Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why Rangel and Pelosi Are Wrong

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Don1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 07:39 AM
Original message
Why Rangel and Pelosi Are Wrong
In case you have not heard, Nany Pelosi and Chuck Rangel have denounced Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez who called Bush the "devil" in a UN speech. Rangel said that Chavez should not be Bush-bashing in the United States and Pelosi called Chavez a "thug." There are at least three problems with Pelosi and Rangel's synchronized attack on Chavez.

First and foremost, Pelosi and Rangel are pandering to moderates in the US. Pelosi in her leadership role of Democrats in the House is making the statement on behalf of the party in order to demonstrate to moderates that Democrats do not support "extreme" views. The problem with this tactic from a pragmatic perspective is that it is blatantly obvious that Pelosi and Rangel are being tactical in the first place. Most of the intended target audience (moderates) will see right through the scheme and as a result trust the Democrats less than they did before.

Second, Hugo Chavez has a right to speak his mind. The inherent right to free speech does not stop at the US border. And because the United Nations is in New York, world leaders will from time-to-time come here to be critical. If US officials do not like this fact of life, then they should vote to move the United Nations to a neutral territory. Perhaps it is true that Chavez is not being diplomatic? No, screw diplomacy. Let us not forget that tens of thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands) of Iraqi civilians are dead based on a lie by President Bush. Hugo Chavez was right to call this liar and war criminal a devil.

Third, the brunt of Chavez' arguments were about US imperialism and Bush's relationship to that doctrine. The sensationalistic US news media has gone ballistic picking up on that "devil" sound byte, but it failed miserably in not addressing the greater threat of the military industrial complex. Pelosi and Rangel in focusing on Chavez and his diatribe have given more credibility to a superficial understanding (even evasion) of the problem. Meanwhile, the vast majority of Pelosi and Rangel's base seeks to hear more about imperialism and how to solve this problem. "By yesterday {Sept 21st}, the book {Chavez was holding} had risen from backlist obscurity to the No. 3 bestseller at Amazon.com"
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20456795-1702,00.html

Rangel and Pelosi need to spend their time more wisely and address real issues facing America, like, for example, the George Bush crime family.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
hippiechick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 07:41 AM
Response to Original message
1. Someone's finally doing the Dems' work and they demonize him.
Sheesh.
What the hell is it gonna take to get a TRUE opposition party in this country? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 07:58 AM
Response to Reply #1
15. A Green revolution, I imagine.
> What the hell is it gonna take to get a TRUE opposition party in this country? :shrug:

A Green revolution, I imagine. Any party that's bought
and paid for by the corporate establishment is unlikely
to ever bite very hard the hand that feeds it, although
it will make a "show bite" every now and again just to
keep up appearances.

Tesha
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skipos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 08:03 AM
Response to Reply #15
22. You mean Rick Santorum's Green Party?
You mean Green, as in Getting Republicans Elected Every November?
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 08:12 AM
Response to Reply #22
26. I mean GREEN as in a party that stands for the earth and its people.
Edited on Fri Sep-22-06 08:14 AM by Tesha
I mean GREEN as in a party that stands for the earth and its people.

I mean GREEN as in a party that actually holds views that are different
than the Republicans, unlike (to a large degree) Casey.

I mean GREEN as in a party that isn't afraid to oppose the war.

I mean GREEN as in a party that isn't afraid to UNMABIGUOUSLY oppose torture.

...and spying on the citizenry.

...and illegal detention.

...and extraordinary rendition.

...and denying citizens healthcare.

...and food.

...and schooling.

But if it makes you feel better to train to paint me with Santorum
Slime(tm) for merely telling you the sad truth, by all means carry on.
But don't be surprised as Democrats become more and more marginalized
as the years roll by and more and more people become disenchanted with
them.

