compare mixed metaphor, simile (def. 1).
2. something used, or regarded as being used, to represent something else; emblem; symbol.


If you want to be totally ANAL, Hitler technically did not march anyone into a Concentration Camp.

[William769]

21. So I guess I am correct when I say did Bush?

[LSK]

23. yes, you win a cookie

Good job!

[Jack Rabbit]

48. On that point

I recommend reading Eichmann in Jerusalem by Hannah Arendt. She points out very eloquently that there is a difference between common murder and mass murder. Eichmann was not capable of committing a common murder; as a bureaucrat, he was quite capable of shuffling the paperwork necessary to kill millions of Jews, Gypsies, Slavs and other "undesirables". At the end of the book, she endorsed his hanging, but not for the same reasons one would hang a convicted murderer.

No, you're right to call Bush a mass murderer, although I believe he is principally a thief whose murders are incidental to stealing (in this case, stealing Iraq's natural wealth and national assets on behalf of his corporate cronies). Hitler was a mass murderer who stole from his victims, but that was incidental to murder. Once the victim was dead, his private property and personal belongings, including gold teeth, were collected and redistributed.

Mr. Bush started a colonial war based on a pack of lies and misrepresenting the threat posed by Iraq under Saddam; there is a great deal of evidence to show that, if Bush didn't actually know Saddam had disposed of his weapons in 1991, that he and his aides didn't know with any certainty what Saddam possessed while they were characterizing their case as open and shut. Bush is directly responsible for the unnecessary deaths of American combat troops in Iraq, who would be better used tracking down Osama than securing war profits for Halliburton.

In this respect, calling Bush a mass murderer and a war criminal is in no way a metaphor. It is a serious accusation and one that Mr. Bush should be made to answer.

[MetaTrope]

69. Bush is basically a mafiosa who's used his "family" connections

(including the bin Laden family) to commit just about every crime in the books. And make America kiss his ring while he's doing it.

[mdmc]

20. just go down to 1 world trade plaza bro-

You'll see the Bush legacy pure and clean.

[Lars39]

24. He lied to send them to war.

I'd consider that a slaughter.

[William769]

30. Sorry that wasn't the question.

[LSK]

31. why are you playing word games???

What exactly are you hoping to accomplish?

:shrug:

[William769]

32. Because shit like this is what the other side does.

What I am trying to "accomplish" is showing the absurdity in this type of post.

[devilgrrl]

35. You're doing a really bad job at it as well.

:eyes:

[William769]

36. Just looking at some messages in here says who's doing the bad job.

[LSK]

38. yes the other side does exactly this

But you are only showing yourself to look foolish and making most DUers think you are a Bush supporter.

The OP is a legit question asking why Chavez is so bad.

For your own good, please rethink your tactics because they are convincing nobody.

[William769]

41. Could have been worded better

I will be the first to admit Bush is pure evil but not for the reasons she listed. If the OP had chosen some other ones my response would have been different.

[LSK]

42. but the OP is about Chavez, not Bush

And you seem to fail to recognize a metaphor when you see one.

[William769]

44. This place has been flooed with Chavez today

How close are we to election day?

Maybe thats my point.

[Minstrel Boy]

50. "I will be the first to admit Bush is pure evil"

Yeah, I believe that, coming from someone with a Microsoft avatar.

[Karenina]

53. He allows the*corps to do it for him.

Stadium? NOLA
Gassed? Poisoned? Appalachia, Houston (slo-mo)
Neglected? Medicare Plan D, The VA
Robbed and left destitute? Too many to mention.

YOU have no credibility. :eyes:

[frylock]

62. well played!

:applause:

[Name removed]

9. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Nite Owl]

6. He speaks truth to power

and that obviously is a no-no. They expect everyone to go for their scare tactics, Chavez refused therefore he has to have a 'label'.

[cali]

8. I have no reason to believe he's

evil- and I strongly dislike the casual use of that word, but there is growing evidence that he has little self-control when it comes to exercising judgement re his words. He reminds me of a five year old whingeing to mom with his latest bush has said meaner things about me than I have about him, statement.

[Jcrowley]

10. Good question

There has been no substance with the arguments against Chavez. No documentation.

[rhiannon55]

11. NOTHING

Bush hates him, he hates Bush, the MSM spins the whole thing, and VOILA! Americans are fooled again! :silly:

[hfojvt]

14. "He's just a devil (wo) man with evil on his mind

beware the devil (wo) man. He's gonna get ya ..."

