I despise both Ahmadinejad and Chavez

[ruggerson]

Does that mean I'm out of step with other liberals?

I don't think so. I think I'm way in line with the vast, vast majority of Democrats.

In reality, it is the tiny, very loud minority, who defend tyranny and excuse bigotry, in the name of rigid ideology, who are out of step and and have a mixed up sense of morality.

They shame the progressive movement and they shame themselves.

[SaveElmer]

1. Bingo...nt

[The Count]

2. Ahmadinejad is not above reproach, and even Chavez has his flaws

What a progressive has to recognize is the disproportionate amount of attacks from the media against them. Not for the real reasons but for one and the same really: what's our oil doing under their countries.

[Smarmie Doofus]

6. Double bingo. nt

[eleny]

9. That's the single issue why he's demonized by our administration

We want the oil under their feet. Meantime, we do business with a dictator who boils his enemies.

My issue all day today is how badly America was portrayed by that ass, Bolinger. He represented us to the world today. It disgusted me how an opportunity to illustrate Ahmadinejad's faults was lost by Bolinger's pandering rant because Bolinger took some heat over Ahmadinejad's invitation to speak.

[immoderate]

70. Bolinger was the big loser. As a professor...

He could have taken the opportunity to give a lesson on freedom of inquiry, truth, dialog, etc., and thanked his guest for his participation...blah, blah.

How rude to have a guest speaker and make his introduction sound like a roast.

--IMM

[Douglas Carpenter]

28. Thank you. If Venezuela's leading export was bananas and Iran's, artichokes -- we wouldn't have ever...

heard of either of these guys -- one way or the other -right or wrong - good or bad.

[PATRICK]

100. That is one thing more important

than stepping in line with the corporate media witch hunt of particular "objectionables". The other is that most of the particular things objected about, especially in the case of Chavez(it is impossible to lump them together fairly), is that their present policies, objectionable, defiant, are due to the active hostility of the Bush administration and long standing US policy. To get at these two you first, as an American, have to crawl over our own more powerful and noxious- and unaccountable- tyranny. Mr. A can be removed by the ayatollahs and by the will of the people(which props him over these years mainly because of the Bush threat). Mr. C has won, despite attempts by gun and fraud and crooked media, the continued support of the electorate.

Take away our dictator and then come back and talk to me about converting any world leader to the pure white robe of pristine pure American democracy.

On the other hand, no one should forget the sequence of our proper interest in opposing tyranny. Admiring the strongmen who through national necessity, under total attack and threat by the dominion of the US and private oil companies as much as Lincoln defended the Union in the Civil War, also dangerously misses the point. Admiration of strongmen for their own sake threatens to make left wing tools of tyranny, fans of glory, the unitarian messiah, the gloss over all complaints and flaws. That is the divide where this poster rightly parts company with the fans of Bush reactionaries and starts the questionable practice of putting the state powerful above the ordinary dissident.

As with other disagreements on DU I think the loss of focus, the complete harm done by Bush in making our world the way it is, has people taking down responsible, risky leadership for the sake of weaker nations under threat AND raising up anyone taking on the machine as role models and superheros. All this seemingly born of frustration of being powerless to do anything about the real problem or to advance democratic causes in our own backyard.

Change US policy, restore democracy and get a fairly representative government and then we might have some role in dialog with other democracies and nations. I suspect it will be less extreme and beside the point, and hopefully less derivative of the talking points set by corporations and their mouthpieces. In the balance I come down on the side of never leaning toward even the "reasonable" talking points "wisely" clucked over by the propaganda machine because to do so means complicity in death and war, enslaving and ruin of other peoples, which this propaganda prepares the way for. Iran and venezuela have the right to their own affairs and problems. What poisons their problems is the real and present danger of the Bush administration. They have a right to defend themselves and we create the emergency. Iran and the US were set to talk and resolve issues before Bush came in and saved Mr. A's faltering career.

[Captain Hilts]

3. No, you're being logical. I can't stand either one. nt

[Cha]

4. And bush?

That's nice that you're so in line.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

7. but BUsh is our maniac and we have to support our own. Those others are

furiners. and everything that AIPAC and Cheney and Bush and Condi say about them is 100% correct and accurate, just like they were about Iraq. trust them. really. Because this time they really are telling 100% truth. really. honestly. guaranteed. And they have yellow cake and mobile WMD trailers, and more!

[eleny]

11. Truthiness rules

[Cha]

15. Yeah?!

"I ain't buyin' it" :)

[polmaven]

27. Isn't it true that

Ahmadinejad had yellow cake in his pocket when his WMD trailer motorcade pulled up in front of the UN?

I mean, really! I can't abide either of them. They are despots and murderers. Ahmadinejad was probably accurate that there are no Homosexuals in Iran....If they are outed they are probably killed.

But, this is the United States of America, until 6 !/2 years ago the freest and most respected country in the world. I agree that President Bolinger embarrassed not only the University, but all of us with his rant. Disagreement, even vehement disagreement, does not mean we should stoop to the same level...or lower.

And you are absolutely correct. Our own government is quickly moving closer each day to the same despicable absolute rule they have spent the last few days vilifying.

[Bicoastal]

14. Ok, once again for the kids in the back--

It IS possible to despise both Bush and Bush's current enemies. Recognizing the misdeeds of one does not negate the crimes of the others.

I think Ahmadenijad is a posturing jerk and a bully. But that doesn't mean I want to bomb his country, no matter how much people on here have been trying to spin it. I haven't seen a single DU'er call for war, yet we keep getting called warmongers.

What, are we required to say NICE things about the guy just to prove we're not Neo-cons? Please.

[Cha]

32. Yeah, condescension always

works.

[0007]

56. Properly called; 'The Superciliously Indulgent Treatment' for those

who indeed act like they care about the kids in the back, 'eh?

[1932]

45. Of course it's possible. But "possibility" doesn't mean it's informed or logical.

[booley]

130. No you dont' have to say nice things about them

But my beef is the things said about them should be true.

I mean lok at the message above yours where the poster sasy that both the iranian president (damn his longand hard ot spell name!) and Chevez are murderers.

I will agree that Iran is far to eager when it comes ot the death penalty.

But who has Chavez supposedly killed? Even a lot fo the people who tried to kill him are still free. So if he's a murderer, he's not very good at it.

And also understand that while you dont' want to bomb iran, there are plenty of people who will say the things you are but also will take it that extra step and say
"...and this is why we should bomb Iran". In fact, I have already seen them start doing it. So maybe I am just in "let not bomb iran arguement" mode.

But I am getting a weird kind of deja vue. And when I see people in the media and even here on DU who cant' seem to seperate what these two have done as opposed to what the Shrub admin has claimed they have done, it begins to worry me.

[William Tannenbaum]

21. Why can't you make your own decisions

based upon what Ahmedinejad and Chavez say and by their actions?

Chavez is establishing Authoritarian one party rule and Ahmedinejad is a right wing theocrat throurh and through...but since they hate Bush and the United States, he is always excused.

[Skittles]

52. it's easy to give points for being against that bastard bush

but giving points and giving a pass are two different things

[midlife_mo_Jo]

75. Yep!

Both are scary.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

83. Nowhere near as bad as Ahmadinejad, differently bad to Chavez.

Bush has done bad things during his term, but will leave power democratically in 2008.

If Chavez left power tomorrow, his legacy would be largely positive, but there will never be another even vaguely free or fair election in Venezuela until he is gone.

Ahmadinejad makes both of them look lke Mahatma Ghandi.

[ima_sinnic]

127. FYI, elections in Venezuela have been extremely closely monitored

and found free and fair. repeatedly.

but don't let facts get in the way of your uninformed BS.

