Chávez reasserts interest in restoring dialogue with the US

[Judi Lynn]

Source: El Universal, Venezuelan opposition newspaper

Chávez reasserts interest in restoring dialogue with the US
Politics Venezuela's President, Hugo Chávez, congratulated Barack Obama for his "historic election" on Tuesday and confirmed his desire to establish "new relations" with the United States and re-launch "a constructive bilateral agenda" for the wellbeing of the two peoples.

"In this day of hope for Americans, President Hugo Chávez, on behalf of the people of Venezuela, congratulates the people of the United States and the president-elect Barack Obama for his important victory," reads a statement of the Venezuelan Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as reported by AFP.

Chávez, who expelled US ambassador to Venezuela Patrick Duddy in mid-September, is a major critic of the United States and of the outgoing president George W. Bush. The Venezuelan president trusted that "the historic election of an Afro-American is a sign that the change of an era in South America may be knocking on the doors of the United States."

"From the homeland of Simón Bolívar (the South American independence leader), we are convinced that the time has come to establish a new relation between our countries and with our region based on the principles of respect for sovereignty, equality and real cooperation," read the statement.



Read more: http://english.eluniversal.com/2008/11/05/en_pol_esp_chavez-reasserts-int_05A2113765.shtml

[leftofcool]

1. Another wannabe dictator comes out of the woodwork

to pester our newly elected president. I wonder if these nitwits might wait until Obama at least has a chance to sit behind the desk in the Oval Office before they start cozying up

[ronnie624]

7. Such sniffing is so typical of arrogant Americans who haven't a clue.

Hopefully, Obama will bring a different perspective to this matter than you and the Bush Administration.

[subsuelo]

114. they're overloaded on propaganda from the NYT and elsewhere

[iconicgnom]

8. Chavez was elected with enormous popular support.

Why would you want Obama to continue pursuing George W. Bush's militarist, outright offensive foreign policies which created enemies out of nothing - for the sake of war and plunder? Unless in your heart you agree with and support Bush?

Venezuelans have a right to elect the politicians of their choice, to build their country in the way they see fit, to build their future in the way that they feel best suits them -- and if that means they choose leaders who advance the "socialist" ideals of universal high-quality education and healthcare, and who assert common ownership of the countries natural resources to be developed for the benefit of the whole people, over the long haul and not just the short term insta-profit of a favored few, there is no country, not even the USA, which has the right to deny them that.

The USA hasn't a good track record in Latin and South America. Even while supporting dictatorships like Pinochet's throughout the continent, so gaining the support of an ultra-rich and anti-democratic political/economic class, it has lost the good will of the masses of people who suffered as a consequence, and this has happened wherever the US has gone with its militaristic, anti-democratic policies. That's the US's legacy, that the people of SA have to overcome, like it or not. And the people of SA *are* overcoming that damnable legacy of US led terror. The political map of SA has been changing, the people have been finding their democratic voice again and doing just what the US did yesterday with Bush and the Republicans - turfing the bastards out.

Open your mind, the people of the US who just turfed out Bush for damn good reason might have a lot more in common with the people of Venezuela than Bush and the Bush enablers, who preach hatred and division, are willing to recognize. But then, just yesterday Bush and McCain were calling Obama a "terrorist sympathizer" and a "socialist" and "marxist".

[Joe Chi Minh]

16. Don't go confusing them with talk of democracy, justice.... stuff like that.

[happydreams]

73. Nice post. You should store it away in a file and

re-post it whenever these dunderheads say such stupid things. :hi:

[ronnie624]

93. Very well said. I aspire to be so eloquent. n/t

[wroberts189]

106. DITTO n/t

[bitchkitty]

10. What a completely ignorant statement! n/t

[Thorandmjolnir]

13. wannabe dictator?

What exactly is that? Some one who is elected by a majority of the people of his country in elections all international monitoring groups called fair and just?

[Joe Chi Minh]

15. You shouldn't put yourself down like that.

[Bacchus39]

17. sorry Hugo, I doubt Obama will meet with you any time soon

you've become more irrelevant than ever.

[High Plains]

22. Welcome back. We missed you on the Colombia mass murder thread.

[Bacchus39]

32. missed it, was it a FARC or paramilitary thing?

neither are going to go away under Obama you know?

although I'd be willing to bet you $20 or 500 Bolivares that Obama meets with Uribe before Chavez. and will certainly go to Colombia before Venezuela.

Maybe not the first South American leader since Uribe is erroneously linked to Bush and it could be sensitive with the Castro/Chavez fanatics. (Uribe bet on ties with the US, not necessarily with Bush). Lula would probably be a safe choice. While the dynamic between Obama and Uribe will be interesting, Colombia can't be ignored and I don't see Obama turning his back on Colombia.

but meet with Chavez or travel to Venezuela, no way. Chavez has to earn it, if that is even possible. lmao!!!!!

[AlphaCentauri]

46. I bet 50 that Uribe will expend more money to lobbie the Democratic party than Chavez n/t

[Bacchus39]

49. I bet 50,000 pesos colombianos Chavez won't have Obama's ear

I bet Obama will find Colombia's reality more interesting than Chavez's imagination. wouldn't it be something if he could help bring an end to conflict. something Bush couldn't do, and certainly not Chavez. Chavez is in no way interested in a stable prosperous Colombia with an already diverse economy.

[AlphaCentauri]

52. What Obama may try to see is how the drug factory works in colombia

and how Union leaders are kill

[Bacchus39]

53. oh and alot more too, but he knows quite a bit already

we have a brilliant man as president now. (yes, the next two months count.) you can go to his website and learn about his policies on latin america. he gave a detailed speech in Miami and made specific references to drugs, the guerrillas, the free trade agreement in Colombia.

