Chavez backs Peru candidate

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

Monday, May 29, 2006 (Tiawanacu):

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez strongly endorsed Peru's leftist presidential candidate Ollanta Humala and continued his war of words with Peru's president on Sunday, saying that Alejandro Toledo was "subordinate" to US interests.

Chavez was hosting his weekly radio programme "Hello President" from the ruins of Tiawanacu, an ancient city located roughly 56 kilometres west of La Paz in Bolivia's highlands.

Chavez said that if Peru's leading presidential hopeful, Alan Garcia, wins the run-off, "We (Venezuelans) won't have any relations with Peru."

Garcia, a centre-left leader who governed Peru from 1985 until 1990, leads leftist candidate Ollanta Humala with just a week left before the elections, according to a final poll published on Sunday.


http://www.ndtv.com/morenews/showmorestory.asp?slug=Chavez+backs+Peru+candidate&id=88478

[Endangered Specie]

1. Sounds almost like something Bush would say...

"We (Venezuelans) won't have any relations with Peru." ie: if you dont vote for the right guy, we wont have anything to do with you...

I think Chavez's ego is getting a little too big for his mouth.

[BayCityProgressive]

2. no shit

sometimes I agree with Chavez...but now it sounds like he is threatening other countries. He needs to back off.

[onehandle]

4. Ya think?

Chavez can be a bit of a sugar coated dictator.

[Endangered Specie]

22. If by sugar coated you mean 2x4-to-the-groin.

this is the first time that an anti-Chavez post of mine hasnt recieved a string of pro-Chavez replies.

a sign? :shrug:

[ShockediSay]

13. Agreed: time for Hugo to back off and stick to Venezuelan

concerns. Power corrupts, as we all too well know.

[ny_liberal]

28. I can't support the threating other nations and other governments

[manic expression]

37. That's rich

Right, because Chavez, as the president of Venezuela, has the same influence and power as the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. Saying that they won't have any relations with an administration because it's reactionary is about the only thing Chavez CAN do (besides not giving Peru oil or something).

Please, that's comparing apples and a garden salad.

[Endangered Specie]

51. Maybe, but they are both rotten or rotting...

I bet I know full well what you would (rightfully) be saying if Bush threatened to cut off all relations with a S.American country if they didnt vote for his pick. No double standards, please.

[manic expression]

53. There is quite the difference

between a South American country and the US. One is a country with limited means, the other is a world power with a long and storied history of oppressing Latin America. One is an economic and cultural sibling of that country, while the other is most decidedly not.

Chavez is doing everything in his influence to ensure a non-US lapdog is in power, which is very important in many ways. Bush does it to make sure he has a lapdog.

Let me put it this way: I truly like anti-war rallies, but I do NOT like pro-war rallies funded and supported by the Republican party. They are both rallies, so are they both "rotten and rotting"?

[Bacchus39]

54. Chavez has no business meddling in Peru's election

I see neither Garcia or Humala as US puppets either. I don't see them as particularly attractive candidates either. but its Peru's choice, not Hugo's.

[manic expression]

56. Chavez does have business

in expressing views about the politics of his continent. By no means is this bullying or anything of the sort, as Venezuela does not have Peru in its pocket, this is merely a head of state objecting to a candidate. I mean, presidents of all countries do the same thing. Crossing the line into actual meddling is the problem.

[Judi Lynn]

62. Meddling may be more like throwing money into opposition groups,

organizing a referendum on a very popular President, buying off high-ranking union officials and military officers with U.S. taxpayers' money, etc.!

I just ran across this article someone here might find worthwhile: it explains the goals of the coup. I've never seen it laid out like this:

INTRODUCTION

The power elite in the United States has never been happy with democratically-elected Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, but it took the Bush administration to turn up the heat against him. Matters reached a boiling point in April with the coup d'etat against Chávez which surprisingly lasted only two days as millions of Venezuelan poor came to his defense. Many of the details about the ousting of Chávez and his replacement by corporate mogul Pedro Carmona Estanga, during those 48 hours, have yet to be sleuthed out, but key evidence implicating Bush and his cohorts has already accumulated.

The primary clues are revealed in the repeated criticisms of Chávez by Washington--echoed in the commercial media--and its immediate virtual endorsement of the Carmona regime by its failure to condemn the coup. In this stance, the U.S. stood alone. The unmistakable backdrop behind the U.S. position is Venezuela's status as the fourth largest oil-exporting country in the world, and currently the third largest source of U.S. oil imports.(1) "Venezuela is a major cash cow for Phillips Petroleum and ExxonMobil. Chevron Texaco and Occidental Petroleum are two other major oil companies with interests in Venezuela and Colombia."(2)

The mantra of complaints against Chávez who had been elected in record landslide votes in 1998 and 2000, included his Bolivarian reforms to "take from the rich and give to the poor;" his refusal to allow U.S. planes to fly over Venezuelan territory for its war in Colombia; his opposition to the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA); and his leadership in OPEC where he works for a fairer deal for Venezuela and other oil-producing countries by pushing up oil prices. (In the process, Venezuela dropped below Canada, Saudi Arabia, and Mexico in supplying oil to the U.S.) Also particularly rankling to the Bush Administration with its abundance of right-wing Cubans, is Chávez's sale of oil to Cuba in exchange for medical care.

