Official DU Hugo Chavez Right-Wing Falsehood Debunking Thread

[JohnnyCougar]

Holy balls. I haven't been on here much lately, but I am shocked at the right-wing extremist propaganda floating around here about Hugo Chavez. DU is usually my safe-haven from this sort of propaganda, but to see Chavez baselessly trashed on here by so many has made me feel compelled to post this. I will try and identify the top falsehoods repeated about Chavez, and give some appropriate context to them that lay these "tyrant" and "oppressor" claims to rest. And the fact that Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are being cited against Chavez irritates me on two levels. Firstly, these organizations put out reports on every country, and are almost wholly negative. Amnesty International's profile on France is about as long as the one about Venezuela. But I highly doubt France is considered a tyranny by anyone. Secondly, the reports ignore the context of the situation happening in Venezuela.

First of all, there are a few articles I suggest people read to get an understanding of Chavez's peaceful revolution in what once was a corrupt and oppressive state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050411/parenti
http://www.inthesetimes.com/issue/26/01/feature3.shtml

Secondly, if you read these articles (which I really, really recommend you read, because they are highly informative, well written and interesting) you will realize how desperate of a state Venezuela was in before Chavez took power. 80% of the country was poor, and 44% or so were officially in poverty (to the point where they couldn't afford proper diets). The former government was a band of corrupt cronies that languished of the profits of oil sales, and said basically "fuck the poor."

Chavez was the leader of a failed coup attempt in 1992 against the then scumbag of a president. But the coup failed, and Chavez took full responsibility, admitted his failure, and served his time in jail. The president whom he attempted to overthrow was impeached a year later.

Chavez gained a lot of supporters attempting that coup, and his base continued to believe in him. In 1998, Hugo ran for President and won. The poverty-stricken, starving, illiterate "brown skinned" Venezuelans supported Chavez in a landslide victory. Since then, Hugo has been trying to clean up a government that had run for decades on massive corruption. The middle and upper class in Venezuela hated him because he was "brown" and because of his fight against the kleptocracy they had grown rich with. The Venezuelan court was highly corrupt. The parliament was worse. The plutocracy used car bombs, coups and violent protests to try and undermine Chavez's democratically elected government. The right-wing television stations would run anti-Chavez propaganda uninterrupted for days at a time, using racist cartoons and outright lies to brainwash the middle class and the upper class into thinking Chavez was a tyrant. Right-wing publications in the US picked up on this propaganda and of course reprinted it here. Obviously, it still circulates.

Chavez has taken control of the Citgo oil company and used parts of its profits to start schools and free healthcare clinics for Venezuela's massive poor. This totally angered the right wing. But since Chavez has become president, Venezuela's poor are much healthier, millions of people can now read, and he is attempting to diversify Venezuela's economy. The people there love him. He is the first leader that actually cared about him in forever.

Here are some of the most prominent right-wing attacks on Hugo Chavez debunked.

Chavez is attempting to censor political speech and take control of the Venezuelan media.

After the corrupt right-wing media in Venezuela inspired a coup, kidnapping and later a ridiculous attempt to recall Chavez, as well as violent protests, Chavez made an anti-slander law to curb the false propaganda the private media was spreading. While no one, to my knowledge has been arrested for violating this law, it has worked to curb some of the anti-Chavez propaganda and racist remarks made in the private Venezuelan media. When asked in October if Chavez would actually arrest anybody with this law, he responded: "I am not going to accuse anyone because they insult me, I don’t care if they call me names, I don’t care what they say about me. Generally I do as Don Qixote said, if the dogs are barking it’s because we are working." Furthermore, there are many opposition media outlets in Venezuela, and only one state-owned outlet. Chavez could shut the opposition channels down, but he doesn't. He just limits the racist, riot-causing propaganda they usually encourage.

Chavez is packing the Venezuelan courts with cronies

This is true. But that's fine with me. The former judges were highly corrupt, and some were organizers of the coup. The Venezuelan courts were known for their widespread corruption before Chavez. These courts let off people that kidnapped Chavez at gunpoint during the coup attempt.

Chavez is hurting the economy

According to a press release in mid-2005, Venezuela has the fastest-growing economy in Latin America, with growth rates in the first two quarters of 7.5% and 11.1%, respectively. It had a 17.8% growth rate in 2004. The non-oil sectors grew at a faster pace than the oil sector, rising 8.7% and 12.1% in the first two quarters of 2005. Venezuela's economy is growing at the second-fastest rate in the world, topped only by China. Furthermore, Chavez's programs are wiping out illiteracy and providing healthcare to the poor for the first time ever. He has also been the first President to really enforce Venezuela's tax laws. The rich were getting away with cheating on their taxes time and time again. He has considerably raised the minimum wage. So basically, Hugo is allowing private enterprise to flourish (despite requiring them to follow tax laws) and still using money to support the poor. What he has already done has been nothing but a victory for human rights in Venezuela. Millions upon millions of people now have hope and health that would have never had it otherwise. But despite this, false right-wing anti-Chavez propaganda continues to circulate around the echo chamber...even on DU.

What Chavez has done is inspire a popular revolution with little to no violence at all, completely overthrowing a horrendously corrupt government in Venezuela and liberating masses of nearly starving poor. Instead of leading by force like he did in 1992, this time the revolution worked.

But I can say one more thing for sure: If I were next to Hugo Chavez, I would hug him, too!

If you know of more false propaganda being spread about Chavez, please debunk it below! I probably missed some things.

[fearnobush]

1. Viva Chavez!

[Kurovski]

2. Thanks. I was wondering about "the imprisonment of those who

disagree with Chavez", since I heard reference made to that on the Daily Show.

I guess they were referring to the new law, not any actual imprisonment.

Recommended.

[punpirate]

10. Part of that complaint stems from an earlier indictment...

... of Siemte, which has billed itself as a non-partisan election monitoring group. Before the 2004 recall election, they were found to have used US NED money to garner signatures to validate the recall referendum. That's against Venezuelan law, to use foreign money for election purposes (just as it is here in the US). Siemte is, in fact, not non-partisan and is composed of political opponents of Chavez. According to an interview with the group's leader, Augustino Plaz, the charges were "Chavez' way of giving us a hard time." Did he think any of Siemte's group would be convicted? "No," he said, "we have very good lawyers."

Many ought to keep things in perspective. Chavez drew no attention to speak of until his passage of the Hydrocarbon Act in late 1999. For decades, depending upon who was in power in Venezuela, the royalty to the country for Orinoco heavy crude was between 1% and 6%. Upon passage of the Hydrocarbon Act, that royalty to Venezuela was raised to 16.67% (by contrast, royalties in this country to mineral rights owners, the states and the federal government exceed that amount). Oil companies with exploration and extraction agreements with the state oil company, PDVSA, suddenly were paying more and profiting a bit less, and they didn't like that at all. Thus the ongoing description of him as a dictator, despite the fact that he's been elected twice, in 1998, and again in 2000, after the Constitutional convention, and reaffirmed in 2004.

This is not to say that he's not on the verge of making some mistakes. He's been quoted as saying he wants the Constitution amended, to allow him to run for office after his maximum two terms expire in 2012. The attempted coup has caused him to go after political opponents in a way that's exploitable for political purposes by the US and US allies in the region (fewer and fewer though those may be). If he tries to make his term in office a cult of personality, instead of the institution of sound policies, he will open himself to charges that, for now, are not justified, but may be in the future.

Cheers.

[Selatius]

13. Yes, I'm concerned about amendments to the Constitution as well.

Chavez ought to tread very softly on this ground. If I were him, I would step down in 2012, but I'd start preparing the movement to take on the burden of responsibility...NOW. That would give him a full six years to devolve and decentralize power back to the people in an orderly manner. However, Chavez may have other ideas.

A movement cannot be sustained unless the ideals that animate the movement are completely internalized and learned by the followers of Chavez. Chavez must teach his movement of followers to become a movement of leaders when he is gone.

We watched the Civil Rights Movement flounder after many of its top leaders were imprisoned or assassinated after the end of the 1960s. The most notable example was the murder of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

It may be relatively easy to kill a few leaders of a movement for change, but try killing a movement made up of an army of leaders, where the people themselves, linked hand-in-hand, are their own leaders.

If Chavez were listening to me, I'd tell him to prepare his people to take the lead in tackling reforms. The reforms must be pushed by the people when he is gone.

I don't know if he will step down, stay in office, or die at the hands of an assassin, but it would be prudent if he prepared the people of his country to take care of each other and preserve the things the people have won if he should go.

[leftstreet]

81. I wish you had his email address.

:)

Excellent post and, as always, a constant reminder that all people must learn to be their own leaders.

[1932]

175. If FDR had been limited to two terms, I would have wanted a constitutional

amendment allowing a third term.

And if the government in Venezuela has been democratically elected so that they have a majority, and a popular will, that asks for a third term, how is it a threat to democracy to amend the constitution (according to its own rules for amending it)?

[killbotfactory]

87. Did he actually say he wanted to amend the constitution...

To allow more terms for president? Every article I've read about the past election implies this is what he will do, however there is nothing to back it up.

[punpirate]

91. The BBC writes that...

... he's "made no secret" of wanting to run again in 2012, but there's no direct quote to that effect.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4502272.stm


But, he now has 2/3rds of parliament, and it's within his power to amend the constitution with that degree of control. We'll have to wait and see if he does.

[Kurovski]

123. Thank you for your response, punpirate.

Much appreciated.

[hwmnbn]

3. Thank you JC........

The reason for the swift-boating of Chavez is because he has had a positive effect in that region. Two more "left-leaning" leaders have been ELECTED with overwhelming popular support. Evo Morales in Bolivia and Michelle Bachelet in Chile.

Chavez has forged alliances with most of the region's leaders based on economic incentives which are underwritten by Venezuelan oil. These alliances have caused governments to rethink their relationship with US corporations whose interests do not benefit the people of the region. Those governments are reasserting control and ownership of their natural resources.

That is why Chavez is being swift-boated. Thank you for citing specific de-bunking points.

[EFerrari]

4. Thank you!

:applause::applause::applause:

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. Next false charge: "Chavez is anti-semitic"

The accusation was most prominently made by the Simon Wiesenthal Center (and that meant many people took it seriously). They claimed

Hugo Chávez Frías, who had said that “the world has wealth for all, but some minorities, the descendants of the same people that crucified Christ, have taken over all the wealth of the world”

http://www.wiesenthal.com/site/apps/nl/content.asp?c=fwLYKnN8LzH&b=312458&content_id={17D5A467-8F24-4ADA-BCD3-DE4476D7F462}¬oc=1

, and demanded an apology, but this left out (without even using an ellipsis) the part of the sentence " the descendants of those who expelled Bolivar from here and also those who in a certain way crucified him in Santa Marta, there in Colombia". Well documented and debunked by Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting. The first accusation seems to have come from the right wing anti-Chavez Alexandra Beech blog.

[Selatius]

15. Venezuelan Jewish community defends Chavez after remarks

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=1864

"You have interfered in the political status, in the security, and in the well-being of our community. You have acted on your own, without consulting us, on issues that you don't know or understand," states a draft of the letter obtained by the Forward. Copies of the letter are also to be sent to the heads of the World Jewish Congress and the American Jewish Committee, among other Jewish groups.

"We believe the president was not talking about Jews and that the Jewish world must learn to work together," said Fred Pressner, president of the Confederation of Jewish Associations of Venezuela. The confederation is known by its Spanish acronym, CAIV. He added that this was the third time in recent years that the Wiesenthal center had publicly criticized Chavez without first consulting the local community.

