Hugo Chavez

[RAB]

Kudos to Steven for writing about the furor over his "Devil" remarks from a sane and rational perspective. One thing the American public doesn't see in the Fox-edited video footage (which other outlets were using, possibly including even CNN) is the exaggerated gestures Chavez made of theatrically crossing himself and pressing his palms together as if in prayer right after he made the comment. It was theatre. It was a joke, albeit a dark and pointed one.

I wonder if it may not also have been a pointed reference to the way Bush frames all his rhetoric in highly religious apocalyptic absolute-good-versus-absolute-evil terms. But the American news media don't do nuance or allusion, so they may have missed that angle.

I'd like to see all the people hyperventilating over this next lining up to condemn Ann Coulter for the venomous bile she issues on a regular basis. Ah, but when Coulter and O'Reilly and Limbaugh and Robertson agree with Al Qaeda, approve of (or even call for) attacks on American cities because those cities are asking for it, or call for the execution of Americans who are political opponents...it's okay because they're on the right side. But when an democratically elected leader simply makes fun of their hero, he's a dangerous madman!

[Steven Grant]

American media haven't missed that angle so much as ignored it. They figured out in the '80s (Thanks, Jerry! Thanks, Rupert!) that you can draw bigger audiences if you frame as many stories as possible in apocalyptic terms, and making any imagined threat feel as immediate as possible: "Can videogames turn your children into cannibals? Lock up your seasonings and save your own life - tonight at 11!"

So I imagine they're thrilled that the Hand Puppet couches everything as an imminent apocalypse. Then they don't have to; they can just say they're "neutrally" reporting the news...

- Grant

[sabongero]

I would just lke to comment that President Chavez of Valenzuela is very lucky he is stepping on the soil of a land where justice is administered fairly. Our system is not perfect, but it is better than other countries.

Should a president of another country stated Chavez's words towards him, I am sure he would have done something about it. After all he has strong-arm tactics in place in Venezuela despite being elected democratically. If it were not for Venezuelan oil, Chavez would surely have been replaced by a coup d'etat within a couple of years.

I cannot condone what he has said about President Bush. I have at times disagreed with our President's foreing policy, but he is our leader, and I stand by his decisions. I can vote for whom I choose in the next election.

As for Chavez having an outreach program for the poor in his country. This is the only positive I can say about the man. Other than that, it is mostly negatvie commentary in my part. I would also like to say, shame to the hispanic community in East Harlem for welcoming this man in return for a few measly cheap gasoline prices. I would like them to explain to the widows of victims of Chavez's strong arm rule in Venezuela, how they in East Harlem can welcome Chavez with open arms.

[Steven Grant]

Not sure what the oil has to do with it; Chavez was almost replaced in a coup d'etat anyway. Is that supposed to mean something? The coup d'etat was largely financed with American money, just as Republican think tanks tried funneling American money to Chavez's opponents during the last election there despite a legal ban there on foreign money in national elections. (He has since used that law to cow his opponents a little by threatening them with prosecution, but he hasn't actually bothered to prosecute anyone.)

Care to go into more detail on his strongarm tactics? As far as I know he doesn't have roaming hit squads, but if he does I'd like to hear about it.

As far as him calling the president "the devil," I take that about as seriously as Iran calling America "the great Satan." Who cares? It's just cheap theater. You really think anyone's going to take him seriously, or suddenly get any more hostile towards us as a result? (I know a lot of Americans were upset at the country being called "The Great Satan," but would they have been more or less upset if they knew that in Muslim tradition Satan is considered an ineffectual clown rather than the borderline all-powerful demigod of Christian tradition?)

- Grant

[WorldWide]

Read my signature.

[Steven Grant]

People who aren't even on this board could read your signature...

- Grant

[Paul McEnery]

I would just lke to comment that President Chavez of Valenzuela is very lucky he is stepping on the soil of a land where justice is administered fairly. Our system is not perfect, but it is better than other countries.
No, it isn't. Every other developed nation has a better system than ours.