Venezuela is much simpler, its a beautiful country, beautiful people, oil, and an idiot as president.

you can maybe check the archives of Sabado Gigante too and see his recent interview with Don Francisco.

check it out.

[AlphaCentauri]

55. Are you implying that Colombia is a pile of crap?

[Bacchus39]

68. uhh, no what on earth gave you that idea? I like Colombia n/

s

[bitchkitty]

115. Go on, admit it. You LOVE Colombia. n/t

[eridani]

111. Just because you prefer mass murder of union leaders to Venezuela's superior economic growth

--is no reason why Obama should.

[olddad56]

77. Why would a true leader dismiss an opportunity to have an open diplomatic relationship with the lea

[EFerrari]

26. 'Way to spread right wing crap. n/t

[redqueen]

63. .

:rofl:

[olddad56]

76. must take a nit wit to recognize a nit wit

[LanternWaste]

80. You're gonna pester the Pres...?

You're gonna pester the Pres...? :shrug:

[onehandle]

2. Ugh. Obama, please stay far, far away from this guy for a while.

Don't start your first term like that.

[Jansen]

12. Poor timing I think..

Personally, I'm all for increased diplomacy and engaging foreign leaders (all of them, especially if we disagree), but the timing on this and Lula's call to lift the blockade on Cuba aren't timed very well. I mean, as President-elect Obama can't respond to either request, and also.. it just feeds the "look he's working with terrorists and dictators on 11/5" meme.

[Thorandmjolnir]

14. Poor timing?

It is poor timing for the leader of one country to congratulate the newly elected leader of another country the day after the election, and to express his desire to establish a dialog and work together?

[Bacchus39]

18. correct, Obama has absolutely "0" need to meet with Chavez n/t

d

[EFerrari]

27. Have you ever posted in a thread here besides to put down

progressive Latin American leaders? Thanks in advance.

[Bacchus39]

30. sorry, I agree with Obama, not Chavez

like when he called him a rogue leader.

you're going to have a difficult time reconciling Obama with your beloved Chavez aren't you?

but on a practical matter, what exactly are they going to meet about??? there is no invasion plan, nor was there, there is no assassination attempt, nor was there, the price of oil is reasonable again (which hurts Chavez), and Chavez has made numerous incendiary claims against the US.

Ironic isn't it? Hugo loses since Obama wins.

[EFerrari]

31. You're evading the question. And unless you have Obama's confidence

you're full of it, as usual. :hi:

[Bacchus39]

33. my answer to your question then is yes

you can do search if you like. Obama owes nothing to Chavez and has absolutely no reason to meet with him.

[EFerrari]

34. Thank you. n/t

[Bacchus39]

35. do a search and you'll see n/t

n

[Flanker]

44. Surely you follow the news, and the actual debates?

* Obama has said he would be willing to meet, without preconditions. with leaders of countries hostile to the United States, such as Iran, Cuba and Venezuela. Look for increased U.S. diplomatic activity with those countries with the aim of determining whether an Obama meeting with the leaders would be worthwhile."

http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed2/idUSTRE4A42FR20081105

Uribe sure is kicking himself that McCain lost. Bad news for Uribe is good news for progressives.

[Bacchus39]

51. of course I saw that. he won

and Obama also has said he would make "preparations" before such meetings would occur. again, he may actually "meet" some of them somewhere, in the bathroom at the UN maybe.

but its not going to be before he "meets with" Lula or Uribe or Calderon. and Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico are countries Obama is sure to visit. I don't see meetings with Chavez or Castro or visits to Cuba or Venezuela anytime soon.

[Flanker]

59. Bacchus is backpedalling

This is what you said

"correct, Obama has absolutely "0" need to meet with Chavez n/t"

Now you say that Obama won't visit Venezuela? Here is a newsflash to you: US presidents rarely visit Venezuela, even Clinton pre-Chavez only went there once, late in his term.

Chavez has been kissing Russia's ass for a while and it is only now that Medvedenko or Putin is coming to visit, 10 years later. The Chinesse premier has never come either. Does that really prove anything?

[Judi Lynn]

65. The U.S., under Eisenhower was already making BAD calls on its policy with Venezuela when Nixon went

there, and was surrounded by crowds of angry protesters. The photos were spashed all over the newspapers and news magazines of the day. U.S.' (and U.S. oil companies') alignment with a greedy oligarch, and truly rotten, corrupt Venezuelan leaders goes back a very long time.

http://www.latinamericanstudies.org.nyud.net:8090/us-relations/nixon-caracas.jpg http://www.latinamericanstudies.org.nyud.net:8090/us-relations/nixon-caracas2.jpg

http://www.latinamericanstudies.org.nyud.net:8090/us-relations/nixon-caracas3.jpg

Nixon escaped uninjured.

[Bacchus39]

70. nope, and as you said Clinton did go afterall. I stand by that statement

but why do you think Obama needs to meet with Chavez? he doesn't. Assauging Chavez's anxiety won't be a priority, nor should it.

now like I said, they could perhaps run into each other at some international conference or some other accidentalipitous occasion.

[ronnie624]

58. If words actually have definitions,

then Venezuela could not possibly be a 'rogue state'.

Rogue state is a term applied by some international theorists to states considered threatening to the world's peace. This means meeting certain criteria, such as being ruled by authoritarian regimes that severely restrict human rights, sponsor terrorism, and seek to proliferate weapons of mass destruction.

<http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Rogue-state>


Chomsky on 'rogue states':

QUESTION: How would you define a "rogue state"?

CHOMSKY: A "rogue state" is a state that defies international laws and conventions, does not consider itself bound by the major treaties and conventions, World Court decisions -- in fact, anything except the interests of its own leadership, the forces around the leadership that dominate policy. That would be an extreme case of a "rogue state." And then there's variations, of course.

QUESTION: Give me some examples of those variations.