Venezuela has been receiving about half of its revenues from the state owned Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA).(3) So providing more for the country's poor multitudes necessarily meant maximizing the gains from Venezuela's rich national resource, oil. This entailed altering the 60-year-old agreement with foreign oil companies "that charges them as little as one percent in royalties," plus handing them huge tax breaks, according to the London Guardian (4) The giant transnational oil corporations and business interests, coveting all that black gold, had far different plans. Not surprisingly, the PDVSA figured heavily in all the intrigue and machinations leading to the coup. "Opposition business leaders have said openly that they want to depose Chávez "so they can boost oil production or even privatize the country's cash cow ....they have been enraged ...over Chávez's efforts to take resources from the rich to aid the poor, who represent 80 percent of the population," says Newsday writer, Letta Tayler.(5)

As he donned his presidential sash (ordered months before from Spain (6)) and dined sumptuously with his co-conspirators, the 48 hour usurper, Carmona, moved almost instantaneously to turn around Chávez's Bolivarian policies and consolidate what amounts to an "oiligarchy." Within 48 hours, he dissolved the parliament and the supreme court, dismissed all mayors and governors, stopped the shipment of oil to Cuba, and started a massive wave of repression across the country. But there is more.
The goal: privatization of Venezuela's oil
According to an article in Proceso by Aram Ruben Aharonian (7), private investigations revealed that one of the moves of the 48-hour coup leaders was "the privatization of PDVSA, turning it over to a U.S. company linked to President George Bush and the Spanish company Repsol; plus the sale of CITGO, the U.S. subsidiary of PDVSA, to Gustavo Cisneros and his partners in the north: as well as an end to the Venezuelan government's exclusive subsoil rights."

Aharonian continues: "For this to happen, it was necessary to suspend the 1999 constitution and take advantage of the conflict at the state oil company, where top management was following orders sent from the north through its former president Luis Giusti. And support came from businessman Isaac Pérez Recao, for whom Carmona had worked in the Venoco oil company, and who actively participated in the coup and provided financing." (8) Giusti has ties with the White House as an energy advisor. (9)

Cisneros, a longtime friend of former President George Bush, who had hosted Bush on a fishing trip a few months ago, heads up a corporate empire stretching from the U.S. to Patagonia. Cisneros' huge dominion is made up of DIRACTV, Venevisión, Coca Cola, and Televisa. (10)
(snip/...)

http://www.globalresearch.org/view_article.php?aid=506926235



Cuban-Venezuelan media mogul Gustavo Cisneros, and his pal _{George H.W. Bush.}

[rinsd]

101. He's certainly free to express his views.

"Chavez said that if Peru's leading presidential hopeful, Alan Garcia, wins the run-off, "We (Venezuelans) won't have any relations with Peru.""

Threatening to cut off relations with a country because the party/person you don't like wins an election is wrong. It was wrong with Hamas and the bazillion other times the US issues similar dumbass threats.

But because this was uttered by Chavez it is okay then?

[manic expression]

103. That's not meddling

What's more important is that Chavez can scarcely do anything but cut off relations. Do you think that is a dire threat? The US bullies other countries into bending to Uncle Sam's interests, Chavez merely says he'll have no part with a government he doesn't agree with. There is quite the difference.

[rinsd]

109. Difference in degree doesn't invalidate the term meddling.

I would qualify meddling as a more benign term vs the US's interference. And threatening to cut off relations because your preferred candidate may not win is meddling.

"
Chavez merely says he'll have no part with a government he doesn't agree with"

Well he's a dickhead then. Its a big world, plenty of people have to co-exist.

[manic expression]

111. It's not a matter of degrees

Chavez has neither the motivation nor the means to actually "meddle" in Peru's politics. Stating something about an election and stating the position one would take upon one possible outcome is not "meddling". "Meddling" would be screwing with the actual politics, elections or otherwise, not making a policy statement.

People have to coexist, but to put a general idea of coexistence in this picture doesn't exactly have too much bearing on this case.

[Judi Lynn]

104. Thanks for calling attention to my article. I hope a lot of DU'ers will

take time to read the bolded parts which point out what the goals were of the _Bush-backed coup. We were going to see a sudden privitization of Venezuelan oil, all going into the predictable, non-sharing-with-Venezuelan-poor hands. Damned slimey.

They were going to STEAL the Venezuelan election, and STEAL the oil.

Thanks a lot.

[happydreams]

105. Meddling smeddling.

How about voicing his concerns. Yer a reactionary Goddess of Wine. :eyes:

[Imajika]

3. Oh woe are the Peruvians....

Chavez said that if Peru's leading presidential hopeful, Alan Garcia, wins the run-off, "We (Venezuelans) won't have any relations with Peru."

