Int'l Leader Has "The Balls" To Call Out Bush & DU/Dems Attack Him For It?

[omega minimo]

Isn't that what everybody who thinks "balls" are the answer has been crying about, pointing the finger at "wimpy" (or worse) Democrats and wondering which international leader will speak up?

Now we know. In the rush to judgement, from some prominent Democratic Congressional leaders, various pundits and a surprising number of DUers, is the point being lost here?

Was anything that Hugo Chavez said valid? Important? Worth repeating? Worth considering?
Something No One Else Has Been Willing To Say Publicly?

Is the message lost in all the drama, all the histrionics, all the fingerpointing? Did the Democrats miss an opportunity (again)?

Remember what happened when Bush attended a "Hurricane Corrinna" memorial with an audience that was not handpicked and sanitized?


Swamp Rat image

Those moments can be shocking. Chavez used invective and theatrics to make his point.

But where is DU discussing what that point actually WAS?



Chomsky on Chavez
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2200058&mesg_id=2200058

[omega minimo]

1. Transcript of Chavez UN speech

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2200008&mesg_id=2200008

Thanks very much TahitiNut

[TahitiNut]

19. Certainly. (We seem to be on the same page on this one.)

:thumbsup: (Full transcript is also in my DU Journal.)

I just don't see this as some 'Trial of Chavez' ... but merely celebrating the remarks he made at the UN to a standing ovation of many, if not most, UN delegations. If any DUer had written those same remarks, that post would've hit the Greatest Page in record time.

So, when any DUer whines and attacks Chavez as though he's running for office, I find that to be intellectually dishonest. The remarks stand by themselves. It's just too bad more aren't doing the same, imho.

[omega minimo]

24. Thanks again (I knew we had it in us :) Well put

I don't know how many people actually know what he said at all beyond the "Diablo" bit.

"So, when any DUer whines and attacks Chavez as though he's running for office, I find that to be intellectually dishonest. The remarks stand by themselves. It's just too bad more aren't doing the same, imho."

After all the calls for someone/anyone to do what HC did, it's boggling that folks are putting him down. I included the Swamp Rat image because the public events where any truth has broken through to the Bubble Prez are few and far between. Aside from Gregory, Thomas, Conyers, Feingold, McGovern (questioning Rummy) -- I count One. (pictured)

:hug:

[TahitiNut]

29. (grin) DU is treating him like he's a Naderite.

The bashers really can't find significant fault with what he said, so they complain because he's "stealing thunder" (how dare he say what Democrats are afraid to say?) and must have some illicit agenda.

Golly! Hugo Chavez must be a member of the Green Party!?!?! Wow! :silly: :dunce:

[omega minimo]

31. Urk!! LOL So....the Next Time Stolen Election is CHAVEZ' fault?!!

:yoiks:

[TahitiNut]

37. Yep. See post #7 below. It's already happening.

:rofl:

So, calling Junior a war criminal "helps" the GOP. Wow. I suppose the whole country would become GOP if and when they're tried at The Hague.

Unf*ckingreal.

[lonestarnot]

103. Not this DUer!

[LeftCoast]

2. My issue is not with Chavez, but rather his cult of personality

Nice spin on the issue though.

[rman]

68. People admire Chavez for what he does - no cult of personality, no spin

Chavez is doing everything right that Bush is doing wrong.

[MrModerate]

3. One point of many is that Bush is not literally "the devil" . . .

And by using ridiculously over-the-top language, Chavez renders himself ridiculous -- and by association, the content of his speeches too.

Most voters don't respond well to unprofessional spew, whether it's the wrapper for truth or not. Look at Keith Olberman -- he hits Bush just as hard, but one can be proud of his statements. In part because he's so well spoken, a certain gravitas attaches to his statements. It's much too easy to dismiss what Chavez says as the rantings of a blowhard (and he IS a blowhard, and not exactly a model enlightened leader, either).

Ultimately Chavez-like eruptions don't help us, and I'm in pragmatic mode now -- I want to win in November.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

4. He's no worse than the commander in thief that many

rwingers wet their pants over. Terrah terrah booga booga, axis of evil, blah blah blah....

[omega minimo]

9. OK point taken. And if HC made a point no one else will

it's worse for us if it is lost and buried in complaints about his personal style.

Doesn't that fit right into KKKarl's script?



And I have one bone to pick with you. "Unprofessional spew"? It is the professional "decorum" in Congress that is literally killing this nation right now. No fiery speakers with backbone. Chavez invoked fire and brimstone. His choice. Is anyone anywhere saying what needs to be said publicly, let alone before the international body?

[MrModerate]

78. Sadly, there's plenty of fire in Congress -- just watch CSPAN . . .

It's mostly from rightwing troglodytes excoriating Dems for selling 'Murrica out to Osama bin Laden. What Dems are not saying -- wisely, IMO -- is that Bush is the devil, that he's the worst president in American history, that he should be impeached and sent in chains to the Hague, etc., etc.

All of which I happen to believe are true, but which I also acknowledge would kill Dems' chances to win in November. And that's precisely because such remarks are so inflammatory that they eliminate reasoned, "professional" debate over issues, which still remains the gold standard (unfortunately much debased in the current political environment).

[omega minimo]

99. Thank you for correcting that "No fiery speakers with backbone"

Strangely, I thought Charles Rangel was one of the few.

I agree with your point, but not with the Either/Or presupposition that your MrModerate post suggests......

There is a range of action b/w saying "that Bush is the devil, that he's the worst president in American history, that he should be impeached and sent in chains to the Hague, etc., etc."and saying nothing at all. Or saying he is "my President" in some misguided American Pride hubris that aligns us with the "Imperial Hypocrisy" that Chavez was calling out.

"All of which I happen to believe are true, but which I also acknowledge would kill Dems' chances to win in November. And that's precisely because such remarks are so inflammatory that they eliminate reasoned, "professional" debate over issues, which still remains the gold standard (unfortunately much debased in the current political environment)."

That is the gold standard-- agreed-- but I don't get the sense that too many people really know what that looks like any more. And I suspect that those concerned about "decorum" are more concerned about what they think OTHER people think, rather than a straightforward assessment of what is being said.

Look at Russ Feingold. He stands up when it counts, by himself, to salvage the last shreds of the Republic from Republican claws. And then chooses (at times) to use squirmy, vague, "professional" "decorum" and let the Pugs off the hook.

We should never forget Barbara Boxer for being the only Senator with spine to stand up for the ripped off electorate on Jan. 6, 2004.

Have you seen the DSM DVD Symbolman did of the Basement Hearings that Conyers convened? There is a perfect example of how to do what you are suggesting in your post. Cong. Conyers, Joe Wilson, Cindy Sheehan and Ray McGovern all speaking "professionally" "diplomatically" with great "decorum" and still MANAGING TO SAY CLEARLY WITHOUT EQUIVOCATION WHAT NEEDS TO BE SAID. IMHO it was esp. striking to see the calm, centered demeanor of Wilson (testifying about the treasonous outing of his wife, a CIA agent) and McGovern (25+ year CIA agent testifying that his government lied) and the willingness that they both had to:

SUSPEND DISBELIEF AND PRETEND-- TO ACT AS IF-- THIS SYSTEM WORKS.

With Tom Hayden in the background (another master at doing this).

THAT'S what we're talking about.

[zeemike]

10. Could it be a cultural thing?

I don't think calling someone El Diablo in Spanish is all that over the top. Most of them are religious and have no issues with the term.
I have often heard them use the term by saying that there child is the devil.
But it is like the hitler reference, it is just an excuse to make the over the top charge.

[killbotfactory]

63. I don't think Chavez literally believes Bush is the devil incarnate.

It was meant to be humorous, not literal.

[Karenina]

67. Hugo explains...

http://www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/archive/200609/20060922_transcript.html

Tavis: The first question of this conversation I think has to be your comment calling President Bush the devil. There are some who have labeled your speech at the U.N. just days ago the most undiplomatic speech ever given at the U.N. To the American public, clarify or share with us why you chose to call George Bush the devil.

Chavez: Thank you very much for your question. Allow me to make the following comment. In order to come here, some considered my speech undiplomatic. How diplomatic is it to bombard cities? Is it diplomatic to command the killing of thousands of innocent people? I think today some stirred or smiled when I say what I said. I think it was rather a humoristic speech and caused no damage, no aggression. I said I smelled sulfur here. I think people were having a good time. They were smiling.

Now let's go to the bottom of the issue. Is it not a devilish action to order the invasion of a country? Lying to your own citizens? Throwing high-position bombs and highly destructive bombs against houses filled with people? Against entire peoples? You see, it is really an act of devils to use weapons of mass destruction, to use chemical weapons, against entire cities, poisoning the air, poisoning the water. In Fallujah, even the birds died. Cockroaches died. All traces of life disappeared in Fallujah. That's an act of devils.

My words are worth nothing. What matters is the truth and my words only reflect reality. It is nothing personal. It is something coming from ethics and morality. My words are just a cry, a scream, a clamor for justice, for reflection on the citizens that cannot support gross actions conducted by President Bush.

Tavis: Words do have meaning. You know that better than most. Words have meaning. I wonder whether you ever consider that the words may get in the way. That is to say, that the message that you want to convey gets shrouded, covered, by the methodology so that, when you use a use a word like devil, what you really want the American public to hear, they don't hear because of the language, because of the word.