CHOMSKY: Well, you know, there are states that partially reject international law and convention insofar as they can get away with it. In fact, every state is like that. Virtually every state would be. That's the nature of states. They would be "rogue states" if they could get away with it.

QUESTION: There have always been rogue states. Why has the notion of the rogue state been given so much prominence, do you think, since the end of the Cold War?

CHOMSKY: Well, first of all, remember that I'm using the term in a neutral sense, in terms of its meaning. Almost every term in political discourse has a literal meaning and a propaganda version. And I'm using it in the literal meaning. The propaganda version -- which is typically the one that prevails -- that's the version presented by those who have the power to control discourse, propaganda, framework of discussion, and so on. And, in that case, that means primarily the United States. As the United States uses the term "rogue state," it refers to anyone who's out of control. So, Cuba's a "rogue state" because it does not submit to U.S. domination. That's a different usage entirely. As I use the term "rogue state," the leading "rogue state" in the world is the United States. That's the neutral term.

<http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/200105--.htm>


You, as usual, are full of it.

[Bacchus39]

71. Obama said it in the second debate I believe

but he was referring to Chavez of course, and not the country.

[ronnie624]

92. I was aware of it when the item was originally posted in LBN.

Just because Barack Obama said it, that doesn't make it true. I am completely unaffected by the cult of personality. I prefer to think for myself.

If Chavez was truly a "rogue leader", then as head of state, that would make Venezuela a 'rogue state'. However, as the Venezuelan government is not what can be honestly termed 'authoritarian', does not restrict human rights, does not sponsor terrorism, and does not seek to proliferate weapons of mass destruction, it could not be a 'rogue state' according to the generally accepted definition of the term.

[Bacchus39]

94. I will disagree with just about everything you said

but first and foremost I support Obama as he pursues US interests first and foremost including such things as universal , or at least US citizens, end to the occupation Iraq, and sound and realistic energy policy.

what does Chavez have to offer?? we already purchase their oil. there was never any threat of invasion or assassination from the US, and would you even dare to raise that absurdity now???

the improvement of relations with latin america is already invetible, actually already a fact. a good thing, but who needs Chavez???

[Bacchus39]

96. oh, and by the way regarding this

"However, as the Venezuelan government is not what can be honestly termed 'authoritarian', does not restrict human rights, does not sponsor terrorism, and does not seek to proliferate weapons of mass destruction, it could not be a 'rogue state' according to the generally accepted definition of the term. "


Chavez has sought every effort to be authoritarian by ruling by decree including contravening the vote of the people, increasing the size of the supreme court and simply appointing lackeys, trying to push through referndums giving him unlimted terms... bla, bla, bla

ask the head of HRW about human and political rights in Ven. oh wait!! chavez kicked him out.

chavez has actively sought and purchased weapons from Russia.

and lets not forget about the astounding degree of violence in Venezuela. when is Chavez going to protect his citizens?

every item you mentioned about Chavez was completely wrong.

[ronnie624]

101. You are responsible for providing documentation for your claims.

If you can present no evidence that Venezuela is a rogue state, then you run the risk of appearing as a fool.

[Bacchus39]

102. I didn't say it, Obama did

of course he meant their moron leader and not the country itself. are you calling President Obama a fool??

[ronnie624]

103. You said you agree with him,

therefore you did most certainly say it. Provide evidence or be labeled a bullshitter (assuming you haven't been so labeled already).

If Obama does not abandon the status quo in terms of U.S. foreign policy in Latin America, I will indeed call him a fool and much worse.

[eridani]

112. That's no different than the "ruling by decree" option in just about every Latin American constituti

You never had a problem with Chavez's predecessors doing it, or Garcia doing in Peru now.

[bitchkitty]

38. I can answer that - NO. n/t

[fascisthunter]

41. .

:thumbsup:

[olddad56]

78. especially when we can depend on the Saudis to sell us oil.

Opponents of Chavez in this country only hate Chavez because he stood up to Bush. We have no problem with human rights champions and terrorist supporter like Saudi Arabia.

[Joe Chi Minh]

19. Like what? Call yourself a Catholic? The CIA's right-wing chums were killing nuns and

priests in South America not so long ago. Archbishop Romero, too.

Obama, fully cognisant that lives in a country universally known up to now as the ultimate "rogue/terrorist nation" by the rest of the world, would have a better idea than you or me, when it would be propitious or unpropitious to accept overtures from decent, humane national leaders

[AlphaCentauri]

50. Fascist catholics are the ones who stayed quite while those murders were committed

I can't believe many call them selves pro live

[fascisthunter]

88. I knew As Soon a Obama Won you centrists with your BS

would be here right on schedule.

[High Plains]

3. Wow, win an election and DU becomes Anti-Communist Underground.

That shit didn't work for McCain and Palin; why should we embrace it?

The US and the Obama administration should welcome the opportunity to improve relations with Venezuela.

[Judi Lynn]

4. Damned odd, isn't it? Clinton didn't have problems with Chavez. n/t

[Kalifornia.Kid]

5. Damn - "Can't We All Just Get Along?"

[Joe Chi Minh]

20. Oooooh yes. We don't want to go Socialist! The people are so center-right, you know.

And the stock market would crash, and and, and.... you might even have to nationalise Fannie Mae, Fredie Mac, banks, etc.

[pitohui]

6. i hope we can repair our relations w. all the south american nations

it is ridiculous what depths our relations dropped in the bush years

even for my mom to get off a simple cruise port for a few hours in brazil became a huge, expensive hassle -- because bush is president, bush hates south america in general and brazil in particular, and made relations between brazil, bolivia, venezuela, and others absolutely miserable

i hope obama can fix this

afro is a hairstyle not an ethnicity but, hell, chavez's english is better than my spanish by far so i have no standing to nitpick

let the healing of our hemisphere begin, it can't be too soon

[bitchkitty]

60. Not to quibble -

I hated Bush's policies, but they didn't start with Bush. The US has a disgraceful history with Latin America.