[Ken Burch]

160. You figure Ahmadinejad is BETTER than Chavez?

Chavez is loved by the Venezuelan people and is establishing locally-controlled democracy in his community. Clearly going back to a bourgeois parliament would end up being a less democratic and more conservative solution that would leave the poor out in the cold.

And Chavez is neither a Holocaust denier, an antisemitic, or any form of a bigot.

It's really not fair to put him in the same category as Iranian Stubble Boy.

[Kelly Rupert]

5. Indeed. K&R'd. n/t

[kdmorris]

8. "defend tyranny and excuse bigotry, in the name of rigid ideology"

How does that apply to Chavez?

As far as Ahmadinejad, I'm not fond of him either, but he's not a dictator (both Chavez and Ahmadinejad are ELECTED leaders)and and all the bullshit the media spouts about him is basically propaganda.

I do not wish to see that propaganda used, once again, to make America believe that we need to go to war, AGAIN.

You shame the progressive movement by not doing your own research, by listening to the news without a critical ear.

[Middle finga]

30. Bingo

[Hydra]

35. Thank you!

I'm sick of hearing propaganda as if it were fact on DU today. I thought we as a community were smarter than that!

[StClone]

63. Ignorant or planned

I agree I am so sick of the ill and uninformed that operate under the sound bytes of the "Liberal" Media.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

84. Elected =/= freely and fairly elected.

The only elections Ahmadinejad has ever won have been thoroughly rigged.

Most of the criticisms of Ahmadinejad are neither bullshit not propaganda - at least, not the ones about him wanting to see Israel destroyed, or denying the Holocaust, or claiming that there are no homosexuals in Iran, or trying to aquire nuclear weapons, or trying to increase the level of violence in Iran by arming militants, or most of the others. He really is a spectacularly nasty piece of work.

It's worth noting, though, that he's not a dictator for a rather different reason -his power is severely limited by the (unelected) Council of Guardians.

[kdmorris]

98. Links?

I never said he wasn't an ass. I don't particularly like the man.

But "wanting to see Israel destroyed, or denying the Holocaust, or claiming that there are no homosexuals in Iran, or trying to acquire nuclear weapons, or trying to increase the level of violence in Iran by arming militants, or most of the others."

Need links for that. And I need them from something that isn't an American/British media source, nor an Israeli media source. Guess he rigged the election that made him Mayor of Tehran, too? Got links for that?

Edited to add that it can't be an Iranian media source, either. They are biased as well.

[nebenaube]

10. I don't know enough about them to despise them...

I don't trust the translations and I then to examine things in context.

[rucky]

12. Should we attack them? n/t

[MadMaddie]

13. What you say may be true...

Here is the beauty of America.....let the nutcase speak because that's what we do in America isn't it?

You see the more that people like him are exposed for the nut cases they are....the more they become demystified.....the more they are shown to be nuts and out of touch, the more Americans understand he is not omnipotent as the * Administration has claimed.

Which brings me to my next point, by demystifying the "scary people" that the Repukes keep building up into these untouchable powers and we must be afraid of them....

OBL has been set up the same way....ooooh he is so scary...no...he is simply a man that can be taken out like any other man....the * Administration has chosen not to so they can use him to keep scaring the American people....Fear, Fear, Fear....Fear the Spooky, unseen man.

It's not about Supporting the Iranian Leader or OBL.....it's about supporting America and true Freedom of Speech isn't it?

Wouldn't you rather have him exposed then have Cheney ring the war bells like he and the Administration did about Sadam. In the end Sadam was a pathetic psycophath who was ushered into power and kept there by Cheney and Rumsfeld until they had no use for him.

[Rageneau]

16. Neither is as bad as Smirk.

And, IMHO, Chavez is a LOT better.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

85. Ahmadinejad is immeasurably worse, actually.

On gay rights, women's rights, crime and punishment, freedom of speach, Iraq, freedom of religion, free and fair elections, you name it...

It's merely lack of perspective that makes many American liberals claim otherwise.

[BreweryYardRat]

102. Thank you.

*claps*

[Ken Burch]

162. From what I've seen, NOBODY in the liberal wing of the party or on the left is pro-Ahmadinejad

(Even if he wasn't a bigoted asshole, the fact that it take a week to spell his last name would turn us against him).

But c'mon, Donald, it goes without saying that nobody US bombs could put into place would be an improvement.

Every government Iran will ever have will be reactionary, militarist, and anti-Israel. None of them will be worth using force to impose or defend. That's the issue.

Not that Stubble Boy is good, but that there's no alternative there that would be an improvement.

And clearly no reason to drop the bombs.

Can you seriously quarrel with the above assessment?

A bombing campaign in Iran would inevitably lead to a drawn-out ground war that would never end(like Iran and Afghanistan). It would inevitably end up with Iraqi-style tribal factions killing each other rather than try to form a democratic society or even a stable dictatorship.

Nothing good can come from bombing the place. That's all we're saying. I assume you'd agree.

[motocicleta]

17. They are both small potatoes compared with our homegrown madmen.

I do not understand why anyone should be so concerned with them.

[mitchtv]

18. How nice for you

that you are so sure of things. I am ashamed of nothing, I am a liberal. Chavez and dinnerjacket are not the same. Shame on you

[parasim]

19. So, do you support going to war with Iran?

Because that what's this all about, Isn't it? Why else would we be going through this deja-vu where all-of-a-sudden, all the papers, all the news shows, all of the politicians going on and on about the evil president of Iran? Seems to me that we just went through this a few years ago with another despot in an oil-rich Middle Eastern nation...

[LoZoccolo]

Lame. n/t

[parasim]

36. Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

... and for so thoroughly explaining why I should reconsider my position.

[onenote]

66. I don't support going to war and I think Ahmadinejad is a despotic fool

Now, I understand that you also don't support going to war. But I'm still a bit confused about what you think of Ahmadinejad. Care to fill in the blank?

[parasim]

77. Well, I certainly don't support that two-bit dictator...

But I do support letting him speak his mind. I feel that were a grown-up enough country to let these guys come and speak at our Universities. I also support everybody's right to protest his speaking there.

My concern is that the media and the politicians are building this guy up like some super-villian that is gonna take over the world. Just like they did with Saddam. Trying to get the US citizenry to pull out the torches and pitchforks and support yet another war for oil.

I didn't support Saddam either, but they did make up some thing about him that weren't true, did they not? My guess is that Ahmadinejad is about as potent as Saddam was when it comes to world conquest.

So, no, I don't like Ahmadinejad and I don't support, in any fashion, going to war with Iran.

[onenote]

89. Then we agree more than we disagree

I too had no problem with having him come and speak. The best way to deal with bigotry and hate is to expose it not hide it away. And I had no problem with Bollinger's introduction of him (a) because to get respect you need to earn it and Ahmadinejad hasn't done anything, imo, to warrant respect (he certainly doesn't treat others with respect) and (b) Bollinger spelled out quite clearly in advance (in a letter on Sep 19) exactly how he planned to handle the introduction, giving Ahmadinejad fair warning and an opportunity to find another forum if he didn't like the way Columbia was going to handle it.

[Buzz Clik]

20. Kick!

[jefferson_dem]

22. Good post.

And spot on! :thumbsup:

[Douglas Carpenter]

23. I cannot for the life of me mean imagine how you have mixed together both Ahmadinejad and Chavez

They are very different people coming from very different countries with very different systems and very different viewpoints. And to equate Venezuela under President Chavez with the Islamic Republic of Iran with President Ahmadinejad as if they are the same -- is either stunningly ignorant or patently dishonest. But then again, perhaps its neither. Maybe its just irrational and emotional.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

106. What they have in common is support on DU.

I do agree that presenting them as comparable rulers is grossly unfair to Chavez, but discussions of them on DU have far more in common than they do themselves, so I think it's legitimate to start a thread criticising both of them.