[TygrBright]

120. Indeed! Even as (mis)quoted...

...that statement would not be a reference to Jewish people. Rather, it would be a reference to those who abrogated to themselves the moral and social arbitration of their culture, and who could not stand the challenge posed by dissent.

That could be ANYONE, regardless of religious profession. In fact, I can think of a few contemporary examples...

slyly,
Bright

[Ray_Duray]

6. VIVA LA REVOLUTION BOLIVARIAN! VIVA CHAVEZ!

Curious minds will find this film about the attempted coup in 2002 to be quite inspiring:

"Chavez: The Revolution Will Not Be Televised"
http://www.chavezthefilm.com/html/home.htm

Bittorrent: http://www.mininova.org/tor/42290

VIVA CHE!

[leftchick]

7. This is an excellent post!

Thank you! And I would hug Hugo too!

:)




Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez gestures during a ceremony to celebrate his seven years in power in Caracas February 2, 2006. (Francesco Spotorno/Reuters)

[Barad Simith]

8. k & r (nt)

[MoJoWorkin]

9. Suggested reading---Battle For Venezuela by Michael McCaughan

A very good political history of Venezuela and the whole struggle. It is illuminating to say the least, as it shows the involvement of the U. S. in the attempted coup and how our foreign policy is aimed at controlling the oil at the cost of democracy and the people's best interests in the region. It also shows how the Venezuelan and U. S. Media lied at every turn to try to overthrow the duly elected President. It seems that a fishing buddy of Bush 1 owns most everything in Venezuela--including the MSM there, and he was actively involved with the U. S. in the attempted coup of Chavez. McCaughan names some of those involved.

[Judi Lynn]

86. More about Cuban-Venezuelan Bush fishing pal, Gustavo Cisneros

The Bush Family's Murky Dealings in Venezuela
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1577267


Bush with his little buddy.

[1932]

129. Also read Richard Gott's book on Venezuela, and Aleida Guevara's book

on him which is the transcription of two long interviews (apparently, there's a DVD with the same interview questions, but shorter answers).

Both are fantastic insights into Chavez's Bolivarian Revolution.

[rman]

11. k&r

and stored for later use

[Selatius]

12. Hugo Chavez is stealing land from owners for his own purposes!

That's another claim I've seen often. This article seems to indicate something else. Here is a snippet:

The government has made it clear that anyone who can prove their legal title to the land they claim will not have it confiscated. In the case of lands that have been confiscated so far, none of the so-called owners have been able to prove their legal title to the land. In many cases, these were large tracts of state-owned land that were occupied by and then passed down along the family line but never legally acquired.

In cases where land ownership can be proven, the government has repeatedly stated its willingness to negotiate with the landholder to discuss how they can work together to increase production.

The government is handing over land titles to peasant cooperatives to work the land. It has ruled that the land cannot be sold. As well, the government is attempting to provide training and equipment to the cooperatives.

Despite the media frenzy, the recent actions have not gone beyond what is generally accepted as the right to private property. However, the opposition has tried to whip up its ever decreasing support among sections of the middle class with the fear that they could lose their houses, cars and other personal possessions.

http://www.worldpress.org/Americas/2161.cfm

In fact, just read the whole damn article.

[punpirate]

16. Chavez has been doing land reform in much the same way...

... as has been proposed in other countries (notably by Arbenz in Guatemala until he was ousted by the US in 1954), by taking title of small blocks of unused land and paying the owners the assessed value.

Chavez has reason to do this. The largest blocks of land, the estadas as they are called there, are owned primarily by British conglomerates and are principally used for the production of coffee and fruit, most of which is exported back to the UK and the EU. That in itself is neo-colonial--both the profits and the product leave the country.

As a result, Venezuela must import 85% of its food. By putting unused land in the hands of peasants, he hopes to both reduce poverty and malnutrition, and to increase the amount of food produced in the country.

[1932]

130. The Marshall Plan in Japan redistributed land more agressively

and it worked very effecitively in building a middle class and an economy in which resources were put to their most efficient uses.

Also, Ford has been selling a record number of cars in Venezuela.

[malaise]

14. Great post

Viva Chavez. The US does not own the world. People and their governments have their right to choose their own path of development.

[Wilms]

17. K&R n/t

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

18. kick. n/t

[izzybeans]

19. It sounds like republicans projecting their own failures onto somebody

else.

[SammyWinstonJack]

23. As they always do. nt

[meganmonkey]

20. Thank you Johnny!!!

Rec'd.

:patriot:

[LincolnMcGrath]

21. K&R n/t

[stop the bleeding]

22. Thank you - people need to realize that they will always have

something negative to focus on when evaluationg leaders and what not.

[oldlady]

24. Your post gives me hope

because I think the US is about to become Venezuela (based upon the starting point you describe --

"80% of the country was poor, and 44% or so were officially in poverty (to the point where they couldn't afford proper diets). The former government was a band of corrupt cronies that languished of the profits of oil sales, and said basically "fuck the poor."

Please. Find our Chavez now, I think we're nearly ripe.

[farmbo]

25. And...Oh Yeah...In case anyone's forgot: Bush tried to overthrow Chavez!

It is particularly shameful when our tax dollars (and Public Servants) are engaged in attempting to Overthrow, by violent means, a democratically-elected foreign leader such as Hugo Chavez.

But it happened.

Our Forth Estate was in severe lapdog mode in April 2002 when Bush's ham-fisted Venezuelan coup attempt failed, so there was nary any discussion of this mini Bay-of-Pigs in the American Media.

But serious journalists the world over put the mess right at Bush's feet:


http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,688071,00.html

For you Old Schoolers out there... Bush relied on Elliot Abrams-- a convicted Regan Admin hack-- to help set off this stinker.

[tlsmith1963]

39. And Don't Forget Pat Robertson

He wanted someone to kill him.

Tammy

[mdmc]

26. thanks for the post!

I think Democrats are scared of a true progressive vision!

[Usrename]

102. Yup!

Go with that thought.

[stepnw1f]

27. Thank You!!! Kick!! (nt)

[Just Me]

28. Stunning how the RW attacks democratically-elected leaders,...

,...who actually LEAD "the people" rather than bow to the elite. Remember Aristide? Is Haiti better off without him? :( Hell, how about Gore. Remember that coup? Is the USA better off without him? ;(

The RWers are sick, greedy, anti-democracy, heartless folks who take and take and take feeling no obligation to contribute towards the progress of any nation's people.

Oh, and, thank you very much for the OP!!! :hi: K&R!

[SillyGoose]

29. Thank you for this information. I'm bookmarking this so I can read the

articles you included in your OP a bit later when I have some more time. I had suspected that a lot of the criticisms of Chavez were RW propaganda but hadn't seen much of anything debunking it so I didn't know what to think. Thanks for taking the time to share this information with us - I appreciate it very much!

(rec'd)

[Cults4Bush]

30. Let us not forget the hypocrisy of calling him out on HR violations.

The states have many MANY of their own HR violations.

A far as buddying up with Castro take a look at who we buddy up with as a country all the frekin' time!

The hypocrisy at DU and other supposedly left sites is palpable when it comes to this, but then again the Cindy haters, nudniks, and anti-Chavez "moderates" aren't exactly ashamed of being hypocritical.

[NMDemDist2]

31. this needs to be added to the Research forum for posterity n/t

[dwahzon]

32. Thanks

for this post and for some of the information-laden comments on it. I've copied them off for later reading.

[mattclearing]

33. Thanks for this.

I've been on the fence about Chavez for some time, mostly because I was unable to separate truth from rumor, spin, and propaganda. This puts his efforts in perspective.

[Catchawave]

34. He was very generous after Katrina

Which made Bush look worse. Hugo's an ok guy in my book :thumbsup:

[Sparkman]

35. The source of RW propaganda...Chavez has our future OIL & Gas reserves.

If anyone here on DU is stupid enough to believe in demonizing YET ANOTHER POPULAR LEADER of a country where the U.S. has designs on populating with multi-national corporate compounds, then we know there are plants here from the propaganda arm of our glorious corporate media or the bush crime family.

[tlsmith1963]

36. I Never Said That He Hasn't Done Some Good

I just think that you have to be suspicious of any leader, because power corrupts. I hope that Chavez doesn't fall into that trap, I really do. But I heard that he goes on TV all day & rants like Castro. Is this false, too?

Tammy

[Judi Lynn]

88. He has a show during which he takes live calls from Venezuelans.

Right-wing idiots would probably call this "ranting."

How many imprompteau questions and comments from the population do you see your pResident fielding?

How terrifying, a President who speaks to his people, and discusses government programs and current events.

As for the "all day" part, do you really think you can sell that claim here?

[1932]

131. Yeah. Power corrupts. Just like FDR showed us. Boy, use that power to help

poor people and people who work for a living, and to protect your economy from oligarchy...

That's so bad.

Oh, and to go on TV or the radio and actually tell people what you're doing.

That's the worst!

:sarcasm:

[KittyWampus]

37. So Tyranny is fine as long as it's left wing tyranny? Hypocrites

I personally am against tyranny here in the US and won't support it as a means of achieving political ends in Venezuela, either. I guess as long as the brownshirts are attacking people you don't agree with, it's fine.

Here is from the Human Rights Watch website:

Venezuela: Court Orders Trial of Civil Society Leaders
In ordering the trial of four civil society leaders on dubious charges of treason, a Venezuelan court has assented to government persecution of political opponents, Human Rights Watch said today.
July 8, 2005

Venezuela: Rights Lawyer Faces Judicial Persecution
Criminal Investigation Launched to Intimidate Critic of Government’s Rights Record
The Venezuelan government should immediately halt criminal proceedings opened against one of Latin America’s most prominent human rights lawyers, Human Rights Watch said today.
April 5, 2005

Venezuela: Curbs on Free Expression Tightened
Amendments to Venezuela’s Criminal Code that entered into force last week may stifle press criticism of government authorities and restrict the public’s ability to monitor government actions, Human Rights Watch said today.
March 24, 2005

Venezuela: Chávez Allies Pack Supreme Court
The Venezuelan Congress dealt a severe blow to judicial independence by packing the country’s Supreme Court with 12 new justices, Human Rights Watch said today. A majority of the ruling coalition, dominated by President Hugo Chávez’s party, named the justices late yesterday, filling seats created by a law passed in May that expanded the court’s size by more than half.
December 14, 2004

Venezuela: Media Law Undercuts Freedom of Expression
A draft law to increase state control of television and radio broadcasting in Venezuela threatens to undermine the media’s freedom of expression, Human Rights Watch said today. Venezuela’s National Assembly, which has been voting article by article on the law, known as the Law of Social Responsibility in Radio and Television, is expected to approve it today.
November 24, 2004

snip

Court-Packing Law Threatens Venezuelan Democracy
By José Miguel Vivanco and Daniel Wilkinson
Published in The Washington Post
When Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez faced a coup d'etat in April 2002, the international community roundly condemned the assault on Venezuela's constitutional order. Now, as he faces a recall referendum in August 2004, Chavez's own government threatens to undermine this country's fragile democracy through a political takeover of its highest court.
June 22, 2004

snip

Letter to President Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías
In a letter sent to President Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías, HRW expressed deep concern about credible reports documenting that National Guard and police officers beat and tortured people who were detained during the recent protests in Caracas and other Venezuelan cities.
April 12, 2004