Chavez: Well, that's a perspective. That's a point of view. It's very confusing that what you have said has some value, I might also say. There are words, in this case, one word that says very clearly what we can say with a thousand words and perhaps because it is a strong word, and it is indeed, it might move the consciousness of the people, of some people. But from my perspective, they're a little bit sleepy. They're sleeping.

They are not realizing what is going on or they are confounded and the United States president is supported by a powerful media mechanism or equipment power. It even manipulates in some religious ideas. He said, one, that he was the mandate of God. He considers himself a God and that's a terrible manipulation since this is obeying the interests that are against God. I think he considers himself like God. When I call him devil, it's just to strike a balance.

[Jim Warren]

74. Thanks for that

Would have missed it otherwise.

[MrModerate]

79. If ridicule = humorous, sure. No argument. from me.

It's still a matter of coming into a country and calling the leader schoolyard names.

I've called Schimpanski worse, but I'm not the leader of a sovereign nation. I both have more right to call Bush whatever I want -- since he's sitting the the house where the American president is supposed to sit, which makes him "my" president -- and my calling him such things is not "undiplomatic" because I have no diplomatic status.

Chavez does. And whether I agree with him on the topic of Bush, or whether I agree with him on how he's governing Venezuela or his vision for reducing US influence in Latin America, in the very narrow band of concern that encompasses the November elections (in America), I think Dems can only hurt themselves with the voters by embracing Hugoism.

[rman]

69. Who in his right mind thinks Chavez did mean it literally?

I mean, seriously...

[femrap]

75. Well, I guess your name says it all.

I have read quite a bit about the policies Chavez has been implementing in Venezuela. Helping OUR poor with heating oil when our own country won't was a gesture that I appreciated.

I have been saying for years that * is Lucifer incarnate...geez, there are websites with supposed 'proof' that he is the anti-christ: www.bushisantichrist.com

Maybe if some of these 'rapture folks' read some of this stuff, they would start to wonder.

I howled when I heard Chavez....the theatrics were fabulous. Remember * tried to oust him from power. Are people pissed because a Dem didn't call him evil first? That scent of sulfur....I laughed until I cried.

Would I rather live with a prez like * or one like Chavez? I'd take Chavez anyday. At least he cares for the poor of his nation and has opened clinics in their neighborhoods and placed doctors from Cuba there to treat them....the white doctors of Venezuela refuse to go into those neighborhoods.

Have you read about Venezuela and its recent history? Greg Palast did a report on Chavez that is on line.

[MrModerate]

80. I don't deny that Chavez makes me nervous . . .

He strikes me as too much like a hundred other strongmen leaders visited on Latin America over the last hundred years or so. "Populists" whose personal ambitions far outweigh any genuine ambitions for their own people.

Would the world, on balance, be better off if Latin America "threw off America's yoke"? I'm not sure. The attendant disruption makes me uncomfortable and I don't have the vision or expertise to imagine the ultimate outcome.

But that aside, at this point I'm narrowly focused on November, elections I consider it crucial to win if we are to take the reins out of Bush's hands and start the long process of repairing the damage he's caused. Chavez is absolutely zero help in that regard, and to the degree that he whips up a frenzy among Bush's base, a genuine impediment.

Selfishly, I wish he'd just shut up -- at least for a few months.

[CanSocDem]

82. I think the mindset...

...of latin America is different from that of North America. The USA is unique in emphasizing the value of acquiring material possessions and personal wealth so it is natural to see only "personal ambition" in anybody rising above the crowd, especially when they claim to have , at heart, the interests of the collective. There really is a genuine interest in the public welfare most everywhere outside of the USA.

[MrModerate]

83. Well . . . having lived in the UK, Hong Kong, Romania . . .

and Thailand; and spent months in The Philippines, Kuwait, Iraq, Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia, India; and visited 30 or 40 other countries, I'd have to say that the pursuit of individual or family wealth is the primary concern in all these places.

True, Islamic culture places a burden on believers to be charitable to a degree that exceeds American norms, but I can't say I've personally experienced a culture where concern for the collective exceeded concern for the idividual/family. I'm sure they're out there (and I haven't traveled in Latin America -- that's one part of the world still on my "to be sampled" list), but I haven't seen 'em.

[femrap]

101. Are you sure you just aren't hanging out with materialistic, greedy

folks? Did you travel with an expense account on business? Or did you travel with a backpack? Big difference in the people and experiences you would encounter.

I know that most everyone wants their family to have shelter, food, and be comfortable...but are you talking 'keeping up with the Jones' crap' is found in Romania? Thailand?

I am sure all those countries have the 'greedies' as I call them. But is their culture based on consumerism and materialism to the extent that ours is? I am pretty disgusted with the greed that has enveloped our nation....and I know many, many people who agree with me.

There have been studies done with regard to how much wealth is needed for happiness....and it's $50,000. Above that, and happiness does not increase.

[MrModerate]

113. "Keeping Up With the Joneses" is alive and well . . .

In all the places I cited, and especially so in Romania (and Hong Kong). In Romania, having been under dysfunctional (and often murderous) rule for most of the last 200 years, the people strongly feel that they've missed out on all the goodies that their fellow Europeans to the West have enjoyed. And now that they have a chance to get those goodies, nothing is going to get in their way. This attitude can be seen in every strata of the population from the kids trying desperately to get themselves out of their ancestral villages to the leading lights in Bucuresti. In Hong Kong, acquisition -- of money and influence, especially -- is the primary reason people draw breath.

While my backpacking days are largely behind me, I have traveled as a cash-poor tourist, as well as on business, so I'm pretty sure I've seen a broad sampling of humanity in these places.

Greediness is not a uniquely American sin, not by a very long shot.

[femrap]

100. I was phone banking on Friday and called a 77 year-old

woman in Ohio. She told me she got a real kick out of Chavez! She loved it.

At first when I called her, she was Undecided and thinking of not voting, but we got to talking. I think now she will vote and I think she will vote Dem. We discussed how badly the state of Ohio was as well as our country....but she has lived long enough to remember that Dems can be assholes as well.

I said we have to make a change and then we need to hold their feet to the fire. And I closed with....remember we gotta contain this devil! And she laughed.

People hate W. I mean HATE. I don't see why we are tiptoeing around that....the Devil thing was great.

And I am pleased about what is happening in Bolivia as well. I saw Evo Morales interviewed on Democracy Now! last week. What I would give to have a person like that as my President. Got to Democracy Now's website and watch the interview...I think it was Friday. Chile has a woman President. S. America seems to be the happening place to be in this hemisphere. Why did I learn French?

[leanin_green]

105. You should be nervous

To quote a line from one of my favorite movies: "When one man stands up and says, 'No, I won't.' Rome begins to tremble." Kirk Douglas; Spartacus.

I also believe you should read a little more about just what is happening in Chavez' country before you label him with an ingnorant cultural stereotype.
Check into the history of American dealings with Latin America and you might find out just why someone like Chavez has appeal there. Read what Chavez has to say about OUR current system and the economic injustice of it and you'll begin to see that he is in the forefront of a movement that has nothing and everything to do with US. He's not against the American people. If anything, he is speaking to us as well, because we suffer under the same unjust system.

Did you know that Venezuela has a vaster oil reserve than the Saudis? The only problem is that it is in the form of tar-like oil. It takes more to refine it for normal use. He even offered Bush a fixed price of $50 a barrel. It takes a little more than $30 a barrel in costs to refine Venezuelan crude. This would have driven the cost at the pump down by at least a dollar a gallon. Do you think Bush would take him up on it? Hell no! He and the BFEE is so enmeshed with the Saudis and the current funnelling of oil money back into this country that he can't act in the best interests of the nation. And what is Chavez to think when he witnesses the lengths to which Bush will go to get his hands on the second largest oil reserve in the Middle East(Iraq)? It's no wonder that Chavez has paid of the IMF and World Bank debts of his South American neighbors.
A shrewed move to create allies in the face of naked American agression.

So, you should be nervous about Chavez. Because he is becoming a lightining rod for all thrid world countries to throw off the American Yoke. And just remember, there are more of them than there are of us.
Hmph, reminds me of another line from Spartacus, "There are more slaves in Rome than Romans!"

[MrModerate]

115. Reality check: Does Chavez actually believe . . .

That Bush sets the price American refiners (or consumers) pay for oil?

I doubt it.

[leanin_green]

129. No, that's not it at all.

Venezuelan oil has a high sulphur content, which makes it a class of heavy crude. It takes a great deal of money and fitting of refineries to handle the process to remove the sulphur from the crude. Whereas, the refining of lighter sweet crude is cheaper, but the price per barrel is higher.

The price is set by the market and the cost of refining. Chavez was trying to create a better market for his crude by offering Bush the bargain price of $50 a barrel(Saudi crude was much more expensive at the time). Not to mention, the price to transport and the time the crude would arrive at the refineries is much cheaper and shorter than Saudi oil. It would save Chavez the cost of building more refineries himself if he could simply ship it in crude form to already established refineries in the States. Perhaps to Chavez it was a win win situation for both countries. Cheaper costs to ship and a large supply would only drop prices at the pump. But, perhaps, that just didn't fit into Big Oil's plans.

[blossomstar]

86. True that, same feelings here, thanks.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

95. 100% Agreed. Very Rationally Spoken, Good Reasoning And Good Logic.

That sums up my feelings as well as to why the comments were ineffective and unproductive. Once one stoops to the level of taunting and name calling their message becomes irrelevant to most people.