Tesha
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skipos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 08:15 AM
Response to Reply #26
30. If it makes you feel better to forget that Greens UNAMBIGUOUSLY
take money from Republicans, by all means CARRY ON!!! Don't be surprised if Green candidates continue to poll below 3% in every race.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 08:17 AM
Response to Reply #30
31. Yeah, Democrats just take money from the same sources as Republicans.
Edited on Fri Sep-22-06 08:41 AM by Tesha
Yeah, Democrats just take the money directly from the
same sources
as Republicans.

I guess the money only becomes dirty when it touches the
Republicans' hands, ehh?

Tesha
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skipos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 08:26 AM
Response to Reply #31
37. You mean Democrats like Ned Lamont?
You are rooting for your G.R.E.E.N. candidate in CT?
Jeeze, what are you doing on DEMOCRATICunderground.com anyway?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #37
41. I'm fully supportive of Ned Lamont.
Edited on Fri Sep-22-06 08:49 AM by Tesha
I'm fully supportive of Ned Lamont, to the point that
I have made monitary contributions to his campaign.
What have *YOU* done to support him?

I tend to pick-and-choose my candidates.

By the way, have you supported Bernie Sanders yet?

Tesha
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #41
45. Awaiting your answer re: what *YOU* have done for Lamont... (NT)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bottomofthehill Donating Member (578 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 08:50 AM
Response to Reply #26
42. How you feeling about that Green (Nader) Candidate
Still think there is no difference between Al Gore and Little Prince Georgie, that will go down as one of the great political bullshit lines of our time (Think Nixon, I am not a crook or Clinton, I did not have sex with that woman or George Bush the Father, Read my lips, No new taxes.)

Do you really think the causes you outlined above would show no difference with a Gore Administration?

Really, think about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 09:19 AM
Response to Reply #42
44. I was fully supportive of Al Gore, but I'll note for the record...
Edited on Fri Sep-22-06 09:29 AM by Tesha
I was fully supportive of Al Gore (time, money, my vote,
etc.), but I'll note for the record that his running mate
was Joe Lieberman, *EXACTLY* the kind of asshole not-
very-Democratic Democrat that I'm complaining about
here. 'Suppose *THAT* had anything to do with people's
confused perceptions about the Gore-Lieberman ticket
as a whole?

What did you do to support Gore?

Tesha
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #44
46. Awaiting your answer re: What *YOU* did for Gore... (NT)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bottomofthehill Donating Member (578 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #46
52. Well lets see
Edited on Fri Sep-22-06 02:52 PM by bottomofthehill
I volunteered at the Convention in Boston while my wife and children were on vacation in New Hampshire. For the 5 months leading up to the election, I worked on phone banks(making the calls, writing the scripts, and tallying the calls), gave money (maybe not a substantial amount to you but a lot to me and my family), helped run two fundraisers, and for the last 10 days before the election and election day, left my wife and children, went to Tampa, Florida (at my own expense, flight and hotel with the Kerry travelers) where I canvassed by day and worked phone banks into the evening including staying late to call into western states as it got too late to call in Florida(I may also add that I missed Halloween with my young children which may mean little to you but I enjoy fun times with them and it created an additional burden on my wife who makes enormous sacrifices too so I can go into the field). They were mostly 14 hour days early and as election day grew closer, the days grew longer.

See that is what a Democrat does, a Democrat does not sing the praises of a spoiler party with NO chance of winning, I say again NO chance of winning, None at all.

Sorry it is a real world with real choices and the beautiful little picture you paint is pretty but it aint real.

In the real world, there are two choices and one of them would have us where we are today.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bottomofthehill Donating Member (578 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #26
55. Its easy to say these things when you know
You will never have to govern so instead of doing the best you can, you stick your head in the sand and say I believe in the party that........

Well I believe in the party that has the best and only real chance to create change.

