Chavez calls Bush the devil and, no doubt, many DUers cheer

[question everything]

and, since Bush refers to other nations as "axis of evil" and thus one can say that what goes around comes around.

But I would think that most Americans would bristle at such an "offense" to the Commander of Chief, especially once on US soil (never mind that the UN is different).

I think that if Democratic leaders will not condemn the speech, we can kiss our winning Congress good bye.

[PeaceProgProsp]

1. Chavez opened a brilliant speech with a joke. Here's full text:

Representatives of the governments of the world, good morning to all of you. First of all, I would like to invite you, very respectfully, to those who have not read this book, to read it.

Noam Chomsky, one of the most prestigious American and world intellectuals, Noam Chomsky, and this is one of his most recent books, 'Hegemony or Survival: The Imperialist Strategy of the United States.'" "It's an excellent book to help us understand what has been happening in the world throughout the 20th century, and what's happening now, and the greatest threat looming over our planet.

The hegemonic pretensions of the American empire are placing at risk the very survival of the human species. We continue to warn you about this danger and we appeal to the people of the United States and the world to halt this threat, which is like a sword hanging over our heads. I had considered reading from this book, but, for the sake of time," "I will just leave it as a recommendation.

It reads easily, it is a very good book, I'm sure Madame you are familiar with it. It appears in English, in Russian, in Arabic, in German. I think that the first people who should read this book are our brothers and sisters in the United States, because their threat is right in their own house.

The devil is right at home. The devil, the devil himself, is right in the house.

"And the devil came here yesterday. Yesterday the devil came here. Right here." "And it smells of sulfur still today.

Yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, from this rostrum, the president of the United States, the gentleman to whom I refer as the devil, came here, talking as if he owned the world. Truly. As the owner of the world.

I think we could call a psychiatrist to analyze yesterday's statement made by the president of the United States. As the spokesman of imperialism, he came to share his nostrums, to try to preserve the current pattern of domination, exploitation and pillage of the peoples of the world.

An Alfred Hitchcock movie could use it as a scenario. I would even propose a title: "The Devil's Recipe."

As Chomsky says here, clearly and in depth, the American empire is doing all it can to consolidate its system of domination. And we cannot allow them to do that. We cannot allow world dictatorship to be consolidated.

The world parent's statement -- cynical, hypocritical, full of this imperial hypocrisy from the need they have to control everything.

They say they want to impose a democratic model. But that's their democratic model. It's the false democracy of elites, and, I would say, a very original democracy that's imposed by weapons and bombs and firing weapons.

What a strange democracy. Aristotle might not recognize it or others who are at the root of democracy.

What type of democracy do you impose with marines and bombs?

The president of the United States, yesterday, said to us, right here, in this room, and I'm quoting, "Anywhere you look, you hear extremists telling you can escape from poverty and recover your dignity through violence, terror and martyrdom."

Wherever he looks, he sees extremists. And you, my brother -- he looks at your color, and he says, oh, there's an extremist. Evo Morales, the worthy president of Bolivia, looks like an extremist to him.

The imperialists see extremists everywhere. It's not that we are extremists. It's that the world is waking up. It's waking up all over. And people are standing up.

I have the feeling, dear world dictator, that you are going to live the rest of your days as a nightmare because the rest of us are standing up, all those who are rising up against American imperialism, who are shouting for equality, for respect, for the sovereignty of nations.

Yes, you can call us extremists, but we are rising up against the empire, against the model of domination.

The president then -- and this he said himself, he said: "I have come to speak directly to the populations in the Middle East, to tell them that my country wants peace."

That's true. If we walk in the streets of the Bronx, if we walk around New York, Washington, San Diego, in any city, San Antonio, San Francisco, and we ask individuals, the citizens of the United States, what does this country want? Does it want peace? They'll say yes.

But the government doesn't want peace. The government of the United States doesn't want peace. It wants to exploit its system of exploitation, of pillage, of hegemony through war.

It wants peace. But what's happening in Iraq? What happened in Lebanon? In Palestine? What's happening? What's happened over the last 100 years in Latin America and in the world? And now threatening Venezuela -- new threats against Venezuela, against Iran?

He spoke to the people of Lebanon. Many of you, he said, have seen how your homes and communities were caught in the crossfire. How cynical can you get? What a capacity to lie shamefacedly. The bombs in Beirut with millimetric precision?

This is crossfire? He's thinking of a western, when people would shoot from the hip and somebody would be caught in the crossfire.

This is imperialist, fascist, assassin, genocidal, the empire and Israel firing on the people of Palestine and Lebanon. That is what happened. And now we hear, "We're suffering because we see homes destroyed.'

The president of the United States came to talk to the peoples -- to the peoples of the world. He came to say -- I brought some documents with me, because this morning I was reading some statements, and I see that he talked to the people of Afghanistan, the people of Lebanon, the people of Iran. And he addressed all these peoples directly.

And you can wonder, just as the president of the United States addresses those peoples of the world, what would those peoples of the world tell him if they were given the floor? What would they have to say?

And I think I have some inkling of what the peoples of the south, the oppressed people think. They would say, "Yankee imperialist, go home." I think that is what those people would say if they were given the microphone and if they could speak with one voice to the American imperialists.

And that is why, Madam President, my colleagues, my friends, last year we came here to this same hall as we have been doing for the past eight years, and we said something that has now been confirmed -- fully, fully confirmed.

I don't think anybody in this room could defend the system. Let's accept -- let's be honest. The U.N. system, born after the Second World War, collapsed. It's worthless.

Oh, yes, it's good to bring us together once a year, see each other, make statements and prepare all kinds of long documents, and listen to good speeches, like Abel's yesterday, or President Mullah's . Yes, it's good for that.

And there are a lot of speeches, and we've heard lots from the president of Sri Lanka, for instance, and the president of Chile.

But we, the assembly, have been turned into a merely deliberative organ. We have no power, no power to make any impact on the terrible situation in the world. And that is why Venezuela once again proposes, here, today, 20 September, that we re-establish the United Nations.

Last year, Madam, we made four modest proposals that we felt to be crucially important. We have to assume the responsibility our heads of state, our ambassadors, our representatives, and we have to discuss it.

The first is expansion, and Mullah talked about this yesterday right here. The Security Council, both as it has permanent and non-permanent categories, (inaudible) developing countries and LDCs must be given access as new permanent members. That's step one.

Second, effective methods to address and resolve world conflicts, transparent decisions.

Point three, the immediate suppression -- and that is something everyone's calling for -- of the anti-democratic mechanism known as the veto, the veto on decisions of the Security Council.

Let me give you a recent example. The immoral veto of the United States allowed the Israelis, with impunity, to destroy Lebanon. Right in front of all of us as we stood there watching, a resolution in the council was prevented.

Fourthly, we have to strengthen, as we've always said, the role and the powers of the secretary general of the United Nations.

Yesterday, the secretary general practically gave us his speech of farewell. And he recognized that over the last 10 years, things have just gotten more complicated; hunger, poverty, violence, human rights violations have just worsened. That is the tremendous consequence of the collapse of the United Nations system and American hegemonistic pretensions.

Madam, Venezuela a few years ago decided to wage this battle within the United Nations by recognizing the United Nations, as members of it that we are, and lending it our voice, our thinking.

Our voice is an independent voice to represent the dignity and the search for peace and the reformulation of the international system; to denounce persecution and aggression of hegemonistic forces on the planet.

This is how Venezuela has presented itself. Bolivar's home has sought a nonpermanent seat on the Security Council.

Let's see. Well, there's been an open attack by the U.S. government, an immoral attack, to try and prevent Venezuela from being freely elected to a post in the Security Council.

The imperium is afraid of truth, is afraid of independent voices. It calls us extremists, but they are the extremists.

And I would like to thank all the countries that have kindly announced their support for Venezuela, even though the ballot is a secret one and there's no need to announce things.

But since the imperium has attacked, openly, they strengthened the convictions of many countries. And their support strengthens us.

Mercosur, as a bloc, has expressed its support, our brothers in Mercosur. Venezuela, with Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, is a full member of Mercosur.

And many other Latin American countries, CARICOM, Bolivia have expressed their support for Venezuela. The Arab League, the full Arab League has voiced its support. And I am immensely grateful to the Arab world, to our Arab brothers, our Caribbean brothers, the African Union. Almost all of Africa has expressed its support for Venezuela and countries such as Russia or China and many others.

I thank you all warmly on behalf of Venezuela, on behalf of our people, and on behalf of the truth, because Venezuela, with a seat on the Security Council, will be expressing not only Venezuela's thoughts, but it will also be the voice of all the peoples of the world, and we will defend dignity and truth.