[nolabels]

106. HC speaks in words a common man might use

Some might find his vernacular and lexicon offensive but he made no pretense to be part of the holding up the bullshit veneer of todays so called established civilization. Boo hoo, so sad it is. Like there have been so many people that have been after HC for so long now, that him just surviving even this long is quite an accomplishment. Short hand street lingo and trash talking to others that have been giving mortal threats is only par for course.

[MGKrebs]

5. Both things can be true.

Chavez can be a thug AND Bush can be the devil.

They are not mutually exclusive.

[EFerrari]

13. What evidence do you have (or does Nancy have) that he is a thug?

I'd really like to see it because I am innocent of any such knowledge.

[omega minimo]

22. So what-- you want actual info rather than Faux-style yelling?

:hug:

[EFerrari]

26. Call me a dinosaur.

lol

:hug:

[MGKrebs]

46. There can't be evidence because

"thug" is not a technical term. It is an subjective opinion, and not necessarily mine.
Having said that, I do not automatically accept the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" philosophy either.

I think Chavez is doing some good things, but he is also acting like a punk sometimes. So either he is operating at a level way over my head (quite possible), or he is a complicated person who isn't all good or all bad. Also possible.

[EFerrari]

50. The word has a meaning.

And beyond that slander, he's doing more to stand up to the Bush cabal than the Democrats are.

If he's a thug, I'm a thug fan.

[applegrove]

6. He ruins his own message on "how to fight poverty" by aping Bush

and name calling.

We did this all yesterday. Skinner even had to step in and say.. RELAX! It was inappropriate and thrilling for a momment and we have more important things to be discussing.

So there!

[Truthiness Inspector]

8. I agree

Any and all messages Chavez had were overshadowed by his undiplomatic delivery.
I know people who aren't into politics at all, and all they know about Hugo Chavez is that he called Bush the "devil."

[omega minimo]

14. Right-- and any importance in HC's message didn't get discussed, did it?

Backatcha!

[applegrove]

20. The reason why we all loved Chavez at first was because of the

great things he has accomplished in Venezuela. That was the real reason for his fame. Now he is just infamous. Or heading in that direction.

It matters. We have so few heroes. To turn into an aper of Bush does not look good. That's politics. I think the guy is drunk on it. Which is too bad. Cause he was setting an example for the world. I think the USA may have baited him into acting in such a fashion. By making him paranoid..he cannot be the person (leader) he once was.

[EFerrari]

15. That's ridiculous. He's not "aping" Bush. Why compliment Bush

with a complexity he'd never EVER understand?

What he did was to insult Bush in Bush's language. That was a direct shot over the bow. Geezus. If you read the rest of the speech, you notice a change in tone, vocabulary and metaphor.

That was a very layered performance and it's amazing how it goes over everyone's heads.

Except his audience, who applauded and laughed WITH him.

Aping Bush. lol

[applegrove]

21. He aped him. He stood up used language Bush would use. He aped

him in using undiplomatic name-calling. Which Bush himself stole from some six year old.

[EFerrari]

27. No, he didn't. He purposefully spoke to Junior in the language

Junior understands. It's painful, I know, to realize that in order to communicate with Junior you have to sound like a six year old but that's what Chavez did.

Have you read the rest of the speech? If you do, you will notice a range of expression that we haven't seen in this country for many years.

[MuseRider]

32. Perfectly stated.

I thought his speech was very good and I agree it was a shot over the bow. Somebody has to say it, somebody has to call him on his shit. So far there have been very few with the guts to do it.

[EFerrari]

34. This is probably one of the most significant gestures

a foreign leader has made since the USSR folded. The man has sand. :wow:

[hfojvt]

126. he has sand? He must have gone to my alma mater!

from the Huron HS school song:

"We'll back you to stand
'gainst the best in the land
For we know you have sand, Huron High ..."

and when we found that out, the general comment was "Sand? Sand? WTF is that supposed to mean? Who talks like that?" :hi:

[omega minimo]

127. Sand in the keel?

Hi :spray: hfojvt :hi:

[rman]

72. Skinner "had to" step in...

Where would the 'moderates' be without Skinner correcting the progressive majority on DU?
Skinner's stepping in doesn't make a damn difference.




DEMOCRATS IF YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT I GOT TO SAY...THEN LOSE AGAIN
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2194928&mesg_id=2194928

Pelosi, Rangel, Clinton you make castigating comments about a man who speaks the prevailing sentiments of the entire damn world and instead you’d rather sanctify the fart joking war criminal in our own oval office.
...
238 votes

===

Skinner's thread got like 70 votes
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2195220

[Moochy]

107. Amen!!

[femrap]

77. I didn't see where Skinner entered the

conversation. If he did and said what Chavez did was INappropriate, then my opinion of Skinner has dropped like a stone.

And now you come along saying "So there. See, daddy came in and said it was bad and I am just a good little person who never ruffles a hair on anyone's head. I love the USA....and no one can ever say anything bad about our dear, dear President who has killed only a hair over 100,000 people. Chavez is bad. We are good."

Inappropriate, my ass.

This country has lost all ability to see humor, to get a joke....maybe we have lost the ability to see the f*cking TRUTH. The religious right wing's attitudes have rubbed off on EVERYONE!

[applegrove]

88. I think he thought the debate was going askew. That he felt good someone

called Bush the Devil..but it was undiplomatic and not worth the time it was taking up and the anger ... on the DU.


Everything else you said in your post I disagree with.

[femrap]

98. So the RR's attitude has little influence on

people in the US? And that our country has NOT lost its sense of humor?

Where do you live? Cuz I'm moving there.

[applegrove]

119. They don't have everyone in the Koolaid. Just the base and a few moderates

So it isn't fair when we discuss for you to paint me as a koolaider. Cause I am not. Try not think black and white. Personally I am very concerned with neocon plans for "democracy" around the world and how they went after Chavez for reforms towards equality. That worries me a great deal - that is a message that needs to get out - and because Chavez started with "devil" & "sulfur" the people who really need to hear his speech and values re: trade & democracy alone do not a decent country make..there needs to be some redistribution of income or 75% of the population live like shit. That message was lost.

Chavez has been baited by the RR in the USA and is acting like an angry bull. And it messes up the important things he had to say once. I would say the neocon won re: his speech. They got him red angry and thus.. obfuscated what his message used to be.

[omega minimo]

120. Angry? He didn't seem angry with the "Diablo" schtick and that's what so

many got stuck on they didn't look at his words. :shrug:

[applegrove]

121. He could have had his love of his country and redistributing wealth

as the Newsbite. He chose to make it devil and sulfur. He's a politician. And he seems to be playing into GOP hands..because they have him so scared of a coup.

[omega minimo]

122. If he hadn't mentioned the Devil, would he have had ANY soundbite?

:evilgrin:

[applegrove]

123. Yes. And word of how more policy is needed to make countries equitable

would have been the message. That message no longer gets out where Chavez is concerned. Neocons: 1, the Poor: 0

[omega minimo]

124. Don't be so sure. A humanistic message prolly gets no airtime

[applegrove]

128. So how did we all hear about Chavez in the beginning? Just asking.

[dave502d]

7. I just think Chavez is helping the GOP.n/t

[rman]

70. With Bush being despised by a clear majority of Americans,

how can it be that all of a sudden a majority thinks it's not right for some foreigner to diss "their commander in chief"?
Who thinks up this kind of nonsense?

[EarthNeedsHope]

11. People outside our political system are MUCH more honest

Look at Bill and Jimmy and Al (Gore). They have become so much more honest and speaking their mind since they left office.

They are beginning to speak and act almost like average citizens -- outraged.

[omega minimo]

18. "People outside our political system" get ACTUAL News!

:thumbsup: :hi:

[TahitiNut]

23. People INSIDE our political system have become mere courtiers.

It's the function of the monarch's court to blow sunshine up his ass. "Courtier" and "courtesy" have the same word origins ... as do "courtly" and "courtship" (blowing sunshine up the ass of some prospective mate).

[omega minimo]

28. Doesn't sunshine get thru the Emperor's Invisible Robe?

:shrug:

[TahitiNut]

30. Well, only the "Eternal Sunshine Of The Besotted Mind"

:rofl: :rofl:

[omega minimo]

35. Isn't * a Dry Besotter?

:crazy:

[Union Thug]

12. Chavez spoke the truth and the dems abandon ship.

The repukes know how to win elections - smear, name call and vilify your opponents. Chavez understands this. When will the dems? High road? Sound great, but it doesn't cut it in these times.

This registered Dem approves of Hugo's message.

[EFerrari]

16. If the Democrats spoke in this way, I'd come back. n/t

[omega minimo]

17. Hey there UT-- let me link another good thread here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2206064


and say I agree with your "abandon ship" comment. Distancing themselves so strenuously from Chavez caused whiplash, no discussion and prolly gave KR a maggotty thrill.

Have they also distanced themselves from "The People" (yes I know that sounds naive-- but they made it pretty damn clear and why?) Was the Dem leaders performance for the benefit of the corporate daddies?


"The repukes know how to win elections - smear, name call and vilify your opponents."

I dont' agree that is the way to do it-- but I'm funny like that.

[tigereye]

125. I'm guessing that "the people"

aren't too thrilled with * being called the devil. It's childish and offensive and not in keeping with a proper UN speech.

1. Chavez is smart and fiery. He knew his audience and what would please them. There are many countries and diplomats in the UN and certainly many of us who think that * is the worst thing to happen to the planet. Much of what Chavez says, after the devil comment, makes sense. I have to admit that I laughed when I heard the translation on NPR.

