Clinton, Obama and new horrors planned for So. America?--who is a "renegade state"?

[Peace Patriot]

In the exchanges between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, on who they will or will not directly negotiate with, as president, I have heard them characterize Venezuela as a "renegade state" and its democratically elected president as a "dictator."

It is galling to me to have Democratic presidential candidates so stupid and uninformed, or so malevolent, that they would group Venezuela with a failed state like North Korea, or a frightened, socially repressive, patriarchal state like Iran--Venezuela, a 100% democracy, with a 100% Constitutional "rule of law" government, elected last year with 63% of the vote in elections that are many orders of magnitude more transparent than our own, and a government that is many orders of magnitude more democratic, more just, more tolerant and more committed to serving its people than any government in South America has ever been--a government so far superior to this malignancy in Washington DC that dares to call itself the government of the United States, that it is ludicrous to compare them.

Our government has slaughtered half a million people in Iraq, and has tortured thousands. Who has Venezuela killed? Who have they tortured? Who have they even put in jail unfairly?

The rule of law in our government is in shreds. Bush and Cheney have blatantly broken many laws, including laws that go the heart of our democracy, and are asserting dictatorial powers--while a Democratic Congress stands by and does nothing. What laws has Hugo Chavez broken? How has he acted unconstitutionally?

Our war profiteering corporate news monopolies are a disgrace to journalism. We all know this. Basically, five billionaire rightwing CEO's control our public airwaves, and all news and opinion in this country. Viewpoints that are in the interest of the majority of Americans cannot be heard--except on the internet. This is not "free speech." This is corporate brainwashing.

But Venezuela...ah, Venezuela, they dare to deny a license renewal to a corporate broadcasting company that actively participated in the violent military coup attempt against the legitimate government, and their president must be a "dictator." This is a ludicrously unbalanced and unreasonable view. All other commercial TV/radio stations in Venezuela continue to broadcast exclusively rightwing views, newspapers of all kinds flourish, in the liveliest political culture in Latin America, and one of their public airwaves is now open to independent broadcasters and to previously excluded voices, such as the poor, the indigenous and minorities. Do we have any such wide open national broadcasting company here in the U.S., open to new creative producers, and to leftist (majority) opinion and alternative views?

In Venezuela, people protest vociferously and often and with big crowds. When anti-Chavez students recently protested that license non-renewal, the National Assembly (Congress) invited the students to come before them and debate the issue. Here they "cage" protesters in "no free speech zones," and arrest them when they try to make their views heard to deaf officials. Which country has more "free speech"?

In Venezuela, the government engages in vigorous efforts, and has established programs, to maximize citizen participation in government and politics, and in important decisions about the use of resources. It's not "them and us," as it is here--where we write letters, and they ignore them; and where our tax money is being used for evil purposes that most Americans (70%) disagree with, and we have no say in the matter ("taxation without representation" once again!); and where the government does everything it can to suppress votes and prevent citizen involvement. Who has a more democratic, participatory system? Who has a real democracy? Would a "dictator" be encouraging maximum participation, citizen empowerment, local control of resources in community councils, voting, vote count monitoring, outreach to excluded groups such as the indigenous, the inclusion of indigenous land rights in the Constitution, the inclusion of a recall-of-the-president provision in the Constitution? Are these the actions of a "dictator"?

And how does this compare with our state and federal government practices of secrecy, lack of accountability, limiting the public to 2-minutes of "public in-put" in official meetings where everything is decided behind closed doors, lack of access to public documents including election data, refusing to allow public election monitors to ever LOOK AT the computers that are secretly tabulating the votes, abandonment of the poor, not just during Katrina, but every day in our inner cities, criminalizing the poor, imprisoning huge numbers of the poor for petty crimes, and larding taxpayer money and tax breaks on the rich and the corporate?

Who are our Democratic candidates serving in making statements like this--that Venezuela is a "renegade state," that its duly elected and hugely popular, and entirely law-abiding, president is a "dictator"?

They are not serving us. They are not serving the vast majority of Americans--workers, labor unions, the poor, small business, the middle class, minorities, teachers and other progressive professionals! They are not serving world peace or social justice. They are not serving the ideals of the Democratic Party, or this country.

They are serving global corporate predators and first world loan sharks, in lockstep with George Bush and Dick Cheney, who want to make Venezuela and the other new leftist democracies in the Andes region their next "theater of war"!

And when they repeat these Karl Rove and Condi Rice "talking points," they are helping global corporate predators and war profiteers keep the American people stupid about these things, so that when the fascists make their next move against Venezuela and the Andes democracies, we'll have our heads in the sand, as we did in the 1980s, during Reagan's atrocities.

The Bushites' goal: To rob the gas, oil, minerals and other rich natural resources of that region--which the governments of Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador dare to think of as belonging to the people who live there--and to enslave these free people in corporate sweatshops and with World Bank loans, on pain of death and dismemberment.

My stomach hurts and I want to vomit at the deaths and tortures and chainsawings and shootings of union leaders, peasant farmers, environmentalists and political leftists, that the U.S. has been responsible for in Latin America, and that are going on TODAY, in a South American country that our Democratic candidates DO support, Colombia--a rightwing government with intimate ties to these paramilitary murderers and drug traffickers. Yes, they pour billions of our taxpayer dollars into the corrupt Colombian government, while demonizing the democracy next door, Venezuela, and trying to set it and its neighbors up for the same kind of horrible repression.

The Chavez government and the people of Venezuela, and the brave and determined people of the Andes region, could teach the Democratic Party a thing or two about democracy. What is wrong with our candidates? What is wrong with our party leaders? Arrogant, oblivious, stupid, ignorant? Or bought and paid for?

I don't know the answer to this. I am appalled by their statements. Back in the 1980s, the Reagan regime not only instigated an illegal war on Nicaragua, it also was complicit in the slaughter of TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND Mayan villagers in Guatemala. In Latin America, our government has condoned horrors beyond belief. What is happening now in Latin American countries--with Guatemala among the last, because it was so devastated--is a birth of democracy such as we not seen in the western hemisphere since our own revolution. It is a peaceful revolution, and a remarkable achievement of the people of Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Chile and Nicaragua (and soon Paraguay, this year; then Peru, possibly followed by Mexico). The vast poor population of Latin America is at last coming into its own as a political force--after decades and centuries of brutal repression often backed by the U.S. Hugo Chavez is ONE of the leaders of this revolution, and Venezuela is ONE of the countries where this revolution has been sweeping elections and taking power.

The United States should be celebrating this peaceful revolution and supporting it. But no, our leaders pal around with Prince Bandar and Colombia's Uribe and Mexico's Calderon and Vladimir Putin. And the wannabe Democrats seem to have the same "friends' in mind. They don't seem to identify with ordinary people in the U.S., let alone with ordinary people who are pulling off a political miracle in South America. They act like they dread real democracy.

Chavez is a colorful and irrepressible speaker. He is a man of the people, born poor. He is not diplomatic. He sometimes says intemperate things. Not polite. Not measured. Not smooth-tongued. The other day he said that he wanted to throw a Mexican official out of Venezuela, because the Mexican official--parroting Bush--called Chavez a "dictator." Of course it is Mexico's rightwing president Felipe Calderon who just brutally repressed a peaceful teachers union-led protest in Oaxaca (where the rightwing governor has been using paramilitaries to kidnap, torture, rape and kill union and community organizers). Chavez no doubt felt insulted. He had every right to be. But he has harmed no one. He has expelled no one. He has silenced no one. He has invaded no one. On the contrary, he has good and close relations with most South American countries, and has been an inspiration to all of them, and to the vast poor population in the region, with his government's vigorous and innovative programs for the poor, while presiding over an economy in which the PRIVATE sector has shown the most growth.

When the Venezuelan people rose up, by the tens of thousands, and poured into the streets, and peacefully defeated the Bush/US backed violent military coup against their democratic government and president, in 2002, they held copies of their Constitution in their hands, and it was "our Constitution" that was on everybody's lips, even before the name of their kidnapped president.

Nowhere in living memory is there a people more passionately devoted to the rule of law, or more proud of their achievement of peaceful change. Bush and the fascist elite in Venezuela, in league with the rightwing paramilitaries who are operating in Colombia
and on the border with Venezuela, and in the rural Venezuela states with large rich land holdings (where the oil and other resources are located), have done everything they can to destroy this peaceful revolution and topple this democratic government. Bush has poured millions of our taxpayer dollars into the fascist opposition, through the USAID/NED, and no doubt through black budgets. (He did not make John "death squad" Negroponte Undersecretary of State for Latin American for nothing!) This opposition cannot win fair and open elections, and cannot regain its former unfair and repressive power except through conspiracy and violence.

Bolivia--which elected its first indigenous president, Evo Morales, a friend and close ally of Chavez and Venezuela--has similar conditions, with the rightwing big landowners now trying to split the resource-rich rural provinces off from the central government, to deny the vast poor urban population any benefit from their country's wealth. Similarly in Ecuador, which just elected US-educated, leftist economist Rafael Correa as president--also a friend and close ally of Chavez and Venezuela--is facing very corrupt and entrenched rightwing forces, and is trying to peacefully and democratically empower the poor majority for the first time. This is after decades of dislocation of small peasant farmers, by the big landowners, by US corporations, such as Drummond Mining and Chiquita Banana, and by the murderous US "war on drugs" (which all of these governments oppose), to drive them off their small plots of land, which their families owned and farmed for hundreds of years, with unregulated pesticide spraying, which is killing animals and food crops, and damaging human DNA, and other violence. This is why the urban areas are crowded with shantytowns. This is the problem that Drummond, and Chiquita, and Monsanto, and Exxon-Mobile, and their local fascist allies have created, that the Bolivarian Revolution is trying to solve.