Sorry, couldn't resist :evilgrin:

The real problem is that Chavezspeakstruth to power,
and so power has taken great pains to smear him.
Since he is a human leader rather than a saint, he doubtless has some flaws as does his country. The HRW and AI lists that are trotted out against him are probably no worse than those made for places like Canada or Great Britain, but in the blog world anything less than perfection is absolutely worthless and disgusting and pathetic which only the willfully ignorant would try to defend with strawman arguments.

[NOLADEM]

15. He has our oil and won't give it to us fer free, plus...

he dare speak whilst not a white man.

I don't like everything he says or does, but his demonization is pure politics, and has to do with nothing but oil and the Chimp's little dick and related inability to suffer the truth being spoken.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

17. Oh, I dunno...

maybe the military coup? Or the rule by decree? The Avila Plan? Election irregularities? The redistribution of land from legal owners?

Looks like he's done some good things for his people, but with an iron fist. I think he and GWB were twins separated at birth.

[devilgrrl]

22. Links please...

eom

[TallahasseeGrannie]

25. Those are from memory

if you google them, you'll find plenty. I didn't have to research it. I remember it!

[devilgrrl]

27. From memory... BFD!

You've got nothing.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

73. I don't need to research every post I make

and I don't need cites for my life experiences, and yes, my dear, it IS a BFD. This old brain has been very good to me.

Do your own research and you'll find everything I said. Hell, even Wickipedia has all that. The World Book has it all. These are not opinions, they are facts about Venezuelan history.

[Solon]

65. Dissection time...

He did stage a coup against a president so corrupt that after the coup failed, that President, Perez, was impeached, removed from office, and Chavez was pardoned by the succeeding president for his actions.

Rule by decree? Uh, BULLSHIT!

Election Irregularities? Um....Carter Center certified election irregularities apparently.

Plan Ávila? Predates Chavez, he attempted to use it during the coup, military refused.

The redistribution of land from legal owners? I hope you realize that ALL the land taken was only because the "owners" of that land couldn't come up with the TITLES to that land, either that or they were foriegn owners. It was common in the past for Venezuela's elite to claim public lands and squat there for years, passing it down through generations, without ever paying a dime for it. So they lost it, good riddance.

[Cleita]

67. Bush hasn't done any good things for his people.

No twinship there. Redistribution of land from the patronista landowners is sort of the way wealth is redistributed in South America. We do it with taxes to the rich. Remember the land was taken from the indigenous people by the Spaniards to begin with and Chavez is one of those people. He probably believes they have a right to it.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

89. Oh, he has done grand things for his people

a few of them. Rich folks, mostly. He's their bestest friend!

[frylock]

68. 3000 citizens lost their lives because of el caracazo..

and that's why Chavez attempted to overthrow that bastard Perez. As far as redistribution of land; that land was taken from the people by the gueros. Chavez gave it back.

[LostinVA]

82. Well, most of this isn't true at all. esp. the coup thing

And the rest of it is spin.

[AlamoDemoc]

18. "What exactly is so evil about Chavez?"

nothing, nada, rien...he's the dully elected president of the Republic of Venezuela...and that he's thankful he survived a coup attempt on his life and his country, orchestrated by the US State Department.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

26. Well, he was elected

after his own coup. So not so different from our own dear leader!

[Jcrowley]

33. Big difference

Over 85% of the working class and working poor voted for Chavez

[AlamoDemoc]

39. I think Mr. Chavez election in Venezuela is more tolerable than ours

ask every election monitoring system in place throughout the world, and all will tell you that our election in 2000 is more questionable than that of Venezuela's recent election.

watch this:

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

[rman]

72. Chavez did not come to power thanks to a coup

He became popular though, thanks to a (failed) coup attempt by him.
Then he survived a US supported military coup against him (failed because of massive popular support for Chavez).
All along he gets elected and re-elected.

Bush on the other hand stole the election twice.

The two are really quite different.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

74. But see, to me,

the failed coup trumps everthing. I don't trust a man who attempts to overtake his government through force.

Even John Kerry had this to say about him: "Chavez is fast on the road of becoming exactly that. (dictator) He is breaking the rules of democracy. I think it is very important for him to allow that referendum to take place and for this administration and others to put more visibility on what is happening so we can hold him accountable to international standards of behavior. Democracy is at risk."

Now, that said, I think he is a fascinating man. I don't deny he has done good things for his people, but frankly, so did Hitler. Hitler was also wildly popular with the electorate. My own mother-in-law, a German national, thought he was "cute and sexy"! (she eventually changed her mind.)