Greens can get away with talking utopia but the Democrats live in a little place that I like to refer to as "Earth" The Real World.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Le Taz Hot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 08:13 AM
Response to Reply #22
27. Oh, stop it!
Edited on Fri Sep-22-06 08:16 AM by Le Taz Hot
The Republicans are winning anyway and have been since 1994. You have Polosi and Rengel jumping to Bush's aid when Chavez calls him bad names. You have Democrats idly standing by and watching, for POLITICAL REASONS, as the U.S. endorses TORTURE. NOW they want to strip search our kids if they SUSPECT there are drugs on them. Corporations are now equal to individuals. The laws of eminent domain have been expanded to PRIVATE interests. The bankruptcy laws have been changed BY DEMOCRATS. And you're vilifying Greens?????? Un-fucking-believable!!!!

On edit: Speeling
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 08:15 AM
Response to Reply #27
29. Unfortunately, all too believable. (NT)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skipos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 08:18 AM
Response to Reply #27
33. "Sometimes on DU we have some pretty silly litmus tests for elected Dems..
...but this Chavez thing has got to be the silliest--and most overblown--one I have heard yet."

-Skinner, DEMOCRATICunderground.com administrator
(note this isn't GettingRepublicansElectedEveryNovemeberUnderground.com)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Le Taz Hot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 08:26 AM
Response to Reply #33
36. Well, by all means,
don't address ONE ISSUE Ibrought up. It's such 'groupthink' around here by far too many. But if thinking in black/white, right/wrong, up/down terms makes the world easier for you to handle, by all means, go for it. (Hmmm, what other party's constituents do that? Let me think . . . )
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skipos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 08:30 AM
Response to Reply #36
39. Well, by all means, don't address the ONE issue I brought up
in that Skinner quote.

Thread after thread of circular firing squads about Chavez when we have an ELECTION in 45 days. If thinking in black/white, right/wrong, up/down terms makes the world easier for you to handle, by all means, go for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Le Taz Hot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #39
43. Nothing like
original thought, eh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalmike27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 08:26 AM
Response to Reply #15
38. I agree
Add to that the media, and you have what I've always said, a country with two right-wing parties, one only slightly left of the other. Both parties are controlled by corporations. They unite on certain things, when this balance is in danger. Howard Dean's scream is the example that always comes to mind. He was a media darling, and something to talk about for a while. But after uttering a few words about breaking up the media consolidation, they solidly threw everything they had against him. It was the most high-tech of lynchings.

You can always tell these scenarios when the comedians join in the effort, sometimes even drama shows add to the fray. Chavez represents a lot of what the rich hate. He is a risk to them, as they have control over our government, and by they I mean corporate power and the top few percent. Why do you think we fight these wars? It isn't going to make our situation's better as all we get is high gas prices, and to top that off, we use the poor to fight the wars for the rich. So Chavez and Amidinejad have found issues that the rich really care about. They make huge money on wars, and Socialism would certainly hurt them significantly, though most of us would scarcely notice the difference between our rot-gut capitalism. Only the Paris Hilton's and George Bush's of the world would hurt.

The worst part is we're all susceptible to their spell. The Dean Group was the most anecdotal evidence, as in Mobile it was well over sixty people before the media-produced scream spectacle. After the media took care of that little bug up their butt, it dropped to 17. Essentially, 66% of our members were convinced to stop supporting a guy they liked just because of an enthusiastic scream.

It won't get better until we all realize that corporations run all media, and they do "not" have our interests at heart. When they push the hardest against something, or someone, we should become the most resistant to their attempts at mind control.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirabeau Donating Member (25 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 08:25 AM
Response to Reply #1
35. Wishing for an opposition party to come in and....
...save us, is pie in the sky.

