Hillary: ‘Ready to Lie From Day 1′ About Venezuela
Mark Penn might try out this new sound bite for Hillary Clinton: “Ready to lie from Day 1.”
Exhibit A, as noted in Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal: this week she claimed that Venezuela is a dictatorship.The Journal reports:
In a major speech yesterday at George Washington University, Sen. Clinton drove the wedge [with Sen. Obama] deeper: “If I am entrusted with the presidency, America will have the courage, once again, to meet with our adversaries. But I will not be penciling in the leaders of Iran or North Korea or Venezuela or Cuba on the presidential calendar without preconditions; until we have assessed, through lower-level diplomacy, the motivations and intentions of these dictators.”
So, according to Senator Hillary Clinton, the leader of Venezuela is a dictator.
It’s hard to imagine that Hillary is so uninformed — and has such incompetent foreign policy advisers — that she doesn’t know that President Hugo Chávez and his government have won multiple elections that were characterized as free and fair by international observers. But if she knows this, then she is lying.
For example, this is what the Carter Center delegation said about the 2004 presidential recall referendum:
“On Aug. 15, 2004, Venezuelans came out in record numbers to participate in the first popularly mandated presidential recall referendum ever to be held. In doing so, the Venezuelan people voted not to recall President Chávez from office, with 59 percent of the population voting for Chávez and 41 percent voting against him. It is the opinion of The Carter Center that the Aug. 15 vote clearly expressed the will of the Venezuelan electorate.”
Indeed, here’s what the U.S. State Department’s Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs wrote last October about the elections in 1998 and 1999 - this is on the State Department’s web page:
“In December 1998, Hugo Chávez Frias won the presidency on a campaign for broad reform, constitutional change, and a crackdown on corruption…Chávez’s argument that the existing political system had become isolated from the people won broad acceptance, particularly among Venezuela’s poorest classes, who had seen a significant decline in their living standards over the previous decade and a half. The National Constituent Assembly (ANC), consisting of 131 elected individuals, convened in August 1999 to begin rewriting the Constitution. In free elections, voters gave all but six seats to persons associated with the Chávez movement. Venezuelans approved the ANC’s draft in a national referendum on December 15, 1999.”
On January 31 of this year, the Miami Herald reported,
“Human Rights Watch on Thursday said Venezuela does not belong to a group of nations like Pakistan and Russia that use the veneer of democracy to mask autocratic rule…’We did not include Venezuela in the list of closed countries because it is not,’ Human Rights Watch executive director Kenneth Roth said, unveiling the organization’s 2008 World Report, which highlighted leaders who claim to be democratic but take autocratic measures…’There are serious problems in Venezuela, but we shouldn’t pretend that Venezuela is a closed society,’ he said. ‘There still is significant political competition, and indeed the best evidence of that was the fact that Chávez just lost his referendum.’ “
You’re entitled to your own opinion, Senator Clinton, but you’re not entitled to your own facts.
Robert Naiman is National Coordinator of Just Foreign Policy, a membership organization devoted to reforming U.S. foreign policy to reflect the values and serve the interests of the majority of Americans. Naiman edits the daily Just Foreign Policy news summary.
Copyright © 2008 HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.
Thanks to Naiman for catching Hillary, echoing Bush, in mis-characterizing Chavez. He may be a leftist, he may have questionable judgment in some of his statements, but he is absolutely a legitimate, elected leader.
Hillary will be worse than Bush - she is ultimately corruptible, and smarter. This speech was not the first time she has made reference to a Venezuelan dictatorhsip - she did in one of the first ‘debates.’ What prompts the language? Total control by the corporatists who run the government, and have obviously already bought and paid for her campaign.
Notice she didn’t get much union support? Wonder why?
Notice she hasn’t gotten the support of the more highly educated women? Wonder why?
Notice her campaign is run by lobbyists and corporate sponsors? Wonder why?
A legitimate, elected leader, who by all accounts is also a dictator. He has friendly relations with a lot of people who dislike America and he himself is quite hostile to us in general. He is a lot like Geroge Bush and I don’t consider that a compliment.
In a major speech yesterday at George Washington University, Sen. Clinton drove the wedge [with Sen. Obama] deeper: “If I am entrusted with the presidency, America will have the courage, once again, to meet with our adversaries. But I will not be penciling in the leaders of Iran or North Korea or Venezuela or Cuba on the presidential calendar without preconditions; until we have assessed, through lower-level diplomacy, the motivations and intentions of these dictators.”
I would freeze in hell before I voted for someone who said this. (In other words, the never of never trumps a Hillary vote in my book.)
Fuck off, Hillary - Chavez was elected president, which is more than you can say.
Mark Penn may want to disclose his relationship with Colombia’s president, Alvaro Uribe. That may go a long way to explaining Sen. Clinton’s choice of words.
Hillary has been called “Bush Lite”. Thank goodness she is doing so poorly. Chavez is not perfect, but he is no dictator and has the overwhelming support of his people and the last time I looked Bush was around 20%.Chavez is a threat to big oil and the corpratocracy,so naturally corporate soldiers like Hillary demonize him.
This “not without preconditions” crap is something she learnt from the Israelis. How else is the American empire to keep itself on the “good” side of the good/evil binary? Smooth move, Hill.
She plays to the ignorance she assumes we all are victims of.
Clinton’s political ambitions are such a priority that she sacrifices everything, exploits anything, denies anyone, destroys alternatives, denies hope, panders to the low road, embraces the status quo for the security of convention and generally stands in the way, if not helping those who would block the road.
As with all other persons in the power elite, either lying or incredibly stupid.
This is rich:
“A legitimate, elected leader, who by all accounts is also a dictator. He has friendly relations with a lot of people who dislike America and he himself is quite hostile to us in general. He is a lot like Geroge Bush and I don’t consider that a compliment”
Mark Penn is not a “go between” to Uribe. There is a DIRECT connection between Mr. Bill and that gawd awful dictator.
As for Ms. Clinton, she is unqualified to serve a prez because she refuses to recognize democratically elected leaders around the world. It’s all about the oil and corporate profits folks.
Does anybody know what Obama’s take is on Chavez?
Once I was on Hardball and Norah O’Donnell was filling in for Matthews.
When she introduced me she said that I had met with “Communist dictator, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela.” Then we went to commercial break. I said:
“You know that Chavez is not communist, nor is he a dictator.”
She said: “Yeah, we had a lot of discussion about that, but we decided to call him that anyway.” Then the conversation had to turn to me educating her and the public about how Chavez is overwhelmingly loved by his people (this was the summer of ‘06) and he had been faced elections and recalls that were certified by international observers. We don’t let in observers to observe our corrupt elections.
It is a concerted attempt to smear people who don’t surrender to the corporate imperialism of America.
Hillary Clinton is a lot of things, but she is not stupid. She knew exactly what she was saying.
Cindy
Hillary will lie to get votes. Obama doesn’t say anything that would lose him votes. Take your pick.
see: http://www.beppegrillo.it/eng/
Has Hillary’s statements been independently confirmed? I don’t trust the Wall Street Journal when it comes to reporting anything related to Venezuela.
Thank you Cindy,
America needs you, and your voice in our Congress.
cindyforcongress.org.
Change America or lose America, It’s our choice.
I don’t know, Cindy, they are always repeating how *smart* Hillary is so it will be the conventional thinking, but circumstances have revealed her to be not so smart as calculating and sometimes her ambitious formula–since it is built upon construction rather than truth doesn’t stand up as the wheel turns. What are we basing her smartness on anyway–gaming the system? Seems to be backfiring on her.
Can’t say I feel sorry for her loss. I see it as our gain if the door closes on the Bush-Clinton era.