But really, the jury is out yet, just like with Bush. If he suddenly becomes President for Life, then we know his true colors. There is a lot of fear about that in South America. It is a conundrum. What do you do about a man who can do good things for his people but you dare not oppose him? Is it better for a country to labor under a dictator and have better conditions, or to live in freedom with more poverty? I'm idealistic enough to vote for the latter, and I have been poor enough in my lifetime to be on welfare. But I have a warm bed at night and a belly far too full.

We will just have to wait and see and agree to disagree. But I don't trust him.

[rman]

78. It is the power-elites, the wealthy minority in Venezuela

that was breaking - and is still trying to break - the rules of democracy.

And given the history and current developments of US foreign and domestic policy, it is no surprise that US power elites support the Venezuelan power elites.

You can't just ignore the fact that Chavez is hugely popular among the poor majority in Venezuela, and that he's is really making life better for these folks.

Do you think there can never be a valid cause for the use of force (or more accurately: threat of the use of force) to overthrow an exploitative and suppressive regime?

Even though you don't trust Chavez, there is no evidence to support your claim that he is anything like Bush, rather there is evidence that he is the opposite of Bush - he's doing everything right that Bush is doing wrong.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

80. You asked if I felt violent overthrow was ever

valid. Since I honor the American Revolution, I would have to say yes. And I am certainly no South American scholar.

I have great respect for our laws and our system and believe we can work within that. Now, if Bush suddenly become President again in 08, then the system has broken the law and the system should take him out of office.

I have no idea whether Venezuela's laws and their system was strong enough to be relied upon to eliminate their oppressive rulers.

I just don't know. I've lived long enough and been interested in the international scene to have seen many Chavez's before. It's kind of like you just know that Hollywood marriage won't last. But some do. Is Chavez just another banana republican? What do you think? What does history teach us?

Very interesting man, though. I'll say that.

[rman]

85. There have been no Chavez's in a long time

all the 'dictators' in Latin America were supportive of US interests at the expense of the local population (that's why there are so many poor people in Venezuela and other Latin American nations) - and those were obviously supported by the US. Just look at all the US supported military coups in Latin America.

Chavez is the first head of state in a long time who is not only opposing exploitation of his nation by US corporate interests (same interests that practically own the US government), but who also managed to stay alive and stay in power in spite of all the efforts to get rid of him. Most others who have tried, have met an un-timely and violent death. A lucky few merely got overthrown, to be replaced by a US-friendly military dictator.

That's what history teaches, and Chavez is definitely no republican in any way shape or form - he's a lefty, a progressive.


(I'm not citing any sources because those have been posted on DU many times over already.)

[TallahasseeGrannie]

87. Aren't you forgetting Castro?

Although that is not South America.

[Deep13]

29. Someone told me some unflattering stuff about him.

I heard he cancelled elections in Venezuela and that he is doing his own arms race. Anyone know anything about that.

[killbotfactory]

40. He didn't cancel elections

The opposition is just very unpopular and have threatened to boycott them.

The worst thing he has done was to lead a failed coup in 1992, as a response to the corruption of the current government and things like the Caracazo riots.

Overwhelmed by the looting, the government declared a state of emergency, put the city under martial law and restored order albeit with the use of force. Some people used firearms for self-defence, to attack other civilians and/or to attack the military, but the number of dead soldiers and police came nowhere near the number of civilian deaths. The repression was particularly harsh in the cerros — the poor neighbourhoods of the capital.

The initial official pronouncements said 276 people had died; however, the subsequent discovery that the government had buried civilians in mass graves and not counted those deaths raised the estimates. Unofficial estimates of the death toll go as high as 3000.

Congress suspended constitutional rights, and there were several days during which the city was in chaos, with restrictions, food shortages, militarisation, burglaries, and the persecution and murder of innocent people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caracazo

He ruled by decree for a year after the new Venezuelan constituion was adopted, which people use as evidence that he is a dictator.

[PeaceProgProsp]

46. The opposite is true. He actually scheduled extra ellections.

After the constituent assembly drafted a new constitution, that constitution didn't require him to run again, but he did run again (and won). Then there was the recall election which he also won.

My understanding is that his party has won be growing margins in the 7 elections since it was formed.

[Deep13]

54. So they get a new constitution...

...then Chavez gets reelected under it?

What about this rumor of an arms build-up? Is it all bullshit? Is it for legitimate security matters? Is it bad?

[PeaceProgProsp]

55. Yes. They elected him on the platform of writing a new constitution.

And they reelected him because he did it.