Oh so scared. I am sure Peruvians are just quaking in their boots because big bad Chavez won't have any relations with them.

I didn't really have a dog in this fight, but now I am going to root for Garcia just to spite Chavez.

Chavez should stay the hell out of Peru's internal affairs.

Chavez is sounding more and more the bully I always suspected he was. Lately he sounds...well...kinda like Bush.

[Judi Lynn]

6. There is one distinction: Chavez didn't try to overthrow Bush.

Sounds as if there's quite a lot of information you've missed in forming your opinions.

[Imajika]

9. Whether the evidence really shows..

...Bush tried to overthrow Chavez or not is absolutely irrelevent to this debate.

Chavez is sticking his nose in Peru's internal affairs. Chavez has no business trying to intimidate or threaten Peruvians into voting for any particular candidate. Stating a preference is one thing, threatening to cut off relations with a nation because it doesn't democratically elect your favored candidate is quite another.

Chavez is acting like a bully. Period. I hope Peruvians rebuke him.

[Zynx]

33. Chavez is attempting to personally dominate Latin American internal

politics through the use of his swelling oil reserves. His attempts to undermine a Brazil dominated South America have caused great distrust of Chavez in Brazil.

[Bacchus39]

52. yes, he is launching a pre-emptive coup

actually he is not helping Humala one bit by doing this. but he is too much of an idiot, something he does have in common with Bush, to realize it. thus, Humala just told him to screw himself.

[happydreams]

107. Pure Straussian/Machiavellianism

Your aim is so obvious: to flame this topic. :eyes:

[happydreams]

106. Oh BULLSHIT!!

Chavez is voicing his concerns! What is with this topic? Somebody put something funny in the punch bowl?

[stepnw1f]

113. notice how some use the term "threatening" or "Threaten"

instead of what really happened?

[stepnw1f]

5. GOOD!

How ya like them apples Freepers? What's wrong... Chavez won't play nicey nice with leaders that allow American companies to rip off south American countries? Awwww... fuck you too.

[Imajika]

7. Yes, because threatening...

..to cut off diplomatic relations with nations that don't democratically elect governments you like is a good thing right?

I'm going to go ahead and assume you approve when Bush does exactly the same thing.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted sub-thread

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

[stepnw1f]

112. I Say It Nicer This Time

So you don't get my response deleted:

Bush is invading countries, Chavez isn't. Every country has the right to influence other nations without militarily attacking them. Plus, Chavez helps his people, Bush doesn't, so I don't like anything he does, because it isn't for "We the People". Try and get that deleted

[drduffy]

10. Chavez probably knows full well that if

South America cannot present a fairly united front against the US corporatists, then the Bu$hCo. Imperial Fascist Regime will try to pick off the sources of oil and natural gas. Folks, this is war for the resources of the world. You may deride Chavez for various things but his stance is one hell of lot better than our increasingly fascist and corporatist disaster and one hell of a lot nicer to his neighbors. Even in disagreement. Hell, what do we do when a country disagrees with us? Currently, we seem most likely to attack em.

viva la revolucion

[BayCityProgressive]

11. I just don't

think every debate needs to become a Bush bashing. I can't stand Bush, he is a lying theiving piece of shit but that doesn't mean we can't point out other people doing wrong as well.

[Selatius]

14. What Chavez is doing is probably prudent in the face of US Corporatism

He's attempting to form a united shield against no one but the US, since we've historically interfered in their affairs in far more destructive ways from death squads to dictators.

The only difference is if I were Chavez, I would've waited for Garcia or Humala to win before endorsing somebody. They're both leftists. Either way, I win because they're both leftists, and Bush loses more influence in the region, and I wouldn't have gone so far as threaten to sever ties.

Chavez burned his bridges with Garcia, apparently.

[Imajika]

15. If Chavez had waited...

...or even if he had very carefully and diplomatically made the exact point you did, I wouldn't be criticizing him on this particular thread.

What Chavez is doing is not prudent, it's boorish, bullying behavior no different than that displayed on a regular basis by Bush.

[Selatius]

16. In the long-run, forming a united front is still prudent, but Chavez...

executed his prudence very poorly here. Humala and Garcia seem to be the type leftists can do business with as opposed to Toledo.

If there is anything Chavez is poor with, it's that he's hotheaded, and I grow weary of any government where decision-making power becomes too heavily concentrated. I was always more of a mild anarcho-socialist than a state socialist.

[Imajika]

17. Insightful post..

Interesting points. Not much to disagree with here.

Thanks for you comments.