That worthless human trash, such as is Hillary Clinton and all like her who have no moral values, will continue to try and demonize the good people in the world society who are trying to create a better world where Human Rights predominate. That is because they, with their inside knowledge, can foresee that their evil system is losing geopolitical ground to the socialist values which are percolating in the Latin American nations and they fear that such good examples will eventually intrude into their own indentured slavery societies. Such radical change would precipitate the loss of their undeserved privilages and that would mean that (a real shock doctrine) those unworthys who cannot produce anything intellectual would actually have to get a job.
“He has friendly relations with a lot of people who dislike America and he himself is quite hostile to us in general.”
Unfriendly = dictator?
It is exactly this type of demonization of those who oppose/dislike the U.S. that has empowered those in control of our country to establish the policy of ‘preemptive war’.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-08-22-robertson-_x.htm
Pat Robertson calls for assassination of Hugo Chavez
VIRGINIA BEACH (AP) — Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson suggested on-air that American operatives assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to stop his country from becoming “a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism.” — and there are better examples than using Pat Robertson out there in the press.
No wonder he dislikes us.
Restive, I’m with you on your assessment of her preconditions on meeting with our “adversaries”. She has a controlling streak a mile wide. That’s also why she has not adapted well to the changing primary. Controlling people are also quite rigid, and that simply spells more trouble for our country if she were to be elected. She is smart in a workmanlike way, but there are no transcendent leaps of intelligence fused with understanding the whole. Her rigidity makes that impossible.
did hillar mean, that if the motivations and intentions of a ‘dictator’ , as assessed by lower level diplomats, is good, then they are acceptable to us?
democracy does not matter? is her position the declared position of the us?
should musharraf have been on this list?
are abolute monarchs also dictators?
In the Ohio debate on Tuesday, near the end, Senator Clinton said the candidates could have discussed the “retreat from democracy” in Latin America. What is this? Popular democracy is increasing across South America. Chavez in Venezuela has the support of over 60 percent of the population. President George Bush in the United States had 19 percent approval in the latest poll.
The USA should get behind Ralph Nader in my opinion.
In addition to everything else that’s been said here– BTW, Hi, Cindy! ♥– if Clinton is going to characterize Chavez as a “dictator” based on her subjective impressions, why is it that we haven’t heard her regularly refer to our own Unitary Executive by that term?
President Unitard’s signing statements alone evidence top-down, authoritarian, totalitarian behavior. But it’s easier to score cheap points with the “centrist” wingnut constituency by bad-mouthing Chavez than to call out our War Criminal-in-Chief for the dictator, or at least the dictator wannabe, he is.
Maybe Hillary thought it was okay to lie about Chavez being a dictator because the scum at late night talk shows such as David Letterman consistently lie to their audiences that he is a dictator.
re: “Retreat from democracy” in Latin America? Holy crap. If she believes that she has completely lost any credibility she had left.
I didn’t say that Hillary wasn’t “calculating”
But I do believe she is smart…that’s why her statements are
even more disturbing to me. She knows as well as you and I that
Chavez is not a “dictator.”
She was for NAFTA before she was “against” it. Corporate colonizing
of South America by US has been going on for centuries and now
popular democratic movements are rising up against this…so in our
“American Exceptionalism” if you aren’t “for US” you are “against US”
Hi…Little Brother
Cindy
I can’t wait to hear her commentary on the democratically elected Palestinian government.
And how the majority of Israelis(including Sderot) want to take advantage of the offer to negotiate long proffered by Hamas to end the cycle of violence.
I wonder what preconditions she would need.
I said Ms. Clinton was either lying or incredibly stupid. It has to be one or the other. I can’t believe she is ignorant of the history of the US in Central and South America.
Latin America is already lost to the imperialists. They are trying to hold on there as long as they can, such as with their war against the socialists in Columbia, but they, the same as every other pragmatist, know that they are losing ideological ground as the forces of humanity assert themselves among the peoples who reside in the areas of conflict.
The forces of evil on this planet, which is to say the capitalists and their phoney “democracy” sycophantic governments, are going to be expunged from world society. It is not a question of merely “when” but “how soon”.
Hillary is a demented amoral rabid hyena foaming at the mouth while spinning in circles chasing her own rhetorical tail !
She is just another American illusion !
I wish Chavez would hurry up and build the Kalashnikov factory he has been talking about and start producing assault rifles for distribution to all freedom fighters.
As we found out in Nam and now in Iraq, it is impossible for high-tech imperialists to defeat a determined guerilla resistance.
I don’t think she is smart.
She is a politician and as it turns out, not a very good one. In fact, she is starting to ring Nixonian with the dark, resentful, jealous glares, the scortched earth policies, the transparent cheating, the brazen, manipulative lying.
Obama is a smarter politician - more talented, polished Hillary by comparison is leaden, dull, flat.
Maybe she is smarter than Bush but that isn’t saying much and even with his approval ratings down to 19% what he worry? Hillary isn’t smart enough to stop him–or even smart enough to know that she should apparently, but maybe smart enough to think that running against his party would be easier now that he has been allowed to make such a mess of everything.
Maybe she thought she was smart, in a recent debate, when she humbled herself with sacherine platitudes before the wounded soldiers in the VA hospital. Yet no one thought to point out to she-whose-heart-was-bleeding that her actions put them there.
I love Chavez (despite his “loose cannon” of a mouth at times), and I HATE Clinton. AWFUL, awful, awful, AWFUL!!!! Clinton is beneath contempt. We had 8 years of Reagan (AWFUL!!!!); then 4 years of Bush 1 (terrible, appalling); then 8 years of Mr. Bill (oh nooooooo!!!! it’s mr. “NAFTA” bill); then 8 years of easily the WORST lying, stinking sack of shit to ever walk the face of the earth as prez Bush 2. How anybody, deemed sane, could have the sheer stupidity to want Billary Clinton for president is beyond stupid. It’s pure shit-fer-brains stoooopid. It reminds me of all the idiots who were so f*cking dumb they actually voted for Bush in 2004, after those first 4 disasterous years. That was a defining moment for me: I then realized how hopelessly beyond help stupid your everyday American voter is. Please, please…I know it’s hard not to be stupid…but do something good for your country for once: vote for Obama. But back to Chavez: this guy totally RAWKS!!! Giving millions of gallons of heating oil to poor Americans, and actively implementing numerous government plans to feed, clothe, educate and care for Venezuela’s poor. What’s wrong with that? Nothing. It’s beautiful. When’s the last time our government did anything like this? America giving away heating oil to the poor and needy abroad, let alone here at home? Don’t make me laugh. It will never happen. Can’t remember, eh? Yep. Little wonder Clinton is just regurgitating the beltway dem/republican party line. She’s a hopeless idiot riding on Bill’s coattails. America hates Chavez because he makes the U.S. federal government and our quack presidents look like the greedy corporate scrooge-scum they truly are. That’s the long and short of it.
Does Chavez have a loose cannon mouth because he tells the truth or because he doesn’t follow our dear leader’s script?
Good points by many. I really liked what jmacneil wrote. And it is nice to see Cindy Sheehan here.
I think Hillary may have been so deeply embedded in the oligarchy for so long that she equates going along with the Washington Consensus as following democracy (I would guess almost everyone here understands that Chavez is doing all he can to lead the rest of South America away from the Washington Consensus). For the truly committed like her, “democracy” long ago lost any connection with the wishes or the welfare of the great majority of the people, but means something like the wishes and the welfare of the corporate elite. I agree with Cindy Sheehan that Hillary is very bright, but that she is just plain on the other side, the side of the oligarchy.
I bet when Hillary thinks about it she recognizes that the modern “free trade” agreements and the Washington Consensus on trade, along with the rest of neoliberalism, is really a form of neocolonialism, designed to distract, confuse, and fool enough people to sufficiently lower resistance to allow for predatory behavior of historical proportions by US corporate elites. And that is fine with her, as long as such corporate elites can put her in the White House.
Bush was not elected. He stole the election x2.