Chavez has other friends and allies as well--Nestor Kirchner of Argentina, Lula da Silva of Brazil, and Vasquez in Uruguay, also Ortega in Nicaragua--all of whom defied orders from the Bushites to "isolate" Chavez and Venezuela. In reply to this directive, Kirchner said, "But he is my friend!" Even Uribe in Colombia felt obliged to distance himself from the plots against Chavez (as did the opposition candidate in Venezuela, in the December election--to his credit). Chile is a little iffy on Chavez and ended up abstaining on the US Security Council seat for Venezuela. But Venezuela went on to earn a seat on OAS human rights commission, over Bush/U.S. objections. The Bushites have about as much credibility in South America as they do in the Middle East. MOST of the leaders in Latin America know that this social revolution's time has come, that it is beneficial, and that Venezuela and Chavez have done much to strengthen their own hands in dealing with the despised giant of the north.

Why aren't our Democratic candidates and party leaders cheering this amazing, peaceful, democratic transformation on? Why are they joining Bush, Cheney and cabal in treating Venezuela like a pariah? For the same reasons, I fear, that they have done so little to curtail the real dictator, Bush and his overlord Cheney, have re-funded instead of de-funded the war on Iraq, have permitted our election system to fall under the power of rightwing Bushite corporations and their "trade secret" vote tabulation code, and so rarely get to the heart of any matter, or speak bluntly and undiplomatically, as Chavez sometimes does. They do not really represent the American people.

What's behind all this, I suspect, is more than the oil and other resources in the Andes, but a combination of financial motives regarding one of the Bolivarians' main goals--Latin American self-determination--including creation of the Bank of the South (to replace the World Bank/IMF), regional trade integration through Mercosur, and a potential South American "Common Market" and common currency, rejection of US "free trade" deals and rejection of the US "war on drugs." The transformation of South America is not too strong a word. It's a whole new game. And the Democrats seem to be making the same mistake the Bushites have made--turning to dirty plots, and militaristic modes, sneakily trying to "divide and conquer," and utterly ignoring the justice of this movement. The upshot is that most Latin Americans despise Bush, and overwhelmingly support Chavez. Evo Morales said it best, in regard to renegotiation of corporate resource contracts: "We want partners, not bosses." He also has famously said, "The time of the people has come." And he is so right. This movement is huge and unstoppable. It is an historic transformation.

Bush doesn't want "partners." Bush wants to be the Biggest Boss of all--the ONLY Boss. We know this. But what of the Democrats? Do they want to deal with South America on fair terms, or continue the brutal military and economic policies of the past, and end up being as much of a pariah as the Bush Junta is. It is not Chavez who will end up the pariah. It is us.

One final puzzle: In Venezuela, they use an electronic voting system, but it is an open-source code system--anyone may review the code by which votes are tabulated--and they handcount 55% (!) of the ballots, as a check on machine fraud. Here we have a closed, privatized, corporate "trade secret" vote counting system, and many states don't do any audit at all--zero handcount--as a check on machine fraud, and the best states count only 1% (very inadequate).

It seems ironic that office holders who were elected in an almost entirely non-transparent vote counting system should be criticize as a "dictator" a man who was actually, provably, verifiably elected to his office. The rightwing in this country called FDR a "dictator." And you have to wonder whose side our Democrats would have been on, back then.

[LBJDemocrat]

1. Chavez may have been democratically elected

But he is consolidating power in a dictatorial fashion. He rules by decree.

Vladimir Putin was also elected democratically, yet he is also a dictator.

[Usrename]

4. That's total bullshit to try and say Chavez is like Putin.

Vladimir Putin is a thuggish mobster who is no better than Bush or Cheney. They are identical in their ambitions.

Hugo Chavez is the antithesis of this group.

Chavez understands and speaks of concepts like social and economic justice, he really gets it.

These are ideas that are totally lost on all but the most marginalized democratic world leaders.

It's bullshit to compare Putin with Chavez.

[Peace Patriot]

8. LBJDemocrat, this is straight from the Bush State Dept. "He rules by decree."

The Venezuelan Constitution includes a provision for the National Assembly (Congress) to DEBATE and VOTE ON specific, time-limited powers to the President to solve a written list of problems, that all have agreed on. The same powers have been voted on and given to previous presidents, and they are similar to the powers that Congress gave FDR to help economic recovery from the Great Depression. One example has to do with Venezuela's food supply. Because of PAST bad land management--the dislocation of small farmers--Venezuela cannot feed itself. It imports much of its food. While the government tries to solve this problem with land reform, certain food chains have been hording food and price gouging. The "edict" powers permit Chavez to stop these practice, to insure a reliable and affordable food supply.

Chavez is NOT "ruling by decree." He is ruling in an entirely legal and Constitutional manner, in every respect. His government is, in fact, scrupulously following the law. Rather than send the military or the police into RCTV studios, when the people restored him to power, after the coup--which he would have been within his rights to do--Chavez waited until their 20-year broadcast license ran out, and simply did not renew it--a completely legal power of the president. When the mayor of Caracas wanted to confiscate two golf courses/country clubs for low cost housing for the poor (a critical need in Caracas) the Chavez government nixed the plan because it was unconstitutional. The Venezuela Constitution protects private property. If Chavez was ruling "by decree" or in an arbitrary fashion, he would have said, "Too bad, country clubs, critically needed housing trumps luxury and leisure." And WHEN Chavez identifies a critical need--such as the food crisis--that cannot be solved some other way, what does he do? He takes the matter to the National Assembly for a full discussion and a vote, where he has hundreds of lawyers breathing down his neck. I can cite you many other examples. And those who repeat this Bushite "talking point" cannot cite ANY example of Chavez breaking the law or assuming ANY powers that are not LEGAL and properly obtained.

Please don't repeat these disinformation "talking points" unless you know the facts. Please be aware that we are dealing with a disinformation campaign--very similar to Saddam and the WMDs. It is deliberate. It is concerted. The same "talking points" keep coming up again and again--always without context--from all the usual suspects (our war profiteering corporate news monopolies).

[Progressive Friend]

27. Neither Hugo Chavez or Vladimir Putin are "dictators"

Unlike Bush, both Chavez and Putin are overwhelmingly popular in their two respective countries. Unlike Bush, both have been directly elected by the people and not placed in power by a Supreme Court or an Electoral College. In both the Russian and Venezuelan legislatures there are more than two political parties represented - something that rarely ever happens in the US. In both Russia and Venezuela there are pro and anti-government media.

[Morereason]

51. The are anti-government media in Russia???

What channels? That's news to me. Putin is looked upon as a
benevolent dicatator. He is VERY intelligent and well spoken. But his administration does not tolerate those critical of him well, and his party intimidates those in other parties who would challenge.

Having relatives in that part of the world I am very versed in their situation. Putin works well because they still have a lot of communal values and social values left over from communism that continue to serve them and moderate the effects of the ravaging darwinian type capitalism with an oligarchy. Putin can be somewhat effective because he comes from a very different social structure. But in most other societies a leader with powers like he has would end the country in tyranny.

Just goes to show that half the welfare of a society is based on the social health and general philosophies of it's citizens toward each other. Something that we need to learn here. We can get all the "democracy" we desire, but until we change our underlying principles toward each other and money we will have serious injustice.

[Progressive Friend]

54. In Russia I mean newspapers

There is the right-wing/neo-liberal Kommersant, in addition to various Communist newspapers that are critical of the government.

[Grey]

2. well said,

I have asked my self those questions often.

[Lefty-Taylor]

3. Thank you, Peace Patriot. As usual you write eloquently and factually about the subject at hand.

I have an intelligent friend who feels the same way that LBJDem does. But I'm afraid both of you, LBJD and my friend, are uninformed. To get the truth on Chavez you have to look beyond the New York Times and do the sort of comprehensive analysis that Peace Patriot has done. Chavez may be a bit melodramatic (while I like that about him, I understand how his UN speech could put people off) but he is helping the poor live better. He's by no means "dictatorial," although the rich right-wing in both Venezuela and the US would have you believe he is.

Again, thanks, PP.

[peacetalksforall]

5. Chavez is the people's President (not Chevron's) . He is legally elected

and yes he is changing things after decades of State Dept/CIA paid off so-called Presidents who sold out the Venez. people to the U.S., World Bank, IMF, and a variety of corporations. He is bringing jobs, education, medical care, housing to the little people. His decrees are affecting corporations and those who still support the above listed groups. He is using the wealth of Venez to help his people. Yes, he can turn on the people. But, he appears to be more dedicated to Bolivar inspired goals.

The U.S. is not happy with the spread of little people leaders in South America - decades of domination is in jeopardy. Only a handful are still catering to the U.S. and European corporations and banking predators.

[peacetalksforall]

6. Well, that is terrible news about Obama. Not surprised about H Clinton.

I've been holding back on Obama - was it for this reason? Very, very sad. And stupid.