[Douglas Carpenter]

118. I have seen very few post that can be fairly interpreted as support for Ahmadinejad

Even you have said that he is not a dictator. That is hardly a statement of support.

Even those who incorrectly claim that he is not a holocaust denier are hardly advocating support for Ahmadinejad even if they are incorrectly analyzing his words.

And one can loathe Ahmadinejad but be aware that this political figure who is not the commander of Iranian Armed Forces and holds very limited power under the Iranian system is an extremely easy person to demonize in an obvious attempt by some to hype up a military attack on Iran and bring catastrophe on the region and a disaster for the American people.

And one can loathe Ahmadinejad but not loathe Chavez or every other contrived "enemy". They are not the same as you know.

Putting the two together is ludicrous. The original post is truly shameless.

[StClone]

24. So inform me what has Chavez done?

[Clintonista2]

67. Tip: Don't say anything mean about Hugo while in his country

...Or you won't be in his country very long LOL.

[Douglas Carpenter]

69. there is a large foreign media presence in Venezuela which is highly critical of Mr. Chavez

And they have a very critical and aggressive local media.

Do you have any evidence to suggest otherwise?

But would the U.S. allow a local media to openly participate in a violent coup attempt to oust the democratically elected government?

As Associated Press reporter Bart Jones put it, "Would a network that aided and abetted a coup against the government be allowed to operate in the United States? The U.S. government probably would have shut down RCTV within five minutes after a failed coup attempt — and thrown its owners in jail. Chavez’s government allowed it to continue operating for five years, and then declined to renew its 20-year license to use the public airwaves. It can still broadcast on cable or via satellite dish."

snip:"Radio, TV and newspapers remain uncensored, unfettered and unthreatened by the government. Most Venezuelan media are still controlled by the old oligarchy and are staunchly anti-Chavez."

link to full article:

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/30/1534/

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

The good people at FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) on their weekly radio program Counter Spin did a special program regarding Hugo Chavez and the media on 3 March 2006.

Here is the link for downloading or listening online:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2832

.

[Joe Chi Minh]

95. Don't spoil their fantasies.

[Clintonista2]

140. .

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6911246.stm

[ima_sinnic]

129. the facts be damned! somehow OP is privy to "inside information"

that "proves" that no foreign reporter is allowed to criticize Chavez. His case would be so much stronger if he'd share with us his sources for this alarming "fact" but apparently he feels that is not necessary, that his anonymous, uncredentialed words should be taken at face value. until he can show us the source of this information, I can only conclude that OP is "hearing voices" and can't distinguish truth from fantasy. I guess willfull ignorance is a lot easier than going to the trouble of actually educating himself.

[Clintonista2]

141. I'm not the OP, but here ya go ayways

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6911246.stm

Don't let educating yourself stand in the way of your willfull ignorance!!

[bvar22]

114. Go read up on Venezuela.

Venezuela has a strong opposition party (unlike the US).
Chavez has defeated them several times in open and fair elections (Unlike the US).
Much of the Venezuelan Media is openly critical of Chavez.

Is your support for Hillary as UnReality Based as your opposition to Chavez?

[Clintonista2]

142. Last I checked, "foreigners" wouldn't include the venezualan opposition party or media

Don't let the facts stand in your way, though :D

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6911246.stm

[bvar22]

143. A bit disingenuous, n'est-ce pas?

Did you read the article you linked?

No one has been expelled from Venezuela for criticizing Chavez. Chavez, in an informal radio address, was reacting to a speech delivered by Manuel Espino, president of Mexico's ruling National Action Party, who called Chavez a "dictator" and a "tyrant" and called for Chavez to be overthrown. This in spite of the fact that Chavez has been elected and re-elected by overwhelming majorities in open and fair elections.

Again, there have been NO foreigners expelled from Venezuela for criticizing Chavez. NONE, ZIP, Zilch, ZERO, NADA.
Representatives of Foreign Governments using public forums to spread lies about the duly elected and overwhelmingly popular Democratic governments are generally not tolerated in ANY country in the World.

I have lived & worked in Venezuela. As a guest in their country, I felt it would be RUDE to attack ANY citizen's political beliefs and voting preferences, and avoided political discussions. Instead, I enjoyed their warm hospitality.

Venezuela belongs to Venezuelans. Their political preferences are NONE OF OUR BUSINESS!


On Edit:
BTW, Did you see Eva Morales last night?

[Clintonista2]

154. There are no gays in Iran, either

Do you believe everything you're told by the state? And no, I didn't watch the daily show last night.

[ima_sinnic]

128. links?

please share with the rest of us this troubling fact that seems to have been overlooked for years by the rest of the world. your secret knowledge is astounding.

[Clintonista2]

139. Here ya go

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6911246.stm

BTW, I wouldn't call the bbc part of the MSM, would you?

[unkachuck]

25. shame and despise....

....are very strong words when I think progressives, Ahmadinejad and Chavez are simply being misunderstood....remember, nobody's perfect and we've all fallen short of the glory....

....with a little time and understanding you may oneday come to see the good in all people....except, corporatists....

[abq e streeter]

26. Good to know I'm not alone

[Cybergata]

29. Where do you get your news about Chávez?

The U.S. media does everything in its power to discredit him, but have you read anything that comes out of Latin America about him? I absolutely do not trust the U.S. government or media to tell me the truth.

I would hardly call Chávez a tyrant. It seems that he is very popular with the poor of Venezuela, especially since they refused to except the coup d'état by the wealthy class of Venezuela. Our government hates him because he won't let us get a hold of the oil in Venezuela. The U.S. has a very bad history of backing tyrants in Latin America in order to protect American Corporate interest and their exploiting the people and resources of Latin America. They have backed and supported the overthrow of democratically elected leaders. Chávez has the backing by the majority of the people in Venezuela, and he has tried to reform the terrible imbalance of wealth and power that has been the norm in Latin America.

There are more sides to this issue than our media will ever cover, so if your opinion is formed on what you've read or heard in this country, then you opinion is based on very bias and slanted opinions that come out of our government. I've heard good things and bad things about Chávez from people from Venezuela. The bad things came from the well-to-do, and the good things from the poor. I reserve an absolute opinion on him until I know more about what is actually going on Venezuela. I believe they have the right to determine who leads them and who can use their resources. This really is an un-American ideal, since our history has been to exploit and use and get what we want in Latin America without consideration of who we screw over.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

73. I know where I get my news

I get my news from family members who left Venezuela.

And, NO!, they weren't rich. They worked hard to build up a small family business, but left everything behind because they didn't want the next generation to live under the next Castro.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

74. deleted - posted in wrong place nt

nt

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

137. I'm sorry your family members were bamboozled by the RW ooga booga doomsayers. -nt

[abq e streeter]

135. Hi Cyber-g

I've read a lot of pro and con re: Chavez; if anything more pro, from people like Greg Palast... He wouldn't be the first power-mad, egomaniac, aspiring dictator who did good things for the poor and was revered by many of them. As you know, I am much more aware than most Americans of our shameful history of meddling (to put it politely) in Latin America, as well as knowing what a crock most mainstream media has become. But from what I've seen, my characterizations of him at the beginning of my reply have some validity. Also, to any DUers reading this exchange---Cybergata once kidnapped my stuffed doggie and held it hostage until I brought her chocolate. ( Yes this actually happened---see what cruel, heartless people liberals are?)). The stress and heartache caused by this act of greed and cruelty has caused untold suffering within my soul ever since. See ya at work next monday Cyber-g...

[Cybergata]

149. I won't put Chávez in the same . . .

sentence with that awful man, Ahmadinejad.

BTW, you left that dog with his butt sticking out of your mailbox. Anyone could have taken it, so in a way I was saving it for you, plus I really needed chocolate that day.

[aquart]

31. Ah, moral superiority.

Not a bit rigid. Absolutely flaccid, in fact.