[Judi Lynn]

18. This fight with Hugo Chavez was started by Alan Garcia some time ago.

DU'ers have been reading about it and posting articles here. He is attempting to focus attention outside his own appalling record as a horrid Peruvian president, almost the worst possible. A couple of snippets:

Peruvian Candidate Tries to Live Down Past

By CARLA SALAZAR, The Associated Press
May 26, 2006 1:56 PM (3 days ago)


...He has profited handsomely from getting into a verbal slugging match with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
(snip)

Garcia has adroitly turned the race into a referendum on the Chavez factor, depicting Humala as an aspiring authoritarian who would fall into lockstep behind the Venezuelan leader's populist economics and anti-American rhetoric.

Garcia generally supports a free trade pact with Washington, although he says he would subsidize Peruvian farmers to protect them against cheaper U.S. imports.

He has focused much of his campaigning on voters too young to remember his presidency firsthand, with snappy, hip-hop songs and TV commercials featuring a dancing cartoon red star - the symbol of his Aprista party.

But older Peruvians may prove harder to crack.

"He left the country in ruins," said Zegarra, the clothes vendor. "There was misery, desperation. It was a tragedy. Why repeat that?"
(snip/...)

http://www.examiner.com/a-119944~Peruvian_Candidate_Tries_to_Live_Down_Past.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Also, don't forget, he has the force of the extremely establishment Peruvian newsmedia behind him in his war against Humala, as well as American right-wing propaganda enforcement. They would far, far rather do bidness with Garcia.



Alan Garcia

[Selatius]

19. If that information is true, I can more understand why he supports Humala

I knew Garcia was the establishment candidate, but I didn't figure he was that inept.

[Judi Lynn]

20. He's had a real smear campaign going on against Ollanta Humala.

Hot and HEAVY. Same thing has been happening to Andrés Manuel López Obrador in Mexico.

You are familiar with right-wing ownership and control of the media, of course. Looks as if it's finally getting world-wide. They do go after the ones they hate the most.

You noted both candidates were WILDLY popular for a long, long part of their campaigns until the propagandists got dug in, then they both inexplicably started sliding around the same time. Damned odd.

If they have enough time they'll get right back on top, but it's looking slightly rough right now for both of them.

[Selatius]

21. I hope Obrador can pull a victory

If the US refuses to be the first nation to withdraw from NAFTA, perhaps Obrador can be the first to lead his out of it and end a policy that has deprived, uprooted millions in Mexico.

[Flanker]

27. Garcia was one of the worst leaders ever

And a major black eye for the "left" in Peru.

http://www.tomchao.com/hb14.html

The unit of currency in 1985 was sol de oro, by 1991 the newer unit of currency was nuevo sol which was worth 1,000,000,000 (that's right billion) sol de oro.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

25. A large part has to do with Peru Copper< Inc. (CUP)

They have recently discovered one of the largest deposits of Copper, Molybenum and gold on this half of the world.

The stock has been accumulated for several weeks now and there's a lot of money riding on this election by interests here and in Canada.

[INDIA]

43. How dare you say that!!

Bush is the source of ALL EVIL!!! HE IS ALL POWERFUL!!!:rofl:

[Imajika]

12. Ummm, no thanks..

What you are really saying is the ends justify the means if it suits your politics and ideology. There is no standard of decency here, only what furthers your political ends.

So it's okay for Chavez to bully, theaten and attempt to intimidate his neigbhors because you happen to support his goals. But it's not okay for Bush to do the same thing, because you don't support Bush's goals. So bullying your neighbors isn't really wrong, it's just something you might criticize for propaganda purposes when your political opponents do it?

I don't mind if Chavez was diplomatically stating a preference and explaining why he believes a particular candidate is better suited to run Peru. It's still something generally not done amongst neighbors (mostly because people tend to resent such things and it can backfire badly), but I could understand it if that was all Chavez had done. However, grossly interfering in Peruvian internal affairs and making outright threats to cut of relations if Peru doesn't elect someone Chavez likes is obnoxious and deserves condemnation. Chavez is proving himself to be the bully many people, including myself, always thought he was.

[drduffy]

24. Precisely how is he being a 'bully'...has he

hurt anyone? Did he beat somebody up on the playground? Isn't he merely stating a consequence. Attempting to exert influence is not equivalent to bullying. If I say, I am not going to play with you because I do not approve of your behavior", that is not bullying.

Now I readily admit, he could have been more adroit. And his response may be injudicious, but I bet he's thought over the alternatives. But he may be - and I emphasize 'may' - cause I do not know what he knows - acting impulsively and attempting to control when that is not the best strategy. But we are all good at second guessing. And criticizing aren't we? Frankly, I still like Chavez 'like a zillion times' better than the Death Emperor.

[Endangered Specie]

23. I'm suprised no one has tried the "Oh he was intentionally mistranslated..

by some conspirital force in the media" defense yet... :eyes: :nopity: :sarcasm:

[Flanker]

29. People are at the big deal stage 3 weeks ago

eom

[ronnie624]

42. Because everyone knows

the corporate media would never deliberately mis-translate the words of a foreign leader or otherwise misinform the public in order to promote a particular political agenda. :eyes:

[INDIA]

44. Link? n/t

[ronnie624]

64. Sorry about the delay

in posting a reply. I had to go to work shortly after I posted my first message.