[Peace Patriot]

11. Obama's position was somewhat better than Clinton's. He said that he

would of course meet with the leaders of "renegade states." The problem that Venezuela keeps being thrown into that group, as if it were a Bush-designated "axis of evil" country. This is so wrong and so ill-deserved, that it seems impossible to me that anyone could say that as a mistake, or mispeaking. Don't these candidates look into the facts? Who the hell is advising them? Well, we know that Hillary's advisers are bad, real bad. But Obama's? I thought he had more sense. So, I didn't exactly hear him say "Venezuela is a renegade state." But it was implied--in the context of this Clinton-Obama exchange. A triumph for Condi Rice! A triumph for Bush/Cheney! A triumph for all the bad guys, here and in South America! A triumph for disinformation!

[maximusveritas]

20. He didn't group them together

That was the way the question was asked. Please edit your post to clear this up. The way it is written now, you're saying that Obama and Hillary actually said those things, which they didn't.

[Bongo Prophet]

23. I just did a word search, and in the debate Venezuela only comes up in the question

Hillary does mention chavez, with an arguable implication that he is like the others in her list. But that was how the question was framed, to be perfectly fair. So, that is not an outright accusation of "Dictator" or "renegade" - whether there are other quotes saying this, I have not found any so far.

CLINTON: Well, I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year. I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort because I think it is not that you promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are.

I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don't want to make a situation even worse. But I certainly agree that we need to get back to diplomacy, which has been turned into a bad word by this administration.

And I will purse very vigorous diplomacy.

And I will use a lot of high-level presidential envoys to test the waters, to feel the way. But certainly, we're not going to just have our president meet with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez and, you know, the president of North Korea, Iran and Syria until we know better what the way forward would be.

Just for fun, notice: The transcript misspells "pursue" as "purse"...A headline could read "Hillary threatens to use purse vigorously in her diplomacy!"
Think what AP could do with that!

[Bongo Prophet]

7. K/R = On to the greatest it goes

Oh how i wish we had 55% of ballots hand counted! Actually i want all paper ballots, and all hand counted, but they are FAR more advanced in checking votes.

And OPEN SOURCE CODE. How about that.

[Wilms]

9. They're just jealous.

[IndianaGreen]

34. Viva Chavez! Viva Venezuela! Death to imperialism!

Patria o muerte! Venceremos!

Death to neoliberal colonialism!

[maximusveritas]

10. When did Obama say any of that? Do you have a link?

I haven't heard him say anything like that and couldn't find anything like it when I searched via Google.

[maximusveritas]

13. I can't even find a source showing that Hillary used those terms

The only people using those terms with regard to Chavez/Venezuela are members of the media.

[Bongo Prophet]

16. AP tried to put words in Obama's mouth

renegade |ˈreniˌgād| noun
a person who deserts and betrays an organization, country, or set of principles.
• a person who behaves in a rebelliously unconventional manner.
• archaic a person who abandons religion; an apostate.

So is Venezuela "renegade" because of some betrayal? May to the IMF or World Bank loans? No, they PAID OFF IMF/World Bank and so did not default.
Did they abandon a religion of NeoLiberal "Free Trade"? Maybe so, and got out from under decades of oppression.

Rebelliously unconventional? GUILTY. By refusing to be a good puppet, they are defined as rebels. THAT is their SIN.


But Obama is a smart guy. Would he really stoop to such a simple label, or Bush-like "Axis of Evil" type rhetoric? God, surely not.
The question raised in the debate did not say "renegade" but did lump in the following countries: Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea.

Now, I did a quick search on "Obama renegade venezuela" to check for myself. An AP story TRYS to imply that he says this:
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/07/28/america/NA-GEN-US-Obama-Diplomacy.php

Obama and rival Hillary Rodham Clinton have had a running argument since clashing in last week's debate over how far the United States should be willing to go in its diplomacy with countries such as Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea.

But see, he does not actually say it himself. It is just implied in the headline and in the body.
There are several AP stories that do the exact same thing. Seems the AP writers themselves are trying to paint that picture. Hmmm. AP has been editorializing pro-bush stuff for years, and now this...

Surely Edwards is enough of a man of the people. I like a lot of what he says about helping poor out of poverty, funding education, expanding health care. I would think that he would naturally sympathize with some of the good that Venezuela has been able to accomplish, and go check it out for himself. Edwards is still learning in some areas, and I don't know to what extent he is aware of US history in the region. What does he say?

"I would not commit myself on the front end openly to meet with (Iranian President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad, (North Korean leader) Kim Jong Il, (Venezuelan President) Hugo Chavez," Edwards told reporters in McClellanville, S.C. "I think there's a real potential that would be used as a propaganda tool."

Ouch. John Edwards might want to think twice on that. Chavez is SO not in the same class with the other two leaders. "One of these things is not like the others" as the old sesame street segment goes....

Obama seems the best approach here, though we should press for more details on Latin American policy from all of the dems.

I think we need to educate our candidates, and question them in more depth on their policy directions in the region. If we the people want a future democratic admin to stop causing strife and let the region choose its own path without supporting death squads and sabotage, the time is now - before the primaries. I see that there is a group of "Venezuelan Americans" who are contacting all the candidates to encourage a hard line against Chavez. So they are being lobbed HARD form the RIGHT. There needs to be some fact finding before the candidates are too settled into a position, and don't want to budge for fear of looking week..

[maximusveritas]

19. I agree that Obama has the best position here

In a wide-ranging interview on foreign affairs, and Latin America in particular, the Democratic presidential hopeful criticized President Bush's foreign policy as excessively ''based on the dislike of Hugo Chávez.'' And he told me that he would not only sit down with the Venezuelan president ''under certain conditions'' but would travel to leftist-ruled Bolivia -- Venezuela's closest ally in South America -- at the start of his presidency.

''We've seen our influence diminished in the world,'' Obama said in the Sunday interview. ``We've seen an inability to recognize constructive opportunities with countries that may be leaning left, but that are trying to do the right thing by their people. That is a fundamental difference that I think will be reflected in an Obama presidency.''

Are any other candidates even talking about Bolivia? I haven't seen any other candidate with a better approach to South America.

[Bongo Prophet]

25. I have not seen any detailed comments either, MaxV

I would like a really smart, human rights based approach to be discussed, in contrast to both GOP/fascist belligerence AND Neoliberal "free" trade practices.

In a way, flying under the radar has been pretty good for our neighbors down south. If there is a silver lining to the carnage in Central Asian PNAC fiasco, it has been the lack of spotlight on the Bolivarian Evolution. This is a grim thing to say, please don't take that wrong. It's just that there has been time for Bolivia, Venezuela, Brazil, Ecuador, et al to make their own future.

This is as it should be.

[bleever]

12. "Global corporate predators" perfectly encapsulates the greatest threat

threat to actual democracy.

Thank you for this brilliant post. I hope to see it on the DU home page.

[Tom Joad]

14. preventing democracy in the Americas is a US tradition.

I have no doubt that any current Dem nominee, with the possible exception of Kucinich or Gravelwould not hesitate to use military pressure on Venezuela.

Somoza, he is a son of a bitch, but he's Our Son of a bitch. -- FDR

[Jim Sagle]

29. Incorrectamundo! Edwards is signalling distance from any anti-Chavez position.

Google "Chavez Edwards" to see Danny Glover's name pop up multiple times, and also to see Newsmax, Fox etc. equate Edwards to Chavez.

[Bongo Prophet]

38. Thanks for that heads up Jim! That is a good sign. Fox calls Venezuela and ENEMY of the US.

Man, are they warmongers or what? We are trading partners and neighbors.
I am open about liking much about John and elizabeth, and I think their hearts are in the right place on issues of justice.
They are evolving, just like all people, with open hearts and minds, and so can be moved toward truth if it is presented.

I also understand the harder line that will be taken to win Florida, and I won't like that. This will likely happen no matter the nominee, unless they decide to just take the hit and gamble that they will win Fla anyway. If done right, I think that would work. Just be consistent that we don't want to interfere in any more countries sovereign affairs. Learninng from the errors of the past and all. It will sell just fine.

Then move on to getting off of oil anyway. John is good at that already.

Seque to global warming - Floridians might just give a shit about that.

--- Up to their ass in gator water, right. --

[bread_and_roses]

15. Thank you, Peace Patriot! A K&R here

The ignorance of far too many even here about OUR history in Latin America is appalling. And the confusion over PUBLIC AIRWAYS is disheartening.

[bvar22]

17. K&R

I'm praying that the Bolivarian Reforms move northward.
VIVA Chavez.

[Jillian]

18. And why are the antagonizing world leaders as candidates?

Seriously - Bsh has screwed up relations with Venezula.

And Hilbama are calling him a dictator, Venezuela a renegade state.
Should either one of them get elected, you can be sure that relations with Venezuela are not
going to be much better.

[maximusveritas]

21. I see you didn't bother to check if the OP was telling the truth

Maybe next time you will.

[Bongo Prophet]

22. Jillian, do you have any info on Biden's position on this issue?

I have not seen nor heard anything, and it would be good to know.

The amazing thing to me is how the phrase "renegade" is spread like a virus because everyone from USA Today, to local papers to blogs use the same AP stories. What power they have!
Framing really takes hold when it becomes ubiquitous and invisible, like air. Uncheckable and unsourced, just breathed in...