Venezuela is currently more of a democracy than America is. And our dictatorship tried not just once but twice to launch a coup against Chavez, and failed. That's two coups.

And we're crying because Chavez called Bush a name.

[Adam Crocker]

I have at times disagreed with our President's foreing policy, but he is our leader, and I stand by his decisions.

Why stand by decisions you disagree with?

[Briareos]

He's nothing more then a dictator. If I went to Venezeula and spoke about how he his human rights abuses I'd end up in jail with the key thrown away. The problem everyone has with him isn't what he said so much as that he had the audacity the come on American soil (I know the U.N. technically isn't but you get the point) and call us evil and us a problem when he doesn't even give his own citizens basic human rights.

For all this talk about the Right and Republicans supressing free speach there doesn't seem to be much actual evidence otherwise. Last time I checked Michael Moore can still make movies about whatever he wants and the Dixie Chicks were so censored they had to go on the front cover of Entertainment Weekly just to show how censored they were...

[Briareos]

No, it isn't. Every other developed nation has a better system than ours.

Venezuela is currently more of a democracy than America is. And our dictatorship tried not just once but twice to launch a coup against Chavez, and failed. That's two coups.

And we're crying because Chavez called Bush a name.

So it would be ok if Bush said that the 14th amendment didn't apply to him and that he could run for re-election a 3rd time and then hold a fraudulent election and become President for Life?

[Briareos]

I would just lke to comment that President Chavez of Valenzuela is very lucky he is stepping on the soil of a land where justice is administered fairly. Our system is not perfect, but it is better than other countries.

Should a president of another country stated Chavez's words towards him, I am sure he would have done something about it. After all he has strong-arm tactics in place in Venezuela despite being elected democratically. If it were not for Venezuelan oil, Chavez would surely have been replaced by a coup d'etat within a couple of years.

I cannot condone what he has said about President Bush. I have at times disagreed with our President's foreing policy, but he is our leader, and I stand by his decisions. I can vote for whom I choose in the next election.

As for Chavez having an outreach program for the poor in his country. This is the only positive I can say about the man. Other than that, it is mostly negatvie commentary in my part. I would also like to say, shame to the hispanic community in East Harlem for welcoming this man in return for a few measly cheap gasoline prices. I would like them to explain to the widows of victims of Chavez's strong arm rule in Venezuela, how they in East Harlem can welcome Chavez with open arms.


We don't know anything about his so called "outreach" program... Same with the Cuban health care system. Everyone knows there are 2 tiers. The connected and wealthy in Cuba get top class service. 99% of everyone else is stuck with 3rd world care. The left and the MSM continue to eat up whatever pablum Castro and his ilk feed them in reguards to how great their country is. A model went to Cuba a few months ago and when she went out onto the streets and took a picture of a slum she was instantly arrested.

[sabongero]

Paul let me clarify myself. Our democracy is not perfect of course. I am trying to say our society is better.

Just think of going to a fast food restaurant anywhere in the USA. Now are there armed security guards at the front door armed with shotguns and M-16s automatic rifles with their belts full of either automatic clips/rounds or bullets/magazines. That was what I was trying to convey sorry about that.

Steve as far as strongarm tactics in South America...it will not proven that the goons are Chavez's goons or Chavez's boys. South America will always have goon squads and stron arm tactics will always be prevalent as this is institutionalized in almost every country in South America.

In fact stronarm tactics for political reasons are very prevalent in countries that go by GGG (Gold Guns God). These are mostly catholic countries in Latin America.

[Steven Grant]

Steve as far as strongarm tactics in South America...it will not proven that the goons are Chavez's goons or Chavez's boys. South America will always have goon squads and stron arm tactics will always be prevalent as this is institutionalized in almost every country in South America.

Believe me, I'm not unfamiliar with the concept of Latin American goon squads, but most are relatively easy to trace; even at the height of the massacres in El Salvador in the '80s it wasn't difficult for American journalists to track who were running the death squads. I shouldn't think that if goon squads roaming Venezuela were under orders from Chavez that it would be all that hard to prove. Basically what it comes down to is, yes, if Chavez is running goon squads he's using strongarm tactics. But if he isn't, he isn't.