2. Chavez is media savvy - the left elsewhere, radicals, the so-called Islamic fascists (what a ridiculous term!) Marxists, etc., everyone is media savvy these days. For god's sake, the President of Iran arrived here looking like a professor of some sort wearing an off- white suit! Chavez also made the rounds of media favored by the intelligentisia as if he were trying to become the president of Harvard or Yale! And, Chavez knew that the only comments that would get any mainstream media play here were the devil/sulphur comments. In some ways, he has played into the right's hands in that they would love to use his and any supportive Democrat's commnents in the mid-term elections. Bin Laden himself and his compatriots have a gift for media spin, as well. In another way, Chavez' comments solidify the views of those who think that the UN has little purpose. This leads to further polarization.

3. Chavez is a democratically elected populist, but he spends a lot of time with Castro and other Marxists and Socialists. There was much of interest to be said in the speech that followed the "sulphur" comments, but very few will read or hear it here in the US, and his comments about hegemony (most of the American population has little or no concept of what hegemony means) are pure Socialist- speak and play to a certain audience. With many folks, use of the word hegemony means that many of us will run screaming (even if there is some truth in it) just as we do from the guys still selling the Socialist Worker on the corner. Jargon of that, and I suppose any, type distances folks from thinking, IMO.

4. Dems lauding Chavez' sulphur comments, as amusing as they might be, would see any positive commentary on the speech and particularly on the devil aspects, on an upcoming political ad with a pic of Bin Laden. So why are you surprised?

[omega minimo]

130. Fascinating

All good points.

"I'm guessing that "the people" aren't too thrilled with * being called the devil. It's childish and offensive and not in keeping with a proper UN speech."

Which "the people" are we talkin about? People who feel Chavez' speech was "not in keeping with a proper UN speech"? Or people hungry for some Truth-- any Truth-- to cut through the Truthiness that is destroying this nation and the planet? Where is "propriety" when we have a twice unelected Repuglican administration with absolutely NO restraint or accountability heading all three branches of a government it is doing its best to disassemble? What is "proper" about illegal preemptive war, lying to the public, misleading the Congress and claiming more and more power for a Unitary Executive? Have you heard Crony Snowjob's latest screed about how The President-- not the Supreme Court-- decides what is lawful?

Childish and offensive? Not in keeping with proper..........? :wow:

1. "Chavez is smart and fiery. He knew his audience and what would please them."

He knows that if you lead with some humor, you've got their attention. And the "joke" is on us. Diabolical forces are at work, are they not?

2."In some ways, he has played into the right's hands in that they would love to use his and any supportive Democrat's commnents in the mid-term elections. Bin Laden himself and his compatriots have a gift for media spin, as well. In another way, Chavez' comments solidify the views of those who think that the UN has little purpose. This leads to further polarization."

I guess you can go there but I don't really see how. If people are more interested in truth and justice than "propriety," Chavez' comments can only be viewed as bearing witness to the extreme polarization that already exists.

3. "Chavez is a democratically elected populist, but he spends a lot of time with Castro and other Marxists and Socialists. There was much of interest to be said in the speech that followed the "sulphur" comments, but very few will read or hear it here in the US..."

Yep, that short attention span thing is a killer :sarcasm:

"...and his comments about hegemony (most of the American population has little or no concept of what hegemony means)"

Bring back public education!!!!!!! :yoiks:

"...are pure Socialist- speak and play to a certain audience."

"Pure Socialist-speak"? Are there any "Pure Socialists" left to speak it? "A certain audience"? Maybe you're right-- that's why he LEAD with the Chomsky book and it leapt up the charts. More people prolly know what "hegemony" means tonight.

"With many folks, use of the word hegemony means that many of us will run screaming (even if there is some truth in it) just as we do from the guys still selling the Socialist Worker on the corner. Jargon of that, and I suppose any, type distances folks from thinking, IMO."

If these are "the people" more invested in "propriety" than Truth, they have already distanced themselves from thinking.

4. "Dems lauding Chavez' sulphur comments, as amusing as they might be, would see any positive commentary on the speech and particularly on the devil aspects, on an upcoming political ad with a pic of Bin Laden. So why are you surprised? "

I don't really understand what you're saying there. The people calling for "balls" don't seem to like "cojones" when they smack 'em in the face.

And I don't think we have to decide b/w phony limited choices of "Diablo" = "bad" = "speech" = "worthless" AND "Chomsky-speak" = "improper" = "polarizing" = "discredited" OR "reading actual text of speech" = "unequivocal acceptance."


If Americans were really THAT stupid, Amazon would not be riding on a wave of Chomsky sales. Hey, it it's good for the bottom line, will the M$M start inviting Noam on their squawkshows?

[xchrom]

25. he didn't say not one word that upset me --

and if the u.s. had not try to overthrow his government -- this throw down would never have happened.

[EFerrari]

33. The Cabal is still at it. They won't stop until he is dead.

And he knows it. Those are the stakes. He dares challenge them.

And, they can't have that.

[xchrom]

36. chavez is a tough cookie -- and the more he reaches out

to brazil and bolivia -- and the better deals they make -- lol -- the more america is cut out.

interesting isn't it?

[EFerrari]

39. Very. And don't forget, Paraguay and Argentina.

The cost of being in the Middle East has been Latin America.

They've lost it, completely. :evilgrin:

[xchrom]

41. and they didn't have to. n/t

[chat_noir]

38. Fox's Full Day Of "Fair & Balanced" Questions About Chavez & The U.N.

When he called President Bush the devil earlier this week, Hugo Chavez was practically begging for press coverage -- and it worked.

An e-mailer mentioned Fox News Channel's "wall-to-wall bashing of Hugo Chavez" Thursday afternoon, so I typed his name into a TVEyes search of FNC's programming. Sure enough, the Venezuelan president's name was mentioned hundreds of times. (FNC mentioned Chavez about twice as many times as CNN.)

And some of the lower-thirds were worthy of parody. Here's a sampling of the questions (or, as Jon Stewart calls them, "Cavutos") posed by Fox throughout the day:

> 7:16pm: "Pres Chavez: Narcissistic personality disorder?"

> 10:54am: "How dare Hugo Chavez blast the United States?"

> 11:02am: "Should we stop buying Chavez's gas from Citgo stations?"

> 11:59am: "Chavez insults U.S.: Where is the outrage?"

> 12:29pm: "Should U.S. continue to fund U.N. after applause for Chavez?"

> 12:54pm: "Will leaders pay the price for supporting Chavez?"

> 1:26pm: "Is President Chavez becoming a threat to U.S. national security?"

> 4:06pm: "Taking cheap oil from Hugo Chavez: Act of treason?"

> 5:34pm: "NY audience gives Chavez standing ovation... Why?"

One of my favorite lower-thirds actually wasn't a question, but a comment: At 12:07pm, it said "U.S. giving U.N. $5 mil a day to get insulted."

But my absolute favorite question of the day came from DaySide, on the show's second-to-last day:




http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/fnc/foxs_full_day_of_fair_balanced_questions_about_chavez_the_un_44278.asp

[Karenina]

66. "Taking cheap oil from Hugo Chavez: Act of treason?"

UNFUCKINBELIEVABLE!!! Yo gub'mint will let your family freeze but yo be a traitor, a damn TRAITOR, I say if you go accepting heating oil from that commie, SPANISH SPEAKING, brown-skinned, tin-pot FURRINER!!!

Wonder how that will play in the Bronx... :freak:

[Marrak]

40. Calls now for a boycott!?%!

like boycott 18 percent of the supply of imported oil to this country...that's a brilliant idea if your the CEO of a rival oil company! Includes that oderiferous sulfuric drift skyward of the price of gas! To be shared by all! Just Brilliant!<>

[Peace Patriot]

42. To answer your general concern, omego minino:

1. There are Democratic politicians, and their supporters here at DU, who are colluders with our Corporate Rulers and with the Bush Junta. I think I need only point to our party leadership's MIND-BOGGLING SILENCE as Bushite corporations took over our election system, in the 2002-2004 period, with electronic voting systems run on TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code, with virtually no audit/recount controls. Bilderberg 'Democrat' Christopher Dodd helped to engineer the infamous "Help America Vote Act," and also acted as adviser to John Kerry on electronic voting (talk about the fox guarding the hen house!). And all but two US Dem Senators voted FOR this piece of crap legislation (whose other engineers were Tom Delay and Bob Ney). There are many other evidences of Dem/Corporate/Bushite collusion, including the Iraq war itself, torture/detention, appointment of outright criminals like Bush Cartel toady Alberto Gonzales to AG, NAFTA, GATT and a host of wretched trade agreements and other acts that punish the poor, enrich the rich and destroy the planet. But Bushite corporate-controlled electronic voting takes the cake. A key to how collusive our party is on this matter is the official position of the Dem Party that the touchscreens are the problem, but the optiscans and the central tabulators--ALSO run on TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming, with extremely inadequate audit controls--are okay. Some Dems are collusive. Some are corrupt. Some are fearful. The upshot is the destruction of our election system, which is now under the control of very rightwing corporations.