[democratsin08]

33. i agree with you

the world would be better off if both these dictators were gone

[MLFerrell]

34. I despise those who despise some of what I don't despise...

That's what I'm hearing from the likes of you and your ilk.

How about stopping the hatred and trying to see through non-American (or Canadian, or British, or Aussie, etc.) eyes?

I'm not going to debate what I offer, because I don't care enough to waste my time more than is required to pose my insight.

[William769]

37. Cheers to you ruggerson.

:toast:

[Joe the Revelator]

42. They are both bad men...

one is just a little more charming then the other. Neither deserve respect.

[beaconess]

38. The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend . . .

[MADem]

39. I'm not a fan either.

Most people aren't.

You'll find that most people who slavishly cheer have never lived under the boot. Of course, to be fair to the Midget Mayor of Teheran, he's just a mouthpiece, a puppet, for the Supreme Leader and the Guardian Council. They pull the string, and that fool jumps.

This website, or at least the more vocal element of it, is a bit left of the mainstream. That's not a bad thing, it just is what it is.

[nashville_brook]

40. conformity is the new radicalism

[tinfoil tiaras]

41. Thank you for posting this

I agree 100%
K&R

[zulchzulu]

43. So what's the solution? Kill them?

They are both elected by their own people. Personally, I don't really trust either of them that much on some levels, but it's not in America's interest to kill them off. They'll meet their match soon enough.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

76. Kill them? No!

But, I don't admire Chavez, for instance, the way so many here do. If the people of Venezuela want him, fine. I do hope they like him a lot, because I don't see him ever leaving office. He's the new Castro.

[1932]

44. Conflating those two reveals an incredible ignorance, in my opinion.

[Joe Chi Minh]

96. Somehow I don't think they are economic liberals and that that is what this is about.

[ProudDad]

119. Ignorance is not the sole province

of republicans...

obviously...

The OP displays an immense amount of that not so rare quantity...

Viva Chavez. Viva Fidel. Viva Morales.

They are the hope for humanity -- not the tired, fascist Empire of the North...

[bvar22]

46. Chavez:

Using the profits from Venezuela's natural resources to:

*Feed the Hungry

*Educate the Ignorant

*Heal the Sick

*Clothe the Impoverished

*Shelter the Homeless

*Give voice to the disenfranchised


Yes.
I can see why some "despise" Chavez.

[killbotfactory]

47. What you see is a propaganda blitz against both men.

Funny how the media by and large never tells us about the numerous human rights violations in our ally countries. The reason is because no one in charge of things in this country really gives a fuck. It's all propaganda. Our own version of the two minutes hate. Usually in order to justify some new war they are cooking up. By highlighting human rights abuses, sometimes imaginary, they hope to discredit anyone who looks the new enemy on the horizon and thinks "wait a minute, this isn't right..." and refuses to go along with the propaganda and conventional wisdom it creates. It looks like it's working, since you feel people who don't buy into the demonization of these certain foreign leaders are shaming the progressive movement.

[Skittles]

51. I don't listen to what the mainstream media tells me, I know they are full of shit

I came to the conclusion from research

[incapsulated]

48. Amen

:toast:

[Robert Murphy]

49. Amen Indeed

Thank you Ruggerson, for bringing some focus on to what has been a pathetic (for years) weakness of we liberals: apologism for tyrannical regimes, as long as they pay lip service to what you aptly describe as a "rigid ideology."

Two years ago I posted on this board my feelings about Chavez: "irresponsible demagogue" were the clumsy words I used to describe him. No, I honestly am not resentful, but I recall that a fusillade of criticism followed. (E.g. "look somewhere else to post your right-wing crap.") Well, now the SOB is beginning to show his true colors; he has shutdown an independent network which was critical of his suppression of civil liberties; et al. actions by this autocrat. He has moved to change Venezuela's constitution in order to allow him to keep his power for an indefinite period. (E.g. Life?) News flash: fellow liberals, just because some jack off is opposed to the worst president in our history, doesn't make him a gallant man.

The U.S. left got wise about Stalin shortly after WWII; the European left took shamefully far longer; many remained apologists for all of the oppression in the Soviet Union until well into the 1970s.

Yes, Ruggerson: those who I hope are tiny minority do indeed shame the progressive movement and themselves.

The GOP has the major market share on hypocrisy, but they have yet to establish a monopoly. Let us liberals allow them to corner the market, so to speak.

Robert

[Douglas Carpenter]

55. would the U.S. relicense a T.V. station that lead a violent coup against the democratically elected

government? Would any democracy license any broadcast system that lead a violent military coup against the democratically elected government? That was pretty much the extent of the punishment Chavez's government meted out to those who plotted against Venezuelan democracy. And I might add that as soon as the coup plotters seized power they immediately suspended the constitution, seized control of the entire media, imposed total censorship on the media, dismissed the entire democratically elected assembly and dismissed the constitutional judiciary.

So I just don't see how on earth refusing to renew the license against leading anti-democratic coup plotters constitutes authoritarianism.

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

The good people at FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) on their weekly radio program Counter Spin did a special program regarding Hugo Chavez and the media on 3 March 2006.

Here is the link for downloading or listening online:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2832

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


link:

http://mondediplo.com/2002/08/10venezuela

snip: "Never even in Latin American history has the media been so directly involved in a political coup. Venezuela’s ’hate media’ controls 95% of the airwaves and has a near-monopoly over newsprint, and it played a major part in the failed attempt to overthrow the president, Hugo Chavez, in April. Although tensions in the country could easily spill into civil war, the media is still directly encouraging dissident elements to overthrow the democratically elected president - if necessary by force."

snip:

"After Chavez came to power in 1998, the five main privately owned channels - Venevisión, Radio Caracas Televisión (RCTV), Globovisión and CMT - and nine of the 10 major national newspapers, including El Universal, El Nacional, Tal Cual, El Impulso, El Nuevo País, and El Mundo, have taken over the role of the traditional political parties, which were damaged by the president’s electoral victories. Their monopoly on information has put them in a strong position. They give the opposition support, only rarely reporting government statements and never mentioning its large majority, despite that majority’s confirmation at the ballot box. They have always described the working class districts as a red zone inhabited by dangerous classes of ignorant people and delinquents. No doubt considering them unphotogenic, they ignore working class leaders and organizations."

snip: ""Take to the streets" thundered El Nacional on 10 April (in an unattributed editorial). "Ni un paso atrás! (not one step backwards)" responded the hoardings on Globovisión. Another TV company broadcast: "Venezuelans, take to the streets on Thursday 11 April at 10am. Bring your flags. For freedom and democracy. Venezuela will not surrender. No one will defeat us." The call to overthrow the head of state became so obvious that the government applied Article 192 of the telecommunications law. More than 30 times -for all television and radio channels - it requisitioned 15-20 minutes’ air time to broadcast its views. But the broadcasters divided the screen in two and continued to urge rebellion."
__________________


I would be very suspicious of all this U.S. media concern about Chavez's human rights record which incidentally has improved dramatically since his government took office. And for the record Chavez's record with any credible, independent human rights groups is no worse and probably not as bad as the U.S. and many other western democracies and far worse than that of the leading recipients of U.S. Aid.

http://www.globalissues.org/HumanRights/Media/Propaganda/Venezuela.asp

"Reporting on the ongoing issues, such as the protests and Chavez’s economic policies in Venezuela have shown similar signs of one-sidedness, from both the mainstream media of western countries such as the U.S. and U.K., and from Venezuela’s own elite anti-Chavez media, which “controls 95% of the airwaves and has a near-monopoly over newsprint, and ... played a major part in the failed attempt to overthrow the president, Hugo Chavez, in April 2002.... The media is still directly encouraging dissident elements to overthrow the democratically elected president — if necessary by force.”