Venezuela: Investigate Charges of Abuses Against Protestors
The Venezuelan government should conduct a thorough investigation into allegations that state security forces have beaten and abused detained protestors this week, Human Rights Watch said today. The investigation should also examine the circumstances of killings that occurred during confrontations between protesters and police.
March 5, 2004

snip

Venezuela's Supreme Court Upholds Prior Censorship and "Insult Laws"
A decision by the Venezuelan Supreme Court upholding prior censorship is a major setback for freedom of expression, Human Rights Watch said today.
July 18, 2003

Venezuela: Limit State Control of Media
Letter to President Chavez
The main purpose of this letter is to urge President Chavez to take steps to address serious threats to freedom of the press in Venezuela
July 1, 2003 Letter

Caught In The Crossfire:
Freedom of Expression in Venezuela
The Venezuelan government is not doing enough to protect journalists from violence, Human Rights Watch said in a new report released today. Human Rights Watch also urged the government to protect freedom of expression by ending its ongoing investigation of the country’s private television networks, and dramatically revising its proposed law to regulate the contents of radio and television broadcasts. The launch of Human Rights Watch’s report coincides with renewed public debate in Venezuela over draft legislation that the government of President Hugo Chávez has introduced on the “social responsibility of radio and television.” The draft legislation would impose stringent and detailed controls over radio and television broadcasts, greatly limiting what could be aired during normal viewing hours. Under the guise of protecting children from crude language, sexual situations and violence, it would subject adults to restrictive and puritanical viewing standards. The 26-page report describes how journalists face physical violence and threats, often by fervent civilian supporters of President Hugo Chávez. Noting the justice system’s failure to identify and punish those responsible for the attacks, the report recommends that the attorney general set up a special panel to investigate the problem.
HRW Index No.: B1503
May 21, 2003

Investigate Killings of Opposition Supporters in Venezuela
The government of Hugo Chávez should carry out a thorough and impartial investigation into the abduction and murder of four opposition supporters whose bodies were found on February 16 and 17, Human Rights Watch said today.
February 19, 2003

[Sparkman]

41. ALL of these allegations ARE STANDARD PRACTICE in the good old USA!

HOW can we hold Chavez's government, under immediate threat of WAR and ASSISNATION by the USA, to standards we don't even pretend to have?!!
GET A GRIP FOLKS...Venezuela has OIL and we want it, and we want it NOW.
Venezuela is in a battle for it's independance, look at the pattern of countries like Nicaragua, Libea, Guatamala, PANAMA, CUBA IRAN.
Do we find the interests of the U.S.A. interwoven with lockstep marches of our multi-national corporations onto foreign soil, just behind the U.S. military's campaigns. Count them 60 wars by the U.S. all in the interest of "security"?

[KittyWampus]

43. Um, I am firmly AGAINST all of said tactics when practised here in the US

and am against said tactics anywheres.

See, I am not a hypocrite.

Though I support the direction Chavez wants to go, I disagree with some of the methods he is taking. Certainly not going to pretend his methods are laudable.

Off course, you have the irony of the GOP not needing to suppress free speech with laws since they outright OWN the media... but that is nuance and something many DU'ers posting on this thread are apparently incapable of.

[Sparkman]

45. BUT... the cosequences of not defending Venezuela's independance AS WE

criticize and parse Chavez's human rights policy and history, and not REMINDING EVERYONE of the U.S. government's coup and assination attempts, whenever we point out his rights issues, is THE FURTHERANCE OF ANOTHER U.S. ATTROCITY ON A MUCH GRANDER SCALE. AND we aid and contribute to the media propaganda in this country?

[KittyWampus]

46. See, this thread is about Chavez. Interjecting the US's faults is a red

herring... or a horse of a different color.

Or are you really comfortable attempting "but Johnny does it too" defense?

This is a matter of intellectual consistency.

You want to critize NeoCons for doing xyz, then be willing to do same when Chavez does xyz.

[Sparkman]

64. Speak truth to power. AND include the history BEHIND the actions(TIT4TAT)

Hey, JUST TELL THE ENTIRE TRUTH PLUS C O N T E X T.
Arresting disidents happens in the U.S., for no good reason.
Arresting conspirators (traitors) in Venezuela for supporting the U.S. coup, as in CUBA, VIETNAM, Nicaragua, Guatamala, Al Salvador, Panama is what happens WHEN THE US SENDS IN AND FINANCES GOVERNMENT OVERTHROWS. that's the real story. that's what we can do something about that we finance and we perpetrate IN OUR NAME.
Priorities, Priorities...this story should be told about Human Rights Watch accusations and documentations, right after OUR OWN ATTROCITIES ARE ENUMERATED.

[JohnnyCougar]

69. Another point that needs to be debunked.

It is true that some of the protesters were killed (14 was the number, I think). Many more were injured. But these protests were violent, some protesters had firearms, and some were throwing molotov cocktails. They were organized by the right-wing media outlets. Secondly, Chavez has widely acknowledged that parts of his police force are corrupt. He has plans to nationalize the police force, because right now, the police are run by somewhat independent local leaders (some are still part of the anti-Chavez opposition).

There is no denying that there is great political tension in Venezuela. To find the number of politically inspired beatings and deaths to be so low was shocking to me. This does not mean the deaths should not be investigated, but I have seen at least one news report that the deaths of protesters were caused by part of the police force run by one of the anti-Chavez leaders. To blame Chavez for these deaths and abuses assumes that the Venezuelan police force is a nationalized, highly organized command unit, and that Chavez was giving out orders to stifle the political opposition. This is hardly the case. Chavez has repeatedly acknowledged that weeding out corruption in the police force is one of his priorities. It certainly doesn't justify the deaths, but one must acknowledge that the violence is coming from both sides here.

Also, a lot of this "human rights violations" stuff is being twisted and exaggerated by Venezuela's extreme right-wing media to drum up hatred and fear of Chavez. The right wing news outlets over there repeatedly have told the middle class that Chavez is coming to evict them from their homes, put them in prison, and such. Chavez really has no such plans, and has never done anything like this. I don't know the details about that human rights lawyer, but many times the opposition will masquerade as people concerned about human rights. Some of these people are the very same people that use car bombs to kill government prosecutors investigating plotters of the coup. I don't know specifics about the case above, but I will look into it.

Furthermore, the film "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" was released detailing the coup that the US and Venezuelan right wing sponsored. But Amnesty International in Venezuela had to beg that the film cease from being shown at film festivals for fear of retribution from the right-wing anti-Chavez groups.

Chavez bashers fail to realize that the right-wing in Venezuela is not some honest, legitimate opposition that Chavez is trying to muzzle. They are a violent, coup-plotting, car bomb-using, riot-causing, propaganda-spreading, racist, SUV-driving, high-heel-wearing, Bush-funded opposition. They would have overthrown Chavez and sent the "brown" Venezuelans straight back into poverty had Chavez's supporters not come to his rescue and disbanded the coup in 2002. So next time some spoiled racists die in a violent protest that they started, be suspicious as to why they died or were injured or abused. I'm sure there have been abuses of police power under Chavez, but it's not like these people are protesting peacefully. And Chavez himself has said that rooting out the corruption will be one of his hardest jobs.

[SaveElmer]

70. Amnesty International is concerned too...not just RW'ers in Venezuela...

From 2003 Report of Amnesty International

http://web.amnesty.org/report2004/ven-summary-eng

Police brutality

The National Guard and police were accused on a number of occasions of using excessive force in the context of the political crisis.

In January, during the national stoppage, strikers and protesters at a bottling plant in Valencia, Carabobo State, were reportedly beaten and intimidated by the National Guard.
In September the National Guard reportedly used excessive force and threats during the eviction of sacked national oil industry employees and their families from a company-owned housing development.

Media

The mutual hostility between private media organizations and the government continued. A number of journalists were reportedly threatened and attacked, but the authorities apparently failed to conduct effective investigations. The media accused the authorities of seeking to use administrative powers to curtail press freedoms.

In July the Supreme Court ruled against the implementation of a general recommendation by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to abolish antiquated laws on disrespect for authority. The laws violated international standards on freedom of expression by potentially criminalizing the publication of allegations against public officials.

Access to justice

Elements of draft legislation to regulate the composition and functions of the Supreme Court threatened to give unprecedented powers to the National Assembly and potentially undermined the Court’s independence.

Insufficient numbers of prosecutors, investigative police and judges contributed to serious deficiencies, including long delays, in the justice system. Almost half of all prisoners were held on remand. Prison overcrowding led to repeated protests against judicial delays and conditions of detention. There were also continuing concerns about the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Human Rights Ombudsman.

From a 2004 report...Amnesty INternational
http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news/press/15354.shtml

Venezuela: Torture and Ill-Treatment by Security Forces
In a new report launched today, Amnesty International highlights cases of excessive use of force, torture and ill-treatment committed by security forces in the context of demonstrations that took place in Venezuela between February and March 2004. The report raises serious questions about the commitment of key institutions to prevent and punish such abuses impartially.

[1932]

132. Here's something Greg Wilpert has says about similar allegations:

In bold, are particularly relevant points:

Torture?

Despite the distortions and one-sided reporting of the national and international media, which create the impression that the Chavez government is an authoritarian dictatorship, there are some disturbing reports of torture that supposedly occurred at the hands of state security forces in the past week. Such incidents must be investigated thoroughly and government officials, such as the Attorney General Isaias Rodriguez, have promised they would be. Torture, especially at the hands of the investigative police DISIP (more or less equivalent in function to the U.S. FBI) and of local police forces, has a long history in Venezuela, as a brief glance at Amnesty International’s annual reports on Venezuela shows, and which has apparently not gone away with the Chavez government. The Chavez government should immediately prosecute any such occurrences, should they prove to be true. Human rights organizations, both national and international, also ought to keep serious pressure on the government to make good on its promise that the Chavez government is the first Venezuelan government in history in which state-sponsored human rights violations do not occur.

Unfortunately, Venezuela’s political culture will probably make it near impossible to resolve such serious accusations. It has been said, for example, that the only one to ever be convicted of corruption in Venezuelan history is a Chinese national (in the RECADI<3> case), even though it is well known that the proportion of corrupt Venezuelan public officials is very high. The Venezuelan justice system seems extremely reluctant to convict anyone of corruption, no matter on what side of the political fence. The fact that judges in Venezuela have always been very dependent upon their political benefactors is an extremely important factor in the judicial system’s inability to prosecute politically explosive cases.

Complicating things further is that the opposition is using these accusations as proof that the Chavez government is a dictatorship. In Venezuelan political culture, any admission that torture did take place would constitute proof that the government is a dictatorship. As a result, there is a tremendous effort on the part of government spokespersons to deny the possibility that such incidents did take place.

While it does not make a difference to those who suffer from human rights abuses, it does makes a difference for determining the nature of a government, whether that government employs torture as a matter of policy or whether incidents of torture are isolated incidents of state agencies that are still pursuing practices that the government has not been able to abolish for some reason. The types of torture that have supposedly occurred would indicate that it is the latter. That is, they seem to be random instances where the government could not possibly gain anything from pursuing such a policy.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1121



A footnote in this articles is worth adding:

The paying off of protestors to engage the National Guard in violent confrontations was initially reported by the state media and was later confirmed to a VenezuelAnalysis correspondent Jonah Gindin, when he witnessed the arrest of eight Molotov cocktail makers in Plaza Altamira, who confessed to the Chacao police that they were paid to make and throw Molotov Cocktails at National Guard troops.