[pitohui]

69. bush greatly harmed matters, esp. for the average person

because of the "tit for tat" fees and bush accusing brazil and other so. american nations of harboring terrorists after 911, we are in a situation where travel for us citizens is greatly complicated in much of south america

we were starting to see some easing of tensions and a chance of a new harmony in the hemisphere with clinton, ecuador even dollarized and i think if we had continued to have good relations then others might have followed -- now i believe ecuador will give up the dollar and some other currency will eventually be used there -- the chance to have the dollar become something like the euro is lost forever

bush destroyed the new friendships mainly, in my opinion, as part of his plan to drive up the price of oil (venezuela being an important oil source)

[backscatter712]

9. Am I the only one who finds Chavez isn't the freakazoid everyone paints him as?

He is the democratically elected leader of Venezuela, whether we like it or not - the people of Venezuela put him there, despite a CIA-backed attempted coup against him. Even if we disagree with him, and have problems with his policies, we at least have to respect that.

What's the harm of sitting down at the table with him and talking about our differences and maybe coming to some sort of agreement instead of shouting hatetardery at him from across the border?

[zeemike]

11. No you are not the only one.

And I predict that Obama will open new relations with the hispanic people and they will respond with true friendship.
Pay no attention to the basher of Chavez and Morales they don't have a clue as to what is going on down there.

[Joe Chi Minh]

23. You could build an incredible economic bloc - in which your jobs would not be

outsourced. Instead by helping S. America to develop, you will be creating markets for your products simultaneously. Who knows, if the economic crisis can be averted and your national debt minimised, it might even pay to offer them a kind of Marshall Plan.

[Joe Chi Minh]

21. No. You are in the vast majority! Chavez scares the wrong witless, so we get

anti-Socialist trolls on here.

[EFerrari]

28. No. A lot of posters here can decode the right wing propaganda

that shows up in our press. And a few rush to post it. lol

[Larkspur]

29. No, you are not alone.

I love Hugo Chavez!! He's got more backbone to stand up to Bush than the entire Democratic Congress.

[fascisthunter]

42. thank you....

[harun]

62. You are not alone.

[redqueen]

64. No you're not. Far from it.

hatetardery - good word for it
:thumbsup:

[aquart]

24. Now that we aren't run by a maniac.

It would be nice if we were friendly with the oil powers in our own neighborhood.

[panzerfaust]

25. I hope we take this offered olive branch ... and from Cuba too.

It would be nice to rejoin the community of nations, after our eight years being rogue.

[BanTheGOP]

36. OBVIOUSLY, A TOUCHY SUBJECT...

...but one that nonetheless deserves comment.

To be blunt, President Obama is a progressive, which is a "nice" word for democratic socialist. Hugo Chavez is a socialist who tried to duly change the constitution so as to allow him to be president for life, or at least suspend elections so he could get his policies across.

But President Jimmy Carter said the elections were valid. In fact, many of us, myself included, had stated that the election was far more fair down in Caracas than in Miami. DUH!

As a fellow progressive, disregarding the right wing media attack on President Chavez, we should embrace any chance we can to ally ourselves with other citizens of the world. As a matter of fact, Venezuela is well on their way to top-notch universal health care. Where are we on that? They are on the way to nationalize the oil industries, so that the wealth of the companies are distributed back to the people rather than to US oil companies, cronies of George Bush. That's freakin' ADMIRABLE! Seriously, most of the negatives with Chavez are far outweighed by his progressive, socialist achievements, with an emphasis on eliminating corporate profit motive.

The bottom line is that President Obama has to deal with EVERYONE in the world, most of whom are antagonistic to our country because of the republican party, NOT our citizens!

And this leads to my hominy...the republican party is NOT a political party. There is NO PLACE in the world that the republican party can legally EXIST outside of the United States. FACE it...look at the European papers... it is NOT JUST George Bush they hate. If McCain would have horrendously won, the Europeans would have been JUST AS HATEFUL of America BECAUSE the rEPUBLICANS were controlling the shots!

THEREFORE, while we must of COURSE hold individual republican scumsuckers responsible for their crimes, we must ALSO understand that it is the EXISTENCE of the republican party in the FIRST place that allows this crap to go on!

Now face it: who is more dangerous, President Chavez, or Bush? THERE IS NO CONTEST.

So really... it is a touch subject, admittedly, and there are certain things that we have to be careful with. But that's the same for all leaders. NOW that we actually HAVE a real leader, we can get back into the good graces of the planet, and that includes fostering relations with a country whose own leader is depicted as a buffoon, but now will be working with us to help our country spread the wealth in a manner that President Chavez would approve. And THAT'S FAR MORE IMPORTANT to the prestige in the world than worrying about President Chavez' appearance.

ONE THING TO CONSIDER:

If for some outrageous reason, we didn't ban the GOP, and even WORSE, they pulled a '94 on our ass... then watch President Chavez chill toward President Obama. AGAIN, the key...the criminal existence of the republican party. BAN THE GOP NOW!

[panzerfaust]

37. Sorry, but banning political parties is not "progressive"

We have no more right to ban the repubs, than they have to ban us.

I will assume you were joking.

Your comments on the need to work with other nations, on other than "fer-er-against us" is very true.

[BanTheGOP]

39. YOU ASSUME WRONG...

My assessment is correct. However, my reasons for banning the republican party has been stated in other posts, particularly in my journal.

The problem that many people seem to think is that there is this assumption that the republican party is MORE of a POLITICAL party, when it is actually, by its very edicts, apparatus, and methodologies, the most DESPOTIC ORGANIZATION in the HISTORY OF THE WORLD.

There. Plain and simple. The republican party is a freakin' CRIMINAL fraternity.