I'm assuming you were aware I was being sarcastic and are asking for a link to support the opposite of what I said.

<http://delawarewatch.blogspot.com/2006/05/another-lie-about-chavez-exposed.html>

If you want detailed accounts of the corporate media's distortions about Venezuela, this should keep you busy for quite awhile:
<http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=13>

It is truly impossible to count the lies spun by the corporate owned media, but Google is user-friendly and filled with examples without number.

[Judi Lynn]

46. Here's an easy to grasp example of an obnoxious "mis-translation:"

relating the inappropriate end of President Aristide's elected term in Haiti:

AP's own translation of the supposed "resignation" letter reveals that it was not a resignation at all, not by any legal standard. The text that the US Embassy "translated" from the original Creole as "tonight I am resigning" more truthfully translates to "if tonight is my resignation." What kind of "resignation" is that? (And why haven't AP and other Commercial Media followed up on that story?)"
(snip)

http://narcosphere.narconews.com/story/2004/3/12/203759/782

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Remember Otto Reich, propaganda and disinformation chief, spinning right-wing crap from his Office of Public Diplomacy, in the State Department, working hard for Reagan, then, again, for _{George W. Bush.} You could call it a mis-translation when the U.S. papers carried the story that Hugo Chavez had resigned and a new government was in place!

What they meant to say was that the coup leaders had been meeting in Washington with Otto Reich in the State Department, and had kidnapped Chavez and were attempting to force him to resign, which he didn't.

[ronnie624]

65. Thank you very much for the link.

You always provide interesting and informative reading.

[TankLV]

116. Those guys don't give up their lies easily, do they.

They've all been caught in LIE after LIE, and that particular LIE must have them pretty steamed.

WE PROVED THEM WRONG.

Chavez is not now, nor has he ever been, a "dictator".

Get that thru their thick repukie-mirrored skulls.

But thanks for the suggestions on checking out what he ACTUALLY said, as opposed to the PROVEN LIES that their media friends have been caught in many times before.

[Peace Patriot]

26. The Bolivarians view the region--Bolivia, Peru, Venezuela--differently

than we view it. The great liberation hero Simon Bolivar wanted the region to be united as one country. That's what he fought for, as he led the revolution that ousted Spain and freed the slaves. And he was so right. If these countries had stuck together--rather than being driven apart by rightwing forces and US financial interests (which wanted weak separate countries, all the better to install dictators and exploit resources and people), they might have been able to fend off some of the horror they hav been subjected to, over the last century. Chavez and Morales share Bolivar's dream. Chavez ceremonially awarded Morales with Simon Bolivar's sword after Morales was elected the first indigenous Indian president of Bolivia (which, of course is name after Bolivar).

So, Chavez is not really interfering in a foreign country or "neighbor", exactly, in these remarks he made. He is saying to Peru--and especially to the vast population of indigenous who straddle all three countries, and who have been impoverished and oppressed for so many years: Join us! Let us form a united front, as Bolivar wanted. Humala is a 100% indigenous Andes Indian, like Morales. They are trying to rally these voters for a united front against NAFTA, the multinationals and the Bush junta.

For a better understanding of the new Bolivarians, try: www.venezuelanalysis.com

[Imajika]

30. Ya, that's all wonderful..

..doesn't change the fact that Chavez is interfering in the sovereign country of Peru's affairs. And yes, Bolivarian dream or not, Chavez is infact threating the independent nation of Peru.

I suppose if you go back far enough in history, lots of national leaders can claim to speak for huge swaths of territory. Hell, lets just get rid of all borders and let the law of the jungle reign. Everyone can find some point in history they happen to like in which they controlled the most territory, and claim all of it again for themselves. Or perhaps we can all trace our ancestry and try to figure out exactly where we need to return to so everything can be made "fair" again. All utterly silly.

Chavez is playing the part of a bully. I hope Peruvians reject him. I'd bet they will in Peru and in Mexico. Chavez should be worrying about his own people and quit interfering in the affairs of other nations. Oddly enough, when Bush does this stuff he is condemned by the very same people who seem to think it is fine when Chavez pulls this bullying crap.

[manic expression]

57. Backing a candidate is hardly 'interfering'

with anything. You are delusional if you think that what Chavez is doing amounts to anything remotely resembling "interference".

[Bacchus39]

31. Gran Colombia was Colombia, Ven, Ecuador, and Panama

not Peru or Bolivia.

[Freddie Stubbs]

34. A bigger country doesn't mean a dictator is less likely

Italy and Germany unified from smaller states in the latter half of the 19th century. Look what happened there.

[RagingInMiami]

47. And I'm sure Chavez would nominate himself the leader of this united

coalition of Latin American countries. Call it what you want, but a power grab is a power grab and meddling into the affairs of a foreign country is still meddling.