[slaveplanet]

80. Not only is this standard practice in the USA

But It was first brought into Law near the very beginning of the republic.

The Sedition Act

In general, sedition means inciting others to resist or rebel against lawful authority. In England, "seditious libel" prohibited virtually any criticism of the king or his officials. English common law held that any spoken or written words that found fault with the king's government undermined the respect of the people for his authority.

The U.S. Sedition Act first outlawed conspiracies "to oppose any measure or measures of the government." Going further, the act made it illegal for anyone to express "any false, scandalous and malicious writing" against Congress or the president. Significantly, the act did not specifically protect the vice-president who, of course, was Jefferson. Additional language punished any spoken or published words that had "bad intent" to "defame" the government or to cause the "hatred" of the people toward it.These definitions of sedition were more specific than those found in English common law. Even so, they were still broad enough to punish anyone who criticized the federal government, its laws, or its elected leaders.

Unlike English common law, the Sedition Act allowed "the truth of the matter" to be a defense. The act also left it to the jury to decide if a defendant had "bad intent." Penalties for different provisions of the law ranged from six months to five years in prison and a fine of up to $5,000 (more than $100,000 in today's dollars).

The Republican minority in Congress argued that sedition laws violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects freedom of speech and the press. The Federalists countered by defining these freedoms in the narrow English manner. According to English law, freedom of speech and the press only applied before the expression of ideas. The government could not censor or stop someone from expressing ideas. But after the words had been spoken or printed, the government could punish people if they had maliciously defamed the king or his government.The Federalist majority in Congress passed the Sedition Act and President Adams signed it into law on July 14, 1798. It was set to expire on March 3, 1801, the last day of the first and--as it turned out--only presidential term of John Adams

[Guitarman]

84. Thanks. I was going to post these as well.

Amnesty International has similar information on their website. But, a lot of people will let their blind hatred of Dubya also blind them to the fact the Chavez is no shining example of a liberal democratic leader. They will side with him simply because he stands against Bush. That alone will make him a good guy.
Frankly I think he is the mirror opposite of Bush. But still, they both are looking out for their own interests.

[JohnnyCougar]

93. Obviously, you have ignored the majority of the content on this thread

Those reports by Amnesty International and HRW are dubious at best, and ignore the context of the situation. Read the thread and you will see.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

142. I don't think most of they shrubya hatred is blind on this site, rather,

it is due to the numerous misdeeds and theft of democracy that is the consistent pattern since 2000.

[Sparkman]

38. ANYONE ever hear of IRAQ?! Why is it, again tell me, U.S. miltary bases..

are established there, with PERMANENT infrastructure?
John Perkins' "ECONOMIC HIT MAN" confession book, and his interviews? Perkins' confessions have proven the tactic or rather "business plan USA". Yes OUR government first grants HUGE loans to dictators, despots and foreign national leaders "governments". Then the money is funneled into those corrupt leaders' family businesses and private accounts. When the country defaults on the loans, unable to make the scheme's loan payments, the U.S. governments "economic hit men" propose to forgive portions of the loan payments in exchange for deals and contracts for everything from Engergy, OIL, GAS, mineral resources and cheap labor and military hardware.

[seabeyond]

40. so, you are suggesting that there is no critizism of this country

this country has done something that has never happened since the beginning of time. we found a man thru shear integrity and goodness has been able to create utopia? that all things are good and if we hear otherwise, it is vicious attack. this is where i have had issue the last couple days asking...... does tis sound for real. could this be possible. not that i really want to get into a chavez conversation, because my view is,.... he seems to be par for the leaders in that area for lots and lots of years. he was elected. we arent saviors. we have our own work to do. and bush doesnt get his oil. so, i really have no desire to explore further. how i see it, really, lets it go for me. the reason i step into this thread and the sheehan thread is not about chavez or sheehan. it is about this board and what is being demanded.... insisted on by what appears to be the majority. maybe they are the loudest, calling names in indignation that is feeling awfully similar to the battle of the right. there is a poll on chavez to make it appear more 50/50. i am being told to buy stories that, well , i just dont. i should be allowed, and you should be able to continue to respect me, as i do your desire to support sheehan and chavez, in all things. 100%

so mine is not so much the man, or the woman. it is the feel of the board. the energy of the board. that leaves me curious.

curious means i am open. that is always a fun place to be. there is a lot to learn, when a person is open. and it is my form of entertainment too.

[sam sarrha]

47. your assumption is rash, intended or not, no is saying what you imply, for

what ever reason you are implying it, it sounds like it could just be an attempt to invalidate anything good he has done.. why..?? it makes me suspicious of you, because he IS NOT par for the leaders of the South Americas. what planet are you from..??

[seabeyond]

48. supressing speech, possible election fraud, theft of money

is not par for that area? it looks like his motive is to help the poor, whether he is accomplishing it or not does not matter to me. see how much room i give. i dont care. what i have read of the man it really looks like his desire is to feed his people and help the poor. that is a very very good thing in my book. how much he needs to take away rights to achieve, i do not know. it appears to me to be...... the end justifies the means. this is something we can all understand seeing how our country is in the hands of...... the ends justify the means.

good, bad

of course you are suspicious of me. this is the point, that you say i am making up. that is what i am saying. the accusations coming my way. yes, i know, me just saying this......; makes you suspicious..... of me. i do not have to go any further, to prove to you about the accusation being given to me.

now, where have i steped on your toes in this post. i do not know how much more diplomatic, or clear i can be.

[sam sarrha]

57. no one was saying it a Utopia, they are saying the propaganda is just like

what is going on here and cant be all believed. it is said that if mexico actually got a REAL democracy it would take 5 generations to clean up the family mafia corruption.. Venezuela is much the same maybe worse, it will take some time to fix it.. and all the while fighting the propaganda from the corrupt that were displaced and the CIA henchmen that are consulting for them and helping them.

what you said seemed to invalidate the entire discussion, which was sorting out the accusations you base your criticisms on.. rather than debate in the forum you seemed to invalidate the forum.. that it isn't propaganda it is true.

if the courts ruled here that the media had to give both sides of any political comment because the air waves are owned by all the people not just the republicans... you would hear the same.

if sedition can be terrorism, if the media has been stolen, radical means may need to be taken to get freedom of speech back.. time will tell, Venexuela isnt the USA, our system doesnt necessarlly apply there, just like Iraq.. we are not the gold standard, our own country has been taken over by Fascists and NeoCons thru the media, something serious needs to be done here too.

the differences in what you dont care about, your concerns are curious .

[seabeyond]

61. because i am not fighting this particular battle, my concerns may

seem curious. i agree with that. i liked your whole post for that matter.

this is specifically why i am not concluding on the Chavez's action. just putting out his action. it may be that with all this control and law and constitution revision he may be able to create a better venz, and more power to him.

in more extreme, i would suggest, though not a fan of rape rooms, theft, abuse, greed, general ugliness.... the control saddamn had on his country was probably needed to keep Islamic fundamentalist out of govt, all females educated, citizens fed and health care and other social programs. and it could be suggest without some kind of strong arm with three oppositions......then their would be total chaos.

truly all i am looking for is an open discussion. no where am i suggesting invasion of venz and would absolutely oppose as the majority of american. yet seems to be the conclusion of a poster responding to me.

so what does concern me is not chavez. chavez is doing perfectly fine and really he isn't my business. i keep informed, but i dont think he is a threat and if bush would go in for oil, i would oppose. would be out marching with you all

what concerns me, is how we are so easily calling many people that aren't walking the "party step" on this board are being bashed. as they are accused as being bashers of cindy and chavez. if anyone says anything about either of these two, the description is i am bashing them. if i say, i dont revere sheehan, i am bashing. i just feel that is a little extreme. i dont think you will find willy nilly criticism of either of these people on my post.

the rhetoric is what i have been addressing. the subject hasn't been chavez and sheehan. it has been fellow du'ers. and maybe a little two way talking.

i gotta shower. gotta go. have spent a lot of time on this.
thank you for your post

[seabeyond]

62. you know, what i guess i am saying. you guys have already won

the battle.

hands down by far the strong majority support and value and appreciate sheehans activism agaisnt the war in iraq.

hands down, you have the strong majority, about everyone on the board, i have not heard one state otherwise,.... to leave chavez the fuck alone.

have you heard anyone on htis board telling bush to take down chavez?

so, i guess i am saying. you already have what you are demanding.

[rucky]

49. People who support 100% are not blind to flaws

but they forgive the flaws for the sake of the common good.

drawing attention to the flaws kills the momentum & the movement they're creating.

yes, it's theater. it's all theater. but the change is real.

[seabeyond]

50. but this is what i am saying rucky and i have no desire to play

theater. i know this. and when i say this i am accused of all kinds of things. surely i have the right to feel theater is what is fucking up our country, our world. i think there is a good enough battle in just saying the truth. a lot lot lot of people dont listen to jack shit because of all the theater. i jsust say a truth that we all know. nsa is spying on us. people go to theater. because even the truth is loud enough to be theater. the american people refuse to listen, because of all the theater.

you dont get to beat me up becase i wont play in your game. i dont have to ........On edit you is NOT you personally. it is hte people telling me to buy theater tickets. i dont want to spend the money for this play

[rucky]

53. but you ARE playing

Cassandra.

Aside from the theater analogy, you wouldn't go into a job interview and say, "I'm a really hard worker but I'm disorganized" and expect the person to hire you for your honesty. Not to say that honesty isn't valued, but shining a light on the negatives has never worked in anybody's favor.

[seabeyond]

55. lying to the boss isnt going to work either. actually i have hands down

found honesty to be kick ass in interviews, both as interviewee and interviewer. so i guess i am challenging you on that. i can win my argument on employment by being honest. as i believe we can beat bush, be opposed to invading venz and taking their oil ..... honestly. i DONT think most people want to go in and invade.

freddie

[rucky]

59. fair enough n/t

[Just Me]

56. seabeyond, I hope you're not missing the point about how the,...

,...U.S. corporacrats "set out" to intentionally dehumanize and demonize those democratically elected leaders who are genuinely intent upon serving their own people's best interests rather than being strong-armed by corporacrats and the elite. They've been doing this for decades. It's how they justify the removal of leaders like Aristide (among many others), military coups and assasinations.

No leader is without fault. No human being is perfect. No one is above scrutiny. But, that's not the point of the OP.

[seabeyond]

58. and just me...... that is what you say. that is your argument

i am with you. of course i understand and have watched, know, learned. really a duh. and i dont meant it flip cause i appreciate you post. afghanistan, we create bin laden. suadi, our fuckin relationship with suadi and the manyey the have in this coutry, power and control of our media and adm, saddam, pal, of the past, allowed to attack before we went after him, helping him with iran and heling iran behind his back, which was not really behind saddams back, he knew, the world knew

all the bullshit in s america

of course i know.

you can go on and on and on. i am willing to allow chavez to be, demand he be left alone. fidal, as horrible as he was create education for hte people, health care.....stood up to u.s. they have better infant mortality rate than the u.s. but i will still acknowledge the things he HAD to do..... to create this that he wanted. i wont say good for you feeding the babies, so you killed a few, and clamped down on rights....... end justifies the means

it was bad bad bad what repugs did in haiti and bush didnt get in trouble

yes i see

cause i could jsut keep on typing

[Quixote1818]

66. I agree with you

Their is a feeling on the board lately that if you don't support certain people 100% then you don't pass the litmus test to be on DU. Even if I agree with them on that issue it makes me want to disagree just because I don't like being told I have to think a certain way.