2. One sees DUers defending optiscans--saying things like, better to have e-voting that has a paper trail. True enough, but why have private Bushite corporations tabulating our votes with TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code AT ALL? It is utterly outrageous. I'm all for a "paper trail" wherever we can get it--under these fascist conditions--but I know it's not worth much, when the "paper" gets dumped into a box and is never seen again, and our "votes" become bunches of electrons entered into an extremely riggable tabulation system. And some who push optiscans don't ever raise that question--they treat e-voting controlled by Bushite corporations as inevitable (something that we are obliged to "mitigate" with a (nearly useless) "paper trail" but cannot undo)--and of course they never mention the central tabulators. This is the Corporate Democratic position and the position of other so-called liberals like Common Cause (the Corporate NGOs). An adjunct position of the Optiscan Crowd is the "Iron Curtain" they placed over any talk of fraudulent elections. We've seen many DUers try to debunk the overwhelming evidence for election fraud 2004, for instance. I'm all for debate, strong argument, and rigorously tested evidence, but what I've seen here is DUers with an agenda to tag election fraud activists with a tinfoil hat. I have also noticed things like a DUer shilling for Christopher Dodd and posting here about how nice Dodd was to a little boy at an airport. It's an open forum. Leftists (majorityists) predominate, but corporatists are free to spread ideas, back politicians and post disinformation that serve the Corporate Rulers.

3. Which brings me to Hugo Chavez. It is unquestionably a concerted effort of our Corporate Rulers to, a) demonize Hugo Chavez, and b) prevent American workers, poor people and other citizens from ever being exposed to the ideas and success of the huge, peaceful, democratic, leftist (majorityist) revolution that has occurred throughout Latin America. Chavez is an eloquent spokesman for it, but it is by no means limited to Venezuela. It is across the board--in Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay, Venezuela and Bolivia (with growing movements also in Ecuador and Peru). Chavez has been targeted for demonization (and removal) because Venezuela has so much oil, and because he is such a popular leader and advocate for the poor and for South American self-determination. I have been watching this anti-Chavez campaign in our war profiteering corporate news monopolies for some time. They all use the same phrases, over and over again, always unattributed (such as "increasingly authoritarian," identified merely as "according to his critics"). These tactics--combined with outright US/Bush Junta backing of a violent military coup attempt against Chavez, a US/Bush Junta instigated, crippling strike by oil professionals, and a US/Bush Junta FUNDED recall election (our taxpayer dollars!) (--Chavez won, handily, in the most heavily monitored election in history)--have no doubt contributed to Chavez's colorful and showman-like defiance and his "stick it in your eye" attitude toward Bush. But what it is very important to understand is that--as with electronic voting--it's not just Bush and Bushites. The rape of Latin America is a bipartisan enterprise. It always has been, and it is even moreso now. (It was Clinton who signed NAFTA into law with no labor or environmental protections!) The Corporate Ruler agenda IS the agenda of most of our Democratic Party leaders. Thus, DU--an open forum that permits even Freepers to operate (at least for a time)--is vulnerable to the operatives of Democratic wing of the Corporate Ruler party, and will blindly, ignorantly, and sometimes quite crudely and stupidly ape those opinions.

That is my explanation for, and answer to your general concern--why the unthinking and uninformed reaction, by some DUers, to Chavez's quite reasonable and TRUTHFUL remarks to the UN? (--and if some didn't catch his humor, fighting fire with fire--i.e., the odor of sulfur that Bush left at the UN podium--too bad. I thought it was hilarious.) DU is not a pure leftist forum. It is an open forum. And I like it this way. Democracy in action. The idiots immediately get stormed by people with real information.

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

As for your question, "But where is DU discussing what that point actually WAS?"--I think there has been quite a lot of well-informed discussion of Chavez's other content, and attention to the facts about Chavez, Venezuela and South America, in many posts here. That's been my impression. Perhaps we didn't read the same posts and discussions. There has been some Corporate B.S., but most of it pretty ridiculous. Good discussion has predominated. Maybe you should scroll back and review some of the discussions. The kneejerk reactions--that mimic Corporate Democrats' defense of Bush as not the devil (I mean, come on....don't they recognize their own creation? The "devil" of Bushite fascism in our faces, to be followed by the snapback to "mere" Corporate Rule and a grateful if broken nation, under Hillary!)--were generally quickly countered with factual information and context. The OPs that called Chavez a "thug" didn't hold up. He really is not a thug--just a truthteller, and a bit of a showman playing to an audience of billions of South Americans (and many others in the world) who understand him perfectly well, and agree with him. Most of the UN diplomats did not consider his devil/sulfur remark impolite. They smiled, laughed and applauded. That's what the world thinks of our president. But he's useful to the Corporate Democrats, so they defend his "honor." Bush's honor. Give me a break.
'

[truth2power]

65. Great post! Andi agree...

there are many here who post disinformation that serves the corporate rulers.

Viva Chavez!!

[omega minimo]

108. You said it (brilliantly)

1.
A key to how collusive our party is on this matter is the official position of the Dem Party that the touchscreens are the problem, but the optiscans and the central tabulators--ALSO run on TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming, with extremely inadequate audit controls--are okay. Some Dems are collusive. Some are corrupt. Some are fearful. The upshot is the destruction of our election system, which is now under the control of very rightwing corporations.
2.
An adjunct position of the Optiscan Crowd is the "Iron Curtain" they placed over any talk of fraudulent elections. We've seen many DUers try to debunk the overwhelming evidence for election fraud 2004, for instance. I'm all for debate, strong argument, and rigorously tested evidence, but what I've seen here is DUers with an agenda to tag election fraud activists with a tinfoil hat.
3.
The Corporate Ruler agenda IS the agenda of most of our Democratic Party leaders. Thus, DU--an open forum that permits even Freepers to operate (at least for a time)--is vulnerable to the operatives of Democratic wing of the Corporate Ruler party, and will blindly, ignorantly, and sometimes quite crudely and stupidly ape those opinions.

:thumbsup: Thank you

[NotGivingUp]

117. great post! totally agree.

[TahitiNut]

118. Amen. The Vichy is NOT an "opposition" party.

Unless the liberal base of the Democratic Party regains control, cowardice and surrender will be the sole "policy" alternative - until there's blood flowing in the streets from coast to coast.

[JeffR]

43. Rec #5!

This needed to be said.

:kick:

[elehhhhna]

44. Dems trash free speech on same day Torture Bill passes.

Says it all, huh? WTF?

[omega minimo]

47. We're drowning in hypocrisy

Good call, elehhhhna

[omega minimo]

45. "Devil in the Eye of the Beholder" by Jeff Cohen

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2206314

[Zhade]

48. There are so many misinformed, fearful Dems here.

Oh, they're otherwise good liberal people, but they also consume and repeat rightwing lies, like those about Chavez being a dictator (six times legally elected, signed off on by the Carter Center).

It's distressing.

[omega minimo]

52. Still "buying" M$M?

:wow:


and repeating it.......... :silly:

[Zhade]

85. I know!

They lie to us countless times, are shown to lie, and still people fall for it.

[Jcrowley]

49. As I said here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2206064

What Chavez said that everyone seems to have missed is that THE PEOPLE SHOULD LEAD! Sorry, folks, but I think that is us.

Everybody that felt their spirits resonating to what Chavez said, we are the leaders. All we have to do is STAND UP AND SAY THAT WE ARE NOT PLAYING THIS GAME ANYMORE. We stop buying from the elitist nitwits. We stop patronizing their banks (which, based upon the articles in the International Currency Review is a darned good idea anyway). We don't let our children serve in their pointless wars. We buy from people who make products here in our country and employ us and our fellow citizens.

We begin to act like the intelligent, proud people that we are. We begin to organize not for revolution, but for non-participation and economic transformation. We withdraw from this screwed up system until it is in real pain. Walmart has lost 26 percent of their sales in the US and they are beginnning to get the big picture.

We stand up and say: "I won't vote for anyone who is getting millions in campaign contributions, because they are bought. I will vote for people who resemble and represent me and who remember what real work is." We stand up and say,"Get out of our schools, you illiterate boobs. Get out of our televisions with your destructive programs and ads for stuff that we don't need from companies that overpay their executives, befoul our air and water and refuse to pay for the health care required to repair the damages.

WE STAND UP TOGETHER. THAT'S ALL IT TAKES.

Adding to this what Chavez may have been trying to break through is that intransigent literalist mentality of the apathetic American mind that could not even comprehend the humor, metaphor, theatrics and profound sense of history that is woven into the politics of so many other nations particularly the Latin American political oral history.

In the barren landscape of the American political mentality this sort of oral tradition simply does not, cannot, register.

K&R

[omega minimo]

53. Excellent-- and to your last point

Merkans have lost the literate tradition without developing the oral tradition :scared:

[countryjake]

51. What exactly is the forum of the UN to be used for...

if not for nations to hash out differences, make important points, and plead their case?

The ass-kissing of and by diplomats has gone on for far too long and that behavior is exactly what has rendered the entire organization ineffective on the world stage.

Cowering under the domination of the USA has made the UN appear weak and allowed all of this aggression that has now spiraled out of control, destroying whole nations. More speeches like the one we got from Chavez is the only way to bring the drama of this "war on terror" to a swift end...a dramatic intervention, so to speak, with human rights and the sovereignty of nations and the survival of the human species thrown directly on the table.

The message Chavez delivered was frightening to them...that, combined with his handout of free oil to lower-income Americans is a very scary thing for our corporate lackeys to hear. Not after a summer of bleeding us all dry with higher-than-hell gas prices, which they got away with very nicely.

The bulk of his speech was an awakening for lots of ordinary people out here, people who never even heard of him before, but heard him speak and now are digging for more information on this man from Venezuela. What else does he stand for, besides boldly calling out our ruthless despot who is so busy concocting torture amendments?

Inquiring minds want to know...why are our own politicians so quick to condemn a guy who so deftly conveyed exactly what millions of Americans know to be true. The MSM screwed up by airing Chavez's entire speech cause it's now on the minds of common folk who have been dying to hear someone, anyone, utter such truths.