At his swearing-in ceremony, he said something like, "I swear on this moribund constitution that we will give Venezuela a new constitution" that creates a society built on justice.

Do you really have a problem with that?

[Deep13]

56. No. Didn't say I did.

Venezuela has to run itself and I was happy to hear that South American leaders are finally doing so. I just want to make sure I understand the facts. The corporate media does not spend much time discussing the internal affairs of South American countries, so I gotta ask someone.

[Solon]

66. OK, let's see if I can break it down...

In 1999, Chavez was elected as President of Venezuela. The country was in the middle of a recession, and Chavez did two things, first was to modify the mission of the military, which was a HUGE albatross on the country into anti-poverty measures. Second he then reversed the privatization of public holding that was implemented under previous presidents.

In addition, he appointed a commission to write a new Constitution for the nation. The new Constitution was put up to referendum, at the same time, Hugo Chavez was also up for re-election under this new Constitution which is to be implemented in 2000. This new Constitution gives the President 2 terms lasting 6 years each. So Chavez is NOW running for re-election. However, in 2002, he was temporarily deposed in a coup, and in 2004, he won a recall election(another new Constitutional provision).

[LostinVA]

83. No cancelled elections

And, why is he not allowed to buy arms but WE are?

[135th]

34. Calling Chavez evil is an overstatement,

but that doesn't mean he is good. Chavez is just a leftist Venezuelan Bush, with little respect for the democratic process or institutions of the government he runs. The coup, constitutional rewrites, and voter intimidation tactics make this perfectly clear. The difference between Chavez and Bush is that Venezuela has a much shorter and less established democratic history then the US, so Chavez can make his power grabs eaiser. I'd hate to see what Bush could do in such a nation.

[sweetheart]

64. Would DU be allowed to exist?

Would Free Republic? I heard he was ruthless in shutting down critical media, is this true?
'The Economist' has not been very friendly towards chavez, as he appears to have decimated the
state oil company, but that depends on how you value 'value', and 'the economist' is unfortunately
not 'the socialist', but the latter would be a much more interesting publication.

[frylock]

70. you might want to check this..

Yes, FR and DU would exist.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2187974

[135th]

71. I don't know.

From what I've heard the media restrictions are overblown, though I don't like the fact that they exist at all. I don't know enough about that issue to comment on it either way. That doesn't change the validity about what I said; Chavez is a power seeker willing to disregard the democratic process when it suits him.

Also, "Economist is not the Socialist" had me laughing my head off. :-)

[rman]

86. There is more freedom of speech in Venezuela than in the US

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2187974

[Rex]

37. The fact that he exists seems to drive some DUrs over the edge.

Some don't like him for personal reasons only they know about. And then there is the sad little group of trolls that can hardly contain their hatred for a socialist leader. Chavez is just a man folks, flawed like all of God's creatures. So what if he called Bush the Devil, of course he got it wrong - everyone knows the Devil is Dick Cheney.

Bush doesn't even rate.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

76. LOL

I'll agree with that one. I do think Hugo overstated the case this week.

I think he is a fascinating man with many good ideas. But history cautions us that such men often go above and beyond and cross the line.

It amuses me that so many folks on Du are quite eager to look the other way when he pushes the envelope down there in South America, but have a hissy when Bush does the same thing here. The only difference is Bush pushes it for his buddies, the elite, and Chavez pushes it for the poor. But while morally, that might give Chavez the edge, nevertheless, they both are leaders who have st epped past their roles and we don't know where the hell they might end up. Mao was a man of the people, too. He killed all the teachers. (I have a few past students who think that was a great idea.) Personally, I don't trust either of them.

Radicals make me nervous.

[notadmblnd]

43. he refuses to kiss bushco's ass

therefore he is evil.:sarcasm:

[samfishX]

45. I Have HEARD...

(...but I have no idea if it's true or it's it's just Reich-wing propaganda) that Chavez basically rules his country with an iron fist and people who disagree or move against his government "disappear" into prisons or just all together vanish; and that despite being democratically elected, he does not intend to step down when the next election rolls around.

Now, admittedly, the people who supposedly vanished are also the ones who overthrew the government briefly a few years back, which was a Bush/CIA supported coup attempt.

But still...I honestly don't know if any of that is even true or to what degree it might be. My gut tells me that some PART of it must be true, but it's being spun to all Hell to make him sound a lot worse than he might actually be.
The Repuglicans have done a FANTASTIC job of really muddying the waters when it comes to Chavez...and all I hear from the left, by and large, is usually nothing but praise and admiration for the guy.