[Jillian]

26. Biden discussing Venezuela

While the “Axis of Evil” has gotten more dangerous, this administration also has made us more vulnerable to an equally grave danger, what Michael Mandelbaum and others call the “Axis of Oil.” It stretches from Russia to Iran, from Saudi Arabia to Venezuela, from Nigeria to Burma.

Hugo Chavez has described Venezuela’s oil as a “geopolitical weapon.” It makes him believe he can displace Castro as the prime antagonist and anti-American troublemaker in the region. Last month, he stood before the United Nations, and called our President the devil and our country an empire bent on destroying the human species, yet we’re still Venezuela’s number one oil customer.
Americans get this. They understand both the “Axis of Oil ” and “Axis of Evil.” They know our dependence on foreign oil undermines our security. And they don’t like the war we’re in. The American people – they want something different.
http://biden.senate.gov/newsroom/details.cfm?id=265654&&

---------------------



That's all I could find, other than in 2000 he said that Venezuela was an important ally in preventing drug smuggling to the US.

[Bongo Prophet]

37. Thanks Jillian! So, Biden thinks Chavez wants to be the prime troublemaker in the region...

By using their natural resources as they see fit, adjusting flow/price like any other OPEC nation (or the US themselves) aka free market capitalism.
That Invisible Hand sure can slap.

I also think Venezuela is playing less nice on the war on some drugs than they were pre-chavez -ol' Joe has always been willing to break a few eggs on THAT issue.

Thanks for the info. Forewarned!

[Jillian]

45. At least he is not calling him a dictator. And if you read the comments

Biden is saying how hypocritical we are being because of the oil.

[Bongo Prophet]

48. That is true, he didn't say the word dictator, only an anti-American troublemaker

And to be fair, only that Biden believes that Chavez believes that "he can displace Castro as the prime antagonist and anti-American troublemaker in the region"

Is this better?

Chavez IS American, as are all who live in north and South (and Central!) AMERICA --though I know Biden meant USA=American. So just half-kidding here.
Well then, he mischaracterized Chavez with a different name than "dictator" it is still an insult. I think Joe could do better than that.


I also grant you that he was pointing out our hypocrisy. And we are, no doubt about that.


He did also say that this "axis of oil" was "an equally grave danger" as Bush's "axis of evil" - I guess that could be taken in several ways.
I would be glad to hear Joe talk for a few hours on that, as I am sure he could. He is a smart guy that thinks and speaks in great detail, agree or not.
I watched his c-span meeting a week or so ago, and his staff had to drag him away after 3 hours. He is no airhead for sure.

I do hope he is correct in saying the American people want something different. I believe that, too.
And I believe that he believes that. ;)


Edit for my crappy grammar...

[Peace Patriot]

43. Just a note on the Biden quote. Chavez is neither anti-American nor a "trouble-maker."

Chavez has harmed no one. He has invaded no one. He has good relations with most Latin American countries. (They voted Venezuelan onto the OAS Human Rights Commission!) Venezuela has some trouble on the border with Colombia--rightwing paramilitaries in cahoots with US "war on drugs" military--but even Uribe (prez of Col) has distanced himself from the plots against Chavez. Chavez is peaceful. He is an advocate and implementer of social justice. Social justice is KEY to peace in South America. The people who are "trouble-makers" are the BUSHITES and their murdering, torturing, coup-instigating local fascist allies.

Chavez has expressed sympathy with America's poor, and provided free or low-cost heating oil to many poor Americans last winter. He is not anti-American. He is anti-BUSH, and anti-FASCIST, and anti-GLOBAL CORPORATE PREDATOR. There is a BIG difference.

Re: "Oil as a geo-political weapon." Have we not used wheat, rice and other US ag commodities as "geo-political weapons"? Do we not use nuclear power and nuclear weapons as "geo-political weapons"? Are we not viewing Iraq's oil, right now, as a "geo-political weapon," and killing thousands of people to get control of it? Chavez, as per usual, speaks candidly. Of course it is a "geo-political weapon." It gives Venezuela leverage--as well as a means to help the poor, and to forge regional alliances (for instance, when Venezuela helped bail Argentina out of World Bank debt). And it CAN be used to punish the U.S. if the Bushites (or Democrats in the future) get any further out-of-line (rogue state that we are) in the Middle East, for instance, by attacking Iran (an OPEC partner, as is Venezuela). I think there is reason to believe that there is a pact involving Russia, China and India, for economic, and possibly even military, punishment of the U.S. if the Bushites attack Iran (a big oil supplier to these countries). And it's possible that Venezuela, and many other countries, are involved. Indeed, it would be foolish if the other countries in the world did not have plans for the U.S. going totally out of control. Venezuelan oil (and other levers) could be used to try to curtail U.S. aggression. And, short of a U.S.-instigated holocaust, there are OTHER things that the Bushites have been doing (torturing prisoners, licit and illicit weapons dealings, foiling other countries' terrorist investigations, unfair trade actions, spying, psyops, black ops, bullying other countries, for instance, the strongarming they did to put together the "coalition of the strongarmed" in Iraq), that the civilized world is appalled at. Bear in mind that, when Chavez called Bush "El Diablo" at the UN, MOST of the UN delegates clapped and many smiled and laughed!

What I'm saying is that the rest of the world NEEDS "geo-political weapons" to counter U.S. bullying and warmongering, and Chavez is just more candid than the others in speaking about it.

We are in a desperate situation--the American people. Most of the world knows this, even better than we do. We are, in effect, hostages to a fascist coup that is headed by the U.S. Oil Cartel. Our military has been hijacked for a corporate resource war! We are being impoverished by it! And we are helpless to stop it. We have been neutered as a political force--with the rigged voting machines as the coup de grace. They now directly control the outcome of our elections. By design. This was no mistake or "incompetence." The bill for Bushite-controlled e-voting was passed in the same month as the Iraq War Resolution, and is closely related to it. The American people have been CURTAILED as a democratic power with the potential to regulate the global corporate predators who operate from our shores. And, yes, Venezuela's oil (15% of our imports) is one of several "geo-political weapons" that could be used to deal with this situation that the American people cannot control. China holding much of our debt paper is another. All our outsourced jobs in India is another. Hell, India could shut down IRS tax collection!

Demonizing Hugo Chavez is stupid and useless. And he is merely a REFLECTION--a fair and democratic reflection--of what the rest of the world thinks of us, that we have let this "devil" Bush seize our government and do vast evil in our name. We are pathetic! And that is the truth of the matter.

And it would sure be nice to feel that our Democratic Party leaders are on OUR side--on the side of people HERE who are being impoverished and oppressed, and stripped of our civil and human rights, by Corporate Predators, and NOT on the side of the Corporate Predators. When they play an idiot game with AP about Hugo Chavez, the "dictator," you have to wonder. Are they ignorant, or are they tools? Are they hopelessly compromised and corrupt? Should we go for a third party, or WHAT? WHAT do we do--as we see our democracy and our country crumbling before our very eyes, because the Democrats are afraid of the corporate media that THEY helped empower?

No more games! I'm with Chavez on that. Speak bluntly. Tell the truth. And people will rally to you--as they have done, overwhelmingly, to Chavez, throughout South America. Not because he is a "dictator"--but because he is ACCURATELY representing what they THINK, and is FAITHFULLY representing the interests of the vast majority.

Chavez has won all of his elections IN THE TEETH OF complete rightwing control of the news media in Venezuela. Our candidates should learn from that. If you speak the truth, and you are real, THE PEOPLE WILL KNOW. The people can "read between the lines." And the American people have shown that capacity, in an amazing fashion, on the Iraq War and on all of Bush's bullshit.

But, in our case, we have not had the OAS and the Carter Center working overtime to insure transparent vote counting. So OUR candidates need to TELL people to OUTVOTE the machines. They need to SAY it. They need to ASK people to do that. If they give America's non-voters (the despairing) that hope--that they can outvote the machines (which we CAN)--they WILL do so. Americans are fed up. They want change. And they want to know how to GET change. They want to know what's wrong. They want fairness. They want socialized medicine. They want peace. They want a lot of things. But they don't know what's blocking them. TELL them, and they WILL rally to your side!

[welshTerrier2]

24. Hillary's husband's sanctions killed half a million or more Iraqis

great post, Peace Patriot. US history in South America and Latin America has been disgraceful. It's imperialism plain and simple.

For anyone to criticize Chavez without talking honestly and openly about the US role in the region, and of course the attempted coup against Chavez, is just spinning lies and blatant propaganda. To have such trash talk come from any presidential candidate belies their allegiance to their corporate masters. It's unconscionable that anyone would seek to exploit some type of misguided patriotism among American voters by using these lies.

with regard to your statement that "Our government has slaughtered half a million people in Iraq", I would point out that at least that many died as a direct consequence of the sanctions imposed on Iraq by bush I and by Hillary's husband. And now she and Obama support sanctions against Iran???!!! How many more must die???

US imperialism, under both republican and Democratic administrations, has resulted in the deaths of more than one million innocent Iraqis ... perhaps way more ...

[IndianaGreen]

31. A million Iraqi children died because of Clinton. Madelyn Albright dismissed their deaths

as inconsequential.

Albright has reared her ugly head again. She is now working as a foreign policy advisor to the Hillarycamp.