Over and above all of this, Madam President, I think there are reasons to be optimistic. A poet would have said "helplessly optimistic," because over and above the wars and the bombs and the aggressive and the preventive war and the destruction of entire peoples, one can see that a new era is dawning.

As Silvio Rodriguez says, the era is giving birth to a heart. There are alternative ways of thinking. There are young people who think differently. And this has already been seen within the space of a mere decade. It was shown that the end of history was a totally false assumption, and the same was shown about Pax Americana and the establishment of the capitalist neo-liberal world. It has been shown, this system, to generate mere poverty. Who believes in it now?

What we now have to do is define the future of the world. Dawn is breaking out all over. You can see it in Africa and Europe and Latin America and Oceanea. I want to emphasize that optimistic vision.

We have to strengthen ourselves, our will to do battle, our awareness. We have to build a new and better world.

Venezuela joins that struggle, and that's why we are threatened. The U.S. has already planned, financed and set in motion a coup in Venezuela, and it continues to support coup attempts in Venezuela and elsewhere.

President Michelle Bachelet reminded us just a moment ago of the horrendous assassination of the former foreign minister, Orlando Letelier.

And I would just add one thing: Those who perpetrated this crime are free. And that other event where an American citizen also died were American themselves. They were CIA killers, terrorists.

And we must recall in this room that in just a few days there will be another anniversary. Thirty years will have passed from this other horrendous terrorist attack on the Cuban plane, where 73 innocents died, a Cubana de Aviacion airliner.

And where is the biggest terrorist of this continent who took the responsibility for blowing up the plane? He spent a few years in jail in Venezuela. Thanks to CIA and then government officials, he was allowed to escape, and he lives here in this country, protected by the government.

And he was convicted. He has confessed to his crime. But the U.S. government has double standards. It protects terrorism when it wants to.

And this is to say that Venezuela is fully committed to combating terrorism and violence. And we are one of the people who are fighting for peace.

Luis Posada Carriles is the name of that terrorist who is protected here. And other tremendously corrupt people who escaped from Venezuela are also living here under protection: a group that bombed various embassies, that assassinated people during the coup. They kidnapped me and they were going to kill me, but I think God reached down and our people came out into the streets and the army was too, and so I'm here today.

But these people who led that coup are here today in this country protected by the American government. And I accuse the American government of protecting terrorists and of having a completely cynical discourse.

We mentioned Cuba. Yes, we were just there a few days ago. We just came from there happily.

And there you see another era born. The Summit of the 15, the Summit of the Nonaligned, adopted a historic resolution. This is the outcome document. Don't worry, I'm not going to read it.

But you have a whole set of resolutions here that were adopted after open debate in a transparent matter -- more than 50 heads of state. Havana was the capital of the south for a few weeks, and we have now launched, once again, the group of the nonaligned with new momentum.

And if there is anything I could ask all of you here, my companions, my brothers and sisters, it is to please lend your good will to lend momentum to the Nonaligned Movement for the birth of the new era, to prevent hegemony and prevent further advances of imperialism.

And as you know, Fidel Castro is the president of the nonaligned for the next three years, and we can trust him to lead the charge very efficiently.

Unfortunately they thought, "Oh, Fidel was going to die." But they're going to be disappointed because he didn't. And he's not only alive, he's back in his green fatigues, and he's now presiding the nonaligned.

So, my dear colleagues, Madam President, a new, strong movement has been born, a movement of the south. We are men and women of the south.

With this document, with these ideas, with these criticisms, I'm now closing my file. I'm taking the book with me. And, don't forget, I'm recommending it very warmly and very humbly to all of you.

We want ideas to save our planet, to save the planet from the imperialist threat. And hopefully in this very century, in not too long a time, we will see this, we will see this new era, and for our children and our grandchildren a world of peace based on the fundamental principles of the United Nations, but a renewed United Nations.

And maybe we have to change location. Maybe we have to put the United Nations somewhere else; maybe a city of the south. We've proposed Venezuela.

You know that my personal doctor had to stay in the plane. The chief of security had to be left in a locked plane. Neither of these gentlemen was allowed to arrive and attend the U.N. meeting. This is another abuse and another abuse of power on the part of the Devil. It smells of sulfur here, but God is with us and I embrace you all.

May God bless us all. Good day to you.

[rinsd]

6. That's brilliant? Jeez the Bush years have really lowered the bar

[PeaceProgProsp]

14. Yeah, Bush's references to My Pet Goat really blow away Chomsky

references.

[rinsd]

34. LOL...when a speech is basically ramblings on many tangents

Yeah its not a brilliant speech.

I know its real hard not to think in black and white terms but not praising Chavez does not equal support for Bush nor does critique of Bush mean support for Chavez.

[cali]

39. no kidding

it makes me want to weep that so many DUers think that's an example of brilliant political speech. Ouch.

[PeaceProgProsp]

49. "Rambling" isn't enough of a criticism to warrant that post.

Do you have a good argument why it's a bad speech?

[Moochy]

88. Was it given in English?

Translated from Spanish yes?

Makes me weep to see so many knee-jerk acceptance of right wing lies about chavez.

[AZBlue]

160. No kidding!

I'm trying to figure out which one rambles more - Bush or Chavez? I've decided it's a definite tie!!

(and, please, let's NOT have a tie-breaker!)

[kimmerspixelated]

12. The thing is...

It was too blatant for the media to ignore. Chimp heard it, too. If nothing else, it probably made him squirm a little. I have to agree with much of what Chavez has said... I don't know what Dems should do....saying what they actually feel would be good! Instead of always being so politically correct!

[silverweb]

35. I like it.

I like Chavez.

Bush is a "devil" ... and the neoCONs are "imperialists ... and most Americans as well as other people do want peace and justice for all ... and Chomsky is a must-read for all thinking people.

Truth to power, Hugo!

[niceypoo]

76. Chavez sounds like a republican

[1932]

79. Uh, which part?

[No Exit]

159. I don't give a damn what anyone thinks; I like the guy & I like his speech

Or are we Americans not allowed to like brown-skinned foreigners?

[Clarkie1]

165. What a childish jackass. nt

[hurricaneric]

2. It might be a good chance for Dems

If Dems respond to Chavez's speech, which I think the White House has refused to do, then I certainly think they could capitalize on the moment.

[ClusterFreak]

3. Personally, I found Chavez' speech hilarious.

The guy is a whack job, but he made me laugh.

[The_Casual_Observer]

4. You really think that what Chavez says might have some big effect

on the outcome of the election? Do you think that the average voter even knows who Chavez is?

[question everything]

13. They will know, now

You know that this will open all the network news and will be in tomorrow's front pages and on all the web pages. Just look at Yahoo right now.

And if Sam does not care for the news, tomorrow, at work, Dick will say: Hey, Sam, did you hear what that dude, from Mexico (Dick only picked that he was from "south of the border") called our President?

[The_Casual_Observer]

18. Somehow I don't get the connection between this and the Dems.

Are you looking for one of those sound bites where some congressman in a suit makes a grand written statement condemning Chavez? I'm sure there will be plenty of those.

[question everything]

22. Many Democrats are very careful to distinguish between the office

of the Presidency and the current occupant. They will also separate the policies and the man. If you will hear closely, they criticize the Bush Administration, the Bush policy, but rarely the man himself. Most Americans hold respect for the office and Chavez' comments should be viewed as offending the office.

And, yes, a "congressman in a suit makes a grand written statement condemning Chavez" would be adequate.

[ShortnFiery]

5. Oh stop! That's not true and will only serve to start a Flame War :(

IMO no good can come of this thread. :thumbsdown:

If you honestly think the above *as a fact* then consider NOT posting here? :shrug:

This is an insult to the vast majority of people here who can, without overly praising Chavez PERSONALLY, evaluate and understand his logic.

FLAME BAIT! :(

[question everything]

23. If the shoe fits. Just because you see this as a "flame bait"

does not make it one. Unless, as it was said in that movie: you can't handle the truth.

Or, at least, an opinion different from yours.

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

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

[ShortnFiery]

113. I rest my case. :(

Read the divisive and condescending posts in this thread, many of them by your person, then can you honestly say that this was a thoughtful debate instead of a food fight?

When those such as yourself, won't even open YOUR mind to the possibility that you may have over-reacted, it's sadly hypocritical that you choose to accuse me of not being able to "handle the truth."

This thread has helped nurture negative sentiments, not truth, not worthwhile and diplomatic debate, just mud slinging digs and mean spirited assumptions.

Bravo. :eyes: :thumbsdown:

[question everything]

139. Obviously, you are an expert in flame baiting

and I won't argue with your expertise.