Chavez was elected. Plus, he was brought back by popular demand when a US backed coup kidnapped him and abolished the constitution and the assembly.
Chavez doesn’t hate “us”, as in Americans. He doesn’t put up with exploitation of US oil companies, or attempted coups, or threatened assassination.
Quit equating the interests of the US ruling class with those of we the people.
And for those who believe that there is a difference between the Dems and Repubs, look at Clinton’s words.
“We create our own reality” and the Dems and the Repubs both follow the party line. That’s because they are two wings of the same party, the corporate party.
Thank you so much, Cindy! What you said very, very revealing about how US policy elites and the media determine who are democrats and who are dictators. Such determinations are not made by measuring a leader’s practices at home, but rather his/her loyalty to US interests. Discrediting democratically-elected leaders as “dictators,” “semi-authoritarian,” “illiberal democrats,” etc. is a conscious effort to confuse and deceive (lie)and justify aggression. In 1954, the US refused to acknowledge Arbenz as the democratically-elected leader of Guatemala and dismissed his victory at the poll as a “fluke.” In 1970, the US used covert operations to prevent Salvador Allende from taking the office he rightfully won in elections that even the US acknowledged were free and fair. After Allende took office, Nixon and Kissinger willfully ignored their own intelligence that showed democracy continued to be vibrant and healthy under President Allende. From 1984-1990, the Reagan administration dismissed the Sandinista victory at the polls in Nicaragua as a “sham election” despite the fact that over 500 observers from Latin America, Europe, and North America deemed the elections free and fair. What happened in each case? Massive US covert operations that produce hell in all three countries. The biggest mistake made by leaders and many people in Latin America is that they think the US will treat them as equals and respect their decisions if their governments are democratic. The historical record clearly demonstrates otherwise.
Hillary and her advisors keep shooting her(self)in both feet — for me, she hasn’t got a leg to stand on. If she were the only candidate running she would never get my vote, not in this lifetime.
Paul Revere, you hit the nail right on its head.
On and on and on goes the anti-Hillary hate mail. You imbeciles have no limits do you? The stupidity of your attacks is so patent, so palatable that a mere glance at the facts make you look like the adolescent goons you are. Answer this simple question. If Hillary is so “evil,” so “stupid,” why did she maintain a vast lead over all the other candidates for 8 months? Is there one Hillary hater with enough brains to answer that question? I doubt it. Your stupidity is appalling. Where did you get “everything” you think you know about Hillary? You got it from media, didn’t you, you pathetic frauds, you hate filled adolescents. You got it from the same mainstream media that you’re constantly telling each other, transmits nothing but lies and distortions to the American people. The same media that is supposed to fill all of you with such contempt and cynicism. Your hypocrisy is the only thing that equals your stupidity. Who sold you, in just the last couple of months, on the idea that Hillary is the devil? Wasn’t it media? Do you know what laughable asses you are. Do you have any idea how stupid you look to anyone that has a sense of fairness? Rove, together with his slavish media, have brought you down, with nothing more than a succession of a few newspaper articles, a few phoney media polls, and a few BS TV news programs. That’s all it took to manipulate your pale and bankrupt thought processes. You deserve Obama. A morally and ethically and intellectually bankrupt black candidate, to replace a morally, ethically and intellectually bankrupt white president. You win, suckers.
Oh dear. Well, you can bet so is Obama - so if this is supposed to suggest St Barack would embrace Chavez, think again. No western politician prepared to implicitly question the dogmas of capitalism would ever be allowed to stand for office, let alone take it. See Cuba, if you get penetrate the vicious propaganda smoke spewed by the west around it. For a real alternative to Hillary, don’t look to the even more conformist and corporate-fawning Obama. Look to Kucinich, and contribute to his campaign to stay in Congress. There are far too few honest politicians in the US to lose even one.
Hillary has never impressed me as being particularly smart or truthful.
“Chavez = dictator” is 1984-speak, like “nuclear missile = peacekeeper”, or “support the troops = send them to die.” If we are demented enough to elect Hillary, we should expect US attacks on Venezuela in the name of “restoring democracy”. We’ll be “supporting our troops” by sending them to die for Latin American oil. War is peace, isn’t it? (I wish Cindy were were on the ballot. Maybe then we could go back to peacekeeper = Peace Keeper. Someday…)
Some of the outspoken conservative Republicans (i.e. Coulter and Cunningham) who can’t throw their support behind McCain are throwing it behind Hillary. That should be a warning sign there.
Venezuela’s Chavez and Haiti’s Aristide, elected in fair elections, are the enemies of America and democracy.
Selected George Bush, not elected by the will of the people TWICE, and now Hillary, are the ones that the mainstream media and people quote as to what is acceptable under democracy.
I thought this only happened in Bizzaro land. We’ve passed by George Orwell a long time ago.
It is easier to fall asleep than to wake up. America has fallen asleep a long time ago.
so it goes…
Clinton is a neo-con/AIPAC loser. I hope Obama can make a break with the DLC/Clinton position (which is not different from the McCain/Bush position.
If he can’t we’ll watch the country go down the tubes–all brought to you by the oligarchy that couldn’t shoot straight.
DEIBOLD = Dictatorships Elected Illegally By Official Lying and Deceit
Cheney put the “dick” in dictatorship…
Have you ever noticed how Bush and Hillary are never seen together? Its because Hillary is just Bush in drag.
JohnCPT —- I agree that the exhuberance of the anti-Hillary sentiment is a bit over the top.
However, in answer to your question, the reason why she held such a lead for 8 months was purely because of name recognition. As people become more informed about the candidates, they tend to move their support towards Obama.
Hillary is part of the corporatist problem that IS our leadership in the US. Bet she didn’t mention that Chavez offered to sell our country, every day, 250,000 barrels of oil per day for $50/barrel if we locked it in a contract. Guess our STUPID leaders thought this was a bad deal. Now they buy 250,000 barrels per day at $100 per barrel, costing us $12.5 million more per day. That, in my books, makes Chavez a lot smarter than the morons who lead our country.
Say what you want about Chavez, but under his leadership, literacy, life expecatancy, and access to health care have all IMPROVED. Because we elect MORONS to lead our country, during that same time our country has declined in these measures of social performance. I’d take a “dictator” like Chavez over a MORON like Bush any day.
johncpt wrote:
“On and on and on goes the anti-Hillary hate mail. You imbeciles have no limits do you? The stupidity of your attacks is so patent, so palatable that a mere glance at the facts make you look like the adolescent goons you are.”
A little respect please Johncpt, you don’t own the truth. American Indians love Hugo Chavez because he represents a strong tilt in favor of Indigenous People and values. He was elected and calling him a dictator just lost Hill Girl most of her American Indian vote. I just sent this out on the ndn telegraph and it will spread across this country in a day. FYI, Chavez has given heating oil to over two hundred tribes in the U.S. many of whose citizens had been reduced to burning their clothes to stay warm. Are the ndn’s in Texas and Ohio? Yah, there are lots of us there.
I would be honored to meet a person like Hugo Chavez. I have the utmost respect for him. He stands up to the US and that just drives Hillary and all the neoconservatives crazy. As for Hillary, I wouldn’t pay two cents to be around such trash.
I had only heard of the mud-slinging so typical of American campaigns so far. This is the first time I am watching it live, thanks to the internet.
The longer I am reading along, the more I am just digusted. The invectives used by “progressives”, just to defend one’s own one and only saviour, are nauseating. It sounds like kids who are trying to play democracy. Definitely not like adults.
Never before have I felt that where I live is a haven of sanity and decency by comparison. Thanks for the enlightenment!
Never before has misogyny been so blatant. Most of America’s universities will at some stage publish learned studies about the sexism of this campagn. It will go down in history.
SHAME ON YOU.
Actually, if I were American, I’d vote for Nader by now, after having watched all that infantile name-calling and getting more and more disillusioned about the “progressive” American voter. At least he talks about the military budget and impeachment. That’s where all your other great “progressive” heroes fear to tread.