------

As I mentioned above if Venezuela's leading export was bananas and snow peas -- we wouldn't be hearing a word about him - right or wrong, good or bad:

Let's compare his record to the largest recipients of U.S. aid
Here are the three largest recipient of U.S. aid (after Iraq) in order. Feel free to compare them with Chavez's record which is not perfect but a lot better than any of these three.

link for Venezuela: http://hrw.org/doc/?t=americas&c=venezu

1. Israel - link:

http://hrw.org/doc?t=mideast&c=isrlpa

2. Egypt - link:

http://hrw.org/doc?t=mideast&c=egypt

3. Colombia - link:

http://hrw.org/doc?t=americas&c=colomb


and here is the report on the U.S.'s own human rights record:

http://hrw.org/doc/?t=usa
__________________________

Also the good people at FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) on their weekly radio program Counter Spin did a special program regarding Hugo Chavez and the media on 3 March 2006.

Here is the link for downloading or listening online:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2832

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



Amazon link:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1560257733/sr=1-1/qid=1145697377/ref=sr_1_1/002-1846545-3744063?%5Fencoding=UTF8&s=books

[Douglas Carpenter]

68. and this from Associated Press Reporter Bart Jones

"Bart Jones spent eight years in Venezuela, mainly as a foreign correspondent for the Associated Press, and is the author of the forthcoming book “Hugo! The Hugo Chavez Story, From Mud Hut to Perpetual"

link: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/30/1534/

"Would a network that aided and abetted a coup against the government be allowed to operate in the United States? The U.S. government probably would have shut down RCTV within five minutes after a failed coup attempt — and thrown its owners in jail. Chavez’s government allowed it to continue operating for five years, and then declined to renew its 20-year license to use the public airwaves. It can still broadcast on cable or via satellite dish.

Granier and others should not be seen as free-speech martyrs. Radio, TV and newspapers remain uncensored, unfettered and unthreatened by the government. Most Venezuelan media are still controlled by the old oligarchy and are staunchly anti-Chavez.

If Granier had not decided to try to oust the country’s president, Venezuelans might still be able to look forward to more broadcasts of “Radio Rochela.” "

link to read full article:

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/30/1534/

_________________________

Chavez Remains Far from a Dictator
by Bart Jones

link: http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0215-27.htm

"Likewise, Chavez is not creating a single-party state as widely reported but is melding together an amorphous array of parties that support him. He is not outlawing opposition parties. He has no need to, as he showed when he glided to a record landslide victory in the Dec. 5 presidential vote by a 63-37 percent margin in a free and fair election. Chavez also is not nationalizing the entire economy without compensation to companies, as Castro did in the early days of the Cuban Revolution, but rather is buying back a few key strategic utilities such as the CANTV telecommunications company or taking a majority government share in four oil projects.

While the government has generally compensated owners at fair market value when it has taken over properties or businesses in the past, Chavez said that with CANTV it would deduct debts to workers, pensions and other obligations, including a “technological debt” to the state. Of course, the jury also is out over whether Venezuela’s government can run the nationalized companies better than the private sector did. Chavez also has taken other steps that are cause for concern. His decision to seek the power to rule by decree on certain matters for the next 18 months raises a red flag, along with his expressed desire to eliminate term limits. The world should remain vigilant to ensure that a free press, a free political system and a mixed economy where property rights are respected remain in place in Venezuela.

If Chavez infringes on any of these rights, it should be vigorously protested and condemned. But so far it hasn’t happened. "

link to read full article:

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0215-27.htm


.

[killbotfactory]

90. The closest Venezuela ever came to dictatorship under Chavez

was when the US-backed coup leaders seized power and threw the constitution out the window (or at least, they tried to). Yet, according to many here on DU (and no thanks to the generally shallow coverage of Chavez in the media), the ultimate tyranny in all this is that a television station who participated in the coup gets kicked off public airwaves and on to cable and satellite.

[ima_sinnic]

50. wow! what a wise, well-informed, deeply researched point of view

NOT

since I learned a long time ago that * et al. are professional self-serving liars who never waste an opportunity to distort, twist, fabricate, exaggerate, and just make things up, why should I believe ANYthing they tell me about either one of the people you mention? And your irrational, uninformed, misguided "hatred" of Chavez is particularly telling of your lack of independent research or even desire to learn the truth. People who not only buy the spin of known con artists but also disseminate it shame the progressive movement and shame themselves.

[Robert Murphy]

53. Erp?

Mr.(Ms.?) Sinnic:

Uhm, perhaps I am misusing the term 'et al.' here; in the strictest sense it means 'and others,' i.e. in re persons, not things, actions, etc. (Anyone correct away if I am wrong here...) But who are you exactly referring to as "* et al.?"

But, uhm, with all due respect Mr. Sinnic, can you point me to any links/cite any facts which contradict what I have posted? That isn't a rhetorical question Bro(Sis?); I would be interested in where you are getting your information, and would certainly give it fair consideration.


Very Respectfully,

Robert

P.S. I DO NOT hate Chavez; I do not hate anybody. I may have considerable contempt for the man, but I DO NOT hate him.

[ima_sinnic]

57. um, you might notice that my post was a reply to the OP, not yours

mine simply follows yours but if you look in the top right corner of my post (or at the "overview" of the thread), you will see mine is a reply to the Original Message.

Since you asked "*" is a common way here at DU to refer to he-who-shall-remain-nameless-because-we-despise-him-so-much-his-name-shall-not-be-uttered-by-our-lips -- it also serves the purpose of being invisible to bots that scan message boards for subversive references to the fraudulent little turd currently fouling up the Wh1te H0u$e.

"et al." does indeed mean "and all"; i.e., * et al. means * and all of his goons, cronies, and payola-grubbing, @$$-kissing, greedhead slimeball politician friends and connections thru * Sr. who have bailed out his worthless @$$ ever since he was a rugrat.

Also since you asked, your depiction of Chavez is expectably distorted. He didn't "shut down an independent network that was critical of his suppression of civil liberties." For you to say that just proves either that you are not paying attention or that you wish to spew ridiculous propaganda. He chose not to renew the license of a network that was not in the public interest, that had been tolerated for several years while doing everything in its power to subvert his administration and openly call for his overthrow. Please get your facts straight. The FCC has also declined to renew broadcast licenses from time to time because of violations of licensing requirements. Why have licenses if their criteria do not have to be adhered to? If a station here in the U.S.--let's say NBC (which I know is unrealistic, but just to give an example) started calling 24/7 for *'s 0verthr0w/a@@a@@1nat1on -- do you think they would keep their license for long? would that be "tyrannical"?

Chavez is not doing anything that is not written into their constitution. He has proposed an end to term limits. If the people approve it, what of it? That is their choice. We didn't have term limits either, until FDR won 4 elections in a row, ending his presidency only because he died in 1945--the usual conservative shitbags, whose ONLY concern in life is profit, despised him for the Social Security and other New Deal programs and made sure to get a term limits amendment that would prevent any such "socialist" from "taking over" again--of course this has backfired on them since they would have wished Saints Ronnie & Ge0rge Jr. could be president for life (in fact, there have been rumblings in their camp of doing away with term limits and even open tyranny so one of their greedhead monsters could take over once and for all). Unlike Stalin, Chavez has worked tirelessly and selflessly for the poorest, neediest, and most vulnerable in Venezuela. He has turned that country's oil profits into beneficial social programs.

I don't admire Chavez because he is "an enemy of my enemy"; I admire him because he is a true progressive, he IS "of The People"; he is innovative. He is also courageous and a showman.

I will look for your links about Chavez's "oppression" of the Venezuelan people. In the meantime, I expect crickets chirping for an indefinite period because that is just so much empty, unfounded BLATHER.