They can slough it away as much as they want, but we heard and we wonder, what are they so afraid of?

[omega minimo]

55. mmm hmmmm You tell it, countryjake

"Inquiring minds want to know...why are our own politicians so quick to condemn a guy who so deftly conveyed exactly what millions of Americans know to be true. The MSM screwed up by airing Chavez's entire speech cause it's now on the minds of common folk who have been dying to hear someone, anyone, utter such truths."

Why, indeed.

[Hidden Stillness]

54. Hugo Chavez has Estrogen!

Hi, omega minimo. I read the transcript posted on reply #1, and the whole speech was actually really great, very clear and specific on many threats posed by Bush in the world, and the world's increasing reaction against it. If you recall, just before that, the talk was of how belligerant and weird Bush was at the U.N.

One thing that non-Christians will have to learn, whether or not they do, is that calling someone "the devil" or "evil" is a serious and commonly thought-of way to describe things. It is not "silly" or "juvenile" or "fake," if the Christian is sincere. This is your perspective, whether considered real and literal, or poetic and symbolic--the word still fits. I have called Bush "that devil" many times on DU, or "that devil bastard Reagan," etc. It is the preferred description. People who do not respect the religious attitude, and call this "a tantrum" or an "overstatement," do not understand what it is that Christians are criticizing. The problem IS evil. This was a report of another speech given by Chavez, to a church audience in the U.S., where Chavez was very popular, again. Chavez is very witty, no getting around that. From http://www.gbgm-umc.org/memorialny/news100105.html :

Venezuela’s Pres. Chavez Speaks at SPSAw
John Collins and Lisa Sullivan Rodriguez of Ossining organized a forum at St. Paul & St. Andrew in September featuring Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. The event was packed with peace and anti-globalization activists and community and religious leaders, actor Danny Glover, former Attorney General Ramsey Clark, union leaders and senior Venezuelan and Cuban government officials. Here’s a report by Rev. Finley Schaef.
On Saturday evening, Sept. 17, I was privileged to hear Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez speak. Methodists should be proud because St. Paul & St Andrew UMC on 86th Street in Manhattan (Rev. K Karpen, pastor) was the host church, and it was packed. Rev. John Collins hosted the meeting. Associate Pastor Emily Peck opened with a beautiful prayer, and then U.S. Rep. Jose Serrano (D-Bronx) introduced President Chavez. Chavez himself introduced Bishop Jeremiah Park! We also saw Rev. Chick Straut and many UM laity. (Will Bishop Park's presence be noted on the national UMC website? I think not.)
President Chavez spoke many times of his Christian faith and showed us a small crucifix he carries with him. "I preach the word of Jesus Christ,” he said. “He was a revolutionary. Christ is the good news. A revolt of hope is taking place today - hope for justice. ... Cuba and Venezuela are accused of being a destabilizing force in the hemisphere but the greatest destabilizing force is poverty. ... I reach out my hand in friendship to the Bush administration, even though 'you are the lion and we are the lamb.' ...
“Twenty-thousand Cuban doctors are living in Venezuela among the poor, in the mountains. Fidel told me: 'All right, Chavez, I am a Christian as far as social things go.' ... Medical care for profit is diabolic. We teach social and comprehensive medicine. We will send cheap oil to the poor in the U.S. We will send biochemists to help clean the Bronx River. Our rivers should be clean. In the Bronx today I met the soul of America."
President Chavez spoke for hours to an enthusiastic audience and these are only a few notes. Rev. Jesse Jackson also spoke. Fr. Roy Bourgeois spoke - he is the organizer of the protest against the U.S. School of the Americas, where Latin American military personnel are taught counter-insurgency tactics and torture. He announced that Venezuela is the first country to refuse to send military personnel to this school and others may follow.

(End of report.) Notice that Chavez always carries a Crucifix, and refers to Jesus, the work for the poor, the fight of the oppressed against the oppressor, etc., using religious terms. Recall the "revolutionary" Jesus, from Matthew 21:12-14:

"And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money changers, and the seats of them that sold doves,
"And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.
"And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple; and he healed them."
(...And, it should be noted, didn't even charge them! Like socialist health care!)

This "revolutionary" Jesus is very popular among Latin American Christians, who practice and preach what is called "liberation theology," which has been a great force, and source of hope, for many years now. It is not "the rantings of a brat," but it is the message of a Child.

[omega minimo]

57. LOL -- Hidden Stillness to the rescue................

If one were to try to turn the current inside-out insanity to be right-side-in-- including the complete abandonment of what Christ's mission and message were -- one might cut to the chase and mention the stench of sulfur in the air.

:evilfrown:

[upi402]

56. SPINE! when we see it we berate it. BALLS! oh- no no no

When Dean showed some testosterone still whirling around from his wrestling days -the Corporate News Networks torpedoed him. And many liberals joined in... "Just not presidential."

Now Chavez speak truth to power,

*SOMETHING WE ARE STARVING FOR*

and Chavez did it on a world stage so it would not be ignored by the corporate media

AND WE PISS AND MOAN?????????????????????????

[enigmacat]

58. Applause

[omega minimo]

59. The Message

Transcript of Remarks by President Hugo Chavez at United Nations

Representatives of the governments of the world, good morning to all of you. First of all, I would like to invite you, very respectfully, to those who have not read this book, to read it. Noam Chomsky, one of the most prestigious American and world intellectuals, Noam Chomsky, and this is one of his most recent books, ‘Hegemony or Survival: The Imperialist Strategy of the United States.’

It’s an excellent book to help us understand what has been happening in the world throughout the 20th century, and what’s happening now, and the greatest threat looming over our planet. The hegemonic pretensions of the American empire are placing at risk the very survival of the human species. We continue to warn you about this danger and we appeal to the people of the United States and the world to halt this threat, which is like a sword hanging over our heads. I had considered reading from this book, but, for the sake of time, I will just leave it as a recommendation.
It reads easily, it is a very good book, I’m sure Madame President you are familiar with it. It appears in English, in Russian, in Arabic, in German. I think that the first people who should read this book are our brothers and sisters in the United States, because their threat is right in their own house. The devil is right at home. The devil, the devil himself, is right in the house.

And the devil came here yesterday. Yesterday the devil came here. Right here.
And it smells of sulfur still today.
Yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, from this rostrum, the President of the United States, the gentleman to whom I refer as the devil, came here, talking as if he owned the world. Truly. As the owner of the world.
I think we could call a psychiatrist to analyze yesterday’s statement made by the President of the United States. As the spokesman of imperialism, he came to share his nostrums, to try to preserve the current pattern of domination, exploitation and pillage of the peoples of the world.

An Alfred Hitchcock movie could use it as a scenario. I would even propose a title: “The Devil’s Recipe.”
As Chomsky says here, clearly and in depth, the American empire is doing all it can to consolidate its system of domination. And we cannot allow them to do that. We cannot allow world dictatorship to be consolidated.
The world parent’s statement — cynical, hypocritical, full of this imperial hypocrisy from the need they have to control everything.
They say they want to impose a democratic model. But that’s their democratic model. It’s the false democracy of elites, and, I would say, a very original democracy that’s imposed by weapons and bombs and firing weapons.
What a strange democracy. Aristotle might not recognize it or others who are at the root of democracy.
What type of democracy do you impose with marines and bombs?

The President of the United States, yesterday, said to us, right here, in this room, and I’m quoting, “Anywhere you look, you hear extremists telling you can escape from poverty and recover your dignity through violence, terror and martyrdom.”
Wherever he looks, he sees extremists. And you, my brother — he looks at your color, and he says, oh, there’s an extremist. Evo Morales, the worthy President of Bolivia, looks like an extremist to him.
The imperialists see extremists everywhere. It’s not that we are extremists. It’s that the world is waking up. It’s waking up all over. And people are standing up.

I have the feeling, dear world dictator, that you are going to live the rest of your days as a nightmare because the rest of us are standing up, all those who are rising up against American imperialism, who are shouting for equality, for respect, for the sovereignty of nations.
Yes, you can call us extremists, but we are rising up against the empire, against the model of domination.
The President then — and this he said himself, he said: “I have come to speak directly to the populations in the Middle East, to tell them that my country wants peace.”

That’s true. If we walk in the streets of the Bronx, if we walk around New York, Washington, San Diego, in any city, San Antonio, San Francisco, and we ask individuals, the citizens of the United States, what does this country want? Does it want peace? They’ll say yes.
But the government doesn’t want peace. The government of the United States doesn’t want peace. It wants to exploit its system of exploitation, of pillage, of hegemony through war.

It wants peace. But what’s happening in Iraq? What happened in Lebanon? In Palestine? What’s happening? What’s happened over the last 100 years in Latin America and in the world? And now threatening Venezuela — new threats against Venezuela, against Iran?
He spoke to the people of Lebanon. Many of you, he said, have seen how your homes and communities were caught in the crossfire. How cynical can you get? What a capacity to lie shamefacedly. The bombs in Beirut with millimetric precision?
This is crossfire? He’s thinking of a western, when people would shoot from the hip and somebody would be caught in the crossfire.
This is imperialist, fascist, assassin, genocidal, the empire and Israel firing on the people of Palestine and Lebanon. That is what happened. And now we hear, “We’re suffering because we see homes destroyed.’