And re Chavez: He’d quite like to be a dictator but the Venezuelans don’t let him. To his credit, he hasn’t been trying to force the issue by military means yet.
Good Luck Cindy! You stated,
‘I didn’t say that Hillary wasn’t “calculating”
But I do believe she is smart…that’s why her statements are
even more disturbing to me. She knows as well as you and I that
Chavez is not a “dictator.”
Perhaps you would be less disturbed by Mrs. Clintons lies had you believed as I do that she is not nearly as smart as the media would have us all believe. No, she is not dumb either but just not particularly smart from all I can gather. And oh yes! She is calculating.
Didn’t she have her people clean out offices just before investigators arrived to gain access to possible evidence of corrupt practices before her Billy boy became President of the USA? Just an after thought for fun.
C’mon johncpt, don’t hold back– tell us how you really feel!
Just a few weeks ago, Chavez put his proposed constitutional reforms to the people in a national referendum, and lost. Somebody ought to remind Senator Clinton that dictators don’t offer their people referendums, unless they know in advance that they are going to win them.
Chavez = dictator; repeat it often enough and it becomes a “fact” used to justify destabilizing and overthrowing him. The Bush regime has already been involved in 3 such attempts: the coup, the economic pseudo-strike/lockout, and the recall referendum. The CIA, NED, and USAID were all involved in these activities, and remain so involved up to this minute. Little surprise that he is a bit irascible toward our Gov’t.
Cindy Sheehan, as usual, is right on!
johncpt, calm down you angry person! You asked: “If Hillary is so “evil,” so “stupid,” why did she maintain a vast lead over all the other candidates for 8 months?” Evil and stupid people win all the time, look at Bush!
Here’s the problem progressives have with her, and it’s the same problem they had with John Kerry. She voted for the war, in spite of all the evidence that it was a stupid/evil (your words) thing to do. Either she knew it was a mistake and was doing it for political expediency (evil) or thought it was a good idea (stupid). Apparently, virtually the rest of the world in February 2003 disagreed with her. The war will result in a 3 trillion dollar cost to the US taxpayer, has resulted in 1 million unnecessary deaths and 4 million refugees. We don’t want a president who makes that kind of decision! When Kerry described Chavez as “anti-democratic” in 2004, it was the last straw for me. Hillary just did the same thing. This kind of talk is a precursor to attacking another innocent country - we don’t want this. If Obama has said the same thing, progressives would be just as angry.
The irony in your posting is that you criticize others for what you go on to do exactly yourself when you describe Obama as a “morally and ethically and intellectually bankrupt black candidate”. Please justify that statement in terms of how you think Hillary is morally and ethically and intellectually better in comparison. I await your reply.
I do not believe that Chevez is a dictator. Bush 2 is a dictator and a looney one at that. We surely do not need McCain in the white house. Obama and Hillary are two of a kind.. Think about it. John Edwards should have been the MAN for president, but our PUB media Killed him.
@Rockerbabe1 February 28th, 2008 12:20 pm
“A legitimate, elected leader, who by all accounts is also a dictator. He has friendly relations with a lot of people who dislike America and he himself is quite hostile to us in general. He is a lot like Geroge Bush and I don’t consider that a compliment.”
“by all accounts” - FALSE - That is only true of all accounts by the US corporate media and other right wing sources.
“He has friendly relations with a lot of people who dislike America” - TRUE - But of course it is hard not to dislike someone who invades, occupies steals and keeps threatening to continue this behaviour. And so he should have friendly relations with countries even if we continue to bully them.
“and he himself is quite hostile to us in general.” - FALSE - Chavez is hostile only to the US administration, because the US administration have made several attempts to overthow him by force (after he was legitimately elected), and have made several attempts at assassinating him. He is NOT, however, hostile to the people who in the USA. He has made discount oil available. He has offered aid after Bush’s actions enable Katrina to turn into a disaster.
America could hold a poll, a big one! The question that could be asked is: Which Politician Is The Biggest Liar?
It would be the first time in history that hundreds of people tied for first place!
President Chavez has a problem with Bush - but then, which sensible leader does not. Hillary replacing Bush would be just plain “much of the same”.
Because both America and Venezuela have much to offer each other, it is such a pity that there is such hatred between both leaders.
Chavez is no dictator and, unlike Bush, is well loved and respected by most in South America and the Caribbean.
Lets see if President Obama can heal the old wounds and bring both nations together for the betterment of their people.
Yes we can.
What I wonder is will Clinton meet with the Middle East Dictators of Saudi Arabia, Egypt etc.?
Unless you read verbatim from a right-wing talking points memo you’re a liberal network.
Unless you keep your oil private and allow ownership by American/British multinationals you’re a dictatorship.
This is how they define these issues.
So in their mind they’re being honest.
johncpt does not give any substantive issue in his post. There is nothing worth responding to, just name-calling. There is no there there.
Mrs. Clinton seems to have learned something from the Karl Rove/George Bush instruction manual for manipulating public opinion. Say something enough times, even if it’s a flat-out lie, and people will begin to believe it.
canuckchuck February 28th, 2008 4:56 pm
DEIBOLD = Dictatorships Elected Illegally By Official Lying and Deceit
Cheney put the “dick” in dictatorship…
Have you ever noticed how Bush and Hillary are never seen together? Its because Hillary is just Bush in drag.
You’re funny! Thanks for the laugh. We could all use one considering how sad things really are.
Hillary is not in her element. Her area of experience has been in child advocacy. She was nice up to 1972 work in McGovern Campaign (Texas}. She was still dating Bill at that time. Bill asked her to marry him several times and she refused. That was her big mistake since that is where she has learned all the tricks of the dirty campaign trade. She has tried to trip Obama with alternating nice nice with gotcha. So far it hasn’t worked. Also typically I see pro hillary comments shouting, what’s wrong with you imbeciles etc. Better read or take a course in How To Make Friends and Influence People.
Slick Bill=Slick Hillary…she courting the liberal conservatives that will vote but not for McCain.
A few nights ago I had the misfortune of watching what was called the Democratic debates between Clinton and Obama two pompas creatures of inhuman excrement.They were discussing what it would take for them to meet with mr Castro,though Hillory was the most pompas Obama wasn’t far behind,they stated that some sort of ground rules would have to be established concernining human rights,before they could possibly deign to consent to any such meeting as it would possibly considered that they would be held to be an equal of such fine specimines of human rights as themselves beacons of freedom,human rights,justice and democracy.
News flash: Any denial of human rights,justice and freedom and democracy in Cuba under Castro pales in comparison to the abuses practiced on Cuban soil by the USA at GUTANAMO BAY.
All Cubans can clearly see what America freedom means and exactly what what would be in store for them under US influence.
On and on and on goes the anti-Hillary hate mail. You imbeciles have no limits do you? The stupidity of your attacks is so patent, so palatable that a mere glance at the facts make you look like the adolescent goons you are.
Signed,
Terry McCauliffe
I am reminded of why I couldn’t vote for John Kerry four years ago. He spoke about Bolivia, which had just succeeded in getting rid of a government that was colluding with American business interests in stealing the mineral wealth of Bolivia from the Bolivian people. The violence in the government transition was by the government against the people, who largely were peaceful in their demonstrations. Senator Kerry spoke of the need for America to oppose such movements, which he saw as anti-democratic. These big important Democratic Senators view “democracy” as anything that works for American commercial interests. Anything that works for the interests of the poor in another country is a dictatorship, even when it has won in elections. The hypocrites! Don’t support Hillary in this election. Please. Enough of these “lesser evils.”
It’s not the first time she has lumped Venezuela in with North Korea and Cuba when talking about dictators and heads of state. She is appealing to the right wing (why she is so hellbent on doing this I don’t know).