And it's only fairly recently that goon squads became not a fairly visible feature of American life, though it's not something written about in many history books, so it's not something special to Latin American countries. (And if they seem to have perfect the concept in the last 50 years, in many countries it hasn't been without considerable help from the CIA, and generous donations of American money.)

- Grant

[Paul McEnery]

He's nothing more then a dictator. If I went to Venezeula and spoke about how he his human rights abuses I'd end up in jail with the key thrown away. The problem everyone has with him isn't what he said so much as that he had the audacity the come on American soil (I know the U.N. technically isn't but you get the point) and call us evil and us a problem when he doesn't even give his own citizens basic human rights.

For all this talk about the Right and Republicans supressing free speach there doesn't seem to be much actual evidence otherwise. Last time I checked Michael Moore can still make movies about whatever he wants and the Dixie Chicks were so censored they had to go on the front cover of Entertainment Weekly just to show how censored they were...
Hey Bri --

Wanna give me figures for the number of political prisoners in Venezuela? Wanna give me the figures for the number of political prisoners held by America?

[Paul McEnery]

Paul let me clarify myself. Our democracy is not perfect of course. I am trying to say our society is better.

Just think of going to a fast food restaurant anywhere in the USA. Now are there armed security guards at the front door armed with shotguns and M-16s automatic rifles with their belts full of either automatic clips/rounds or bullets/magazines. That was what I was trying to convey sorry about that.

Steve as far as strongarm tactics in South America...it will not proven that the goons are Chavez's goons or Chavez's boys. South America will always have goon squads and stron arm tactics will always be prevalent as this is institutionalized in almost every country in South America.

In fact stronarm tactics for political reasons are very prevalent in countries that go by GGG (Gold Guns God). These are mostly catholic countries in Latin America.
Um, hang on. I don't think I quite got that.

I don't think there are armed guards at every fast food restaurant in Venezuela.

At the same time, I don't think anyone's ever gone hunting humans in a McDonald's in Venezuela, but somebody sure did in San Diego.

Meanwhile, you wanna talk about goon squads? We not only paid for but trained goon squads in Honduras and El Salvador; we sponsored military coups in Chile and Brazil, and backed the one in Argentina; we propped up goon squads in Nicaragua and Panama.

Goon squads R US.

[sabongero]

Um, hang on. I don't think I quite got that.

I don't think there are armed guards at every fast food restaurant in Venezuela.

At the same time, I don't think anyone's ever gone hunting humans in a McDonald's in Venezuela, but somebody sure did in San Diego.

Meanwhile, you wanna talk about goon squads? We not only paid for but trained goon squads in Honduras and El Salvador; we sponsored military coups in Chile and Brazil, and backed the one in Argentina; we propped up goon squads in Nicaragua and Panama.

Goon squads R US.

Of course the United States will have goon squads. That's why we have the CIA. It's how the U.S. government conducts business. Basically it does not affect you and I. But that's another topic.

If you notice I have mentioned security guards in front of the fast food restaurants in Venezuela. And also in a lot of South American countries. I did not mention anything about anyone hunting humans in McDonald's in Venezuela.

Have a good day to you.

Steve

I just came across an article the other day and I found it again. It showed Chavez's strong arm tactics causing him to step down as Venezuelan president back in 2002.



Venezuela's Chavez resigns under military pressure


AFP
Top Venezuelan military commanders announce on TV their defiance of the presidency of Hugo Chavez.

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) — President Hugo Chavez, a former army paratrooper who polarized Venezuela with his strong-arm rule and whose friendship with Cuba and Iraq irritated the United States, resigned under military pressure Friday after a massive opposition demonstration ended in a bloodbath.