[rman]

124. The fact that it's not an utopia does not mean Chavez is a dictator

This is about Chavez not being a dictator, contrary to what the RW would have us believe.

It is not about creating an utopia.
It is about Chavez creating a better life for his people, and helping out poor people elsewhere.

The fact that it's not an utopia does not mean Chavez is a dictator.

[seabeyond]

136. you keep merging us in rw. we arent. we keep saying it

you keep reframing the argument. i have never decided to catagorize chavez. i have not claimed he is a dictator. let that be your argument with rw. but you are in argument with dem, that is not judging one way or another if he is dictator or not. i mean it is non argumet. if he is, still no invasion. not declaring war on the man. only that he is not innocent and is not the voice of democratic party.

we say it isnt an utopia...... and we are attack saying we bash the man. as you absolutely agree he didnt create utopiA

that is the silliness of it. the majority, hands down are in agreement we dont interfer with his country. the disagreement seems to be if he is saint, or just man

[rman]

139. fine, but what's the big deal with not creating an utopia?

[seabeyond]

149. the problem with creating a utopia is, it cannot be done.

i just spent 5 hours reading on venz, hugo, huge opposition, hugo relation to terrorism and hugo on human rights. what i bottom line it is they are in a process bringing from democracy (wealth run) to a socialism. there is all kinds of inherent problems with a shift in govt, as quickly as chavez is trying to create it, and he has to implement control in order to allow it to at least have a chance. (hence media control and propaganda) it is just in the beginning stages and right now the country is pretty messed up. far from being a utopia. the other thing i see hugo has done that will about guarentee the failure, is the middle and upper class, bad, evil, not a bit of good.... all that is wrong. utopia cannot happen in exclusion. only in inclusion. so my prediction is that will not succeed. but that is only a guess along with every other guess on this board. and regardless of the two stances on whether chavez promotes terrorism, there is enough info to say it is a possibility. depending on the side, is the exclamation he IS, or he ISNT....

how i personally concluded was in time we will see. i cannot jump on either side. it is obvious what the u.s. is doing to cement a propaganda that he is dictator and bringing extreme left to s america and must be stopped. that is clear. every article that i read though from left all had the same identical voice, words and phrasing that i hear on this board. it seems to me that it has become a "pick a side, and here is the story to tell"

so i did my homework. i am informed, allow the battle to continue.

chavez is playing in it just as much as the u.s. you know, for his own advantages just as the u.s.

as one of the posters above said, it is all theatrics. i agree

[JohnnyCougar]

150. I'm going to have to take serious issue with this

what i bottom line it is they are in a process bringing from democracy (wealth run) to a socialism. there is all kinds of inherent problems with a shift in govt, as quickly as chavez is trying to create it, and he has to implement control in order to allow it to at least have a chance. (hence media control and propaganda)

First of all, socialism and democracy are not mutually exclusive, as you falsely claim. And being "wealth run" has no bearing on whether the country is a democracy or not. Chavez's government is not moving toward socialism. It is more akin to a European style social democracy. The private sector has grown faster than the public sector since Chavez has taken power. Especially in the last two years. This refutes the false claim that Chavez is moving toward socialism and away from democracy. If you want economic statistics to back this up, read here.

Economic Growth is a Home Run in Venezuela

By Mark Weisbrot

CARACAS - "Viva Chavez," shouted Chicago White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen, as the team celebrated its World Series sweep last week. Guillen is Venezuelan, and a national hero in this country of 25 million people who seem to believe that they too, along with Chicagoans, have won the World Series.

His cheer for the country's leftist President Hugo Chavez might have caused some reaction just a year or two ago. But these days it went largely unnoticed, despite the continuing hostility between the Chavez government and the Bush administration. Relations between the two governments have been sour since the Bush administration supported a military coup against Chavez in April 2002, as well as a failed attempt to recall him last year.

But Chavez' popularity is now among the highest of any president in Latin America, with a 77 percent approval rating, according to the latest polling.

A few economic statistics go a long way in explaining why the Venezuelan government is doing so well and the opposition, which still controls most of the media and has most of the country's income, is flagging.

After growing nearly 18 percent last year, the Venezuelan economy has expanded 9.3 percent for the first half of this year - the fastest economic growth in the hemisphere. Although the government's detractors like to say this is just a result of high oil prices, it is not so simple.

Oil prices were even higher and rose much faster in the 1970s. But Venezuela's income per person actually fell during the 1970s. In fact, for the 28 years that preceded the current government (1970-1998), Venezuela suffered one of the worst economic declines in Latin America and the world: per capita income fell by 35 percent. This is a worse decline than even sub-Saharan Africa suffered during this period, and shows how completely dysfunctional the economic policies of the old system had become.

Although Chavez talks about building "21st century socialism," the Venezuelan government's economic policies are gradualist reform, more akin to a European-style social democracy. The private sector is actually a larger share of the Venezuelan economy today than it was before Chavez took office.

One important reform, long advocated by the International Monetary Fund, has been the improvement of tax collection. By requiring both foreign and domestically-owned companies to pay the taxes they owe, the government actually increased tax collection even during the deep recession of 2003 -- a rare economic feat.

As a result, the government is currently running a budget surplus, despite billions of dollars of increased social spending that now provides subsidized food to 40 percent of the population, health care for millions of poor people, and greatly increased education spending. The official poverty rate has fallen to 38.5 percent from its most recent peak of 54 percent after the opposition oil strike. But this measures only cash income; if the food subsidies and health care were taken into account, it would be well under 30 percent.

The government's currency controls have also helped to stem the capital flight that had hurt the economy prior to 2003. The country's public debt and foreign debt are at moderate levels. With an accumulated $30 billion of reserves - perhaps twice what the country needs -- Venezuela is well-poised to maintain growth even if oil prices drop unexpectedly.

Of courses Venezuela still faces many of the challenges common to the region: the judicial system is weak, crime rates are high, and the rule of law is not well established. But the present government, which has had less than three years of political stability - attempts to overthrow the government through violence and large-scale economic sabotage did not cease until the oil strike collapsed in February 2003 -- has set the economy on a solid growth path. And it has kept its promise to share the nation's oil wealth with the poor.

In short, the vast majority of Venezuelans got what they voted for, and even some who voted against the government now seem to be satisfied with the result. It's a pretty good start, and whatever the Bush administration thinks of Chavez - who calls President Bush "Mr. Danger" - it's the way democracy is supposed to work.

Emphasis mine.

So your conclusion that he is not incorporating the middle class and upper class into the system is totally wrong. And as for the "restrictions on free speech," tell that to the 4 anti-Chavez media outlets that Chavez refuses to shut down contrasted to the one pro-Chavez state media outlet. You're simply putting too much stock into the US propaganda. Restriction of free speech over there is a complete illusion.

[seabeyond]

153. i am only starting the research. to begin

Chavez talks about building "21st century socialism

chavez proudly and boldly talks about socialism. he doesnt have a problem with it. but seems the leftist selling chavez understands socialism will bother some americans, so soften it with "European-style social democracy". clues in on the agenda profile of article. chavez wants socialism and his countries vote it in, then wtf..... why not honor it. i dont care, it is there country. they want socialism, it is his and their business. rephrasing it to make america feel better and be on chavez side is, what, propaganda. whether it looks like socialism yet or not doesnt matter, he hasnt implemented things far enough for transition, but clearly it is chavez's intent, maybe not the authors of this post.


"Caracas, Venezuela, February 2, 2006—Venezuela’s President Chavez presented a board of directors on Monday, for a new state-owned holding company that will direct 12 new industrial enterprises that are to substitute numerous products Venezuela currently imports. The industries will cover everything from paper, aluminum lamination, textiles, and steel pipes and parts production. The new company will be called Coniba, which stands for National Company of Basic Industries.

Coniba will be funded with a $3.5 billion investment from the country’s National Development Fund FUNDEN, which was created with money from a portion of the Central Bank’s foreign currency reserves. According to Venezuela’s Minister of Basic Industries and Mines, Victor Alvarez, the new company will create 20,000 direct and indirect jobs. "


taking money from national treasury to pay for companies that will be state owned, sounds.....??? what.... and, it can help their economy. may be a good move. maybe not. as we have learned in the past in other countries, govt run business, not so successful


"Venezuela continues to be highly dependent on the petroleum sector, accounting for roughly one-third of GDP, around 80% of export earnings, and over half of government operating revenues. A disastrous two-month national oil strike from December 2002 to February 2003, temporarily halted economic activity. The economy remained in depression in 2003, declining by 9.2% after an 8.9% fall in 2002. Despite continued domestic instability, output recovered strongly in 2004, aided by high oil prices. Both inflation and unemployment remain fundamental problems."


consistantly i have read article where it was reinforced inflation and unemployment is a problem


"Energy and Petroleum Minister Rafael Ramírez announced in May 2005 that income taxes on the handful of foreign firms pumping oil in Venezuela would be raised to 50 percent from 34 percent, retroactive to 2001. Energy experts reportedly believe that Venezuela is shipping less oil than it claims as a result of lagging maintenance at the state-owned Petróleos de Venezuela S.A., the internal resources of which allegedly have been sapped by corruption, mismanagement, and the diversion of profits to social programs and government officials"


i imagine if you raised taxes from 34 to 50 that would help some. just found it interesting


all these things for me is non issue. i am not here to pronounce chavez is hero, or chavez is villian. i did find the majority of article on chavez was pro chavez, was the left wing chat of chavez, again that i consistantly see here. in order to get any information away from the talking point i had to put opposition, terrorism, human rights. i dont know what is going to happen with chavez, what direction his countyry will go. whether he will be hero or fallen hero. but i am not going to allow propaganda (and that is what your post is above) to dictate what comes out of my mouth

also another interesting on the media chavez "allows" to stay open. i found this really interesting. reading someones post that pointed out the restrictions he put on media was to protect the child. oh, the poster says, like that is a "bad" thing to protect children from bad on tv. well.... that poster didnt say this protect lat is from 5a.m. until 11 p.m. news can put say a national guard or police shooting a protestor on tv only between 11pm-5am. thought that was interesting too

anyway, economy bores me. i really didnt spend a lot of time on that, "studying" chavez. so.... i will explore some of this stuff you have brought up.

still havent found the smoking gun to take chavez out

[seabeyond]

155. havent even talked about land grabs. what is the story on this

from the left?




The Hato Pinero eco-lodge might seem an odd place to begin an agrarian reform program. Set in the sweltering savanna, the sprawling 180,000-acre cattle ranch teems with exotic wildlife. Giant green anacondas, the Orinoco crocodile and an endangered species of jaguar roam free.

But land - especially rich people's land - is the new front line in Latin America's latest revolution. Even in this far-off corner of the Venezuelan plains, there's no escaping the ever-tightening grasp on power of President Hugo Chavez.

* * *

The Hato Pinero visit came four days after Chavez signed a decree setting up land reform commissions. He called it the opening shot in a "war against the large estates."

Like many of his political moves, this latest one has everyone guessing. Chavez says he has no intention of copying Cuba's communist system, but he sure seems headed that direction.

"Land for those who work it! Justice in the farmlands," he told an adoring crowd of red-shirted revolutionaries who packed a Caracas convention center when he signed the land reform decree.


http://www.sptimes.com/2005/01/24/Worldandnation/Venezuela_s_new_revol.shtml

[JohnnyCougar]

156. Since Venezuela has to import about 80% of it's food...

Chavez is restructuring the land system there so that Venezuela can be more self-sufficient. Importing so much food is not good for a nation. He's not just taking people's land, he's forcing them to sell. Kind of like here when the government wants to build freeways or stadiums and such. Not a big deal, IMHO.