Because he is not a capitalist and because he uses the wealth of that nations natural resources to better the lives of the average Venezuelan, they (the capitalists) have declared him a dictator, and the conservative sheep bleet and jump on the bandwagon. And this is who she is appealing to. No wonder she is losing the support of Democratic voters..
There’s nothing honorable about the lying, manipulative, corrupt Hillary. She looks so angry and bitter next to Obama. Her face seems to be getting fatter. That’s all we need: A fat, bitter old woman as president, our first woman president. Yuk
Quote:
A legitimate, elected leader, who by all accounts is also a dictator. He has friendly relations with a lot of people who dislike America and he himself is quite hostile to us in general. He is a lot like Geroge Bush and I don’t consider that a compliment.
—–
This is true. Puttin was “democratically” elected, and so will his already appointed successor. That does not prevent him from being a dictator.
Chavez is surely a borderline case… the “reforms” he tried to pass, appointing himself pretty much absolute power was not what I would call the pride of democracy. Luckily, democracy did stop that (through the referendum).
Personally, I don’t have a clear opinion about Chavez. He has his good and nasty sides… but the fact that he was democratically elected is NOT an indication for determining whether he is a dictator or not!
I would love to have voted for Hillary.
But all I feel now is disgust for a woman who has sold her soul. Evidently presidential fever, no matter which gender, is a lethal disease affecting the heart and the mind and the once clear sensibilities of conscience.
I think of Lady Macbeth …
What goes around, comes around … sooner or later.
I totally disagree. Dictators always win elections - sham elections. Castro has won them for over 50 years. The leader of North Korea always wins his too.
The Venezuelan elections were not sham elections. They were legitimate elections. Thus, Chavez is the democratically elected president of Venezuela, not the dictator of Venezuela.
Furthermore, true dictators always have their reforms passed. That Chavez lost that battle and accepted it also proves he is no dictator.
Sadam Huessein was a dictator. Hugo Chavez is not. The differences are crystal clear..
Hillary led until people voted. So, in other words, she never led at all. She is solidly in the bag for the corporate plutocracy, so they put “Hillary winning!” all over the media they own. Then people voted and Hillary was doing badly until Bill played the race card in South Carolina and then her campaign was destroyed irredeemably.
Read her autobiography. Bill set her up for the fall on national health care. He should have led that vital fight himself. Instead he let Hillary go down in flames and she, to this day, does not understand what happened.
If Bill had calculated that national health care was going to win he would have been front and center and Hillary would have been working on welfare reform or something. She may be a smart woman, but she is really stupid when it comes to Bill.
And I think she has shown through her terrible campaign that she does not have what it takes to be President. “Those are Xerox words.” That line is idiotic on multiple levels. First of all she is doing exactly what she is accusing others of by using that line. People under the age of 40 probably didn’t know what she was talking about because we use copy machines and computers now. And she was talking about something Obama was given by one of his national chairpersons who had urged him to use. To me that shows that Mrs. Clinton is a fool who has bad judgment when it comes to deciding what advice to follow.
And the gracious statement Mrs. Clinton made at the end of that debate turns out to have been lifted from John Edwards. Pathetic. She should just go away.
Aladdin: Are you unaware of what Chavez has been doing? Do you actually know what powers he wanted, and for what? You seem not to know. Are you a victim of propaganda?
You people should be aware that Chavez does not want to be a dictator, he wanted, and succeeded in forging a constitution that effectively prevents dictatorship. Critically, the constitution allows for recall of the president. Such a recall attempt against Chavez failed already, when 57% of the people supported him . If the US constitution allowed for a recall of Bush, would he still be there? Who is the dictator?
Putin has the support of 85% of the population because he betrayed the corrupt clique that took over for Yeltsin and sided with the people instead. He restored the wealth of the country and stopped the robbing cold. He is disliked because he was KGB, an organization that was very nasty to many people. They support him because he has proven that Russia is the most important thing to him, not wealth. Contrast that with the doings of the shrub.
Right is wrong and up is down—Lordy lordy—we have all fallen through the looking glass, no?
But really folks, we can defend true democracy and Chavez without getting so personal against Hillary—we all know she’s part of the problem. I hate it when we sound as shrill and hateful as the right wing radio talk show hosts. We can do better, right? Right?????
Right is wrong and up is down—Lordy lordy—we have all fallen through the looking glass, no?
But really folks, we can defend true democracy and Chavez without getting so personal against Hillary—we all know she’s part of the problem. I hate it when we sound as shrill and hateful as the right wing radio talk show hosts. We can do better, right? Right?????
Right is wrong and up is down—Lordy lordy—we have all fallen through the looking glass, no?
But really folks, we can defend true democracy and Chavez without getting so personal against Hillary—we all know she’s part of the problem. I hate it when we sound as shrill and hateful as the right wing radio talk show hosts. We can do better, right? Right?????
To Johncpt:
You ask why did Hilary lead for 8 months? Because of name recognition. that’s all. Her name gave her a platform.
I agree that she is smart. I think she is very smart, which makes her position on the dark side even sadder.
Why did she lie about Chavez being a dictator? Probably because a whole lot of Americans have been voting based on deceptive rhetoric about the danger of terrorism. She is hoping to play on some people’s ignorance and fear, she’ll say anything to get votes. Has anyone been watching McCain this week? He is laying out his plan for the election. He is going to slam the Democratic nominee as being soft on terror. And Hilary is trying to use the same fear to slam Barack. It is hideously tragic to watch her over on the dark side.
To Johncpt:
“First they ignore you; then they ridicule you; then they attack you….and then you win.” Gandhi
Based on this quote by Mohandas Gandhi, I’d say we’re somewhere between the second and third phase of your assimilation period. We love your anger, it will be useful to our cause when you’ve taken the time to educate yourself.
In the meantime, please attend to your writing skills. After your question:
“Do you know what laughable asses you are.”
You neglected to use a question mark. This is forgivable, but then you mistakenly used a word out of context in the following statement “…so palatable that a mere glance at the facts make you look like the adolescent goons you are.” I believe the word, “palatable” was mistakenly used in place of palpable (readily or plainly seen, heard, perceived). This is less forgivable considering the fact that in the same sentence you have a subject (glance)/ verb (make) disagreement. It’s not that I object so much to your rant, but when making a point about how “stupid” and imbecilic others are, perhaps you could take the time to avoid looking like one yourself.
Oh, and johncpt?
At second glance, there are countless more errors, but I simply cannot take the time to help someone that much. Thank you for your passion on the subject.
Love,
Ruthie
FDR’s New Deal and Chavez’ Bolivarian Revolution are the two big things that Hillary’s capitalist masters want hidden from public view.
As long as our media can convince the masses that a person or state is evil, then the politicians will be able to keep on lying.
The fact that HC talks about preconditions, just tells you how disingenuous the US and UK administrations have become. By refusing to talk without preconditions, you have already insulted the other party, and assumed you have the moral high ground. If you manage to convince enough people of this, you can get away with murder - literally!
Those of you who think Hillary, Bush et. al. are stupid….don’t ever make that mistake. Saying they are stupid simply prevents you from critically analyzing what they are actually doing. When they make these kinds of statements, they are doing it on purpose, and for an agenda. They are actually incredibly smart, that’s why when we think they are maing mistakes, they are actually getting away with exactly what they wanted. Do you think Bush and Co. care about Iraqi lives lost? NO! They have destroyed an Arab country, that was the goal, and it is virtually accomplished.
Hillary is so damn smart, why did she fail (passing) her Bar exam the first (and only) time?
This asanine belief that Hillary is assumed smart, is based on a number of factors:
a) a servile media chorus, and
b) her loyal staff,
c) PR flacks,
d) an uneducated public,
and
d) the internet which serves as a conduit to propagate and magnify unverified claims (Examples: G.W. Bush served his country, John McCain is a war hero, Hillary is a lawyer).