Chavez, 47, presented his resignation to the military after top commanders confronted him at the presidential palace. Before dawn he left the palace — wearing a military fatigues and red beret, as he did when he led a failed 1992 coup — and was put in detention at Caracas' Fort Tiuna army base.

He quit just hours after at least 13 people were killed and 110 wounded during a 150,000-strong opposition demonstration in downtown Caracas. Chavez had ordered National Guard troops and civilian gunmen, including rooftop snipers, to stop the marchers from reaching the palace, military officers said.

Opposition to Chavez's three-year presidency had been growing for some time. His one-time 80% popularity ratings plunge to below 30% this year as he repeatedly accused business leaders, labor, the news media and Roman Catholic Church leaders of conspiring to overthrow him.

The armed forces — which has traditionally strong ties to the U.S. military — resented Chavez's distancing of Venezuela from Washington. Many also disliked Chavez's ties with leftist Colombian guerrillas and with Fidel Castro's Cuba: Many senior officers had fought Cuban-backed communist guerrillas in the 1960s and early 1970s.

Police warned Friday that "Chavistas" — supporters of the president — reportedly were distributing weapons, especially in the hillside slums surrounding the capital, where Chavez has long had strong backing among the poor. Officers raided storehouses, seizing dozens of firearms.

With Chavez's ouster, jubilant executives at Venezuela's state oil monopoly, who had been engaged in a work slowdown, promised to bring production up to speed as quickly as possible. Venezuela is the No. 3 supplier of oil to the United States and the world's fourth biggest exporter.

Oil prices dipped on news of Chavez' downfall amid expectations of a production increase. Oil markets have been concerned over supply after Iraq's decision this week to suspend exports to Israeli allies.

Pedro Carmona, head of Venezuela's largest business association, announced he would head a transitional government to be installed later Friday.

Chavez was being held at the army base while investigators decide what charges he could face for Thursday's violence, said army commander Gen. Efrain Vasquez Velasco. Chavez asked to be allowed to go into exile in Cuba, but the military turned him down, army Gen. Roman Fuemayor told Globovision television. "He has to be held accountable to his country," Fuemayor said.

The Bush administration said it was closely monitoring the upheaval in Venezuela. "Our interests are in democracy and democratic institutions," said a senior U.S. official traveling with Secretary of State Colin Powell in Jerusalem.

Cuba, whose leader Castro is a personal friend of Chavez, denounced the Venezuelan's overthrow, with the Communist Party daily Granma saying it was the result of a "conspiracy" by the country's wealthy classes, corrupt politicians and news media.

The rapid developments stunned this oil-rich, yet poverty-stricken nation.

In downtown Caracas, streets were littered with debris — and in some places, stained with blood. After a night when thousands went out and celebrated, shops and businesses remained closed, and most people simply stayed home, stunned and wondering what would come next. Buses were half-empty, and those reporting to work hurried amidst rubble-strewn sidewalks.

The wave of protests marked the end for a president whose rule had been a stormy one.

Chavez had irritated Washington with his close ties to Castro, visits to Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and to Libya, and criticism of U.S. bombings in Afghanistan.

And he had alienated virtually every sector of Venezuelan society, with his attacks on the news media and Roman Catholic Church leaders, his refusal to consult with business leaders, and his failed attempt to assert control over labor groups.

Chavez's government also inherited a staggering $21 billion in back wages and pensions owed workers by previous administrations — a debt he was unable to pay.

For Chavez, who on Tuesday boasted he would remain president until 2021, the end came quickly.

Just last Friday, he refused to negotiate with the striking oil executives, who were demanding that he remove a company board he had appointed Feb. 25. The executives said Chavez was trying to strengthen his hold on a multinational corporation that cherishes its autonomy.

The executives' slowdown cut production at the Paraguana refinery complex, one of the world's largest, to below 50% capacity. They closed another refinery and all but stopped loading of oil tankers. Oil generates 80% of Venezuela's foreign earnings.

The Air Force chief, Gen. Regulo Anselmi, said the military urged Chavez on Wednesday to negotiate. He agreed, but by then the oil executives had rejected such overtures.