Some of those threads often have many "message removed" posts and are finally locked so it appears that at least the moderators hold a different opinion from you of what is considered a flaming thread.

Now, if you and your buddy - who is stalking me to whatever I post, but has yet to start a thread of his own - will start posting really inflammatory posts - and I have no doubt that both of you are capable of this - then you will get your wish.

[arcane1]

7. I agree with that speech

and I'd be pissed at any Dem who denounces the content therein

[cali]

40. Back at you

I'm not pissed at anyone who doesn't see the speech as rambling and pathetic, but I am disappointed.

[arcane1]

50. rambling, yes

but I ramble sometimes too

still, there is nothing in its content that I have any problem with

[stopbush]

8. Well, the Devil is an imaginary being, and * is an imaginary pResident.

Yeah, I can cheer that thought.

It's a sad commentary on "most Americans" that they would "bristle" at Chavez "offending" * with
a few words of humor while * torturing people and killing tens of thousands of civilians barely
rates the bat of our moral eyelash.

[dogman]

9. It's really quite sad.

Sad that the President has earned such worldwide disrespect and sad to see Chavez join the RW extremists in dismantling the UN.

[PeaceProgProsp]

25. reread the speech. Chavez wants to strengthen UN by getting

rid of veto power of SC permanent members, along with some other proposals.

[dogman]

51. As I wrote,

dismantling the UN.

[PeaceProgProsp]

52. How?

[Tempest]

128. If you consider that dismantling the U.N.

Then by all means, it should be dismantled.

The ability of a few countries to dictate what the rest of the world should do is inherently unfair by any measure.

All countries should have an equal say.

[dogman]

150. Maybe, if all things were equal.

The Rw wants it to be dismantled because it is not run as they would like. The LW wants it dismantled because it is not run as they would like. Maybe when it is dismantled we can return to war as an answer to all disputes. I am not against reform at all. Dismantling is not reform. A few countries have always dictated to the rest of the world. Without a common forum it will become worse. Why do you think the RW is so eager to dismantle the UN? They would love to return to might makes right and colonialism. How long would Chavez last in that environment?

[question everything]

164. The UN is the only place where developing countries

with the poorest population but with corrupt governments can pretend to be big, by bashing the United States.

And the rest of the delegations, leading with Europe, bend backward so that they won't appear as "imperialists."

If a country like Syria is a member of the human rights commission, what does it say about the institution?

[geek tragedy]

169. But, the great powers need an incentive to participate in the UN.

If the US and China are given the same vote as Ecuador or Burundi, what do they have to gain from such an arrangement? What if the US and Europe and China decided to just leave?

The UN needs to reflect the actual distribution of power if it's going to have any teeth.

[question everything]

176. That's right

and this is how the smaller countries feel impotent and the way to over come it is to take the podium and try to humiliate the big guys.

For example, the US would like to add Japan to the biggies with a veto power, but China and Russia object, do not want to dilute theirs.

[flordehinojos]

10. THANK YOU SEñOR HUGO CHAVEZ FOR SPEAKING OUT AGAINST BUSH

FOR CALLING HIM TRULLY FOR WHAT HE IS AND FOR DOING IT ON THE FLOOR OF THE UNITED NATIONS IN AMERICAN SOIL! YOU HAVE COJONES SEñOR CHAVEZ, SOMETHING THAT THE EVIL EMPEROR LACKS!!!!
BRAVO. BRAVO. AND BRAVO SENOR CHAVEZ!

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

11. My ex-wife used to fight with me this same way...

Forget the entire context of what we were arguing about and just hit me with one word or phrase that I used poorly.

The argument would then shift from the actual problem, to we should be nicer to each other even when we're mad. And a few weeks later, of course, we would be back fighting again over the exact same thing. Until the subject was once again distracted for some other lame reason.

We mustn't let the Media or a single word or phrase detract from Chavaz' speech.

AMERICAN IMPERIALISM.


Forget the Devil-remark.

Let's debate if the 3rd world countries and the enemies of the US have a valid viewpoint of American Imperialism and 'world ownership'. If we could either disuade that argument by the detractors or admit it to ourselves, perhaps, just perhaps, we'd be on a better road to dealing with critical world issues.

The Devil is in the details.

[question everything]

19. Most voters do not bother to think beyond their immediate

surroundings. Something that Rove gets and we, apparently, still do not.

Most voters do not think of our policy as "imperialism." Most voters are unhappy about Iraq because we are losing, because so many of our soldiers get killed and wounded; and they do not care that much about the Iraqis.

This is not pandering. There are plenty of issues that are close to the voters that we can and should use: access to health care, job security, education, dignified retirement. This is what is important for most voters. And most voters are - gasp - proud to be Americans. They many not like Bush much, but they respect the office of the Presidency and would not tolerate foreigners mocking him.

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

29. Domestic vs Foreign Policy

Hopefully all voters are proud Americans. It's the non-voters that should be questionable! <wink>

I understand what you're saying.

Fear-mongering is pandering however and Karl Rove does that the very best. Although, some cartoonists have pointed out yelling 'failed policies, quaqmire, ineffectual leadership' as 'fear-mongering' there is a difference is stating facts as opposed to doomsday scenarios.

So whoever takes control of the Presidency and the White House in the coming years will need to have a strong and lasting Foreign Policy if the world is ever to trust the US again.

I hope you are correct that dealing with the daily issues will overshadow the fear-mongering tactics of the Neo-Conic PNAC cabinet of the King Puppet. I further hope that we choose wisely ourselves and NOT replace the fox in the henhouse with a wolf.

Time will tell.

[Moochy]

91. Imperialism? Never mind that its true... shh dont speak the truth

but lets' triangulate and speak lies and convenient untruths in order to get that middle voter whom we think so little of that they can not understand America's true position in the world.

Are we talking about how we as members of DU honestly react to this speech? or as some paid, weasely inside-the-beltway operatives planning to out-Rove Rove?

Most voters are "proud to be americans" :eyes:

Great keep singing that Toby Keith song.

And congrats on starting another flamefest with ZERO recommendations. mission accomplished!

[enough already]

15. Chavez is right

I'm not the least bit offended by what he said.

[Hawkowl]

16. The world must speak for Americans, since....

we are no longer able to speak for ourselves. We are forced into "free speech zones". We are denied are right to peacefully protest this fascist dictator who insists on being above all laws. Wear a T-shirt maligning Bush and go to jail. Go to the gallery in congress and engage in free speech criticizing Bush and go to jail. The MSM media refuses to cover Bush's outright crimes and is an active and complicit member in distributing Rethuglican "talking points" aka propaganda. The entire world dislikes Bush and we the people need to hear this. Once we hear the U.K. leaders on the MSM attacking Bush, we will know the end of his reign is near.

I heard the Chavez speech and it is not ANTI-AMERICAN it is ANTI-BUSH. There is a distinction. I'm livid when the media, and people in general, interpret all criticism of Bush as criticism of America and Americans. It is simply not so. The sooner we Americans stop the goddamn, knee jerk reaction, of internalizing criticism of the would be Emperor as personal criticism, the sooner the Emperor will cease to have any clothes and thus, any power.

Yes, Bush is "commander and chief" and a disastrously incompetent one at that. But he is more a commander in chief as in the old Roman term for it IMPERATOR, or Emperor in English. In this sense I think we Americans have found our Caligula.

[question everything]

28. Have you ever lived in a real totalitarian country?

where just having a DU forum would be unimaginable?

Can you imagine living in a country where someone can knock on your door in the middle of the night, remove you and no one would ever know what happened to you, or risk jail and death for even asking?

Many years ago, while still at school, there was a visiting student from South Africa - a white student. And he once made a comment how people in this country talk about a "police state" and they don't know the first thing about a real police state.

Stop complaining. You are free to read any material criticizing Bush. You are free to write anything that you want. Yes, there are ruled about how people can protest at certain events and if you violate them you will be removed. But you certainly can write about it and protest about such rules, only not in the way that you want to.

Yes, there are many who think that we have too much freedom to express what we think and, yes, especially since 9/11 many of our rights that we took for granted have been eroded. And many of us protest. Loudly.

But to beg others, like Chavez and Ahamdinejad, and Castro - despicable individuals to begin with - to speak on our behalf... I honestly think that perhaps spending a year in Iran, or in Venezuela, or in Cuba may be just the prescription for you.

[Hawkowl]

32. I choose none of the above

Just because I want MY Country back doesn't mean I have to love my government or prefer some other totalitarian iteration. You sound like you're just happay to be here. Well if you are then STEP THE FUCK ASIDE and let us get to work taking our country back.

You're the one who is happy with our precipitous plunge into dictartorship. You're used to it, you leave. My family's been here about 15,000 years and I want my constitution BACK!