What’s disturbing about Hillary
Only an agent of the right-wing could characterize Hugo Chavez as a dictator. Chavez really ticks off the right, especially neocons. He is for people, not corporations. Chavez has redirected oil revenue to eliminate illiteracy and reduce poverty, and these programs are successful. This mightily annoys the greed-driven right wing who begrudge every dime used to elevate the lowest economic strata upward.
Hillary. It kind of figures that she would smear a leftist this way. She voted for the war (and makes no apology), she has served on Wall-Mart’s (and other)board of directors, she signed onto the Kyl-Lieberman amendment (she must have known that would anger her base but she had to stick to her real constituency, Israel and the corporatocracy), she refuses to excise profits for the insurance industry from health care costs (but so does her opponent, much to the frustration of liberal and progressive voters), and more.
Makes you wonder who Hillary’s base really is.
rjhuntington: It would seem that nowadays any kind of “left of centre” politics or behaviour, is labelled subversive. You are right about Chavez, when you say he “ticks off the right”, because his beliefs are a direct challenge to the “religion” of capitalism. He is enabling and empowering the very people, who the rich target as a means of maintaining wealth through extortion.
When will the masses wake up, and discover that they are being subjugated by a minority of greedy people, who take as much as possible and give nothing back to society?
Never before has the divide between rich and poor been so obvious, and I would think that the time is ripe for a big change, away from capitalism/elitism, to a fairer form of progressive social democracy.
Oh, Ruthie (ruthru), thank you from the bottom of my heart for your post! “You maked my laughing!”
I are a English teacher, but I loves to just sit back and see the language implode when peoples is irate.
(p.s. Bonus points for those who can spot all nine of my mistakes…)
That right there should erase any doubt about Hillary and her “fitness for duty.” I’m disappointed that she would unveil her own “axis of evil” list a la Chimpster in order to suck up to corporations and remaining right wing dimmocrats. Hence my title for Hillary “corporate war princess” Clinton. Hugo is the real thing and true hero. Literacy, health care, diplomacy, dialogue etc. Mr Chavez is doing what is best for most of Venezuela and that the elites are pissed further illustrates Chavez’ legitimacy. He’s trading oil for health care and has people involved at the literal grass roots level, it’s not perfect, but the US and our leaders and bureacrats and citizens could learn a lot from our southern neighbors.
if Clinton is going to characterize Chavez as a “dictator” based on her subjective impressions, why is it that we haven’t heard her regularly refer to our own Unitary Executive by that term?
I suspect she’s looking forwards to weilding the unconstitutional powers Bush has given the office. Neoliberals can be just as authoritarian as neoconservatives.
Also, criticizing Clinton is not the same thing as worshipping or even defending Obama.
Could we have been given the itemized list for the new “axis of evil”? The grace period for Latin-American lefties will be over with beginning in January of 2009 if Hillary wins. God knows how long McCain’s list is.
What on earth is a precondition anyhow? A made-up word used by tyrants who have no intentions of bargaining in good faith with the other party. And Hillary is on the side of the tyrants. Unlike Bush, she is not stupid or uninformed, but her will-to-power is insatiable.
Cindy, it was an honor to walk near you in the hall of the Hilton in Caracas on my birthday in January 2006 during the Forum of the Americas. I wanted to say hello but didn’t know quite how to just go up to you and start talking. But now I can at least say “hello, best of luck in the congressional campaign and thanks.”
My screen name, 4thefuture, came from the hope Chavez has given many of us that there is an alternative. I even started a website for Venezuela, although I haven’t been able to update it as much as I’d like. Anyone interested in contributing articles or commentary please contact me. www.4venezuela.com
4venezuela@gmail.com
And to the wonderingyou, I want the bonus points: ‘Oh, Ruthie (ruthru)! Thank you from the bottom of my heart for your post! “You made me laugh!” I am an English teacher, and I love to just sit back and see the language implode when people are irate.’
ruthru, could you give me a source for the Gandhi quote as I have been unable to locate it in my searches. Thanks.
Yet another reason not to vote for Shillary- unfortunately this smear tactic has proven largely successful on the masses, and its obviously untrue-
I’ve been in Venezuela a total of 7 months over the last two years doing a music related project, and though we’ve encountered criticism about Chavez from all strata, the majority sense was that he was going in the right direction. Hardly perfect for sure, but whether or not he ultimately fails in Venezuela, he should be remembered as the person who launched the South American revolution which is now blessed with such leaders as Correa, Bachelet, Kirchner, Morales and others. This is a monumental achievement and a MAJOR STEP for real democracy the Americas.
Hello there Cindy, saw you at the world social forum jan 2006 in Caracas when Chavez addressed the crowd at the arena…great stuff!
And I would encourage anyone to visit the amazing country of Venezuela. From the caribbean to the andes to the amazon, it’s hard to believe they have so much packed into an area roughly the size of Texas! The people are friendly, the art and culture are sublime and the music kicks ass!
Just one more thing-
Consider this…every week your president does a 4 hour show where he talks specifically about the state of the country, where the money is being spent, does book reviews (by authors like noam chomsky etc), takes live audience questions and has music/dance acts from all over the country perform live on his show?
Where does that happen? In Venezuela on a show called “Alo Presidente.” How many leaders of the “free” world do this?
thanks bob naiman (and hugs to cindy!).
my brain wants to EXPLODE when i hear this kind of crap about chavez, and fidel for that matter.
i can’t listen to air america hardly at all anymore (either some idiot named lionel asking a Tampa-based “cuban refugee” lawyer “is castro as evil as you and i know him to be or are you and i just delusional?” or rachel maddow, who i used to respect a lot but who has apparently been spending way too much time over at MS-NBC, going on about the castro dictatorship). btw, lionel, the answer is: you’re delusional!
can you imagine what civil liberties would be like in this country if there had been even 1/100th the attempts on W’s life as there has been on fidel’s? or acts of terrorism? or attempted invasions? in other words, whatever faults might be placed at fidel’s (or hugo’s) feet HAVE to be seen in light of US hostility and aggression towards their respective nations as well as lives.
ed “america’s progressive voice” schultz (yech!) goes on about a cuban doctor making extra bucks working at a tourist hotel. but he doesn’t talk about gifted, post-doctoral grads in this country making a LIVING as waiters. hell, even the smithsonian magazine had the honesty to talk about how cuba’s poorest were way better off than the poor in america. or how cuban doctors are sent all over the world and yet, magically, they still come back home to their island.
i am SO tired of democrats who claim to be progressive and then speaking for me. they don’t! one can’t be both a loyal (D) party member AND progressive, since the former is not the latter. the (D) party works hand-in-hand with the (R) party and corporate powers to protect themselves and each other at the expense of the people and other species of the world.
they’ve conspired to keep 3d, 4th, 5th parties off the ballots in most states so we have no where else to go. then they can ignore us (see pelosi & reid, impeachment, inherent contempt citations, REAL investigations) and count on us voting “for whichever candidate the (D) party puts forward” (to quote Thom Hartmann and just about every liberal-leaning media personality) because they’re not as bad as the (R) alternative.
look at how many people are energized this election season. do you REALLY think it’s because of tepid clinton and lukewarm obama? or is it because 7 years of (R) rule is finally beginning to wake people up. wonder what 4 years of mccain would do?
back off! just wondering.
nader, with all his faults, gets my vote. and dennis kucinich will continue to get my mail asking him to help build a strong, progressive 3d party alternative to the same-old same-old.
remember phil ochs: “a liberal is 10 degrees to the left in good times, 10 degress to the right when it affects him/her personally”
We so often speak in incomplete sentences:
Said: Jobs Americans won’t do.
Meant: Jobs Americans won’t do FOR THAT WAGE
Said: In our national interests.
Meant: In our national BUSINESS interests.
Nationalizing oil is not in “our” business interests so the words to paint Chavez as evil are inconsequential to those in power.