[Robert Murphy]

115. Danke

A fair reply Mr.(?) Sinnic, but--again, with all due respect--to be honest I have to say that your contentions smack of apologism, IMHO. Believe me, I share your contempt for the Bush gang(sters), and I hope to God I am wrong and you are right in re Chavez, but while your response certainly informs my opinion, I'm afraid it does not change it.

Cheers,

Robert

[mhatrw]

54. Shame! Shame! All Must Join the Two Minutes of Hate! n/t

[Trajan]

58. The Iranian leaders pronouncements against Israel ....

Are pretty awful .... especially his denial of the Holocaust ....

Holocaust deniers are usually ROUNDLY despised by Liberals .... I see no reason to change that now ....

He is also a bona fide religious conservative ..... What is there to love ?

[Greyhound]

71. So true the whole community seems to have overlooked the fact that he

is hated and powerless in his own country.

He is reprehensible, but insignificant.

...and he sets my gaydar off.:rofl:

[mhatrw]

80. Yes, the whole corporate media community has forgotten that.

Along with the entire recent history of Iran: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran

In summer of 1941 Britain and the USSR invaded Iran to prevent Iran from allying with the Axis powers. The Allies occupied Iran, securing a supply line to Russia, Iran's petroleum infrastructure, and forced the Shah to abdicate in favor of his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. In 1951, a nationalist politician, Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh rose to prominence in Iran and was elected Prime Minister. As Prime Minister, Mossadegh became enormously popular in Iran by nationalizing the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (later British Petroleum, BP) which controlled the country's oil reserves. In response, Britain embargoed Iranian oil and began plotting to depose Mossadegh. Members of the British Intelligence Service invited the United States to join them, convincing U.S. President Eisenhower that Mossadegh was reliant on the Tudeh (Communist) Party to stay in power. In 1953, President Eisenhower authorized Operation Ajax, and the CIA took the lead in overthrowing Mossadegh and supporting a U.S.-friendly monarch; and for which the U.S. Government apologized in 2000.<53>

The CIA faced many setbacks, but the covert operation soon went into full swing, conducted from the U.S. Embassy in Tehran under the leadership of Kermit Roosevelt, Jr. Iranians were hired to protest Mossadegh and fight pro-Mossadegh demonstrators. Anti- and pro-monarchy protestors violently clashed in the streets, leaving almost three hundred dead. The operation was successful in triggering a coup, and within days, pro-Shah tanks stormed the capital and bombarded the Prime Minister's residence. Mossadegh surrendered, and was arrested on 19 August 1953. He was tried for treason, and sentenced to three years in prison.

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi returned to power greatly strengthened and his rule became increasingly autocratic in the following years. With strong support from the U.S. and U.K., the Shah further modernized Iranian industry, but simultaneously crushed all forms of political opposition with his intelligence agency, SAVAK. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini became an active critic of the Shah's White Revolution and publicly denounced the government. Khomeini, who was popular in religious circles, was arrested and imprisoned for 18 months. After his release in 1964, Khomeini publicly criticized the United States government. The Shah was persuaded to send him into exile by General Hassan Pakravan. Khomeini was sent first to Turkey, then to Iraq and finally to France. While in exile, he continued to denounce the Shah.

The revolution began in January 1978 with the first major demonstrations against the Shah.<58> After strikes and demonstrations paralyzed the country, the Shah fled the country in January 1979. On February 1, 1979 Ayatollah Khomeini returned from exile to Tehran, enthusiastically greeted by millions of Iranians.<59> The Pahlavi dynasty collapsed ten days later on February 11 when Iran's military declared itself "neutral" after guerrillas and rebel troops overwhelmed troops loyal to the Shah in armed street fighting. Iran officially became an Islamic Republic on April 1, 1979 when Iranians overwhelmingly approved a national referendum to make it so.<60> In December 1979 the country approved a theocratic constitution, whereby Khomeini became Supreme Leader of the country. The speed and success of the revolution surprised many throughout the world,<61> as it had not been precipitated by a military defeat, a financial crisis, or a peasant rebellion.<62> It produced profound change at great speed.<63> It overthrew a regime thought to be heavily protected by a lavishly financed army and security services.<64><65> And it replaced a monarchy with a theocracy based on Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists (or velayat-e faqih). Although both nationalists and Marxists joined with Islamic traditionalists to overthrow the Shah, it ultimately resulted in an Islamic Republic "under the guidance of an 80-year-old exiled religious scholar from Qom," Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.<66>

[Greyhound]

81. Hmm, what other middle eastern country does pre-revolutionary Iran sound like? n/t

[mhatrw]

79. And Chavez?

I refuse to participate in the scheduled two minutes of hate just because a typical redneck religious conservative from Iran is visiting the United States. Does my resistance shock you? Is Big Brother going to have to re-educate me or something?

By the way, I condemn the Holocaust, love Judaism and am disturbed by theocracy. I simply refuse to join the scheduled two minutes of hate this time around because I've been fooled too many times in the past (savages, uppity negroes, commies, gooks, wetbacks, etc.).

http://www.prwatch.org/books/tsigfy10.html

Wirthlin's job, Alsop explained, was "to identify the messages that really resonate emotionally with the American people." The theme that struck the deepest emotional chord, they discovered, was "the fact that Saddam Hussein was a madman who had committed atrocities even against his own people, and had tremendous power to do further damage, and he needed to be stopped."

[Trajan]

113. I have less to worry about Chavez ....

I take the other DU Defenders of him at their solemn word that Chavez is mischaracterized by the MSM, and that he is not a dictator-in-training, as depicted .....

It should be noted, however, that those defenders should be held to account if Chavez becomes a bona fide 'Papa Doc' Chavez ..... I see him doing some good for his people, but I am ever wary of any claim to greatness on anyone's behalf ....

As far as the 'Two Minutes Hate' thingy: I have always disliked religious conservatives ... Not just in the last two minutes ..... The fact that the issue is current in the news brings it to the fore, not a desire to participate in a public display of hatred ....

Perhaps someone might be inclined to ignore his 'problems' because the media have made a spectacle of the whole affair, through a concern of being associated with the frenzied mob of declamation ... But would that purposeful ignorance be proper ? .... I don't think it would be proper ....

One could sidestep the mob and STILL recognize the significance of the problem ....

[Mass]

59. Yes , but there are many, many leaders in the world that have as many flaws.

The only reason the media cares is because Iran and Venezuela intend to pursue a policy that goes against the interest of the big multinational companies and are trying to strengthen their country (in Iran, BTW, Ahmadinejad is a relatively weak character and there are many, many, other players. But the media focuses on him because it reinforces their meme that Iran is the big, bad wolf.)

[Yael]

60. Amen. K & R

[lojasmo]

61. I think you're engaging in ignorant McCarthyism. EOM

[NoFederales]

62. The puzzlement for me is how DUers cherry pick their love/hate

for Ahmadinejad and Chavez: "they" cheer when a foreign leader calls out Bush for the idiot he is, as well as the failed policies; "they" hiss when the Jews hold up the appropo placard, or at the mullahs, and whomever is decried the foul flavor of the day?

The very things that people say they hate about Ahmadinejad can be aimed accurately at Bush, but the coward Bush has never stood before a hostile crowd, audience, or presser to answer unvetted questions. Ahmadinejad and Bush are both ridiculous leaders and heinous souls who never should have been entrusted with political power. At least Ahmadinejad has courage--he walks into the lion's den and spits in its face. I cannot get mad at Ahmadinejad for his prescence to confront the hatred of so many, especially when the hatred of the "so many" fail to give likewise treatment to their Bush gods.

NoFederales

[stimbox]

64. Two Minutes Hate

"The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part, but that it was impossible to avoid joining in. Within thirty seconds any pretense was always unnecessary. A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledge hammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one's will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic. And yet the rage that one felt was an abstract, undirected emotion which could be switched from one object to another like the flame of a blowlamp."