[Bacchus39]

49. not even close!!!

he would APPOINT himself leader.

[manic expression]

58. What is this conclusion based on? n/t

[ronnie624]

66. I too would like to know

how Bacchus39 arrived at his conclusion but dare not hold my breath awaiting a satisfactory answer.

[Bacchus39]

72. what do you mean? Hugo is the second coming of Simon Bolivar

come on. everyone knows that.

[1932]

74. In other words, there's no basis for that opinion?

[TankLV]

117. Yeah, I'd like to know, too. So far, the RECORD proves otherwise!

[Zynx]

32. Never mind that Garcia is also center-left.

But I guess that's not good enough for anyone here.

[Bacchus39]

35. if Hugo doesn't support him, he must be bad

n/t

[Zynx]

36. Oh. Of course. How could I forget that?

[Flanker]

38. Garcia is bad because he was a disaster

Why is that so hard for people to understand? Legendary corruption, inflation, economic collapse, terrorism. I am a lefty but would rather see Flores tha Garcia at the helm of Peru

[Bacchus39]

39. amazing he is in the lead isn't it?

not much good to choose from in Peru is there? anyone but Toledo must be the slogan.

still, Chavez should shut the hell up and butt out. not likely for that clown though.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[1932]

75. Since when has winning elections been the measure for you of whether

a leader is good for a country?

If you really believed that, you wouldn't be so passionately critical of Chavez, no?

And if Garcia doesn't win, I certainly don't expect you to be satsified with the outcome to the point that you're not going to incessantly criticize the elected leader if he's too liberal for your taste.

Nonetheless, I'll remember your retort and paraphrase it -- "amazing that he won the election, isn't it?"

[Bacchus39]

76. oh, I agree

look at Chavez.

I don't think either of Peru's candidates are very impressive.

that isn't a paraphrase. a paraphrase relays the same meaning in other words, you changed the meeting completely.

[1932]

78. That doesn't make you feel the slightest bit hypocritical?

You don't mind that your logic is inconsistent?

[Bacchus39]

79. what are you talking about?

n/t

[1932]

80. Perhaps I'm reading too much into your tea leaf posts.

[Bacchus39]

81. or you could just explain your analysis maybe and try

to make some sense.

[1932]

82. The subject line of you post reads like "shut up, he's winning."

That struck me as grossly hypocritical. But not I see that your angle is that you hate them all.

[Bacchus39]

83. you are hallucinating. I have no idea what you are talking about

where is my post that says "shut up, he is winning"?

I said Hugo should shut up.

[1932]

84. "amazing that he's in the lead, isn't it?"

Thought you were saying, "Suck eggs. He's in the lead."

[Bacchus39]

85. no, I'm saying despite his past performance

and the fact that the great revolutionary leader Hugo Chavez who knows what is best for Peru has thrown his support behind his opposition, Garcia is still leading.

not looking good for Peru any which way.

[ronnie624]

41. Correct. n/t

[manic expression]

60. Too bad the facts agree

Garcia was, as many have pointed out, positively terrible. Just scroll up to see his less-than-stellar economic record.

You are once again incorrect. If you cared to look at reality instead of the sand you bury your head in, maybe you'd get somewhere.

[Bacchus39]

73. right, and Humala is so much better

and then there is Toledo. looks like Peru is going from Guatemala to Guatepeor.

[manic expression]

90. What

is Humala's actual economic record? Until you show me a similarly abysmal record, you have nothing, as usual.

[Zynx]

91. And yet it is interesting that people are willing to try him again instead

of Humala.

[manic expression]

93. Kind of like Bush? n/t

[Zynx]

95. Comparing Garcia to Bush is a little harsh.

[manic expression]

98. Perhaps

but nonetheless, being ahead in polls is not in itself an indication of anything.

[David__77]

40. He's no progressive.

He supports the neo-liberal agenda to the hilt.

[Zynx]

50. Is that why when he was president he nationalized so many companies?

[manic expression]

59. That's only part of it

IF he was in favor of "free trade", nationalizing industries means little.

[Zynx]

86. He's not a big time free trader.

He, like Humala, opposes the most recent trade treaty with the US. He is no neo-liberal.

[INDIA]

45. Great Thread!

Did all the posters I actually like and agree with decide to post here? It's threads like this that make me think that maybe all of DU hasn't gone completely nuts!

[ronnie624]

67. Can you be more specific?

Your posts are rather cryptic and not very easily deciphered. In fact, some of them make no sense whatsoever.

[INDIA]

87. Sure I will

I'm tired of people on DU giving free passes to questionable characters because they are enemies of Bush. For Castro and Chavez especially, I'm not really a supporter or detractor of either, but every time their name is brought up, you would think they are the second coming of Christ.

I appreciate constructive discussion and criticism, not brainless "Viva Hugo!" comments that I often see every time Chavez calls Bush a criminal or mafia boss or whatever.