I'm hard on the democratic leadership because I know they could do much better. We need to get a democratic majority - give them power - and then hold their feet to the fire. They're not perfect but, for the most part, they care about law and what people think. This republican congress and administration don't!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shivajidas Donating Member (5 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 07:41 AM
Response to Original message
2. Immigration issue
Over the last few months, the issue of immigration has been hotly debated in the US and Europe. Images of daring journeys to Canary Islands and immigration supporters carrying Mexican flags in the US have flooded Television sets worldwide. India has been facing its own immigration problem for the last 60 years. While till 80s, most immigrants would be non-Muslims from Bangladesh (like my family); since 80s millions of Bangladeshi Muslims have crossed the borders. Though there are a wide range of dubious estimates, commonly cited numbers indicate 2-4Mn Bangladeshis in West Bengal, 1-3Mn in North-Eastern states, and close to a million in Delhi and Mumbai put together.

This migration has changed the nature of the labor market in India. Most of the low paying jobs in towns and cities have been taken up by Bangladeshis. Repairmen, rickshaw pullers, construction workers, Porters; who earlier used to be Biharis are now predominantly Bangladeshis. There are obvious benefits of this immigration: labor costs have remained low thereby reducing inflation. And in a country like India which on one hand offers minimal social and public services and on the other hand is growing fast economically; there is little incremental strain on resources because of this influx. Bangladeshis, apart from their religion, have a very similar culture to those of Indians; and as a result there has been no case of cultural tensions (as evident in US/ Europe). Immigration has also made life easier for Indian minorities; for e.g. massive migration of Bangladeshis to Assam made Bengalis a potent political force and eliminated completely the anti-Bengali movement in Assam.

However, there is one area where they do differ with the majority: Religion. And much of the opposition to Bangladeshi immigration to India relates to fears about alteration of the demographic profile of India. But is there any solution? It seems almost inevitable that economic prospects in India will be better than Bangladesh for many years. Given India’s overall security situation, it is unlikely that we can strengthen border patrol the way US is trying. Also it will be difficult to morally justify a strong anti-immigration stance when Indians themselves mostly brag about the achievements of the Indian Diaspora. And finally, Indians better get used to large scale migration. Given the almost sure prospects of global warming, it is certain that most of Bangladesh will go under sea level pretty soon. We better get ourselves ready for that exodus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheCowsCameHome Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 07:43 AM
Response to Original message
3. Pelosi and Rangel should just shut the hell up.
What is wrong with them? Chavez didn't aim his remarks at them. What is with these two?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evergreen Emerald Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 07:45 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. Perhaps they could be working on that pesky torture issue
I haven't heard a peep from any of the dems on that "deal" made between McCain and Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 07:46 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. Why should they shut the hell up?
Edited on Fri Sep-22-06 08:12 AM by cali
I certainly don't agree with Pelosi's characterization of Chavez, but she and Rangel have every right to express themselves on Chavez' remarks, which by the way, I found no more insightful than bushco's remarks about 'the axis of evil'. Heavy handed, rabble rousing rhetoric isn't my cup of tea, wherever it emanates from.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheCowsCameHome Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 07:54 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. Running out and defending Bush from verbal attacks isn't so smart.
Don't they have anything else to do than looking foolish? They would have been better off to say nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katinmn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 07:57 AM
Response to Reply #7
13. Read the entire speech, not just the headlines.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 08:00 AM
Response to Reply #13
18. Assuming that someone
hasn't read a speech or any other document, presumably because they disagree with you, is just silly. I did read the speech. I wasn't impressed by it. I thought it was rambling and rather inane. Boilerplate rhetoric and utterly predictable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirabeau Donating Member (25 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 08:09 AM
Response to Reply #7
25. You are stating the obvious.
Of course Pelosi and Rangel have a right to speak out and God knows we all wish they would do it more often. The problem here is the item they chose to speak out about! You said it yourself. Chavez's comment was no different than Bush's "axis of evil" comment. Did Rangel and Pelosi speak out then. Did they denounce Bush for making that remark.