The President of the United States came to talk to the peoples — to the peoples of the world. He came to say — I brought some documents with me, because this morning I was reading some statements, and I see that he talked to the people of Afghanistan, the people of Lebanon, the people of Iran. And he addressed all these peoples directly.
And you can wonder, just as the President of the United States addresses those peoples of the world, what would those peoples of the world tell him if they were given the floor? What would they have to say?
And I think I have some inkling of what the peoples of the south, the oppressed people think. They would say, “Yankee imperialist, go home.” I think that is what those people would say if they were given the microphone and if they could speak with one voice to the American imperialists.

And that is why, Madam President, my colleagues, my friends, last year we came here to this same hall as we have been doing for the past eight years, and we said something that has now been confirmed — fully, fully confirmed.
I don’t think anybody in this room could defend the system. Let’s accept — let’s be honest. The U.N. system, born after the Second World War, collapsed. It’s worthless.

Oh, yes, it’s good to bring us together once a year, see each other, make statements and prepare all kinds of long documents, and listen to good speeches, like Abel’s yesterday, or President Mullah’s. Yes, it’s good for that.
And there are a lot of speeches, and we’ve heard lots from the president of Sri Lanka, for instance, and the President of Chile.
But we, the assembly, have been turned into a merely deliberative organ. We have no power, no power to make any impact on the terrible situation in the world. And that is why Venezuela once again proposes, here, today, 20 September, that we re-establish the United Nations.
Last year, Madam, we made four modest proposals that we felt to be crucially important. We have to assume the responsibility our heads of state, our ambassadors, our representatives, and we have to discuss it.

The first is expansion, and Mullah talked about this yesterday right here. The Security Council, both as it has permanent and non-permanent categories, (inaudible) developing countries and LDCs must be given access as new permanent members. That’s step one.
Second, effective methods to address and resolve world conflicts, transparent decisions.
Point three, the immediate suppression — and that is something everyone’s calling for — of the anti-democratic mechanism known as the veto, the veto on decisions of the Security Council.
Let me give you a recent example. The immoral veto of the United States allowed the Israelis, with impunity, to destroy Lebanon. Right in front of all of us as we stood there watching, a resolution in the council was prevented.
Fourthly, we have to strengthen, as we’ve always said, the role and the powers of the secretary general of the United Nations.

Yesterday, the secretary general practically gave us his speech of farewell. And he recognized that over the last 10 years, things have just gotten more complicated; hunger, poverty, violence, human rights violations have just worsened. That is the tremendous consequence of the collapse of the United Nations system and American hegemonistic pretensions.
Madam, Venezuela a few years ago decided to wage this battle within the United Nations by recognizing the United Nations, as members of it that we are, and lending it our voice, our thinking.

Our voice is an independent voice to represent the dignity and the search for peace and the reformulation of the international system; to denounce persecution and aggression of hegemonistic forces on the planet.
This is how Venezuela has presented itself. Bolivar’s home has sought a nonpermanent seat on the Security Council.
Let’s see. Well, there’s been an open attack by the U.S. government, an immoral attack, to try and prevent Venezuela from being freely elected to a post in the Security Council.

The imperium is afraid of truth, is afraid of independent voices. It calls us extremists, but they are the extremists.
And I would like to thank all the countries that have kindly announced their support for Venezuela, even though the ballot is a secret one and there’s no need to announce things.
But since the imperium has attacked, openly, they strengthened the convictions of many countries. And their support strengthens us.
Mercosur, as a bloc, has expressed its support, our brothers in Mercosur. Venezuela, with Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, is a full member of Mercosur.
And many other Latin American countries, CARICOM, Bolivia have expressed their support for Venezuela. The Arab League, the full Arab League has voiced its support. And I am immensely grateful to the Arab world, to our Arab brothers, our Caribbean brothers, the African Union. Almost all of Africa has expressed its support for Venezuela and countries such as Russia or China and many others.

I thank you all warmly on behalf of Venezuela, on behalf of our people, and on behalf of the truth, because Venezuela, with a seat on the Security Council, will be expressing not only Venezuela’s thoughts, but it will also be the voice of all the peoples of the world, and we will defend dignity and truth.

Over and above all of this, Madam President, I think there are reasons to be optimistic. A poet would have said “helplessly optimistic,” because over and above the wars and the bombs and the aggressive and the preventive war and the destruction of entire peoples, one can see that a new era is dawning.
As Sylvia Rodriguez says, the era is giving birth to a heart. There are alternative ways of thinking. There are young people who think differently. And this has already been seen within the space of a mere decade. It was shown that the end of history was a totally false assumption, and the same was shown about Pax Americana and the establishment of the capitalist neo-liberal world. It has been shown, this system, to generate mere poverty. Who believes in it now?

What we now have to do is define the future of the world. Dawn is breaking out all over. You can see it in Africa and Europe and Latin America and Oceanea. I want to emphasize that optimistic vision.
We have to strengthen ourselves, our will to do battle, our awareness. We have to build a new and better world.
Venezuela joins that struggle, and that’s why we are threatened. The U.S. has already planned, financed and set in motion a coup in Venezuela, and it continues to support coup attempts in Venezuela and elsewhere.
President Michelle Bachelet reminded us just a moment ago of the horrendous assassination of the former foreign minister, Orlando Letelier.
And I would just add one thing: Those who perpetrated this crime are free. And that other event where an American citizen also died were American themselves. They were CIA killers, terrorists.

And we must recall in this room that in just a few days there will be another anniversary. Thirty years will have passed from this other horrendous terrorist attack on the Cuban plane, where 73 innocents died, a Cubana de Aviacion airliner.
And where is the biggest terrorist of this continent who took the responsibility for blowing up the plane? He spent a few years in jail in Venezuela. Thanks to CIA and then government officials, he was allowed to escape, and he lives here in this country, protected by the government.
And he was convicted. He has confessed to his crime. But the U.S. government has double standards. It protects terrorism when it wants to.
And this is to say that Venezuela is fully committed to combating terrorism and violence. And we are one of the people who are fighting for peace.
Luis Posada Carriles is the name of that terrorist who is protected here. And other tremendously corrupt people who escaped from Venezuela are also living here under protection: a group that bombed various embassies, that assassinated people during the coup. They kidnapped me and they were going to kill me, but I think God reached down and our people came out into the streets and the army was too, and so I’m here today.

But these people who led that coup are here today in this country protected by the American government. And I accuse the American government of protecting terrorists and of having a completely cynical discourse.
We mentioned Cuba. Yes, we were just there a few days ago. We just came from there happily.
And there you see another era born. The Summit of the Fifteen, the Summit of the Nonaligned, adopted a historic resolution. This is the outcome document. Don’t worry, I’m not going to read it.
But you have a whole set of resolutions here that were adopted after open debate in a transparent matter — more than 50 heads of state. Havana was the capital of the south for a few weeks, and we have now launched, once again, the group of the nonaligned with new momentum.
And if there is anything I could ask all of you here, my companions, my brothers and sisters, it is to please lend your good will to lend momentum to the Nonaligned Movement for the birth of the new era, to prevent hegemony and prevent further advances of imperialism.
And as you know, Fidel Castro is the President of the nonaligned for the next three years, and we can trust him to lead the charge very efficiently.
Unfortunately they thought, “Oh, Fidel was going to die.” But they’re going to be disappointed because he didn’t. And he’s not only alive, he’s back in his green fatigues, and he’s now presiding the nonaligned.

So, my dear colleagues, Madam President, a new, strong movement has been born, a movement of the south. We are men and women of the south.
With this document, with these ideas, with these criticisms, I’m now closing my file. I’m taking the book with me. And, don’t forget, I’m recommending it very warmly and very humbly to all of you.
We want ideas to save our planet, to save the planet from the imperialist threat. And hopefully in this very century, in not too long a time, we will see this, we will see this new era, and for our children and our grandchildren a world of peace based on the fundamental principles of the United Nations, but a renewed United Nations.
And maybe we have to change location. Maybe we have to put the United Nations somewhere else; maybe a city of the south. We’ve proposed Venezuela.

You know that my personal doctor had to stay in the plane. The chief of security had to be left in a locked plane. Neither of these gentlemen was allowed to arrive and attend the U.N. meeting. This is another abuse and another abuse of power on the part of the Devil. It smells of sulfur here, but God is with us and I embrace you all.
May God bless us all. Good day to you.
(APPLAUSE)

[CanSocDem]

89. Thanks for posting this.

Great speech!!

[omega minimo]

93. Tahiti Nut posted it-- his great thread is linked in #1

:toast:

[omega minimo]

60. Bush Rages: "I am not Beelzebub, Lord of Sulphur"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2206550&mesg_id=2206550

[Swamp Rat]

61. "Chavez is only helping Bush and the GOP" and other such fucking nonsense

... I keep hearing this on M$M and all the other LIES and talking points. Now it's being parroted here. :eyes:

Appeasing the GOP and Bushler has been a winning strategy thus far. :sarcasm:

[doctor_garth]

62. the ones on DU attacking Chavez

are enabling another Karl Rove victory in November.

These middle-of-the-roaders are the reason Repugs keep winning elections, honestly or not. I truly pity them.

[JNelson6563]

64. Mostly the rightward leaning

or should I say "wayward"?

:shrug:

[Jcrowley]

71. Just a phone call away

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
September 21, 2006
Contact: Emile Milne
[phone]


CONG. RANGEL CONDEMNS CHAVEZ'S ATTACK ON BUSH

WASHINGTON - I want to express my extreme displeasure with statements by the President of Venezuela attacking U.S. President George Bush in such a personal and disparaging way during his remarks at the United Nations General Assembly.