It may at one point have been a political party. Abraham Lincoln is credited at being its first president, but this was before reconstruction. Once expansionism and unbridled capitalism came, it became the party of horrendous big business and murder. Think Standard Oil. Think Native American massacres.

That was the essential beginning of the transition of the republican party as simply a political organization with troubling economic and societal ideologies into the rogue organization that perpetuated the Cold War, racism, sexism, and virtually every class war in the country.

It became known more as a criminal organization with the Watergate break ins. With its edicts that horrendously creates the unholy triage of the energy, military, and closed banking system that precipitated the incredibly poverty and racial divide of the second half of the 20th Century. Finally, it culminated into the intense hatred other people around the world felt against the US, erroneous only in its actual target: The republican party.

And when people started getting wise in the US, they took over the elections and the voting. Democrats had won 2000, 2004, 2006, and 2008, but our votes were stolen in all of them. In 2000 and 2004 they stole the presidency TWICE, and doctored many races around the country. Even 2008 had been affected with Al Franken in Minnesota being down by mere dozens of votes, despite an exit poll that had him significantly leading by at least 10,000 votes.

But we will prevail. We need to document every crime the republican party committed, then hire effective organized crime consultants that can allow Bush, Cheney, Rove, et. al. to be tried, preferably under extradition to a World court.

So yes...ban the republican party. We have enough diversity of thought with the Green, Peace and Freedom, Socialist, and other PEACEFUL parties to interject a rich and diverse exchange of political ideas and methodologies. Thanks for your interest!

[Psephos]

54. They tried that outlawed party thing in the USSR already - didn't work out so well

nor in PRC, Romania, Poland, DPRK...well, I've got about fifty more of them, but you get the idea.

Authoritarians are uniformly convinced of the RIGHTEOUSNESS of their opinions and the OBVIOUS DECREPITUDE of their opponents', and are driven by fanatic certitude to codify that into law. (Exactly the way fundie xtians think, btw, and for the same reasons.) Which leads to formation of reactionaries and counter-revolutionaries, and sooner or later, war, misery, and mass acts of hatred and barbarity.

Thank Deity we have a Constitution that makes acting upon your kind of thinking illegal.

[BanTheGOP]

61. I'm not talkin just of our "opinions"...

...but about the substantive, qualitative, and quantitative evidence of criminal activity perpetuated by the existence of the organization itself!

The mistake you make, and anyone else makes with all good intent, is that you are blinded by the fact that "republican" = "first amendment political party," which is some way justifies its existence, no matter what. But when most of the individuals in the higher echelons of the party commit crimes to keep up the facade that the republican party is a "political party," then ANY reasonable person can conclude that that organization ITSELF is an accessory to the criminal process. Finally, when the very actions that the party stands for is, in fact, illegal in most people's eyes, such as military invasion, financial shenanigans, and societal control, then those same reasonable people must conclude that the organization, in this case the republican party, must be investigated under the same formula that we have created to investigate such rogue, criminal organizations.

In particular, we have such a formula. It is called the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations, or RICO Act. The republican party is that POSTER CHILD for such investigation! But when we have good people such as yourself that wouldn't consider investigating an organization because of this "fear" that "if we do this, we are no better than them," then I have to shake my head.

Let's look at something. We have an organization that fights for principles, fairness, and justice, and most (not all, I admit, but most) people have the utmost credibility, while the OTHER organization may CLAIM they stand for our same values, but their ACTIONS are as criminal as ANY rogue criminal organization, then you tell me. How in HELL are we anywhere NEAR the veracity of the countries you mentioned in your post?

Look, some people in the Democratic Party are scumbags, but they are few and far between, and we do a damn good job of ensuring their influence is negated or eliminated. But when that behavior is not just tolerated, even encouraged, but MANDATED at the HIGHEST LEVELS of an organization, the republican party, then we MUST eliminate the source, the republican party apparatus itself, before justice can be rendered for ALL people.

[bitchkitty]

40. This part of your post:

"who tried to duly change the constitution so as to allow him to be president for life, or at least suspend elections so he could get his policies across."

kind of ruined the rest of it for me.

As far as "banning" the GOP - Just shun them. We don't ban points of view in this country - whether we agree with them or not.

[BanTheGOP]

43. WE'LL CONTINUE TO DISAGREE...

...but keep in mind that the Venezuelan Constitution was in itself a document that was skewed in favor of the capitalists. Much of it had to do with how the industry in the country was controlled, and I for one will defer to other countries how to handle their own governments, particularly if in doing so they benefit the populace more than individuals.

And we will disagree on our views of the republican party. You seem to view it as an actual political party with a soapbox speech appeal. I view it as a rogue organization blatantly CALLING itself as a valid political party, but in reality making it easier for its officers to commit crimes against humanities.

I certainly will not come to your point of view. If you do not come to mine, then I'll just call it a wash.

[bitchkitty]

45. Agree to disagree - but one request!

Please stop shouting! ;)

[BanTheGOP]

47. OK, I'll keep it in mind, kitty! :)

Sorry, when I post here I also post to my journal, and the headlines look better capitalized there, which is what is posted in the subject line. Of course, in the post itself I have to emphasize quite a bit, and don't really like to goof around with the HTML coding just to create italics or bold font, so I just capitalize instead. Then again, I do like to be loud when I'm trying to make a point!

I'll take your advisement, though. Perhaps there is a way we can edit the journal post without affecting the message thread post.

[Flanker]

48. This is wrong

""who tried to duly change the constitution so as to allow him to be president for life, or at least suspend elections so he could get his policies across."

Thankfully

[iconicgnom]

57. No shit.

[Dorian Gray]

56. Do you think Obama will bite?

[killbotfactory]

66. NEVER!

Working together with countries we have differences with to produce mutually beneficial results despite those differences? That would be unamerican!