What I heard from the right-wing yesterday was that when Chavez called Bush the devil, he called all of us the devil. Does that standard apply to the "axis of evil" remark. Are all the citizens of North Korea, Iran and Iraq evil???? I'm really sick of the double standard we have created. We make rules for the rest of the world to live by that don't seem to apply to us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #25
49. I think
I made it quite clear that I have no use whatsoever of the type of language that both bush co and Chavez choose to indulge in. as for, Pelosi and Rangel, I don't know what they've said about the 'axis of evil comment'. I do know that both have been active in opposing bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
A wise Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 08:03 AM
Response to Reply #3
21. The best they could have done
was keep their mouth shut or say no comment. Chavez said what must of us have been saying. Why is it we have to be nicey, nicey to these idiot repugs when they and their vile demeanor are so flagrantly nasty to Dems. It goes to show you that outside of the U.S.They know more about us than we know about ourselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheCowsCameHome Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 08:06 AM
Response to Reply #21
24. You nailed it, wise man And welcome to DU
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 07:44 AM
Response to Original message
4. I guess
the truth hurts?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zanne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 07:45 AM
Response to Original message
5. They're trying to minimize the damage.
When I saw Chavez giving his televised address before the UN, I wondered "Why is Chavez working for the Republicans"? This gives the Republicans a big boost--it rallies the base the way Bush or his minions could never do. All Republican leaders have to do now is to link Chavez with Democrats and right-wing nuts who were thinking about staying home in November will be riled up enough to show up in full force. So will other people. Chavez provided the Repubs with an enemy they can see, read up about, denounce and link to the Democrats. The only thing Dem leaders can do is denounce what Chavez said and hope that not too much damage has been done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Don1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 07:55 AM
Response to Reply #5
10. Chavez did not provide anyone with an enemy.
The GOP comes up with enemy personalities all the time and engages in negative campaigns and disinformation. Anyone can be a target, even their own, like John McCain. Washington Democrats need to stop being defensive like this worrying about how the Republicans will spin things and just speak their mind in a forthright manner. The Republicans will spin things regardless. It is what they do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zanne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 07:57 AM
Response to Reply #10
14. C-Span's Washington Journal call-in question this morning:
"Would you accept free heating oil from Chavez"? Most of the people calling in said no. If you don't think this is going to backfire big time, you're mistaken.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Don1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 08:00 AM
Response to Reply #14
17. Most people don't need it. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheCowsCameHome Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 08:04 AM
Response to Reply #14
23. You'd be happy to have that heating oil if you were freezing.
Bill Delahunt (D-Mass) did more for the needy in his district than Bushco ever would for Americans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 08:15 AM
Response to Reply #23
28. What does your comment have
to do with what I said? Not a damn thing. that's what. I don't demonize Chavez. I think there are good things that can be said about him, and his provision of low cost heating oil here, is certainly one of them. We, in Vermont also benefitted from this program.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zanne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 08:22 AM
Response to Reply #28
34. Im not anti-Chavez, but what he said will hurt US.
He went too far. This is one of Karl Rove's wet dreams. If he had said it in England, or Germany, or Brazil, etc., it wouldn't be that damaging but he said it in this country about our president. You and I might think that what he said was right on, but we're not the people he has to convince. He's made friends in this country by offering the free oil, but I fear he's lost alot of them by that speech and I think the Republicans will gain votes by using it as a tactic against us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheCowsCameHome Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #28
48. Who are you addressing in this reply?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirabeau Donating Member (25 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 08:17 AM
Response to Reply #14
32. That was the wrong question.
They should have ask "would you accept free gas for your SUV?" They would have gotten a different answer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
independentpiney Donating Member (966 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 07:56 AM
Response to Reply #5
12. Better they denounce how he said it
but not the underlying truth of what he said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whistle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 07:54 AM
Response to Original message
8. Do you have a link to the transcript of Hugo Chevez's UN speech?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Don1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 07:59 AM
Response to Reply #8
16. here is the transcript
Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez, Delivers Remarks to U.N. General Assembly, New York,

September 20th, 2006

HUGO CHAVEZ, PRESIDENT OF THE OLIVARIAN REPULIC OF VENEZUELA

Madam President, Excellencies, Heads of State, Heads of government and other government's representatives, good morning.