[question everything]

36. Sigh.

You do have problems with comprehension, right? Nuances? Complex issues that cannot be reduced to sound bites?

Just curious what you mean by taking our country back... all the way to 15,000 years ago? To before 1492?

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

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

[question everything]

96. And from where did you get this

that I "think the continent was uninhabited before 1492?"

Still problems with reading and understanding what you read. And, of course, it is futile to expect you to answer a simple question.

[Moochy]

94. Lots of questions but never the truth n/t

[Tempest]

48. You obviously know nothing about Venezuela

If you claim it is an authoritative country.

[ProudDad]

104. I know what it's like to live in a totalitarian country now...

Take a good look around, the U.S. has passed the tipping point and demonstrates all 14 of the characteristics of fascism:

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

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread
domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

[ButterflyBlood]

133. Do you think DU would exist in a totalitarian country?

Do you think Chavez's speech would be broadcasted?

[ProudDad]

168. Yep --

It's called "compassionate fascism", that's the kind we have in the U.S. These totalitarians don't need jackboots and the Gestapo,

they own YOUR mind...

[lonehalf]

17. I am reminded of a quote from...

...Churchill

"If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons".

I really think that most Democrats will not support Chaves.

I also think that if we do it will hurt us.

[Kashka-Kat]

20. maybe the problem is more with those who refuse to hear or comprehend

what is really being said. You know, the Sean Hannities and Rush LImbaughs of the world whose modus operandi is to misquote, mischaracterize, take out of context... and then to attack the straw man. No matter what is said of any depth or nuance, they will twist the meaning around to suit their own purposes.

Its like living with an abuser--and believe me I know of what I speak. Theres no point in playing their f***** up games or placating or engaging with them in any way -- but just keep on point and keep articulating as clearly and as honestly as possible the truth as one sees it...

There's no reason to repudiate or disavow Chavez's speech. There's no reason to embrace it or agree with it either. It is what it is, the statement of a leader of another country in south America. How is the Democratic party responsible for it in any way?

[question everything]

69. I am thinking beyond DU and into most voters

As I've posted above, most voters do not follow foreign policy, most would not be able to point to Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Venezuela on the map.

But they will be offended by Chavez mocking the American President, the office of the presidency. Someone on the news already said that Karl Rove must be smacking his lips, working on the new ad campaign.

Let's not kid ourselves. Karl Rove has shown that he knows how most of the voters think, knows what visceral buttons to push: "baby killers" "perverts" and other. And he knows that most voters would "circle the wagon" around their President. I disagree with this, you disagree with this, most progressive who can think for themselves will disagree with this. But this would be the instinctive reaction of most voters.

[IndianaGreen]

73. Most of those voters are morons that believe Saddam was involved in 9-11

and think that Intelligent Design is a scientific theory. They are beyond help and redemption!

[question everything]

75. But they still vote, they are Rove's base (nt)

[IndianaGreen]

77. And they will never vote Democratic, so FUCK them

and their stupid Christian Voting Guides they get every election cycle.

[Tempest]

125. What do we care about Rove's base?

Jesus Fucking Christ man, Rove's base will NEVER vote for anyone other than a fascist prick like Bush.

You tried to bash Chavez and got your ass handed to you.

Good job.

[question everything]

136. And how do you know that?

Rove has been successful in moving people to go out and vote for issues that, he convinced them, were the most important to them - like abortion and gays and WWJD.

If we can convince them that jobs, access to health care, good schools and dignified retirements are more important, we could have a chance.

I am writing this for others who may come to this thread with open mind. Normally I avoid replying to posters who demonstrate such a meager ability to think and to opine that the only way they can express themselves is with profanity.

[Selatius]

138. You will fail in your effort

Good luck to you.

On the other hand, middle voters are winnable. Rove's base is a bridge too far, though.

[ScreamingWhisper]

130. wow...way to win the hearts and minds...rofl

critical much?

[IndianaGreen]

161. Anyone that believes in Intelligent Design is an ignorant moron

Those that reject reason can never be reached!

[brentspeak]

21. Chavez is your typical South American tin-plated quasi-dictator

Usually, South American political thugs are right wing; Chavez, though, is left wing.

His bashing of Bush doesn't make him any less of a demagogue.

[PeaceProgProsp]

24. Allende gave a speech in the UN in which he merely said

that he didn't think it was right that 90% of Chile's economy was controlled by a few large American corporations. About nine weeks later he was killed in a coup Kissinger and Nixon supported.

That sort of put the damper on DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED Latin American leaders speaking the truth about imperialism in the UN. It's nice to see Chavez discussing this in more detail than anyone before him.

[wagthedogwar]

27. a letter to John Bolton

-A question to you, Mr.Bolton:
'How many times in the last 100 years have American troops been sent to Latin America to secure 'the blessings of Liberty?'

If Hugo Chavez was right about nothing else, he is right in saying this: "people are waking up" the world over in part thanks to *George Bush, who taught everyone to get real. The US invades to protect it's own private commercial interests to the detriment of all local populations--even it's own--and at the expense of it's taxpayers.

Finally Americans are slowly realizing that *Bush has always been about securing his own private 'blessings' by,for and with *corporations who have no *loyalty, no *nationality, no *soul (see devil) and who don't pay taxes.

You can fight and die for Exxon or the United fruit Company or the Anglo American Oil Company for another hundred years Mr.Bolton, but they will never fight for you; and like *George W.Bush, when you are no longer useful to them, they will throw you to the sharks, like the republican party plans to do to him. No, *George Bush is not the Devil, he is the Devil's pawn,
the Harbinger of Death...and the *Corporation likes that Just fine.

[tkmorris]

44. And you bashing Chavez doesn't make you right

I try to keep an open mind about such matters, I really do. Time and again I see people here, you more than once, referring to Chavez as a "dictator", "despot", or "demagogue", but never are there any reasonable facts given to support that language.

I can think of two things Chavez has had a hand in that trouble me, but neither event even begins to make him what you claim, nor do they outweigh the tremendous good he has done for the people of Venezuela.

So, you convince me. Why do you say such harsh things about him? Why does he deserve your labeling?

[wtmusic]

97. *crickets*

:popcorn:

[tkmorris]

114. Yeah no sh**

I tried very hard to be reasonable too. This is really getting ridiculous and it is SO transparent. So many people with an agenda trying to direct the discussion here at DU.

[Zodiak]

140. You get used to them after a while

They keep things interesting, and you see the same names over and over again. Predictable and apparently prolific.

[Moochy]

149. Another giveaway

Watch for those abandoned sub-threads wherein they are called on their mis-information and lies.

The Ignore feature is your friend!

[brentspeak]

172. Thanks for the advice

Welcome to my "ignore" list.

[Moochy]

175. What the !@#!#?

Welcome to ignore as well you cheery mother!#!@#

[brentspeak]

171. Some of us have a life

And don't stick around for hours waiting for a response to their posts. Or staying in front of their computer to respond to others' questions.

Why is Chavez a demagogue, you ask?

Chavez helped to plot a military coup of his own several years ago, before he became president of Venezuela, hardly the mark of someone dedicated to democracy. He spent two years in prison for that. Chavez also takes a funny view of a democracy; he passed a law after he was reelected in 2000 called the "Enabling Act", which allowed him to rule by decree for an entire year. He's made an untold number of public "announcements" of alleged coup attempts against him, even though there's been little if any proof to back up his claims of things like U.S. evangelical groups working with the CIA to overthrow his regime. And no, Pat Robertson's demented advocacy that Chavez be assasinated is not proof of that.

I could go on and on talking about Chavez' ridiculous bluster, and how he spends more time trying to stir up the masses and instigate needless verbal international confrontations and controversies rather than simply sticking to governing his country.

[Moochy]

174. Oh no I'm ignored by the great and powerful brentspeak!

:scared:

What so ever will I do??? take your own advice and get over yourself?

[IndianaGreen]

59. To you Bush is legitimate, despite his having stolen two elections

To you Chavez is a "typical South American tin-plated quasi-dictator", despite the fact that he was democratically elected by overwhelming numbers in free elections.

You disclose too much about yourself!

I would choose a Chavez over a legion of George W. Bushes!

And, yes, I would side with Venezuela over a country that supports torture and wars of aggression.

A poet would have said "helplessly optimistic," because over and above the wars and the bombs and the aggressive and the preventive war and the destruction of entire peoples, one can see that a new era is dawning.

As Sylvia Rodriguez says, the era is giving birth to a heart. There are alternative ways of thinking. There are young people who think differently. And this has already been seen within the space of a mere decade. It was shown that the end of history was a totally false assumption, and the same was shown about Pax Americana and the establishment of the capitalist neo-liberal world. It has been shown, this system, to generate mere poverty. Who believes in it now?