[Judi Lynn]

67. If they won't sacrifice the wellbeing of their citizens for the benefit of our obscenely wealthy

multinationals, if they don't put their own vital national interests aside and wait for our instructions, if they don't show good faith by sacrificing their first borns, they're with the "terrorists," or they just might be the terrorists themselves, and be inviting the god-fearing humanitarians who "break things and hurt people" who will turn their countries into "a sheet of glass."

[Bacchus39]

72. but what are these mutually beneficial results???

what exactly does the US need from Venezuela. we already buy their oil. what will be the subject of this dialog?

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

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

[Bacchus39]

85. let me know when you find a reason that Obama should meet with Chavez

there's your invitation.

[ronnie624]

95. The article says nothing about Chavez expecting a meeting with Obama.

What is your 'point', exactly? Why do you seem to appose cooperative, peaceful relations with Venezuela? You imply that Venezuela has nothing to offer the United States, and in the very same sentence, you acknowledge that they are a major supplier of the most important commodity in existence. Your messages are always loaded with such mind-numbing irony and contradiction.

Demanding an explanation for why our country should seek amicable, diplomatic relations with any country, especially Venezuela, seems so......stupid.

[Bacchus39]

97. adversarial relations with Ven were a figment of Chavez and Bush's minds

both are idiots. hello???

relations have already improved but now I think Venezuela really needs change.

again, I've stated that we buy oil from Ven. that will not change. OK, so I ask again, what else??

Chavez is irrelevant.

[yellowcanine]

74. Chavez and every other foreign leader needs to back off. Bush is still the President.

They do not understand our system. We only have one President at a time. If Chavez wants to open some quiet third party dialogue with Obama's nominee as Sec. of State when it comes, fine. But public pronouncements are not helpful nor wise.

[ronnie624]

100. Good grief.

U.S. Americans are the center of the universe only in their own collective consciousness.

Chavez has a right to say whatever he wants, and so far, he has done nothing more than congratulate Obama on becoming president of the United States, and reiterate a hope for cooperation.

:eyes:

[happydreams]

75. Heck, if we are going to keep business as usual with Saudi Arabia....

you know the ones who supplied 15 of the 19 hijackers for that little attack on 9/11, certainly we can open a dialogue with someone who has never threatened the US. Hugo has caused a headache for Right-Wingers who hate the fact that he was democratically elected and seems to be hung up on keeping Venezuela a sovereign nation.

If I were Obama, being the practical guy he claims to be, I would implement a fact finding mission, after being invited of course, to see exactly what the truth is about these recently emerging socialist and mixed economy countries in Latin America.

It's time to separate fact from fiction.

[Bacchus39]

79. sounds pretentious to me

why should the US conduct a fact finding mission in South America? same old interventionism.

[happydreams]

81. You missed the part about being invited.

:eyes:

You really don't want to know the truth do you.

[Judi Lynn]

82. It's closer to wanting to keep the truth buried so the the public here doesn't find out more than

the corporate media spin to us.

http://www.maniacworld.com.nyud.net:8090/spinning-wheel-illusion.gif

It's better we find out 30 or 40 years from now when someone gets it from declassified records through the Freedom of Information Act, right?

How wry is this, anyway? We pay their salaries, they conduct undemocratic actions against the exploited people in other countries, sometimes outfit and train death squads, hit teams, overthrow elected Presidents, replace them with homicidal fascists, lay waste to hundreds of thousands of people, ALL BEHIND OUR BACKS, and we pay for that, THEN, long after some of the people who have paid for the covert and not so covert massacres on indigenous peoples, or simply people suspected of being "leftists," have died, their CHILDREN may learn what really happened when some brave soul extricates records from the declassified records!

Oh, by the way, something to recall with bitterness: _Bush RECLASSIFED previously declassified material soon after he stole the Presidency.

[happydreams]

117. Wow! I didn't know you were into psychedelics.

Do you recall what the declassification>reclassified material was? It's probably packed with all kinds of damning info. Maybe we could get an FOIA request going on it.

:hi:

[Judi Lynn]

122. Nope. He did this very close to the beginning of his administration.

It was an ENORMOUS amount of material, and the people who read or heard about it were flabbergasted. They even had it figured out, as in how far the re-classified papers would stretch, if they were stacked up, or laid end to end. It would have astonished you!

I'll try to see if I can figure it out when I get some time, as I'd like to be able to remember what it was, myself! As you know, he has done so much damage here, starting the first day, we've been bombarded with the destruction of all the progress we had made earlier. He has been a colossal wrecking ball every day of his stolen Presidency.

You recall, undoubtedly, that he had his father's records, and Bill Clinton's sealed, right? That happened immediately after he seized power. I think he arranged it so his own papers would be inaccessible for years, as well.

I don't blame his dad for not wanting people to know anything about what he did. Nothing there to celebrate.

[Judi Lynn]

123. Wow! This should help, happydreams! Sure glad to see it, going to read it closely, myself.

Declassification in Reverse

The U.S. Intelligence Community's Secret Historical Document Reclassification Program

Edited by Matthew M. Aid

Posted - February 21, 2006

Dubious Secrets
Declassified documents show excessive secrecy, arbitrary and subjective classification decisions

Washington, D.C., February 21, 2006 - The CIA and other federal agencies have secretly reclassified over 55,000 pages of records taken from the open shelves at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), according to a report published today on the World Wide Web by the National Security Archive at George Washington University. Matthew Aid, author of the report and a visiting fellow at the Archive, discovered this secret program through his wide-ranging research in intelligence, military, and diplomatic records at NARA and found that the CIA and military agencies have reviewed millions of pages at an unknown cost to taxpayers in order to sequester documents from collections that had been open for years.