[cobalt1999]

65. You are in line with the vast majority

Although the minority is extremely vocal.

I'm against Theocracies and Dictatorships on principle.

[smiley_glad_hands]

72. K&R

Chavez is walking a very fine line to tyranny. Ahmadinejad is just a puppet for the religious fascists that run that country.

[Saboburns]

78. Only those that can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities

Voltaire.


Refuse the absurd propaganda.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

82. I despise Ahmadinejad, I don't like Chavez.

Ahmadinejad is an estraordinarily bad ruler - the attempts by many DUers to suggest that he's comparable to merely awful leaders like Bush show terrifying lack of perspective.

Chavez, by contrast, is a tupenny-hapenny South American socialist autocrat, who's doing some good things but in a bad way that will do more harm than good in the long term. If he left power tomorrow, his legacy would be largely positive, but unfortunately he's made it clear that he has no intention of ever allowing another free or fair election in Venezuela until he wants to retire. He's merely a bad ruler.

[Solon]

86. Question...

he's made it clear that he has no intention of ever allowing another free or fair election in Venezuela until he wants to retire.

Do you have a source for this?

[Solon]

92. no response? Why am I not surprised?

:eyes:

[Posteritatis]

107. What, in that massive ninety-minute gulf? (nt)

[mhatrw]

87. In what manner is Ahmadinejad a "ruler"?

What does he rule?

[ProudDad]

120. C'mon, I know you

you don't like Chavez because he's a Socialist.

The rest of that bullshit you've posted about him is untrue and you know it...

You're afraid that your little capitalist paradise will be turned upside down by a bunch of indigenous folks from way down South...

[Donald Ian Rankin]

132. You, sir, are an out-and-out lier.

You don't know me, you are entirely wrong about my reasons for disliking Chavez, and your post is both absurd and insulting, as I'm sure it was intended to be.

Saying that you know my motivations is not merely a mistake, it is a lie. I don't use the alert button, but this post sorely tempted me.

I dislike Chavez for precisely the reasons that I have repeatedly stated - that he is ensuring that future elections fought in Venezuela will not be free or fair. If you are even vaguely aquainted with my previous posts on Chavez, you'll see that I've repeatedly stated that I approve of many of his specific reforms, and that if he left power tomorrow I think his legacy would be largely positive.

I would suggest that an apology is in order.

[ProudDad]

146. I apologize

I was out of line in that post.

[Cybergata]

150. Don't forget, not only is he a Socialist, but . . .

he has a brown face. Oh my, oh dear, there is nothing more fearful than a brown face in power. :sarcasm:

Everyone will claim they aren't prejudice in this country, but pull out the immigration debate, and the fear of brown faces shines right through their so called rational debates.

[question everything]

88. Thank you, thank you!

During the past year I felt very much alone in pointing out that Chavez was no friend of liberals believing in freedom of speech and of criticism.

It is really sad that on DU, anyone who criticizes Bush and the US is being hailed and admired, even when that person is a small dictator - yes, even though he was elected - who sees his mission to curb the freedom of his own people.

On the other hand, there are many DUers who refer to our country as fascist, police state, etc., not realizing that were this the true, forums of free expression like DU would not exist and most of us and any criticism would land us in jail.

[Solon]

91. See, its shit posts like this that I can't stand...

and the OP is included, first, in conflates two very different countries, one a democracy, one a theocracy. Second, EVERY post bitching about Chavez isn't based on facts, but rhetoric. I find it hard to take ANY of you seriously, when Venezuela has more free speech than most of Europe and even the United States. What other democratic nation on the face of the planet can broadcast DEATH THREATS against the sitting President and get away with it?

[ProudDad]

121. I do wish you know-nothings could get your facts straight

but I guess you wouldn't be know-nothings any more if you did.

The Government of Venezuela denied a renewal of the BROADCAST LICENSE of a media corporation that was one of the main coup supporters and plotters!

That fascist group of pornographers are STILL IN BUSINESS -- on the cable.

"who sees his mission to curb the freedom of his own people" and this displays a level of ignorance of the man, his mission and his actual ACTS that borders on the insane...

Step away from the Faux News and its ilk...it's rotting your brain...

[Solon]

93. Why are you conflating the two at all except as flamebait?

Seriously, I've never seen posts so full of shit as those concerning Chavez, Ahmadinejad is an asshole who is, at best, a figurehead for the mullahs who "advise" his nation, so he's not even all that popular in his own country, and wasn't fairly elected either. Then we have Chavez, who was elected fairly, multiple times, is popular, and is actually a "middle of the roader" in his own damned country, yet the demonization of him continues. It makes no sense to antagonize such a popular, elected, leader of a nation that provides us with a vital resource unless we simply don't value democracy at all. Seriously, if you have a problem with Chavez, then actually write down what policies you don't like, don't make shit up, it demeans you.

[ProudDad]

122. Because the OP is conflating the two as flamebait

I'm afraid it worked...

the twit got 29 votes...

[ima_sinnic]

134. Solon was addressing his post to the OP (nt)

[Joe Chi Minh]

94. How interesting.

[Progressive Friend]

97. You are in line with the corporate media and Bush

How "progressive" of you.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

105. I think the sky is blue and water is wet, too.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

[liberalsoldier5]

99. Rock on! k&r

We are in the majority of the party of FDR & JFK, no doubt about it. I agree with every word you said. Thank you.

[ProudDad]

123. Yep, FDR was itching to get into WW TWO

to finish ending the Depression...

And Kennedy ok'd the Bay of Pigs and many other war crimes...

Worthy bedfellow for the OP...

[FuJun]

101. Sorry, but your wrong...

To the poor of Venezuela, President Chavez is a hero, and their opinion means more to me than yours.

[Judi Lynn]

104. Absolutely right, FuJun. They have loved him longer than he has been

in office, by years!

Their memory goes as far back as 1989 when their President Carlos Andres Perez (friend of the Venezuelan oligarchy) screwed them so badly they couldn't even afford transportation any longer, and ran into the streets to protest, only to have Carlos Andres Perez have his men fire directly into the crowds of people.

The massacre was named "El Caracazo," which you probably know and one of the men who stood against Carlos Andres Perez was Hugo Chavez. They will NEVER forget that.

Carlos Andres Perez was impeached for massive corruption, yet still remains the darling of the racist Venezuelan oligarchy to this day (which hates and fears the darker poor), and maintains homes in the U.S., a friend of the U.S. right wingers.

Welcome to D.U.! :hi: :hi: :hi:

[dugggy]

109. Soon everyone in Venezuela will be poor just like in Cuba

and then Chavez will get even more love!

[killbotfactory]

116. Almost everyone in Venezuela WAS poor

They had an 80% poverty rate before Chavez was elected.

I'm sure Venezuelans just can't wait to oust Chavez and go back to crass exploitation and poverty.

[Clanfear]

145. it was 42% when Chavez came into office.

It is now around 37% of the country living in poverty. That is households. As far as population it was roughly 50% when he entered office and is now roughly 44%.

[killbotfactory]

148. According to this, the number of people below the poverty line was at 60%

http://www.rethinkvenezuela.com/downloads/ceprpov.htm

That also ignore benefits provided to poor people, like education and health care, which this doesn't take into account.

Unemployment is also at an eight year low
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=aCwKpgiCRX10&refer=news

[ProudDad]

124. You're just jealous

'cause the poor in Venezuela have health care now under Chavez...

[ima_sinnic]

136. so the Cubans aren't poor because of our ridiculous & unjust embargo?

what good neighbors we are!
what "Christians"!!
The People in Cuba, a tiny island and one of our closest neighbors, rise up and throw off a US-backed dictator and set up their own system and we think we should punish them for that for more than 40 years. Americans need to get over themselves and give back what they have stolen from the rest of the world. They also need to become better educated. As world citizens they are severely lacking in insight, compassion, tolerance, and much of anything. Ugly Americans will continue to be an apropos description of the ignorant American busybodies who like to "spread democracy" at the barrel of a gun while raping, looting, and plundering and lying about the institutions and leaders of countries that have the audacity to seek their own way of life.

[dugggy]

152. no no I agree on your policy towards Cuba

but my main point is that a communist/socialist country such as
Cuba is destined to stay poor. Look at East Germany Vs. West Germany.
Identical people, identical language, identical heritage & culture.
Yet East Germany was so much more poor compared to West Germany. The
only difference? One was communist/socialist other was capitalist
democracy.

[BreweryYardRat]

103. Yes. THANK you.

I guarantee you that half of the people supporting either man are idiots and/or full of shit, and the other half are (possibly paid) RW trolls.

Chavez used to have good intentions, but power's corrupted him. Ahmadinejad has never been anything but scum.

And let me quote another poster on this same issue:

“Too many people have the mindset that ‘the enemy of my enemy must be my friend,’ i.e., anybody who criticizes Bush must be one of the ‘good guys.’”

[ProudDad]

125. "power's corrupted him"

And by what magic have you come to that conclusion?

Where's your proof...other than the RW spin machine in USAmerica?

You knee-jerk anti-Chavistas are laughable... :rofl:

[ima_sinnic]

133. show me ONE poster who believes "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"

--and just how has power "corrupted" Chavez?
He has turned the oil profits of that country to the benefit of the people, particularly the poorest. OOOOH--that is SOOO CORRUPT!!
In fact, he cannot be "bought off," which is the definition of corruption.
He has done NOTHING that is either not in their country's constitution or without appealing to the voters. He has done nothing dictatorial. For the first time in a long time, Venezuelans are running Venezuela. Yet there are those mindless ones who feel the need to unthinkingly parrot the corporate media and the corrupt professional liars who run our own country.

[Cybergata]

151. Bravo! n/t

[dugggy]

108. Bingo - Bingo - Bingo

Agrees with my sentiments 100%

[Ken Burch]

161. And Hillary is the next president...yeah we know....sheeesshhh...

:eyes:

Obviously you want Latin America to have the kind of leaders that it had in the Nineties...photogenic yuppies who shat on the poor.

That's what "centrists" are down there.

[SOS]

110. The shame is harping on

Cuba, Venezuela and Iran while utterly ignoring the human rights horrors of Equatorial Guinea, Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan.

Are we serious about human rights?
Or do we just react to whatever the corporate media hurls at us?

[ProudDad]

147. Don't forget the belly of the beast

the heart of the Empire...

The human rights violations of the United States of America.

The others' pale by comparison...

[killbotfactory]

155. Yeah, there is a whole section on the US at Human Rights Watch.

And if you go to Cuba's section, you'll see some of our crimes at Gitmo.

Funny how those are all generally ignored in favor of the country of whoever happens to be the media villain de jour, and it's certainly never mentioned in the media.

We have a president who straight up lied to start an unnecessary war for control of oil resources, which has resulted in the death of millions, the displacement of millions, a trillion dollars pissed away, while claiming God told him to do so, and we are focusing our hate on a relatively powerless Iranian figurehead? A loudmouth politcian who couldn't change the human rights situation in his country even if he wanted to? I'm not sure what we should expect from a politician in an Islamic theocracy, but I'm pretty sure general bigotry and hatred of Israel is not all that unusual for the region. Meanwhile our current criminal president has drawn up plans to invade his country and create a situation which will kill thousands, at least, and make the human rights situation a thousand times worse. And at a time where the current frontrunner for the democratic presidential nomination is condemning him for denying the holocaust while saying NUKES ARE ON THE TABLE if we attack them and designating a major wing of the Iranian army as terrorists. What message are we trying to convey? A nuclear holocaust is only wrong if they initiate it? We can torture people at our leisure because we are "fighting terror", but if they do it it is inexcusable and they're due a regime change?

This nation is run by murderous hypocrites who only give a fuck about money and power, and we only use human rights abuses as an excuse to commit worse ones. That's the message the rest of the world is receiving.

[Judi Lynn]

156. Thanks for spelling it out. It's so damned true. From your last paragraph:

.....we only use human rights abuses as an excuse to commit worse ones.

You've captured the picture so clearly. Thanks.

[ileus]

111. Who doesn't...just because both hate bush doesn't mean

I'm about to support anything they do or say.

[ima_sinnic]

131. myth: anybody supports either one because he "hates bush" (nt)

[mike_c]

112. can you walk with that stick up your butt...?

Sheesh.

[booley]

117. This reminds me of Saddam

Frankly I see Ahmadinejad as the Middle East's version of Shrub, a con who is skilled ta using fear and demogogery to make himself look more important.

As for Chavez, while he bears watching, so far all 'signs" that he is Dictator have fallen flat and turned out to be not quite a sominouse as advertised.

But the fact is alot (not all but alot) of the criticism of Ahmadinejad stems from Shrub's need to whip up a war frenzy against iran .

Doesnt' anyone remember what they did with Saddam? And how when anyone pointed out that the Shrub admin was lying about a lot of the things Saddam supposedly did, they got branded as traitors?

So fine, criticise Ahmadinjehad all you want (personanly i want to bitch at him to change his name to something short and easier to spell) but I do wish people would be more careful to make sure what they are saying is actually true.

[ProudDad]

126. Thank you!

Best post on the thread...



The Ahmadinejad haters are being whipped up to support an attack on Iran... And he IS a puppet just as bush is... And they don't acknowledge it...


The Chavez haters are, well, just ignorant... and he is NOT a puppet but a Socialist and that scares the shit out of the capitalists... and, guess what, most Democrats appear to be mindless capitalists...

--------

On Edit: Plus, never trust anyone who has nothing in their profile...

[EFerrari]

138. You may be in step with most Democrats but not with most progressives

on the subject of Chavez. Certainly out of step with all the "shameful" progressives who are public figures that have gone out of their way to meet him, like Belafonte, Penn, and Sheehan, Jesse Jackson. Also out of step with reputable independent media outlets who have reported on the disinfo campaign against him in service of US imperialism as have Goodman, Palast and Pilger.

[Larkspur]

144. I despise Ahmadinejad and Hillary

Both are power loving urchins.

[Name removed]

153. Deleted message

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

[Cleita]

157. The Bushies are so happy that you are buying into the

hate Chavez propaganda, and comparing him to Ahmadinejad is icing on the cake. Remember the USA doesn't like any independent South American states. Then they can't exploit them like they have in the past when they have a guy like Chavez in charge. When the USA has complacent governments in place, American businesses don't have to worry about pesky laws and rules getting in the way of their pirating of those countries' resources for their gain. Backing up the Bushistas is not progressive IMHO.

[MetalCanuck]

158. Its a sad say when I see Chavez as far better than the US president...sigh..

[Ken Burch]

159. Nothing progressive would ever happen again in Venezuela if Chavez were overthrown

He has the only approach that can work. Otherwise, we'd be back to some watered-down right wing "social democrat" that ends up shooting union members(like Carlos Andres Perez).

Plus, Chavez ISN'T a bigot. Ahnadinejad, yes, he's horrible and he's not of the left. But Chavez is hope and the future.

What would YOU have Latin America do? Surrender, like Lula did?

[rAVES]

163. You really do need to be deeply ignorant of US meddleing in Latin

America to fall for the "Chavez is a commie Dictator" line..

I bet people who think like this will vote Clinton.

US really has some cheek.. 1.2 million dead Iraqi's and an other slaughter in Iran on the cards and you call Chavez a tyrant.

Please dont vote.. for the love of god.