First, and with all respect, I highly recommend this book by Noam Chomsky, one of the most prestigious intellectuals in America and the world, Chomsky. One of his most recent works: Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance (The American Empire Project) . It's an excellent work to understand what's happened in the world in the 20th Century, what's currently happening, and the greatest threat on this planet; the hegemonic pretension of the North American imperialism endangers the human race's survival.

We continue warning about this danger and calling on the very same U.S. people and the world to stop this threat, which resembles the Sword of Damocles over our heads. I had considered reading from this book, but for the sake of time, I shall just leave it as a recommendation. It reads easily. It's a very good book. I'm sure, Madam, you are familiar with it.

(APPLAUSE)

The book is 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 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.

(APPLAUSE)

Yesterday, the devil came here. Right here. Right here. And it smells of sulfur still today, this table that I am now standing in front of.

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? Is this 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 Evo's yesterday, or President Lula'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, September 20th, 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 Lula talked about this yesterday right here: The Security Council’s expansion, both regarding its permanent and non-permanent categories. New developed and developing countries, the Third World, 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 Oceania. 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, in a Cubana de Aviacion airliner, died.

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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whistle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #16
54. Thank you for posting HUGO CHAVEZ's entire U.N. speech....
...which I just read in it's entirety.

First, let me point out what the MSM of the United States shamelessly did with this talk including NPR, as well as a half dozen of the neoconservative and neoliberal political pundits. Of this entire talk which contains the truth, the whole truth and noting but the truth, the propaganda puppets of the U.S. instead of reporting on what was said extracted, edited and censored Chavez's reference to George Bush's talk before the U.N on the day prior as follows:

<beginning of propaganda edit>
"I think that the.....threat is 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.

(APPLAUSE)

Yesterday, the devil came here. Right here. Right here. And it smells of sulfur still today, this table that I am now standing in front of." <end of propaganda clip>

Nothing else was said or commented on about Chavez's speech. However, this is a speech which must be broadcast around the world, complete and unedited, translated for every nation to hear and read. I believe this speech is as powerful for our time and the conditions which we and the rest of the world face as the real threat to world peace and domination, as the Martin Luther King "I Have a Dream" speech was to the civil rights movement of the late 1960s. Compared to that drivel which George Bush spewed from the same roster only 24 hours before Chavez gave his speech, that campaign speech, filled with code words to Bush's base, and Kool Aid phrases to the happy pill U.S. electorate and the wealthy imperialistic corporations who are paying off corrupt politicians while we American people see our rights, our liberties, our peace, our security and or economic livelihoods being stolen right under our noses.

That is correct, the Bush cabal has sold us right down the river and it has taken a brilliant South American politician to stand up before the world and speak truth to power. The closest we have to this level of honesty and courage here in the U.S. is Keith Olbermann.

No other democrats, no republicans, no journalists seem to speak for we common folks. But here is the President of Venezuela speaking truth. Thank you Senior Chavez, thank you!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeeDeeNY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 07:56 AM
Response to Original message
11. How dare Chavez speak out
Next thing you know, he will say our emperor has no clothes.
Or that he lies.
Or that the last two elections were stolen.
The nerve of Chavez to say what everyone is thinking!
If prominent Dems decide on what to say based on their worries about what Karl Rove's talking points are going to be in the next election,
then we are all in trouble.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheCowsCameHome Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 08:01 AM
Response to Reply #11
19. It's too late. Heaven forbid anyone should criticize loveable George Bush
And welcome to DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Astrad Donating Member (374 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 08:02 AM
Response to Original message
20. Ahmadinejad and even Chavez are continually compared to
Hitler or fascists by members of the administration and many right wing commentators. This triggers no umbrage or 'how dare they!' in the MSM. No accusations of being 'undiplomatic'.