[seabeyond]

157. i understand what he is doing

i see it more as a flip to the recent sc ruling taking land from private, for corporation. only this is taking from private and corporate for govt.

we all were bothered

but it isnt a big deal that chavez does it

this is what i have been pointing out. i am not in battle with chavez, it is the way this board presents the favorites. you say this isnt a big deal, but i bet you yelled when our supreme court ruled corps could do it

i am finding the numbers all over the place and unemployment and inflation..... with different articles. so..... i can make a definite statement on what is up

anyway

it is all intersting. spent a couple days reading on this guy and this country, appreciate the shove to do it.

[JohnnyCougar]

159. That's fine.

My mind is in no way made up. But from what I read, things are getting better (especially in the last two years), and Chavez can't legitimately be called a dictator.

By starting this thead, I just wanted to clarify some claims that I thought were misleading and based on our own government's false propaganda. The lack of knowledge about the situation is a problem over here. Even I don't know all that I should. So I'm glad I inspired people finding things out about him, whether bad or good!

[seabeyond]

161. cool. certainly opened my eyes

but... there were other things i found that led me to be wary of the man too, that i didnt put on this thread. again i am not in a position to know either. but he is someone that may surprise some in a couple years. maybe some that may say, weeellllll....

but then that is ok too

it is obvious what the right is doing with venz. it is the fear of this feeding thru out south america, and newly elected president in bolivia, is another chavez. not as expressive yet

on edit: also, he may create a totally new type of govt. something else i didnt talk on this thread i found. it is confusing. but it is a socialism that gives the voice to people. thru rings, of families. very interesting, and their voice goes up. it isnt getting someone to represent them. it is the people. odd creation, but who knows. could work

[seabeyond]

160. just a blase attitude, i find things happening here that we yell about

suppressed rights, land grabs, funneling govt money..... the same things we are outraged happening here from the right, happening there from the left.....

Not a big deal, IMHO.

[rman]

165. so, NOT creating utopia is NOT a problem

(you answered the question "what's the problem with creating utopia" - my question was "what's the problem with NOT creating utopia")

Then why do you present Chavez's not creating utopia as an argument against Chavez?

[seabeyond]

166. it isnt an argument against chavez. it is an argument against

the vocal on this board (not strong majority anyway per poll) that chavez is not our hero, white knight, no one is allowed to talk about any of the issues they may have on the man without being acccused of bashing, a brownshirt, a republican and so much more. as i have said in the post above, repeatedly...... for me this isnt about sheehan and chavez. my participation in hte discussion is about being able to not group think and that be ok. not having to say i support 100% of all of who the person is but i can still support the effort.

btw the whole not create, create utopia, the really funny on this..... that has been my point, exactly.......he has not created utopia and that is ok. i just had one sip of coffee enough to understand what you were saying with the whole utopia. of course it is realistic he hasnt created utopia so dont expect me to buy the story and repeat it. nothing more.

[rman]

167. I don't think many here think Chavez is creating utopia,

or that he is a "white knight". A hero, perhaps, but not along the lines of being super human and infallible.

As far as i can see all the serious accusations directed at Chavez have been thouroughly debunked.
What's left is completely insignificant in comparison to like issues elsewhere.

What Chavez is creating looks to be a whole lot closer to paradise then this planet has seen in a very long time.
While the rest of the world is creeping ever closer to perpetual war and corporate rule while the poor get poorer and the rich get richer, Chavez is taking the lead in Latin America to do the opposite.

[seabeyond]

168. htis is where i disagree with you. on about all your points

no i dont think it has been debunked. i found really interesting on the net how they either had this story of perfection of chavez, or the rw spin of dictator. there is a middle ground of non perfection to be found.

looking a whole lot like paradise. that too i disagree. who knows what will come in the future, but i am not seeing near paradise now. the man is just getting going. but that is ok, it is none of my business, it is his and theirs to run. there are a lot of areas i can argue the paradise thing with you. (i spent two days reading on chavez and venz, really cool stuff, now i am jazzed by the conversation.)

and i disagree that the vocal, supporting chavez doesnt create him as a white knight. i have been on the other end. now this is merely opinion from both you and i. i cant prove it anymore than you can prove otherwise. but that has been the argument on this board, just how saintly is chavez. not if we should invade or feel threatened by the man. cause all of us agree on that one. it has been on his "goodness"

chavez may be leading in fighting poverty and i believe that is his purist intent...... but i dont think he is doing a whole lot to not have battle. a whole interesting side on this man, with that. i say that without critizism too, i say it in how i have interpreted the mans words and intent, from my personal perspective.

[rman]

169. if not debunked, then how come you don't claim Chavez is a dictator?

[seabeyond]

171. i was never arguing chavez was a dictator. ever. further a number of

times,i have declared i am not arguing chavez is a dictator. but if i challenge anything with chavez, then i was accused of using rw talking points, even though i said i am not declaring he is a dictator.

[rman]

172. The accusations do warrent the label of dictator, unless

the accusations are false.

You say the accusations are true.

[seabeyond]

174. he has done a lot of things bush and the u.s. has done

and though we call bush a dictator i dont think he is. still appears to be a democracy. he hasnt stepped it up to dictator yet. though he is well on his way. things chavez is doing to gain control of opposition and have control to implement his ideas, to give his ideas a chance. that is a validation, a justification for what he has implemented, but implement none the less. no i do not see the man as dictator. i see the possibility in the future, will have to see. or a different kind of socialism. we will have to see. all this stuff we will have to see. but i am not going to ignore or pretend it isnt true, what he is doing.

[seabeyond]

176. see rman

i feel you are doing it too. if i dont agree with you that all this stuff the man is being accused of and i dont actively declare liar....... then, you place my argument as rw talking point. then i have to say the man is dictator. that i have been swept up in rw wing talking point. that i cannot sit in the middle. that i must be on one side or the other.......completely in the story the sides have created

i am saying i do not

this is what i oppose. and this is what i challenge. i dont do black and white. repugs MUST do it with all things. liberals do it with a few things. chavez. sheehan. it must be black and white. fur us er agin us............

i dont sit in black and white with chavez. i am comfortable in gray

[Sparkman]

42. Domestic spying is rampant, FISA court not used...WHY is that? Freedom!

How many political prisoners are in the U.S.A?
A Chino, Calif. Sheriff Deputy just shot a black military policeman on leave, on video tape, three shots chest, rib cage and leg. What did you say about Chavez's human rights record???
Has Venezuela BOMBED TENS OF THOUSANDS OF CIVILIANS FROM 10,000 ft? OCCUPIED a sovereign nation for permanent military bases and OIL?
Let's keep this in perspective...

[Gregorian]

44. Thanks for posting this.

Even if it scares me more than ever. Now I know what we're up against. But now I feel reassured that Chavez is the man I thought he was.

[Greyhound]

51. Way to go! Thank you for this info. n/t

[StaggerLee]

52. k,r and bookmarking

Thank you.

Frankly I'm getting sick of propaganda that I'm hearing lately. Talk about a bunch of haters.

:hi:

[Dragonbreathp9d]

54. I love Chavez and what he is doing

shit, he is helping out our poor more than Bush is!

[emmajane67]

60. Thank you, Thank you, Thank you!!!

I had been reading with my jaw wide open, the thoughts some people have about Chavez.
If you've done your thorough and balanced research and don't like him, great.
If you don't know anything about it and are making statements willy-nilly, which it seemed a lot of people were, then EW!!!
Also, watch 'The Revolution Will Not Be Televised' or visit their website...NOW

[confludemocrat]

63. somebody posted a HRW page re Venez. in a Cindy/Chavez thread

The thing that troubled me about that Human Rights Watch page on Venezuela was how sparse and how unsourced the "stories" were, just press releases written by the staff, I guess and nothing since last September.

Wasn't Human Rights Watch very pro-the bombing of Serbia? And behind in a big way "the war on drugs" in South America? So who's been more supportive of destructive acts? Who's more flawed here? Them or Chavez? Seems obvious to me. And who has been more effective at changing things for the good and not shrinking from the fight it takes? Also obvious.

[mopinko]

65. READ JOHN PERKINS- confessions of an economic hitman.

and realize that this man is not kidding when he says he thinks the us will kill him. you can rest assured that he had been given "an offer he could not refuse". but he did refuse. he stuck his finger in the eye of the american empire. he is living on borrowed time. take it to the bank.

[earth mom]

67. Thank You! Obviously, we need a Hugo Chavez of our own here in the states

but of course the rich elite and the corporate bastards don't want to hear that and have been laying on the anti-Chavez propaganda pretty thick. :puke:

Viva Chavez! :applause:

[donheld]

68. If i was to leave the US

I'd very much consider Venezuela as a new home as long as Mr Chavez was in charge.

Johnny thanks for posting this.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

71. Of course Chavez isn't perfect, but it's annoying and suspicious that

some of the same people who are always going "nya-nya-nya" at "the far left" of the Democratic Party are continually popping up with criticisms of Hugo Chavez.

If you want to criticize someone, people, why not the president of Uzbekistan, who is universally acknowledged to be a crook, megalomaniac, and sadist, but who is rarely bashed in the MSM because he lets Bush station troops in his country?

The indignation of Republicans and "moderate" Democrats is highly selective.

[seabeyond]

73. right , these people that are working for bush and his pipeline

officially i decry these people. must i go thru every leader that abuses his power, so that i dont get accused of leaving anyone out. lordy

chavez was brought up for a specific reason. he was brought up because stewart put himout there with cindy. people didnt wake up this morning and say, man, i am going to go after that man. well robertson might have. i will put my hex on robertson too. bad robertson

[LittleClarkie]

74. "Of course Dubya isn't perfect, but it's annoying and suspicious that`

some of the same people who are always going "nya-nya-nya" at "the far right" are continually popping up with criticisms of Bush."

Not selective at all. Both are being held up to the same standard in my eyes, regardless of their politics.

The only thing that makes me indignant is that some of us will put up with behavior from Chavez that would have us beating our tits in anguish if it were Bush. Bush would not get the benefit of the doubt. And neither should Chavez.

If that makes me a moderate, then I'm damn proud to be a moderate.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

79. There are so many imperfect leaders in the world, and knowing what

I know about the history of U.S. interventions in the world and way in which business interests drive U.S. foreign policy, I am deeply suspicious when Bush suddenly demonizes a foreign head of state who 1) has not threatened the U.S., 2) has a coveted natural resource, and 3) is making life uncomfortable for the elites.

I have no illusions about Hugo Chavez being some kind of saint. But I see no reason to condemn him exclusively and not the many other world leaders who deserve it much more.

Those who come onto this board starting threads about how awful Chavez is are deliberately or inadvertently doing the work of the Bush propaganda machine.

[LittleClarkie]

83. Fair enough, but neither will I support him 100% and shout

Viva Chavez at the mention of his name, nor call him great, nor take lightly those who would call me a sympathizer of the right wing for not doing these things. If that is a litmus test for being progressive, I guess I'm not.