What we now have to do is define the future of the world. Dawn is breaking out all over. You can see it in Africa and Europe and Latin America and Oceanea. I want to emphasize that optimistic vision.

We have to strengthen ourselves, our will to do battle, our awareness. We have to build a new and better world.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15041.htm

[ProudDad]

105. Also most "South American"

"political thugs" aren't elected by their people by huge margins in completely fair elections. Hugo Chavez was.

It was also the majority of his people who freed him from the bush backed coup.

Are you against democracy???

[donheld]

116. most "South American"... "political thugs"

Were in office as puppets for the US government.

[cboy4]

26. One nut speaking about the other! LOL!!! The speech is a great read . . .

If it were a book, I wouldn't have been able to put it down! :)

[Vinca]

30. What if we agree with Chavez?

IMHO, if there was such as thing as "the devil," it would look like George Bush. I actually find Chavez rather amusing.

[question everything]

100. Oh wonderful. DUers adore a military man who first tried a coup

Chávez made extensive preparations for a military coup d'état. Initially planned for December, Chávez delayed the MBR-200 coup until the early twilight hours of February 4, 1992. On that date, five army units under Chávez's command barreled into urban Caracas with the mission of assaulting and overwhelming key military and communications installations throughout the city, including the Miraflores presidential palace, the defense ministry, La Carlota military airport, and the Historical Museum. Chávez's ultimate goal was to intercept and take custody of Pérez, who was returning to Miraflores from an overseas trip.

Chávez held the loyalty of less than 10% of Venezuela's military forces; still, numerous betrayals, defections, errors, and other unforeseen circumstances soon left Chávez and a small group of rebels cut off in the Historical Museum, without any means of conveying orders to their network of spies and collaborators spread throughout Venezuela. Further, Chávez's allies were unable to broadcast their prerecorded tapes on the national airwaves in which Chávez planned to issue a general call for a mass civilian uprising against Pérez. As the coup unfolded, the coup plotters were unable to capture Pérez: fourteen soldiers were killed, and 50 soldiers and some 80 civilians injured in the ensuing violence. Nevertheless, rebel forces in other parts of Venezuela made advances and were ultimately able to take control of such large cities as Valencia, Maracaibo, and Maracay with the help of spontaneous civilian aid. Chávez's forces, however, had failed to take Caracas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Chavez

[Moochy]

101. Oh if Wiki-pedia says it, it must be true

:eyes:

[Tempest]

126. Figures you would support a murdering corrupt politician

Perez ordered troops to fire on protesters in Caracas who were trying to get Perez to do something about the abject poverty in the country.

Perez had a huge secret slush fund he used to undermine and subvert the political process. That's why he was impeached.

Corruption exploded during Perez's administration and he lost power because of it.

[brentspeak]

173. That's funny, corruption has also thrived under Chavez

And only someone who doesn't know what he/she's talking about would claim that the other poster was by default supportive of Perez simply by pointing out Chavez' coup attempt.

[donheld]

31. Oh, cry me a river

I you expect me to be angry with Chavez you'd be wrong. I don't care if it's on foreign soil, lunar soil whatever. I cheer whenever anybody calls Bush what he really is (the Devil).

[question everything]

33. Sure. Many here agree with Ahamdinejad, too

But don't expect to take control of Congress and of the White House in 2008 parading these ideas.

Many here still are proud that they voted for Nader in 2000 - and look what it cost us. In 1968, many Democrats could not bring themselves to vote for Humphrey and stayed home, ushering the era of Nixon.

The hard facts of politics is that, no matter how noble your aim is, you first need to win. And refusing to vote for the candidate who does not meet your expectations precisely brings us worse monsters. And if you are happy to live under regimes of Nixon and Bush and pat yourself on the back and be proud that you did stuck to your principles... well, I hope that most Democrats do not share this view.

[Tempest]

43. Ah, the Dilbert method of debate

2. Turn someone’s factual statements into implied preferences.

Just because SOME (I doubt your statement on "many") agree with SOME things Ahamdinejad says, doesn't mean they blanket agree with Ahamdinejad as you imply.


>>Many here still are proud that they voted for Nader in 2000 - and look what it cost us.<<

Damn them for voting with their conscience. Would you prefer they were frog-marched to the polls and forced to vote the way you would want them to?


>>The hard facts of politics is that, no matter how noble your aim is, you first need to win.<<

Anyone who puts aside nobility just to win is nothing more than a prostitute.


>>And refusing to vote for the candidate who does not meet your expectations precisely brings us worse monsters.<<

So you're saying to vote for a candidate you don't agree with just to keep another candidate you don't agree with from being elected? Huh?



>>I hope that most Democrats do not share this view<<

Most (and I'm correct in using "most") don't share your view. Thankfully.

[tkmorris]

45. Game, set, and match. Well said. nt

[question everything]

70. Do you even bother to read what you quote?

"And refusing to vote for the candidate who does not meet your expectations precisely brings us worse monsters"

Or does the word precisely does not mean anything to you?

I voted for Bill Clinton, twice, even though he suspended his New Hampshire campaign to go home to send a mentally slow convict to death.

I realize, though, that if I will hold my vote from anyone who supports the death penalty, I might as well stay home during election days.

You must be lucky if all your candidates meet your expectations precisely. How many of them won?

[ProudDad]

106. Your kind of thinking

doesn't deserve to "take over Congress"...

IMHO

[MadHound]

37. Oh puhleeze

Yes, many of us, both in the DU community and out, cheer on Chavez for speaking truth to power. In fact a large segment of the population of the country probably believes as Chavez does, that Bush does indeed resemble the devil, especially at the rate that his wars are killing innocent people. But I seriously doubt that this will have any effect on the elections this fall, whether the party responds to this or not.

And frankly, as far as taking offense, friend, you haven't heard anything. Go down to your next large anti-war rally, and just listen to what the people there say about Bush. And suprisingly, many of them are Republicans and former Bush supporters.

Sorry, but I think your taking offense is misplaced, and your worries are groundless.

[Tempest]

46. Agreed

>>Sorry, but I think your taking offense is misplaced, and your worries are groundless.<<


If you ask Americans if they agree with Chavez, they're going to say no.

They're also going to say it will have NO influence on how they vote. Americans are more concerned with issues of health care, jobs, wages and the war in Iraq than with something the president of a foreign government thinks about Bush.

And if you look at Bush's unfavorable rating (59%), most Americans would probably agree with Chavez.

[question everything]

74. Boy, so much incomprehension here

I did not say that I took offense. In my opinion, Chavez is a clown who, like most South America leaders, feel the need to tweak the nose of the gorilla in the room and his oil wells (and our insatiable thirst) give him the muscle. Same with Ahmedinijad.

This is the political forum. We are talking about taking back Congress, about convincing the voters that we can do a better job. Right now, our chances are slim, mostly because of the way district boundaries are drawn to favor the incumbents. Yes, many dislike the leadership in Washington, but when it comes down to their guy or gal, they will vote for them again.

Most voters do not think globally but rather about issues that are close and personal for them: their job security, their health care, the schools, their retirement.. Most consider themselves proud Americans, not imperialists. They are proud of the flag and of, at least, the office of the Presidency. And anyone mocking these values would just cause them to "circle the wagon." It is not what I think; it is how these events will play in the homes of millions of voters. And right now, Chavez speech favors Bush.

How many voters are in this country and how many are at anti-war rallies? You do the math.

The anti-war sentiments during Vietnam were a lot stronger than they are now, yet Nixon won. Twice.

[Hawkowl]

89. Nixon

Nixon won twice yes, by promising to END the war with a "secret plan" and his disingenuous "peace with honor".

The dems need to promise to end the war, period. Seeing that congress can't end a war only declare one, they need to simply highlight the failures of the Executive branch that is losing the war. Now come 2008, the presidential candidate who wins will be the one who has the most credibility on how to end the war in Iraq. You can bet your ass our troops will still be there.

[Moochy]

95. And as usual you are the only one who comprehends...

I'm noticing a pattern.

[Tempest]

127. Blind hatred will do that to you

He's been all over the place trying to condemn Chavez.

Me thinks his brain cells have shut down.

[wtmusic]

99. You think Chavez gives a crap about our elections?

Who cares what voters think? Chavez is speaking to the world and (somewhat ineloquently, but passionately) telling it like it is. This goes far beyond November.

[ProudDad]

107. Chavez is hardly a "Clown"

Along with millions of other people in the world, he's defining a new paradigm that will be much more likely to lead to a better world than bush and most of the dems' support for the current imperial world order.