And besides, if you're going to compare them to fascists why is there such surprise and outrage that they use 'undiplomatic' language, isn't that what you'd expect?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donald Ian Rankin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #20
47. Don't conflate Ahmadinejad and Chavez.
Ahmadinejad isn't exactly a fascist, but he & the Council of Guardians have quite a lot in common with them - calling him a fascist is far from empty rhetoric. Chavez, much as I despise him, is a democratically elected leader with a popular mandate obtained through largely albeit not purely legitimate means, and nothing whatsoever like a fascist; calling him one is just silly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1932 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 08:34 AM
Response to Original message
40. I think they're making a mistake because Republican power is so dependent
on the exploitation of developing countries. This is where the huge profit margins come from that are then channeled into the Republican party and used to destroy democratic and progressive policies at home. They can crticize Chavez's opening joke in his speech to the UN if they want, but if they don't embrace the rest of Chavez's message about ending American imperialism, then I really don't know what chance real democrats will have to implement democratic policies protecting the Ameriican middle class and people who work for a living.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobthedrummer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 11:54 AM
Response to Original message
50. Without a doubt, Nancy Pelosi should understand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 12:09 PM
Response to Original message
51. How many strawmen can you fit in here?
"First and foremost, Pelosi and Rangel are pandering to moderates in the US. Pelosi in her leadership role of Democrats in the House is making the statement on behalf of the party in order to demonstrate to moderates that Democrats do not support "extreme" views. The problem with this tactic from a pragmatic perspective is that it is blatantly obvious that Pelosi and Rangel are being tactical in the first place. Most of the intended target audience (moderates) will see right through the scheme and as a result trust the Democrats less than they did before."

It is not blatantly obvious that they are being tactical. Otherwise why would many of Rove's ham fisted subtle as a sledgehammer tactical moves work if the people were so offended by such tactics?

Its about this our house, our mess and we will handle it ourselves.

This is real simple.

Americans do not like someone who is not an American insulting one of their own. See the french bashing that has been in vogue every since they called Bush a cowboy(way before it pegged the meter durin gthe run up to Iraq). The Dixie chick thing started because she said so on foreign soil to the cheers of foreign people. The mentality of he may be the devil but he's our devil is very strong and is not even unique to Americans. Time and again people seek to rally their domestic populaces by pointing at a foreign adversary, real or imagined. Much of Chavez's unified popularity derives from his one two punch of constantly reminding the people that the US is about to invade and services for the poor.

The blindness to this reality by DUers is astounding.

"Second, Hugo Chavez has a right to speak his mind. The inherent right to free speech does not stop at the US border. And because the United Nations is in New York, world leaders will from time-to-time come here to be critical. If US officials do not like this fact of life, then they should vote to move the United Nations to a neutral territory. Perhaps it is true that Chavez is not being diplomatic? No, screw diplomacy. Let us not forget that tens of thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands) of Iraqi civilians are dead based on a lie by President Bush. Hugo Chavez was right to call this liar and war criminal a devil."

Not even the ass clowns in the Bush admin sought to muzzle him or say he didn't have a right to say that. Democrats disagreed with Chavez's tone and said so. That like saying that if I said "Down with Bigots" at a Klan rally I was restricting their free speech.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Don1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-23-06 09:32 AM
Response to Reply #51
56. You don't know what you are talking about
"Not even the ass clowns in the Bush admin sought to muzzle him or say he didn't have a right to say that. Democrats disagreed with Chavez's tone and said so. That like saying that if I said "Down with Bigots" at a Klan rally I was restricting their free speech."

Wrong. Rangel said Chavez has no right to come to the US and bash his President. After Pat Robertson called for Chavez' assassination on ABC Family TV and my kids saw it, I think Chavez can come here and talk shit back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 02:46 PM
Response to Original message
53. Very sorry, but
this topic has now become :boring:

Done been discussed. Time to go back to work!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 12:52 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC