(Bolivian President) Morales ally rejects Bush's democracy concerns

[sabra]

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1994335

Morales ally rejects Bush's democracy concerns
Reuters

May 23, 2006 — LA PAZ, Bolivia (Reuters) - A close ally of Bolivian President Evo Morales rejected comments by President Bush expressing concern about "the erosion of democracy" in Bolivia, state news agency ABI reported late on Monday.

Bush said on Monday he was concerned about democracy in oil- and gas-rich Venezuela and Bolivia, where leftist Morales was elected with 54 percent of the vote in December on pledges to nationalize the energy industry.

Bolivia's senate leader, Santos Ramirez, said the government was keeping its election promises.

"Democracy can only be eroded with military intervention (and) if the government imposes polices that run contrary to the people's social and economic reality," Ramirez, a key member of Morales's Movement Toward Socialism party, was quoted as saying by ABI.

He said Bush had made his comments because "Bolivia and Latin America are no longer the servile democracies that tolerate (…) poverty and surrendering our sovereignty."

[Peace Patriot]

1. ABC News. Hm-m-m. I wonder if they're smarting a bit at having been

spied on. They don't generally give third world democracies that sit on oil and gas reserves the time of day, let alone an intelligent retort to utterly hypocritcal, devious Bush statements.

I think the thing that must nettle Bush the most is that they DO have transparent elections in Bolivia, Venezuela, Argentina, Chile, Urugay and Brazil--most of South America--and we obviously don't here.

[Judi Lynn]

2. Rumsfeld or some other major liar started claiming the prospect of

Morales' winning the Presidency was troubling long ago. They kept continually drawing lines between him and Chavez, hoping the association would scare people. In earlier days, they constantly drew the same lines betwwen Chavez and Fidel Castro, hoping to scare away Chavez supporters.

It didn't work against Chavez or Morales. Now they are simply trying to fold Morales in with the propaganda stew they throw around about Chavez, hoping that the simple association of all these names will blur in the minds of Americans who don't take the time to read and feed into a national hatred of everyone targeted by our right-wing idiots in Washington. They want support for agression against the leaders who would protect their countries and people from U.S. right-wing exploitation.

You noticed already that Ollanta Humala was far ahead of Alan Garcia for ages, until the propaganda machine heated up and started drawing lines between Humala and Chavez, same with Lopez Obrador. Really hope there will be enough time for people to sort it all out before the elections, rather than after!

[cliss]

3. Talk is cheap.

And that's all they have right now.

Washington seems to have no lack of pre-formulated scripts which they pull out when it's time to talk about South America. "Firebrand" (Hugo Chavez), "Strong man", "Dictator" (the most outrageous one), "leftist", "Left-leaning".

Just watch, they'll start recycling the same words on Mr. Morales.

But you know - this stuff isn't working any more. The Americans are waking up to the fact that - Washington - is a Broadcasting Station.

[tsuki]

4. Bush is an idiot. Why does he keep drawing attention to himself?

[Judi Lynn]

5. He only draws it to himself by calling out other leaders as his enemies.

There's absolutely nothing he can say good about himself, other than boasting of his taxcuts for those who live off the hard work and energy of the American people.

Since he has no value himself, his only hope to look better is to discredit everyone else.

[tsuki]

6. But everything he criticizes in other regimes, he is himself doing.

Only Al-Murdock is now backing him.

[winston61]

7. What about the erosion of democracy right here in

the good old USA?