The future is with people cooperating with one another for the good of all not the U.S. model of "I've got mine, Jack, now f*ck you!" That's the world Sr. Chavez is working toward and most of the U.S. Govt and the Congress are mightily trying to prevent from coming to fruition.

As for your weak points -- for one, 65% of these "people" you pretend to know so well are against this war.

You are also trying to reinvent history. In '68 Nixon ran against a dispised pro-war president's lacky and the majority of the U.S. people weren't against the war yet. By '72, Nixon and his buddies in the FBI and the dirty tricksters had pretty will destroyed most organized opposition to the war and diluted the majority population's disenchancement with the war by lying to them with his "peace with honor" bullshit.

It's not nice to try to re-write history on DU -- too many of us know the truth...

You are correct in the myopic thinking patterns of U.S. voters. They've been so dumbed down by the "bread and circuses" of fast food and football that most can hardly rub two neurons together any more. They're proud of a piece of cloth and a meaningless office because, let's face it, there's not much to be proud of about this country any more...certainly not since it decided to ignore Geo. Washington become an empire.

[MadHound]

115. No, I comprehend what you're saying quite well

And I still think that you are overblowing the consequences of Chavez's actions. This isn't going to effect the elections this fall one iota. Bush isn't up for election, and even the people who are offended by Chavez's remarks aren't going to base their voting decision on what he said. As you said, most voters aren't terribly interested in global issues and the global stage. This is exactly why Chavez won't effect the eletion. As you said, the election is based on bread and butter issues, something completely outside the pervue of Chavez.

If you wish to overreact to this and continue to run around like Chicken Little over these remarks, fine, it's your perogative. Just don't expect the rest of us to join you in your overblown hysteria. We've got other things to do, like going out and working to insure Democratic victories this fall.

[donheld]

117. You are soooo full of bologna

:crazy:

[Mike03]

38. One thought

I understand some people not being elated that Chavez did this, but (and I didn't cheer, but I was pleased) to me the important aspect of this was a) the encouraging response of the UN audience and b) since Bush is shielded from negative news, I felt this was criticism he would not be able to hide from. It's true that it was a "joke," but like all of the best jokes, it was flopsweat humor based on a sincere observation that a pathologically dysfunctional individual who is an object of ridicule to many and a dangerous menace to the entire planet holds a position of power.

[newsguyatl]

41. oh i do question everything

especially with some of the latest posts here.

[fuzzyball]

42. If I called Chavez a "devil" in Venezuela, will I be arrested?

Is there first amendment and free speech equivalent in
Venezuela under Chavez? If yes, then he had perfect right
to call Bush a devil. If not, it was hypocritical.

By the way I don't consider Bush a devil. He is just a dimwit
front man for the neo-cons.

[Tempest]

47. No, you would not

The largest TV broadcast station in Venezuela is owned and controlled by anti-Chavez forces.

There are several anti-Chavez newspapers as well.

They call him worse than the devil and get away with it.

[1932]

54. You wouldn't even be in jail if you attempted a coup against him.

At least, of the dozens of people who enabled and participated in that fascist coup, I can think of only two who are in jail right now.

[question everything]

102. A totalitarian by any other name..

in August 1999, the Constitutional Assembly established a special "judicial emergency committee" with the power to remove judges without consulting with other branches of government—over 190 judges were eventually suspended on charges of corruption. In the same month, the Constitutional Assembly declared a "legislative emergency," resulting in a seven-member committee that was tasked with conducting the legislative functions ordinarily carried out by the National Assembly. Legislative opposition to Chávez's policies was immediately disabled. Meanwhile, the Constitutional Assembly prohibited the National Assembly from holding meetings of any sort.

After the May and July 2000 elections, Chávez backed the passage of the "Enabling Act" by the National Assembly. This act allowed Chávez to rule by decree for one year. In November 2001, shortly before the Enabling Act was set to expire, Chávez enacted a set of 49 decrees.

Between April 9 and 11, 2002, the government required all radio and TV stations to transmit numerous speeches by President Chávez, other government officials, and other programming favorable to the Government, even shutting the signals of the stations who refused, in an attempt to block coverage of the demonstrations and ensuing violence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Chavez

[fuzzyball]

153. Thanks for a real link.....that's what I had guessed...n/t

[paulk]

132. there have been laws recently passed in Venezuela

that make it a crime to insult government officials

http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2006&m=July&x=200607201147001xeneerg0.3363916

[question everything]

137. Oh, don't confuse the dittoheads here with facts

and especially the ones coming from the State Department.

People here want to adore Chavez, and Nassrallah, and Castro, and Ahmedinijad and would love to canonize Arafat - just because they hate the US and Israel.

And they wonder why so many moderate voters are recoiled when they hear about such opinions and run to vote Republican.

These are people who would rather see the disappearance of the Democratic party, the rise ot a one party government - and then they will mourn the loss of civil rights - then give up their precious narrow minded "principles."

[Tempest]

142. What a couple of tools you guys are

From the cite he provided and you responded to:

The climate for press freedom and free speech in Venezuela has "deteriorated sharply," reports the Miami-based Inter-American Press Association (IAPA).



An Open Letter to Robert J. Cox of the Inter-American Press Association
"Your organization - IAPA - does more harm than good to press freedom"
http://www.narconews.com/iapaletter1.html

[paulk]

147. the narconews ... now, there's a credible news source

does the law against insulting government officials in Venezuela that the article refers to exist?

if it doesn't I would appreciate being corrected...

a hell of a lot more than I appreciate being called a "tool"

[fuzzyball]

155. WOW..so I WOULD be arrested and jailed for insulting Chavez in Venezu

ela! Thanks for providing some real links and real facts.

But Chavez has no problem insulting our president?
Not justice is it?

[Jed Dilligan]

53. I disagree

The Americans who know and care who Chavez is already know how they're going to vote. Let's not call attention to him and thereby rally them around the "CIC" (who, incidentally, is only commander of the armed forces and not the entire country!)

[savemefromdumbya]

63. rally around the devil - no thanks

[question everything]

78. Beyond our control

All the media outlet cover this event - already in the evening news and, no doubt, in tomorrow papers and for the weeks ahead.

And a talking head, do not remember on which station, suggested that this would play perfectly in Rove's hand. And Rove has proved that he knows how to touch the visceral buttons of the average voter, the one who does not follow all the news but gets most of his opinion during Sunday sermons.

[IndianaGreen]

55. Progressives that read Chavez speech would find much to agree with

and little, if anything, to disagree. The full text of Chavez's speech is making the rounds in the Left blogosphere.

Rise Up Against the Empire

President Hugo Chavez, Address to the United Nations

09/19/06 "Information Clearing House" -- --

The president then -- and this he said himself, he said: "I have come to speak directly to the populations in the Middle East, to tell them that my country wants peace."

That's true. If we walk in the streets of the Bronx, if we walk around New York, Washington, San Diego, in any city, San Antonio, San Francisco, and we ask individuals, the citizens of the United States, what does this country want? Does it want peace? They'll say yes.

But the government doesn't want peace. The government of the United States doesn't want peace. It wants to exploit its system of exploitation, of pillage, of hegemony through war.

It wants peace. But what's happening in Iraq? What happened in Lebanon? In Palestine? What's happening? What's happened over the last 100 years in Latin America and in the world? And now threatening Venezuela -- new threats against Venezuela, against Iran?

He spoke to the people of Lebanon. Many of you, he said, have seen how your homes and communities were caught in the crossfire. How cynical can you get? What a capacity to lie shamefacedly. The bombs in Beirut with millimetric precision?

This is crossfire? He's thinking of a western, when people would shoot from the hip and somebody would be caught in the crossfire.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15041.htm

[1932]

57. You should start OPs highlighting his arguments.

The MSM wants the story to be "he called Bush a devil." The DU story should be "Chavez criticized empire."

[gulliver]

56. We should say, "I'm sorry quirky little jerks like Chavez ...

... and Ahmadinejad have such an international following thanks to Bush."

[1932]

58. You need to read the speech closely. It's not quirky and it's not jerky.

[gulliver]

60. I have no doubt. Also, Ahmadinejad comes off like Ghandi in...

... Time this week. They are both showboating at America's expense thanks to Bush. Their U.N. speeches would not have even been covered by the news if they didn't have Bush to use as a soft spot in our armor. That's really my point. They are small potatoes and they have big mouths, but they have no trouble outshining our Junior on the world stage. What a humiliation!

[1932]

67. My opinion: Chavez said some powerful things about US empire, and

the Bush administration and the MSM needs to spin hard to make sure Americans don't hear the arguments about empire and only hear the sort of things that you're saying.