[welshTerrier2]

32. the best number I could find ...

several weeks ago, I spent a considerable amount of time researching everything I could find (on the web) to determine the number of Iraqi children killed by the sanctions. the best available data seem to indicate the number is between 250,000 and 350,000. that's children only. i'm not sure how many adult deaths are linked to the sanctions.

the Butcher of Little Rock and his predecessor should be brought before the World Court to answer these charges. And now Mrs. Butcher and Obama want to impose sanctions on Iran. What system do we condone that let's such garbage rise to the top?

IG, if you have better statistics to support a higher number, I'd love to see them. Many of the UN reports on the subject, and those supplied by the Iraqi government, have apparently been discredited. Of course, implementing policies that killed 250,000+ children is unconscionable by any reasonable standard.

[IndianaGreen]

35. Albright’s big lie: How the US has "protected" the Iraqi people

Albright’s big lie

How the US has "protected" the Iraqi people

24 February 1998
By Bill Vann

In a May 12, 1996 broadcast of the CBS news program "60 Minutes," Albright, then the US ambassador to the United Nations, was interviewed by Lesley Stahl. "We have heard that half a million children have died," Stahl said. "That is more than died in Hiroshima. I mean, is the price worth it?" Albright replied without hesitation: "We think the price is worth it."

The scale of the human tragedy created by Washington’s policy toward Iraq has been spelled out in a series of reports from United Nations relief agencies. Let us cite just a few of the accounts which have come out of Iraq in recent years.

UN documents death, starvation and disease

December 1995: "More than one million Iraqis have died--567,000 of them children--as a direct consequence of economic sanctions," the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) reported. It went on to state, "As many as 12 percent of the children surveyed in Baghdad are wasted, 28 percent stunted and 29 percent underweight."

March 1996: "Since the onset of sanctions, there has been a six-fold increase in the mortality rate for children under five, and the majority of the country's population has been on a semi-starvation diet," the World Health Organization (WHO) reported.

October 1996: UNICEF reported that "4,500 children under the age of 5 are dying each month from hunger and disease…The situation is disastrous for children. Many are living on the very margin of survival." This figure means the death of an Iraqi child every 10 minutes as a result of the US-imposed sanctions.

http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/feb1998/albf23.shtml

[IndianaGreen]

36. There is the 1997 UNICEF report about 1M Iraqi children malnourished

November 1997: UNICEF reported that nearly one million Iraqi children under the age of five are chronically malnourished. The agency’s representative in Baghdad, Philippe Heffnick, declared, "What we are seeing is a dramatic deterioration in the nutritional well-being of Iraqi children since 1991… It is clear that the children are bearing the brunt of the current economic hardship." He added, "They must be protected from the impact of the sanctions. Otherwise, they will continue to suffer and that we cannot accept."

<snip>

What little assistance gets into Iraq is provided under UN Security Council Resolution 986/1111, the so-called oil-for-food deal, which allows Iraq to sell a limited amount of oil on the world market for supposedly humanitarian needs.

This provision is widely described in Iraq as the "oil for nothing" deal. Only 40 percent of the earnings from the oil sales can be spent on providing food and medicine to the poverty-stricken population of southern and central Iraq. The rest must go to pay for various UN operations, including the upkeep of the UNSCOM weapons inspectors whose provocations have brought Iraq once again to the brink of war.

According to UNICEF, the money provided under this arrangement would at best amount to just 25 cents a day for each Iraqi. The relief agency CARE reported last September that, "Children, mothers, the aged and sick were all well cared for before 1990, but are now dying while the outside world mistakenly believes it has solved Iraq’s problems with the much-delayed oil-for-food shipments." In reality, CARE continued, the deal "will barely keep the strongest of the population of Iraq on their feet."

http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/feb1998/albf23.shtml

And here we see how the Clinton Administration was planning to attack Iraq, long before Bsh came along. Notice the date (1998):

US steps up war preparations against Iraq
By the Editorial Board
11 February 1998

The Wall Street Journal in a February 10 article headlined: "An Attack on Iraq Grows More Likely; US Plans to be Ready in 7 to 10 Days" listed two reasons why an attack seems increasingly certain. It noted that some Persian Gulf regimes, while publicly opposing a US air assault, are privately complaining to American officials that the past cycle of small-scale air strikes, followed by diplomatic wrangling, followed by another round of limited military action, has only undermined US authority. Secondly, the American military is concerned that the repeated dispatch of American forces to the region, without any resolution in the confrontation with Iraq, is eroding morale.

These factors, according to the Journal, are buttressing the consensus within US ruling circles in favor of war. Defense Secretary William Cohen and other US officials, the Journal reported, "aren’t interested in negotiating with Iraq."

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright went to Capitol Hill on Tuesday, but her mission was not to head off significant opposition within Congress to another attack on the Iraqi population. Such opposition is virtually nonexistent, on either side of the aisle. Her main aim was to reassure those within both parties who maintain that Clinton’s plans for large-scale bombing of Baghdad and other civilian centers do not go far enough. The US is ready to "strike and strike again," Albright told Congress.

By the beginning of next week, US forces in the Persian Gulf will be at their peak. The Pentagon will be able to count on three of its own aircraft carrier battle groups as well as a fourth deployed by the British. An additional 49 US warplanes have been dispatched to the region, joining the 370 which are already in place.

http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/feb1998/usiraq.shtml

[welshTerrier2]

40. please read this ... let me know if you think it's credible

it would be useful to read the full article: http://www.reason.com/news/show/28346.html

here's an excerpt:

Those who get past the initial frustrations of researching the topic usually end up on Richard Garfield's doorstep. His 1999 report -- which included a logistic regression analysis that re-examined four previously published child mortality surveys and added bits from 75 or so other relevant studies -- picked apart the faulty methodologies of his predecessors, criticized the bogus claims of the anti-sanctions left, admitted when the data were shaky, and generally used conservative numbers. Among his many interesting findings was that every sanctions regime except the one imposed on apartheid South Africa led to limitations of food and medicine imports, even though such goods were almost always officially exempt from the embargo. "In many countries," he wrote, "the embargo-related lack of capital was more important than direct restrictions on importing medicine or food."

Garfield concluded that between August 1991 and March 1998 there were at least 106,000 excess deaths of children under 5, with a "more likely" worst-case sum of 227,000. (He recently updated the latter figure to 350,000 through this year.) Of those deaths, he estimated one-quarter were "mainly associated with the Gulf war." The chief causes, in his view, were "contaminated water, lack of high quality foods, inadequate breast feeding, poor weaning practices, and inadequate supplies in the curative health care system. This was the product of both a lack of some essential goods, and inadequate or inefficient use of existing essential goods."

Ultimately, Garfield argued, sanctions played an undeniably important role. "Even a small number of documentable excess deaths is an expression of a humanitarian disaster, and this number is not small," he concluded. " excess deaths should...be seen as the tip of the iceberg among damages to occur among under five-year-olds in Iraq in the 1990s....The humanitarian disaster which has occurred in Iraq far exceeds what may be any reasonable level of acceptable damages according to the principles of discrimination and proportionality used in warfare....To the degree that economic sanctions complicate access to and utilization of essential goods, sanctions regulations should be modified immediately."

Garfield's conclusion echoes that of literally every international agency that has performed extensive studies in Iraq. In 1999 a U.N. Humanitarian Panel found that "the gravity of the humanitarian situation of the Iraqi people is indisputable and cannot be overstated." UNICEF's Carol Bellamy, at the time her landmark report was released, said, "Even if not all suffering in Iraq can be imputed to external factors, especially sanctions, the Iraqi people would not be undergoing such deprivations in the absence of the prolonged measures imposed by the Security Council and the effects of war." The former U.N. humanitarian coordinator for Iraq, Denis Halliday, travels around the world calling the policy he once enforced "genocide." His replacement, Hans von Sponeck, also resigned in protest of the U.N.'s "criminal policy."

As for Albright's hideous tolerance of death on such a mass scale, what a hideous human being she is. Hillary must be very proud to claim her as an endorsement.

[IndianaGreen]

57. I think it is a good article, one that illustrates how difficult it is to pin precise numbers

The article also mentions very briefly the role that milk formula has played in infant mortality. There is a lot of literature on that topic involving infant mortality in Africa and its connection to baby formula.

I tend to believe Edward Said and Noam Chomsky when they speak about child mortality caused by sanctions.

We must realize that it might take an independent government in Iraq, one not kept in power by colonial guns, before we can have a full study of mortality during the sanction years. Let's not forget the controversy generated by the Lancet Report which dealt with mortality after the US invasion.

One point of agreement is that too many people and children died because of sanctions, and that this was a tragedy that could have been averted.

[WCGreen]

28. I too am of that camp that views Hugo Chavez as a bit of a

scene chewer, a man who lacks the "refined" language of diplomacy taught at such stellar institutions of higher learning as Columbia, Harvard or Wellesley...

He is crass, and a bit of a bore especially when he talks of letting his country rule itself, as if...

But Hugo is symptomatic of the crumbling of that special social order in South America that thought it best to be co-opted by the Rich Americans than to do all that nasty work that democracy demands...

Perhaps Hugo was just plain sick and tired of the arrogance of the so-called Monroe Doctrine that has been interpreted by every president since as a macho "stay back, Europe... I'll do the exploiting around here" creed of Notre Americano dominance...

Sigh, if only we had such a brash, unafraid unparsed candidate running for president...

Oh we do and his name isn't Clinton or Obama or Edwards or Bidden or Dodd or Richardson or even Gravel...

But he's my Congressman...

I think I'll keep him...