The only reason I find that odd is because..well, hell– NOBODY here on the "left" EVER agrees on anything like they do on the issue Chavez being a good guy! So when I hear Democrats and liberals offering so much praise to the guy, my first reaction is to say, "something stinks...this is abnormal for "our side" to agree so unanimously..."


You know what I LOVE, though, is how every article about Chavez starts off with a line like, "Venezuela's LEFTIST ruler, Hugo Chavez said blah blah blah..." and then the article goes on to demonize the guy. The "liberal" media has done a great job of making the word "leftist" sound evil, while the Reich-wing media has done a good job of making the word "liberal" into just a dirty word.

I really do hate these people...

[Bridget Burke]

51. Please, let us know about the Desaparecidos....

Those who disappeared in Argentina, Chile & other countries to the south generally did so under Rightist regimes. Good allies of the USA!

[tkmorris]

58. Not true. Not even remotely true

No one has "vanished". Not one single person.

In fact, it is something of a surprise that more of the people who led the coup attempt against Chavez have not been jailed for their actions. I should double check, but at last count there were only 3 people charged with crimes resulting from that. It would seem that Chavez was aware that a too strenuous prosecution of those responsible would inevitably result in accusations like the one you heard. Of course, the accusation is made anyway but now it is easily disproved.

You won't hear "nothing but praise and admiration for the guy" from me, though I have been one of his most vocal supporters here. I like a great deal what he has done and continues to do for the poor in Venezuela, and his resistance to the rape of his nations resources by imported corporations. I am watching him, and liking him, but if he does anything untoward I will be the first to say so.

Don't believe ANYTHING you hear, especially about people like Chavez. Find out for yourself, and be careful about your sources.

[scarletwoman]

59. In other words, you've got no documentation, no sources, no facts -- just

a bunch of "some people say" ala Faux News.

Oh, and a sneaking suspicion that if so many leftists like him, there must be some sinister reason behind it.

If you'd like some accurate information, go here: Media, Propaganda and Venezuela -- good analysis of how and why Chavez has been demonized and lots of links to further information.

For a shorter article from a journalist who recently visited Venezuela, go here: Go to Venezuela, You Idiot!

There is an extensive section of articles about Venezuela and Chavez worth looking into here: Venezuela Watch

There's no reason to rely on what "some people say", when the facts are readily available.

sw

[progressisvirtue]

60. theres truth to what he/she said

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/monitoring/media_repor...
"venezuela press codemns 'autocrat' chavez"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1713761.stm
"Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has threatened to nationalise banks which resist controversial financial and legal reforms introduced last month."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1940672.stm
nationalizes the oil industry

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2529905.stm
dissenting generals fired


being a dictator doesnt mean you werent elected, and IT DOESNT MEAN YOU ARE A BAD LEADER, those are just connotations of the word

[scarletwoman]

63. Your 1st link doesn't work, your 2nd link is from 2001, & your 3rd link

is nothing more than a report that the new (in 2002) head of PDV is Ali Rodriguez. It doesn't say anything about Chavez "nationalizing the oil industry" as your subtitle states. In fact, the oil industry in Venezuela was nationalized in 1976, long before Chavez -- source: Oxford Institute for Petroleum Studies (second paragraph)

In response to your second link (from 2001, as I've noted), here's an excerpt from a much more recent article -- 9/12/2006:

Banks in Venezuela have been raking in profit despite the rule of President Hugo Chávez, who in 2001 threatened to nationalize banks and imprison bankers who did not comply with new rules for the financial sector.

So far, no bank has been nationalized, nor has any banker been imprisoned. And the banks have complied with regulations that include compulsory lending to agriculture of 16 percent of total lending and price controls over fees.

Their profitability comes from the boom in the oil-dependent economy, with gross domestic product rising 9.7 percent last year, and a high demand for credit.

Link: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/09/12/business/bankcol13.php#

The article in your 4th link contains the standard western media anti-Chavez slant. This is also another old article (from 2002). Since that time, the country-wide Referendum vote happened in 2003 where Chavez won over 60% of the vote in an election process certified as fair and open by international observers including Jimmy Carter and the OAS. In any case, why should ANY president tolerate military officers who actively work with organizations dedicated to your overthrow?

I read everything I could find about the situation in Venezuela after the 2002 coup and leading up to the referendum vote. If you haven't been following these events over the years, and especially if you have relied solely on the biased reporting of the mainstream Western media, you really have no accurate context in which to make informed judgements.