Chavez isn't saying anything that he has not said his entire life, so it's hardly showboating for the UN, and it's hardly motivated merely by George Bush (although Bush embodies the worst of American Imperial impulse).

[question everything]

80. Indeed. No one calls either of them for their inflammatory

remarks concerning Jews, for example (on DU this might be a badge of honor).

NBC Bryan Williams yesterday had a very soft interview with Ahmedinijad and let him get away with anything. Ahmedinijad chastised the Pope "an influential leader" for saying what he said. But what about him and his desire to wipe Israel off the map? Or belittling the Holocaust?

And Chavez lamented that while the world had enough resources for all, "some minorities, the descendants of the same ones who crucified Christ took possession of all the planet's gold, of the silver, the minerals, the waters, the good land, the oil, the riches.."

[Moochy]

103. (on DU this might be a badge of honor).

Only in your bizzarro world.

Any pointers to where I might gather and reinforce my irrational fears that DU hates jews?

[ProudDad]

108. As usual, in your hatred for Chavez

you have it wrong again:

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

"The Venezuelan Jewish community leadership and several major American Jewish groups are accusing the Simon Wiesenthal Center of rushing to judgment by charging Venezuela's leftist president, Hugo Chavez, with making antisemitic remarks.

Officials of the leading organization of Venezuelan Jewry were preparing a letter this week to the center, complaining that it had misinterpreted Chavez's words and had failed to consult with them before attacking the Venezuelan president.

"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."

[question everything]

177. And do really think that this was written of their own free will?

If so, as I posed above, you have no understanding of what it is like to live as a minority, a minority with a history of persecution.

[Tempest]

129. Stop already

Ahmedinijad never said he wanted to wipe Israel off the map.

Damn, do you always repeat what you hear from the Rove camp when it comes to Ahmedinijad and Chavez?

[question everything]

141. Such ignorance

Search all the sources of news that you are capable. Search DU..

[Tempest]

144. Believe what you want

But the fact is, he never said he wanted Israel wiped off the map.

That's what the Rove camp wants you to believe.

I read two independent translations to his speech, not any of the American translations you appeared to have read.


Search DU?

Why? So I can get your biased, and wrong translations to what he said?

[scarletwoman]

61. WTF is this "Commander in Chief" crap? You've already lost me.

We CITIZENS of the U.S. elect a PRESIDENT, who, according to the U.S. Constitution, acts as "Commander in Chief" of the U.S. ARMED FORCES -- NOT the whole damn country!

I'm not a member of the military, therefore the PRESIDENT is NOT my "Commander in Chief", he's just the president, an (allegedly) elected civil servant -- our EMPLOYEE.

And since I'm not a "Democratic leader", I'll cheer Chavez all I want. TRUTH is more important than politics, and Chavez speaks the TRUTH about U.S. imperialism and all the damage it has done and continues to do in the world at large.

I am an inhabitant of the planet Earth FIRST AND FOREMOST. My highest loyalty is to my fellow human beings on the entire planet. It is merely an accident of birth that places in me in this particular geographic area of the planet.

I owe NOTHING to the rotten, corrupt ruling class of this country that has elevated an amoral sociopathic idiot to such a position of power. Let him be mocked and derided all over the world. It is eminently right and just.

Viva Chavez!

sw

[IndianaGreen]

62. Commander in Chief = Fuhrer

I heard Republicans in my office criticize people for "attacking our Commander in Chief" saying that criticism of Bush is bad for "our unity." Sounds like something Lieberman said, doesn't it?

We are now cast in the role of those Germans that refused to support Hitler and their country when it invaded Europe. The Nazis called those Germans "traitors." We now call them patriots and heroes.

[scarletwoman]

66. You've nailed it! I ain't bowing down for some f**king "Fuhrer"!

My dad was a WWII veteran, I'm an early wave baby boomer who grew up with parents for whom the struggle against Nazism was a clear and recent memory. My mother used to sing to me a goofy little mocking song (by Spike Jones?) about Hitler that was popular during the war:

Der Fuhrer says,
Ve iz da Master Race,
And we "Heil -- phbbbt (raspberry sound)
Heil -- phbbbt"
right in da Fuhrer's face!

I've got no problem with bush* being mocked and derided by ANYONE. It's healthy. Mockery and humor are some of the best weapons against evil!

sw

[savemefromdumbya]

64. Bush think he's at war but he's really just playing with his toy soldiers

trouble is 'their 'CIC' is just a playboy

[NotGivingUp]

131. well said!!!

[jackbourassa]

65. We shouldn't condemn anything...

I agree that Chavez is an asshole. I agree that we should not be his "friend." But no one cares about who says what at the UN...

Us speaking out on it only keeps the story going (if it even started) and might make people "feel sorry" for Bush...

No condemnation necessary. Congress won't be affected one way or another. Just keep up our talk about change. That's how we win.

[IndianaGreen]

71. I support Chavez and the people of Venezuela over the self-absorbed

Americans that believe in American Exceptionalism, a recycled version of "white man's burden." They are no different from the Germans that thought of themselves as the master race.

[question everything]

82. We really do not have much of a choice

As you've observed, the media highlights this - you really cannot ignore this; it is news for someone to come to this country and to say what he said.

And as you might have heard, Rove will run with this.

There was a thread here the other day where some lamented the fact that it appears that the Democrats do not have a plan even though, of course, we do.

One reason was that our plan is not spelled in specific action plan but another reason is that we are forced to react. Bush has the State of the Union Address, or speaks on prime time on television and all we can do is react.

And, I am afraid this will happen here (unless other news will take over). The Republicans will run with it, calling to "circle the wagon," more or less, and we will just watch..

I hope that I am wrong but since I first posted it, the way it was covered during the evening has proved me right...

[Hawkowl]

92. So what?

So what if "Rove runs with this"? Good god man, how many Americans have a clue who Chavez is? How many can spell Venezuela or find it on a map? If this is Rove's plan then it is a desperate, idiotic plan, because first he'll have to give a lot of air time to Chavez before anyone will care.
He doesn't harbor terrorists. He doesn't have WMD's. He just "gasp!" sells discount oil to the needy in the U.S! Commie! Stealing from the U.S. philanthropic oil companies!

[ProudDad]

109. Ooooooooooooooooooooooh

Rove is so Scaaarrrrryyyy.

Rove's done. Stick a fork into the fat little pig.

[Raksha]

110. No, I don't think Rove is gonna "run with this"

or that there is going to be the kind of Chavez-bashing shitstorm on the talk shows that you seem to expect--and ALSO appear to want, I might add. Like many other DUers I am extremely skeptical of the Chavez-bashing crowd, you included, and usually don't respond to posts like this at all. The more discussion there is of Chavez' remarks, the more people are going to find themselves AGREEING with him! I think Rove is smart enough to know that, and I think the corporate media is going to try to shovel this speech under the rug as fast as they can.

[Tempest]

124. Chavez received a standing ovation at Cooper University last night

And he spent a good portion of his speech bashing Bush.

The fact is, despite what the Chavez hater wants you to think, almost 60% of Americans disagree with Bush.

[ShortnFiery]

122. You don't have to FEAR what republicans glean from us IF you don't

feel a need to be defensive.

Yeah, some people here like Chavez "too much" but that's JUST = IMO.

Although I've lived for two years in a Central American country and know that poverty is far from a simple issue, I don't laud Chavez.

However, I also know that The Democratic Party is truly a "big tent" ... what is most important are our CORE VALUES. Those values are holding our representatives accountable for supporting the INDIVIDUAL American (both civil liberties and the common welfare.

Therefore, I couldn't give a rat's ass about what the republicans or republican web sites say. I've been highlighted by screen name but, quite honestly, I don't give a shit about their little clutches because they represent all that is immature and inane in our society.

I respectfully suggest that you please hesitate to censure your fellow democrats when what is MOST PRECIOUS TODAY is sustaining our Civil Liberties.

Vote for a more moderate Democrat in your local area but it's YOU that are helping the Freepers when you "dress down" your fellow democrats because YOU *perceive* that they are not patriotic because they LIKE Chavez and his style. NOT one of even the strongest supporters of what Chavez had to say stated that they wanted to move to Venezuela.

Please don't figuratively wrap yourself up in the American Flag. I love my country and I love the military (when being led by sound leadership - civilian down), but I will always hesitate to *imply* that a MORE Liberal Democrat is unpatriotic if they take a shine to a leader within a country that Dear Leader deems to be "our enemy."