After Thursday's violence, the high command decided Chavez had to go, and they confronted him en masse in his offices, Anselmi said. Troops seized the government television station as tanks rumbled on the streets.

Chavez finally handed his resignation to Anselmi, Armed Forces Inspector General Gen. Lucas Rincon Romero and National Guard commander Gen. Belisario Landis.

"We ask the Venezuelan people's forgiveness for today's events," said Vasquez Velasco, the army commander. "Mr. President, I was loyal to the end, but today's deaths cannot be tolerated."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/04/12/chavez.htm

[bartl]

No, it isn't. Every other developed nation has a better system than ours.
Then why are you living here? (this is not rhetorical; I believe that you actually have a good answer to that question).

[Adam Crocker]

I just came across an article the other day and I found it again. It showed Chavez's strong arm tactics causing him to step down as Venezuelan president back in 2002.


Check the date, it's from the 12 April 2002. That places it squarely in the middle of the 2002 attempted coup. Doing some background reading: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_coup_attempt_of_2002#Events_leading_up_ to_the_coup)


Two days later, amid rapidly escalating tensions, an estimated 100,000 to 200,000 people marched to the PDVSA headquarters in defense of its recently-dismissed management board. Unexpectedly, the organizers decided to re-route the march to Miraflores, the presidential palace, where a pro-Chávez demonstration was taking place. The march was re-routed without consultation with the Police, who legally had to approve the changed route, and in spite of protests from organisers from the pro-Chávez march who feared a confrontation. After several pro-Chavez demonstrators were first shot in the head and consequent firing erupted between demonstrators, the Metropolitan Police (under the control of the Opposition mayor of Caracas), and the National Guard (under Chávez's command), 20 people were killed and more than one hundred wounded, with victims on both sides.

There is no consensus as to who was responsible for the deaths on April 11, 2002, and this remains one of the most controversial issues in Venezuelan politics today. Several private television channels in Venezuela showed footage of people shooting from the pro-Chávez countermarch being held on Puente Llaguno, an overpass that crosses one of central Caracas's busiest avenues. These shooters were four pro-Chávez political activists identified as Rafael Cabrices, Richard Peñalver, Henry Atencio, and Nicolás Rivera. They were captured by the police and jailed for one year as they awaited trial, but charges were dropped before the trial began. Rafael Cabrices subsequently died from a heart attack on August 30, 2005.

The anti-Chavez commercial stations repeatedly showed only a small part of the scene (see still shot), of pro-Chavez supporters firing, claiming they were firing at unarmed demonstrators and not showing the direction in which they fired. Irish filmmakers later released footage that did swing to the right, showing a completely empty street in the direction in which they were firing. This was later disputed by private media analysts whose arguments are disputed in turn. Cabrices, Peñalver, Atencio, and Rivera argue that they were, in fact, returning fire at unknown snipers firing towards them.

So basically the responsibility for the shooting is unknown at this point and it occurred not during an opposition demonstration as the USA today article claims, but when an opposition demonstration marched into where a pro-Chavez rally was being held. And even Chavez supporters were among those killed.

Also of note:


On April 13, Chávez wrote a note from his captivity in Turiamo stating specifically that he had not resigned.

And maybe this was an attempt to get the upper hand, but it's worth noting that it wasn't Chavez who announced his resignation but General-in-Chief Lucas Rincón Romero. And Chavez arguably wouldn't have had a chance to have said otherwise. So I can't take this as example of his high-handed tactics since the responsibility for the massacre is nebulous and his own supporters were caught up in it. I did find a link from the U.S. State Department (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2002/18348.htm) on human rights in Venezuela, but I haven't had time to go over it. (Though arguably one would be better off looking up Venezuela on Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.)

[Paul McEnery]

snip
This article was almost pure propaganda. Other reporters have clearly stated how much the anti-Chavez demonstrations were cooked up by the oil companies (in particular) to create the circumstances of the coup; that the shootings were agent provocateurism which primarily targeted pro-Chavez people, and intended to create a direct cause for the coup; and that the coup failed instantly because Chavez was too popular.