[rman]

170. It's trivial to show that Bush is 'the devil incarnated' so to speak.

It's a bit of an understatement to say that * isn't perfect. It's not an understatement to say Chavez is not perfect.
With this there is no basis for comparison of Chavez to Bush

[LittleClarkie]

72. While you're at it, tackle these as well

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

[JohnnyCougar]

76. Those are pretty much the same ones I already tackled.

I don't know what else to say. If you think Chavez is a threat to liberty in Venezuela, I can't do anything but flatly disagree with you at this point. He is dealing with a ruthless opposition that uses violent protests and car bombs to make their points. There are far more private, right-wing media channels in Venezuela than there are pro-Chavez state channels. But the right-wing channels use their air time to spread nazi-like propaganda that is both racist and violence inspiring to drum up opposition to Chavez. It is causing civil unrest in the country, and IMHO, Chavez is right for stepping in and doing something about it with his anti-slander law.

The media restrictions are not there to stiffle free speech. They are there to stop the extremely false propaganda being spread about Chavez. The fact that Chavez has not taken down one of the channels yet says a lot about him, especially after the stuff they are spewing.

[LittleClarkie]

77. How about the allegations of the abuse and torture of detained protestors

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/03/05/venezu8072.htm

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/04/12/venezu8423.htm

As for your other explanations, you do realize you're arguing against free speech. That wouldn't fly here. It should fly because it's Chavez.

[JohnnyCougar]

82. If people are going to use free speech to inspire car bombings and riots

then I think they are giving up the freedom themselves. If they are going to use their freedom of speech to further the goal of racistly supressing the freedom of the poor, then they don't deserve that freedom at all. Especially after their coup attempt that nearly reversed all the good things Hugo was trying to do.

I already talked about the torture of the detained prisoners. There probably should be an investigation into this, but Chavez has already admitted that the police force in Venezuela is corrupt. He has plans to nationalize it and cut out the corruption, and is making it one of his priorities. But right now, the police force is a highly disorganized, ragtag group with mixed allegiances. Chavez can't fix all of Venezuela's problems overnight.

[1932]

134. Venezuelan police forces have been bad for decades (and are no doubt

much better now since the government doesn't ask them to repress dissent from the masses).

To blame Chavez for not eliminating every incompetent member of the police forces does not make sense.

If you want things to continue in an arc that leads towards as little corruption as possible, it sort of makes sense to support the politicians who represent the interests of the people, no?

As for arguing against free speech, check this out:

A Case Study of Media Concentration and Power in Venezuela
Saturday, Sep 25, 2004
By: Eva Golinger - Venezuelanalysis.com
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1283

{snip}

The Media Reform Movement and The Law of Social Responsibility in Radio and Television: A Solution?

After the fallout, where does Venezuela go from here? As the media war wages on in Venezuela, the government is struggling to find democratic solutions. Interestingly, Venezuela’s current media battle contains striking parallels to the current media reform movement in the United States, which claims ever-expanding corporate media conglomerates are threatening democratic order. Venezuela could precisely be the worst-case scenario of this media reform movement; the case in point of what can happen when media monopolies control all information sources and impose their own agendas on the public.

{snip}

Venezuela’s response to the media war has been the creation of its own version of the Fairness Doctrine. The Venezuelan National Assembly is presently debating the enactment of the Law of Social Responsibility in Radio and Television ("LSRRT"), which proposes to guarantee public access to media and ensure broadcasting during children’s viewing hours abides by socially responsible guidelines. The LSRRT was already approved by the National Assembly Commission on Science, Technology and Social Communications Media in May 2003 and should enter into final debate for passage by Venezuela’s general National Assembly before the end of the 2004 term.

Despite its objective of balance and diversity in media, the LSRRT has come under heightened scrutiny and attack by international journalism organizations, including the Committee to Protect Journalists, Reporters Without Borders and watchdog groups such as Human Rights Watch, who have been quick to declare the proposed law jeopardizes the vast freedom of expression enjoyed by Venezuelan journalists and citizens alike by attempting to regulate content. Yet the LSRRT does not contain any provisions that endeavor to control the content of programming on private media stations, rather, it proposes to enforce regulations concerning appropriate broadcasts during children’s viewing hours and to support independent media outlets, democratization of radio and television and public access to and participation in communications media.

Despite the outcry by private media outlets in Venezuela and groups such as Human Rights Watch and the Committee to Protect Journalists, many of the provisions and basic ideas behind the LSRRT are familiar to proponents of media reform and those aware of the legal history of communications law in the United States. Venezuela’s current debate over the LSRRT is decades old in the United States. While the FCC has recently leaned toward deregulation, these underlying concepts of fairness, public access and equal airtime continue to prevail in U.S. policy and lawmaking, as evidenced in Section II of this paper.

Today, it is the broadcast media that serve to disseminate ideas to the populace. With the growth of media conglomerates owned by the influential and profit-oriented, these broadcasters influence the public in a manner inconceivable to the authors of the U.S. Constitution. Nowadays, instead of promoting a diversity of viewpoints, broadcast media merely perpetuate a monopoly of ideas from the political and sociological mainstream. As has been demonstrated in the case of Venezuela, media is used to advance political agendas, often at the expense of ethics and constitutional order. In order to put an end to the media war in Venezuela and prevent such similar information wars in the U.S. and other nations struggling against ever-expanding media conglomerates, it is necessary to open a space for people’s voices in the media. To create a media that serves the public and advances the goals of democratic nations, self-governed by the people and for the people.

Eduardo Galeano cleverly proposes, "Do people watch the game or do they play it? When a democracy is real, shouldn’t people be on the field? Is democracy exercised only every four, five or six years, when you cast your vote? Or is it exercised every day of every year?" The people’s defense in Venezuela and the U.S. against media conglomerates is to stop watching and start playing – to be given voice, to be seen and heard. Only then will true democracy prevail.

[Selatius]

146. Try arguing against the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE HERE IN THE US

If I may recall, I believe the SCOTUS struck down the doctrine in the US, and the result is you have five corporations controlling the majority of the news outlets in the US. That's freedom of the press? In Venezuela, the situation is not much different. Most of the major news outlets are corporate-owned, and many did indeed aid the coup attempt in 2002. The fact that several groups are crying oppression in the face of Chavez is one thing, but it's a different ballgame when they happen to be the same damn groups that actively tried to overthrow him in 2002.

[samhsarah]

75. Thank you so much for this post!

I plan to put it to good use. Kicked, Recommended, and Bookmarked.:yourock:

[ShadesOfGrey]

78. Excellent post! K&R

>> I can say one more thing for sure: If I were next to Hugo Chavez, I would hug him, too!

Damn straight! I'd do the same!

[killbotfactory]

85. The US has a long and disgusting history of this kind of propaganda

aimed toward Latin America. That the media can keep swallowing and regurgitating the same script with different names for over a century tells me they either have no memories, or are they are in on it. With some of the connections the Venezuelan right-wing media owners have in the US, I tend to think it's the former.

[Nutmegger]

89. Thanks so much for posting this!!!

I was debating whether or not to do something similar.

Good job! K, R and bookmarked! :applause:

[mirandapriestly]

90. Thank you for this so much. I've heard criticism of him even on

Air America! (the law about speaking out against him), now it is so much more clear. What a great man! His presidency, when placed in context to other nations, does not seem unduly authoritarian or unjust.. I was starting to fall for some of the propaganda. If the RW can't bring him down by outright assassination (which I am sure they want to do), then they will of course swift boat him.
If he could overthrow their previous corrupt government, then we can defeat BushCo!

[arikara]

92. K&R! Thank you

I get really sick of all the Chavez denouncers around who spout nothing but faux news r/w talking points. Just like Cindy Sheehan, the very same bunch goes after her with the same venom that they like to use on Hugo.

[Judi Lynn]

94. The only weapon you have against being made a fool by propaganda

is your own intelligence, and your need to know the truth, rather than to be used by idiots. Anyone who is willing to start paying attention to what they hear, thinking about it, looking for more information, doing some reading, which requires your TIME, will start recognizing propaganda and slimy spins, and outright lies as soon as you hear them.

As you have seen, some of their best propagandists merely throw a wad of charges at you, and leave it up to you to either buy them all, or start researching each one, which can take FOREVER. It costs them not one moment of their time, they're simply passing on their right-wing crap to you. They are betting you're not going to take the time to see if they're telling the truth.

You'll have to do that part. Finding the truth takes a much longer time than buying the lies.

Years from now, the people with the truth will feel vindicated, and the liars will be passing around new lies about someone else.

Not trading in lies at least leaves you some genuine self-respect.

[Bridget Burke]

95. Thank you for the information.

I don't think that Chavez is a plaster saint, but he's done a lot for Venezuela.

His enemies on this board are quite transparent.

[killbotfactory]

96. BBC on the Venezuelan media law

After six weeks of debate and a marathon final two day session, the government majority in Venezuela's parliament finally got what it wanted: a new law that it says will encourage higher standards in broadcasting, protect children from inappropriate sex and violence and democratise access to the airways.

Domestic production

The opposition, which controls most of Venezuela's private media, insists the new law on "Social Responsibility in TV and Radio" is aimed at silencing them.

They point to the possible suspension of licences for those who broadcast messages that promote the disruption of public order.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4040935.stm

Democratizing public airwaves? preventing tv stations from promoting rioting? protecting children from innappropriate sex and violence? how totalitarian!

more info:
http://www.rethinkvenezuela.com/downloads/medialaw.htm

[Judi Lynn]

97. Unforgiveable! We gotta git down there and act ridiculous! n/t

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

98. NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! MONSTERS!!!!.

[bvar22]

110. We could use a law here "Democratizing Access to the Airways.

We used to have one....The Fairness Doctrine...but our Right Wing (with the help of Right Wing CorpoDems) was able to kill it.

No wonder the Right Wing in Venezuela (and here) are whining and crying.
Imagine ...Democratizing Access to the Media.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

99. Venezuela Rejects 'Terrorist' TV Allegations by US Congressman.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-02-03-voa55.cfm

[Luminous Animal]

100. A little bit of history goes a long way.

During the American Revolution, Loyalists were tarred and feathered, ridden out of town on a rail and their property was confiscated. There were incidences of the Loyalist's press being targeted by Patriots who would break into their offices and destroy their equipment.

It is a very difficult thing to manage a popular democratic revolution. The oppressors, by legal means or by mob rule, will be reined in. Chavez is hoping by curbing the right wing excess legally, he will be able to repress mob action. The first priority should be ensuring that the citizenry feels safe practicing democracy. And really, during a transition between between a plutocracy and a democracy, there will be restrictions imposed upon the former very powerful and very rich ruling class. The American Revolution lasted for seven years and even after the Patriots victory, it was rocky going (witness the above mentioned Sedition Act of 1798).

One of the keys that Chavez needs to manage a successful transition is global support from those who believe in democracy. This does not mean ignoring Venezuala's flaws but throwing our support to its strengths. The more support Chavez gets in his attempts at democratic reform, the greater his chances of success and the ultimate weakening of the plutocracy. We should discuss what is the antithesis to democracy in Venezuela without damning the entire system.

[bvar22]

113. Well Said! I nominate your post!

:patriot:

[JohnnyCougar]

101. Kick.

[happydreams]

103. Chavez is a threat to

the Bush's because he wants to keep Venezuela for Venezuelans, he is doing this by systematically going about strengthening the soveriegnty of the country. He booted out some spies in the US Embassy there recently and Rummy calls him a "worrisome" leader in Latin America. That is a hopeful sign, we need alot more Chavez's to worry these fascist pigs!

[Gabi Hayes]

104. watch what you say!