[ChipperbackDemocrat]

46. Who is this person?

WCGreen, who is your Congressman?

[Bongo Prophet]

49. sorry, duplicate post. my bad.

someone needs a nap

[Bongo Prophet]

50. That would be Kucinich, right?

Dennis would meet with chavez, Morales and other Bolivarians and GET IT. In my opinion.

Here is a quote from Chavez I ran across recently. Pretty good, I'd say.

“We want to work together, not only with the United States, but also with its people, its institutions – including of course its government – but also with the other countries in our geopolitical realm. We want peace, respect, integration, to work with everyone, yes, in a relationship of equality, of respect, of cooperation.”

Sounds about like a DK quote to me. Idealistic and from the heart.

[IndianaGreen]

30. Hillary speaks for our ruling class, so it was no surprise when she sided with Venezuelan elites

At a recent speech to a room full of Hilbots, she said that she helps the environment by turning off unnecessary lights in her NY house. Everytime she flips the light switch off, according to Hillary, she says "Take that, Venezuela!"

Notice that she didn't say "Take that Exxon-Mobil" or "Take that Saudi Arabia." Big Oil and their allies are okay with Hillary. Big Oil's enemies are not okay.

Hillary will send our military to Venezuela to do to Chavez what we did to Allende. Tens of thousands will die so that Hillary's Wall Street masters profit.

[Bongo Prophet]

39. Whoah, that is misdirected snark for sure

Do you have alink to that? If it's a standard line she plans on using, it may turn up on c-span. What a groaner, indicative of a certain prejudice of thought.

(No really, it's just a funny name, like choosing Alba-qwirkie or KOOK-a-monga. Comedy Gold!)

[IndianaGreen]

47. Hillary Clinton: "Take that, Venezuela!"

It was on TV, and Hillary's attitude towards Venezuela was debated on DU. Where have you been?

3/19/07 5:23 PM

Hillary and Bill Make the Bucks

In what’s sure to be the first of many star-studded events for presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton, about 1,000 well-heeled New York Democrats gathered last night for a sit-down dinner at the Sheraton to get their first taste of the Clinton '08 campaign machine. Ron Howard, Chelsea Clinton, and Moby mixed it up with a slew of Wall Street types and the state's congressional delegation. Charles Rangel and Chuck Schumer warmed up the crowd, who paid $1,000 for a plate of filet mignon, risotto, and spinach served with Cabernet Sauvignon. (The good seats were $4,600 each.) But everyone was just waiting for the Clintons (or just Bill?), who took the floor accompanied by Jesus Jones's "Right Here, Right Now." The former president jawed on for a good fifteen minutes, lauding his wife and comparing her to Eleanor Roosevelt. Reluctant to yield the stage, he finally did — just so a raspy-voiced Hillary could launch into her stump-speech points: health care, lower college tuition, and pulling troops from Iraq. The audience warmed when she talked about how the couple conserves energy up in Chappaqua: He replaces lightbulbs, and she mutters to herself with every flip of the switch, "Take that, Iran! Take that, Venezuela!" At 8:31, 90 minutes after the event began, Bill Clinton returned to the stage for an autograph session. The eager donors clamored for him.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2007/03/hillary_and_bill_make_the_buck.html

[Bongo Prophet]

52. I don;t know where I been, IG. Just missed it is all. Thanks for the quote though!

I have to pull back from the horror from time to time. ;)

March of this year? I think that was a hiatus time for me.
DU and forum addiction can be bad for me.
Trying to not get burnt out.

[killbotfactory]

33. I think it all comes down to this

No presidential candidate can challenge the current conventional wisdom on our foreign policy too drastically in a campaign and still be elected. The overwhelming negative response in the media would make sure of it, like it made sure the Iraq war was a go. It would require a sea-change in popular opinion within a very short time frame for it to be possible, and there is a mountain of bullshit to sort through.

Any candidate who wants a serious chance of getting elected will not rock the boat too hard when it comes to these issues, whether they agree with the current popular view or not.

Also, K+R

[Peace Patriot]

42. So the Associated Press is determining Democratic foreign policy...

Clinton and Obama let AP frame the question--AP which has been the most propagandistic war profiteering corporate news monopoly of them all.

Great.

But I would be careful about equating AP's fascist views with "popular opinion." ("It would require a sea-change in popular opinion...") Let me remind you that 56% of the American people opposed the Iraq War way back at the beginning (Feb. '03), opposition that has now grown to over 70%. 56% is a significant majority. It would be a landslide in a presidential election (and believe me, it was). 70+% is the overwhelming consensus of the nation. Neither AP nor any of the other media war profiteers have been very good at reflecting, or even telling us about, the REAL opinions of the American people.

In fact, I think this is the key to everything--to the entire fascist coup in the U.S. Our corporate rulers never intended to convince anyone of anything--for instance, that an unjust corporate resource war is good for us, or that Bush/Cheney won the 2004 election. No, their goal is, to make us--the great progressive American majority--FEEL LIKE we are the minority, to make us feel helpless, and powerless, and isolated, and thinking that OTHER Americans had gone nuts and are goosestepping to Bush. It never was true, and it is even more not true today. But they deal in impressions and illusions--the delusionary media.

So do not presume that most Americans don't want a mixed socialist/capitalist economy, like Venezuela, or a government that sides with the workers and the poor against the Robber Barons. Cuz I think most Americans DO.

Do we want candidates who keep playing these games--responding to an AP-framed question with an answer that helps spread fascist propaganda--and losing, losing, LOSING? Or candidates who can't even SEE what the game is? Or candidates (with the exception of Kucinich and maybe Edwards, who has said a few things) that are either too stupid or too collusive to object to corporate-controlled "trade secret" voting machines?

Or do we want a candidate and a president who stands up for the values of the AMERICAN PEOPLE--as opposed to our goddamned government and its fascist/corporate puppetmasters?

Hugo Chavez was ELECTED. And none of these people are going to be! They are going to (s)elected out by Diebold and ES&S, if they show any true patriotism and loyalty to the American people, any true leftist (majorityist) views, any instinct for peace and social justice. But if they would SAY SO, if they would lay it on the line, then you will see an aroused American people, who will register to vote in huge numbers, and will OUTVOTE THE MACHINES, as they did in some cases in the 2006 Congressional elections.

THEN we will have chance.

Playing fascist games--playing into their DELUSION of what the views of the American people are--is the way to lose, if you are sincere. And if you are not sincere--if you, too, are a fascist, or a fascist tool--then what good are you?

Our party leaders have been playing this game with us since at least Reagan--making us GUESS at what they really think, and what they will really do, this peek-a-boo game with the fascist media. Why don't they just call the fascist media what it is? Americans would get it, instantly. Believe me, the American people are fed up with this shit.

And start telling people THE TRUTH. Hugo Chavez was ELECTED, and George Bush and Dick Cheney, and at least half the U.S. Congress were NOT!

And the Associated Press, by its blackholing of the most important news story in American history--the corporate takeover of our vote counting system with "trade secret" code--has been complicit in this fascist coup, as they have been complicit on the corporate resource war on Iraq War, and on the COMING corporate resource war in South America.

And we're going to get more of the same unless we outvote the machines in massive numbers.

Clinton, I think, we can just write off. She IS a corporate fascist*. Obama may not be--but who can tell, in this peek-a-boo game? Edwards is more upfront. (And the moment he said anything about the voting machines, the corporate news media 'swiftboating' began.) I think Edwards is going for broke--telling us what he really thinks. Maybe it's his wife's cancer (and her good influence). Dodd and Richardson are corporate fascist "dark horses"--backup candidates (believe me, they are snakes-in-the-grass--and it's all about the voting machines). And Kucinich, who probably doesn't have a prayer because he has big ears.

Ah, me.

----------------------------------------------

*(The one good thing I know about Hillary is that she voted AGAINST the "Help America Vote For Bush Act" of 2002 (corporate-controlled electronic voting), one of ONLY TWO Democratic senators who did so--her and Schumer. But it was probably because they didn't want to offend New York voters, who are very attached to their old reliable, and virtually unriggable, lever voting machines, rather than their belief in democracy. But the result is that New York is just about the only state in the nation that has public officials who are not beholden to Diebold and ES&S, the two rightwing Bushite corporations who now control our election results with "trade secret" programming code in the voting machines, in most states.)

[Prophet 451]

41. Chavez IS a tyrant

Are you familiar with the origin of the word "tyrant"? They were originally Athenians (usually but not always local aristocrats) who acquired political power through popular support. That seems to fit Chavez like a glove.

True, he's had some setbacks and he's made some mistakes and, like any politician, he should be watched like a hawk for abuse of power. He's bluff and a little crass but he's also one of the few world leaders challenging the received wisdom of the uber-capitalist "free markets uber alles" philosophy which currently rules the Western world.

Call Chavez a "dictator" in the modern sense is just bizarre. He's democratically elected and while elected leaders can become dictators, he's followed the law every step of the way. The accusation of ruling by decree, coming from Bush's State Department, is darkly comic.

Even if he was ruling by decree, that isn't necessarily a bad thing. I have a limited enthuasiasm for democracy (based mainly on the fact that so much of the electorate are so often complete idiots). A dictatorship headed by a genuinely good man (and I'm not saying Chavez is) would not necessarily be a bad thing. The problem, of course, is that eventually that good man will die and either the "crown" (for lack of a better term) is passed to someone unsuitable or there's a civil war. That's why democracy, while a fundementally flawed system is, as Sir Winston said, the best system we've yet come up with.