Personally, I think Chavez has concentrated too much power in himself to be comfortable with. He seems to be falling into that old “personality cult” thinking where criticism of him is automatically “treasonous”.
Hope I’m wrong but I give it 3 years until he does away with democratic elections, just as Castro did. (nice one Raul, a unanimous vote!)
bligh2 said “Personally, I think Chavez has concentrated too much power in himself to be comfortable with. He seems to be falling into that old “personality cult” thinking where criticism of him is automatically “treasonous”.”
How about some facts and sources to back up this assertion?
Thanks Lizard for the posts on Chavez and Putin. Putin is vilified in the U.S. corporate media for precisely the same reasons that Chavez is attacked: they are more interested in their own national interests than doing what the U.S. orders them to do.
Chavez’s villainy is compounded by his belief in socialism. Yikes!
Johncpt – Are you sure you’re not a sly Obama supporter? Because if you’re sincerely trying to persuade people to lighten up on Hillary then I’m not sure calling them “adolescent goons” and about a 1000 other nasty things is helpful.
Why not graciously present the Hillary case for us right here on this forum?
For me the most important priority is ending the U.S. war on Iraq (and not starting anymore wars).
Personally, I’m not especially wild about Obama: to me about 90% of his campaign consists of hot air. My candidates were Kucinich or Gravel, and I was hoping to see Ron Paul make it through on the Republican side. However, I believe that Obama is more likely to end the Iraq war than Clinton and I think he’s more likely to defeat John “Mad Dog” McCain than Hillary is. Fairly or unfairly she is carrying a trainload of baggage with her.
Obama has been cozying up with Zbigniew Brzezinski
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/24/brzezinski-offers-support-for-obama/
There’s plenty not to like about ZB; however, he considers the Iraq War utter folly and has denounced it repeatedly. He’s also adamantly opposed to a war on Iran, and went so far as to suggest that the Bush Administration might try to manufacture a Gulf of Tonkin incident in order to launch a war.
Hillary is done.
Let’s MoveOn.
Next Wednesday, we need to focus on what an idiot John McCain is, not Hillary. (894 out of 897 in his Naval Academy graduating class. Skipped ahead to flight school because Dad and Grandpa were Admirals… kind of like Bush, a moron catapulted to higher levels.)
I’m sure McCain thinks Chavez is a dictator, wants to bomb Iran, attack North Korea, occupy Pakistan, threaten Cuba, sanction Bolivia, strong arm Ecuador, etc. etc. etc.
This is the type of dishonesty that would not endear me to a Hillary Clinton presidency. I look too at her repeated denials about her support of the Iraq invasion even after stating on Meet the Press that she could not agree to allowing the United Nations to decide what measures were to be taken against Iraq because, in her words, “this would have given the UN a veto power over the President of the United States.”
I consider her a danger to world peace because I believe that she would precipitate military confrontations in order to prove that she is just as “macho” as any male, just as long as Chelsea does not have to fight these wars and other people’s children make the sacrifices.
The facts are not essential as far as she is concerned. The only thing that matters is power.
I think the problem is that Clinton, like many others, conflate “dictatorship” (usually characterized by one-person or one small group in power who got there by non-democratic means) and “authoritarianism”, which can be characterized by any number of non-democratic or unjust practices that threaten to violate the rule of law. Chavez is not a dictator, but is most definitely authoritarian. He suppresses and even jails political opponents, keeps tight control over the press, and tolerates a pretty minimal amount of political liberty amongst the people of Venezuela. While dictatorships are usually authoritarian (and vice-versa), they do not have to go hand in hand. Another authoritarian leader who is technically not a dictator is Putin. And there are some dictators who are relatively benign (i.e. non-authoritarian) such as King Hussein of Jordan and, some (not me) would say Castro.
Whom did I insult, Chavez or Castro?
Well, if you can ignore some small things like the curtailing of personal liberties, suppressing freedom of speech and press, and repression of political opponents, then I can see why Chavez would be considered the new JC.
Anyway, I stand by my original post. A dictator Chavez is not. An authoritarian ruler with a disregard for the rule of law, definitely.
NRA,
I never want to see anyone’s wish go unanswered, especially someone who is comfortable using a gun lobbying organization as an alias. So here goes:
Hail Chavez, full of grace …Well, that’s as far as I care to validate your post.
Love,
Ruthie
Ruthie,
Chavez and the NRA have a lot more in common than you might think.
Cynthia
Looks as though the anti-Chavez rhetoric is flowing hot and heavy. For a little bit of balance on the topic (and a more factual perspective), it might be worth reading the transcript of the Democracy NOW! program dealing with the failure to renew the license of RCTV. I wonder how long NBC or CBS would keep broadcasting if they daily rallied for the violent overthrow of the government and the assassination of the president.
Kudos to Democracy NOW! for not totally swallowing the dreck that passes for journalism in this country.
Some people can’t see beyond the kool-aid that is served by the bucket-load through the corporate-controlled media. They’re a helluva lot slicker than most state-controlled media by a long shot…
“Some people can’t see beyond the kool-aid that is served by the bucket-load through the corporate-controlled media.”
I totally agree, and that’s not where the information upon which my conclusions about Chavez are based. It comes from talking to real Venezuelans, who have lived under Chavez and experienced his repressive policies first hand.
Newsflash: just because Chavez stands up to Bush does not make him a good and just leader. That “enemy of my enemy is my friend” thinking sounds very familiar, doesn’t it…? It’s what got us into every major conflict of the last 60 years.
I suggest looking into this:
http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=220
Here’s a snippet:
Working closely with Venezuelan human rights organizations, both Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Amnesty International (AI) have found substantial evidence that the Venezuelan police and National Guard used excessive force against anti-Chávez demonstrators and that detained protesters were ill-treated and tortured. These violations of human rights fit into a disturbing pattern of “disappearances” and extrajudicial killings by “death squads” of off-duty police and National Guard that have been documented by Venezuelan and international human rights organizations. HRW found that a death squad in the state of Portuguesa was responsible for one hundred killings alone between 2000 and 2002; there is evidence of substantial death squad activity in another eight states and the capital of Caracas. Authorities refused to seriously investigate and prosecute either attacks on anti-Chávez protesters or death-squad activity, human rights advocates report.
In this context, Chavista efforts to undermine the independence of the judiciary are particularly ominous. In the last year, Chávez-backed legislation allowed him to pack the Supreme Court with his partisans, putting in place a chief justice who declared that any rulings by lower courts “contrary to the revolution” would be overturned. Judges who released opposition legislators detained without evidence of criminal wrongdoing were removed from office. HRW and AI strongly condemned these moves. Scores of government critics are now being rounded up in political arrests—the most recent case involved a distinguished jurist and former president of the IACHR, Carlos Ayala Corao, who has been implausibly charged with complicity in the failed coup—and a compliant judiciary will ensure that they are denied due process of law in what is increasingly becoming a police state.
No less threatening are Chavista attacks on freedom of the press. Venezuelan media have been polarized between pro-Chávez state outlets and anti-Chávez privately owned outlets, with conscientious journalists who attempt to provide accurate information caught in the middle. On many occasions, journalists and media outlets have been physically attacked by pro- or anti-Chávez mobs; HRW calculates that 130 separate incidents of this sort, predominantly by the pro-Chávez forces, took place from the start of 2002 to February 2003. In an attempt to silence critical media voices, the government has passed new repressive legislation that institutes prior restraint of the press and criminalizes the publication or broadcasting of statements that show a “lack of respect” for government authorities or “insult” government leaders. Media outlets may lose their licenses for publishing such prohibited material, subsequent to action by a national institute controlled by Chávez partisans, and government ministers have begun investigations of the major anti-Chávez television outlets that could result in such license revocations. Criticism of Chávez regime attacks upon the press has come not just from the owners of the private media, as one would expect, but also from such well-known advocates of press freedom and the rights of journalists as Reporters Without Borders, the Committee to Protect Journalists, the International Federation of Journalists (the international federation of journalist unions), HRW, and AI.