The briefing book that the Archive published today includes 50 year old documents that CIA had impounded at NARA but which have already been published in the State Department's historical series, Foreign Relations of the United States, or have been declassified elsewhere. These documents concern such innocuous matters as the State Department's map and foreign periodicals procurement programs on behalf of the U.S. intelligence community or the State Department's open source intelligence research efforts during 1948.

Other documents have apparently been sequestered because they were embarrassing, such as a complaint from the Director of Central Intelligence about the bad publicity the CIA was receiving from its failure to predict anti-American riots in Bogota, Colombia in 1948 or a report that the CIA and the rest of the U.S. intelligence community badly botched their estimates as to whether or not Communist China would intervene in the Korean War in the fall of 1950. It is difficult to imagine how the documents cited by Aid could cause any harm to U.S. national security.

To justify their reclassification program, officials at CIA and military agencies have argued that during the implementation of Executive Order 12958, President Clinton's program for bulk declassification of historical federal records, many sensitive intelligence-related documents that remained classified were inadvertently released at NARA, especially in State Department files. Even though researchers had been combing through and copying documents from those collections for years, CIA and other agencies compelled NARA to grant them access to the open files so they could reclassify documents. While this reclassification activity began late in the 1990s, its scope widened during the Bush administration, and it is scheduled to continue until 2007. The CIA has ignored arguments from NARA officials that some of the impounded documents have already been published.

"Every blue ribbon panel that has studied the performance of the U.S. defense establishment and intelligence community since September 11, 2001 has emphasized the need for less secrecy and greater transparency," said Aid. "This episode reveals an enduring culture of secrecy in the U.S. government and highlights the need to establish measures prohibiting future secret reclassification programs."

~snip~
By the fall of 1999, the CIA and the rest of the U.S. intelligence community had become increasingly intransigent in terms of their willingness to declassify documents concerning past covert action operations needed for inclusion in the State Department's Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS) series. In April 1998, a State Department advisory committee comprised of outside historians and chaired by Dr. Warren F. Kimball wrote a letter to then-Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright warning that the official record of U.S. foreign policy was in danger of becoming "an official lie" because of the CIA's continuing refusal to declassify documents for the FRUS series. (Note 5) More than a year later, the relationship between the State Department and the CIA had further deteriorated. According to comments made before in September 1999 by the then-head of the State Department's History Office, William Z. Slany: "What has become apparent and obvious is the Agency's unwillingness to acknowledge amounts of money, liaison relationships, and relationships with organizations, information that any 'reasonable person' would believe should be declassified. The process has revealed the bare bones of the CIA's intransigence." (Note 6)

The battle between the State Department and the U.S. intelligence community over the declassification of historical records came to a head in the fall of 1999, when shortly after the Kyl-Lott Amendment took effect, six U.S. government agencies, including the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Department of Defense, all three of the military services, and the Department of Justice, wrote a letter to NARA stating that it was the shared belief of all of the agencies signing the letter that a number of State Department documents at the National Archives had been inadvertently declassified when they had been released by the State Department, in some cases ten years before. According to NARA officials, the agencies stated that four specific groups of State Department intelligence records, or Lot Files, totaling 55 records boxes had been improperly declassified in that the initial declassification review did not take into account their "equity" in the classified information contained in the documents. (Note 7)

~snip~
Trying to Put the Toothpaste Back in the Tube:
Expanding the Document Reclassification Program in 2001

Apparently, at some point after the Bush administration took office in 2001, the expanded group of U.S. government agencies engaged in the security review of the State Department INR records, now demanded the right to go through all other records held at NARA's College Park facility. The central contention of the multi-agency group was that the same widespread inadvertent declassification of documents that they had discovered in the four State Department Lot Files in 1999-2000 almost certainly had occurred in virtually every other declassified record group at the National Archives containing defense, foreign affairs, and/or intelligence-related documentary materials. At the heart of their argument was the claim that because of a lack of "equity recognition" by the original declassification review teams, in some cases going as far back as the 1970s and 1980s, many additional cases of inadvertent release of classified information had occurred. As a result, the government agencies in question told NARA that they intended to re-review all national security document holdings then sitting on the open shelves of the National Archives in order to find and remove any other documents containing classified information that might also have been inadvertently disclosed.

More:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB179/

[Bacchus39]

84. why don't you go yourself and find out??

what's stopping you? waiting for an invitation?

[happydreams]

86. I don't want to appear...uh ... .....

(((((pretentious)))))

[Bacchus39]

98. why would you think they would invite us to analyze their countries?

if that is not pretentious.... what if we reported on human rights conditions that were not favorable like HRW does??? what then????????????????????????????

[happydreams]

118. You got some of HRW's takes on human rights in Venezuela or ....

is this just more unfounded accusations?

Well, in case you hadn't heard, peace seems to be breaking out in S. America. I'm sure Hugo wouldn't mind showing us how they did it and invite us to join in the revolution. Heck he's already called Bush and McCain comrade for their nationalizing some of the financial industry; Obama seems to be heading in the same direction.

[ProfessorGAC]

87. Our House, Our Rules

Sorry Hugo. There's a new sherriff in town. Now, it's not you who decides anything. It ain't like when Silverspoon was here.
The Professor

[Judi Lynn]

89. It's not the business of any President of this country to spend his people's tax dollars on

destabilizing Presidents of countries the people want.

No doubt most Venezuelans believe it wasn't _{George W. Bush's} place to assist the armed coup, and all the money flowing into the coffers of anti-Chavez political groups in Venezuela.

Take time to know about the subject you're attempting to discuss.

[ProfessorGAC]

108. It's Not His Decision To Make

It's that simple. When Silverspoon was ruining this country, Chavez could get his attention just by making noise. Hugo could do whatever he wanted, despite the silly effort to foment a coup, just by rattling little Georgie's cage.

That isn't going to work anymore. When Obama wants to talk to Chavez, he'll call him.