But that's theory. Chavez has been democratically elected, he's vilified by much of teh West because he refuses to play their games, he's followed the law so far and I have to like anyone who's so obviously made it their life's mission to mess with Bush's mind. He could still fuck it all up, of course but so far, he seems to be doing quite well.

[Peace Patriot]

56. Chavez is NOT a "tyrant" in the modern meaning of the word. But Bush is.

Yes, "tyrant" meant "man of the people," the "take charge" guy, the protector of the weak--thousands of years ago, but I believe that, even back then, it soon came to mean arbitrary personal power and misuse of power. Too much personal power almost always leads to tyranny.

In regard to Chavez, when you challenge anti-Chavez posters who spout the "talking points", they are unable to defend the "talking points" (because they are based on twisted, out of context, or no facts), and they then fall back: well, he is GOING TO BECOME a "dictator," he is accumulating power, etc.

But there is no evidence for that, either. Chavez has a lot of political power. He is well-liked--an approval rating of 70% in Venezuela--and big support throughout South America, among the vast majority--the poor, the exploited, the excluded, workers, small business people, and various kinds of professionals and intellectuals. Having personal drawing power, and having vast support for your ideas, does not make you dictatorial. Of course, anyone can be tempted by being very popular. We are rightfully cautious of that kind of power--also, going back to the Greeks: beware of hubris (getting a big head). But it IS useful in getting things done. The more popular Chavez becomes--and his share of the votes has increased with every election--the better he has been able to implement the goals of the Bolivarian Revolution, which is a quite open and well-known agenda. It's not as if he's hiding anything. Latin American independence and self-determination. Social justice. Regional cooperation. Anti-"neoliberalism" (Reaganite "trickle down" economics, which never "trickles down," combined with horrible brutality; Clintonite "free trade" with no labor and environmental protections, World Bank servitude; Bushite bullying, bribing, thieving of resources, alliance with murderers and drug traffickers, and assassination plots).

It is the positive parts of this Bolivarian agenda that make Chavez so popular. They have given South Americans a new sense of dignity and self-worth. There is a new "can do" attitude that used to be characteristic of us here in the north. Political and economic creativity, and progress, seem to have shifted south.

Chavez has gone about implementing this agenda entirely lawfully. The Venezuelan Constitution protects private property rights, for instance. The Chavez government has scrupulously adhered to this provision. They are not out to rob the rich. They are out to even the playing field--through education, medical care and other bootstrap measures for the poor, and by encouraging widespread participation in decision-making. This hardly seems like the agenda of a "dictator," and there is no evidence whatsoever of misuse of power, of misconstruing the public will and the public good, or of illegality or power-grabbing. Every one of the Bushite "talking points" on this matter of power-grabbing dissolves when it is put in context. For instance, Chavez has asked the Venezuela people to vote in a referendum that will permit him to run for a third term. The Bushites describe this as his wanting to be "president for life," and they leave out the fact that it will be voted on--an omission of context that makes Chavez look bad. They also omit the FDR example--who was, indeed, president for life. He died in his fourth term. He served at the popular will. He was the peoples' choice. Every evidence points to Chavez also being the peoples' choice.

There is a difference between POLITICAL power and dictatorial power, just as there is a difference between a strong, assured, decisive leader, acting in the interests of the people, and an arbitrary ruler--a later Greek history tyrant, or dictator--acting strongly in what he THINKS is the interests of the people, but who has badly misconstrued those interests, or is really only acting in his own interests (or those of his cronies), and is either a cynic or is deluded.

FDR is a good example of a strong, assured, decisive leader, acting in the interests of the people. In democracies, this can occur through the political process. FDR was called a "dictator," but he wasn't, really. For one thing, he was elected (repeatedly, for a total four terms). For another, he correctly construed the needs of the people, and acted strongly to meet them. His power was POLITICAL. He had the people with him.

Bush, of course, is a good example of the bad "tyrant"--a mere poser as a "man of the people" who has plunged the country into crippling debt, inflicted the country with a horrible war on behalf of his and his Vice President's oil cronies, undermined the Constitution (outright violated it, in fact), and has undermined or destroyed numerous government agencies and functions, even the U.S. military, as well as having destroyed America's reputation in the world, as a country that may sometimes do wrong, but basically believes in the rule of law and democracy, and where, if a wrong has been done, it might be redressed.

What of his POLITICAL power--his legitimacy in these actions? His descent into tyranny could probably have been predicted at the time of the stolen 2000 election, with the Supreme Court nixing the Florida recount, and, in effect, appointing him king. His numbers quickly began to fall through spring and summer of his first year in office--with the first tax cuts for the rich and other actions. At best, he had won a hairsbreadth victory (Gore actually won the popular vote), and he did not have a mandate for a sharp turn to the right, yet pursued it anyway. The first sign of tyranny.

Then he was reprieved by 9/11. His numbers soared, temporarily, but, by the time of the Iraq invasion, had dramatically plummeted about 35-40 points (from a peak of 90% just after 9/11, to the 55%-60% range in the first months of the war). Bush's poll numbers from the Abu Ghraib revelations (May 2004) through election day (November 2004) show a neck and neck 50/50 race with Kerry gaining ground at the end. I don't trust the numbers in this six month period. I think they were fiddled to favor Bush*. There was some poll evidence (the Zogby poll)--along with some other very strong indicators (such as Democratic new voter registration numbers--60/40 v. Republican)--that Bush/Cheney was going to lose. They did lose. The election was fixed. And then, on the very day of Bush's 2nd inauguration, he numbers fell to 49%, and have been in freefall ever since. He now supposedly has 25% approval (and Cheney, at 18% about a year ago, may be under 10%, at this point).

And now, with his POLITICAL power at its nadir, we are beginning to find out how very much his political power has all along been mostly an illusion--based on stolen elections, misuse of power, corporate media propaganda (corporate media worship, in truth), dirty tricks, criminal tricks, purges of Democratic voters, use of the Dept. of Justice to influence elections, use of the RNC email server to hide what are more than likely election crimes, bullying and bribing, suppression of dissent, and possibly also political spying, blackmail and black ops.

Further, with his POLITICAL power at its nadir, he has begun to assert more and more tyrannical powers--hundreds of presidential "signing statements" that exempt him and his regime from laws passed by Congress, an Executive Order that, in essence, permits him to punish war dissenters with arbitrary seizure of their property, an assertion that the entire Executive Branch is exempt from testifying before Congress, and has no obligation to preserve or disclose public records, even under subpoena by Congress, even when Executive Branch crimes are at issue--the upshot being destruction of Congress as an equal branch of government. He is furthermore continuing to assert the power to torture prisoners, and to hold prisoners indefinitely without charge, and has commuted the sentence of one of his close cronies who got convicted of lying to the FBI and a Grand Jury, and obstruction of justice, on an important matter of national security. (He rightfully holds the power to commute, but its use under these circumstances--no mandate from the public, and a grave underlying crime--tantamount to treason--that could not be prosecuted BECAUSE OF his crony's obstruction; in short, the commutation is part of a cover up, and a highly inappropriate, if not illegal, use of this power).

Bush's POLITICAL power has always been shaky. He used the 9/11 event to bolster support for actions that were, in truth, very contrary to the welfare of the people.

In comparing Bush and FDR, on the uses of power, I think we'd have to say that Bush is a dictator, and FDR was not. And Hugo Chavez is much more like FDR than he is like Bush. Chavez has a genuine mandate. He has not misused his power. Bush had a shaky mandate, and grossly misused his power (for unjust war, among other things), and now he has 75% disapproval--a negative mandate, the people want him gone--and he is more tyrannical than ever.

I don't see any indicators that Chavez "will become a dictator" or is tending that way (the anti-Chavez fallback position), except the general canard that "power tends to corrupt." True enough. And that is why all democratic systems are designed on "balance of power" principles. Venezuela's government system has some minor differences from ours, but it is essentially the same. It is a democratic system, with the National Assembly, the courts, and the people, as the checks on presidential power. I don't see Chavez doing anything untoward in that regard. They say he is trying to "pack the courts." Well, do did FDR. But that didn't make him a "dictator." (He asked Congress to ADD justices to the Supreme Court, which was perfectly legal--and still is, by the way.) I haven't seen the evidence for this charge, but fully expect it to evaporate, just as all the other Bush State Dept. "talking points" have evaporated upon inspection.

The voters of Venezuela have approved of Chavez, overwhelmingly. It is rather an insult to them to presume that they are stupid sheep and would vote themselves a "dictator." With a 70% approval rating, he is clearly doing their will. I think it is rather we who are the stupid sheep, suffering under a real dictator, with a Congress that will do nothing about it. I avoid that term ("sheeple") when discussing my fellow and sister Americans, because of that 63% against torture "under any circumstances," and that 56% against the war, back at the beginning, despite relentless propaganda and fearmongering, and the 70% against the war today, and the other evidences that Americans are NOT "sheeple." A great effort has been undertaken to disempower--and, above all, to disenfranchise--us. If we don't do something about the voting machines, then I think "stupid" will be our name in history.



--------------------------

(*The reason that I don't trust the May-December 2004 Bush approval numbers is that OTHER polls--the issue polls--were showing great disagreement between the American people and the Bush regime. For instance, polls on torturing prisoners had 63% of the American people opposed to torture "under any circumstances." On every Bush foreign and domestic policy, the numbers against him were very large, some in the 70% to 90% range. Why weren't these reflected in his approval numbers, with an election coming up, in which the people got to vote his policies down (by voting him out of office)? Kerry ran a weak campaign, some say--but people were flocking to the Democratic Party--a 60/40 edge to the Democrats. Were they registering Democratic in such large numbers to vote for Bush? I don't think so. There is also evidence that the corporate media participated in the election theft. They doctored their exit poll numbers to force them to fit the official result (from the Diebold/ES&S "trade secret" vote tabulators). I think they also doctored Bush approval ratings, leading up to the election, so that the doctored election would look credible. Bush's numbers pitched down immediately after the (s)election, and never recovered.)

[Prophet 451]

58. Preaching to the choir here, dude

I LIKE Chavez for the most part. The comment about the changing meaning of "tyrant" was just me being a history buff. Bush is a good example of what the tyrant's eventually became.

EDIT: The canard that "power tends to corrupt" was why I made the point that Chavez, like every other politician, should be watched closely for abuse of power.

[Psyop Samurai]

44. Tremendous breakdown - thanks & bookmarked...

...though I too would shine more light on the media in this charade.

The false framing and phony "consensus" are accomplished by the media, who, by means of a corporate "weaning process", represent the "board of directors".

Our presidential aspirants, or "CEO applicants", are presented the task of providing competent answers within that frame or challenging the frame in some way. If the challenge is too radical, they will be destroyed by the lie machine. As we have seen, some not only will NEVER challenge the frame, they work overtime to reinforce it.

So it is a rigged game, one which leaves the electorate, even those of us who are reasonably informed, in a position akin to reading tea leaves. This is why I hate "politics" and refuse to follow most of the nonsense, but I digress...

It's as though, before one can adequately assess whose interests a candidate serves, i.e., read the tea leaves "correctly", one must recognize whose interests the media serve, and be cognizant of their framing. That's a tall order for the average American. It's hard enough for me, and I have lots of time on my hands.

I love what Bongo Prophet says above:

Framing really takes hold when it becomes ubiquitous and invisible, like air. Uncheckable and unsourced, just breathed in...

Unfortunately, most people cannot "see" the media. Rather, the media is that THROUGH WHICH they see.


on edit:

You are, of course, aware, and probably 2 steps ahead. I will go read post #42, which wasn't up when I first hit "reply".

:toast:

[Peace Patriot]

53. "Most people cannot 'see' the media." I think that is changing for the better

--as it did, as a matter of fact, in Venezuela. Chavez has been elected three times, each time with bigger votes, despite entirely hostile--venomously hostile--corporate TV/radio; and in the 2002 coup, Venezuelans grokked that they were being fed outright lies and disinformation, as the coup was going on, and poured into the streets to defeat the coup. Americans are not that savvy yet, but we're getting there.

That early stat on the Iraq War (56% opposed, in Feb. '03) is quite stunning, when you think about it. It was in the midst of the most relentless, 24/7 warmongering news media campaign ever conducted against any people. 56%--a significant majority--could see right through it. Further, the overwhelming number now--more than 70% against the war--began formulating long before SOME of the corporate news media began reporting SOME BITS OF the truth. The problem for the American people has not been what they know and believe, but rather how to be heard, and how to recover their power and their right to control government policy.

You do make a very, very good point--about being able to 'see' the media. I notice this blindness every day, here at DU, on the subject of Chavez and Venezuela. Many people don't realize that they are victims of a concerted, organized, deliberate disinformation campaign, very like the one on Saddam and WMDs, which was successful at convincing 50% of the people that Saddam had WMDs, but was NOT successful at convincing the majority that, WMDs or not WMDs, Saddam was a threat requiring a war. And, with no WMDs found, and the full story gradually coming out--of the cooked intel, and the Bushites throwing the UN weapons inspectors out, and punishing U.S. military, CIA and other insider dissent, etc.--the tide has fully turned against the war. A half a million deaths later.

Some of the crap I see about Chavez and Venezuela, here at DU, is trolls and maybe even paid operatives. Actually, I have little doubt of that. So it is probably not an accurate impression of the effect of this disinformation campaign on the American people. Of those DU posters who seem to be sincere, SOME come out with the "talking points," but then can't defend them, when other DUers counter with facts. And many instinctively know that they are being lied to. And some even take the trouble to investigate, to do some reading on their own.

If DUers--trolls and operatives aside--are generally better informed than most Americans (and I think they are), then I think we can assume that the disinformation is running a similar course as the Saddam/WMD campaign. A segment of our population--about 25%--are automatically distrustful of Bushites, the corporate media, and Democratic leader collusives. Another 25% have the attitude, "Show me!" They are distrustful, but want facts, convincing arguments. (As with Saddam/WMDs, the facts wholly favor Chavez--there IS no argument for demonizing Chavez, or considering Venezuela an "enemy.") That's about 50%. And another 25% will probably figure things out too late--after the Bushites (or the succeeding Democrats) do something awful in South America. So, 75% of the American people are open to facts and truth, if they can get them in time. But the problem, once again, is how do we stop our government from doing evil? Where is our power?

One thing in favor of peace in South America is that it is NOT the Middle East. There is a strong, democratic, leftist movement underway--very successful, involving many countries. And I have GOOD reason to believe that all Latin American leaders--even the rightwing presidents, Uribe, Calderon and Garcia in Peru--are well aware of Bushite rightwing paramilitary connections, and nefarious plots, especially against Chavez, Morales and Correa, and even the rightwing governments oppose violent interference in Latin American affairs. A military move by the U.S.--or assassinations and topplings--will have the whole continent up in arms.

But to get back to your point--being able to "see" the corporate media. The worst blindness that we have is not that they can or will convince us, or other Americans, of the next "evil" that they must destroy with their war machine. The worst blindness--the thing a lot of people don't realize--is that they DON'T CARE what we think. Their purpose is to create a delusion--a covering story--for what they INTEND TO DO, no matter what the majority of Americans think about it. They want to create the false impression that the majority wants war long enough to commit the atrocity, and profit from it. They want us to feel that the great peace-minded American majority is the minority, and that we are powerless to stop them.

With Chavez, there is so little excuse for war, murder or toppling a democracy, that they may be up to something other than a direct military assault--although you've got to be worried about all the new U.S. "war on drugs" military installations in Colombia (right on the border with Venezuela). And you also have to be worried about this obvious corporate media campaign--the buildup of repeated negative "memes" about Chavez, in the teeth of the facts. (They have NOTHING to work with, as they did with Saddam. Yet they're doing it, inventing this "dictator" meme out of thin air. It's scary.) The plan of the Bushites (and fascist Democrats) may be something more long term. They really will create an entirely hostile South America, if they try anything like the 2002 coup again. Leftist leaders like Lulu in Brazil and Bathelet in Chile will totally turn against them, and I'm not at all sure they will be able to hang onto Colombia and Peru (or Mexico, for that matter), as U.S. global corporate predator ("free trade") zones, if they proceed with violent plans. (The December 2006 election in Venezuela may have been a turning point, in that regard--when the opposition candidate disavowed the current coup plot.) (Also, Bush's recent trip to Latin America--he got an earful, from all sides, about respecting Latin American sovereignty.)

Long term plans would include continuing to pour millions of U.S. tax dollars into funding opposition groups, including their paramilitary wings, for stirring up shit in Venezuela and Bolivia, and for political ops, including civil disorder type ops, in all these leftist countries; more empowerment of the large drug cartels, through the U.S. (ha-ha) "war on drugs," so THEY will stir up shit (torture, murder, rage among local people); increasing placement of U.S. military bases, wherever they can (Ecuador is throwing them out, but they still have other much too compliant venues, including Chile); "divide and conquer" financial pressure on the less Bolivarian of the leftist governments (Brazil, Chile, Uruguay) (--the Bushites haven't been very successful at this, but fascist Democrats might be more so--Bill Clinton was brilliant at it).

This phony uproar over RCTV has its amusing side. The fascist/Bushite evildoers in South America rely on the corporate media there to try to keep people stupid and disempowered. The long term campaign, outlined above, would use the corporate media in S/A as one of the players in this long term plan, of course. (Just for instance: Say, they succeed in using a drug cartel for a hit on Chavez, and then the media portrays it as just another symptom of the need for more U.S. "war on drugs" militarization. I can just hear it!) So, all the whining and carrying on, about RCTV, was because they had LOST one the key elements of a backdoor coup. (The RCTV corp. is an active evildoer.) They have others, but now they have to try to hang onto them--with blood in the water over rightwing corporate media monopolies. These are the PEOPLES' AIRWAVES--why shouldn't they take them back? Why license rightwing corporations that constantly oppose the interests of most people? What right do they have to these licenses? None!

Latin Americans can 'see' their media a lot better than our people can. That is a worry, here. But again, I think that is changing fast, and, with every lesson the American people learn (a la Saddam and the WMDs), we're getting more clear-eyed.

[goodhue]

55. amen

!!!

[NotGivingUp]

59. The United States destroys anything resembling a democracy. It promotes tyranny.

The United States is all about building empire. Millions have been murdered. So many enslaved and lives made miserable. It's time we put a stop to it.

[NotGivingUp]

60. The Democratic candidates are not stupid or uninformed. They are complicit in promoting tyranny. nt