But no sector of civil society has come under stronger fire from Chávez than Venezuelan organized labor, the Confederación de Trabajadores de Venezuela (CTV). Chávez began his term in office with the declaration that he would “demolish” the CTV, and that “nothing could prevent its elimination.” He suspended by executive decree all collective bargaining in the public sector and the petroleum industry, where the strength of the CTV lay, and organized a national referendum in 2000 to decide on the leadership and national structure of the Venezuelan union movement. The International Labor Organization (ILO), affiliated with the United Nations, and the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), the leading international union federation, condemned such a referendum as a violation of freedom of association, which guarantees workers the right to choose democratically their own organizational structure without outside interference from government and business. Only a minority of the Venezuelan population voted in the plebiscite, in stark contrast to earlier referenda establishing a Constituent Assembly and ratifying a new Constitution.
NRA you can download or buy “The Revolution Will Not Be Televised” and it gives a pretty clear picture of the private TV stations actively participating in the April 2002 coup which overthrew the democratically elected Chavez government in addition to simply calling for the overthrow of Chavez. Perhaps not the same as assassination but certainly such actions would get any US TV station yanked off the air immediately with possible criminal charges to boot.
Cynthia 707 i’m not sure where you are getting your info from, but I can assure you that 50% of the media in Venezuela is anti-Chavez, take a look into Globovision for one, its run by the elite opposition parties and I would speculate partially subsidized by the Bush Administration.
During the 7 months in 2006 and 2007 when I was there, everyone I met spoke freely pro or anti Chavez just like we speak of politicians here. Are there political prisoners in Venezuela? Probably…but name a country who doesn’t have them.
He tried to institute longer terms for Presidency but he was voted down by the people, and he accepted that. Sounds like democracy in action to me.
Chavez as dictator passes the “duck test” for me.
History keeps repeating itself and the apologists keep making the same mistakes over and over again. It is of course entirely possible that Chavez start out with the very best of intentions. But power corrupts and they, like so many leaders, develop messianic tendencies and become cut off from reality. The same could happen here with Obama but of course we have checks and balances to stop this from taking full root. In less developed democracies the apparatus can more easily be dismantled. It will happen in Venezuela as it is happening now in Russia and has happened in Zimbabwe. It could even happen in South Africa. I hope I’m wrong but history shows that I’m probably not.
Mikester,
See: http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=220
Plenty of countries don’t have political prisoners who are in jail simply for opposing or organizing against the person in power, starting with every single western and northern European democracy.
Why are you making excuses for this autocrat? It’s dangerous to canonize someone simply because they stand up to someone you don’t like (Bush.) If anyone’s being led along by the nose here, it’s non-free-thinking progressives who want so desperately to find someone as opposite from George Bush as they can that they are willing to ignore their moral compass on small things like human rights, press freedoms, and the rule of law. Chavez is a brute. He may be an anti-Bush, anti-imperalist, anti-globalization, anti-corporate brute, but he’s still a brute.
This reminds me of a statement from the film “Four Days in September”, where one character tells her paramilitary boyfriend (who has been torturing leftist guerillas) that they (the guerillas and the paramilitary) are “like two ends of a horseshoe- you think you’re far apart, but you’re much closer than you realize.” That is Bush and Chavez. Different ideology, similiar methods. It’s called cognitive dissonance. Look into it.
Cynthia
Cynthia,
you should really try using something else than applied ignorance. If you believe everything you read without questioning why, you will certainly believe any lies you happen to read in publications such as “dissent magazine.”
Once again, i was there in the streets, on the ground talking with many people who actually live there, so here’s a suggestion…why don’t you take a little trip there and see for yourself instead of buying into someones narrow version of reality?
As a great american said once, “Free your mind and your ass will surely follow.”
What makes you think I “believe everything I read”? Just because I’ve drawn a conclusion that differs from what you’d like me to say?
I believe Amnesty International, Transparency International, Human Rights Watch, UNHCHR, and numerous other NGOs whose job it is to monitor freedoms, corruption, and human rights adherence.
One of my close friends is an attorney in Caracas. The only time he feels safe talking about the reality in Venezuela is when he’s out of the country.
That’s not really a fair assessment. He is taking these actions because Colombia crossed a border into Ecuador to pursue rebels. Colombian rebels also hide out in Venezuela, so his concern that Colombia may repeat in Venezuela what they did in Ecuador is valid. And his message is, ‘you’d better not.’
I see nothing wrong in a leader of any country making it clear to another country that has just violated border sovereignty that they better not try it ‘with me.’
Having said that, I went to Colombia two weeks ago, and my landlord/best friend is Colombian. These rebels do not have the support of the Colombian people. They are loathed by them. Thus I am dismayed that Chavez supports them, or that either Ecuador or Venezuela would give them a safe haven.
If I were Uribe, I’d go ahead and go after them in both Venezuela and Ecuador, and if it meant war with either or both, then so be it. I wouldn’t tolerate some group kidnapping and killing my countrymen in an effort to take over. If they want power, let them run a candidate and win an election.
That is amusing, it does appear that the same rw govt shills post here simultaneously. I’ve noticed this on a few other progressive web sites and although they are continuously outed, they must somehow think people will forget or just fail to notice.
Mikester, it silly and simplistic to claim that because someone doesn’t jump on the Chavez bandwagon, that they are “rw govt shills.” Real progressives are people who can think for themselves, and whose values are coherent across issues and countries. For example, I am pro-human rights, pro-democracy, pro-social justice, pro-free and fair elections, pro-international law, pro-environmental protection, pro-rule of law, pro-equal protection, and pro-civil liberties. Because of that, I am able to see Chavez for what he is: a populist brute with a propensity for repression (including violent repression.) That doesn’t mean I support Bush and the neocons. Quite the contrary. I even contributed a chapter in a book calling for Bush/Cheney’s impeachment. I just don’t tolerate repression, deprivation of liberties, or violence in any of their forms. Feel free to check my “progressive credentials.” My last name is Boaz.
Try not to be so paranoid. It just reinforces the negative stereotypes about progressives and we don’t need more of those.
“shills” ~ interesting concept.
What I find in my postings to commondreams, is that there is a large percentage of discretely thinking people here. By discretely thinking, I’m saying “love/hate”, “yes/no”, “liberal/conservative” kind of thinking that doesn’t allow for consideration of all sides of an issue.
Personally, I learn a great deal from people whom with I differ in opinion. I seldom, if ever, learn from those which I completely agree with.
Just because someone posts an idea with a differing viewpoint, or alternate thinking, or even completely opposed to what YOU think, doesn’t make them a “shill” or a “troll” or anything other than somebody with a thought, just like you.
I think that if we spend less energy and time in calling people infantile names and discarding their inputs without consideration; and more time actually thinking, evaluating and deciding for ourselves; we will actually LEARN.
Learning as we go along is really what life’s about.
Cynthia ~ I’m with you on this one. An enemy of my enemy does not a friend make.
pdf
Cynthia707….
The very things you state in opposition of Chavez are the
things Bush has done in this country. Our media pass on his
lies, shows like 60 Minutes are blacked out in Alabama because the GOP disagrees with the content, fake reporters are
used to spread his BS, illegal wiretapping, signing statements,
and the list goes on and on. Does that make Bush a dictator?
Chavez may not be the greatest thing since paper cups but
given a choice, I’d trust him before Bush.
decrepittex,
I think you missed my first post, where I agreed that Chavez is not a dictator. I said he is prone to authoritarianism. You can scroll up to see my definitions for the terms. But to answer your question, no, I don’t think Bush is a dictator. But I do think he and Chavez have way more in common than either of them (or their supporters) would ever be willing to acknowledge.
p.s. Why trust either of them?
Cynthia