And you should to learn reading for comprehension. There was NOTHING in my post that suggested i supported the destabilization. There was NOTHING in my post that i even dislike Chavez. And there was definitely nothing in my post to suggest i don't know about the subject. So, if you can't keep up don't blame it on me by implying things that don't apply to me.
GAC

[ProfessorGAC]

109. Sorry. Dupe

.

[EFerrari]

90. It amazes me how defensive this little brown man makes you all.

All he did was congratulate Obama and extend his hand.

[Judi Lynn]

91. The emotionism is peculiar, isn't it? Raw rage at someone they clearly know nothing about,

outside the caricatures drawn by cynical propagandists who know how to confuse, infuriate, bewilder the really dumbest, most violent part of the population.

Deeper, more patient, more observant, more inteligent people simply do their research, investigate, gather information, and do quite a bit of thinking, sorting through things, comparing information, evaluating, all of which are beyond the abilities of the ones who bottom feed, live completely on droppings by people paid to "mold public perception."

The right-wingers HAVE no need for reading, since everything they want to know, they'll hear on hate radio, or Fox News, or simply get from right-wing message boards, although it can be manifested to them in great dreams, visions, like the 900 foot tall Jesus who came to faith healer Oral Roberts in a dream.

[Bacchus39]

99. Obama is a tall brown man, he dwarves Chavez

know what I mean sexypat??

again, there is no reason to anticipate anything but improved relations. is there any reason to accomodate Hugo??? no!!!

[ProfessorGAC]

107. Projection?

Methinks you doth protest too much.

It appears YOU might have the issue with brown people, not me. I said NOTHING about Hugo's nationality. I said nothing about his color. And by the way, are you so oblivious as to not notice that Obama is darker and browner, and i'm one of the people who VOTED FOR HIM! So, color is hardly any issue for me.

Take your insults somewhere else. When you have something meaningful to add, then add it. If all you've got is insults and accusations, then keep it to yourself.
GAC

[EFerrari]

124. Hugo Chavez congratulates Obama and your response is hostile as hell.

Maybe you need to look for that projection closer to home, Professor.

[ProfessorGAC]

125. Maybe You Need To Get Over Yourself

I am allowed to have an opinion about another head of state. If you don't share the same opinion, that's fine. That doesn't make mine worrhy of derision. In fact, if that's what you think than it's obvious that your narrow view is worthy of mine.

Dismissed.
GAC

On Edit:

I offered no hostility. Merely an opinion. I would appear you don't understand how to properly assign hostility. It is patently obvious that you are the one displaying hostility.

[happydreams]

121. No kidding. That's all Chavez did. These PNACer DINOS at

DU seem to be following the Straussian playbook.

:hi:

[ProfessorGAC]

127. Troll?!?!?!? DLC?!?!?!?!?

I'm a troll? A DLC'er??? Idiot! I've been here since February of 2001. Go into the archives and read my posts. I'm no DLC'er you liar!

So, on that point:
I AM NOT REQUIRED TO RESPECT HUGO CHAVEZ! I think he's a grandstanding napoleon and just because he's better than Bush doesn't make him good. It just makes him better than a completely failure. That's not exactly praiseworthy!

Being and american liberal does not require one to be the friend of my enemy's enemy. My loathing for Bush has nothing to do with my view of a little dictatorial punk who is from a country that only matters due to a geological accident.

You don't know me. Don't presume to think for me. You're incapable.
GAC

[happydreams]

130. Uh, Professor.....hello...I didn't say a thing about DLC. You got the acronym wrong....

Besides as Forrest Gump said or some other wizard celebrity--"Liberal is as liberal does"

[happydreams]

120. Sheriff?

[ProfessorGAC]

126. Yeah, Obama

There is nobody with a brain in this world who doesn't know who the big heat in the world is now. It's Obama. That's obvious.

Where you around Tuesday?
GAC

[happydreams]

128. "Where" you around Tuesday? Proofread much there "Professor"?

I wasn't doubting that Obama is an important world leader, but you characterize him more as a lawman, ruler, shootist. He really doesn't have authority over other sovereign nations Professor, but he may, if he chooses to exercise control by less ethical means, run roughshod over that sovereignty, which I'm hoping he won't.

[ProfessorGAC]

129. A Miswording I All You've Got?

That ends this discussion. You've got nothing.
GAC

[happydreams]

131. Actually now itstwo, "I" instead of "is"plus the total misread of my "PNAC" post above....

You do know what PNAC is don't you Professor?

Get some rest PROfessor.

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

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

[wroberts189]

105. A kick for peace and Chavez.

[ohio2007]

110. Chavez nationalizes biggest gold mine in Venezuela ( Canadian company kicked out without compensatio

CARACAS (AFP) – Venezuela will take over and nationalize Las Cristinas, the biggest gold mine in the country owned by Canada's Crystallex, Mining Minister Rodolfo Sanz said Wednesday.

The move is part of leftist President Hugo Chavez's socialist agenda that calls for nationalizing Venezuela's natural resources. Over the past year, Chavez has taken over the electricity, oil, steelmaking, cement and telephone enterprises.

"This mine will be seized and managed by a state administration," Sanz said in a statement.

The Venezuelan government move comes ahead of elections for governors and mayors on November 23 in which Chavez faces tough competition.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081106/bs_afp/venezuelamininggoldnationalization_081106003544

in other news;

Venezuela offers Russians big gold projects

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N06416298.htm



hmmm....

Barack better watch his back

[eridani]

113. The Russians will get to be hired hands working for fa public company

If our corporados would go for that, they'd still be there.

[subsuelo]

116. I doubt Obama will want to maintain the US' status as aggressive rogue state

He should absolutely work with Chavez towards amending relations between the two nations.

[dkofos]

119. No problem, see you in Feb.