It  should be clear to all heads of government that criticism of Bush Administration policies, either domestic or foreign, does not entitle them to attack the President personally.

George Bush is the President of the United States and represents the entire country. Any demeaning public attack against him is viewed by Republicans and Democrats, and all Americans, as an attack on all of us.

I feel that I must speak out now since the Venezuelan government has been instrumental in providing oil at discounted prices to people in low income communities who have suffered increases in rent as heating oil prices have risen sharply.  By offering this benefit to people in need, Venezuela has won many friends in poor communities of New York and other states.  I am surprised that American oil companies have not stepped up to provide that kind of assistance to the poor.

Venezuela's generosity to the poor, however, should not be interpreted as license to attack President Bush.  Those who take issue with Bush Administration policies have no right to attack him personally.  It was not helpful when President Bush referred to certain nations as an "axis of evil."  Neither is it helpful for a head of state to use the sacred halls of the United Nations to insult President Bush.

###

WASHINGTON, DC OFFICE
2354 Rayburn House
Washington, DC 20515
[phone]

NEW YORK OFFICE
163 W. 125th Street #737
New York, NY 10027
[phone]

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ny15_rangel/CBRStatementChavezUNspeech09212006.html

Important to let our, um, leaders? know how we feel. It's our duty and tomorrow is Monday.

[rman]

73. our uhm, supposedly elected supposed representatives

damn their greed, their stupidity, their cronyism, their cowardice...

[Jed Dilligan]

84. What a load of shit

"He represents all of us"

He's not our king, he's a public servant. Has EVERYONE lost sight of this!?

[nolabels]

109. He is a fraud that serves the the fascist state

The pound of flesh is just representing a cruel understanding. Most people are afraid, weak or just plain lazy when it comes to investigating things they encounter in their lives. To me a king or whatever legend the anointed persons(s) represents has to do with the vastness of knowledge known and unknown. To say the state is an anchor where the unexamined life gets it's bearing could be a start me thinks.

The heart of the matter, * fills void for some. It's not so much of the periphery of all that is, but what things are being represented (or at least thought to be represented).

[Joey Liberal]

76. I agree with you omega

Chavez was right. I don't see why any Democrat or DUer would defend Bush for ANY reason.

[Acryliccalico]

81. I think

Chavez did a wonderful job on the MSM by diverting attention away from * and the Iranian presidents adversary speech thing that the MSM was hyping up. Good job Chavez! I could be wrong but it seemed to me that the MSM really got side tracked by him. :kick:

[Jcrowley]

87. More thoughts

He was completely outsmarted by Chavez at the U.N... Chavez was brilliant. His words achieved the precise goal he intended. By personally ridiculing, humiliating and hitting our president on the world stage, right between The Cross, Hugo Chavez has rendered any future attempt by our president to unseat him -- or assassinate him -- purely a personal vendetta.

By de-Christianizing our president, who has publicly stated many times that he believes he won both elections because it was God's Will that he be president and guide the world, Chavez painted our president as not only an anti-Christ but as the Great Demon himself. Millions upon millions of Christians around the world who daily await in fear the arrival of a well-dressed but serpent-tongued anti-Christ falsely claiming to be sent by God will lead the world to terrible destruction, now wonder if that person hasn't already arrived in the body of our president who has been caught repeatedly lying and has caused much pain and death. No doubt to counteract Chavez' stoning our president will probably make a spectacular public showing at a church this coming Sunday... perhaps with his Mom and Dad in attendance... and the Pastor, in his Sermon, will reassure our president that he continues to dwell in God's personal favor. No doubt Mr. Rove is already hard at work making all the arrangements as we speak...

Yes... Mr. Chavez was brilliant. His skillfully worded speech at the U.N. podium will make any future military move by our president and his VP against Venezuela appear driven solely by personal revenge and not by any false claims that "WMD", "terrorist haven" or "state-sponsored narcotic enterprise" justifies our country invading his. But although nothing will stop our president from spending more billions in his six-year covert attempt to undermind Chavez and acquire Venezuela's oil fields, the number of operatives now and later who will be assigned to our president's Plan V will be operating with two minds instead of one... their other mind will grow in doubt of the alleged threat our president claims Chavez and Venezuela pose to our national security... and we all know that just a single shred fo doubt can not only wreck but reverse the well made plans of mice...

[omega minimo]

92. And he started with Chomsky, advertising his book!

which then shot up the sales charts!! Chavez claims the world and its peoples are waking up. Is he right? Maybe one outcome of this is the ultimate division b/w those who safegaurd the Oppressed and those who are lackeys for the Oppressor.

It also looks like a spotlight was flashed obliquely at the history of the U.S. in America Del Sur.

Any time that truth is spoken to power that is completely "encapsulated" (as * referred to his own presence in the WH) and insulated from honest contact with the outside world, it is remarkable. A few of the WH journalist heroes speak to him directly in press conferences-- when else does it EVER happen?

Your observations about Christianity are intriguing. How will that play out with the faithful? Does anyone know how people of faith and morals-- and even Republicans-- justify all the lying that this president has done?

Thanks, JC for all your great work. I'm amazed at the Best of DU brought out in this thread.

[Jcrowley]

97. Backatcha

:toast:

On me. You lit the fire.

[BeHereNow]

90. You noticed that too, eh?

For people who complain about no one speaking
truth to power, there sure were a great many of
them jumping Chavez for doing so...
Makes ya wonder, no?
BHN

[omega minimo]

94. Wonder how they think it SHOULDA BEEN done............

"have balls" but in a "professional" "diplomatic" way?...................:shrug:..........
.......................
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
::::::::::::::::::::: :think:
HELL BOYS! THAT'S CALLED

:bounce: :bounce:


BEING A WOMAN :evilgrin:

[Homer Wells]

91. * is "Saruman" to Chenys "Sauron"

with Rove doing a guest stint as "Grima Wormtongue"

:nuke:

[omega minimo]

96. Grimy Wormtongue

[lonestarnot]

102. You won't be hearing any of that shit coming from me!

[lonestarnot]

104. Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 ho

[NotGivingUp]

110. msm achieved their goal with many people here...instead of issues

they're talking about personality, and how they think he came across, and how he used the 'devil' word...omg...don't fall for that shit. let's stick with the issues!

[omega minimo]

112. some may feel uncomfortable looking at the issues as GLOBAL

"Let's stick with the issues!"

:thumbsup:

[ShaneGR]

111. Don't understand the unequivocal support of Chavez some give...

Imagine if in 2002 George W Bush called a national referendum asking whether we should throw out the constitution and write a new one. With his soaring popularity odds are the American people would have passed it. So imagine after passing that referendum another was held to see who would sit on this new constitutional committee to write the constitution. Odds are it would have been majority rebublican. Imagine if the Democrats on that committee were allowed little or influence in the writing of the new constitution. So, imagine if that new constitution had been written. It would have included all of the conservative ideology the GoP wanted. Probably a restriction on freedom of the press. Social welfare down the tubes. Voting writes and privact guarantees weakened. In addition, the new constitution would allow the President to run for 3 terms not 2. In protest the Democrats would have decided to boycott the next election. In response, Bush threatens to change the constitution (again) to allow him to run for 5 terms and not just 3. While he was at it, why not make those terms 6 yrs instead of 4.

So, we all know that didnt happen here in the US. But it did happen in Venezuela. Yes, Chavez has done a great deal attempting to fight poverty in his country. But the bottom line is he's extremely power hungry. He even led a coup attempt back in 1992. I don't support extremists on the right, and I don't support extremists on the left.

[NotGivingUp]

114. wouldn't you think a coup was called for??? here's info on the subject....

taken from a previous du post:

Secondly, if you read these articles (which I really, really recommend you read, because they are highly informative, well written and interesting) you will realize how desperate of a state Venezuela was in before Chavez took power. 80% of the country was poor, and 44% or so were officially in poverty (to the point where they couldn't afford proper diets). The former government was a band of corrupt cronies that languished of the profits of oil sales, and said basically "fuck the poor."

Chavez was the leader of a failed coup attempt in 1992 against the then scumbag of a president. But the coup failed, and Chavez took full responsibility, admitted his failure, and served his time in jail. The president whom he attempted to overthrow was impeached a year later.

Chavez gained a lot of supporters attempting that coup, and his base continued to believe in him. In 1998, Hugo ran for President and won. The poverty-stricken, starving, illiterate "brown skinned" Venezuelans supported Chavez in a landslide victory. Since then, Hugo has been trying to clean up a government that had run for decades on massive corruption. The middle and upper class in Venezuela hated him because he was "brown" and because of his fight against the kleptocracy they had grown rich with. The Venezuelan court was highly corrupt. The parliament was worse. The plutocracy used car bombs, coups and violent protests to try and undermine Chavez's democratically elected government. The right-wing television stations would run anti-Chavez propaganda uninterrupted for days at a time, using racist cartoons and outright lies to brainwash the middle class and the upper class into thinking Chavez was a tyrant. Right-wing publications in the US picked up on this propaganda and of course reprinted it here. Obviously, it still circulates.

here's the link to the thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=311462#313232

here are links to the articles he referred to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050411/parenti
http://www.inthesetimes.com/issue/26/01/feature3.shtml

[omega minimo]

116. Pointing out his message was ignored isn't = to "unequivocal support"

:eyes:


"throw out the constitution and write a new one. With his soaring popularity odds are the American people would have passed it."

"Soaring popularity"? "Odds are Americans would have passed it"?

You've got to be kidding.