[Paul McEnery]

Then why are you living here? (this is not rhetorical; I believe that you actually have a good answer to that question).
To some extent, at this point, out of inertia.

The second time I came here, I got to run a small paper, be a radio DJ and theater director, buy for a major bookstore, help start a club, and generally influence Sacramento for the better. And I didn't realize how much I was taking all that for granted until I wound up back in England.

The third time I came to America, I came here to see if I could fix up my marriage, because I'd still got stuff here (not to mention friends), because if I didn't keep my green card up I'd lose it, and because Britain under Thatcher was depressed and depressing, and there was no chance to do anything.

And I got to do some new interesting things when I got here, editing MONDO 2000 and going on from there. And by the time I was done with all of that, all my relationships were here, and all the opportunities that are left to me are therefore here too.

So basically, there's a radicalism and a willingness to try out new ideas and a population of disaffected misfits here on the Left Coast that gives me a foundation for my thinking and writing. I wouldn't find that fluidity of mind elsewhere.

But that's pretty much San Francisco, rather than America. The rest of America gives me something to react against, something I see that could stand to change.

Or, to put it another way, there's no work for a doctor amongst the well.

[Briareos]

Hey Bri --

Wanna give me figures for the number of political prisoners in Venezuela? Wanna give me the figures for the number of political prisoners held by America?

About 200 in Venezuela:

http://infovenezuela.org/cap5_en_7.htm

America does not have politcal prisoners. Feel free to name me one if you disagree.

[bartl]

About 200 in Venezuela:

http://infovenezuela.org/cap5_en_7.htm

America does not have politcal prisoners. Feel free to name me one if you disagree.
An argument could be made for Jonathan Pollard; certainly the length of his sentence was politically motivated. Problem with this example was that he was, in fact, guilty of actual criminal offenses. The part that makes it political, in my opinion, was that, when the judge rejected the plea bargain deal, Pollard was not allowed to change his plea to not guilty.

[Steven Grant]

Leonard Peltier. Of course, the argument is that Peltier is in prison for murdering FBI agents, not for his political beliefs. But that's how America tends to handle its political prisoners; it does not imprison them on political grounds but on the grounds of crimes they've supposedly committed. (I don't believe the "evidence" against Peltier holds up, but I wasn't on the jury.) Pollard is a decent example as well, even if I don't particularly sympathize with him. As Bart mentions, he committed the crimes he was accused of - but his trial and sentence was very clearly intended to send a message to Mossad.

Then there are the various parties who've been picked up on "suspicion of terrorism" since 9/11 and shut away without recourse to lawyers, etc. They very definitely fit the definition of political prisoners, since they are imprisoned without access to traditional modes of legal recourse and often without anyone even being notified they've been rounded up, and without being charged with any crime.

We've always had political prisoners, we've just developed this lovely technique of imprisoning people on criminal grounds so political considerations can be denied by authority. You could go so far as to say that every innocent person railroaded for a crime by a district attorney looking to look tough for re-election day is a political prisoner as well, and we now know there are tons of those in America, from all the cases that have been overturned in the last few years by something called evidence...

The only way to deny the existence of political prisoners in America is to resolutely deny that any imprisonments can qualify as politically motivated...

- Grant

[Rhydaman]

So it would be ok if Bush said that the 14th amendment didn't apply to him and that he could run for re-election a 3rd time and then hold a fraudulent election and become President for Life?
Bush? A fraudulent election? Why, the very notion's absurd!

[WorldWide]

http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/6156/realaxisofevil3sq8.jpg

[NatGertler]

Ummm... the points on a triangle would not be an axis. An axis is a straight line.

[Steven Grant]

You're always feeding us straight lines, Nat...

- Grant

[NatGertler]

Indeed. Indeed.
(But the image is so non-straight that the "Bush" actually looks more like non-straight man Paul Lynde.)