This has been the first thread where the majority of posters are actually posting well thought out criticism of someone who often is treated, without good reason imo, as some sort of hero. I to see well thought out discussion, not mindless cheering from the peanut gallery.

Does that make enough sense for you?

[ronnie624]

88. Does that make enough sense for me?

No, it doesn't.

Who are you to decide who the heroes of others should be? You claim Chavez is a "questionable character", but do you have evidence for such a characterization? If you have compelling criticisms of Chavez that can be supported by logic, and credible references, then by all means post it. But beware. Most of the DUers who post on these threads are, contrary to your claim, well acquainted with the facts, thus do they recognize the silly, pitiful attempts to demonize Hugo Chavez without any appeals to reason or factual information.

For someone who values "well thought out discussion, not mindless cheering from the peanut gallery" you don't seem to find much interest in the links you asked me to provide in an earlier post.

[redqueen]

92. Doesn't make any sense at all to me...

in fact it sounds like the $#&*ed up media, saying "hey well we were so liberal for decades, so we should balance it and be off the map to the right for a few decades!"

Completely and wholly lacking any logical argument to back it up, in other words.


Nice insults, btw... "peanut gallery"

Interesting to see which side uses grade-school attacks vs. real information to back up their arguments.

:hi:

[Bacchus39]

48. Humala tells Chavez to %#@^%-off

http://english.eluniversal.com/2006/05/29/en_pol_art_29A713943.shtml

The Peruvian people know the "characteristics" of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, and therefore anything he says "is irrelevant," Monday claimed Peruvian nationalist presidential candidate Ollanta Humala, disregarding Chávez' latest insults against Humala's rival Alan García.

On Sunday, in Bolivia, Chávez said García, seen as the favorite to win Peruvian presidential election on June 4th, "wants to become president to continue stealing and stabbing the Peruvian people, God forbid."

After reiterating his support for Humala, Chávez branded García as a "real thief, demagogue, irresponsible, and liar."

Monday Humala tried to mitigate rejection from Peruvian politicians and media against Chávez' remarks, AP reported.

President Chávez' statements are "irrelevant. We all know President Chávez' characteristics, and it is quite clear for the Peruvian people."

"We nationalists are not subject to foreign interests," Humala added.

[ronnie624]

69. You may hope

others arrive at a similar conclusion, but no honest reading of that short, virtually information free article could make one believe "Humala tells Chavez to %#@^%-off".

Such obvious intellectual dishonesty Bacchus39? Shame!

[Bacchus39]

70. so what is your take??

what is your interpretation of what Humala was saying. Peruvians don't seem very enthusiastic about Chavez's endorsement.

I think my interpretation was a pretty accurate paraphrase. Humala's language of course was more diplomatic something Chavez is not accustomed to.

[TankLV]

118. It is to be expected, from his history of posts.

The search engine is really a blessing.

[David Zephyr]

55. Has Ollanta Humala ever really clarified his overt and covert homophobia?

This election is going to be a diaster for the Peruvian people. The terrible "choice" between Garcia (who is an nutcase) and Humala (who is also a nutcase and who has been no friend of Peru's gay and lesbian citizens) spells bad news for Peru, in my opinion.

Such a great country and such wonderful people plagued by such shitty leaders.

[1932]

77. "There should not be discrimin. against people {based on sexuality}" O.H.

This should not matter in the 21st century, said Humala. There should not be discrimination against people for choosing a different option. The only thing that he would demand of people in his government is that they be committed to the project and it is unimportant whether they are male or female, black, white or copper-tone, homosexual or not. “I am not homophobic” he said.

http://weblogs.elearning.ubc.ca/peru/archives/024768.php

[Andrushka]

63. "meddling"? "interfering"?

The usual suspects are here with their anti-Chavez rantings, I see.

How, can I ask, is he "meddling" by expressing his views? Did I miss something here - is he funding opposition groups in Peru? Is he threatening Peruvians with force? It's poor form, diplomatically, I may admit, but it hardly counts as "meddling." "Meddling" is funding fake NGOs with government money in an active attempt to coopt democracy and overthrow a democratically-elected government, for example.

Ahem.

[ronnie624]

68. He isn't "meddling" or "interfering" of course.

Anyone capable of analyzing world events objectively can see this, but many poor souls have a painfully distorted view of the world as a result of their unshakable a priori conclusions.

[Bacchus39]

71. no, he's saying that if Humala doesn't win, Venezuela won't

have relations with Peru. All the more reason to vote for Garcia then I guess.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

89. He also talked about US elections in 2004, didn't he?

He manifested a distinct preference of one candidate over another, if I recall.

[redqueen]

94. heh heh

:hi:

[Judi Lynn]

97. Just found this ort which might bring back some fond memories!

I'm too cheap to pop for the whole article from the N.Y. Times archives, but this should be enough to remind you of what you heard before the Bolivian election, from CONDOLEEZA, RUMSFELD, and this idiot:

World Briefing | Americas: Bolivia: U.S. Warns Against Candidate


Published: July 12, 2002
American aid to Bolivia could be in danger if Evo Morales, an Indian leader who opposes Washington-backed efforts to eradicate drug crops, wins next month's runoff for president, the Bush administration's Latin America policy chief, Otto Reich, said. Mr. Reich's comments came after the American ambassador, Manuel Rocha, gave a similar warning before the election, which backfired and helped raise support for Mr. Morales.
(snip/...)