Mr. Bush needs to be reminded that he's not The President of This World. :crazy: :eyes:

However, we must reach out in tolerance. It's only through compromise and tolerance that The Democratic Party can win seats in an election. We are not WIRED to be "back biting" thuggish like republican operatives. It's not in MOST of our natures. That's precisely why we must do our utmost to understand and support even those Democrats whom we don't always agree with. :patriot: :grouphug: :thumbsup:

[question everything]

166. Looks like you finally calmed down and took the time

to write a thoughtful note that deserves a response.

First, I never use terms like "patriot" and "flag.." if I do use terms that could be considered patriotic, I put them in quotation marks. When I hear the term "patriot" I am reminded of that saying that "patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel."

I certainly did not try to censure anyone.. I would think it is the other way around. People calling me names without offering a shred of an argument.

But if you will read my OP and the others, you will see that I am pointing out how Chavez appearance will be used in the upcoming elections.

To win, we have to understand what send the voters to the polls and what motivate them to keep things as they are or to vote for change.

It is very easy to be smug and to ignore the voters in the red states, and in many blue ones, for whom the term of "flag" and "patriotism" and, yes "the American President" are important. And it is my opinion that it is these voters who would be offended by Chavez' comments and who would rally around Bush. And this is the reason why I am glad that Pelosi and other Democratic leaders condemn him. This is precisely what I had in mind.

And the more liberals hail Chavez (and Ahmedinijad, and Nassrallah and Castro) just because they talk against Bush, the more we will be seen as being "out of touch" from main stream voters. And the more DUers attack Democrats who do not embrace these "thugs" - Pelosi's terms - the less will be our chances to even keep the seats that we have in the Congress.

People here are so quick to shoot from the hip that they cannot separate my opinions from what I suggest the average voters'.

[AtomicKitten]

68. Dems have already been condemned for the Chavez speech

with the MSM talking heads declaring that it will "hurt the Dems in the fall."

Why, I have no idea.

[Moochy]

81. Maybe the media got the memo

Like all these folks hand wringing and starting threads with the subject:

"I dont like Boogieman X"
or
"Boogieman Y in fact does eat babies for breakfast"

[Raksha]

111. Goddammit, I am SOOO sick of that crap I could scream!!!

EVERY honest and outspoken remark about the Bush administration from whatever source is going "hurt the Dems in November"!!!! They said the same thing about Rosie O'Donnell. Every time one of us speaks up (or a foreigner speaks up on our behalf) and dares to tell the truth, it's going to "alienate the swing voters" and lose us the election. Most of the country is already FED UP with Bush and his lies, and they LIKE being validated! The only ones who are offended are the kool-aid drinkers who never voted for a Democrat in their lives and won't this time either.

[AtomicKitten]

120. it's the fake outrage de jour

from folks that would never vote Dem to begin with, so who cares.

I'm getting tired of Rs being given carte blanche to do their dirty work, and the Dems being condemned by the wingnuts via the ever-compliant MSM when one of the administration's strawmen farts.

[Moochy]

72. The straw man says

hay!

[rman]

83. "bristle at such an "offense" to the Commander of Chief" LOL

Surely you are joking mr question everything.

[Moochy]

84. ? ...everything except right wing talking points n/t

[JeffR]

85. Respectfully, q e, this is the silliest thing I've seen posted on DU

bar none.

[Moochy]

86. He's on a _roll this week

Did I misplace a T somewhere?

[JeffR]

87. On the brighter side

at least Lieberman's name hasn't come up yet in the discussion - oh, shit. Sorry.:banghead:

[Moochy]

90. My Bad!! :-)

[ima_sinnic]

112. "condemn the speech"? * is the one who should be condemned

Bravo to Chavez for once again speaking truth to power. There is absolutely nothing in the speech to "condemn." Why should ANYone on DU be "offended"? sheesh, you respect *, the play-monkey "Commander in Chief" (boy, he really can't get over himself with that title, now, can he?) that much? misguided "offense" is so RW.

[RebelOne]

118. Well, though I agree that Bush is the devil

(if there is any such creature), I don't think he should have said while he was a guest of our country,

[RangerSmith]

119. If the Dem leaders embrace Chavez

you can kiss the House goodbye for sure.

No doubt praise of Chavez at the water cooler doesn't help either.

The guy will be trashing the US until the day he dies, regradless of who our President is.

[question everything]

143. Thank you (nt)

[Name removed]

146. Deleted message

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

[onenote]

157. so you have unlimited faith in the voters?

Earlier in this thread, you seemed to be siding with those who think voters are morons.

Face facts: there is a "rally 'round the flag" syndrome in the USA. Disagree with it, disapprove of it, but if you ignore it, you do so at your own peril .. or at least at the peril of not obeying the first rule of politics, which is to understand where the voters are at. A lot of voters who are slipping away from chimpy and towards the Democrats still have a nationalistic and patriotic streak and they don't respond well to name calling from the outside. It doesn't matter whether Chavez is a "clown" or a "hero", a "tin pot" or the next wave. He's someone that most voters know nothing about except now they know he's given a speech in which he called the President of the United States the "devil."

A lot of the folks we're trying to win over voted for chimpy and/or other repubs. They will take it personally if they are being told that they voted for the "devil." As a post in another thread on this subject pointed out, its akin to the situation where a person has a wayward family member who screws up constantly. It is not uncommon for that person to criticize the wayward one, to argue with him/her and try to get him/her to change == but at the same time it also is not uncommon in this situation for families to rally around the wayward one if similar criticisms are made by an outsider.

[question everything]

167. Excellent. You've summarized the situation perfectly

if only more DUers will take the time to listen, instead of to shoot from the hip.

[mtnsnake]

121. If our Dems had any guts they'd have beaten Chavez to the punch

a long time ago.

[ShortnFiery]

123. Well stated and precisely why we need to remind incumbents

that their contender in the very next Primary will be seriously considered IF they continue to misplace their spine. :grr:

It's not all about campaign war chests because thanks to "The Internet" the word can get out quickly about THE CANDIDATE who will do more for Working Americans than the Incumbent.

When a Democratic Incumbent does not serve you, work with his challenger in the next primary.

We can help build a STRONG Democratic Party if we can VOTE in those who courageously stand up for the American People before their own ambitions and pay-offs from Corporate America. ;)

[HuffleClaw]

134. "an "offense" to the Commander of Chief,"

i think most americans found it amusing.

[question everything]

135. Thank you, Speaker-to-be Pelosi, for showing leadership

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2523227

[Tempest]

145. What do you expect from the corporate arm of the party to say?

Fuck Pelosi and her corporate puppet masters.

[paulk]

148. LOL

Nancy Pelosi - corporate whore


you're funny.


you're so far out there - you're falling off the edge of the world

thanks for posting this nonsense, btw

it puts the other crap you post in context

[AtomicKitten]

152. if you think that's funny

get a load of this thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2839460
where Pelosi and Rangel are both accused of being DLC.

Uninformed rage. Who does that remind me of? Oh, yeah, that's right. The wingnuts.

[Tempest]

154. Read it and weep

http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=H0222103

Funny, she votes in favor of corporate America more times than not.

[paulk]

156. Nancy Pelosi has a 100% ADA rating

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?sig_id=003455M


what a "tool" she is...

in the meanwhile, I'm dumping your teapot in the sink

your "tempest" barely amounts to a piss in a rainstorm

it's "ignore" for you

:hi:

bye, bye

[Larkspur]

151. I call Bush & Cheney fascists

Sinclair Lewis said that fascism will come to the US wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross and the Bush-Cheney Admin took Lewis' warning and turned it into a game plan.

[lynne]

158. You hit the nail on the head -

- as the condemnation has begun.

[OzarkDem]

162. Sick of hearing about Chavez

aren't there more important things to discuss than endlessly repeating the GOP talking points?

[bigwillq]

163. While I can see your point

that DEM leaders need to condemn speech, I think by doing that it will really make them look like hypocrites. Flip Flop anyone?? :shrug:


For the past six years, all the DEMS have been doing is bashing Shrub and now all of a sudden they need to condemn the speech.

At least stick to your guns. Or be neutral.

I don't want ass kissers in charge anyway.

[Kashka-Kat]

170. Oh for crying out loud. Get on with what really matters already!!

We are NOT responsible for what the leaders of other sovereign nations say, and that includes someone hurting little Georgie's feelings by calling him a bad name. Meanwhile... congress legitimizes weakening of Geneva conventions, build up to attack on Iran continues, probable electronic voting disaster again in November, etc. etc. etc.

Ive been searching the web trying to find something substantial on what the torture bill says exactly and not finding much, just a lot of yapping about this issue...

[blueDachi]

178. You mean our "Commander in Thief???"

If Chavez were talking about the "office" of the president and not El Busho himself then maybe I could concur.

I think the way King George has insulted the constitution, this country and the world in general is much worse than anything Chavez could say.