I would hope that you would at least follow the links in my post that you replied to. Especially the first link which provides some excellent analysis of how and why the Western mainstream media distorts its reporting of Chavez and Venezuela. Seems like it's the least you could do if you're going to post a reply to somebody's post. I've followed your links, after all. (except for the 1st one which wouldn't work for me).

sw

[NotGivingUp]

98. EXCELLENT POST!

[LostinVA]

84. Well I HEARD none of that is true

And I think you are getting your South America regimes mixed up... mainly Rightest regimes supported by the US who "disappeared" people vs. Chavez's Lesfist regime.

Actually, I've done more than HEARD>

Interesting posters on this thread...

[CJCRANE]

47. He's eeeeeevil, I tell you.

Because he just is. So there.

[The Straight Story]

49. I CANNOT answer that because it would not be believed HERE anyway

And here is the reason:
(in short - no matter what one can dig up on chavez, people who like him will dismiss the source...)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2196734

[personman]

52. He helps poor people. n/t

[kerry-is-my-prez]

57. He might consciously or sub-consciously hope that Bush stays in power

Just like Bin Laden - he gets more power and adulation from Bush being around. It's probably pretty remote - but it's possible.

[scarletwoman]

61. This is satire, right? You can't possibly expect such a nonsensical

statement to be taken seriously? :eyes:

[cooolandrew]

75. Chavez is probably the most compassionate leader in the world today

I mean I would call a person a wee bit demonic if they tried to kill me. The best thing Chavez could of done is to make people more aware to save his life.

[terrya]

77. Some people would say his friendship with Fidel Castro.

[rman]

79. Some people don't know Fidel is befriended with Nelson Mandela

(thanks to the corporate MSM)

[TallahasseeGrannie]

88. HMMM

so to be a good Democrat I need to admire Chavez and Castro, too? I think I took a wrong turn somewhere around 2004. Probably in December.

I can't seem to find a home anywhere. Maybe it just doesn't matter anymore and I should leave it to folks who are younger and with more energy.

Well, my garden did really well this year, except for when that freaking aligator used it as a short cut to the lake for two weeks.

[rman]

90. It's not about being a good democrat

as far as i am concerned.

It's about the bigger picture of US foreign policy both past and present, assisted to some degree by other wealthy nations - which is the primary cause of many a human crisis.

Before Castro came to power Cuba to was exploited by large (mainly US) corporate interests, it was like the US but much worse across the board because Cuba was (and up to a point still is) much poorer than the US, so many people were really suffering. It was a hot-spot of organized international crime.
Cuba today is not paradise, there are restrictions on freedom of speech, but it is not nearly as bad as the mainstream media (owned by the same corporate interests that exploit poor nations) would have us believe. And nobody is so poor that they can't afford basic needs such as food, healthcare, education etc.

Castro send his army to Angola to defend it against invasion by South Africa when there was still "Apartheid". South Africa lost, which caused the beginning of the end of Apartheid, and the freeing of then political prisoner Nelson Mandela.
It is entirely within expectations that the corporate MSM were silent about this.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

93. Thanks for your well thought-out reply

Let me ask you this question. And this is not a snark, I am curious. Would you, personally, rather live in a society ruled by a dictator where the standard of living is, while not high, uniform? Or in a free society where there are both excesses of poverty and weath?

I personally don't know precisely how I would answer that. I guess it would depend where I was on the continuum.

[Cleita]

92. If Jesus Christ were alive today he would be friends with

Fidel Castro and George Bush. He wouldn't be playing the politics of division or taking sides.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

94. I agree

[earth mom]

91. Absolutely Nothing. DU has been infested with a shitload of freepers

and apparently some of em have been around since day 1. :puke:

[TallahasseeGrannie]

95. So, let me get this straight

those of us who disagree with you, despite voting Democrat since Hubert Humphrey, are freepers?

Who knew? I guess I'll log on over there and see what's up!

[Recursion]

97. "Evil"? Don't know about that. Questions? Yes

http://web.amnesty.org/report2006/ven-summary-eng

There seem to be some issues, particularly with freedom of expression, the independence of the judiciary, and abuse of tax and eminent domain laws to suppress opposition figures. Is that horrible? Not really. Is it better than the guy he replaced? Almost certainly. But the lesser of two evils is still evil.

My own take is that the jury is still out on Hugo. If he keeps these reforms going, lets up on the opposition, and relinquishes power, he'll go down as the next Bolivar. If his tenure morphs into a "presidency for life", that's a different story...