[Gabi Hayes]

105. discussing Rumsfeld's Hitler/Chavez comment

they haven't started majorly dissing him yet


Kitty Pilgrim: how much of a REAL threat is the Castro/Chavez connection?

Journo from Cuba: people in South America are actually LISTENING to him!

[Wilms]

106. .

[radio4progressives]

107. K & R & Bookmarked - Excellent post

:applause: :toast:

[hvn_nbr_2]

108. Packing the courts with cronies? Can you imagine?

:sarcasm:

[Orangepeel]

109. The coup attempt really bothers me

Military overthrows of the government are dangerous and scary, even if the government is corrupt. It looks like democratic procedures worked in Venezuela, because an unpopular president was impeached and his opponent was elected. If that could happen, why resort to a coup?

I am firmly, firmly 100% against the US interfering in Venezuela. First, it's all about oil and second, it's none of our business.

It also seems to me that Chavez has the support of the people, is doing a lot of good things for the poor, and deserves admiration for it.

But, even if it was almost 15 years ago, it is hard for me to believe that anyone who tried to seize power in a military coup is NOT power hungry and violent.

[bvar22]

112. Remember the "Sons of Liberty" and the American Revolution.

a violent overthrow of a repressive government.

[Orangepeel]

116. well, if King George were going to get impeached next year anyway

and a less corrupt (I assume) President elected, then the sons of liberty would pretty much have lost the moral high ground.

[rman]

125. Not all military coups are alike

By far most military coups in Latin America had US support, and took place in defiance of the will of the people there, removing democratically elected governments that put their nations' interests before the interests of the US.

Chavez's coup on the other hand did have enormous popular support, as evidenced by his subsequent land-slide election.
That's quite different then a US supported military coup that has no popular support.

Is any unorthodox regime change the result of hunger for power, or can it be a response to oppression?

Revolution often involves violence.
Though the 1-day revolution that brought back Chavez after the coup against him was entirely bloodless. Much unlike the 1 day opposition rule while Chavez was absent.

[Orangepeel]

135. thanks for the reply

As a general rule, I firmly believe that military coups are a horrible thing, particularly in the kind of case you describe -- one backed by a foreign government with no popular support.

I also understand that sometimes revolution is necessary. The other response to my post cited the American Revolution. And, although maybe it wasn't exactly necessary, I have to believe that revolution against an imperial monarchy in support of democracy is a good thing.

The issue that bothers me most about the 1992 Chavez-led attempt is that it seems, just from what little I've read well after the fact, that Venezuela's democratic processes seemed to be working okay without a coup. After all, even though the coup failed, the president was impeached and the opposition party was elected in a landslide.

Could that have happened without the coup attempt? How did Chavez and his supporters (many though they might have been) get the right to say that they didn't want to wait until the next legitimate election and needed to seize power then? Why didn't they win power within the processes that were in place to begin with instead of trying to use the military to get it?

[rman]

140. "democratic processes seemed to be working okay without a coup"

In hindsight. I don't think at the time many were certain about impeachment.

Also it may well be that the coup attempt solidified opposition against the then ruling government.
Actually i think it's likely that it did.

If revolution against an imperial monarchy is a good thing, then how long should one wait before starting it. If someone thinks he can pull it off, why wait at all?

[Orangepeel]

151. why wait to have a coup?

seriously? well, because a military takeover of the government ought to be the last damn resort, shouldn't it?

I don't know enough about Venezuela before 1992 to know whether or not such actions were a last resort. That's why I'm asking the question. But, I'm very skeptical that it was, given that the government was ousted in an election (much the preferred method, no?) soon after.

Had the president moved to declare martial law? Suspend elections? What made the coup necessary?

In my world, it is not appropriate to attempt a coup because the acting president is a corrupt asshole who is ruining the country. It is appropriate to impeach and remove or vote out, which is what happened once Chavez was in jail.

[JohnnyCougar]

152. I won't condone Chavez's earlier attempt

He went to jail and served his time.

But I will say that a nation, which at the time was 80% in poverty (most of it severe) for decades, a coup was one of the only ways of bringing attention to the masses of starving, illiterate people that had been ignored basically due to the color of their skin.

Do I condone Chavez's actions? No. But I do understand why it happened. Economic repression and starvation is just as bad as military repression and starvation. Those people had had enough.

[Orangepeel]

158. maybe so

Given the circumstances of Venezuela's poor, it may have been unreasonable to respect democracy. But, you can see why someone would be suspicious of the extent to which Chavez does so now.

It is hard for me not to think that Chavez's has, let's say, dictatorial tendencies. I would think the same of any leader of a military coup, regardless of what he did afterward.

The way Chavez had acted on behalf of the poor, certainly makes him deserve the benefit of the doubt and, unquestionably, 100%, the US needs to keep our collective nose out of Venezuela. But, me? I'll wait until 2012 when he is supposed to step down and see if he does so before I shout "viva Chavez!" (but then, I'm not in a state that needs cheap heating oil).

[eridani]

111. Please cull the goodies and put them in the Research section.

Thanks.

[toddaa]

114. What about his cracking down on leftist anarchist groups

Quite a few anarchist activist web sites note that he's rounding them up and either throwing them in jail or out of the country.

[rman]

126. sources?

[oblivious]

115. Good, I'm not too late to recommend this excellent thread.

[JohnnyCougar]

117. Kick!

[Jamison]

118. K & R Awesome post Johnny.

I too am a bit sickened by seeing such anti-Chavez sentiment here on DU. We should embrace him as an ally against Bushco, global corporatism, and fascism.

At times I wonder if a few here would prefer Bush as a leader to Chavez.:scared:

[JohnnyCougar]

119. Kick!

[American liberal]

121. Thank you very much for taking the time to set the record

a little straighter than it was.

[Wilms]

122. kick

[JohnnyCougar]

127. Kick!

[1932]

128. "Court Packing" is allowed by the new constitution Venezuela passed

in late 2000 or early 2001.

Venezuelans decided they didn't want what happened to FDR to happen to them. They decided the judiciary should not be a instrument where you could hold back progress by 50 years just because you had a court loaded with people who didn't believe in the future. So they have a constitution which has a mechanism that allows contemporary political opinions to be respresented at the highest levels of the judiciary.

[manic expression]

133. Thank you!

It's great that people can see the truth instead of lies and misinformation. Viva Chavez!

[digno dave]

137. sigh...this posts depresses me to no end

[cherokeeprogressive]

138. He sounds like * to me

From the very wikipedia page you linked to:

"The human rights organizations Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have documented numerous human rights violations under Chávez."

[rman]

141. HRW documented numerous human rights violations in other countries as well

Going by what HRW has to say, even France (let alone the US) is (far) worse then Venezuela.
Yet no-one is calling France a dictatorship.

[JohnnyCougar]

143. I read this. Have you looked at the "human rights violations?"

While all human rights violations are serious, the ones they have on Venezuela seem to be isolated incidences. Either that or the lack the full context of what happened at the time.

I'd like to see HRW and AI document the human rights violations of the Venezuelan right-wing opposition that uses car bombs and violence to overthrwo Chavez. Chavez allows peaceful protests any day of the week in Caracas. Critics of Chavez never seem to be able to point out specifics of what he is doing to subvert human rights or democracy. They just rely on broad condemnations that lack merit, IMHO. Which of these reports make Chavez that bad? Can you get specific?

[cherokeeprogressive]

144. Can I get specific? Take your pick...

Here's what HRW has to say about Venezuela

[JohnnyCougar]

145. I already went through all that.

It's not that bad compared to other countries. Not that bad at all. And a lot of it is decent things or isolated events that are taken out of context. Did you read my post?

[Selatius]

148. In LESS THAN 30 SECONDS! I picked up a bogus link on that website!

Check out this story:

Venezuela: Court Orders Trial of Civil Society Leaders

(Washington, July 8, 2005) — In ordering the trial of four civil society leaders on dubious charges of treason, a Venezuelan court has assented to government persecution of political opponents, Human Rights Watch said today.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/07/08/venezu11299.htm

I am sorry, but I cry foul play on HRW's part. Want to know why? These "civil society" leaders broke the law. They broke the law when they accepted FOREIGN FUNDS during the recall petition to try and recall Chavez in 2004, which is ILLEGAL UNDER THE VENEZUELAN CONSTITUTION. How the hell would you feel if the groups that fought for Bush in Florida in 2000 was being bankrolled by, say, Saudi Arabia or China???

You want to know where they got that foreign money from? The fucking US government's National Endowment for Democracy fund:

http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2004b/040204/040204a.php

Read the whole article. Actually, I'll edit it to add in the relevant part of the article:

One organization, Sumate, which received a $53,400 grant in September, is organizing the recall referendum against Chávez, Golinger said. The head of another group, Leonardo Carvajal of the Asociación Civil Asamblea de Educación, was named education minister by “dictator for a day” Pedro Carmona, a leading businessman who briefly took over Venezuela during an April 2002 coup against Chávez, she said. A leader of a third group assisted by the National Endowment for Democracy and its subsidiary organizations, Leopoldo Martínez of the right-wing Primero Justicia party, was named finance minister by Carmona, she said

SUMATE HAS NO ARGUMENT. It is bogus, and HRW bought into it! We're giving money to people who were involved with PEDRO CARMONA, the would-be dictator who briefly liquidated the legislature and the Supreme Court in Venezuela when he overthrew Chavez.

[1932]

173. To argue that it's a human rights violation to prosecute agents of foreign

governments who try to influence the election process is almost like arguing that there should be no restrictions across borders of money's influence in elections.

Is it really a violation of human rights to prevent foreign governments from influencing your elections?

[ronnie624]

177. Exactly.

HRW seems to have an agenda. I don't trust them and give little credence to them as a reference. There are many other sources of information on Venezuela and President Chavez.

Another poster on this website posted articles that called into question the legitimacy of HRW's origins and their sources of funding. A must read for anyone interested. If I knew how I would link to it. But I'm sure you know to whom I refer.

[seabeyond]

154. i see lots of similarities, in a lot of ways

lol lol. the way both have divided the nation, to aquire power a huge one. but the more i listen to the man and the more research i do, hte more i am in giggle at similarities, just the other side

[JohnnyCougar]

147. Kick!

[Nutmegger]

162. Kick!!!

KICK!

[JohnnyCougar]

163. Kick!

:kick:

[upi402]

164. Zapatistas too! Viva las Zapatistas Y Cavez-dudes (Chavezistas?)

[JohnnyCougar]

178. Time for another kick.

Sadly...

[Bru]

179. Chavez is not a saint, but what world leader is?

We cannot expect anyone in power to be perfect or even almost perfect in this world. We just have to hope for someone who's working to better the common good, and not better him- or herself on the backs of the people. I think Chavez fits the former description, whereas Bush fits the latter description.

We must always be vigilant against any world leader to make sure they do not fall into corruption. We must speak out against any flaws in Chavez's government, but that doesn't preclude celebrating its good aspects, like the his intent to use oil money for public good and diversifying the economy.

By the way, Human Rights Watch, as I'm sure has already been noted, is not an unbiased source of information. It is comprised of a lot of neo-liberal, former-diplomat types, those who have been educated in international relations at schools like George Washington, Georgetown, Harvard, etc. They are trained to instinctually dislike people like Chavez, whether or not they are actually corrupt.

[confludemocrat]

180. kick

[JohnnyCougar]

181. Kick to add link to this video.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x341660

It's great!

[JohnnyCougar]

182. Kick.

Every time I see misinformation about Chavez spread on here, I'm going to kick this.