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9403E1D71030F931A25754C0A9649C8B63&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fSubjects%2fF%2fForeign%20Aid

(font enlarged for right-wingdings who apparently have a hard time reading.....)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
How can the pro-US-domination of Latin America stragglers at D.U. bear to show up, knowing we've all got their numbers? Sheesh.
Someone even got their photo.

[rinsd]

99. In other words, Chavez is acting like a tinpot Bushie?

Threatening to cut off diplomatic relations because your favored candidate may not win an election is just freaking stupid, when the US does it, when anyone does it.

[Judi Lynn]

102. You would be ennobled if you jumped in and started reading more

so you would be up to speed with the DU'ers who ARE informed. Don't just sit back *burp* and wait until someone posts something you don't like, and come out swinging and name-calling.

[redqueen]

96. You know...

when I disagree with other DUers, it's usually something where there's some kind of LOGIC behind it.

I don't get this stuff, though... beyond irritating.

[rinsd]

100. Threatening to cut off relations if your guy doesn't win is meddling

Saying he wants Kerry to win or Morales or this guy is not meddling.

[Just Me]

108. YUP! YUP! YUP! Wanna' talk "meddling", talk US foreign policy.

Chavez NO WHERE NEAR COMPARES to that!

Jus' a fact for the last like 40 or so years.

U.S. is hated around the globe for a reason,...and it AIN'T OUR so-called FREEDOM! Hell, our own people are getting screwed every which way by corporate predators,...and even DU participants STILL pretend like that's not happening, stuck in nationalistic pride, NEEDING to attack someone like Chavez who is advancing his people's interests rather than corporacrat's pockets.

Good grief. Reality or bust!!!!

[Judi Lynn]

110. Someone needing a real example of "meddling" need go no further

than DU'er CHIMO's post in another thread, which surely deserves repeating many, many times:

CHIMO (1000+ posts) Wed May-31-06 10:03 PM
Response to Original message
18. Former “Economic Hit Man” John Perkins on “The First Truly Global Empire”
Former “Economic Hit Man” John Perkins on “The First Truly Global Empire” and its Impact on Latin America


AMY GOODMAN: When you say you failed, you mean what?

JOHN PERKINS: Well, I was sent in to Panama to bring Omar Torrijos around, to bring him into our system, and he refused to do that. He said, ‘Look, I know if I play your game’ -- he told me directly -- ‘If I play your game, I'll become very rich. But that's not what interests me. I want to help my poor people.’ And, so he said, ‘You can either get out of Panama or play the game my way.’ Well, we decided to stay and try to bring him around. He never would come around. And I knew all along that if I failed to bring this man around something dire would happen to him. And, you know, this is what’s going on in Latin America right now. Evo Morales is being visited this week by an economic hit man who’s going into his office saying, ‘Congratulations, Mr. President –’

AMY GOODMAN: Who? Who is he being visited by?

JOHN PERKINS: Well, an economic hit man who has to remain nameless at this point, but --

AMY GOODMAN: Well, we’re going to leave it there for right now; but this is just part one of our conversation, as we come to the end of our hour. We're talking to John Perkins. Confessions of an Economic Hit Man is his book, from a man who’s done it, who’s been there, who calls himself an economic hit man.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/03/1435206&mode=thread&tid=25

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=2314499#2316290

Thanks to CHIMO, for one helluva look at vicious, nasty MEDDLING done up as the real assholes do it. That passage quoted by CHIMO is preceded by this snippet in his link:

....No, I never worked directly for the N.S.A., I worked for a company called Chas T. Main, big consulting firm out of Boston. And these days almost all of this work is done by private contractors. It’s not done directly by the C.I.A. or the N.S.A. They may recruit us, but we work for private industry.

The same is true of the jackals, Amy. If economic hit men fail, which we don’t usually do (but I did in Panama, for example, and I tell in detail in the book about how that ended up) – but my failure ended up in a jackal going in and assassinating Omar Torrijos, the president of Panama. When economic hit men fail, the jackals go in and either overthrow governments or assassinate leaders; and they, too, do not work directly for the government. These days, they’re private contractors. The days of the government agent, the 007, who’s licensed to kill, are long gone.
(snip)

[stepnw1f]

114. Exactly....

"meddling"... "threatening"... I say they find another verb. I didn't work...

[ButterflyBlood]

115. Hey Chavez, let the Peruvians make their own decision

They don't you butting in like Bush does, OK?

[gordianot]

119. You choose who you will have relations with based on a vote?

Sounds a little like the Israel and Hamas, with out the killing (yet).